HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: oleg@netcom.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 09:40:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.160857.900@netcom.com> bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.090235.17949@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>>If you look below, then you will see your >>responses.  
>YOU'VE BEEN SAVING EVERYBODY'S RESPONSES????????
>That  is so  sad.

That is so expensive.  NETCOM charges for disk storage.  If David spent the
time and money he devotes to the NET on therapy, he'd find life much less
frightenning.

>Get a life.

Fuck life!  Or not.  Will life sign a pre-sex contract?
-- 
Oleg Kiselev at home			...use the header to find the path
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Beware of Smoke and Mirrors
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:49:44 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec11.213255.15457@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.175410.1559@fico.uucp> ala@fico.UUCP (Adryenn Ashley)
>remarks:
|>In article <1992Dec8.204001.12150@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux,
| just drieux) writes:
|
|>>I hate to tell you this, but RealWomen[tm] do NOT go to bars.
|>>Only Cheap Sleazy Hussys will be found any place that
|>>Demon Alcohol will be found!
|>
|>Not true.  Lots of real women go to bars, as long as there is 
|>something else going on beside drinking, like a band, dancing, 
|>or comedy.  So don't generalize.
|
|	Oh do get with it...  Learn how to interpret a post.
|
|	I'm a Woman and I go to bars just to imbibe in cheap, disgustingly
|sweet frothy drinks and pick up men.

Any specific bars you'd like to mention?

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: misplaced thread?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:30:55 GMT

] 
] Apologies to anyone I *did* infect - I was there
] for a while Friday night - but I'll admit that 
] most of it was a blur.  
] 

Was this a part of the tygerboink thread or the
pre_sex_contract thread?

ciao
drieux


ps: yes, feel safe to pause and think.....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Analysis Standards Supporting HeteroDyne Orthoganal Linear Enhancement Systems
ASSHOLES The Model of the Modern Major Manager's Mangement Tool! 
Posix Compliant, Xwindow InterOperable, A Unix Standard!
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Okay, what *is* that view? (was: Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:53:59 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <2450048@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>In ba.singles, desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
|
|  > I know from my own experience (and again, experience
|  > of many of my friends) that if I had my druthers, I'd probably not
|  > think of putting on a garterbelt and stockings or wearing high heels
|  > to bed -- I've done it (and will continue to do so) to keep my partner
|  > sexually pleased. 
|
|This brings up a question I have had for a long time:  Since men are 
|supposedly the ones who desire sex more than women, why is that that
|women are supposed to wear black lace undies and men feel free to wear
|the same jockey shorts they've been wearing since age 3?  Wouldn't it
|make more sense for them to dress up for the women?

What are you talking about?  I wear black lace undies all the time.  Are
you trying to tell me that *all* men don't wear black lace undies?  Is it
just me?

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 08:23:26 GMT

In article 961@leland.Stanford.EDU, richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:
>Judging from my admittedly outdated experience, doctors are reluctant to give
>vasectomies to men who have not had children, especially young men.  And, as
>noted, it may not be reversable.  Nor is it 100% reliable.  This doesn't make
>it a very good option for many young men.

Some doctors let their personal feelings get involved.  My sister told me 
about her husband wanting to get a vasectomy, but the doctor seemed to be
very reluctant.  No real explaination why -- they have two teenaged kids and
no interest in having more.  The doctor seemed to be worried that they 
might separate and that my brother-in-law might want to get married again 
and have kids with the new wife.  Seemed a little hypothetical to me; maybe
the doctor was thinking of leaving his wife.


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141

From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:14:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Okay, what *is* that view? (was: Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: ba.singles

In ba.singles, desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:

  > I know from my own experience (and again, experience
  > of many of my friends) that if I had my druthers, I'd probably not
  > think of putting on a garterbelt and stockings or wearing high heels
  > to bed -- I've done it (and will continue to do so) to keep my partner
  > sexually pleased. 

This brings up a question I have had for a long time:  Since men are 
supposedly the ones who desire sex more than women, why is that that
women are supposed to wear black lace undies and men feel free to wear
the same jockey shorts they've been wearing since age 3?  Wouldn't it
make more sense for them to dress up for the women?
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne)
Subject: Re: Beware of Smoke and Mirrors
Summary: Oh do grasp it ...
Organization: Dr. Pepper bottlers
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:32:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.175410.1559@fico.uucp> ala@fico.UUCP (Adryenn Ashley)
remarks:
>In article <1992Dec8.204001.12150@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux,
 just drieux) writes:

>>I hate to tell you this, but RealWomen[tm] do NOT go to bars.
>>Only Cheap Sleazy Hussys will be found any place that
>>Demon Alcohol will be found!
>
>Not true.  Lots of real women go to bars, as long as there is 
>something else going on beside drinking, like a band, dancing, 
>or comedy.  So don't generalize.

