HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:47:14 GMT

In article <ewillims.717872651@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>In <1992Sep29.172305.15217@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>Sure, a wife would be handy--especially someone who would be willing to
>>help me eat all these apple pies and the great big pot of vegetarian
>>chili that I've just made.  (Bad habit I've got--I like to cook, but 
>>(in keeping with my general perception of overkill as a philisophical
>>ideal) I tend to cook more than I can manage to eat myself--and now that
>>I've picked up a 12-quart Farberware stewpot, this is probably just 
>>going to get worse (what am I going to do with a gallon of real chocolate
>>pudding that I'm now getting the urge to make?).)
>
>	A man who loves to cook?  Mmmmmm.....:)

Been doing it since I was six or so--had to, you see, since, left to her
own devices, my mother tended to come up with such concoctions as 
"meatballs in grape jelly."  (Sometimes I wonder if this would have 
anything to do with the fact that three of my four siblings are
vegetarians--of course they had to put up with my cooking for years 
too, and that is, of course, vegetarian.) 

Cooking is a lot of fun, though--it's just another venue where one can
explore the range and variety of sensual experience. 

>The gallon of chocolate pudding?  Bathe in it!:)  and then......:)

Fingerpaint?  (Hmmm...now I just have to locate a volunteer for a
canvas....) 

>>Actually, I always tend to wonder at the "need for a wife" claim--how
>>does one manage to make tasks like cooking, laundry, cleaning, and the
>>like be so time-consuming that one needs someone else to do them?
>>(Well, OK, having offspring would do it--but I'm planning to avoid
>>that particular problem.)                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>	Are you really this perfect?:)

Most people wouldn't call that perfect--indeed, most women I meet are
quite determined to start having children before too much longer, 
which makes me, someone who seems to be entirely bereft of whatever
strange psychological mechanism that allows people to put up with
their children, much less desirable as a long-term possibility. 

Trygve 
Xref: sparky soc.men:17334 soc.women:17373
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 5 Oct 92 10:20:02 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <ewillims.717872651@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>In <1992Sep29.172305.15217@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>>
> 				(Bad habit I've got--I like to cook, but 
>>>>(in keeping with my general perception of overkill as a philisophical
>>>>ideal) I tend to cook more than I can manage to eat myself--and now that
>>>>I've picked up a 12-quart Farberware stewpot, this is probably just 
>>>>going to get worse (what am I going to do with a gallon of real chocolate
>>>>pudding that I'm now getting the urge to make?).)
>>>
>>>	A man who loves to cook?  Mmmmmm.....:)

  Why the Mmmmmm? Many (maybe most) men know how to cook, and need
I remind the net.readers that the overwhelming majority of the world's
great chefs are all men.

  The presumption that men as a class don't cook is sexist!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   "I got to keep the kitchen in the divorce........                    |
|               because my ex forgot we _had_ one!"  :)                  |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Did you just do what I THINK YOU DID?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:30:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.224237.21257@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
)This is a true story, folks.
)
)I heard on Dr. Dean Edell's radio call-in show today that every
)year in the U.S., over 2500 men suffer penile amputation at the
)hands of their girlfriends/wives during domestic disputes.

Wow!  Are you sure?  That's several times the spousal homicide rate (my
figures for 1989 show a little over 700 victims of husbands killed
by wives or girlfriends).

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex
From: burton@umbc8.umbc.edu (Mr. Joel Burton; ORL (U))
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Summary: Anti-Sex Forces Probably Influece Research 
Organization: The First Church of the One True Goddess, Madonna
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:20:04 GMT

>In article <sem_QgO00YV9M4zfEh@andrew.cmu.edu> rs87+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rebecca Ann Stallings) writes:
>>By
>>contrast, it seems that companies are unwilling to release a male pill
>>until it's absolutely perfect, not wanting to inconvenience or endanger
>>men.

There was an article last year (NewsWeek, I believe) talking about how
it was just not cost-effective for pharmaceutical companies to research
contraception methods.

It may not just be sexism that is blocking effective research of the
"male pill", but also a good amount of erotic-phobia. Look around at all
of our friends in Operation Rescue, screeching and carrying signs
reading "SEX FOR PROCREATION ONLY" and other such drivel.

