From: rmcewen@spcb.bbn.com (Regis McEwen)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Nasty E-mail (was: Hooray!!)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 07:43:37 GMT
Reply-To: rmcewen@bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcb.bbn.com

In article <1992Dec28.163259.11054@news.cs.indiana.edu>, "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <ljiopgINNikn@news.bbn.com> rmcewen@bbn.com writes:
>>	I don't get alt.feminism but would appreciate it if someone
>>	would forward it there for completeness:
>>	The following response is said with "tongue firmly in cheek":
>
> Why bother to take up such space to respond to this if it's not
> "serious."

	The same thing can be said about flirtation !
	So why do *you* espouse it so much?

	It might answer your question...

	What's so ironic about your response is that you query as to why I
	shouldn't "bother to take up space responding to this if it's not
	"serious" whereas part of the definition of "flirting" (as you
	reiterate below) is *behaving* without "serious" intent.

	So, perhaps you should also question why it's OK for *you* to espouse
	"flirting", i.e. not being "serious", but not for someone to "flirt"
	without being "amorous"?

	Perhaps you can tell me difference between what you posit (espousing
	"flirting") and how you	interpreted my post, except, for the fact that
	my response wasn't "amorous".

	Anyway, who said that my response wasn't "serious"?  Just because it
	was said with "tongue firmly in cheek" doesn't mean it wasn't
	"serious".

	Things are sometimes said in humor so that the listeners would
	consider actually seeing something from another point of view in
	a less contentious or less confrontational frame of mind.

	Sort of like "flirting"?

	Even though it probably wasn't a "serious" question, I'll respond as if
	it is:

	I guess I "bother to take up such space" because I think that it
	is "worth it", to either the original speaker or to other listeners:
	just like everyone else here.  Including you.

	In fact, I thought *you* weren't really serious until I read
	*this* response.

>             I'll respond as if it is. 

	Great.  Alright with me.

	However, without the context of what was previously written, your
	responses don't accurately reflect what was being discussed, so I'll
	include the pertinent omitted parts.

In article <1992Dec17.211955.17576@news.cs.indiana.edu>, "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>In article <ljiopgINNikn@news.bbn.com> rmcewen@bbn.com writes:
>>> I have a nice little file with the addresses of those who have sent me
>>> "wannafucks."  Get a clue, boys (and I use that word for I can't
>>> believe anyone who would send the type of correspondance I'm talking
>>> about qualifies to be a man)

>>	This is true: a "man" would say, "Would you like to go out for
>>	dinner?"


> No, an intelligent being  would realize that if they want sex, perhaps they
> should go somewhere where people are likely there for sex, like a
> whorehouse or a pickup bar.  Even alt.personals would be a valid place
> to look.

	Close.  An "intelligent" being would try to gauge the probability
	of achieving their objective(s) in the environment they were in, to
	determine whether or not they wish to pursue that (not necessarily
	prime or only !) objective(s) and to what degree they were willing
	to continue in the face of certain adversity or obstacles.
	
	And, of course, one gains that "intelligence" by trying the "wrong"
	places -- determined by the "failure" rate -- and trying the "right"
	places -- determined by the "success" rate -- and then deciding for
	themselves how much effort they were willing to put in based on the
	perceived "payoff" and corresponding "risk" they were willing to take
	in *either* place.

	Sometimes, determining the "wrong" place takes one time !

	Also, there's an old saying that says:

	One man's library is another man's "whorehouse".

	*You* might not think that a certain place is the "right" place,
	but another person might !

	Remember, these groups are made up of indivisuals who come together
	to form a particular environment, collectively.  Someone gets
	"out of line", collectively speaking, and the "herd" trys to weed
	them out -- to keep its environment within certain boundaries.

	Some people "push the envelop", others follow the "flock".

	And, of course, others say, "what??, the flock!!??!!", and even try
	to change the environment !

>>>                              This kind of stuff doesn't impress most
>>> women.  A one line message saying, "I bet you're hot in bed," is less
>>> than intriguing, at least in my opinion.

>>	Yes, a "man" wouldn't use this this obviously line.  He'd say
>>	something about you being beautiful/special/intelligent and how
>>	that and how much you are important to him -- or other "stuff
>>	that'll impress most women".

> How about not bothering a person just because she happens to be a
> woman who is posting on usenet as if she were wearing a sign that
> says, "Come on to me, I'm easy." 

	Yeah, how 'bout it?  I'm sure that's an option that they entertain
	as well.  But you were talking about "stuff" that "doesn't impress
	most women".  And whereas, I sure most men wouldn't be this "crude",
	most realize that they are going to have to be "bothering" alot of
	"somebodies" if they intend to be "successful".

	And, of course, if they stumble across the "right" woman, they
	wont be "bothering" to her any longer !

	Also, you didn't include the part of my post that said:

>>	                          And make sure you have more than just a
>>	"female-looking" address to go on...

> I don't get the leap of logic that says that if a woman makes any type
> of comment on an issue that relates even in the least to sexuality
> that she is in some way inviting sexual come ons.  

	Neither do I, but that's a "strawman" since that's not what *I* wrote.

	Happy landings !

>>> You get a lot of freshman reading the *.sex.* groups because they see
>>> that little word.  Most don't even stop to read more than five
>>> messages on the board before either making a fool of themselves by
>>> posting looking for "hot babes in my area" or whatever.  

