HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:33:09 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:

}rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
}>oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
}>>rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
}>>>Oh yeah, I probably do have no class whatsoever, I don't even open
}>>>car doors for women.  Another useful sorting criterion, I've found ;-)

}>>You and I should talk.  I'll usually let a guy open the car door, if he
}>>insists, but it really, really, really ANNOYS the hell out of me. 

}>Can you explain that... I'm curious what part of it you find annoying.
}>One of ex-wife's (numerous :-)) complaints was that I didn't make her
}>feel special by opening car doors for her.  So when I first started 
}>dating again, I thought "ok I'll try this".  Some women liked it,
}>some objected...but after a while it became like the "who pays"
}>problem:  I'm looking for a partner and equal for an equal partnership,
}>and I found it enormously difficult to view somebody as an equal 
}>while at the same time treating them as incapable of opening a car
}>door.  

}Sure, I can explain that.  I am looking for a partner and an equal.  How can
}I feel equal if someone is constantly opening the door for me?  It's like, I
}have two choices?  Either he thinks I'm weak or he thinks he's my servant.
}Either way, one of us is less than equal.

Unless I'm misreading, or someone's gotten the attributions mixed up, you
two sound perfect for each other.

But I'll never understand this attitude.  Why do you find it so necessary
to attach such deep meanings to simple polite behavior?  I mean, when you
pass the salt to someone at the dinner table, does that mean that you are
treating them as incapable of getting the salt for themselves?  Doing 
something for another person does not make that person weak, it doesn't
make you a servant, nor does it make either of you less equal.  It means
what it means:  That you are doing something nice for another person.  I
was raised to believe that opening doors for women was nothing more than
polite behavior.  And I have had no trouble reconciling that behavior
with the woman also being my equal.

--James Preston
From: bmeyer@feds12.prime.com (Bob Meyer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Thanks for 7 inches
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:15:54 GMT
Organization: Computervision Corp.

In article <JULIE.92Dec16163913@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu>,
   julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:

|>  ... Being a practical person who never
|> worried much about what other people thought of him, he decided to take
|> the safe way down, so he _slid_ down the mogul run on his back with his
|> head pointing down the slope and his skis up in the air.  He said the 
|> bumps weren't very comfortable, but he was distracted from thinking about
|> it by the whoops of laughter from the ski lift above him.  He was quite
|> pleased with himself for not breaking any bones, and he got a great story
|> out of it -- we laughed ourselves sick at the mental image.

  Ha, thats a great story! Of course, the accepted strategy for those of us
 who *do* have some self respect is to remove the skis and walk down past the
 danger zone. I've done it. Oh sure, you'll get some hoots, whistles and good
 natured ribbing, but it sure beats the embarassment of being sledded down by
 the ski patrol. I've done that too. :-(

 Bob
From: rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 01:04:20 -0700
Reply-To: wildrose!rkf@infoserv.com
Organization: Wild Rose Refugee Camp

crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

>If a man asks me out, and I don't know him very well, I assume he's
>paying.  If he doesn't, he's got no class whatsoever, IMO.  Frankly, it
>hasn't happened to me (though it did happen to a friend of mine).  

Three-fourths of the women I've gone out with expected me to pay for 
everything.  For a while, I put up with that nonsense for a few
dates, but I found that most women who were willing to share expenses
at all either insisted on, or offered, sharing right from the start.

That became a useful rule-of-thumb for me...if I ask, I'm prepared to
pay.  But if it turns out that I do pay, that violates my *default*
assumption of sharing ...a very bad sign, we're working from different
assumptions... and reliably (IMExperience) predicts another walletsucker.
(Or "traditional woman", if you prefer a less loaded term).  Unless
there are some extenuating circumstances, I don't ask them out again.

So if you and I were to have gone out on a date, it's highly unlikely
that I would call you again; probably the right thing for both of us 
<not intended as a venomous remark>.  

>If it's not a first date, I'll usually offer to pay my way, depending on 
>the guy -- some guys would rather _always_ pay; others like to split the 
>bill.  Usually, though, I end up with guys who, if they ask me out, plan
>on paying.  In those cases, I'll usually offer to leave the tip or buy
>dessert.

>I imagine it would be different if I asked a man out, but that isn't my
>style.  

>Now that I've been seeing someone for over a year, we rarely do the
>traditional "date" thing; I'll pay for lunch this time, he'll pay next
>time, I'll cook, he'll cook, whatever.  Occasionally we still do the
>formal "date," we go somewhere special and he pays.  Otherwise, whoever
>happens to have money at the time pays, or we split it.  

