HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:04:20 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Apr2.214519.19852@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>
>I like to have at least a little light on.  I like to watch my
>partner, but more importantly, I like to be able to make eye contact.
>There are some people who can speak so eloquently with their eyes
>that it's a fully integral part of lovemaking.
>
>*sigh*,
>Pooh
>       pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu

This brings up a major problem I've been struggling with. 

I read this post and I think, gee that sounds wonderful.  I bet it would be 
great to fantastic to do that wild thang with Pooh.. I mean, yeah its better
with someone you love, and have a serious commitment with, but it could also
be a blast to do it with someone who you hardly know, but who is *good* at sex.
In fact, there are just bunches of excellent women out there that I could have
a great time making love with, and who could teach me lots of new tricks too.

So how can I think like that, and maintain one solid, exclusive relationship?
My current SO and I have agreed that it will only work between us if we are both
completely honest and faithful to each other.   Damn.

So how about y'all?  Where is the solution to this dilemma?

	-Stu

-- 
Stuart M. Brown                               Postdocs rush in where wise men
U. of Manitoba, Dept. Plant Science, Canada       Fear to tread. 
browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca        
				Disclaimer?? Sure: "That Disc is Mine!"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Revenge (Was: Re: A Slight Rant)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:21:15 GMT

In article <ku1b67INNefp@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.024057.17961@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>
>>	Anyone who obsesses on 'getting even' with an ex really should
>>consider getting a life.
>
>Well James, there's no doubt in mine or any other mind that this is 
>the mature, responsible, healthy, civic-minded, sensible attitude
>to take.  But in the meantime, I'm a little curious -- just *how* many
>times did you post "never forgive, never forget"?
>
>Check back with me AFTER the nightmares die down about the correct way to
>think.  In the meantime, your other suggestions sounded pretty good.  
>
>Dawn

	"Never forget, never forgive" doesn't mean "waste time fantasizing
about getting even when you don't have access to Tabun." Just because it is
ah, foolish to disregard the fact that a given person has kicked you in the
head every chance they got, one doesn't *have* to rip their leg off and pour
draino on the bleeding stump.

	It's a control  thing. If you get mad because of their behavior,
then they are controlling how you feel.

							James Nicoll 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:02:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.222544.26970@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>Now announcing Dr. Poohth's Wild Sex Thang School of Inner Beauty
>and Lime Jello Maneuvers !!  (gee, this is sounding more and
>more drieuxistic ...)
>
>Our Motto: "Once You Drive Men Crazy Enough, They Don't Care How You Look"

	Damn right.

	(Hmmm....looking for some subjects for your school, y'know, like they
have for barber's school?)


-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:01:34 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr13.174732.8836@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.072816.27947@wam.umd.edu> tedwards@wam.umd.edu (technopagan priest) writes:
>>So it just goes to show, if you want to meet aggressive women,
>>put on a tunic, buy a big sword, read up on wicca, and march right
>>over to your local SciFi/Fantasy convention or medievalist society.

>Now all I've got to do is figure out how to get around the Wicca part,
>since, much as I like intelligent, aggressive women who are relatively
>unconstrained by convention, the ones I meet keep turning out to be
>serious, practicing pagans with a serious religious observance scheduled
>every seven to eight minutes--not that there's anything inherently wrong
>with pagans, but it doesn't seem to leave much room in their lives for
>anyone who isn't a pagan.

Well, everyone's got SOME conventions they observe.  I guess it depends on
which ones you're willing to put up with, and for how long.  Now, I could
see myself getting really into some unorthodox religion, though I don't know
how long I could stomach it.

-- 
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: pnichols@ra.csc.ti.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Yoo, hoo, Angelllllllwingggggggg.......
Keywords: Incompatible technologies, of course!
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:10:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: csc.1992Apr10.181036.17443
Distribution: na
Organization: Texas Instruments.  Don't mess with us.

In article <1992Apr9.152156.27532@u.washington.edu>
intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.210044.25064@csc.ti.com> pnichols@ra.csc.ti.com writes:
>>	Ask, for God's sake, ASK!!!!!  How can we not?????
>>	
>>-Paul "When everything is gone, the last we can rely on is Honesty" Nichols.
>
>Okay well, *I* can ask.  And I shall.
>
>Paul, would you *pretty* please learn to use your editor and quit running
>the lines off the screen!  Huh?  Please?  