Do you think with a facist republican ("I don't think Americans should
have sex for fun") regime in power that companies are encouraged in
any way to find new contraceptive methods?

________________________________________________________________________
\    / JOEL BURTON % burton@umbc5.umbc.edu % U of MD Baltimore County
 \  /         Anti-women, Anti-Gay, Operation Rescue Go Away!
  \/     Right to Life, That's a Lie! They Don't Care if Womyn Die!


Xref: sparky soc.men:17304 alt.feminism:2021 alt.sex:31843
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:09:36 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <BvHJvK.Fx@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu 
(Tim Pierce) writes:

>A lot of people tend to wonder this, I think.  That's when they start
>to read what MacKinnon actually writes, and not the thrice-revomited
>pap that people like Gazit and Vidiguris and Dyer pass off as her
>writing.

Tell me Tim, do you support the MacKinnon-sponsored 
anti-porno legislation?

Please try to answer yes or no.

(There is no need to include personal attacks as a part of the answer.)
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Proposition drive
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:45:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Riverside

What do people think about getting together sometime in the next month
and discuss starting a petition drive to put a proposition on the California
ballot dealing with fathers rights to their children.  It could take a year
but I am willing to be in for the long haul.

It is a worthy issue.  If we were to promote issue of fathers rights on it's
own merits we could succeed. 

I have posted this to the usa and not just California because other men in
other states may wish to do the samething.  Discussion anyone?

starbuck ( aka Aaron Greenwood )
Xref: sparky soc.men:17018 alt.dads-rights:2388
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:36:34 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: goldsmith

In article <1992Oct2.004930.16563@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> From the National Enquirer, Sept. 26 (approx), 1992:
> 
> "VIOLENT DI  BATTERS CHARLES"
> 
> 
> Some questions for the Net:
> 
>   A) Should Charles fight back?

  Now this is a case of "Do what I say, not what I do, because I _didn't_
fight back (you know the old 'gentlemen never hit ladies' training
boys get) when my ex abused me. However, I think that the only way for
Charles to have avoided this escalation is to have decked her the first time
she hit him. Beng female or being a princess does not give you the right to
beat up your husband with impunity. As I learned in my own cas, just "going
along" results in ever more abuse.


> 
>   B) Why isn't Di just *delighted* with Charles? He's the very model of
>      a soft, sensitive, non-exploitationist husband, a dependable
>      provider and loving father, exactly what feminists SAY they want.

  There is a very good article in the October issue of Playboy. It's in
the "WOMEN" clumn, and it's author makes the observation that it doesn't
matter what a guy is, most women will complain that he isn't what they want,
and for the simple reason that they themselves don't know what they want. The
feminist movement, instead of offering freedoms, merely imposed a different
set of requirements for women, leaving most women very confused about their
role in life. Di is no exception. So she takes out her anger at her confusion
on Charles.

> 
>   C) Might his marriage now be in far better shape if he had stood up
>      to her abuse from the beginning?

  He would have suffered far fewer batings, but the root cause of the problem
has nothing to do with the manifestations of violence. The root cause has
to do with Di not having her head screwed on streight.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:34:07 GMT

>Kiran Wagle (kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu) alleged:

>>The four food groups are actually Pizza, Chocolate, Ice Cream, & Barbecue.

wjb@moscom.com (Bill de Beaubien) exclaims:

>What, no Lasagna?  Sacrilege!
>-- 
>Who needs lime jello?  We had lasagna...

Who needs lasagna?  we have wombats.  

Slow Lorises too.

-- 
"Pet Wombats occasionally show some sign of affection, if you need it
 that much.  They bite you from time to time in a listless manner and
 for no reason that is apparent to a non-Wombat."
 ..................................Will Cuppy, _HT Attract the Wombat_
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Xref: sparky soc.men:17267 soc.women:17326
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:17:42 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Oct2.180053.17246@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>Why do you disbelieve this? Is is because sweet little women never
>belittle their husbands to test their manhood?

	No, because the National Enquirer also claims that some woman
in Iowa is pregnant by an extra-terrestial and that garlic cures cancer.