>So, would any guys out there in net.land consider any of this 
>"gold-digging"?  I'm honestly not very familiar with the term.

IMO, no, but the assumption that "he pays" in any exceptional situation
does raise a flag.  Two mild examples from my experience (and I'm sure 
other net.men can top these):
- when she asked me out and then expected me to pay
- when I suggested I'll buy dinner if you'll spring for the movie her
indignant response was "I've never paid on a date in my life and I'm
not about to start now!"

Oh yeah, I probably do have no class whatsoever, I don't even open
car doors for women.  Another useful sorting criterion, I've found ;-)

-- 
-- Ray
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:51:58 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Distribution: usa
 <8061@news.duke.edu> <1992Dec17.064805.25868@netcom.com>

In article <1992Dec17.064805.25868@netcom.com>, cocoa@netcom.com says:
>
>Which reminds me of why I always insist on paying at least half of the bill
>when I go out with a man that I don't know well.
>
>Many men seem to feel that a woman "owes" them something when they spend
>money on her for a date.  They feel it entitles them to some sort of
>physical affection gesture, or the right to a second date, or whatever.
>Whenever I encounter this kind of attitude I get furious and any speck of
>enjoyment I had that evening vanishes.
>

To toss in a slightly archaic perspective, a person most definately
*does* owe the person they accepted an offer of a date from something.

To wit, a reasonable fraction of their attention, the courtesy not
to accept the date if their chief reason for acceptance is not a desire
to explore the extent to which they might enjoy the company of the one
offering the date, and a forthright expression of their personal borders
and limits should same be impinged upon.


Now, anyone got a problem with that?

Graydon
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: wtr@mitre.org (Bill Ralston)
Subject: Re: What would you do if...
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: MITRE
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:20:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.215603.5119@ttinews.tti.com>, scott@soldev.tti.com
(Scott Taylor) wrote:

> I have been seeing a woman for about 6 months now, who is really a great
>person ... [deleted ]... About a month ago I met someone else, whom I now also
>date... [deleted] I don't want to dump either one of them, as I get a lot of
>enjoyment from each of their company...

Definately do not dump either - if you do, the competition will be over and
the other will lose interest; you will wind up alone.

If they were only sisters, too...

-- Bill wtr@mitre.org
* Qvfpynvzref naq fvtf ner bssrafvir, hfrarg rgvdhrggr unf orra nccyvrq *
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:52:52 GMT

In article <15916@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>  
> |When I ask someone out, I expect to pay, but I appreciate it when they
> |offer to pay part or all of their way, or leave the tip.
> 
> Do fill out a Pre-Dinner contract to negotiate percentages before ordering?
> 
> | John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |


You Know, these Pre-sex contract activists have made me think real hard about
all the dangers there are out there when mixing and meeting with people, of
either sex and Johns post (above) brought it to light just how dangerous the
misunderstandings can be, there fore I've been attempting to come up with
a pre-introduction contract.  Think how much trouble it will save.  If they
refuse to sign the contract, you don't have to tell them your name.  And if
you don't have to tell them your name, you surely will not have to pay more 
than your share of any dinner bills, and there is absolutely no chance you
will be hit with a paternity suit.

We could do this in a two stage setup, whereby you give them a very simple
contract which states that they are willing to negotiate a formal contract,
then you could give them your lawyers name and have their lawyer contact your
lawyer to negotiate the terms of your introduction.  If the contract were 
well written it could spell out what would happen from day one up through
marriage, children, and divorce.

It is just so logical, and according to what I've been reading on the net
lately the women are just as confused as us men, so this will take away
all the confusion, all the anziety, all the danger.  We have found the
perfect solution at last.

-- 
Larry

             This .sig file has been purposely left blank.
From: tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Giving and Receiving
Date: 18 Dec 92 07:57:23 GMT
Organization: JPT Computer Solutions
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Dawn Hardin (dhardin@bbn.com) wrote:
: I used to bake bread for all the people that I couldn't decide if I owed
: them Christmas gifts or not.  Now that I'm so time challenged I won't be
: doing that.  I gave flowers to people last year, but I was surprised that
: they didn't go over so well.

You have to make an investment in one of those bread machines! They're really
great! I wake up to the smell of fresh baked bread..... YUMMMMMMMM! :)

-- 
Tim Sailer
JPT Computer Solutions - SCO Sales/Consulting/Administration and Mangling
Port Jefferson Station, NY
(516) 331-9001
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:41:44 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles

In article <1992Dec16.190828.20581@netcom.com>, desiree@netcom.com (Desiree
Champagne) wrote:
> 
> In his most recent article, The Tickle Creature, has stated:
> [...]
> >     If you would have read with more attention, then you would have
> >noticed I wrote "agreement", not "contract".  By the way, the agreement
> >would be negotiated and agreed by both of us.  If she does not want
> >to have an agreement, then she has the free will not to participate
> >in an agreement.
> 
> 	Okay, replace "agreement" with "contract" in my statement.  And
> my query still stands:  Has the thought occurred to you that perhaps
> she's reevaluated the situation given a "today scenario" and realized that
> the agreement isn't realizable given a new set of circumstances?
> [...]

Geez.  Its been fun to lurk on this *discussion*.

Lots of neat arguments about agreements, broken agreements, fairness, and
unfairness.  For a while I found myself thinking that W. David Rohwer had a
valid point or two.  I'm not sure I do anymore.  Oh, not that he doesn't
have a valid point, just that I'm tired of thinking about it.

I've reached my conclusions.  For me, its really simple.  On the occasional
cheap sleezy night of gratuitous sex, trying to reach any kind of agreement
(other than using a condom) would remove all the fun.  Sorry, if we're busy
groping, and ready to move onto the next level, a "contract" or "agreement"
isn't the thing I'm going to whip out.

As for the "long term meaningfull relationship",  well, I've gotten burned
by the "we split the cost of the couch, but she got to keep it" kind of
thing.  It didn't matter that we'd talked about this possibility when we
bought the couch.  She changed her mind.  Gosh, and I really liked that
couch!

Cuz while I'll deny having them, "Feelings" can change.  If you fail to
recognize this, and want an agreement to guarentee that your Significant
Other will always feel the same way about anything (not limited to parental
responsibilities), then you're in for a big surprise.  

There is always a risk that somewhere down the road, her (or your) feelings
will change.  That's how relationships end.  This is a much larger risk
than that of an unplanned pregnancy.

Get a clue.  Risk is a part of any relationship.  If you're not willing to
take the risk, don't get into the relationship.  Any relationship.  Live in
a cave.  Have pizza delivered.

And regarding agreements:  If she'll agree to leave my office at home
alone, I'll agree to not leave the toilet seat up (especially at night),
and not to leave dirty laundry on the floor.  Think I should have something
in writing? ;->


> 	There are some things in this life that are not equal.  The
> world is not equal.  If it were, we'd all pee standing up.  
> 

Oh, but we all can.  Its just that men like pissing on the floor, whereas
women don't.


Craig Keithley
Apple Computer, Inc.
keithley@apple.com
"I have absolutely no responsibility in this matter, what-so-ever"
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Size 8? (Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men)
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:14:43 GMT
	<7794@news.duke.edu> <227@cnmhnet.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP's message of 11 Dec 92 17:42:04 GMT

In article <227@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:

   In article <7794@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
   >and big muscles.  I just happen to be a size 12 person who had the
   >					--Diamond			

   Oh Elizabeth, please cancel my previous posting whereby I said I 
   was in RDU last weekend and I wished I could have met you.  I apologize
   because from your postings, I had deduced that you were a small petite
   female.  Now I understand that you are a size 12.  This explains why
   you are desirous of a guy in leather who rides a Harley Hog.  Please
   accept my apologies.
   --Keith			8-)

Hey, Beth, if you can get him to stop off here, I'll hold him down while
you kick him.

--
		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
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:01:10 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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 <1992Dec11.180539.8749@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
>Back home we had a saying about being more woman for the money (ie bargin)
>and most women I knew growing up accepted this as a compliment (that you
>liked them that way or at least it didn't matter to you).  However when
>I told her this (with a humorous tone of voice) her hearing seemed to
>pick up one word and one word only----MONEY---- and translated that into
>me calling her a prostitute.  So I spent several minutes using the words
>like "yes dear, I didn't mean it like that dear, yes dear I was wrong,
>you know I love you, etc. etc."

I hope you left her a little extra on the nightstand as well...  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Vasectomies (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:58:42 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <255@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.183400.4327@island.COM> don@island.COM (Don Hermes) writes:
 
|Oh Don, how could you or any man even consider getting a vasectomy?
|As a man, I feel that the spermal excrement is at the essence of
|my experience as a man.  Most of the women I used to date really
|enjoyed the excitement of seeing me spray my "love juices" over their
|pulsating bodies.  How a man can even think of depriving himself of
|that pleasure, is beyond me.  

Could someone pry that pistol out of James' hand after he's finished
using it on himself. I'd like to use it too if there any rounds left.



-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles,misc.legal
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 20:25:45 GMT

In the referenced article, aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelyn Aldridge) writes:
>>subjected to many years of involuntary servitude because of the
>                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>inaction of someone who agreed to take action to prevent it,
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>	 The man doesn't have to make babies. He wants the luxury of having
>full intercourse without accepting the responsibility it entails. Everybody
>would like 100% contraceptives. They aren't available. 
>	He doesn't have to take any risks to prevent having a child. All he
>has to do is not participate in sex acts which are likely to engender them.

While I'm not one of them, you still have to deal with the objections
of those who would say the same thing about women vis a vis abortion
(like it or not, it really *is* the same issue at the reproductive
freedom level, which frankly is my assessment of the hingepin of the
entire issue...as opposed to bodily integrity...not that that *wouldn't*
be an adequate reason to allow abortions if it *were* the point of
all this, I just don't think it is).

But whatever the result of that digression, there is still the issue
of a breach of agreement. Personally, if he wants to make such a
binding agreement with a woman, and she's willing to engage in it, I
have absolutely no problem with their private agreement. The issue is
whether or not such a contract should be binding. But if it isn't, why
isn't it and why are *any* contracts binding, *ever*? (note that I'm
side-stepping the issue of the child being the one due the support by
suggesting a default clause in the contract that obligates the
custodial parent to renumerate (possibly in a deferred manner if there
are insufficient funds available for the child's support) to the
non-custodial parent the amount of any transfer payments that are
required from the non-custodial parent to the child).
-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
From: diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:00:18 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <15932@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>
>The man then asked the woman for $30 but said "I'll get the tip."

I think a number of us feel that the man shouldn't have asked the woman for
$30 because she should at least have *offered* to pay part of the bill
spontaneously.  When someone asks me out, it often means that that person
expects to pick up the tab, but I always offer in case my assumptions are
mistaken.  I ate half the food, why not pay half the bill?  (If I
only had an appetizer and two french fries, I might feel otherwise. :-))

>Have you been following the Pre-Sex contract thread?  The date is supposed
>to be a romantic (possibly) encounter with someone and negotiating how
>it is going to be paid for sound more like a business transaction.  Just
>what percentage of the tab is it necessary for a woman to come up with to
>avoid hurting your feelings. 50%,  30%?  Is 15% enough?

Why can't romance take place on a dutch date?  It doesn't take much
negotiation to glance at a bill and figure out about how much one's own
share comes to.  (However, I guess I'd agree that nitpicking about the
exact amount might dispell a romantic mood).  

>I would much prefer a "Thank you very much for dinner tonight.  I had
>a wonderful time", and maybe a kiss on the cheek than 25% of the tab and
>a handshake.

Oh, John, you didn't just say that, did you?  I think I'm going to close
my eyes and count to ten, and hope it disappears from my screen.

Nope, still there.  

WHAT DOES PAYING PART OF THE TAB HAVE TO DO WITH KISSING?  Are you really
saying that you think the kiss is contingent on the contribution, that
you feel that if you pay for dinner she should kiss you in gratitude, whereas
if she chips in for half she can get away with a handshake?  Oh, boy.

				--Diamond

diamond@acpub.duke.edu| We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn
Elizabeth S. Abrams   | them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress 
		      | but the memory of the smell of smoke, and the  
                      | presumption that once our eyes watered. -Tom Stoppard
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: charleen@net.bio.net (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
Subject: Re: Okay, what *is* that view? (was: Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:39:32 GMT
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology

In article <1992Dec16.060012.6265@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> howeird@hpl.hp.com (Howard Stateman) writes:
>
>I suspect that the number of men obsessed with sex is a far greater
>percentage of the population than the number of women obsessed with sex.

Howard, you haven't met enough women in their thirties yet. :-)

>And the numbe of women who value intimacy more than sex is far greater than
>the number of men in that category. If you accept this theory, then you
>would also accept the generalization that men and women view sex
>differently, on the whole.

Except I don't accept that theory.

I think that interest in sex manifests itself in many different ways,
and that women have quiet ways of indulging in lust (hey, bun-watching
is one of *my* favorite activities), and men's ways tend to be more
vocal or obvious.  And with men, there's the whole if-I'm-not-obsessed-
with-sex-I'm-not-a-Real-Man worry.  Yes, I have actually known men
who worried that people would think them less than macho if they didn't
display an active interest in the opposite sex.

So I don't think you can go by appearances.  Is he really obsessed with
sex or does it just look that way?

Charleen

Newsgroups: soc.singles