HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What would you do if...
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:17:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:

>'No gory details' runs smack into a very fundamental problem - primate
>curiousity.  People, in general, really *do* want to know.

Some people seem pretty satisfied with a relationship in which certain
things, such as other partners or interests or flirtations, are not
discussed. They may be curious but may prefer not to indulge their
curiosity about these things.

>It is also an honesty issue; if there is something you *can't* be open
>and honest about, it is likely to put strain on things.

True, but there are levels of openness. Although it is good to be able to tell
your partner in general about things that are going on with you, you can
choose what level of detail to use. 

Furthermore, when you are first getting to know someone, you don't need to
share everything right away (in fact it's usually not a good idea to do
so). And the amount of sharing in a relationship needs to be negotiated 
either explicitly or implicitly. Some people are more private than others,
and some mostly sane people have insecurities that get set off by certain 
things.

>I persist in the belief that these only work if everyone involved has
>a relationship with everyone else; not neccessarily a romantic or sexual
>relationship, but a relationship based on something other than being
>connected by being in relationship to a third person.

I agree this is the best way for most people, but other arrangements do 
work for some people and some situations. 

If you are dating several people but your ultimate goal is to settle down
with one of them, it may not be all that useful to share details of your
various dates with your other dates. 

If you want to set up a polyamorous lifestyle in which you maintain 
romantic relationships with several people, then yes, it is best if all 
of those people at least like each other.
-- 
Stef                Just as there are laws of Conservation of Matter and
stef@apple.com      Energy, so there are in fact Laws of Conservation of 
                    Pain and Joy. Neither can ever be created or destroyed.
                         But one can be converted into the other. 
                                                         --Spider Robinson
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Subject: Re: Over 40 and single....Anyone that "OLD"?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:20:40 GMT
Summary: Mouths of babes dept.

In article <1992Dec14.211229.25807@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>,
krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) quotes Louise Billi:
> >Over 40 (just a tad) women have a terrible time of it.
> >Men in that age group are all looking for the young "Tenderoni"
> >to make him feel like a kid again.  Can't men realize that 
> >most younger women see them as either a "Father Figure" or
> >a "Sugar Daddy"?  Is that what they really want in a mate?

No, but some find the attention very reassuring--and at a time
when they are not feeling otherwise reassured.  It's a fetish,
a neurosis, and one you're probably just as glad not to be bothered
with.  When they figure out their place in the universe, they'll come
calling.

> Wherein is it written that an over-40 woman must set her sights on
> over-40 men only?  If you keep your eyes open, you just might find
> that there are younger men about who may find you attractive.

It all depends, of course, how you define yourself.  Many of us
whose identity is still colored by the 60s have a hard time
forming relationships with people who not only don't know where
they were when Kennedy was shot, they didn't even exist yet.
I remember a Halloween party my sweetie and I held, and some
younger folks--and not that much younger, 10 years, maybe--showed
up dressed as hippies.  It was cute, but I found myself actually
feeling offended, as if I personally were being lampooned.  And
I don't even look like a hippie any more.  Well, not too much.

So I guess Keith's right.  You, and I, and those guys whose
taste in dates you impugn, are to a certain degree stuck.  The
only thing I don't understand is how a young whippersnapper like
Keith could understand this--well, he probably asked his mom or
something:-)

               *** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
16 Dec 92   ****** ******   26 Frimaire An CCI
            *****   *****   gadfly@ihspc.att.com
             ** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:40:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.025543.8486@netcom.com> shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
>In article <102646@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>>
>>I'm not sure I'll understand, because we're obviously speaking two vastly
>>different languages here, but just how did Jane treat Sam unfairly?
>
>By assuming she could just freeload, instead of finding out how they
>were going to split the bills for the date.

On the whole, I think that your advice is sensible, but there are many
times when it's not really workable.

The problem is this: if we spend all our time negotiating behavior
patterns with every new person we meet, it's rather inefficient.  We
need default behavior patterns.

The counter-problem is that each of us is unique, and we live in a
heterogeneous society where people have different expectations.

Overall, I think that if two people are getting together on a Date, the
default assumption should be that the asker will pay -- but both should
be alert to the nuances of language that will indicate that the other
person has a different default preference.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"Would you like some toast?!"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:57:10 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. 

