HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:39:46 GMT
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: too funky
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu

In article <3557@eastman.UUCP> garrison@kodak.com (Laurie Garrison) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.194514.18029@cs.ucla.edu>, gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>> Well, it's not a salary in a formal sense, but the woman is gaining
>> access to a higher and more flexible standard of living.
>well, i *have* to put in my knee-jerk response to this remark--
>"the woman is gaining access..."  the WOMAN????  even if the woman
>makes less money that the man, he will still enjoy a higher standard
>of living that will come from a two income household.
>besides the obvious, she *could* make more than he does :)

I think this example more clearly illustrates what I was trying to
explain.  It pertains to ANY couple, not just male-female.

A is wealthy with successful companies that are recession-proof.
There is no reason to think A will require any additional income
beside what they're already making, in order to run their businesses
and support themself.

B has children and is working two jobs at minimum wage.  B has no time
to go to school to learn skills that would lead to better paying jobs,
because B's time is fully allocated to working and taking care of
children.

A marries B (or they agree to live together, or whatever).

In this case, A doesn't enjoy a significant increase in their standard
of living.  Any income B brings in from B's jobs is negligible compared
to A's earnings.  It's more cost-effective for B to quit the two
minimum wage jobs and do something else.  (That something might be
running some of A's companies.)  However if it were not for
involvement with A, B would never have been able to achieve a higher
standard of living.  Perhaps combined, A and B can become even more
wealthy, but recall I explained above that A is already wealthy enough
that bringing in more money doesn't really matter.

>isn't that the point? i mean, that's why people get married in the first
>place usually.  if A doesn't improve your quality of life (and
>i don't mean financial life) why bother?

Unfortunately, some people get married to improve the quality of their
financial lives.  You've heard the old saying "It's just as easy to
marry a rich man as a poor one."  (Substitute genders as appropriate
and the statement is true, at least to the people who believe in
"marrying up.")

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough)
Subject: Re: Perfect mate?! : -)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 05:54:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <ewillims.713619072@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>
>>> 	6 inches too short for what? 
>>> 	What, may I ask, is wrong with being petite?
>
>>> 	Emma (who is 5'3" and whose past SO's have always been over 6'
>>> 	      and which has NEVER been a problem!)
>
>>You ask what's wrong, when you specify that all your SO's have been
>>6 feet plus?  Seems to me like it's a personal preference kind of
>>thing... statistically speaking, 6' is taller than average, so if you
>>were totally ignoring height, you should have had at least one shorter.  :)
>>(this is, of course, assuming your sample space consists of more than
>>one person.)
>
>	I only specified that to show that it didn't make any difference
>height ratio wise to any of my relationships. Actually I would have gone
>out with any guy I found attractive and who felt the same way about me.
>It just is a co-incidence that all the guys who fit the bill were that 
>tall. There were a lot of tall guys where I was living...
 
Well, there are advantages, which I shall leave to your imagination,
to height parity. Or, for that matter, to reversal of traditional
altitude roles.
 
Greg <who's 5'2" & change, and whose SOs have ranged from 5'-nought
      to 5'9">
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Keywords: Newsgroup?
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:19:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <Bsw49q.G27@acsu.buffalo.edu> swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:
|In article <1992Aug12.201935.29863@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug12.132111.26642@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com> puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude) writes:
|>>
|>>Can you say....   Alt.Romance.Chat in Soc.Singles?   I knew you could!
|>
|> Ok pooperdude, alt.romance.chat, indeed. Allow me to show you the
|>subtle difference:
|>
|>S.S.(Or am I not allowed to talk to you, james?)
|>a.r.c.(james may we converse of the moon the stars, the sun. Your eyes
|>are like limpid pools of blue saphire. Converse?)
|[...]
|
|Thanks, James.  Now I've spat coffee all over my monitor.  Thanks a bunch.
|

You think you've got problems.  I read his SENSITIVE words, tears starting
welling up, I started crying uncontrollably, now it looks like I wet my
pants, and I've got a staff meeting to go to in two minutes.  