	Well, cluster-@#$%!.  Profoundest of apologies over my techno fox paw, but it
is not simply a fault of 'not learning an editor'.  (1)  I'm using 
a Macintosh (that's right, CS/EE junkies!  I'm a mac slinger.  Deal with it. :)
(2) The program I'm using is a VERY nice, EXCRUCIATINGLY convenient news reader
called 'TheNews'.  It's SO user-friendly that I've never noticed I've been
running off the page.  Same thing when I read postings.  So I'll learn to write
shorter sentences-hope this works.

	(Hidden meaning: I have a more advanced editorrrrrrrr, nyah, nyah, 
	 neenyah nyah!  Meant in the best of attitudes, of course. No offense..)


>Angelwing - How's that?  And no profanity this time, either.

	Civil, yes, but lacking in color or charisma.  C'mon, insult me.  :)

>*------------------------------------------------------------------*
>* 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      *
>*------------------------------------------------------------------*

	So tell me about the woman who complies?  And what are the two things
wanted by a true woman?  (oooooo, can't wait for the answers!!!!!!)


-Paul "Dadgumit, hoping for a better reply than 'check yer editor'" Nichols
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet)
Subject: Re: Request : Dating advice from women
Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 13:24:12 GMT

In article <KPC.92Apr4134340@zog.arc.nasa.gov> kpc@pluto.arc.nasa.gov (k p c) writes:
>
>
>really, i think she isn't going to be wearing a sign saying "i'm
>playing hard to get".  if she were, then you'd know she's interested,
>and it would be more like a (slightly pathological) version of "taking
>it slow" rather than a real "hard to get".  "hard to get" is always
>confusing, and that is why it is so frustrating to men (at least to
>those who don't take it as a game or as the price to pay for pursuit.)
>
>i think the problem is more difficult than just identifying it and
>solving it for each case.  the man doesn't always have that option.
>
>comments?

It is always hard to know what is happening between two people early
on while they are starting to date. If a man suspects that a woman
is playing hard to get, but isn't sure if she isn't interested, want to
take it slow whatever; some solutions are to talk to her
directly ( Either by saying you don't like to play games and
tell that she doesn't act like she is interested, is she?,
Tell her that you'd like the relationship to move faster,
anything to bring the issue out) or to simply back-off 
a little and see if she'll start chasing you.


-- 
Michele Guillet 			The Communications Research Centre 
3701 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2H 8S2	tel:613-998-2384
Internet: michele@dgbt.doc.ca
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Candor III
Keywords: Lock
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:21:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr9.152156.27532
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr8.210044.25064@csc.ti.com> pnichols@ra.csc.ti.com writes:
>	Ask, for God's sake, ASK!!!!!  How can we not?????
>	
>-Paul "When everything is gone, the last we can rely on is Honesty" Nichols.

Okay well, *I* can ask.  And I shall.

Paul, would you *pretty* please learn to use your editor and quit running
the lines off the screen!  Huh?  Please?  

Angelwing - How's that?  And no profanity this time, either.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* 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: "Terminal ( single ) Man" <GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu>
Subject:      Focus? You need glasses, dude
To: soc.singles.usenet
Reply-To: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Date:         Mon, 06 Apr 92 10:21:47 MST


      George DeLaMater foolishly asks " What is this group for "

      Well, George, here's the scoop.

        This group is for

           a) Happily ( or not ) Mated people to

           b) dictate, criticize, make fun of

           c) terminally single people.

     You've been given fair warning.

     DeLaMater. Man, with a name like that, you should have it made here.

      Spawn of THE Mater. Cool. I like it. Matches the Motif here.
      Mine's Horne.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet)
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 13:33:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.004330.19767@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>than I could keep track of.  I've had women ask me for my phone number
>(though 99% of the time, they don't call), one woman who probably would

That doesn't surprise me, 99 % of the time, men that either ask me for
my phone number or said they called, don't call either. I think
a number of people seem to think that asking for a phone number 
(or saying they'll call you ) is a polite way to close a conversation 
and say good bye.

I call a few of these men (as a rule I trade phone numbers) and
quite often they didn't even bother to return my calls (I got their machine
and left a message).


