HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blowfish@vesta.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Abortion
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 13:47:20 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <228@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.220244.6416@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
>>> Is abortion wrong?
>>Discussing it in this newsgroup is!
>No Gadfly, it isn't.  
>--Keith

Yes keith, it is the wrong place. This is NOT the group to discuss abortion.
Talk.abortion is. Move it there.
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract 
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 12:26:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.061221.1500@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>I am in the process of deciding what I want to do with sex, in terms
>of birth control.  Would I announce that I got or will have a vasectomy
>to the Net?  No.

It could dramatically improve your social life since you would be "safe."
In Britain there was a club tie for men who had had vasectomies, but it may
have been discontinued by now; too many men who had not had vasectomies were
wearing them.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Xref: sparky soc.singles:34456 soc.women:21713 soc.men:21515 misc.legal:21571
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Fetishes?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:10:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <joet.5.724561063@> joet@ (Joe Tooman) writes:
>       I have always had a fetish for the feet of petite women, unless a
>harsh smell eminated from them (I will describe that in alt.tasteless :).)

Why?  In my experience, smelly feet are never tasteless...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Truth
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:12:28 GMT

In article <17544@umd5.umd.edu> lothie@syrinx.umd.edu (Lothie) writes:
>Kayvan, that crazy dood, sez: 
>>What is this doing in all these newsgroups anyway?
>>
>
>Well, actually.....
>
>I have a LOVELY definition of Truth that I'd like to share with everyone.
>
>	Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty; that is all
>	Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
>
>				-- John Keats
>				"Ode on a Grecian Urn"
>
>
>**Lothie, going for the Romantic Definition

My that was lovely. It really gave me a warm glow. Here's one of my favorites:
       Green eggs are to ham, like spam in a can
       Eeek, eek belly beep. Shootzpa ootzpa.
 
                               -- One sensitive guy.
                                  "Abunch of newsgroups"
 
Whenever I'm feeling mellon'caly this lifts my spirits.
*Huggy Wuggy*
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
                                 doh#0000000005
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,talk.abortion
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
X-To: KAREN GORMAN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:13:00 GMT

kgorman@bbn.com (Karen Gorman) writes...
KG> In article <1992Dec5.185433.7530@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org
KG> (Kevin Darcy) writes:
KG> > In article <100578@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
KG> > (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
KG> |>> So how would the discussion go, say, 10 years down the road?
KG> |>>
KG> |>>"Better not try to find Daddy, Brian; he'd rather you didn't exist.  See
KG> |>>this contract I signed?  This was so Daddy wouldn't have to deal with you
KG> |>>That part?  That's where he said he'd help pay for the abortion.  No, he
KG> |>>didn't want to pay for anything else; he really didn't want a son just th
KG> |>>Don't worry about it, dear, it was just one of those things ..."
KG> |>
KG> |> I have nothing but disgust and disdain for any parent who would show the
KG> |> contract to the child, before they were emotionally and intellectually
KG> |> capable of understanding why their father might have done what he did.

KG> No offspring would be able to understand why their father came up with
KG> such a ridiculous contract, but I'm sure the offspring would realize that
KG> his/her biological father was/is an asshole....Hopefully, the offspring won'
KG> think the same of the mother for signing the contract.

KG> |> There's not a lot that can be done, legally, about insensitive, callous
KG> |> parents, Lauren.

KG> Kevin, did you write *parents*?  That's plural, as in more than one!  But th
KG> child which was created only has one biological parent caring for it,
KG> right Kevin?

KG> I believe that "insensitive and callous" only applies to the biological fath
KG> not to the biological mother.

Oh, why not?  What if the mother had said on the contract that she would have
aborted the child, but the operation had failed (!?), - it actually *does* happe
sometimes- , or if she had changed her mind when she became pregnant?  I'd say
that by your logic, this would make *her* pretty "insensitive and callous" as
well...


KG> |> If it's not a pre-sex contract, they'll probably find
KG> |> something _else_ to make their children's life an emotional hell.

KG> You're really reaching here.

KG> As far as an "emotional hell"; Daddy put that plan in motion with this
KG> preposterous contract!

Oh please...blaming men for having been forced into having to protect their
reproductive freedom is about as disingenuous as telling women who become
unwillingly pregnant that "You can't have an abortion, you should have thought
about that BEFORE having sex, now shouldn't you?"

