HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:05:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: apple.65235
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <a+sj5j.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>In article <b3rjqvk.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>>In article <65044@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>>
>>>Personally, what I want from an SO is the knowledge that I am the
>>>person they care most about in the world.  There are a lot of ways
>>>to express that caring and for me, physical faithfulness is not
>>>necessarily the most important way.
>>
>>MOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>(Somehow, though, I don't think we're going to be SOs........)
>
>It occurrs to me on re-reading this that a lot of people may not get
>what I meant:
>
>Let's say that the person I care most about is my mother.  Would that
>prevent you from becoming my SO?  
Only if you insisted on being physically faithful to her. :-)

>Putting it another way, do you
>honestly expect me to give up decades-long relationships just because
>you want to be my SO?
I didn't say anything about "giving up" relationships. No, I don't expect
someone to "give up" relationships in order to be my SO.

Let me put it this way: if you and I are dating, and you have 
another romantic relationship that matters more to you than your 
relationship with me, then we are not SOs.

--    
                  A more intimate theology, and one more consonant with 
Stef              the nature of...love, pictures a demonic force engaged  
stef@apple.com    in continuous creation and participation. - Iris Murdoch
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Sleeping Around While Dating (was Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH)
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:36:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr15.153651.28787
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr15.013547.22100@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>grund@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.edu (Victor Grund) writes:
>>>I'd have a hard time maintaining a romantic relationship (physical or
>>>otherwise) with a women who I knew was activity bonking some other man
>>                                                 ^^^^^^^
>
>intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>>The term you are looking for is *boinking*, Vic.  BOINKING!  Bonking is
>>being hit over the head .....and I really can't see what the hang up would
>>be if your object of affection was hitting some other guy other the head.

Well I was informed yesterday by a lad at Trinity [that's in Ireland --
Dublin to be exact] that over there the term *is* bonking and not
boinking.  Go figure, huh?

>Would you stay involved with someone if you found that he was striking
>people about the head and shoulders? I wouldn't, I would be worried
>thet i would be next.

Well Kiran I was just joking, ya know?  I suppose you are too?

Angelwing - Not to be accused of assuming too much.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor)
Subject: Re: want-sex(women) < want-sex(men)
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 14:37:11 GMT

In article <kutm1dINNbcd@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr16.173429.13370@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>> No, no nonono, Dawn.  Sheesh.  You gotta acquire those data points FIRST.
>> So, that should be.... ACQUIRE ME, ACQUIRE ME, you brute.
>
>Good point, but we want it to be statistically valid when he's done, 
>right?  So I think it's SAMPLE ME, SAMPLE ME, you brute.

Quite right.  Now, we need to determine a sufficient n value.
Of course, I suppose this could just be considered an on-going study.
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:33:49 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


In article <6rxjc7l.aahz@netcom.com> Aahz writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.141214.3223@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>>In article <tpwjlkh.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>>
>>>I've got plenty of experience; what I'm looking for now is a job.
>>>
>>><sigh>  O! to join the Real World as a manager of women's breasts.
>>>How.......degrading..........
>>
>>What a neat idea!  A shop where you could just go in and pick off what
>>you want from the rack. 
>>
>>I can see it now...
>>
>>"Have you seen Mr. Aahz?"
>>" Yes, he's over in small and perky."
>
>Ex*cuse* me?  I'd be over in "small and feisty", thank you very much.

"Small and feisty"? Oh Mr. Aahz, what do breasts have to do in
order to be considered "feisty"? Do you have the Ronco Feisty-Breast 
Trainer in stock? Does it hurt a lot? And does it double as a 
floor polisher?

--
Stef                 Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
stef@apple.com     
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH)
Subject: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION was(Re: A R C)
Originator: richh@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: JvNCnet
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:38:43 GMT

walter (Walter Lego) writes:

>Angelwing writes:

>> No matter how obviously aggressive she is, if a
>>women has her eye on a man you can bet that sooner or later he's going to
>>figure it out.  I mean, she doesn't have to actually call him up and say
>>"Hey, you with the blinders on!  Let's go out!"  Just being available,
>>just being around, just smiling at the right time or arranging to be at
>>the same restaurant at lunch ...a zillion things.  Not necessarily
>>aggressive, but definitely aware.  Keep your eyes open, boys.

>Yeah, right! Men have been keeping their eyes open for too long and seen
>just too many gals to be desensitized to anything but a baseball bat on the
>head. You get only boys that way.