-- 
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: puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (Software Dude)
Subject: Avoiding dating......
Organization: WHAT?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:05:22 GMT

"Peter A. Simon" <ps3p+@andrew.cmu.edu> enlightens us with:
>> Sometimes I call a friend to see if 
>>they want to do something that evening, or because I have something
>>specific on my mind; and if their machine kicks on I assume they're out
>>and hang up.
>
>Hell, I leave a message.  That's easy enough.
>
My actual message on my machine...
	"This is an answering machine, you know what to do."

Why do I feel a thread unraveling all of a sudden?
--
Puter	puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com "My favorite vanity plate - PHUQUE"
From: jwalsh@aspentec.com (Jamie Walsh)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: <None>
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:19:46 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Aspen Technology, Inc. Cambridge, MA.

In article <1992Apr8.182515.10760@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.133350.27832@dgbt.doc.ca> michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.004330.19767@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>>than I could keep track of.  I've had women ask me for my phone number
>>>(though 99% of the time, they don't call), one woman who probably would
>>
>>That doesn't surprise me, 99 % of the time, men that either ask me for
>>my phone number or said they called, don't call either. I think
>>a number of people seem to think that asking for a phone number 
>>(or saying they'll call you ) is a polite way to close a conversation 
>>and say good bye.
> 
> That's an interesting thought--anybody out there take this particular
> approach?  Oh, well; nobody ever said that polite couldn't be
> confusing.

The spring and summer before I met my husband, I gave my phone number
to several men.  I didn't think any of them would ever call.
Six of them called me on Labor Day weekend when I was home with the flu.
Must be a popular time for cleaning out wallets.

-- 
--jamie
	  "There's a seeker born every minute."

Internet:	jwalsh@aspentec.com
UUCP:	        uunet!aspentec!jwalsh
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 18:06:49 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <7sqj2ff@lynx.unm.edu>  blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
> >
> >it's about trusting your SO to keep coming back
> >to you even if he does sleep with someone else.  You trust that the
> >bonds that hold you together are so strong that sex with another
> >person can't pull them apart.
>
> Yes, but saying 'I trust you enough to not sleep with other people' (your
> attribution)

No, that's *not* what she said.

> is the *same* *thing* as a monogamous relationship, only by
> having to come out and >express< your trust, it weakens that trust.

I don't see that it weakens it; I think if you want (or expect) a monogamous
relationship, but you *don't* express that to your partner, then you have
nobody but yourself to blame if you're unpleasantly surprised later because
s/he had other expectations.

> Ok- some clarity is called for....

Have you forgotten where you're posting?  :-)

> If you tell your SO you love them, say, once a day, that is fine.
> But if you feel it necessary to tell them you love them, say, 12 times a
> day, that is excessive, and shows that your confidence on if you love them,
> or not, is weak.

Or it could show that you're so enthralled by them that you can help
expressing it constantly.

> Most 'open' relationships >I've< seen,
> though, are of the type described above, and that I see as 'unhealthy'.

You didn't describe an open relationship; you described a monogamous
relationship where one person expresses their need for monogamy by
repeatedly saying "I trust you to not sleep with someone else."

Also, note that even if most of the *truly* open relationships you've seen
were not good relationships, this could be because the only way you *know*
they're open is because (at least) one of the people involved are unhappy.
It's possible that a number of people you know are involved in open
relationships that are very good, but you don't know because they don't
advertise the fact that it's an open relationship.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: davidson@pooh.cs.unc.edu (Drew Davidson)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: date characteristics
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:11:42 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>Drew Davidson writes:
>> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>> >Think
>> >about it - it's not like if you ask and she doesn't like you, she gets
>> >to keep your testicles for earrings.
>>
>> Oh, great.  Now you tell me.
>
>So you missed an opportunity to ask someone out - big deal.  Now if this
>were a *woman* saying "Now you tell me", it might be a problem...

Actually I was lamenting the painful years I spent wearing an iron
codpiece while asking women out.  Lemme tell you -- I'm a lot more
comfortable now that you enlightened me, but I'm starting to realize
just how effective the damn thing was as a conversation starter.  And
now I have the annoying habit of asking women "How do you like my
codpiece?" when I'm not wearing one...

