HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Older men and younger women (advice needed)
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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 18:08:55 GMT

In article <rtkc8INNgao@agate.berkeley.edu> epg@nature.berkeley.edu writes:
>
>How much stigma is really attatched to dating someone older/younger?  Is
>dating a younger woman something that men want to do in fantasy, but not
>reality?   I don't want to have this happen every time I start a
>relationship with someone older than me, so if you have any
>advice/wisdom to share, I'd like to read it.

How much stigma is there?  I've been involved with women who were a
decade older than I am and a decade younger and in neither case did
I get the impression that the rest of the world was trying to impose
any judgments on me for it.  Age is only as important as you make it
and if you expect to have problems because of it or you expect to 
hear the rest of the world making negative judgments, then you
probably will.  (The example that stands out most in my mind is of
a friend of mine who was in a mutually very enjoyable relationship
with a woman he had a great deal in common with.  They found
themselves spending more and more time together until one day she
found out what his exact birthday was and realized that he was--gasp--
one month younger than she.  She more-or-less freaked out, couldn't
handle it, and broke up with him.)

>little 'e'

Trygve
From: epg@nature.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Newspaper personals (history in the making)
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:11:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.C.B.
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu

I placed a personal in my local freebie weekly.  I got tons of replies
and have several dates planned for this week.  The person who has caught
my interest the most, by sheer coincidence, knows many of the same
people I do.  If people are interested in hearing what happens, I'd be
happy to send in a few posts on it.

*Because I was endowed with a mind, heart and soul,
I enjoy everything in life.*

just me,

little 'e'
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 05:02:24 GMT

>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>The "first move" has to involve initiating a conversation with a
>>complete stranger, and following it up with a request for a date if

brill@larousse.com (Brillat Savarin) writes:
>>"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
>> circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."

stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>Does offering a complete stranger a truffle wrapped in this quote count
>as a first move?

Naw. Not unless it's a fresh truffle, or the intended is a pig (or Piglet)

>What if one person initiates the conversation and the other person
>asks for the date? Who has made the first move? AAAUUUUUGGGGHHHH!

Well OK, I didn't consider this possibility. I would probably give
the first move award to the person who asked for the date. It's
tougher to ask someone out that to start a conversation.

>What if NOBODY can claim responsibility for the first move? What?

There was a first move regardless of whether someone chooses to
"claim" it. Again, it probably should go to the person who asks the
other to an event that could be considered a "date."

>We might have to consider the possibility of MUTUAL INTEREST? 

Of course we might. But mutual interest or not, someone has to move
first. The fact that both people are interested does not mean they
will magically get together without one asking the other.

>But who would get the "aggressive" notch on their belt?

The one who asked first, silly. :-) 

If they both call each other up to ask (and of course, both phones are
busy...), then they _both_ get the first move award. But they _don't_
get it for smiling prettily, or flirting, or arranging to be seen in
the same restaurant, or some other read-my-mind foolishness. They get it 
for asking, not for acting cute. 
-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (Software Dude)
Subject: Another gem! The kiss!
Organization: WHAT?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:40:03 GMT

 liz@gvlf9-j.gvl.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious [Bradley]) smooches..
>
>.....you were a nice guy!  (Is that the
>kiss of death or what!)
>
	I'd say that about kills *ANY* chance that Larry will get
a date before the year 2000! Nice goin', Liz!
--
Puter	puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com "My favorite vanity plate - PHUQUE"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: A R C
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 22:55:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.160017.3028@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.092859.29878@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>You know, at the risk of coming across at *totally* sexist, I'm going to
>have to say that it always seems to be at least the women's *idea* to be
>in the relationship.

Well worth the risk dear.

> No matter how obviously aggressive she is, if a
>women has her eye on a man you can bet that sooner or later he's going to
>figure it out.  I mean, she doesn't have to actually call him up and say
>"Hey, you with the blinders on!  Let's go out!"  Just being available,
>just being around, just smiling at the right time or arranging to be at
>the same restaurant at lunch ...a zillion things.  Not necessarily
>aggressive, but definitely aware.  Keep your eyes open, boys.

Yeah, right! Men have been keeping their eyes open for too long and seen
just too many gals to be desensitized to anything but a baseball bat on the
head. You get only boys that way.

It is women who show interest only by "being around, by being available, by
smiling....." that have completely destroyed any hopes of meaningful
communication. It is not just tough for men. The women who don't want to
be romantic partners can't do any of those things without a shitload of
crap (redundancy? what is that?) descending on them. Hell, a woman can't
even compliment someone's posting on the net without the boy interpreting that
as possible romantic interest in him.

						Walter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am posting under a pseudonym for personal reasons. There is 
enough info in the headers to determine my posting site and possibly even 
determine my login name which is all the information you get from other
postings except that in this case you KNOW for sure that the name in the
headers is a pseudonym. If you don't like the idea put me in your kill file. 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 17:19:11 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

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.

Really?  Well, even if they're not too hard for you to manage, I'd be
glad to take the job over for you.....
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Mothers are inventors by necessity
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: michaili@blondie.cs.wisc.edu (Afroditi Michailidi)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:31:59 GMT

In article <dzpjfsh@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
      [Larry's comments deleted]
>
>Yes, but a monogamous relationship >is< trusting the other person to
>not sleep with anybody else.
>Calling it 'open' doesn't add one iota of trust that shouldn't have already
>been there in the first place. I guess it means I consider my SO sleeping
>with somebody else to be a 'bad' thing.

   Good for you. However, please note: just because you're in an open
relationship doesn't mean you're fucking everything in sight. Nor that you
must find everybody else attractive, nor that you'll act on that attractiveness,
nor that you have a minimum quota of lovers to have each month. Any and all
of these things can happen, of course, but in _any_ relationship, open or not.

   Furthermore, if I were the exclusive type, I would be much happier if my
SO *knows* s/he can sleep with anybody s/he likes but *doesn't* than with
my SO not sleeping around because of monogamy but *wanting* to.

   But, you will say, the second example is of a _failing_ monogamous
relationship. Glad you noticed -- now try not to bring up _failing_ examples
of open relationships.

   I am not putting you down; you're happy with monogamy, don't change that.
But do not brand all open relationships as immature and 'waiting for your
partner to fail you'. Different strokes for different folks. (NO, Larry, don't
you *dare* make a pun!)

>r.



                                             Afroditi

*****************************************************
Warning: Graduate student -- overworked and underpaid
*****************************************************
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Revenge (Was: Re: A Slight Rant)
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:55:51 GMT
Reply-To: dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1992Apr6.024057.17961@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>In article <ktn0gnINNo21@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>>
>>Now THAT'S my idea of a worthwhile thread!  Does anybody have any ideas,
>>thoughts, nasty fantasies that they'd like to share on the topic?
>>
>	Personally, if it doesn't require evacuating the timezone to limit
>fatalities, it isn't worth doing. I look at the iridium layer for inspiration...
>
>	Anyone who obsesses on 'getting even' with an ex really should
>consider getting a life.


Well James, there's no doubt in mine or any other mind that this is 
the mature, responsible, healthy, civic-minded, sensible attitude
to take.  But in the meantime, I'm a little curious -- just *how* many
times did you post "never forgive, never forget"?

Check back with me AFTER the nightmares die down about the correct way to
think.  In the meantime, your other suggestions sounded pretty good.  

Dawn
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Avoiding dating married people
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: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:38:51 GMT

In article <cduEHK600UhW06=oxZ@andrew.cmu.edu> ps3p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter A. Simon) writes:
>>>Am I married?  ASK ME.  Am I in a significant primary relationship?  ASK
>>>ME.  What do I want of you, if what I have already told you is not
>>>clear?  ASK ME.  But, having asked, check up on me?  You're history.
>> 
>>I'm curious why you're so offended by someone checking up on you--first
>>of all, I think it's entirely appropriate for someone to have at least
>>some wish to verify the things said by someone that they have just met
>>and are considering getting close to.  I can't think of anyone offhand
>>who, upon meeting someone and thinking about getting romatically
>>involved with him or her wouldn't ask questions of mutual friends or
>>otherwise try to find out a few things about this person.
>> 
>>I've had lots of women do things like ask friends and people I've been
>>involved with in the past about me or run searches in news databases
>>for articles about me--I always thought that this connoted a level of
>>interest that I found flattering.  I might wonder about it a little if
>>the person in question seemed to be obsessing over it, but I've yet to
>>see that happen and a certain amount of interest is normal and healthy.
>> 
>>Trygve    (References available on request.)
>
>Well, you see, I'm not famous like you are, and don't get the same rush
>from people searching through databases, credit reports, public records,
>and so forth to find out who I am.  The level of interest I find
>flattering is that which can discern who I am through personal contact
>and which respects my privacy.

I don't think fame has anything to do with the emotional side of this,
other than it makes it slightly easier to dig up background material on
someone.  I think we have radically different needs for privacy/secrecy,
mine being very low, perhaps in part because there's nothing about me that
I'm ashamed of.

I'm still trying to figure out, though, what thoughts go through your head
when you find out that someone you've recently met who is nonetheless
contemplating sharing your bed and maybe your life might have taken a
few moments to "check up" on you through other sources.

Trygve
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:37:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.040754.13512@u.washington.edu> hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.213826.18712@u.washington.edu>, intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>> Angelwing - It is all so obvious.
>Oblivious?

To some, I suppose.

> I don't think your
> list of "clues" is very helpfull though. Let's face it people like 
> to interact, and a smile and batting eye lids doesn't cut it as a
> definitive maybe. 

Well what I hadn't taken into account before was that maybe the reason
that some of you men out there don't know how to read the signals is that
women haven't been giving you any.  So how can you look to see who's
flirting with you, who might be interested in you, when no one is?  There
*is* a dilemma.  And now we have come fully circle to the physical
attractiveness thread.  I suppose that's why, in nature, the males are the
ones with the fancy plumage.  

Angelwing - More feathers!!

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*

Xref: sparky soc.singles:10638 soc.couples:1946 soc.men:8157 soc.women:8724
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.couples,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Older men and younger women (advice needed)
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:51:36 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.singles
Distribution: usa
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <rtkc8INNgao@agate.berkeley.edu> epg@nature.berkeley.edu writes:
>How much stigma is really attatched to dating someone older/younger?  Is
>dating a younger woman something that men want to do in fantasy, but not
>reality?   I don't want to have this happen every time I start a
>relationship with someone older than me, so if you have any
>advice/wisdom to share, I'd like to read it.

Althouth a man's dating an older woman is quite trendy right now (see Cher or
just about anybody in the Hollywood biz), there's a lot of "charge" associated 
with a man's dating a younger woman.  The phrase "he's old enough to be her
*father*" is quite a cliche'.  He may sometimes wonder if he's viewed as
nothing but a randy old goat who doesn't think that women his age are good 
enough.  He may also wonder why the woman finds him attractive, when there
are plenty of men her own age.  He may fear rejection for the next strapping
young beach boy who comes along which, ironically, may cause him to draw back 
from the relationship.  None of this is rational, but it is part of the human 
animal.

I even felt funny when I was 24 and was dating 18-year-olds.  That's only
six years difference.  I don't feel nearly as funny with my current girlfriend, 
who is 11 years my senior.

I don't know a certain way to fix this kind of thing, but I think that good
communication is always a fine place to start.  A certain amount of playful
disdain for what other people think is helpful, too.  Also be prepared to
listen to a certain amount of self-denigration.  You don't have to reassure,
just wait it out.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jailbird@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ron D. Harvey)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Organization: The RAMJAC Corporation
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:13:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.180641.11782@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.190009.27945@mks.com> fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
> [...]
>Absolutely--fortunately (due to time and selectivity constraints) I
>haven't slept with the majority of married women in this country.  

	Hmm.  And to think that I always thought the reason I couldn't
sleep "with the majority of married women in this country" was because
I didn't have enough frequent flyer miles.

>>It has been both my experience and observation that most people don't
>>behave as 'adults (your definition above)' when it comes to sex.
>>Unsafe sex, unwanted pregnancies abound.

>True enough--another good reason why I don't have sex with the majority
>of the population on the planet.  

	Face it, Trygve: you "don't have sex with the majority of the 
population on the planet" for the exact opposite reason why a dog licks
his balls.

> I tend to be attracted to intelligent,
>competent, responsible women with at least a certain degree of self-esteem;
>this seems to be conducive to responsible sexual behavior.

	Oooh, you'd be *surprised*, young man.


>>	fred
>
>Trygve


-- 
Ron D. Harvey	jailbird@ddsw1.mcs.com 

The only difference between a halo and a noose is about a foot.
From: mm0s@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MARC MOSCHETTE)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Telephone Personals
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:17:20 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Why do all the newspapers go for the telephone response?  Are people who like
to write or prefer written responses as a means of testing intelligence,
sanity, sincerity, etc. just not important to the papers??
Marc
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Organization: Medieval England, Iowa
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 16:19:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.152939.14752@cs.yale.edu> loosemore-sandra@CS.YALE.EDU (Sandra Loosemore) writes:
>Hey guys, what I keep hearing you all saying is that you think any
>woman who *doesn't* enjoy dressing up like a prostitute has some kind
>of problem.  

No, Sandra, what everyone hears you saying is that even though a
woman freely chose to wear a "floozy costume" to a party, you
project your own attitude about prostitutes onto her and claim
she didn't really want to wear it, that she found it demeaning.

Personally, if I wore a floozy costume I'd want to get out of
it too, as soon as I got home -- because pantyhose and high heels
and makeup drive me batty.   But I wouldn't put on a costume to
begin with that I found "demeaning".  Heck, if someone thought
I looked good in a floozy costume, I'd be flattered.

>Is *that* really a tolerant attitude?  As I said, what
>consenting adults choose to do is their own business, but if they choose
>not to do it, that's their own business too.  Sheesh.

Just don't decide FOR them what they choose or don't choose
to do, ok?  

Pooh  
       pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu
From: goodrum@unccvax.uncc.edu (Huckleberry Muffin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: date characteristics
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:33:22 GMT
Reply-To: goodrum@unccvax.uncc.edu.UUCP (Huckleberry Muffin)
Organization: University of North Carolina at Charlotte

>In <1992Apr01.234724.7665@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>In  <1992Apr1.213810.29442@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>  brunette@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (H L Brunette) writes:
>>> That said, it's not easy to ask women out.
>
>>What's so hard about saying "Want to go out some time?" ???
>

	There's not a thing hard about saying that. You say it,
then she says "Oh sure, I'd love to" and you both feel real good
about it and never deal with the question of *when* and *where*
you're going out, or even establish whether she wants to go out
with you or just go out.
	Asking for a real date, now that's hard.



cloyd
-- 
Cloyd Goodrum III                        " I've never held an ocean 
UNCC Computer Science Department           In the palm of my hand    "      
Charlotte, N.C.                             -- Nick Drake    
unccvax!goodrum@mcnc.org
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Romantic Songs
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:51:56 GMT

In article <3840056@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> wjb@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Buse) writes:
>For a change of topics, how about a discussion of romantic songs or 
>favorite songs that could be considered to be romantic.  :-)  
>
Bill bill bill ...*sigh* this is soc.singles.  The newsgroup full of
cynics and sociopaths.  heh  Okay we're NOT sociopaths.  But there is a
place for this kind of stuff and that would be [everybody now] alt.romance
and the ever pukey alt.romance.chat.  (Sorry Lee...)  They would LOVE to
discuss just which song is more romantic and then regale you with stories
of imaginary seductions in front of the fireplace [while the parents are
out of town or at the local Sizzler].

Angelwing - sheesh

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:26:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr15.195859.9024@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
> 
>Let's see Anglewing responded to a post, therefore she want's to
>bear my children and is in fact being more than friendly and
>yet somehow aggresive.

Ooo!  He's reading my mind!!  He's reading my mind!!

>Anglewing stop stalking me or I'll have to spank you.

Don't toy with me, babycakes.  Show me your paddle.

Angelwing - With or without panties

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*