	I can't believe you take that stuff you see in the racks by the
checkouts in the Foodtown seriously...
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Did you just do what I THINK YOU DID?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:35:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.173005.5841@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>Wow!  Are you sure?  That's several times the spousal homicide rate (my
>figures for 1989 show a little over 700 victims of husbands killed
>by wives or girlfriends).

I'm sure that's what he said (that's not the sort of thing that
would occur to me out of the blue....) but I personally don't believe
it.  I checked Medline and Current Contents today and couldn't find
anything on the subject -- presumably it's a note in the October
issue of the Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (but it
could be somewhere else).

I wouldn't put any faith in the number until it shows up in print.
Even if it was 50 rather than 5000, it would still be an eye opener!

-S. Schultz
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:49:57 GMT
Subject: Article:  Female prisoners up 560%
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
From: miller@bluemoon.rn.com (John Miller)
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding child support
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 16:50:38 EDT

> > 
> > Less than 30% of all alimony is ever actually paid.
> > 

And that's propably 20% more than should be paid.

And as for deadbeat dads, well I can tell you first hand, becausemy dad 
was a "deadbeat" dad.  He got tired of the police being called and his 
baing the automatic suspect.  He got tired of the fact that when he went 
to court and explained that HE was EARNING (through manual labor, not 
education and capital) the money, and that HE should be given custody, the 
court would refuse to listen.

The court system took away all incentive to work by awarding over 50% of 
his take home pay as tax-free income as alimony and child support.  He 
took off to California and loafed on the beach for a number of years.

I really can't say as I blame him.  I think the court system is more to 
blame (along with the stupid laws we have in this respect).

Every time I hear about deadbeat dads, the first thing I think of is: 
Whise stopping the mother from getting a good job?  Especially if she is 
capable.

As far as I'm concerned, paying for a kid is an important aspect of 
parenting, and if one parent can't pay for the kid, then that should be a 
significant qualifier of that parents ABILITY to raise the kid.  Taking 
away the NCP's livelyhood, motivation to work, and perental rights is 
certainly NOT the solution.

<flame off>

 This is from
     miller@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: popular boys
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:26:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <3806@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
-In article <717531843@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
--Think for a minute about high school years, who were the popular
--boys between the girls?  The anti-violence boys or the Macho boys?

-	The ones with the cars.

        The ones with money.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Did you just do what I THINK YOU DID?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:13:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.003524.23879@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:

)I'm sure that's what he said (that's not the sort of thing that
)would occur to me out of the blue....) but I personally don't believe
)it. 

Yeah, that's about my impression - it *does* seem awfully  high.
From: "will sahlein" <will.sahlein@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: men's group starting
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:07:34 EST
Reply-To: "will sahlein" <will.sahlein@channel1.com>
Distribution: soc
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

I'm loo ing to start a leaderless men's group in the greater Boston area
for men roughly 45-60, who are strivers even if not achievers, who have
preferably had some therapy, and who still have some of the 60's left in
them.
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Xref: sparky soc.men:16988 soc.women:17095 soc.singles:26537
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Understanding Women
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:23:16 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:

> I don't understand why many women
>find an interest in sex (or in this case, in interest in
>relationships which is interpreted as an interest in sex) to be
>'dirty', or a reason for putting someone down.  I have never got
>a straight answer to why some think that

Women in this society are often taught to believe that sex is dirty or 
bad, and that if they have sex, they are allowing themselves to be taken 
advantage of. (Men often learn this too from the other side: if they can 
get a woman to have sex with them, they are 'getting away' with something.)

The fact that sex can lead to pregnancy tends to reinforce women's cautious
attitude toward it, in my opinion.

Some people change their attitude and decide that sex is enjoyable and
not demeaning; something to be shared, not stolen. Some don't. Some are 
somewhere in between.

How easy it is to change one's attitude depends in part on what one's
sexual experiences are like, the degree to which one connects sex with 
romantic love, how easy it is for one to trust one's partner, &c. 