??Huh??


>It is women who show interest only by "being around, by being available, by
>smiling....." that have completely destroyed any hopes of meaningful
>communication. 

Oh please.  It is the women like Angelwing(who know the game, the rules,
the whole nine yards) and the men like um, well, Richard III(who never
wanted to be Alan Fucking Alda) who still manage to hook up and enjoy the
hell out of each other.  "destroyed any hopes of meaningful 
communication" ??  I don't think you'd know communication if you were
interrogating her and she uncrossed her legs and offered up a 
revelation.  

>It is not just tough for men. The women who don't want to
>be romantic partners can't do any of those things without a shitload of
>crap (redundancy? what is that?) descending on them. Hell, a woman can't
>even compliment someone's posting on the net without the boy interpreting that
>as possible romantic interest in him.
Well, I'd suggest you not lose sleep over *that* happening.

RICHH
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:27:55 GMT

In <1992Apr8.025018.4511@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>I nominate Angelwing for the Soc.Singles.Fantasy.Goddess for
>the male contingent.

You can't; she ain't single.  She just said so herself in a recent post.

:-)

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

Somebody saved me from a fate worse than heaven,
'Cos if I blew it for a single moment I'd blow it forever.
				- Pete Townshend, "Somebody Saved Me"
From: michaili@blondie.cs.wisc.edu (Afroditi Michailidi)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:00:22 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

In article <1992Apr09.221535.29713@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr9.173045.27200@midway.uchicago.edu>  pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>>
>> I think it really depends on the personalities involved.  Some
>> people find it easier to give birth to a sand-covered water buffalo
>> than say "I love you" even once; other people love to say it to
>> everyone.   The only problem arises when you have one person of
>> type A and one person of type B in a relationship.
>
>I don't think type A with type B is a problem per se; I think the problem
>arises when the type B person expects the type A person to reciprocate.
>If the type B says "I love you" and expects the type A to respond "I love
>you too", and they don't, and the type B feels hurt, *then* there's a problem.
>
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

    No, no, the *real* problem is when person 1 says "I love you", person 2
says "I love you too" and person 1 responds "You're saying that just because I
said it first"    :-)


                                    Afroditi

*****************************************************
Warning: Graduate student -- overworked and underpaid
*****************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.singles:10883 soc.men:8265 soc.women:8825
From: terry-g@by-tor.Gwinnett.COM (Terry Gardner)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Men and women talking
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:59:42 GMT
Organization: Klone@Home

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
: In  <1992Apr6.162956.10673@u.washington.edu>  intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
: >
: > Because the lilacs are blooming, silly!  (Or is that: The lilacs are
: > blooming silly?)
: 
: No, that's "The calla lilies are in bloom again, dahling."
: 
: > Angelwing - and I've got some on my desk, too.
: 
: I got some on my desk once, too, but find the chair or even the floor
: to be more comfortable.  :-)
: 
: Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

I got some on my desk, but I'll wipe it off..
-- 
	Aborting, Retrying, Ignoring, and Failing.....
	$ make love
	Don't know how to make love. Stop.
	Terry J. Gardner, terry-g@Gwinnett.COM, terry@thdhub
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: Older men and younger women (advice needed)
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 19:11:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.181740.31229@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr14.152101.17976@news.larc.nasa.gov>  sleight@blackbird.larc.nasa.gov (DWS) writes:
>> Any advice/comments on this situation ?
>>
>> started to know her (last summer), I thought she was 18
>> and would be starting college last fall.  I even considered
>> asking her out on a date.  Then to my surprise, I found out
>> she is only a junior in high school - she is currently
>> 17 years old after a recent birthday.
>>
>> I don't think that I'll pursue anything further than just
>> being friends (plus I don't know how she feels about me)
>> since she is still in high school, however I can't get her
>> out of my mind.
>
>Why does a year or two difference in what you believed her age to be
>make such a big difference?

Perhaps, it is because some states seem to make a big deal out of that
particular difference?

>
>Why not ask her how she feels about you?
>

Guaranteed to *drive him* out of his mind, whichever way she feels in this
particular situation.

						Walter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am posting under a pseudonym for personal reasons. There is 
enough info in the headers to determine my posting site and possibly even 
determine my login name which is all the information you get from other
postings except that in this case you KNOW for sure that the name in the
headers is a pseudonym. If you don't like the idea put me in your kill file.
From: michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: personals
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:09:14 GMT
Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr13.152713.1@psycha.upenn.edu> horwitz@psycha.upenn.edu writes:
>desirable. I was wondering if anyone out there on soc.singles has posted a
>personals ad, or answered one. What are your experiences with this mode of 
>finding dates? 