	Oh do get with it...  Learn how to interpret a post.

	I'm a Woman and I go to bars just to imbibe in cheap, disgustingly
sweet frothy drinks and pick up men.  Why else does one go in the first
place?  Any other "reason" is just a beard.

Desiree
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: The TygerBoink Committee would like to thank you
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:52:47 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher

erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp) writes:

] merblich@imola.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
] 
] >>I guess I'm the only one who didn't catch a cold at the TygerBoink 
] 
] >Well that makes two of us.  Maybe we are doing something right or should it be WRONG?
] 
] Well, I kissed all the appropriate females -- I think.  Or were there some I
] missed?  Oh, yes, I did!  Libby, for one, and that redheaded physics female
] (I've forgotten her name, unfortunately).  I'll get 'em next time, I guess --
] *Then* maybe I'll get what I deserve.  <wink>

That may be because those of us who were REALLY
contagious had high enough fevers that we decided
trying to remain vertical for any significant 
length of time was not a viable alternative.

Apologies to anyone I *did* infect - I was there
for a while Friday night - but I'll admit that 
most of it was a blur.  

All it means is that we HAVE to have another
boink REAL soon - to test the theory of whether
there's a correlation between boinks and rain/flu,
and to give those of us who were sick this time
a chance to meet everyone!

Diana
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Okay, what *is* that view? (was: Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:17:40 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <2450048@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>In ba.singles, desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
>  > I know from my own experience (and again, experience
>  > of many of my friends) that if I had my druthers, I'd probably not
>  > think of putting on a garterbelt and stockings or wearing high heels
>  > to bed -- I've done it (and will continue to do so) to keep my partner
>  > sexually pleased. 
>
>This brings up a question I have had for a long time:  Since men are 
>supposedly the ones who desire sex more than women, why is that that
>women are supposed to wear black lace undies and men feel free to wear
>the same jockey shorts they've been wearing since age 3?  Wouldn't it
>make more sense for them to dress up for the women?

	Well, yeah, it would make more sense, but what has _sense_ to do
with _sex_? I think Camille Paglia's right when she says men's sexuality
is more fetishistic than women's. Men are more inclined to respond to
special cues, like black lace undies.

	Throw them jockey shorts away when he ain't looking, Vicky, and
tell him to sleep naked, like decent people!

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 14:02:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.201811.16183@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec18.212743.19227@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >	No, I don't want a meal ticket.  Gave that up when I graduated
|> >from grammer school and moved onto 7th grade. If I make a mistake in life, |> >I'm a Big Kid and I handle
|> >it.  I don't run away from my responsibilities whining and crying to
|>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >MommyGovernment.  
|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> That's exactly what a lot of so-called "women" do, though. It's become a 
|> convenient crutch. A hiding place from the real world. A backslide to the 
|> times of Sugar Daddies and the Helpless Dependent Little Girls that rely upon
|> them. That's why there's a desperate need for paternity child reform. 
|> Time to move into the nineties and on into the next millenium.

|> >	I don't worry about getting knocked up.  I don't worry about
|> >having a man leave me if that happened.  
|> 
|> Then why do you defend the paternity child support statutes? They're nothing
|> nothing more than a Security Blanket and a Care Bear for weak "women" who DO
|> worry about getting knocked up and left by a man, n'est-ce pas?

|> >	 The world is not divided into a large game lot.  This is not a
|> >	win/win or win/lose proposition.
|> 
|> True. It's a fixed game where the man always loses. Time for a new deal.

I think you've left out a rather significant part of the whole equation. It's
called "child support", right?  That's because there's a kid involved! All I've
heard you say is that the man is getting screwed right now, and we need to stop
that.  OK, so how are you going to do that?  If you stop enforcing child support
laws, you get stuck with two choices. Either the tax payers pay, or the kid
starves. Great! Nice solution you have there!