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * On a clear disk you can seek forever
From: ftlao@acad3.alaska.edu (OSSANDER LINDA A)
Subject: Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:30:00 GMT

In article <thurlow.724877659@convex.convex.com>, thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes...
>In <19DEC199217020049@acad3.alaska.edu> ftlao@acad3.alaska.edu (OSSANDER LINDA A) writes:
> 
>>In article <thurlow.724803305@convex.convex.com>, thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes...
> 
>>>By all means don't let the door hit you on the ass as you leave.
> 
>>Hi I am new to this group. ;-)  Just wanted to say: "Rob" You are the kind of
>>man I stay away from.  Grin..I was married to one that sounds like you for
>>nearly 20 years.  I would prefur to be alone.  Have a nice day!
> 
>I will not post a spelling flame today.
>I will not post a spelling flame today.
>I will not post a spelling flame today.
>....

Gee thanks Robert...You don't know how happy that makes me.  As I said to you
when I responded to your letter.  *I AM SORRY*  I hope that satifies your ego. 
As for my spelling yes that is not the greatest either.

>So "Linda", you posted it as well as mailing it.  How quaint.  Just
>to make the story complete, here's my response again:

Yes Robert I am sort of a *quaint* person..That is what makes me different than
you.  But I did want you to read what I wrote.  

> 
>The reason I invited the woman to leave in the manner I did was that I
>do not like a newcomer to soc.singles to post about how poor the group
>is.  I enjoy it, and have put in the time to get to know the people and
>the rules, and I think if someone does not like it, they should simply
>go away and not make a rude comment.
>

Oh your comment wasn't rude??

>Relating this to your mail, you haven't put the time into the group or
>into talking to me to know who I am at all, not my good points, bad points
>or why I might make such a comment.  I do not mind someone thinking I'm
>a jerk, because in some cases I am, but I do like people to try to make
>sure they're correct.  I have earned many good friends on the net because
>of who I am and the way I post; I am inclined to trust that over your
>opinion.

Good again I am sorry for making you upset and as I said in my e-mail to you I
will post it publically..I am sure you have made lots of friends on the net as
I have also  but I have a very big problem with the statement"Don't let the
door hit your ass on the way out"  That is my problem not yours.
But you wrote it and I responded.

> 
>As a final comment, if you wish to dislike and insult me, I'd very much
>prefer you to simply do so without bothering with the smiley face, the
>grin and the "Have a nice day!" admonition.  That seems quite insincere.
> 
Sorry Robert it wasn't insincere..It was sarcastic..Don't you know the
differnce? 

AGAIN " I AM SORRY FOR ABUSING YOUR FEELINGS"


>Rob T
>--
                     -Linda-

Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,misc.legal
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Woman's *Consent* Necessary for Male Choice?!  NOT!
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:54:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.044328.17641@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec15.122226.11986@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

			.......................

>>It seems as though you believe that a man should only
>>be divested of parental rights and responsibilities during pregnancy, if the
>>woman *agrees* to it.  Why?  Is notification of intention not sufficient?

>The context is pre-coital contracts.  Before sex, if the couple discusses it,
>the man says "I have no intention of supporting a child if one should result",
>and the woman agrees, then the man should not get stuck if at all possible.
>If the woman did *not* agree, then the man either decides to not have sex with
>her, in which case no child can possibly result, or he decides to take his
>chances anyway.  So he gambled (and gamboled :-) and lost.

The question is one of equity.   From the standpoint of equity, apart from
the costs to the woman because of physical considerations, both parties 
have equal rights.  Under the present situation, the man has legal
obligations based on the subsequent actions of the woman, and has no
legal rights except in a subset of the cases, while the man can place
no obligations whatever on the woman, except in an even smaller subset
of the cases.

So the rights should be balanced, with compensation if necessary.  But
I do not believe that birth should occur without, at some time prior,
someone deliberately assuming the financial obligation for the child.
At this point, the woman can unilaterally take actions to divest herself
of any such obligation, and can often unilaterally decide even whether
the birth should occur.  A balancing of rights would give a a man rights
as to both of these points, and would certainly not allow the present 
unilateral imposition of financial obligations.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Date: 18 Dec 1992 16:19:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <JMD.92Dec18094805@lion.bear.com>, jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.174428.5996@novell.com> mlinda@novell.com (M'Linda Taylor) writes:
> 
>    >although women do seem to be approached on a sometime daily or weekly
>    >basis, their problem is weeding through all the offers for a man who
>    >meets their standards.
> 
>    This is all a joke, right?????
> 
> I was hopping... er, hoping that it was a joke.
> Unfortunately I don't think I'm sure anymore...

