HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 20:25:01 GMT

In article <71435@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>>If after marriage a person choses
>>to not contribute income to the household, that's a choice.  In my opinion
>>it's a selfish lazy choice.  Nobody but a really insecure individual with lots
>>of problems would chose to live off another person and expect the situation
>>to work out well.
>
>Are you equating "not contributing income to the household" to "living off
>another person"? Why? Do you really think that only activities which earn 
>money are worthwhile? Or that activities which don't earn money are always
>less strenuous than those which do?
>

I think you are objecting to a very narrow interpretation of "contributing 
income to the household". The work doesn't have to generate income but could
be something that both agree is required/desirable and something for which
you would have to pay to get it done or it could be something where the 
result is beneficial to both. Anything else is a selfish choice. Not to say 
that one shouldn't do anything for oneself but those could be part-time
hobbies at the most.

So renovating a house (which may not increase the value of the house but 
improve their quality of living), building/restoring a plane/boat/car (that 
may not necessarily have monetary value but improves their recreational
choices), raising kids (for which you may eventually get very little in
return), house-keeping, etc., are all examples where you don't make money
flow into the household but are perfectly reasonable choices that couples
can come to an agreement on.

On the other hand, "contributing income to the household" by itself is not
sufficient to determine whether someone is living off the other. 

						Walter

What disclaimer?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Married Men and Single Women
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:36:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug13.153832.28910@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  strake@coos.dartmouth.edu (strake) writes:
> By the time I had finished
> he had slid down the bed and was massaging my feet. He started suckling the
> toes of my right foot, just the right amount of ticklish and stimulating, and
>
> { well this is going take too long, since there are so many details involved,
>   but I think you get the picture. }

No.  Finish the story, dammit!
:-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: The Communications Research Centre
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 00:51:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.022501.13642@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>
>There are conscious standards and then there are instinctive standards, and
>they're not necessarily the same thing (and they may conflict with each other).
>
>I was speaking of the instinctive standards, i.e. the standards that turn out
>to be the only ones that really matter.  The standards that determine whether
>or not the person in question finds another attractive.
>
>Okay.  Then tell me how many women you've run across who (a) claimed to be
>looking for someone who explicitly *lacked* self-confidence, and (b) actually
>went for such a person.
>
>People *claim* to be looking for all sorts of things.  I don't care about
>what they claim to be looking for.  I care about what they actually go for.

I think you have a point in that people aren't always aware of what
they really want.

If someone asked me what I like in a man, I would probably list self-
confidence as being very important to me but of all the men I have been
seriously involved not one of them had a lot of self-confidence for some
reasons. Don't know why exactly but I have noticed that over the years.
My only explanation is that it is more important for me that a man is
really in touch with his feelings and people that are in touch with their
feelings often have self-doubts that come from introspection. I am not sure.



-- 
Michele Guillet 			The Communications Research Centre 
3701 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2H 8S2	tel:613-998-2384
Internet: michele@dgbt.doc.ca
From: strake@coos.dartmouth.edu (strake)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: single men
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:58:27 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:

>In article <2218@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com> luzenko@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Bill Luzenko) writes:
>>Two women dance on a dance floor what are they? ( two close friends )!

define dance. the lesbian and bi women i hang out with make it pretty obvious
what they are when they dance. You've seen dirty dancing. take that one step
further.

>>Two men dance and what are they ( two queers )!

the nonserious answer to this is that where I'm from the only guys who can
really dance without looking like idiots are gay or bi. so if there is
actually a guy on the dance floor, and he's not dancing with his arms around
some girl, there's a good chance he's at least bi.

>>W H Y !!!

>I think the answer to the WHY!!!! question can be found in your high
>school biology and family psychology books.  Women bond with their same
>sex from birth; men don't.  Now that more and more fathers are taking an
>active part in the birthing and bonding process, this might change and
>all you guys who really want to might raise sons who can hug and dance
>and have sex with other men and the whole world will be Disneyland. 
>>
and it is changing. depending on where you hang out and who you hang with
and the places you do your dancing.  In our area if we stay in the dance
clubs (and away from the frats) then no one makes any assumptions about
anything.  If you see two guys bumping and grinding together, you will start
to consider the possibility they might be gay. and as I said earlier, the
women usually make it pretty obvious.

>>Now you know why I'm pissed off and tired of the bullshit!

>It's OK.  Just get it out.  Yeah.

and be patient, it is changing. fight the stereotypes and dance anyway,
avoid the clubs where you notice that mentality, you'll have more fun at the
others.

and as hope, a scene that I observed this weekend. A man walked up to
another man and asked him if he wanted to dance. he said yes, and they got up
and danced together. neither of those involved thought that was strange.
They just wanted to dance and didn't want to hit the dance floor alone.
We know for a fact that the second man is het. (mainly because he's a good
friend of ours)  Now if only this could happen more often.

