HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Alt.romance- the >nice< people
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:17:01 GMT
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA's message of 8 Dec 92 23:23:34 GMT


In article <1992Dec8.232334.28533@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Sharkey's Night) writes:

   Thank you, Sir James. 

   I was ready to flame these guys, but then I saw your name on the
   same subject. What a man finds attractive is his business, be it of a
   sexual or aesthetic nature.

   I will not stand by idly and witness such senseless arguments about two guys
   attempting to cram their respective tired ideas down each-other's throats.

   Who or what I find attractive is my business. If somebody comes along and
   tell's me that I'm wrong for my opinions or tastes, then he has so little 
   respect for his own opinions that he MUST convince the whole world about his
   ideas in order to conform.

   I am and will remain an individual with my own ideas & opinions. These are
   worth no more nor less than anyone else's. The minute some DinkerTwinkIdiot
   comes along claiming that his ideas & tastes are more valid than mine, I'll
   just shut up & walk away. There is no sense in making love to dead fish,
   because all you get is a stinking appendage.

And thank you, dreas and james , for being an interruption in the flow
of rhetoric.

Please check out my last and final (really) post on the subject.  It
is a departure...

I was beginning to feel a little sucked in to that little war between
myself and jason.  I guess I got a little overly attached and self
righteous about the point concerning possible sexist attitude of the
original poster.

It was not my intention to imply that anyone should be allowed to tell
anyone else who or what to find attractive.  Everyone has to live
their own life, and come to their own decisions about to whom they are
attracted.  Just don't come trying to _convince_ me that there is some
fairer or god-blessed gender, race, creed, or hair color.  I do not,
and will not buy it.


Spidey!!!


--
You don't hunt ducks with a turnip! 

 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
From: cjp8b@dayhoff.med.Virginia.EDU (Chris Penington)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Vasectomies (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:55:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <thurlow.724878565@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>In <1992Dec20.050202.27709@mtu.edu> bacon@mtu.edu (Jeff Bacon) writes:
>
>>In article <thurlow.724807100@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>>>It's not like you'll start excreting tomato juice after a vasectomy.
>
>>well hey, some women might find it tastier, right? :)
>>certainly more nutritious...
>
>Wouldn't a little sage with the stuffing work just as well?  We're all
>trying to "eat light" these days, anyway :-)

I guess how well it works depends on how you prepare the sage and how
heavy his/her philosphy is. :)

	Chris

-- 
Chris Penington (cjp8b@virginia.edu)   
Biochemistry Dept., Box 440             I'm not really a physical biochemist
UVa Health Sciences Ctr,                     but I play one in the lab... 
Charlottesville, Va 22908   (804)924-8210
From: mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor)
Subject: Re: sexual addiction
Keywords: inappropriate,postings,belong,elsewhere
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:53:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.215304.3228@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

>	The fascinating thing about sex is that it falls somewhere
>between being pure behavior and pure function.

The fascinating thing about sexual addiction is that it *CAN* have very
little to do with sex.


--
              For flavor, instant sex will never supercede 
              the stuff you have to peel and cook. 
                                  -- Quentin Crisp
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Height Differences, etc.
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:43:45 GMT

In article 107899@watson.ibm.com, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In <15869@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.072004.148969@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <15837@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>>|>As I said before, when this topic last came up, I think that dating someone
>>|>that exactly the same height is the ideal.  For one thing, you can both
>>|>stand flatfooted and you'll find that your lips fit.  Access to other
>>|>strategic parts is also much easier.
>>|
>>|I've found that in bed, height differences don't generally matter...
>>
>>I suppose if you`re going to limit those sort of activities to a bed it
>>doesn't generally matter.
>
>Substitute any location where you're both horizontal.  In fact, it's just about
>*only* when you're both standing flatfooted that height matters.

Tall POLICE WOMEN. Now there's a thought! </.)
But seriously folks, what do y'all think stairways are for, eh?

dreas






Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor)
Subject: Re: Bad Timing
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:02:47 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Dec11220914@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>considered perfectly normal behavior, so long as the passionate person
>is young and (preferably) female.  Drinking to excess is considered
>perfectly normal behavior so long as you're male and doing it at night
>on an expense account in Japan.  Shopaholics are doing a perfectly
>normal part of their day to day life, as are workaholics.