Believe me, hon, it's a joke.  I have NEVER been approached on anything
close to a weekly basis.  Not counting out of state e-mail, the most I've ever
been approached was *maybe* once a month (by someone who actually wanted 
a real date, not just e-mailed suckups, which at the peak of my
net.goddesshood did get pretty amazing.)  And that once a month came from
hanging around SF things and the net and being obnoxiously flirtatious,
and only happened when I had a teeny baby at home and had to turn down all
or most of them anyway.  I went through high school and
the first year of college in pretty much the same misery that the 
NiceGuy's here complain about, and that was with being fairly pretty
and (at one time) having that barbie doll figure that I thought I was
supposed to have, and being reasonably outgoing.  I went through that
"aargh, I'm the oldest virgin at my college" thing.  Well, I probably 
wasn't, but it sure seemed that way at times.  

It's just that the grass is always greener, ya'know, and with something
like 80% of net folks being male, that green grass on the other side of
the fence is mostly female.  But cheer up -- on the whole, we're every
bit as miserable as you are.

Dawn

Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
"Folk Song" by Bongwater
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:21:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The House, where else?

In article <8059@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>In article <15926@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>
>>When I go out to dinner at a restaurant, whether it`s
>>dutch or I'm paying, I will choose a place that I can afford to order 
>>anything that I want off the menu on that particular night.  
>
>This sounds like a good idea to me too.  However, given my current 
>financial state, I could *maybe* affort McDonald's for two.  I guess 
>that means I just can't ask anyone out until I inherit money, or 
>something.  


No, silly, you ask them out to the Golden Arches Supper Club.  Or to
a free activity--like a concert or a walk in the park...  


Piglet, working to increase the numbers of women.asking.men.out


P.S.  I've heroically stayed out of this one, so far, but now that
I'm actually following up, I CAN'T STOP MYSELF!!!!

For a formal date, the one who does the asking does the paying.  I've
dated men who couldn't handle the concept of a woman paying for them.
There was no second date.  

Even on a formal date, I will offer to split the check, but I won't be 
offended either way...  There are exceptions.  If I had a lousy time, 
and I NEVER want to see the other person again, I'll stick 'em with
the check (but only if they did the asking).  I've also grabbed for the 
check, when I had a really great time...  

The split.the.check offer generally takes the form "So, how much 
do I owe?"  Leaves room for check splitting, tip paying, or nothing, 
depending on the other person's response.

I've also picked up the check for friends, and had them pick up
for me.  (Dinner last night, for a good example.)

My honey and I have a budget, and we share expenses pretty much
50-50, though we're not terribly rigid.  Whoever has money left
for the week generally pays, and it pretty much works out.  Neither
of us is shy, so we keep communicating, and keep the fairness
levels operating.....

I'll shut up now...  <deep woosh of relief from the ConstantWeader>


Piglet, getting hungry with all this talk of check-splitting and dinner-
purchasing....
From: rll1@kepler.unh.edu (Robert L Lamothe)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 21:22:39 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.unh.edu

In article <1992Dec10.205842.36736@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH) writes:
>crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>>I initially actively disliked the man who is now my fiance.  We eventually
>>became friends.  About a year and a half later, I realized I was in love
>>with him and he suddenly became the hottest babe on the planet.
>
>Maybe, just maybe, in a few weeks, this could be considered by SOC.SINGLES
>historians as the first shot in the resumption of the "Assault Of The Nice-
>Guys-Who-Hang-Around-Women-Hoping-That-Eventually-They'll-Fall-In-Love-With-
>Them."
>-- 
	Actually that's pretty much how my SO and I got together, only for
us it only took about 4 months to go from friends to lovers, and she's
always telling me I'm a nice man :)
						-Bob

-- 
---
 Robert L. Lamothe                           University of New Hampshire  
 rll@unh.edu                                 Interoperablity lab room 220  
                                                                             
 Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.  
---
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: liz@vfl.paramax.com (Liz Loquacious)
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Paramax Systems
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:47:24 GMT

In article <NAWLrAbNBh106h@wildrose.infoserv.com>, rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
|> 
|> I wrote:
|> >}>and I found it enormously difficult to view somebody as an equal 
|> >}>while at the same time treating them as incapable of opening a car
|> >}>door.  
|> I make the distinction between simple polite behavior (the courtesies I
|> extend to anyone, regardless of gender or social relationship) and
|> behavior that is grounded in gender-differentiated social roles.
|> (Argh, I hate the last part of that sentence but it's the best I can do 
|> at the moment.. :-| )
|> 

Hmmm, aren't there any other women out there that will open the car door
for a guy?  I've done that and for other passengers of either gender when 
it's my car.  It just seems like polite behaviour to me.  Perhaps it was a
gender related behaviour only in the past but I think it's nice and I like
doing it sometimes.

Liz Loquacious
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 22:04:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.214432.10488@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>In article <75495@apple.apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>
>>For example, there was a period in my life in which several men behaved in
>>a semi-friendly, semi-romantic way toward me, courted me with one hand and
>>held me at arm's length with the other. Obviously they found me attractive
>>in some way, but it was not a kind of attraction that they could resolve
>>into either friendship or romance. 
>>                    
>That's a new one for me.... the pushme-pullyou relationship :-)
>I would be interested in hearing how you first met these "ambivalent" men.
>Was first contact by means of you approaching them, of them approaching
>you, or by third-party introduction?  I cannot help but think that
>ambivalence on the part of the one is more likely to happen when first
>was initiated by somebody other than the one.  What do you think?

Obviously I can't speak either for Stef of those men in her life, but I've
found this sort of behavior to be extremely common.  Often people are not
ready to be in a relationship again, but still feel the need to be
pursuing someone anyway, with the net result that the object of their
interest is being simultaneously pursued and held at arm's length.  
Alternatively, it may be that someone has a strong desire to be in a
relationship, yet is torn by equally strong fears about being in a 
relationship, with the same results.  This can be someone confusing for
the object of this person's affections, especially if he or she is doing
it in a 'yo-yo' fashion, alternately pulling closer and fleeing.  

This sort of relationship can be an added bonus of being a "nice guy/gal"
type--by appearing safe and reassuring, you'll have a greater tendency to
attract this sort of relationship and can then have endless hours posting
questions to the net along the lines of "do you thing he/she really likes
me?"

Trygve   (And now we're going to practice 'walk the dog.')
From: tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Thanks for 7 inches
Date: 17 Dec 92 07:05:08 GMT
Organization: JPT Computer Solutions
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Francois Souchay (souchay@CAM.ORG) wrote:
: In article <32@jptcs.COM> tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer) writes:
: >
: >Bah! I NEED snow... LOTSA SNOW.... I spent 8 years in the south and
: >suffered from severe withdrawl.. Now that I have another place in Maine,
: >we make sacrifices to the snow gods for lots of nice packing wet SNOW!
: >
: Careful with those Snow Gods, pal! Last time I sacrificed *anything*
: to them, we got 30 inches at Killington. Ah, a whole week of powder


No ... we all have to make a concerted effort to get snow in central
Maine by newyears... I have 5 days planned up there, and snowmobiles
aren't much fun without the snow part! :)
-- 
Tim Sailer
JPT Computer Solutions - SCO Sales/Consulting/Administration and Mangling
Port Jefferson Station, NY
(516) 331-9001
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: New Relationships...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:58:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.220240.25187@cbfsb.cb.att.com> kevinc@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (kevin.j.coulter) writes:
>
>However, I maintain that anyone worth having would respect someone's
>opinion of not wanting sex or wanting to wait until they were sure they
>were in love with this person. Without BOTH people wanting sex, it
>shouldn't happen. And people shouldn't let their partners put guilt
>trips on them if they don't have sex with them......  
>
>So in answer to your question, Sharon, the guy who dumped you wasn't
>worth having, and sex shouldn't be a major thing in a REAL relationship
>as far as I'm concerned.....
>

Its so nice to know there's someone out there who understands me.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
                                 doh#0000000005
================================================================================
Xref: sparky soc.singles:34218 soc.women:21592 soc.men:21338 misc.legal:21455