HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
Subject: Re: Okay, what *is* that view? (was: Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:07:06 GMT
Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada

In article <Dec.16.09.39.32.1992.7061@net.bio.net> charleen@net.bio.net (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.060012.6265@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> howeird@hpl.hp.com (Howard Stateman) writes:
>>I suspect that the number of men obsessed with sex is a far greater
>>percentage of the population than the number of women obsessed with sex.
>Howard, you haven't met enough women in their thirties yet. :-)

What she said, H.  Most of the women I know have lust flashes at least once
in a while. While that may not jibe with what you feel, remember that 
talking about sex or fantasies with a member of the other gender involves
a tricky balancing act between sharing a human truth and giving off
"wanting to get together" vibes. 

>>And the numbe of women who value intimacy more than sex is far greater than
>>the number of men in that category.

Uh-huh. C'mon, can you really say you don't like to snuggle as much
as the women you know?

>I think that interest in sex manifests itself in many different ways,
>and that women have quiet ways of indulging in lust (hey, bun-watching
>is one of *my* favorite activities), and men's ways tend to be more
>vocal or obvious. 

Not always. Remember male strippers? These poor guys get mauled by
Savage Hordes of LustCrazedFemales as part of their job description.
Yeah, I really feel for them. (honest)

Francois.
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:57:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec15.150328.14629@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:

>Lauren,
>Let's say that you _do_ know him well (assuming just-good-friends, here);
>
>If he does not pick up the tab (rather than splitting the tab, for instance),
>is he _still_ lacking in class?

You mean, if we're just good friends who've decided to get together over
lunch -- which just happened today, as a matter of fact -- would I be
offended if he doesn't pay for my meal?  Not at all.  I'd be very
surprised if he did.  

>When you go out with one of your girlfriends, do you automatically expect
>her to pick up the tab?

Nope ... not unless she has said "I'd like to take you out for lunch on
Saturday."  Then yes, I'd assume she was paying.  



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles,misc.legal
From: whedon@netcom.com (Bill Whedon)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:34:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.035039.2257@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford) writes...
>LM> In article <1992Dec4.063203.25007@netcom.com>, rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David
>LM> wer) writes:
>
>LM> |>
>LM> |>      I think that you view sex as a way to procreate and express love.
>
>It's not that simple, Lana.  *David* may not want children (perhaps never),
>but a vasectomy might be a bit TOO extreme, especially if he should decide in
>the future that he wants to have a family.
>
God help 'em if he does!

>These operations are more or less *irreversible*, so rather than force people
>who don't to be parents RIGHT NOW, into a situation where they will NEVER
>become parents, why not try to offer men and women a comfortable degree of
>reproductive freedom.  Women currently have this freedom, why shouldn't men?
>
>---
Stuff above having been deleted for clarity, I would simply inject the thought
that most of the men coming down on the "pro" side of the contract issue are
of a sort best nut-cut and non-procreative.  I'd certainly not like to have
any one of them as _my_ father.  Bunch of priggish anal-retentive gits.
Bill Whedon   whedon@netcom.com
-- 
-- If I ain't programmin' I ain't awake! --




Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Bad Timing
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:22:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.194132.20789@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor) writes:
>In article <lihlfsINN8br@news.bbn.com> dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>
>>I'm not really sure what you mean here.  I'd guess that this sounds like
>>an unhealthy view of love on her part -- that the passion and intensity
>>is more of an unhealthy, addictive kind of thing than a good thing that
>>can be maintained.  After all, a broken bone is more intense than an
>>orgasm, if intensity is what you're looking for.  That "I gotta have him,
>>gotta have him, I'd do anything to keep him" thing is very intense but
>>it's also pretty stupid.  But I'm not sure that this is the kind of thing
>>your friend meant -- I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
>
>Thank you, Dawn. You just gave a fairly good description of
>sexual addiction.

	Is the sexual ability,  or lack  therof,  of  the non-addicted
partner a factor in the  probability   of  addiction?

							James Nicoll
From: diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Size 8? (Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men)
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:54:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <MARTINC.92Dec11221443@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <227@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:

>>   Oh Elizabeth, please cancel my previous posting whereby I said I 
>>   was in RDU last weekend and I wished I could have met you. 
>
>Hey, Beth, if you can get him to stop off here, I'll hold him down while
>you kick him.

