From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:04:57 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <MARTINC.92Sep22001522@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
>Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
>Date: 22 Sep 92 04:15:22 GMT

>In article <MARTINC.92Sep21194039@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:


>   In article <ewright.717102379@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>      In <MARTINC.92Sep19102941@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>      But, if you successfully unscramble his grammar, you'll see 
>      that he didn't ask about "the people at the local KMart." You
>      may consider the average KMart shopper -- that is, the average
>      American -- to be quite inferior by your standards, but your
>      standards are not everybody's.  Sure, not all of them are the
>      bronze gods/goddesses you'd find in Muscles and Fitness.  Most
>      of them have some physical features that would be considered
>      unattractive.  

>Just by the way, would one of my friends and acquaintances here at UNC
>please post a description of my Greek-God-like physique, so we can
>disabuse Ed of the notion once and for all that I expect that
>"reasonably attractive" -- which I actually am -- equates with "perfect
>physical specimen".

>--
>Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
>O/Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
>H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>"I am he who walks the States with a barb'd tongue, questioning every
>one I meet,/Who are you that wanted only to be told what you knew
>before?/ Who are you that wanted only a book to join you in your
>nonsense?"  _Leaves of Grass_ xxiii.4.

All I can say to you guys out there who are worried about how you look, 
find out from married women how they looked at men before they got married.  
You can learn a great deal from this source.  And most will be honest with 
you.  The boy-girl thing is a mind game of the highest order, and your main
advantage is emotional detachment and self-sufficiency; their advantage is 
less sexual desire or urgency impelling them to seek out the opposite 
sex, and this tends to free them up psychologically, though in a 
different direction.  Women can experience acute loneliness that is perhaps 
almost as powerful in attracting them to men is the male sex urge is in 
attracting them to women.  In fact, what women want in men is a strong 
emotionally mature and supportive friend. All else is secondary. 

Don't worry about how you look--though there are no doubt limits here!-- 
if you talk to enough women and don't assume that the pretty ones are
unavailable and untouchable, and really try to be a friend and good
companion to them, you'll do much better all round.  Along side what 
you think a 'real man' is, is what a woman thinks a 'real man' is, and this
tends to have little to do with--within limits--how you look physically.
And what *is* important physically for women has very little to do with sex 
appeal than it has to do with neatness, cleanliness, and style of 
appearance, rather than physique.  Sex is the furtherest thing from their 
minds.  And you do well *always* to keep that in mind. They react to the 
suspicion that you value them solely for their bodies in the same way you
would act if you suspected they valued you solely for you money.
 
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////