--
                    . . . . .                      strake@dartmouth.edu
         .     :    .   :   .    :     .
   :     :    .  :      :      :  .    :     :      it seemed a good
   :          :         :         :          :      idea at the time
From: shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: FINNS - Nice description, Juha!
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:31:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <thurlow.714023379@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>
>(sigh) Such memories!  The mystery is why the ski resorts have not
>learned how wonderful they are and adopted them en masse.  I have
>never known anything that will work the kinks out of a body better
>than a good sauna.  I know people like hot tubs for apres-ski, but
>the truth is harsh - hot tubs are only good for screwing (ask any
>Californian).  To get your body _ready_ for the hot tub, you need
>a sauna.  I guess I need to fire up the one at work sometime soon,
>huh? (gloat :-)
>
Rob, you'll have to tell me your secret.  I have never managed to
screw in a hot tub, and not for lack of trying.  Something truly
essential seems to get lost every time.  Care to enlighten me as
to your technique?
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:58:18 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

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!!

No applause please. It just seemed like a public service. Of course
if El Piglet doesn't want to be embarassed I can just take him aside
and identify him privately. (Btw, isn't this the same ex-ex-PYM you
sorta dumped a few times before, or is this time different?)

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
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: carl@vaxr.sscl.uwo.ca (Carl Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: Oh, no! Statistics! Run!! :-)
Organization: Soc.Sci.Comp.Lab., U.West.Ont.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:19:01 GMT

In article <71349@apple.Apple.COM>, stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
> 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?

I'm not a statistics advocate in the sense of this thread (there's more to
probability than the Lebesgue measure), but I have become very good friends
with someone because I am a consulting statistician.  We first met when I was
helping her to write a research paper.

Carl (the Romantic Statistician)
*****************************************************************************
* 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: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Keywords: commitment,marriage,reluctance
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 21:25:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.232541.11992@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes:
>I have often wondered why it is  that  so  many  men  are  fearful  of
>commitment.   The  women's  magazines  and the feminist literature are
>full of complaints about this aspect of men, and many men will readily
>admit  that  it  is  indeed  true.  Just  as  soon  as  the woman in a
>"relationship" starts talking about making more permanent arrangements
>or  perhaps  even  thinking  about  marriage  and  children,  the  man
>immediately begins to back off, fearing that he will become  "trapped"
>or  "locked  into"  a  situation in which he feels very uncomfortable.
>The mere mention of the "C-word" is enough to make him break out  into
>a rash.

Why do so many men fear commitment?  Probably for pretty much the same
reasons so many women fear commitment--for any given couple, the odds
are fairly likely that one will want commitment more than the other and
I haven't noticed any strong tendency for the one who wants a greater
level of commitment to be any particular sex.  However, you don't read
about women who fear commitment in "men's magazines" since the topic
involves feelings and not machined metal parts.

As far as the actual reasons, I suppose it's mostly a fear of missing
out on future opportunities, letting someone get too important to you
and then getting hurt, unconscious negative mental associations with
commitment, and feelings of unworthiness. 

Trygve   (And then there's the negative feelings so many people 
          associate with canvas jackets with really long sleeves
          and funny straps.)

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Oh, no!  Statistics!  Run!!  :-)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:35:35 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

You say you have a poor memory for jokes and stories.  If you can at
least remember which people you've told certain things to, the following
should help:

Start carrying around a little note-book (aka logbook).  Every you hear
or think of something interesting, write it down.  Every night, try
declaiming a few out loud -- this is where acting lessons might help.
Eventually, you'll be able to remember *some* of them easily, and you
can use them in your normal conversations.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:41:47 GMT
Keywords: Newsgroup?

In article <1992Aug12.132111.26642@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com> puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude) writes:
> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) squeezes tush...
>> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) asks sexually...
>>> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) asks a question...
>
>Can you say....   Alt.Romance.Chat in Soc.Singles?   I knew you could!
>Puter	puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com	.sig by Generic Labels
>(Put irritating title here)		(Put phone # here.)
>(Put obnoxious quote here. Please make it as long as possible.)

And can you say ... "put irritating post response here" ???  Ah, no
need to say it.  You did it.

Grab a mitt.  Get in the game already.  Life ain't forever.

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: The hip sphincter's connected to the thigh sphincter. The thigh...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:35:37 GMT

In article <_39mk7#.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>
>I somehow managed to miss this one, but I would have said much the same thing.
>Anyone who believed that Nance was really going to blow *anyone's* head off has
>their head firmly lodged in their anal sphincter.
>  Tyger

 As opposed to?
 
 You mean when she said they ought to be lined up and shot she
really didn't want to decapitate them and stomp on their bloody
intestines not to mention do something down their windpipe?
 
 I thought maybe she was posting from the state pen.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:29:45 GMT
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: too funky
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu

In article <1992Aug13.200736.14120@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson) writes:
>And what exactly is *interest*?  Marcia's point seems to be that
>there's a period when you (and quite likely the other person too)
>don't KNOW how interested you are in the other person.

I like to be in the situation where I may not know how interested I am
in someone, but I'm hoping that something more permanent may develop,
especially if things are going well so far.

>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.

Oh well.  I guess I just don't derive any excitement from this.
Sorry, I guess I'm just not down with the program.

--gregbo
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Las Vegas
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:33:53 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.