Thanks, Charlie, you're a sweetheart.   However, I think I'd rather sit on 
his ribcage for a few hours..  As Gilbert and Sullivan said, let the 
punishment fit the crime. :-)

				--Diamond

diamond@acpub.duke.edu| We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn
Elizabeth S. Abrams   | them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress 
		      | but the memory of the smell of smoke, and the  
                      | presumption that once our eyes watered. -Tom Stoppard
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 21:44:51 GMT

In article <oneil.724176019@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
>
>>Oh yeah, I probably do have no class whatsoever, I don't even open
>>car doors for women.  Another useful sorting criterion, I've found ;-)
>
>You and I should talk.  I'll usually let a guy open the car door, if he
>insists, but it really, really, really ANNOYS the hell out of me. 

Personally, I figure whether one opens the car door or not depends on
the circumstances--if it makes someone feel good and special, I'm happy
to do it, otherwise I probably wouldn't if we were going shopping (unless,
of course, I was feeling silly and it fit the mood--which isn't all that
unusual), but if we were dressed up and heading off for "Les Miserables"
or Phantom, I probably would, just because things like door-opening and
other "traditionalist" touches seem to fit the mood.

Trygve   (Who likes being traditional and 'proper' every once in a while--
          just to be different.)
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Los Vegas Query
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:31:19 GMT

I'm planning to spend the Christmas holidays in Las Vegas, not because I'm
trying to "double or nothing" my gift-giving, but because that's where
my family is. As I no doubt expect to have some free time on my hands, 
can anyone suggest where the locals like to "hang out"? (My relatives are
too old to answer a question like this!) Once one has had one's fill of
slot machines, and one has already seen the volcano at the Mirage
and the talking statues at Caesar's Palace, where's the entertainment
that is *not* "just for tourists"?

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Xref: sparky soc.singles:34068 ba.singles:2650
From: aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelyn Aldridge)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
Subject: Re: Okay, what *is* that view? (was: Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:36:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

howeird@hpl.hp.com (Howard Stateman) writes:

>Charleen Bunjiovianna (charleen@net.bio.net) wrote:
>: Agreed.  I've known men who were completely uninterested in sex, men
>: who had a healthy interest in it, men who were obsessed with it, men
>: who valued intimacy more than sex, and men who would not have sex
>: outside of marriage.
>: 
>: Not too terribly different from women in that regard.
>: 
>Ah, but this is like saying "I've known men who were completely
>uninterested in murdeing their SOs, men who had a healthy interest in it,
>men who valued intimacy more than murder, and men who would not murder
>outside of marriage"

>The catch is that *the number* of men you have known in each category
>varies enormously. So much so that one can generalize with a high level of
>accuracy.

>I suspect that the number of men obsessed with sex is a far greater
>percentage of the population than the number of women obsessed with sex.
>And the numbe of women who value intimacy more than sex is far greater than
>the number of men in that category. If you accept this theory, then you
>would also accept the generalization that men and women view sex
>differently, on the whole.

>Howard Stateman    

	On the whole of what? In this culture? In the world? In all
species?
	Is there a biological profitability in females being able to say
no to specific males? And is there a complementary biological drive in
males to keep trying to breed? 
	Maybe capacity for intimacy or cooperation is a selectable trait
women seek in men.
	But this intimacy vs sex thing could all be a figment of this
culture's group imagination. 
 
--Jackie--
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:15:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.lihq67INN9rm
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1992Dec10.195145.3667@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>  
> Piglet, I wish I could share in your innocence and laughter, and a few
> years ago I probably would have.  Unfortunately, the universe has been
> conducting a 're-education' program for the past few years to attempt,
> by repeated lessons with not quite the subtlety of a two-by-four in the
> face, to convince me that the "fiduciary paranoia" you refer to errs
> mostly on the side of being too trusting.  

I know what you mean.  My husband told me that it was OK with him that
I got pregnant and then he changed his mind and split before she was born.
I don't expect to get any money out of him, and I know I'm not going to 
get any other kind of help from him.  I feel like my ex took my choices
away when he lied to me about how he felt about my pregnancy and about
how he intended to act.  While most of my sympathies naturally go to the
kids and the single parents trying to raise them, I have some sympathy
left for the men who didn't get to make the choice.  I know what that
feels like.