-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Psychobabble
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 01:48:27 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Aug14.075031.3442@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <hx3m44h.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.013442.15324@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
>>Could you love an automaton? No matter
>>its behavior, if you _knew_ it wasn't self-aware, that there was
>>no one home in there, could you love it, love it like a person loves
>>a person, and not like one may love a fine car?
>
>Due to my instinctive needs, probably not.
>
>Now, if I had a "Stepford wife" that I didn't know and *couldn't* know
>was not human, and it passed every conceivable test of self-awareness and
>of other things one might devise to determine humanity, *then* I wouldn't
>have any problem loving her/it, because I would have no reason to
>believe that she/it wasn't human, and much reason to believe that she/it
>was.
>
>In short, I can only go by what I see.

Yes, but what if you *knew* that she wasn't human, yet you couldn't
*prove* it because she passed every test you could devise?  Wouldn't you
go crazy? ;-)
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: carl@vaxr.sscl.uwo.ca (Carl Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Organization: Soc.Sci.Comp.Lab., U.West.Ont.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:12:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.170326.29319@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> In  <1992Aug19.100202.4598@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>  ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels) writes:
>>
>> There are very few foods that cannot be improved by the addition of
>>      - more chocolate
>>      - more garlic
>> or     - more cheese
> 
> Chocolate-garlic-cheesecake anyone?

I know from personal experience that chocolate and garlic go together well,
I don't know how it would work with cheese.

Carl
*****************************************************************************
* See how the heart reaches *  Carl Kaufmann   * No one has to do anything, *
* out instinctively, for no * Soc.Sci.Comp.Lab * except bear consequences.  *
* reason but to touch.      *    U.West.Ont    *                            *
*       -Kate Bush          * carl@sscl.uwo.ca *       -Me                  *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:34:43 GMT

In article <Bt5Hzw.KB4@vcd.hp.com> johne@vcd.hp.com (John Eaton) writes:
>--------------------------------
>The problem is that divorce courts have never required a woman to continue
>to provide steady sex past the end of a marriage but they routinely require
>a man to continue with financial support. A man is held to his commitments
>even after a breakup while a woman can have all hers absolved.

Excuse me for jumping in here ...... I am speaking only as an observer, of
course, since I've been married but had no children.  BUT, how can you say
that a *man* is held to his commitments after a breakup but the *woman*
has hers absolved?!?!?  Who is taking care of the children?  Who has the
day-to-day commitment to see that these kids are clean and to school on
time with lunches?  Who takes care of them when they're sick?  Who makes
sure they do their homework?  Who ferries them to soccer practice and
football on the weekends?  Good lord, man!  I don't see how you can
intimate that generic women get off from her commitments!  It seems to me
that the women get *double* the commitment.

>Pass a law stating that in a divorce the man shall get the house and kids
>while the woman gets the bills and must pay half her salary in alimony.

Uh huh ... don't you mean child support?  I know some men who *have*
chosen that option - even some that post here, I think.  I dated a man for
a while who had done just that, and  his ex-wife paid support. I think it
is SO unfair for you to suggest that the man -- the *poor* man -- must
leave his happy home while continuing to pay for everything while the woman
*gets* the house and the kids and all the responsibilities that come with that
and *SHE's* the lucky one.  

>You would suddenly find a lot of women turning into committmentphobics.

Suuuuuure.

>I know a bad deal when I see one.

*snort*  I guess it's just a thing with me ... I just can't understand why
the stereotypical deal is that men complain about the divorce settlement,
when there are so many women out there holding down jobs and keeping
households together with the guys living a relatively carefree life.  Oh
sure sure they come and get the kids once a week *maybe* and sure they pay
support, but what's the option guys?  *YOU* take the kids?  You're the
ones who decided to have these children and the responsibility doesn't
just go away because you don't like their mother any more.  

Angelwing - *NOT* a single mother and thanking my luck stars

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 04:40:28 GMT

In article <kiran.714124765@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
|> If your emotions are so easily tractable, perhaps you should explain
|> your sectret, since so many people seem to have little choice about
|> what makes them feel happy and unhappy.  ...They just seem to have so
|> little control over those pesky emotions.