>>	Yes, but that's because these freshmen aren't as experienced as
>>	"men" are so they appear foolish to most observers.  After facing
>>	the inevitable rejections they'll soon learn to start posting
>>	looking for "friends just to talk to" in their area or whatever.

> Of course you're going to be rejected when you look in the wrong
> place.

	Yeah, that's circular and a tautology --  so, what is the "wrong" place?

	That's determined by what type of responses you get !

	If you're "successful" is it *still* the "wrong" place ?

	You, yourself, said that these are *freshmen* posting this.  Perhaps
	they haven't gotten "enough" rejections (or even experience !) that
	made them determine they are looking in the "wrong" place.  They may
	be thinking that it might appropiate to post about obtaining *sex* in
	a *.sex.* group.

	How's that for their "leap in logic" in *.sex.* group?  Here you have
	people "freely" posting about sex and they choose *those* groups to
	post about obtaining sex.  It isn't until they experience (or see or
	hear or read about other's experience) that they determine it is
	"inappropiate".

	Even though these are "freshmen", the only thing that mildly surprises
	me, is that they didn't pick this up about "relating" to women, long
	ago, from previous experience -- their own or others -- that even if a
	woman *is* interested, they don't want to appear to be saying, "Come on
	to me, I'm easy." 

	Perhaps they think it might be different in college or in the "real
	world"?

	Perhaps they get caught up in all this "freeness"?

	Perhaps	their hormones are getting ahead of themselves?

	Perhaps they're just trying to get a "rise" out of *you*?

>         Do you go into the grocery store and ask if they have the new
> super dong jelly vibe?

	No.  I go to the *grocery* store to get *groceries*.

>                         Why not?

	Well, not that I'm in the market for "super dong jelly vibe", but
	do they sell them in grocery stores?  Is it a grocery?

>                                   Because it's inapporpriate?

	No.  Because, as far as I know, it isn't a grocery.

>                                                                Because
> common sense tells you they won't carry it?  Duh.

	No.  "Common sense" tells me that if it isn't a grocery, then they
	*probably* wouldn't carry it in a *grocery* store.  Duh.

	But I doubt that the grocer would say, "that's inappropiate to
	ask".  He might say, "No, we don't carry it here.  Try the store
	down the street".

	In any event, now I *know* that I can't get it there, and might decide
	by extrapolation, I probably wont be able to get it at most or even
	all *grocery* stores.

	But your analogy falls flat on its face:

	Posting to these newsgroup are "interesting" women.  Perhaps the
	kind of women these men are looking for.

	It would be "foolish" and lacking in "common sense", as you put it,
	if the grocer had "super dong jelly vibe" in the window and these men
	want that "super dong jelly vibe" they see in that window, but don't
	ask the grocer, "can I have some of that super dong jelly vibe that I
	see in your window"?

>>>
>>>The correspondance I have received that I deem "good" far, FAR
>>>outweighs the worthless.  I enjoy talking about sensuality and
>>>sexuality, I have nothing against honest questions and curiosity.

>>	This is very good advice that these "boys" should listen to !
>>	Listen to what this women is saying, "boys".  Stop pretending that
>>	you are really interested in sex.  Start talking about "sensuality"
>>	and "sexuality" and make sure that you are genuinely curious and
>>	honest about the question you ask unlike when you say that you
>>	are interested in sex...

> Don't pretend anything, but don't go looking for sex from someone just
> because they happen to be open to talking about sexual issues. 

	Right.  Talk to someone who is uncomfortable and puritanical
	"talking about sexual issues".

	Or better yet, do what the woman says, don't "pretend anything".
	"Flirt" !

>>>                                                                   But
>>> I don't come to the net to get picked up, or to have net.sex.
>>> Flirting is fun if done creatively, of course, but you have to know
>>> more than a person's email address to do that, I think.

>>	That's right, "boys".  Stop trying to be mind-readers.  Trying
>>	flirting, "creatively" -- this is what "honesty" is all about !

> Hardly.  I think even a heavy case of "flirting" with no intent to
> commence is far different than asking for someone's address and phone
> number, or inviting them to stop by for some "fun" the next time you
> go through their town.

	You got that right !

	But is it "honest" as you say?  That's what we are talking about here.

	It doesn't surprise me that you'd say that or anyone else "sitting in
	the catbird seat": you'd  expected them to say that !  *Of course*
	the, B.S., err...I mean "flirting" "with no intent to commence is
	far different than asking for someone's address and phone numer, or
	inviting them to stop by for some "fun" the next time you go through
	their town."

	The former way can give one the oppurtunity to say later on, "Oh, I
	didn't mean any of those things. You didn't take me seriously,
	did you?"

	The latter way, is more direct and doesn't provide the amount of
	"wiggle room" that some who might like to have their egos stroked
	at the expense of others.  Especially when "push comes to shove" !

	So, when you start "playing with the big boys" you'll have to hold
	your own -- no matter which style you choose !

	Don't get me wrong, men: they both can be alot of fun -- but each
	should respect the other.

	The direct way is much bolder and has a greater "risk", so I can see
	why alot of people shy away from it -- but it leaves no ambiguity.

	You get a clear picture of where you stand, on *both* sides !

	Perhaps that's why alot of people don't use it.

>                         All of these instances are things I have come
> across in a SINGLE and first email contact with someone.  Yeesh.  

	I agree that the first contact can be "too hard and too strong" !

	Take your time, men. "Don't come on too strong or too fast!"

	Wait 'til she's ready: "Flirt" first !

							-Regis


Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women,talk.abortion