I can't think of too many ways out of it though.  This contract and 
probably any like it would get thrown out of court.  I can't think of
any laws that would give a man a choice without intolerably screwing
up the women.  (Maybe if he could file some sort of paper in the first
three months of pregnancy informing her that he wanted to limit his
responsibility, giving her enough time to choose an abortion or to 
raise the baby alone?  But then what happens if she doesn't know she's
pregnant until month 4 or 5?  What if she knows, but tells him she didn't?
This is still unfair to everyone.) 

The only safe thing to do is never sleep with dishonest or crazy people.
Easier said than done, right?  Does that rule out everybody or just
everybody that I know?  (everyone that hangs around with me?)

Sometimes I think that the best way to protect yourself is to say very
seriously to the person that you're thinking of sleeping with "I think
you show schizophrenic signs."  If they're normal, they'll laugh and say
"sometimes I think so too," or they'll look startled and say "why did
you say that?"  If they really are crazy, then they'll get angry and
start telling you how sane they are and how everyone around them is
crazy.  But then if they're normal, they'll probably decide that you're
crazy and not want to see you again after you said something like that to
them.  (And what will you do if they look sheepish and a little bit sad 
and say, "well, yes, but my medication has it mostly under control.")  

Dawn

Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
"Folk Song" by Bongwater
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:33:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

This thread about how women neurose about whether their appearances are
acceptable to the men in their lives brings to mind a similar problem in
the men I've known ...

It seems that while women worry about unacceptable appearance, men worry
about unacceptable performance -- not just sexual, but in all kinds of
areas.  Each sex seems to look at the other and say, "Why on earth are you
worrying about something as trivial as _that_?  You look/did just fine."


-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: New Relationships...
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:16:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Mf_y1Ie00iUz83gCt3
Distribution: usa
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.soc.singles: 13-Dec-92 Re: New Relationships... by
Graydon@QUCDN.QueensU.CA 
> >
> >How important /is/ sex to a relationship?
> >
> >sharon
> >oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
> >

Here's my two cent's worth:

I had a VERY good friend a couple of years ago, it was nothing more. 
Imagine the most passionate relationship you've ever heard of, then
remove all physical contact, sex, touch, etc.  Yeah, it was strange. 
Well, I got to the point where I wanted to really "go out" and add a
dash of the physical side, and she didn't.  So, we broke up.  (I think
it had been about 9 months that we were REALLY good friends)   I then
proceeded to go out with another girl, and we were sleeping together on
weekends within two weeks, I think it took us about a month until we had
sex.  

Now the clincher:  Im my twisted world, the second relationship was
completely screwed (no pun intended)  It was all way too soon for me,
and I think it has just messed things up even more.  The second
relationship is going on right at this moment and most of the time I
feel that the physical side is the only thing that keeps us together --
which is completely wrong.  Relationships are not about "making love"
they're about love, which can't be made through some special act.  

So, right now, I'm figuring out whats up with my life, and going back to
the first relationship (hopefully :) ) and letting go of the second one.
 Now, I'd like to go back to the first, but leave it exactly as it was,
no physical interaction at all, but I'd still call it "going out"  

So, in my difinitive and bizarre world, sex is something that will come
after an emotional bond has been made.  I would give it well over a
year, possibly more.  

In the mean time, I'll hope that they're not subscribed to this newsgroup too.

Steve


"I can't understand what makes a man hate another man, help me
understand." -Depeche Mode
From: earhard@ug.cs.dal.ca (Mark Earhard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:29:28 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <168BF8074.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Ann Onimous writes:
>In article <15904@auspex-gw.auspex.com>
>johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
> 
>but I am NOT cheap.

That's not what I heard...


(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Marcus.
-- 
__
Mark Earhard -      earhard@ug.cs.dal.ca -       05marcus@ac.dal.ca
Reclaimer:  GIVE ME THAT BACK THIS INSTANT!      BRING THE NOISE!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pally@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Pally Hoffstein)
Subject: knowing the OS & friends
Organization: mikejag (mike) is a private system in Vancouver, BC, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:06:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.171412.2795@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>Pally,
>Either I am attracted to then straight-away, and therefore spend time with
>them, _or_ I meet them by some happenstance and continue to "cross paths"
>with them by coincidence, and somewhere in there I decide that they are
>either sexy as hell or that they piss me off.  If we each decide that the
>other is "sexy as hell", no problem.  If it is a "unilateral attraction,
>then, for the person with the attraction, it is pure torture to spend loads
>of time with the one who does not have the attraction.
>
>Keith R