Now, I don't understand this at all. I do it all the time; I'm just being
polite, and I've never seen anyone get offended by it. Why does it annoy you?

jds

***************************************************************************
                               * Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith                     * Passion and poems and sex
smith@fl08-g.comm.mot.com      * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
                               * I won't shut my mouth for less.
                                                - shriekback
***************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: Most expensive meal of my life (was: Re: Picking up the Tab)
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
Distribution: na 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:20:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.072709.545@netcom.com> cocoa@netcom.com writes:
>
>(And I didn't even *have* to have sex with him :)

But I bet you did anyway.....  (oh, okay -- ;-)
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"Would you like some toast?!"
From: tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:29:40 GMT
Organization: JPT Computer Solutions
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Lauren L. Crawford (crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu) wrote:
: In article <724066442.19833@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
: 
: >: >When I was into the dating game and during one year where I, at various  
: >: >times, dated 6 different women, I first found that none of them were much  
: >: >excited about sharing the expense of a meal out.

IMHO, if it's a 'date', the guy pays unless agreed upon beforehand.

: >: I'm genuinely surprised at the number of female "gold-diggers" that seem
: >: to be out there, from what you guys say.

That there are, but not paying for 1/2 of the tab does not constitute 
'gold-digging'.

: >  So am I. It is not my experience at all. 
: 
: Would someone define gold-digging?
: 
: If a man asks me out, and I don't know him very well, I assume he's
: paying.  If he doesn't, he's got no class whatsoever, IMO.  Frankly, it

Agreed!

: hasn't happened to me (though it did happen to a friend of mine).  
: 
: If it's not a first date, I'll usually offer to pay my way, depending on 
: the guy -- some guys would rather _always_ pay; others like to split the 
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That would be me... Helps my fragile ego to cater to the helpless female :) :)
                                                                         ^^^^^
      	      	      	      	      	      	                A JOKE, A JOKE!

: bill.  Usually, though, I end up with guys who, if they ask me out, plan
: on paying.  In those cases, I'll usually offer to leave the tip or buy
: dessert.
: 
: I imagine it would be different if I asked a man out, but that isn't my
: style.  
: 
: Now that I've been seeing someone for over a year, we rarely do the
: traditional "date" thing; I'll pay for lunch this time, he'll pay next
: time, I'll cook, he'll cook, whatever.  Occasionally we still do the
: formal "date," we go somewhere special and he pays.  Otherwise, whoever
: happens to have money at the time pays, or we split it.  
: 
: So, would any guys out there in net.land consider any of this 
: "gold-digging"?  I'm honestly not very familiar with the term.

Nope... that's not gold digging. Gold digging is when the female constantly
asks for items to be purchased for her, especially 'to really show you love
me/like me'. THAT'S gold digging. Unfortunately, there is about 3 million
women like that in the NYC area... NOT ALL, OK????? I *WILL* lavish gifts
if I feel the person I'm dating is appreciative of them, and not expecting
me to cater to their every little whim, but sometimes you get a great reaction
when you do! A set of earings they 'OOOOOd and AHHHHHHed' over once, flowers
when they need them the most, stuff like that... <sigh> no one close for
me to spoil... :(

Tim
-- 
Tim Sailer
JPT Computer Solutions - SCO Sales/Consulting/Administration and Mangling
Port Jefferson Station, NY
(516) 331-9001
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:11:28 GMT
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 <1992Dec18.085047.23945@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) sez to Desiree:

>     I would rather die than fuck you.  I saw you at the party and
>although you are physically pretty, I think that, overall, you are an
>extraordinarily ugly bitch.

Best news I've heard in some time!  I won't have to compete with you
for the smart, eloquent women who aren't afraid to speak their minds.

Not that you ever had any chance of competing, anyway ...

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
"Sometimes it feels like the sun just comes up out of habit,
 And goes down as quick as it can,
 These days, you just have to grab it as it goes by."
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Size 8? (Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men)
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:42:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <7794@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>and big muscles.  I just happen to be a size 12 person who had the
>					--Diamond			

Oh Elizabeth, please cancel my previous posting whereby I said I 
was in RDU last weekend and I wished I could have met you.  I apologize
because from your postings, I had deduced that you were a small petite
female.  Now I understand that you are a size 12.  This explains why
you are desirous of a guy in leather who rides a Harley Hog.  Please
accept my apologies.
--Keith			8-)
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 15 Dec 1992 18:28:55 CST
From: <U60703@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: ooops!