--
Stef                   I may look calm, but beneath this cool exterior 
stef@apple.com         is a churning iceberg ready to explode.
                                         --Mixed metaphor hall of fame
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:40:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.men

kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:

> I've known men who hated their x-wives (and their x-wives deserved it)
> and paid child support while they (the men) actually had physical custody
> and paid the bills that go with physical custody.  They continued this
> way, even though they were being nailed financially, because it was in
> the best interests of their kids, and today their
> kids are decent human beings because their fathers cared about them
> and didn't abandon them.  The taxpayers can't make up for the fact that your
> parent abandoned you.

  I don't understand.  If the father has custody, why is it in the best
interests of the children for him to pay "child support" to the mother,
leaving him with less to support the children?

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Presumed Guilty, NBC, Monday October 5
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:55:14 GMT

Just heard today that Dr. Dean Edell's TV show on Monday is
devoted to the phenomenon of false accusations of child sexual
abuse during divorce/custody disputes.

It sounds like it will be a highly sympathetic look at those
accused, their emotional trauma, the impact on their family,
friends, jobs.  He says he interviews several men so accused,
along with his guest, a lawyer who defends the accused in these
cases.

He mentioned several statistics on the phenomenon (e.g. accusations
of child sexual abuse occur in 30% of all divorces now, the
great majority of which are 'certainly false'), and he clearly
believes this is a major social ill that desperately needs to be
stopped.

Presumed Guilty, Oct. 5, check local listings for time.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: popular boys
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:55:52 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <3806@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <717531843@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>Think for a minute about high school years, who were the popular
>>boys between the girls?  The anti-violence boys or the Macho boys?
> 
> 	The ones with the cars.

	And the money!


-- 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Aspirin, heart disease, and women?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:18:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.182219.8723@midway.uchicago.edu>
scb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>So the use of aspirin in heart disease
>is much more than an urban myth.  

Thanks for the info, but apparently I wasn't very clear.
The claim I was disputing was not that aspirin can prevent
heart disease, but that 'We don't know what effect aspirin
has in preventing heart disease in women, because no women
to date have been included in this research.'

The Medline studies I mentioned contradicted this claim,
since some (including the largest) used several hundred
female subjects, and found that indeed aspirin works as
well in women as in men for the prevention of heart disease.

I'm not surprised that some studies used only male subjects,
since men are more susceptible to heart disease in every
age group, and roughly 3x as many men under 40 die from
the disease as women under 40.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon & FeminismUnmodified
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:39:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.224147.6400@morrow.stanford.edu> AU.JOY@forsythe.stanford.edu (Joy Mundy) writes:
>Yet Professor MacKinnon's cogent analysis of Playboy

	*snigger* Good one, o joy of the world!

						Kayembee
Xref: sparky soc.men:17368 soc.women:17401 alt.child-support:3418
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Another Irate Dad Kills
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:05:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.062122.23059@cs.su.oz.au> allanc@cluster.cs.su.oz (Restless Wanderer) writes:
>I have a very perplexing question to pose to the readers of this group.
>I do not post often,but after all the hype on father/mother bashing threads.
>
>Why in christs'name do you guys WANT to procreate?
>Guys claim they get dumped on.
>Women claim they get dumped on.
>
>Why not just do the right thing and stop this stupid reproduction nonsense.
>Economically ,we'd all be better off.
>Standards of living would rise  and crimes of child abuse/custody would be
>solved .
>
>I'm quite serious,I do NOT understand why anyone would want kids.
>Maschismo ? Womanhood.? Sorry but it sounds like sour grapes.
>All these arguements sound as if you wish to have children so that you can
>give them what YOU missed.

Actually, the answer for me is quite easy.  I am now going to let you
in on a well kept secret.  Having children IS FUN !!!  I know that you
may find that hard to believe, but it's true.  I spent last evening
rolling around the living room floor wrestling with my son, and then
sitting in his room reading him stories.  Just think, I could have been
watching "Roseanne" instead - phooey !!!  There is nothing like coming
home from work and having my son run across the room and give my leg
a big hug.  The feeling that you get when you hold your new-born infant
for the first time is indescribeable.  Be warned, being a parent is lots
of work and is not something which should be undertaken lightly.  But,
the rewards are immense and last a lifetime.  If you want to hear from
many other people who love being parents, I would suggest that you post
this question over in misc.kids.


Guido