Now I have no doubt that there are abuses on both sides of the Mom-Dad fence
with respect to child support. Nevertheless, the intent of these laws is to
ensure that the kid gets his meals paid for, etc. To even discuss the issue
of who is getting shafted and what to do about it without even mentioning
the welfare of the party who is the reason we can even have this argument is
pretty foolish.

jds

***************************************************************************
                               * Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith                     * Passion and poems and sex
smith@fl08-g.comm.mot.com      * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
                               * I won't shut my mouth for less.
                                                - shriekback
***************************************************************************
 
Xref: sparky ba.singles:2761 soc.singles:34473
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Newsgroups: ba.singles,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:48:00 GMT
Organization: The Tickle Palace - Moonyvale, CA

In article <1992Dec11.224916.16773@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:
>In article 19811@netcom.com, rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>>     That is a double standard.  The woman has state-mandated responsibility
>>only to herself.  The man has state-mandated responsibility to the woman and
>>child.  Therefore, the woman has state-mandated power over that man.
>
>This is one of the most garbled ideas I've ever heard.  You don't believe that
>the woman has responsibility for the child?  And where do you get the idea that
>the man has any legal responsibility for the woman, unless they are married?
>
>This is nonsense.
>

     I agree.  I screwed up.

-- 
"Blind faith in your leaders or anything will get you killed." B. Springsteen
                                         +---------------------------------+
  +-----------------------------------+ /  On Vacation:  12/21 to 12/27   /
 /   // Mr. Tickle Monster   // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
|  \X/   W. David Rohwer   \X/  3000  /  Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM  /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
From: merblich@imola.EBay.Sun.COM (Mitchell Erblich user)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: The TygerBoink Committee would like to thank you
Date: 15 Dec 1992 00:16:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: merblich@imola.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: imola.ebay.sun.com


>I guess I'm the only one who didn't catch a cold at the TygerBoink 


Well that makes two of us.  Maybe we are doing something right or should it be WRONG?

Mitchell Erblich
@Sun
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: ala@fico.uucp
Subject: Re: Oh, I forgot... (was: Re:  we can kill...)
Reply-To: ala@fico.UUCP (Adryenn Ashley)
Organization: The Fair, Isaac Companies, San Rafael, California
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:30:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.030056.7519@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <71837@cup.portal.com> DeadHead@cup.portal.com (Bruce M Ong) writes:
>>	Gawd. Being a canonist snob just doesnt pay.  :-)
>
>	It does if your canon is big enough.
>
>						Kayembee :-)
And is it BIG enough?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Adryenn Ashley              |  A mind once stretched by a new idea never
     fico!fico0!ala@apple.com    |  regains its original dimension.
                                 |  -Oliver Wendell Holmes
     Fair, Isaac Companies       +---------------------------------------------
     120 N. Redwood Blvd         |  My opinions are my own (including the
     San Rafael, CA  94903       |  typos), and do not reflect those of FICO.
                                 |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: grismore@adobe.com (Doug Grismore)
Subject: At least it provoked conversation...
Followup-To: ba.singles
Organization: Adobe Systems
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:36:21 GMT

...but it's a good thing it's a dead thread...

Except for one thing.  I would have to say that I totally buy the "she goes
thru all the pain, he pays *all* the bills" rule.  I've been present for a
couple childbirths (none my own) as a breather and would have to say that
that pain (and the nine months of "discomfort" beforehand) are something I
would be willing to pay any price to avoid.  I'm sure there is some
psychological (and very possibly physical) upside to pregnancy, but at
least thru my experience (are I admit I can't "experience" it) it looks
like it HURTS!

So, if Ms. Right (as opposed to Ms. RightNow) shows up, it'll be no
questions asked.  Whatever she needs or wants will be no problem - before,
during, or after a wanted or UNwanted pregnancy.  Period.

(I guess I shouldn't say as opposed to Ms. RightNow, I can't find her
either)

                           --- Doug Grismore ---
--- grismore@adobe.com ---         --- original thoughts, not my employer's
--- 
     --- "are we all out of Powdered Toast (TM) again, Stimpy?" - Ren --- 
Xref: sparky ba.singles:2613 soc.singles:33866 alt.romance.chat:21877 alt.romance:15222 alt.personals:24329
From: erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: ba.singles,soc.singles,alt.romance.chat,alt.romance,alt.personals
Subject: Re: The TygerBoink Committee would like to thank you
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:50:09 GMT
Followup-To: ba.singles
Organization: Bleeding Edge Technologies - 'Sliding Down The Razor Blade Of Life...'

I guess I'm the only one who didn't catch a cold at the TygerBoink ... even
though someone whose name shall go unmentioned gave me a *great* opportunity
to catch one (but thank you for the opportunity!)... :)

I guess I have a strong immune system, so don't be afraid to kiss me at the
next Boink... :) :)
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG                    erc@apple.com                   801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: oleg@netcom.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:21:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.212743.19227@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
>Now you can resume playing with yourself...