Charlie, I don't disagree there are people who can have an addiction
and carry on with their lives.  I've known some pretty productive
alcoholics. There are varying degrees of everything, just as there
are differences among people and their abilities to handle things.


>The problem isn't the sex, or the alcohol, or the shopping -- it's some
>kind of problem with how the addict *deals* with these things.

But, this I do disagree with.  I have agreed that there is some 
underlying cause and the addiction is a symptom.  However, I disagree
that the addiction is of itself not a problem.

For many, the addiction IS a big part of how they deal with things.

A woman who has repeatedly gotten into bad and abusive relationships
and stayed because she just couldn't bear to leave, has a serious
and potentially violent problem.

A man who has several THOUSAND dollars worth of porn and will
spend money on this rather than pay his bills, has a problem.

A priest who has a $500/wk.  prostitution habit and has to steal
money from the church to support this habit, has a problem. 

Someone who goes from anonymous lover to anonymous lover has a
serious and potentially deadly problem.

It's not the sex, it's the endorphins.  It's looking for Mr. Goodbar.
--
              For flavor, instant sex will never supercede 
              the stuff you have to peel and cook. 
                                  -- Quentin Crisp
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:48:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.212122.17026@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet) writes:

>
>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...  

Heh! Funny, I do just the opposite. If I want to see them again, I feel
comfortable letting them pay for the first date because I know that when I
ask them for that second date I'll pick up the cost. Guys I don't
necessarily want to see again are the ones I don't want to feel any
obligation towards so the books are balanced immediately. 


Max
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:15:05 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 <2b2f8fc6-28d5.16soc.singles-1@vpnet.chi.il.us> akcs.lilmurph@vpnet.chi.il.us (Kerry Lynn Murphy) writes:

>is this as interesting as the singles can get!!!!  I'm glad I have a
>boyfriend!!

By all means don't let the door hit you on the ass as you leave.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
"Sometimes it feels like the sun just comes up out of habit,
 And goes down as quick as it can,
 These days, you just have to grab it as it goes by."
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Stoke Dat Pizza Oven
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:13:10 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec13.033039.28911@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>In article <MARTINC.92Dec12161856@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec12.090324.9958@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
|>
|>  >In article <1992Dec11.032838.25983@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
|>  >>>>[deleted]
|>  >>>>		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
|>  >>>[deleted] 
|>  >>>               Sesquipedalian
|>  >>[deleted]
|>  >
|>  >[deleted]
|>
|>My, that was certainly enlightening.
|>
|
|     Inside joke.
 
All the more reason to post it to the net I suppose.


-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Truth
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:53:46 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e 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 <1gkifaINN5sp@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> rainbow@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jennifer Lynn Hammond) writes:
>Isn't it strange. If you follow the artificial teachings of religions

I've always thought so.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Over 40 and single....Anyone that "OLD"?
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:12:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

Louise Billi writes:
>
>Over 40 (just a tad) women have a terrible time of it.
>Men in that age group are all looking for the young "Tenderoni"
>to make him feel like a kid again.  Can't men realize that 
>most younger women see them as either a "Father Figure" or
>a "Sugar Daddy"?  Is that what they really want in a mate?
>
>And it is sad today that wrinkles on a woman mean she is OLD, 
>yet on a man, they add character.  This 'youth oriented' 
>culture leaves the over 40 woman out in the cold.
>********************************************************************

Louise,
Wherein is it written that an over-40 woman must set her sights on
over-40 men only?  If you keep your eyes open, you just might find
that there are younger men about who may find you attractive.

Keith R
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Unlurking Alert
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:03:09 GMT

In article <101626@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
> 
> So I stopped living in exotic locales, quit my job at the magazine, and
> became a part-time secretary (while working on a novel, but who had to
> know?).  Lo and behold, I got dates!  I even got deeply involved!  Once I
> got involved, of course, I ditched the secretary job and became a university
> development and speech writer.  Too late for him; he was already in love
> with me; what could he do?
> 
> ;-)
>  
> 
Pretty Sneaky Lauren.