Hold it a second here...
Women are to you "sexy as hell" or they piss you off? Women you are attracted
to are torture to be around when they're not interested back?
You have a serious attitute problem when it comes to women. Here's some news
for you: Women are people! They have thoughts that are fascinating to hear and
are wonderful company. Even when they don't meet your sexy as hell standards.
Women are more than potential dates and recepticles for your seed.
Stop judging them outright by your "sexy/piss me off" standard and you might
find that some women who are not sexy right away become so when you get to
know them better. Get to know them as friends first. I have to know someone to
a fair degree before I can say I'm really attracted to them (I.E. more than
just physically attracted). I don't know how you meet women that are right for
you by your method. My guess is you don't.

I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who I didn't feel was
also a buddy/friend. Anyone else feel the same way?

Pally
Vancouver, Canada
-- 
Television permits many millions     |   I threw bitter tears at the ocean, 
of people to share a joke and to     |   But all that came back was the tide.
still be lonely. - T.S. Eliot        | 		- Sarah McLachlan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Ladies and gentlemen.... (was Re: Having one's genitals grabbed)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 00:35:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.072559.28239@netcom.com>, aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:

> {BTW, I've got nothing against you personally, I'm just trying to
> educate the lurkers.}

   Nor I against you.  I posted flame bait, and I'm glad someone bit.

> Yeah, well, it's a women's world.

   No, just a women's newsgroup.

> More seriously, part of what made your comment so insulting to women 

   So far, not one woman has complained -- just you.

   Mysti complained about Broward without prompting.  So even if a woman
complains about me *now* (with your prompting), I'm still less offensive
than Broward.

> Pooh made a serious comment, and you made a "crotch-grabbing" joke.  

   Shall I enumerate all the serious comments of mine that have not been
taken seriously by others here?

> I doubt that you can find a single woman reading this newsgroup who
> actually thought your comment was funny.

   And if any men claim they found Pooh's comments about dumping men by
the roadside funny, I'll accuse them of "sucking up", so there!

   If I offended Pooh, she herself can complain (and I can flame her if
she does).  She doesn't need a spokesman.

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
From: pooh@Apple.COM (Pooh)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Date: 20 Dec 92 12:34:54 GMT
Organization: Internet Refugee Camp


Pooh's solution to the gold-digging problem:

Don't ever spend any more money than you would of your
own free will.

If you spend it of your own free will, don't go bitching about
it later.

That way, no one can take advantage of you unless you help
the process along.

Noooo problem.

Pooh
	pooh@apple.com
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Bad Timing
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:10:52 GMT
	<MARTINC.92Dec11220914@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Dec12.060247.27903@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<92347.124127SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA's message of 12 Dec 92 17:41:27 GMT

In article <92347.124127SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:

   It's probably not the endorphins; it's wanting either to be real
   (and being real messed up about how you *get* reality) or wanting
   some impossible aspect of reality to go away and quit bugging you.

Actually, it may *be* the endorphins.  I've just heard about an
experiment in which alcoholics were given Naloxone, an opiate blocker;
the results of the experiment suggested that alcohol gives an alcoholic
an endorphin hit the rest of us miss.

But I think it might just then be the endorphins that make reality stop
bugging you, so the net is much the same.

	[...]

   I think Charlie's point about shame over who you are as opposed to
   shame about what you've done gets into some of this, too; if people
   think the problem is *who they are* (the huge difference between
   'I'm unlovable' and 'I haven't encountered someone who loves me
   passionately, yet' comes to mind), rather than what they do, it is
   real hard to get them to look at what they do.

The thing about what I've been calling "existential shame" is that one
literally has no control: you can't stop doing the shameful thing,
because the shameful thing is *you*.  My current suspicion is that
12step programs are a useful approach because they (1) put you into a
group in which everyone shares your powerlessness, and (2) give you an
out by the assertion that you are powerless over the locus of abuse.
Both of these reduce shame.  Then, for *some* people in 12-step
programs, there is a further step of a "conversion experience" in which
the Higher Power comes into your life and changes you so that you don't
need to be ashamed of yorself any more.  These appear to be the people
who actually *stop* craving, rather than controlling craving.

--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles