HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: how to get to root of strange behavior
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:54:18 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


I say:  Dump him!  Yes, I know, but it bears saying.  He's treating you
like dirt, taking you for granted, etc.  I know it's hard if he is your
first boyfriend, but NOBODY, repeat NOBODY deserves to be ignored and
played with like you are....

And my SO says:

It doesn't cost a lot to have someone "checked up on"...You should be able
to get a credit check, and/or criminal records check for less than $50.
If immigration COULD be an issue, though, and you don't want him deported,
I'd keep quiet as immigration acts on requests for information.
So, if you really want to check up on him, you should be able to afford
the services of a reputable private investigator, as long as the investi-
gation you want isn't TOO detailed or time-consuming. My question to you,
though, is WHY BOTHER?

You have all of the information you need. He lies. He uses you for
financial reasons (i.e. he steals). You sound like a decent human being:
Forgiving and loving. He, on the other hands, sounds like a lower form
of life.

Of COURSE you love him. You fell in love with him honestly. But he doesn't
love you now...IF he ever did. Some men know a "free ride" (no, I'm not
talking about sex, here, though that may be a part of it, too), and some
men are very, very good at finding these free rides.

I have an ex-husband who didn't work a day from our marriage forward. He
took money from our checking account without telling me so that he could
buy cassette tapes or T-shirts or whatever struck his fancy that day. He
liked to go out and shoot pool with the boys, using MY money while I was
expected to sit home and then go to bed alone. Trust me. You don't need
it. It hurts now, and it will go on hurting and hurting and hurting until
you've finally had enough. If you love YOURSELF at all, take David's advice.
DUMP HIM.
From: dragel@sqhilton.pc.cs.cmu.edu.ogi.edu
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: how to get to root of strange behavior
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:11:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzCy6n.27K.2
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Originator: dragel@sqhilton.pc.cs.cmu.edu

It sounds like this is not a relationship at all.  This
guy has used you and treated you badly again and again.
You're worth more than that.  Forgetting about this guy
and moving on is my best advice, even though I know that
is easier said than done.  But think about it: all the
evidence suggests this guy is *never* going to treat you
well, and I don't see anything you could do that would
change that.  Being alone (which you are, technically
anyway) is much preferred IMHO to being entangled with
someone who treats you this way.  Take your energy and
invest it elsewhere.

--cheryl
dragel@sqhilton.pc.cs.cmu.edu
From: shindle@ocf.berkeley.edu (Richard Michael Shindle)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: how to get to root of strange behavior
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:06:21 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.32.234.32

All right Laura. Way to put it.

mike
(shindle@ocf.berkeley.edu)

Newsgroups: soc.couples
From: mperron@abacus.bates.edu (Michael Perron)
Subject: Mother In Laws and Wives
Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:51:07 GMT


	Why is there such a problem between wives and mother in laws.
This is certainly a prevalent problem in todays and yesterdays society, or so
it seems.  I certainly have this problem and I am hoping to get some help
by posting to this newsgroup.  

	It makes it awful hard for a (husband) especially with kids,  to
lead a normal life when the two women are always fighting.  
	
	Is this a dysfunctional type problem or what I'm sure there are some
psych people out there?

	Any contributions thoughts or comments would be appreciated...
immensely, greatly, truly. My apologies if this is not the proper group
for such topic.

Mike Perron
mperron@abacus.bates.edu
From: wt0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wendy Elizabeth Tuggle)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: definition of monogamy?
Date: 12 Dec 92 12:43:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.kf_ag4S00iV3A36PE0
Distribution: world
Organization: Sophomore, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

well, i am new to this group, but i will post my definition of monogamy.
when I say I am monogamous, i mean that i am dating ONE person, and
having any physical relationship is kept to that ONE person. i do not go
on dates with other people, i do not flirt with other people, and i most
certainly do not have any "sexual" physical contact (meaning something
other than a hug or a kiss on the cheek for a close friend) with someone
besides my SO. i also find i don't even fantasize or think about other
people, either....

hope this helped.
(-=wendy
Newsgroups: soc.couples
From: rwarren@vax2.concordia.ca (Rosemary from Montreal)
Subject: Re: how to get to root of strange behavior
Summary: Re: how to get to root of strange behavior
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Concordia University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:48:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.185516.6285@nrtpa038.bnr.ca>, Sparky writes...
>Make a list
>of all your good qualities, then a list of every time
>your "boyfriend" has complimented each of them.  If they're
>about the same length, he's a con man (we already know he's
>a liar) or you have no self-esteem.
list of qualities:  length x (actually pretty short)
list of compliments:  length 1, maybe 2

>What do you fear most --
>being used or being alone?
both equally, but being alone more.  if someone is using you, at least they 
are communicating with you and you are not alone.

"I just want you to recognize me in the temple ..."
	Michael Jackson, "Jam"

Rosemary Warren         rwarren@topaz.concordia.ca
Montreal's Favorite Jacksonmaniac !!!
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: definition of monogamy?
From: jabolliger@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu
Date: 15 Dec 92 11:06:14 EST

In article <Bz6GHJ.LnJ@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, Gavin.Flower@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Gavin Flower) writes:
> In article <kf_ag4S00iV3A36PE0@andrew.cmu.edu> wt0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wendy Elizabeth Tuggle) writes:
>>well, i am new to this group, but i will post my definition of monogamy.
>>when I say I am monogamous, i mean that i am dating ONE person, and
>>having any physical relationship is kept to that ONE person. i do not go
>>on dates with other people, i do not flirt with other people, and i most
>>certainly do not have any "sexual" physical contact (meaning something
>>other than a hug or a kiss on the cheek for a close friend) with someone
>>besides my SO. i also find i don't even fantasize or think about other
>>people, either....
>>
>>hope this helped.
>>(-=wendy
> 
> Rather funny, I'm definitely monogamous, but have never used the term
> (that I can remember)!  Ideally, I'd have liked to have stuck to the
> stricter definition which involves mating once for life - but I'm now
> in the position where I'm considering the possibility of a second
> marriage.
> Gavin

...so monogamy is dating, marrige, having sexual relationship with one
person at a time?

Gregory Peck (I believe) has labeled this serial polygamy.

1. If monogamy was defined as marriage to only one person (until death)
 (and considering many studies of the US population and their inferences
one out of two marriages end in divorce.)  
then I would conclude monagamy was common but possibly not the majority.

2.  If monogamy was defined as marriage to only one person and included
sexual fidelity to that one  then I'd hypothesize that monogamy is a rare
thing indeed.


		Jean Ann
Newsgroups: soc.couples
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: definition of monogamy?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:15:34 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11124238@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>I'm currently arguing with someone over what constitutes "being
>monogamous," either for a person or a relationship.  I'd appreciate
>hearing from people what your definition of monogamy is - that is, what
>do you think someone means when they say "I'm monogamous."

Of course, it depends on the context, but my immediate reaction
was that when someone says "I'm monogamous" it means "I'm not
going to go to bed with you." :-\ 

Some people mean that they will not engage in sexual behavior outside
of a (possibly long-term) relationship (probably more or less
involving love/romance) and furthermore that they have only one such
relationship at a time. Depending on the person, "sexual behavior" may
mean anything from long hugs or kisses to shared orgasms.

Other people mean that they have or intend to have one long-term,
committed romantic relationship (at a time). They may or may not have
sex outside the relationship, but the "monogamous" refers to the
emotional commitment. This is usually "essentially monogamous" or
"monogamous but" etc.

Monogamy, imo, implies some kind of primary allegiance to one lover,
but after that it gets fuzzy. (And I'm not implying that some versions
of non-monogamy may not entail a very similar commitment.) Of course,
insofar as some kind of emotional charge tends to go along with sex,
most people have a difficult time applying the label "monogamous" to
someone who _regularly_ beds more than one person.

As always, ymmv

paul
From: rll1@kepler.unh.edu (Robert L Lamothe)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: how to get to root of strange behavior
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:08:23 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.unh.edu

In article <15DEC199216480806@vax2.concordia.ca> rwarren@vax2.concordia.ca (Rosemary from Montreal) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.185516.6285@nrtpa038.bnr.ca>, Sparky writes...
>>Make a list
>>of all your good qualities, then a list of every time
>>your "boyfriend" has complimented each of them.  If they're
>>about the same length, he's a con man (we already know he's
>>a liar) or you have no self-esteem.
>list of qualities:  length x (actually pretty short)
>list of compliments:  length 1, maybe 2
>
>>What do you fear most --
>>being used or being alone?
>both equally, but being alone more.  if someone is using you, at least they 
>are communicating with you and you are not alone.
>
>"I just want you to recognize me in the temple ..."
>	Michael Jackson, "Jam"
>
>Rosemary Warren         rwarren@topaz.concordia.ca
>Montreal's Favorite Jacksonmaniac !!!

	Depends on how you define alone, I've been alone within a room full
of people, I've been alone lying in bed next to someone.  Right now though
there's no-one else around I'm not alone because my SO is always with me
even though we may be seperated by miles.  I've been in one sided relationships
and I'll tell you I'd rather be by my self than in one of those, I can be
miserable without anyones help, thank you very much.  From the sounds of it
you have to decide what you want, if you want to be in a self destructive mode
wallowing in self pity, then keep on doing what you are doing.  If you want to
pull yourself up by the bootstraps and go looking for the things in life that
you want, then go out and do it.  Join a support group or get counseling if
you need to but leave this loser behind and get on with your life.  And before
you tell me I don't know what its like to be alone, well, I was alone for 5
years before I met my SO, and I'll tell you that our relationship has been
good and getting better with each passing day.  Ok so maybe it took me 5
years of wallowing around in uproductive relationships and another 5 without
a relationship at all, but as far as I'm concerned it was worth it.  I was
unwilling to give in to something less than what I wanted and finally what
I wanted came to me.  Its all up to you.
						-Bob

-- 
---
 Robert L. Lamothe                           University of New Hampshire  
 rll@unh.edu                                 Interoperablity lab room 220  
                                                                             
 Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.  
---
From: mbreen@sdacs.ucsd.edu (Michael Breen)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: promise rings
Date: 18 Dec 1992 01:04:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: sdacs.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Dec17.152407.950@blurt.oswego.edu> tuttle@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
>
>A claddah ring, from Scotland, with two hands holding a heart with a crown
>on top of it, worn on the left hand of either a man or woman, promising (and
>stands for ) love (heart), loyalty (crown) and friendship (holding hands).  A
>claddah ring can be used as an engagement ring, wedding band or a symbol of the
>friendship between two people, not necessarily of different genders.
>
>personally, I think the claddah ring is probably the most meaningful present
>one can give to another.

That's "claddagh" and it's Irish.
Worn on the right hand for lovers. (or as a "promise" ring)
Left hand one way for those engaged to be married.
Left hand the other way for married.  Ceremony involves turning the ring
around.

I am married and have a claddagh from Cork Ireland as my wedding ring.
It is horribly romantic and gets gobs of attention.

Michael Breen
singing and philosophizing
(and missing the emerald Isle)
From: bascle@kish.inria.fr (Benedicte Bascle)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: how to get to root of strange behavior
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:14:27 GMT
Reply-To: buffa@sophia.inria.fr
Organization: Inria Sofia Antipolis

In article <14DEC199216362551@vax2.concordia.ca>, raw writes:
|> i know what you're all gearing up to say:  DUMP HIM!  but if i do, i will 
|> have no one again, and i don't think i can cope with that right now.  too 
|> much is going wrong in my life, and i want to be happy.  i have left out 
|> some details for brevity's and clarity's sake.

Hmmm. Looks like HE has dumped you, but doesn't want to face an explanation
with you. 

-- 
Benedicte Bascle
Email: bascle@sophia.inria.fr    INRIA, FRANCE
****** LIFE IS A TALE TOLD BY AN IDIOT (Shakespeare) ******
Newsgroups: soc.couples
From: fsquared@eff.org (Fawn Fitter)
Subject: Re: Promise rings
Originator: fsquared@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:46:51 GMT

chapmand@chdasic.sps.mot.com (David Chapman) writes:

>Hello,

>A question for the etiquetters among you...

>1) What is a 'promise ring'?

>2) On what finger/hand is it worn?

>chapmand@chdasic.sps.mot.com

A 'promise ring' basically indicates that the couple in question is 
'engaged to be engaged.'  Usually it also indicates that they're too young
to _really_ be engaged, so they're playing engagement until they're old 
enough actually to make plans for the rest of their lives.  It's worn on
the ring finger of the left hand, just as an engagement ring is.  Unless
they want to keep the 'seriousness' of the relationship hidden from their
parents, in which case it's worn on the ring finger of the right hand.

Forgive me for being flippant about this.  Cut out the sarcasm and here's
what you get:  a 'promise ring' is a token of intent to get engaged in the
future, and it's worn just as an engagement ring would be.
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: definition of monogamy?
From: Gavin.Flower@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Gavin Flower)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:03:19 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.

In article <kf_ag4S00iV3A36PE0@andrew.cmu.edu> wt0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wendy Elizabeth Tuggle) writes:
>well, i am new to this group, but i will post my definition of monogamy.
>when I say I am monogamous, i mean that i am dating ONE person, and
>having any physical relationship is kept to that ONE person. i do not go
>on dates with other people, i do not flirt with other people, and i most
>certainly do not have any "sexual" physical contact (meaning something
>other than a hug or a kiss on the cheek for a close friend) with someone
>besides my SO. i also find i don't even fantasize or think about other
>people, either....
>
>hope this helped.
>(-=wendy

Rather funny, I'm definitely monogamous, but have never used the term
(that I can remember)!  Ideally, I'd have liked to have stuck to the
stricter definition which involves mating once for life - but I'm now
in the position where I'm considering the possibility of a second
marriage.

However, I'm happy to have light hearted flirtations, *provided* I'm
confident that the other woman will respond in like manner, and fully
realises (and accepts) that my intention is to stay faithful to the
one very special woman in my life.  Though, it is important to avoid
worrying any partners of such women.

Hmmm... The more I think about it, the more complex the need for
caution becomes.

At what point does consideration and courtly praise of women, become
too flirtatious?  I feel I can go further with the sister of my very
special woman, than I can with others, because she knows my devotion
to her sister, and that I know she knows I know that she is strongly
attached to her boyfriend.

I would certainly assure that I pay more attention to my very special
woman, than to any other present.


Gavin
-- 
Tomorrow's Society                              | flower_g@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
    Depends on                                   ----------------------------
Today's Children  - help us raise them properly! 
*******  These comments have no known correlation with dept. policy!  *******
From: garvey@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Heather Garvey)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: Mother In Laws and Wives
Date: 15 Dec 1992 21:39:53 GMT
Organization: Smith Undergraduate Lab, CWRU, Cleve. OH, 44106, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: marina.scl.cwru.edu

mperron@abacus.bates.edu (Michael Perron) writes:
>
>	Why is there such a problem between wives and mother in laws.
>This is certainly a prevalent problem in todays and yesterdays society, or so
>it seems.  I certainly have this problem and I am hoping to get some help
>by posting to this newsgroup.  
>
>	It makes it awful hard for a (husband) especially with kids,  to
>lead a normal life when the two women are always fighting.  

	1) How are they getting together to fight? Is your mother living
with you, that she would be around and available to fight or is one of
them going out of their way to contact the other in order to fight?

	2) What are you doing about it? As the person binding them together,
you're probably the best one to shake them firmly and tell them to shape
up, for the kids' sake if not your own.

	
--
						| Heather "Moose" Garvey
	"CHAD BLUNT, the BALL carrier!"		| Biochemistry - CWRU '93
		-- The entire band after 	| <hlg@po.cwru.edu>
		   any given running play	| "Wooooooah, PIZZA!"
Newsgroups: soc.couples
From: sarinana@Ingres.COM (Linda Sarinana)
Subject: Re: definition of monogamy?
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:18:29 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11124238@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muf writes...
> 
>I'm currently arguing with someone over what constitutes "being
>monogamous," either for a person or a relationship.  I'd appreciate
>hearing from people what your definition of monogamy is - that is, what
>do you think someone means when they say "I'm monogamous."
> 
>Thanks...
> 
>Muffy
>--
> 
>Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
>muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
**********

Well, I took it upon myself to look the meaning of "monogamy" in the dictionary,
probably like a lot of other people did, and came up with this definition:
1.  The custom or state of being married to one person at a time. 2.  The state
of having one mate for life.  

Personally, my definition of "being monogamous"  has always been that you are
in a sexual relationship with only one person, which usually means you're either
married or in a committed relationship (like the dictionary states)  

I hope that helps!!  -L
Newsgroups: soc.couples
From: emm@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ellen.m.mcsorley)
Subject: re: Anniversary gift idea
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:31:39 GMT

My favorite is always jewelry - I like semi-precious
stones - lots of color selection!  Maybe a bracelet
with 12 different colored stones?

I would NOT combine the gifts!  I always see that as
a cop-out, although it's never meant to be by the
giver (I hope!)  My brother's brithday is Dec. 21
and I really try to see him on or before that day to
give him a gift, rather than wait till Christmas.

Good luck!


Newsgroups: soc.couples
From: kevin@clsi.COM (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: how to get to root of strange behavior
Originator: kevin@dubhe
Reply-To: kevin@clsi.com
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:38:59 GMT


In article <1gjb2dINN3ib@agate.berkeley.edu>, shindle@ocf.berkeley.edu (Richard Michael Shindle) writes:
> All right Laura. Way to put it.
> 
> mike

Seconded,

Kev.
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.couples
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: strange behavior follow-up
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:16:49 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <15DEC199212501199@vax2.concordia.ca> rwarren@vax2.concordia.ca (RAW)  writes:
...
>i want someone who will do the following for and with me (in no particular 
>order):
[list of perfectly reasonable criteria]
>
>society respectfully requests that this companion be male, however "nice 
>guys" were either eaten up by the dinosaurs or washed away by the flood.  
>(you pick your flood date:  Montreal's great flood was in 1987, but i'm 
>sure noah and the gang are just as appropriate.)

First minor quibble: What society respectfully requests is its
own problem. It certainly doesn't seem to have done anything
wonderful for you up to this point. I'm not suggesting you switch
orientations, as if that were necessarily possible or a solution,
just that what society wants (or what your mother can deal with)
is not nearly as important as what _you_ want.

Second, more major quibble: I know it has been said a billion times
before and it doesn't actually get you anywhere, but you have to
be comfortable being with yourself (or at least on the way to believing
that that is a sensible, possible state to be in) to make something
work with someone else. Otherwise you won't be working from a position
of strength and of understanding what you have to offer in a relationship
(which, after all, is a mutual undertaking), and you will find it
much harder (as you have) to drop someone unsatisfactory. 

In another post, you said that you would rather be in a relationship
where someone used you than be alone; I think your experience is
showing that these two actually tend to go hand in hand...

Sigh. Reminds me a little of a sketch of Charlotte Perkins Gilman.
good luck

paul



Newsgroups: soc.couples