I have placed a personal ad in a local newspaper. I think it is
a good idea if a person doesn't find it easy to meet a lot of people
to date for whatever reasons.

I got 14 answers, phone most of them, met about 6 of them. I date
one of the men I met for a couple of months and I went out a few times
with a number of them.

The men I met were fine in general and I only got one really weird
letter. I have actually been happier than with men I met via the as than with 
the men I met via a dating services or going to singles groups. Most of the 
men I met had something that may make it hard for them to find women to date: 
somes were working shifts, some were shy, some were from visible
minorities, almost all of them were shorter than average, few of them 
were specially successful in their work. 

But it doesn't reflect what type of men answered ads, as they answered
my ad. I was surprised that quite a number of the men who answered were
younger than me, I had put mid-30s as my age and I got letters
from men who were 29.

The problem I had was that I was too busy for about a month and a half.
The men I met told me that they frequently don't hear from women when
they reply to an ad, a number of them seem surprised when I called them.



-- 
Michele Guillet 			The Communications Research Centre 
3701 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2H 8S2	tel:613-998-2384
Internet: michele@dgbt.doc.ca	
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:03:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.040731.17638@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>In <1992Apr9.163257.8282@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr9.153055.28148@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>>>Oh *reeally*, Michael.  Well I'm not married, so I must be single.  Nyah! 
>>>Angelwing - Do you see a ring on this finger?  *I* don't see a ring on
>>>this finger.
>>Yeh, she only said she wasn't looking, makes her that much more attractive
>>for the likes of Rich. More of a challenge you know. Go ahead and try to
>>seduce Angelwing she dares ya.
>Oh, I'm sure she'd be more than I could handle...

	Geez, Michael, now THAT'S saying something....

	'Course, that doesn't you shouldn't even TRY.....

	(I TOLDJA you shoulda come to Seaboink I.....)...


>Michael Rawdon
>rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
>University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
>No optimistic outlook survives contact with the human race.

	Hmmm....betcha Angelwing would seem more manageable if you thought
of her as, say, a ST: TNG character (imagine her as a Counselor)(she'd
be MUCH better than Commander Cleavage....)


-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sleight@blackbird.larc.nasa.gov (DWS)
Subject: Re: Older men and younger women (advice needed)
Reply-To: sleight@blackbird.larc.nasa.gov (DWS)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:21:01 GMT

Any advice/comments on this situation ?

I am 24 years old and have a good friend whom I met at
church. During the last year I have spent a lot of time
with her thru church activities and I think she is the
most wonderful girl/woman I've ever known. When I first
started to know her (last summer), I thought she was 18
and would be starting college last fall.  I even considered 
asking her out on a date.  Then to my surprise, I found out
she is only a junior in high school - she is currently 
17 years old after a recent birthday.

I don't think that I'll pursue anything further than just 
being friends (plus I don't know how she feels about me) 
since she is still in high school, however I can't get her
out of my mind.
Organization: HAM--Hackers Against MUDs
Date: Sunday, 12 Apr 1992 01:05:28 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: More Disc on Romantic Songs

In article <1992Apr9.211619.3913@morrow.stanford.edu>,
FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean) says:
>
>I suppose a discussion of "romantic" music is appropriate to this
>group (I hope I don't incur the cynical wrath of Angelwing...).
>
>Rather than make suggestions, I'd rather put forth a question about
>such music.
>
>Why do people *like* such sappy love songs as...well, say, anything
>by Air Supply?

It's patently obvious.

People don't really listen to the lyrics of such songs.

Summer of 1989.  I was bummed out on love.  I was involved with
two people simultaneously (bad idea, by the way), and both
relationships were on their way out, and my emotional level was
pretty low.  I had my radio station permanently set to a "light
rock" station--having recently given up country music, and my
brothers blaring Minor Threat, it was the most I felt I could take.

The last thing I wanted to think about was love, but it was
constantly being sung about on the radio.  So I started to listen
to the lyrics, in the vain hope that they would be related to my
situation and I could get some center on my feelings (another
bad idea).  I found them empty of true emotional content;
"love" was the point of them, not a real emotion for another
person.  I kind of think of such music (Air Supply, Chicago)
as "make out" music.  It's kind of nice to listen to if you
want to get carried away for the moment, but it isn't even
very interesting music.

My favorite songs are not romantic songs.  Right now my favorite
song is Michelle Shocked's "Anchorage".  But then again, my idea
of a good song is one which makes me laugh or cry.

If I had to pick a favorite romantic song, it would come from
this list:

"Bridge over Troubled Water" --Simon and Garfunkel
"Kathy's Song"--S & G
"For Emily, Wherever I may Find Her" --S & G
"Bumblebees"--Christine Lavin
"The Eyes of my Beholder" --Buskin & Batteau
"Song for a Winter's Night"--Gordon Lightfoot

Joy Haftel               "Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink
JKH107@PSUVM              thy wine with a merry heart."--Ecclesiastes
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:46:51 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>Kiran Wagle writes:

>>This is the issue. Women's options would increase, and their
>>relationships would be, on average, better, if they picked the
>>people they want to date, and not just wait to be picked. 

>Maybe. But then maybe the men would start playing hard to get,

But you would still be _acting_ and not _reacting_. Thus your options
increase. 

>and we would have to get them drunk on truffles in order to have
>our way with them.

Chocolate truffles even. And then some guys would start holding out
for those chocolate bonbons filled with liqueur-soaked fruit, which
are illegal in the States.

-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION was (Re: Request : Dating advice from wo
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:55:42 GMT

In article <92097.151435U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>(reference is made to comment about a man desiring a relationship more because
> of the initial hostility (well founded), MaX asks if one now understands why a
>lot of women might fear the 'guy next door')
>
>I certainly would understand why a woman would want to avoid someone who
>thought like that, but it really wouldn't be fair to suggest that most men
did

I don't think women think that all or even most men think like that. The
problem is that it is hard to tell early on in a relationship if the guy is
charming cause that's the way he is, or whether he's charming because he's
got his hunting strategy well worked out. Why do you think women ask other
women about men who are interested in them? Men get reputations too, and
not just about how good they are in bed. The point is that because there
is some small percentage of men in the total male population that are
rapists, or hunters, or game players, the concequence of trusting a man
that you don't know much about can be quite severe. So don't be surprised
if women are self-protective and may appear less than enthusiastic about
going out with you if they don't already know something about you. These
type of men are essentially parasites on the rest of the basically decent
and caring men who don't treat women in this way. They, and their female
counterparts (the golddigger, game player, gets her jollys from
ball-busting types) make it very difficult to deal with members of the
opposite sex openly (not to mention honestly).
,
>any more than it would be fair to suggest that most women play 'hard to get'.
>Obnoxious people aren't more numerous, just more noticable. Definitely, though,
>it is an argument for trying to get to know someone well(common activities,etc)
>before placing oneself in a vulnerable position.
>
>
So we both male and female try to protect ourselves from the other while at
the same time try to get to know each other well enough to maybe be able to
drop the defenses. Hard work. 

MaX -- Who trusts her instincts probably more than is prudent but so far is
doing pretty good (and lately very good!)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: want-sex(women) < want-sex(men)
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:53:11 GMT

In article <6zzj1_q.barry@netcom.com>, barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

>> But when did people realise that sexual intercourse CAUSED pregnancy?
>
> It seems to be a fact that must be rediscovered by every
> generation; judging by the number of accidental pregnancies
> among teens, the discovery is often not in time.

   (-:  But how could it be rediscovered earlier?  By accidental 
pregnancies among PRE-teens?

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern)
Subject: Re: want-sex(women) < want-sex(men)
Organization: U.W. Information Systems
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:22:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.173429.13370@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
> No, no nonono, Dawn.  Sheesh.  You gotta acquire those data points FIRST.
> So, that should be.... ACQUIRE ME, ACQUIRE ME, you brute.

Can you get these data point converted from frequent flyer miles? 

-- 	MH (Sometimes you just gotta ask.)
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
       | Michael Hevern			| Voice: (206) 685-3229        |
       | University Of Washington	| * "I can't dance...          |
       | Information Systems		|    I can't talk...           |
       | 4545 15th Ave. NE		|    The only funny thing about|
       | Seattle, WA 98105		|    me is the way I walk."    |
       | Mail Stop: JE-41               |       -- Genesis             |
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
	Disclaimer: If I said it I probably meant it.  My employer isn't
		responsible for my opinions.