-- 
Drew Davidson        \\     HELP FULLY INFORM JURORS!  TELL YOUR FRIENDS:
davidson@cs.unc.edu   \\    As a juror, you have the right to vote NOT GUILTY
 ** LEGALIZE TRUTH **  \\   if you believe the law broken is unjust or wrongly
* FULLY INFORM JURORS * \\  applied, regardless of the facts of the case.
Organization: Senior, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:28:57 -0400 
From: "Peter A. Simon" <ps3p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Avoiding dating married people
	<65360@apple.Apple.COM>

>If you screen calls, you should tell people that when you give out
>your phone number. Not only is it common courtesy, but if you do,
>you will receive more calls. Sometimes I call a friend to see if 
>they want to do something that evening, or because I have something
>specific on my mind; and if their machine kicks on I assume they're out
>and hang up.
> 
>Stef  

Hell, I leave a message.  That's easy enough.

Peter               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: A R C
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 17:16:23 GMT

In article <jdqjf4_.shannah@netcom.com> shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:

>  Further, if she were the
>type that watched your movements and passively hung around
>waiting for you to "take the hint", is she *really* the type
>of woman you want around?  Some of us actually *ask*, take
>the time to communicate, and are willing to take risks, rather
>than just batting our sweet little eyelashes and waiting for
>the man to do all the work.

Well, some men in our culture seem to find women who express themselves
in a manner more direct than eyelash batting very threatening, so there
are plenty of men out there who would be more than happy to get involved
with the eyelash-batting type.  (Now, of course, there's the question of
whether you'd want to be involved with someone who is threatened by open
communication, but that's another story.)

Personally, I prefer women who are willing to directly communicate their
needs, desires, feelings, and intentions in a relationship, so I 
invariably go for the ones who are willing to express themselves up
front, but that's because that's the personality and conflict resolution
type that works with mine--your milage may vary.


>Teri - no Rosetta stone required

Trygve
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:11:41 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Apr7.224540.1037@walter.bellcore.com> Walter Lego writes:
>In article <1514@tymix.Tymnet.COM> michele@sail.tymnet.com (Michele Fabrega) writes:
>>YES!  I completely agree.  If the relationship is going to work out, there is
>>NOTHING you can do to break it up.
>
>Rubbish. Any relationship *will* have a million things that can prevent it from
>working out including the occurrence of other people.

	I remain skeptical. I can imagine a couple separating due to another
person when they would not have otherwise separated, but I cannot imagine a
relationship so weakly founded ever "working out" in more than the minimal
sense of the couple not separating, in any case. Would they be happy?

>Over the course of any 
>relationship, each of the partners are likely to find at least one other person
>that is much better for them than the one they are with.

	This is based on "all-else-being-equal" logic that I don't think
applies. Consider: whoever your partner is, they didn't start out as your
best match, pretty much by definition - with 5 billion people in the world,
what are the chances of finding the "best"?

	BUT: All else is not equal. Your current partner has been in a
process of mutual adaptation with you for as long as you've been together.
The new person is, well, new. This makes ideas like their "absolute
relationship potential" with you irrelevant. The deciding factor will be
the relationship you're in. Is time making it better or worse? Is it wearing
well, or wearing out? And also, do you prefer novelty or security?

	I do not believe I could have found another woman who was "better"
for me back when I was happily married. I might have found a woman who was
smarter, cuter, funnier, sexier, etc., than my ex, but she wouldn't have
had the years of shared experiences, shared friendships, shared problems.
For me, that would have outweighed all else (though, as a believer in open
relationships, I'd've been happy to offer the new woman a piece of me :-).

	People work differently. For some the shared past would mean less
than it did to me. Also, the past may be more negative than positive in
some relationships. But the point remains: you can't conjure up a
hypothetical "better" partner for just anyone.

>If they let that 
>person break up the relationship, it says nothing about whether the relationship
>would have worked otherwise.

	I disagree. Either one partner was not as happy as they felt they
ought to be, or perhaps they just aren't the settlin'-down kind, or
haven't reached the nesting stage yet. Outside love interests can be the
proximate cause, the trigger ending a relationship, but they can't turn
a good relationship into a bad one.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 20:51:49 GMT

aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:

>Shouldn't that be "Truffles (tm)"?.....

>Aahz - Chocolate and alcohol?  Yum!

Chocolate and fungus. Hum.
-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin