HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:39:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <ptpj77h@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.160718.10837@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>>I strongly disagree, rON.  It takes a LOT of trust to tell your
>>partner, "I trust your judgment and trust you to sleep with anyone
>>you want.  I also trust you to stay with me."
>
>There's still something wrong with this...what's wrong with asking for
>monogamy >as it is<. 

Nothing. If you want it, you should definitely ask for it.

>Saying 'Oh, I trust you to do what you want' is
>simply asking them to remain monogamous, but your just 'preparing'
>yourself because you really don't trust your partner

No, no, no, no, no. Saying "I trust you" is NOT asking them to
remain monogamous. If you want someone to remain monogamous, then
you should say so, and you should not agree to an open relationship.

There are some people for whom physical faithfulness and emotional 
commitment are NOT the same thing. Some people are committed to each
other without an agreement of physical faithfulness. Others agree to
have an open relationship temporarily because of circumstances (such as an LDR).

Some people are not comfortable with this.  That's fine. If it is to work then 
both people have to know themselves well enough and be able to communicate 
well with each other.

> and you want to
>be ready with the 'Oh, I guess I couldn't trust him/her after all' when
>they play with your trust- or the 'I'll give her/him *one more chance*,
>but thats all' beating.
>
That is not an open relationship. That is a crummy relationship where
neither person is openly communicating.

Personally, what I want from an SO is the knowledge that I am the
person they care most about in the world.  There are a lot of ways
to express that caring and for me, physical faithfulness is not
necessarily the most important way.

>Hell- you gotta make some sort of a commitment to your partner at some
>point in a relationship, ya know.....

A commitment is emotional, and a physical faithfulness agreement need be 
part of it only if the partners want it to be. I wouldn't want an SO who 
was physically faithful to me but cared about somebody else more, spent 
more time with them, enjoyed their company more, and so forth.

Don't confuse the concept of an mutually agreed-upon open relationship
with the picture of a relationship where one person is letting the other
get away with stuff because they're afraid to ask for what they need.


Stef                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
stef@apple.com       It is the time you have wasted for your rose
                     that makes your rose so important.       Saint-Exupery
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Needing not to Need
Originator: lnds@krishna.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:44:24 GMT

In article <BM9L6v.1yq@world.std.com>, unicorn@world.std.com (unicorn) writes:

> New subject: How does one stop needing?

   No, not a new subject.  (E-mail me for the limerence FAQ.)

> A relationship that I really wanted to work ( and thought would ) failed
> partly because my need started showing through.  I can play the independent
> successful single, but it's an act: I could swallow all the affection a 
> woman could show, and come back for seconds and thirds.  The reasons don't
> matter, what matters is that the need starts showing and the woman gets 
> scared.  The fact that I give as much, if not more, is unimportant.

   Congratulations on correctly identifying your problem.

> The tragedy is that the only time that I feel like I have a chance of 
> freeing myself from my deep seeded need is when I am with a woman.

   How about when you're with *two* women?

   Try dating *several* women (on a free-lance basis).  *Don't* go steady until 
one of them wants you as much as you want her.

> So tell me please, how do you give up the need?  How do you ignore the 
> fact that you can actually have what you always want?  When I'm with a
> woman I care about I feel like a starving man at a banquet.  But when I
> start wolfing down food, I get kicked out.  How can I stop wolfing?

   Are you sure you want to give up the "need"?  Or would you rather have it
reciprocated?

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 18:20:50 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <b3rjqvk.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>In article <65044@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>
>>Personally, what I want from an SO is the knowledge that I am the
>>person they care most about in the world.  There are a lot of ways
>>to express that caring and for me, physical faithfulness is not
>>necessarily the most important way.
>
>MOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>(Somehow, though, I don't think we're going to be SOs........)

It occurrs to me on re-reading this that a lot of people may not get
what I meant:

Let's say that the person I care most about is my mother.  Would that
prevent you from becoming my SO?  Putting it another way, do you
honestly expect me to give up decades-long relationships just because
you want to be my SO?
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Mothers are inventors by necessity
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: More helpful Hints
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 00:18:17 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez
Distribution: soc

In article <1992Apr13.093740.11655@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> swt@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>In article <6pwjjpj.aahz@netcom.com>,
>aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes: 
>> In article <1992Apr12.170702.29382@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>>>paul (even now having decided not to go out and search for early zucchini)
>> 
>> Now, remember, *never* buy more than one zucchini plant.  Even one will
>> supply too much zucchini for a household of four.
>
>But it's so difficult not to put in several thousand zuccini and tomato
>plants when you haven't had a real tomato or a fresh zuccini in months.
>
>Besides, they make great gifts for friends.  And strangers.  And 
>especially enemies.
>
>(Welcome to Peach Tree Circle!  With every purchase you get a free 
>cucumber!  WHETHER YOU WANT ONE OR NOT.)

Well, there's always the 11-pound zucchini for your enemies....

But the best method is to simply have access to a *good* supermarket in
California.  NYA-nyanya-nya-NYAAAAAAAA.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Mothers are inventors by necessity
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:12:10 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Apr11.151859.8012@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
|In article <12407@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
|
|>Of course she would.  She just told us she has tremendous hooters.  Since
|>I recently attended a "Tremendous Hooter Management" BOF I'm no longer
|>timorous when I meet someone like Angelwing.
|
|Fascinating.  I never found them so hard to manage that I needed to take 
|a class.  They're quite well behaved.  Most of the time, they just sit
|there and don't do anything.

It's not really a class.  It was a BOF (Birds of a Feather), sort of a
Special Interest Group.  Tremendous Hooters need to be managed when they
get out of hand.  
-- 
+=============================================================================+
| John Fereira                Al Bundy for President          
| johnf@auspex.com         "He's as good as the next guy"                     |
+=============================================================================+
From: jjj@mits.mdata.fi (Joni Jarvenkyla)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Re: physical attractiveness (traditionally a "man thing")
Date: 16 Apr 92 08:35:07 GMT
Organization: Sausage Gaz Inc


There was a falling star flying in the dark night sky. Could have been
me. Hoping to find another one, flying to the same direction. Towards
the end, death.

Now I know I'm on my way alone. Heading to the unknown, burning bright,
nobody to really trust. Really trusting is an utopia of absolute
puremindness and honesty towards the other part of you, which must be
somebody else.

And the falling star tried to look normal, act like the others, so that
it could find at least somebody - if not very suitable - to fly with,
because the night sky sometimes was very cold. The more he tried the
more he failed. But never gave up his own goals, which were burned into
his mind. Not very complicated, but maybe personal and quite unique
things.

And now, he pondered, should I buy a big single with one bed or a small
double with two beds - in different rooms? Not very much of ``love'' but
at least some sharing and caring. Oh yes, she, the nightly Venus, used
to say:``I care of you.'' Care? 

(If planning to reply personally please note that Joni is a male name
around here.)
-- 
jjj@mits.mdata.fi   Mind         Heart         No      Me
jjj@niksula.hut.fi  Difference   Destruction   Death   You
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern)
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Organization: U.W. Information Systems
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:54:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.184218.7839@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
> Yes, there would be fewer problems if women tried to achieve real
> communication and not this vague read my signals stuff. Communication
> that included words.

**BINGO** We have a winner. Words will do wonders when used in a descriptive and coherent way. On the other hand I've got a weege(sp?) board...

-- 	MH (I wonder if Angelwings temper will remain even?)
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
       | Michael Hevern			| Voice: (206) 685-3229        |
       | University Of Washington	| * "I can't dance...          |
       | Information Systems		|    I can't talk...           |
       | 4545 15th Ave. NE		|    The only funny thing about|
       | Seattle, WA 98105		|    me is the way I walk."    |
       | Mail Stop: JE-41               |       -- Genesis             |
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
	Disclaimer: If I said it I probably meant it.  My employer isn't
		responsible for my opinions.
From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:34:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Could use a boost
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.singles

In soc.singles, solarski@vaxb.llnl.gov writes:

> I could use a little insight, helpful hints. I've been dating this wonderful
> gal for some time. I had been hurt badly before in a serious relationship and
> did not want to fall in love again. It happened. I told her how I felt and she
> became probably the coldest woman in the world. She's tearing me apart. I told
> her what she was doing to me. She said she was sorry, she has strong feelings
> for me as well and doesn't want to hurt me. This made me feel great until the
> next day when she started up her mind games again. I love her, but I don't know
> how long I can hurt before I can't take it. Is there anyone who has been
> through this, giving or receiving, could you pass me on some words-o-wisdom. I
> could really use it.
> 
      


      ** YEAH. GET OUT OF IT AS SOON AS YOU CAN!!!! Her behavior has shown
that she is not as "wonderful" as you may think! She sounds totally 
destructive. If she is not willing to deal with her issues -- whatever they
are -- don't waste your time. I understand that you might 'love' her but
the feeling will dissipate. It always does. You need to take care of 
yourself. No one else will. If she is not contributing to your life in a 
positive manner, get her out of it.

                                                   -reykja
From: richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH)
Subject: SENSITIVE NEW-AGE GUYS
Originator: richh@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: JvNCnet, Princeton University, NJ
X-Punch-Line:  Who cares?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:21:06 GMT



Sensitive New-Age Guys
from the Christine Lavin LP "Attainable Love"
 
 
Spoken: Sing along, it will help you with your male bonding
kind-of-thing...
 
Who like to talk about their feelings?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who's into crystal, who's into healing?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who like to dress like Richard Simmons?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who are hard to tell from women?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who like to cry at weddings, who think "Rambo" is upsetting?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who tape "Thirty-Something" on their VCR's?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who's got child-on-board stickers on their cars?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
 
Whose last names are hyphenated?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who loved "Three Men and a Baby", a movie I hated?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who's consciousness is constantly raising?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Whose tax-free income is amazing?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who think that red meat is disgusting?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who's into UFO's, channelling, and dusting?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who believes us when we say we have pre-menstrual syndrome?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who doesn't know who plays in the Seattle Kingdome?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
 
Spoken: Let's ask these guys who plays in the Seattle Kingdome...
Hey, do you know who plays in the Seattle Kingdome?
(Mumble...mumble...)
Oh, good answer, good answer!
 
Who likes music that's repetitious?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who likes music that's repetitious?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who's concerned about your orgasm?
     (silence)
Spoken: ...Hey, wait a minute, wait a minute, you guys said you
were sensitive?
     (Well, Christine...we're sensitive -- but we're not *that*
sensitive!)
I guess it's more important that they have 'em
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who carries the baby on his back?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who thinks that Shirley McLaine is on the inside track?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
Who sings on singalongs even when they can't stand stupid singalong
songs?
     (Sensitive New-Age Guys)
 
     (Spoken: Thank you for sharing.)
 
 
RICHH
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: want-sex(women) < want-sex(men)
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:05:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.131630.19401@crash.cts.com>, rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes:

> I don't know; I still wonder about this.

   (-:  I (like Walter Mondale) worry about people who "know" things that
just ain't so.  I'm glad you're not one of them, Bob.

> In the days before reliable birth control, women had to fear getting 
> pregnant every time they got laid. 

   But when did people realise that sexual intercourse CAUSED pregnancy?
Probably only after most of human evolution had already happened.

> Under those circumstances it's possible that turning off to sex was a 
> good way to avoid the danger.

   For most of human prehistory, wouldn't *instinctive* turning off have
been more useful than socialized turning off?

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
From: richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: THE SEDIMENTS OF REDUCTION was(Re:  How to meet girls)
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:12:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: tigger.1992Apr16.211200.13030
Organization: JvNCnet, Princeton University, NJ
Originator: richh@tigger.jvnc.net

In article <1992Apr16.185934.17854@noao.edu> groves@noao.edu (Lee Groves ) writes:
>
>And that is the secret in a nutshell:  Be charming and dangerous.

That's a pretty tall order, Lee.  Why, I can't think of a single guy I
know that fits *that* description.  Let's relax those standards a bit.
Howzabout:

     Be mildly amusing and drive recklessly.
     Be momentarily intriguing and klutzy around toxic waste.
     Be a not unpleasant diversion and fly low over populated areas.
     Be an alcohol-related regret and smoke at gas stations.
     Be Tgryve and practice your SCA fighting at Macy's.
     Be Larry and ask a redneck for a fag.
     Etc.     

RICHH
--even when you're just showin' off
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:06:08 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <s4mjv9f@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>
>Calling a non-monogamous relationship 'open' is simply a candy coating for
>the fact that you can't trust your partner (or yourself) enough in a
>trusting relationship to remain faithful. IM(Never)HO.

Wrong; having an open relationship means that you and your partner
have agreed that it's OK for both of you to be involved with other people.
Maybe because of a situation such as an LDR, maybe because you believe in
it as a philosophy, or whatever. Trust has nothing directly to do with it.
To be involved with someone you need to trust them not to harm you. If 
you are harmed by their sleeping with someone else, then you should not be
in an open relationship. If you are not harmed by that, then having an open
relationship is an option.

--    
                  A more intimate theology, and one more consonant with 
Stef              the nature of...love, pictures a demonic force engaged  
stef@apple.com    in continuous creation and participation. - Iris Murdoch
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 00:53:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.224453.27635@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.194558.12471@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.170420.5029@ccu.umanitoba.ca> browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown) writes:
>>>So how about y'all?  Where is the solution to this dilemma?
>>
>>I don't know if there's any one definitive solution, but I think it's 
>>important to remember that thinking is not the same as doing--certainly
>>I've had thoughts about gently nibbling Pooh's neck, squeezing her
>>shoulders with my hands and letting them slowly travel down her arms
>>to her waist, pulling her against me as she felt my lips and my breath
>>warm on the back of her neck, but that's not the same as doing it.
>
>Eeeek!  Watch out for the hump, Trygve!!

Gee, you sure you won't let me get at least a little more foreplay in
before going straight to the hump?

>  And sorry about the
>dandruff ...  and the scaly tail ...

Hey, no problem--why do you think I brought the dustbuster and the
legwarmers?

>>So, how to resolve it?  Don't worry about it--treat these thoughts as
>>normal and natural; mention them if you feel you need to, 
>
>Yeah, especially post them all over soc.singles ... you rascal. ;-)

Good point--here I posted some of my thoughts about Pooh on soc.singles
and I feel much better.  I think we can recommend this as a productive
therapeutic technique and would suggest that everybody else to likewise.

>>Trygve    (This post is brought to you by the letters 'P' and 'Z'
>>           and by the isotope U-235.)
>
>ERNIE!  What ARE you doing with your rubber ducky????

Why don't you step into my bubble bath and find out?

>Pooh  (gee, this really IS almost better than the fantasy
>       with the butterscotch sauce and the Ian Fleming novels ...)

Almost--you know, maybe if we work on this a little more, flesh it out
(so to speak), we'll even make it rival the one with the marachino 
cherries, bungee cords, lava lamps, and double-stick tape.....

Trygve    (Now where did I leave that small artist's brush?)
From: 01ksdavis@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Romantic Songs
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:00:06 GMT


	Yes, I know, people are getting sick and tired of my musical tastes,
and I think that just romantic songs could start up a whole other newsgroup!
	I did notice, however that the Romantic newgroup doesn't have as near
as much stuff there as you folks do here.

	Seems almost a waste to just followup with only one song, but it is a
good one (Trust me ;->)

	"Until your love comes back around."-RTZ

	Waitasecond-another name song, this one is older, and perhaps more
familiar.

	"Amanda", Boston

	So, do people agree with my postings?  Yes/No-Why, Why NOT?

	Email me, I would love to chat.

			:-)Kyle
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Love: Is it a power thing?
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:07:42 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr11.115114.12128@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>Who "wins" in a relationship depends largely on how you're racking
>up the points.

No puns about "scoring". :-)

>If you have two people in a relationship, and one is deeply in love
>and happy, and the other one feels less and isn't happy, who has
>"won"?

Neither one, I suspect, if the relationship plays itself out as I believe
it must...

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

Somebody saved me from a fate worse than heaven,
'Cos if I blew it for a single moment I'd blow it forever.
				- Pete Townshend, "Somebody Saved Me"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Burp. (was Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION)
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:05:41 GMT

tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>I absolutely don't want to resurrect the "men want it more" argument, but
>I'm still puzzled by just how emotionally important "men wanting it more"
>seems to be to a lot of men.

Try this explanation on for size :

	A typical male wants some sex. But he's not getting any, because,
	in general, women are not interested in having sex with him. It's
	more comforting for him to believe that emphasis is on "women are
	not interested in having sex" rather than on "with him". The former
	belief is less damaging to his self-esteem.

>The only even plausible reason I can think of for this would be a very deep,
>ego-threatening fear of not being able to satisfy women sexually if they
>really have the high sexual appetites that they certainly seem to.

That's what other women are for. Of course, you then run the risk of your
girlfriend liking the other women more than she likes you and dumping you.

	fred "I think it was the gas that made me post this" walter
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I post is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
From: venki@mpg.phys.hawaii.edu (N. Venkateswaran)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Love: Is it a power thing?
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:02:46 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy


	I solicit your opinion on:


	"In love, the one who loves less is the winner."


	I believe that Love is a power play between 2 (or more?) individuals.
	Love is used to control and mould a person to suit someone else's
	perception.