Only if his hand signs the contract!
-- 
Oleg Kiselev at home			...use the header to find the path
From: prem@prem.lbl.gov (xyz)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Any good singles hang-outs in Berkeley ??
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:22:45 GMT
Organization: Human Genome Center at LBL
Distribution: world
Reply-To: prem@prem.lbl.gov (xyz)
NNTP-Posting-Host: prem.lbl.gov


	Hi there,

		I am relatively new to Berkeley, and would appreciate pointers
	to any good singles joints around here. I am sure there are plenty!

	I am a 25 year old straight chap, so what would be the best places to
	spend Friday evenings ?? While expense is not a major concern, it does
	take the fun out if you know you will be a 150 bucks poorer at the
	end of the evening... so if you know something appropriate, please
	post to soc.singles or e-mail to SRPrem@lbl.gov.

	Thanx in advance. folks!

	Prem!

	ps. No "rap" places, thank you.
Xref: sparky ba.singles:2722 soc.singles:34328
From: smith@wesson.Eng.Sun.COM (Nina S. Smith - SunSoft Product Marketing)
Newsgroups: ba.singles,soc.singles
Subject: Directions to Fogg's (Was Re: Beer . . . hic!)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:46:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: smith@wesson.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: wesson


'kay . . . for those of you planning to be there Saturday
night, Fogg's is at 303 Bryant in Mountain View.

Regardless of whether you're coming from 101 North or South,
take the Shoreline Blvd exit, turn right onto Shoreline at 
the light.  Keep going straight for about 5 or 6 lites then 
make a left onto California.  Make another left onto Bryant.  
Fogg's is on the right-hand side of Bryant (corner of Bryant
and Dana).
	        
-- Nina

In article lj24a1INNh89@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM, smith@wesson.Eng.Sun.COM (Nina S. Smith - SunSoft Product Marketing) writes:
>
>Andreas Tovornik (dreas) will be in town soon and I wondered 
>if there are any of you out there who want to get together for 
>a beer or two or three . . . hic!  We can tell him how much fun 
>it was!  :) . . . just kidding!
>
>There's this really cool place in downtown Mountain View that
>opened up a little over a month ago called "Fogg's".  They have 
>80 different bottled beer labels from around the world as well 
>as a bunch of others on tap.  They've got dart boards, 4 television
>screens, jukebox music and Saturday nights, a really cool blues 
>band performs there.
>
>Hey ladies!  Let's show these guys we're not cheap, sleazy hussies,
>see how many of them will spring for a beer without making us pay 
>for half of it and rip up their pre-sex contracts.  Guys!  We pro-
>mise . . . no cats, no gold-diggers and don't expect a kiss on the 
>cheek.    
>
>Send me email before the end of the day Friday if you plan to be 
>there or just show up Saturday 6:00 p.m. onwards.  I'll be the one 
>holding up the bar or kicking John Fereira's butt at (with?) darts.
>
>-- Nina
>
From: erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: The TygerBoink Committee would like to thank you
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:35:17 GMT
Organization: Bleeding Edge Technologies - 'Sliding Down The Razor Blade Of Life...'

In article <1gj84qINNmfh@male.EBay.Sun.COM> merblich@imola.EBay.Sun.COM writes:

>>I guess I'm the only one who didn't catch a cold at the TygerBoink 

>Well that makes two of us.  Maybe we are doing something right or should it be WRONG?

Well, I kissed all the appropriate females -- I think.  Or were there some I
missed?  Oh, yes, I did!  Libby, for one, and that redheaded physics female
(I've forgotten her name, unfortunately).  I'll get 'em next time, I guess --
*Then* maybe I'll get what I deserve.  <wink>
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG                    erc@apple.com                   801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Newsgroups: ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men
From: kyle@Ingres.COM (Kyle Smith)
Subject: Re: Vasectomies (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Reply-To: kyle@Ingres.COM (Kyle Smith)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:25:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.183400.4327@island.COM> don@island.COM (Don Hermes) writes:
>All this debate about a pre sex contract has made me start to consider 
>a vasectomy. I'm 35, already have one kid, and don't have anyone who 
>I would want to have another with. My only real concern is that
>if I do have one and I change my mind, is it reversable ?
	In about 1/3 of the cases the operation to reverse the vasectomy
	is successful.
>Can anyone out there discribe the experiance ?
>Don
>don@island.com


--
*****	Kyle E. Smith  ********************************************************
*****	Ingres Tech Support Server Dude  **************************************
*****	510.748.2431  *********************************************************
*****	kyle@ingres.com  ******************************************************