Hey....sorry about that double talk in previous post.....blush....

I'm still in training here....but I know you guys can decipher and handle
it......

Carole
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Giving and Receiving
Date: 15 Dec 1992 17:53:12 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1992Dec15.102722.17472@rs6000.bham.ac.uk>, pickerig@eee.bham.ac.uk (Guy Pickering) writes:
> If you give someone little presents, what do you give and what do
> you like to receive?

One of my sisters always gives little toys to cheer friends up.  Stuffed
toys are too much of a cliche and too ARC, but a kaleidoscope is always
great to play with.  Or windmills, or water pistols (hee hee hee.)  
Fancy bronze kaleidoscopes are popular now, but you can still find little
cardboard ones for a buck or two.  She gave the baby one with plastic
bugs and flowers inside that's beautiful.

When a certain soc.singler was in Boston, he brought me some rocks and
sea shells that he'd found walking on the cape, but I guess some people
would look at you weird if you gave them a rock.  I loved it, but I'm
a little strange.

I used to bake bread for all the people that I couldn't decide if I owed
them Christmas gifts or not.  Now that I'm so time challenged I won't be
doing that.  I gave flowers to people last year, but I was surprised that
they didn't go over so well.

Dawn

Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
"Folk Song" by Bongwater
From: R9S@ECL.PSU.EDU (Roberto G Sung)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Giving and Receiving
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:36:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Penn State Engineering Computer Lab
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <JULIE.92Dec16161659@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu writes:

>...................
 > ---Julie (wondering if Trygve set that one up deliberately, or if it was
> 	  just serendipitous)
>.....................

Hi, everyone, i'm new to this group, although sometimes i lurk around
when my schedule allows. just a quick question: what exactly means
"serendipity". i've seen this word a few times lately. is it part of
the neology? thanks
roberto
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: R9S@ECL.PSU.EDU (Roberto G Sung)
Subject: Re: Deep Pocket Paranoia (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Organization: Penn State Engineering Computer Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 18:57:46 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1992Dec19.010032.1256@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com writes:

> 
> 	I know far too many men, sadly enough, that father children,
> play daddy when it suits them and when it's time to move on they do.
> The mother is left dealing with emotionally tornup kids, not a hell of
> a lot moola, and no assistance in dealing with raising the kids.  

people, allow me to jump in this conversation. what Desiree said
despite being nauseating, is quite true these days. and similar
complaints have shown up over and over again on this net. so, what's
the real problem with the men of the 90's? noone honors his vow
of 'till death do us part' anymore? maybe, just maybe, Bush got
a point on the importance of 'family values' here.
nop, didn't vote for him. but whatever differences we might hold
do not invalidate his views at the entirety.
 
> 	I, myself do not condone the blackmailing of men by some women
> if they become pregnant.  But if the child is desired by both, then you
> damn well better take responsibility for that.  You cannot walk away
> from a kid like you can a puppy or a kitten you decide to adopt on
> a whimsy. 

from the perspective of responsibility, the request for child support
is anything but a blackmail, be it filed by the man or woman. and it
has nothing to do with the child being desired by both parents or not.
 
> 	If you are going to fuck around and you don't want children, then 
> take responsibility for preventing it.  If it does happen, then work
> together to try and come up with something that works for all concerned.

but please leave the abortion path closed until there is absolutely
no other way out as a murder is a murder under any circumstances.
 
> 	The bottom line is -- even if you don't want the child and
> she does -- you are responsible for helping to make it.  If you cannot
> communicate with your partner and work it out -- that is not the
> kids' fault.  So stop making the child suffer because of your (and
> your partner's) inability to come to terms with a very *real* situation.
> 	
> 
> I'm tired of this,
> 
> 
> Desiree
 
i'd bet that the children in question feel the same way too, alas
they are never consulted upon.


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Subject: Re: Victims of Denial!!!!
Organization: The Tickle Palace - Moonyvale, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:49:12 GMT

In article <15872@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.091241.10375@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>>In article <15855@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>||In article <1992Dec10.214852.16800@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>|>>HF.HLA@forsythe.stanford.edu (Lisa A. Haupt) writes:
>|>|]  *deleted*
>|>|] Lisa Haupt
>|>|] "the seahag"
>|>|  *deleted*
>|>about finding a RealWoman(tm) for John?  Why didn't you ask her if
>|>she was willing to meet John?   Are you saying that Lisa is not a
>|>RealWoman(tm)?
>|
>|     Well, maybe Lisa just happens to be a RealAirPrincess. (:
>
>Is this another inside joke?