Larry
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Size 8? (Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men)
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:40:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <7895@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>				--Diamond

Hey Diamond, Have a nice day!	[Go Dook!]
-Keith
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:48:50 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:

}In article <15965@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
}>If you get a Christmas present from someone this year will you offer to
}>contribute to the cost of the present?  No, of course you won't.  That's
}>because it's a gift.  Think about it.
}>
}As for the Christmas present analogy, is it not customary in Canada,
}as in the U.S., for people to _exchange_ xmas gifts/cards? 

Ok, so substitute "birthday present" for "Christmas present".

}Therein is my philosophy on dating and "the tab".  As much as I expect
}to, and am fully capable of, handling the tab on a date, I just think
}that it is a mark of "class/consideration" on the part of the woman
}to at least _offer_ to share the expenses.  It let's me know that she
}is not out with me simply on the basis of "free eats and entertainment".
}(Believe me, I have had my fill of the "free eats and entertainment crowd")
}At that point, I can either accept her offer, or decline it, or ask for
}a "rain check", as in, "you can treat me next time".  Is there anything
}so awful about that?

I am sure, despite all the "arguing" going on, that we here are all in
agreement on the point that when you take someone out on a date, you 
do not want to feel that the other person is with you just for "free
eats and entertainment".

It seems that our disagreement is about *how* the other person "should"
show that he or she is not just out for a free ride.

One camp seems to feel that the "best" way to show this is to offer to
pay some share of the expenses.  These people seem to be putting their
focus on the fact that, by paying, they are being generous; they are
giving something to the other person and therefore they expect something
in kind in return.

The other camp (in which I reside) puts the focus more on the reason for 
the date.  If I ask a woman out, it's because I like her and want an
opportunity to get to know her better.  The way that she can show me
that she isn't there just for a free meal is by showing me that she
likes me and/or is interested in getting to know me better.  That, in
turn, can be done in many ways:  a simple, "Thank you, I had a
wonderful time"; as John said, a nice kiss at the end of the date;
saying, "Let's do this again"; or by simply engaging in interesting 
conversation with me.

--James Preston

Xref: sparky soc.singles:33689 ca.driving:2559
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ca.driving
Subject: Re: Red light at 3AM - moral question?
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:48:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Tickle Palace - Moonyvale, CA

In article <1992Dec10.205530.5751@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> sharen@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Sharen A. Rund) writes:
>In article <thurlow.724011426@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>>In <1992Dec8.202916.27650@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> sharen@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Sharen A. Rund) writes:
>>
>>>sounds like the dummy upfront didn't roll far enough forward to 
>>>trip the light plate ...
>>
>>ObPeeve: people who think people on bicycles are explosive.
>>
>
>in the incident I was responding to, I believe we were talking about 
>two cars that were waiting for the turn arrow, and, after the signals
>went through their cycles several times, with their arrow failing to 
>come on, the second car pulled around the first/front car - I was, at
>no time, refering to cyclists (whom most I've seen would have gone
>through the light way ahead of the car driver anyway)
>

     I was the second car that went around the first car and ran the red
turn arrow.  In addition, there were also at least 5 cars behind me.  I
believe that the car that I went around, was the farthest that she could
have been without going into the intersection.

-- 
                                         +---------------------------------+
  +-----------------------------------+ /      Not a net.personality      /
 /   // Mr. Tickle Monster   // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
|  \X/   W. David Rohwer   \X/  3000  /  Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM  /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Why there might be a need for a (Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 19 Dec 92 19:32:32 GMT
	<1992Dec18.003949.23624@netcom.com> <1992Dec18.080919.20145@netcom.com>
	<1992Dec18.163211.14140@gvl.unisys.com>
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: liz@vfl.paramax.com's message of 18 Dec 92 16:32:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.163211.14140@gvl.unisys.com> liz@vfl.paramax.com (Liz Loquacious) writes:

   In article <1992Dec18.080919.20145@netcom.com>, tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
   |> 
   |> After all, you could end up like this poor sot...

   [deleted description of support renegotiations for ultra rich parents]

   I don't feel sorry for him.  I wouldn't call him a poor sot.  The
   numbers get a real emotional reaction from those of us who don't have
   the money to live such lifestyles but I don't see why dad should not
   pay a fair proportion of his income for child support.