Anyone else getting what appears to be an email form letter come-on that
starts something like, I read one of your posts and thought it was
interesting....  ?  Just curious.

Max
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: cocoa@iat.holonet.net (little 'e')
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (on the net)
Organization: The Chocolate Factory
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:11:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.021739.674@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.183428.135449@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH) writes:
>>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>
>>>Since it seems that USENET is an environment where some of the women prefer
>>>intelligent men, perhaps we can conclude that a man's chances of meeting a
>>>woman by posting *intelligent* things to USENET are greater than 0%.
>
>>I guess this is still purely hypothetical, though.
>
>No, not really.
>
>Shall we have a show of hands? (yes, even the strange-looking ones)
>
>paul        depending on your definition of intelligent

Well, just to throw out a couple examples of people I met by/because of
the net, I met Kenn Barry in person because I thought his posts seemed
very intelligent.  I became good friends with him because we got along well
in person, but I'm sure the advantage of knowing each other through the net
made things that much easier.   

And I never would have met Paul Wallach if we had not been involved in a
flame war beforehand (hey, are you laughing yet?).

My current sweetie is a net person, but not a soc.singler, so we did not
exchange bits before meeting, but it was someone else's response to one
of my posts that got me new friends and an introduction to someone I think
is very intelligent and terrific.

So yeah, here's my 3 hands. :)

And for those women who've been wondering if Kenn Barry is as cool as he
sounds/writes, well, he is.

Just me,

little 'e'

*  *  *   Chocolatier at Arms, and Castle Wetware Liason            *  *  *

-- 
Recently re-located, and now permanently residing at _The_Chocolate_Factory_
*  *   e-mail: cocoa@iat.holonet.net    -     voicemail: 415-337-4940   *  *
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:17:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug20.134331.25777@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.174715.25011@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.134728.25390@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>>Nobody but a really insecure individual with lots
>>>of problems would chose to live off another person and expect the situation
>>>to work out well.
>>>
>>if two people come to some arrangement where one earns most of the money, and 
>>the other does 'everything else', is this a case of someone choosing to "live
>>off another person"?
>
>You care to give an example scenario here?  Are you per chance talking about
>the man who goes out and earns money and the woman who raises the kids and
>keeps house?

Gee, maybe he meant the woman who goes out and earns money and the
man who raises the kids and keeps house.  Just because it's not the
typical case doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I know a couple who did
this after their first baby was born, because she made a lot more 
money than he did and they wanted someone home to take care of the
baby for the first 6-12 months of her life.
>
>>i'm uncomfortable with the implication that the person who
>>stops working for a wage, perhaps leaves a career, and undertakes all these
>>much-less-recignised responsibilities is somehow taking the easy way out.
>
>Again.  Could you elaborate on these "much-less-recognized responsibilities"
>and why some households can run efficinetly with only one person doing
>all of them *plus* the breadwinning *plus* the childraising?  Hmmmm?

I don't actually expect Nance to answer these questions on the Net,
but I think they're worth considering.  What do your children do
while you're at work all day?  Do they go to day-care?  How much
does day-care cost?  What happens when one of the kids is sick and
can't go to day-care?  Does day-care provide the attention to your
kids that a full-time nanny could?

Please note: I am NOT a GodFearingFamilyValueSpoutingRepublican.
In fact, I don't even have any kids (nor want to).  However, I do
know a lot of couples who have decided that by the time you subtract
the expenses of child-care, the extra commuting costs, the bigger tax
cut, etc. from the lower of the two incomes, it ain't worth having
both partners work at a paying job.  Then it's a question of who has
the lower paying job, or the lower potential job.  And if a couple
decides that one of them is going to be the full-time homemaker, and
the other the full-time wage-earner, why should anyone else denigrate
their choice?

Obviously this doesn't apply in the case of childless couples--no
freeloaders there, unless of course some rich intelligent witty
gorgeous woman wants to take care of me....
-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat
From: swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: REQUEST from GIRLS:  List of 20 WORST/UNORIGINAL ways to ask a girl
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:56:29 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Aug18.204702.7334@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>What's wrong with freshman girls?

Nothing that time won't cure.

-- 
Steve Swann                 |    Speak to me in many voices; make
swann@acsu.buffalo.edu      |      them all sound like one...  -BOC
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome)
Subject: Bananas (Re: Chinese single woman seeks caucasian single men)
Organization: Some and growing
Date: 22 Aug 92 10:00:29 GMT

In article <1m_nn0#.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>
>Don't worry.  Just deep-throat a banana, and you'll stand out *anywhere*
>you go.

Hey, I resemble that remark!  Just 'cause I can do neat party tricks doesn't
mean that I stand out or get offers of attention; in fact, that particular
trick tends to intimidate men (or maybe it's the fact I'm sensible and don't
take myself too seriously -- it can't be my looks).

Allisson

>                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
>"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"
 
Share it with others? 


-- 
allisson@turing.toronto.edu (new address)       H. Allisson Roome
"Teach only love, and learn that love is yours and you are love."(A.C.I.M/p.92)