     No.

-- 
                                         +---------------------------------+
  +-----------------------------------+ /      Not a net.personality      /
 /   // Mr. Tickle Monster   // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
|  \X/   W. David Rohwer   \X/  3000  /  Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM  /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
From: souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Kissing Frogs
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:55:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada

In article <7913@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>In article <Bz6Hqn.DvI@CAM.ORG> souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:
>>In article <7894@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>>>"All men are either clueless or assholes.  If you meet one who seems
>>> to be neither, he's probably an asshole."
>>Odd, neither my male nor my female friends fit within this clueless/asshole
>>probability density function.  Of course, the men under 30 tend to take
>>equality as a given, as opposed to the mid-thirties who need a bit 
>>of education. 
>Um, this statement was uttered by a 23-year-old, so I'm not sure that
>your assumptions about age are justified.  

Who said assumptions? Try observations, albeit the data set isn't the
entire population.
 
>My friend said it because I was complaining that some male
>in whom I was interested just wasn't getting the idea. 
>relationship just didn't get past that point).  
> .... paraphrase : overcautious maybe = "clueless" , Overconfident
> maybe = "asshole" , or if not either then mindreader (rare)
>Look, it wasn't a slogan, it was a JOKE.  Okay, okay, I didn't include
>a smiley because I thought it was obvious.  I have erred.  Retroactive
>smiley for the humor impaired: :-).

Maybe I shoulda put on a fake nose & glasses when writing the previous post.

>   And I don't think analyzing socialization
>in the last decade of the 20th century 
>precludes taking the occasional
>cheap but amusing (and non-serious) potshot at the opposite sex.  

Well. From over here the comment followed another similar potshot,
and it looked like the sort of gratuitous male-bashing that tries to
pass off as genuine feminism. May I ask what the reaction would be if
I followed up a post that stated: "Women are walletsuckers or ballbusters"
with the statement "All women are either coldfish heartbreakers or
out of control neurotics" ? I'd be flamed, and quite rightly so.
Granted, my example is exaggerated, but only to make the point that 
respect knows no gender. If you want men to be sensitized to the 
implicatons of what we say, please apply the same courtesy in your 
statements. I for one refuse to apologize for my Y chromosome any more.

Francois.

Not a flame, a position.
From: tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Women: would you go out with a man dumber than you?
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:11:09 GMT
Organization: JPT Computer Solutions
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Larry Kahn (lkahn@mitre.org) wrote:
: 
:    In keeping with the spirit of a current thread, I'll pose this question 
: for (semi)serious responses.  When does an "intelligence" difference start 
: to matter?  This includes level of education difference as well as someone 
: who's book smart but has zero common sense.
:    And don't bother asking me if I mind going out with a woman who's 
: smarter than I am.  (Insert huge numbers of smileys here)  I never have.

NONONONONONONONONONO..... NOT AGAIN!!!!

-- 
Tim Sailer
JPT Computer Solutions - SCO Sales/Consulting/Administration and Mangling
Port Jefferson Station, NY
(516) 331-9001
Xref: sparky soc.singles:33588 alt.romance:15126 alt.sex:39311
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Truth/Psychiatrists and homosexuality.
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:00:33 GMT
	<1992Dec7.005114.14512@wam.umd.edu>
	<1992Dec9.194922.9024@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<1992Dec10.202543.23000@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu's message of 10 Dec 92 20:25:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.202543.23000@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
   freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes: 


   All of you straight people out there, I want you to imagine what life
   would be like for you if you knew that 90% of the people you might be
   romantically interested in would not only have no interest in you,
   but might actually do violence to you if they found out you were
   interested in them.  Not a pleasant thought?  Didn't think so.

I mostly don't disagree with you, but I do wonder on what basis you
think that this is markedly different from the experience of hetero
people? 
--
		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
Xref: sparky soc.singles:33922 alt.pagan:14269 alt.romance:15254 alt.sex:39599 alt.polyamory:2139 talk.religion.misc:23858