Emotions are based on beliefs.  If you have something happen and you believe
that it is a good thing, you will be happy about it.  If you believe it is a
bad thing, you will be sad or angry about it.

People who have a basic faith in life, that things happen for the good, tend to
be happy.  People who believe that life is no good, tend to be unhappy.

In most cases, you choose to believe that an event is good or bad because of
past experiences or how it relates to something important to you or because you
think it will lead to something else that is important to you.

If you want to explore your emotions, just pretend you're a two-year old. 
Every time you get an answer, ask "Why?".  Pretty soon you'll end up at a core
belief.  Those core beliefs are why you have the pesky emotions.  If you are
willing to change your beliefs, you can have control over your emotions.  If
you aren't willing to change, get use to being on an emotional rollercoaster.


--Rich Wingerter
From: jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Married Men and Single Women
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:41:16 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>I have found that men tend to be rather reluctant to talk  with  other
>men  about their sexual escapades.  The male locker room boasting that
>we all hear about in feminist tracts seems to me to be largely a myth.
>As  a teenager, I can't remember ever hearing a single conversation in
>which a kid boasted about boffing his girlfriend.
[...]
>Comments?

Except regarding wives, and girlfriends of "long" standing (i.e. > 1 month,
mileage varies), I've found quite the reverse. I expect - and give - a full
play-by-play account of the activities when I speak with my friends.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Aloysius McVeigh | "...a contradictory, agonized, elusive, defiant,
jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu  |  childishly egotistical, sometimes plain silly,
       --------         |  sometimes repellent and sometimes dazzling and
      "N.I.N.A."        |               admirable figure...."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Hunk)
Subject: Re: Flying lust attacks (was: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...)
Keywords: Lime pie 
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:36:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.193731.29984@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <ewillims.713617651@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>
>>	What was that you said Trygve about a "flying lust attack"?
>>(*laughter*) This is a 24 hour virus..? :>
>
>Nope, it's actually a convenient form of healthy exercise--you just locate
>your victim, sneak up close but not so close that you don't have enough
>space to build up adequate momentum, and then--without warning--attack! 

You're giving her ideas!  Now I'm going to end up having to look behind my
back regularily.  Because you never know when someone will spring out from
your bedroom closet in a flying lust attack.
From: kgorman@star-trek.bbn.com (Karen Gorman)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: 19 Aug 1992 13:15:55 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: kgorman@BBN.COM (Karen Gorman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com

In article <thurlow.714191780@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>
>Okay - what are the odds that someone will deep-throat a banana when
>I'm up in Boston next time? :-)

Seeing I am a native Bostonian, and already have a pickle up my ass (words
according to Dawn about a month back), I think the deep-throat banana
odds/honor should go to Dawn. ;-)  

She already had a free demonstration of this at the Boink with No Name,
so that should make her a pro!

All in favor.....


Karen
kg@bbn.com
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Romance
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:51:34 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <ksBsPB2w165w@wildrose.infoserv.com> rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
|neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
|
|> A lot of women take offence at gifts, as if you were trying to buy them.
|> Flowers 'n' chocs yes, portable CD player (unless you know the person well
|> and know they won't take offence) looks like a down-payment on some nookie.
|                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
|A down-payment, eh?  Things are different on this side of the pond.
|
|No Money Down On Approved Credit!   90 Days Same As Cash!

I just put it on my "Diners Club" card.

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:50:02 GMT

drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
 
>So why don't they go for the guys who make less? While some do I think it 
>is still less likely that a woman will want a long term
>relationship with a guy who makes less money than she does than it is for a
>guy to want a long term relationship with a woman who's earning power is
>less than his.
 
>I think the reasons for this are multiple. Anyone care to speculate?
 
No.

-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 00:18:06 GMT

In article <kiran.714478715@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:

[much about emotions, all of which I basically agree with, deleted]

While I agree with what you've said, I think you missed my point, which
is that my emotions don't tell me *anything* about the outside world
that I don't already know.  And that makes them singularly useless to
me for the purposes of figuring out what's going on around me.

>Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083                  (812) 335-0420


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: too funky
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:29:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.200736.14120@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson) writes:
>Some of us
>(at least Marcia and I) find that phase of a possible relationship
>exciting, and a lot of the excitement comes from the ambiguity of
>the situation--the not knowing and wondering what's going to happen
>next.

Upon thinking about this a bit, it seems you and Marcia are using the
word "ambiguity" differently than I am.  This is how I see it:

Word: ambiguous
Cross references:
  1. obscure

am.big.u.ous \am-'big-y*-w*s\ aj [L ambiguus, fr. ambigere to wander
about, fr. ambi- + age]re to drive - more at AGENT 1: doubtful or
uncertain esp. from obscurity or indistinctness; also  : INEXPLICABLE
2: capable of being understood in two or more possible senses :
EQUIVOCAL - am.big.u.ous.ly av

From what you've written it sounds like you like the "newness" of a
relationship where you are just discovering things about your
partner(s).  This is different than being uncertain about what is
going on in the relationship, which is what I was referring to.

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Boston Boink
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:44:14 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 <3677@cvbnetPrime.COM> bmeyer@feds12.prime.com (Robert A Meyer x2557 14-13) writes:

>In article <1992Aug4.231426.27155@panix.com> Paul Wallach writes:
>>Meanwhile the lovely and talented Dawn (be still my beating heart)
>>is making noises about a Baby Boink in Boston. With initials like
>>that, how can it lose?

>   How about the weekend of Sept. 12-13, just to get the ball rolling? 
>   Anyone interested in helping to plan it send email, we'll announce 
>   the details when the arrangements have been made.

One vote, strongly in favor!  I will even be in town on business
starting on Sept. 9th.  It must be pre-destined :-)

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
The sun is gonna shine again / We're gonna make it 'round that bend
I'll walk another mile with you, 'cause you're my friend
The sun is gonna shine again.			- Graham Parker
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: allisson@turing.toronto.edu (Allisson Roome)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Some and growing
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:29:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.223141.18316@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.175818.28310@panix.com> pw@panix.com 
(Paul Wallich) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.233624.8543@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
>>
>>>By the way, my PYM is now pretty much an ex-PYM!  I kind of dumped him
>>>two weeks ago, and it's turning into a not-so-kind-of.  And kudos to
>>>Paul, for identifying him publicly at the Boink, and thoroughly
>>>embarrassing me!!
>>
Well, dear, it was sort of obvious ...

>>paul     wondering why El has suddenly decided to tell the good stuff
>>         from the Boink that the rest of us had promised to keep secret

You mean you're going to tell about you and I alone in your bedroom
for a good 15-20 minutes? And Josephine sitting adoringly on Paul for
quite awhile? (I have pictures)? (Paul - you wanted slander and
innuendo).

>What do you mean, tell the good stuff?  I haven't even mentioned the
>smooch Jeff got in the kitchen.  Or the unmentionable (and unidentifiable
>at this point--I took care of the evidence) substances ground into
>the blankets on the grass.  Or the...oops...I just told, didn't I?
><Hang head in shame, peer furtively over shoulder to see if anyone
>was listening--whew!  got away with it!!>
>
No fair!! You promised you wouldn't bring that up again after I
apologized profusely and everything ....

Allisson
-- 
allisson@turing.toronto.edu (new address) H. Allisson Roome
"Everything that you teach you are learning. Teach only love, and
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:21:24 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.195216.8526@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
|For example, even if they
|didn't know you, they'd walk up to you and give you a backrub, without
|asking first if it was ok.

Really.  The guy must have been a real lech.  I bet he had women sitting
in his lap too.

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Oh, no! Statistics! Run!! :-)
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:34:50 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

So which of you statistics-advocates have used statistics to get into what
you considered a successful relationship? And in what way did you use
statistics to accomplish this? Did anything other than statistics figure in?

--
Stef                 After many years of study, scientists have determined  
stef@apple.com       that dogs bark "just for the hell of it." -- Smithsonian