But Liz -- if he's got $10M in the bank, he's probably making less than
her Mom.  Let's say it's just even -- is the girl *really* and *truly*
spending $12K / month?  *Why* is she entitled to a particular proportion
of his income?  I don't think there's any requirement for married
couples to devote 10 percent or more of their income to their children
--- if so, then Sam Walton with his 3 bedroom tract house was in big
trouble.  It doesn't sound as if the girl's life style was in any
reasonable way impeded by having to live only on her mother's $800K
income plus her own $24K support payments.  (Hell, I wish *I* got $24K a
year from *my* folks!)
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: How come we aren't getting it?
Supersedes: <92350.175451U60703@uicvm.uic.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 16 Dec 1992 00:25:07 CST
From: <U60703@uicvm.uic.edu>


Hello...

Ireceived many  informative responses to my first ques. posted...so...
I have another one for you all out there in Netternetterland :)

My feelings are that you are an intelligent/friendly group of people...
(okay ...well...sometimes silly/immature/irrational...but...hey...who's
perfect? :)

The responses taught me a great deal about what men think...how they
perceive things...(never figure them out though :)......I concluded that
most of us men/women are looking for the same things in a relationship
(pretty much anyway).....we all want/need love, companionship, acceptance,
emotional/sexual intimacy, effective communication, understanding,
support.......etc.

My Ques -> So how come we aren't getting it? Why are we still closing off
           that part of ourselves that may enable us to learn to under-
           stand each other so we can mutually get what we desire???

I know about fears of....rejection, being hurt, losing yourself, losing
your "space", loving and losing, etc.....but we keep going around these
circles...we are still "avoiding"  opportunities to change things between
us women/men for the better....

I have been  thinking about this lately...just wondering why....And, I
presented the question in terms of "we" vs. I because I've talked to
others who feel the same way.....

So...what do you all think?...which way do we need to go from here?

Carole :) (still trying to find time to make that sig!!!!)

Xref: sparky soc.singles:34108 soc.women:21560 soc.men:21289 ba.singles:2660
From: liz@vfl.paramax.com (Liz Loquacious)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:12:02 GMT
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Paramax Systems

In article <1992Dec16.073753.27294@netcom.com>, rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec15.163407.5960@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
|> 
|> >	Has the thought occured to you that perhaps she's reevaluated
|> >the sitatuion given a "today scenario" and realized that the stupid
|> >contract you've (basically) forced her to sign isn't realizable given
|> >a new set of circumstances (i.e., a bun in the oven)?
|> >
|> 
|>      Lets say that the situation is reversed.  Instead of adoption I will
|> use abortion.  She and I agree that there will be an abortion if an
|> unplanned pregnancy occurs.  After she gets pregnant, I change my mind and
|> say that I want the child.  Legally, she can ignore my wishes and have the
|> abortion.  She does have the abortion.  Do you see the double standard?

No.  Do you really think the decision affects you as much as it affects her?
Are you deciding to risk being bedridden for months, swelling up like 
a waterlogged Weeble, sleeping while sitting upright because of permanent
heartburn, possibly losing your job, progress in school...face it- Baby doesn't
just appear; there's a pregnancy involved that involves real risks.  Meanwhile
you go ahead and schedule that ski trip for two weeks before the due date and
like, isn't she so inconsiderate that she didn't go and have that baby for you.

And there's a lot to what Desiree says about reevaluating the situation given
a "today scenario".  The reality of a pregnancy is a lot different that the
hypothetical.  I wouldn't have anything to do with someone who wouldn't "allow"
me to follow my heart in the matter if my feelings changed after and due to a 
bun in the oven, so to speak.  And yes, if the new dad-to-be had a change of
heart I'd want to know but it's my health and life that's on the line, not
his so I do not see the double standard.

|> 
|>      The negotiated agreement shows that a woman and I take
|> responsibility for our past actions.  Legally, since she does not have
|> to be sensitive to my changing needs if she wants to abort and I want to
|> keep the child, why should I be sensitive to her changing needs?

Ever try a relationship based on mutual respect and compassion instead of
this quid pro quo crap?  

Liz Loquacious