HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:45:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>> [Stuff in favor of pre-sex contract idea]
>
>In your previous post, you support the idea of abdicating responsibility,
>yet in this one, you say people should be responsible. Which is it?

I have never and would never support "abdicating responsibility"
for anything.  As a libertarian, I know that freedom implies taking
responsibility for your own life--that's why most dread it.
Proposing a contract to assign responsibility for a child to the
one who chooses to create it doesn't abdicate anything, and
doesn't force anyone to do anything they are against.

By the way, I personally would not propose the contract as it was
presented, but I would certainly consider other such contracts as a
responsible thing to do.  If a wealthy woman asked me to sign a
pre-nup protecting her from socialist community property laws, I
would do so gladly.  I am also personally opposed to abortion, and
if I accidentally made my girlfriend pregnant, I would do everything
in my power to convinve her to have the child, even if it meant
agreeing to take on _more_ responsibilities than the law requires.

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fsquared@eff.org (Fawn Fitter)
Subject: Re: What would you do if...
Originator: fsquared@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:39:07 GMT

Right now, I'm dating two wonderful men -- one who lives 6 blocks away, the
other who lives on the other side of the country.  Each one knows about the
other, but we each have an agreement that the individual relationships will
be "air-tight."  In other words, when I'm with J., I don't talk about M. and
will remind J. about the agreement if he asks something about M.  And when
I'm with M., I don't talk about J.  So far, the only person who's having
problems with the arrangement is _me_ -- I'm not comfortable being polygamous,
but I'm not yet ready to choose between the two men (and it makes me squirm
to feel that here are two people I'm very close to, but who I have to keep
secrets from; I'm not naturally secretive, either).  

It's difficult to get over the notion that relationship = ownership, and
eventually, both you and I may have to make a choice.  In the meantime,
the only way to defuse the situation, I think, is to put your foot down
with both women and say, "I refuse to talk about my relationship with
(other woman) when I'm with you, unless that relationship progresses to
the point where it will affect ours."  And then abide by that.  The "no
gory details" rule...
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Woman: will you go out with shorter man?
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:56:28 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e 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 <Bz5MEv.E83@CAM.ORG> souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.072004.148969@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>>I've found that in bed, height differences don't generally matter...
>
>Yeah, right. I wish L. had the same attitude. Silly git had a talent for
>making a man feel he was Toulouse-Lautrec's smaller brother.
>How much taller was she?
>
>One inch.

I'm 5'9".  I dated a woman who's 6' tall for about a year.  Neither of us had a
problem with it.  Depends on the individuals, I suppose.

>I've always been a sucker for redheads, tho... :-/

I've always been a sucker for women.  My current redhead now has an exclusive
contract, though...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Petri.Wessman@hut.fi (Petri Wessman)
Subject: Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate
Reply-To: Petri.Wessman@hut.fi
Organization: La Gata Encantada
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:25:40

On Tue, 8 Dec 1992 00:34:34 GMT, budn@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Bud Noren) said:

>Will somebody please explain to me the reason so many women have an almost
>imbecilic fixation on cats?

Bud> That's easy.  Women look for the same traits in their pets that they want
Bud> in their men - confidence, independence, etc., almost to the point of
Bud> rudeness.  Men are more comfortable with the relatively obedient
Bud> servility of dogs.  

Hmmm... will someone then explain to me why just about all the women
(ok, girls) that I know are nuts about dogs and couldn't care less
about anything that goes "meow" or scratches at the furniture -- and
why I'm a cat person myself and think dogs are walking drool
generators? Is this some weird Scandinavian thing? :-)

//Petri
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:31:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec16.203306.13633@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:

>However I won't say that this is cheesy and classless (because after
>all, what is chessy and classless is dependent on point of view
>regarding etiquette, etc.).  I think as we move forward in time and
>turn our backs on antiquated notions about dating, women can (and
>should) expect to pay for themselves on a date.

My, this is getting interesting.

OK, here's a scenario.  This happened about a month ago to a friend of
mine.  Let's call her Jane.  She hadn't dated anyone in a long time.  A man
she didn't know well but who seemed nice asked her out to dinner and a
symphony orchestra concert.  Let's call him Sam.  She said yes.  They'd
never been out together before.

The big evening arrives.  He asks her to drive to the restaurant and meet
him there (she lives quite far away).  Fine.  They meet at the restaurant,
and she discovers that another couple will be joining them.  She knows the
man in the other couple pretty well (call him Joe), and they're friends, so
she's a bit surprised but thinks it's fine.  They eat dinner.  The check
comes.  Joe pays for himself and his date.  Sam, however, only pays his
half of the bill, leaving Jane to pay her half.  

They get to the concert.  "By the way," says Sam, "the ticket is $40." 
(Joe, meanwhile, has paid for his date.)  So Jane pays that, too.

POP QUIZ:  
1) When Sam asked Jane out again a couple of weeks later, what do
you think her response was?  

2) Do you think Jane thought to herself:
	
	a. "That Sam, what a prince of a guy!"
  
	b. "Sure hope he asks me out again!"

	c. "I feel like a total scumwad and intend to join a convent.
	    But first I hope he gets incurable hives."


 
-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pickerig@eee.bham.ac.uk (Guy Pickering)
Subject: Re: Book 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:50:12 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

dreas (atovorni@engr.UVic.CA) wrote:
: Three more chapters makes four! </.)
: 
: dreas
: 

But how big is this book dreas? You seem to be completing it very quickly.

Guy.

--
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Guy Pickering                  | School of Electronic & Electrical Eng,  |
| E-MAIL: G.PICKERING@uk.ac.bham | University of Birmingham,               |
| Tel: (021) 414 4340            | Edgbaston, Birmingham. B15 2TT.         |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| "I have ten pairs of trainers...One for each day of the week" - Sam Fox  |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Am I banished?
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:20:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

Two weddings of note, the first I went to the second I only heard about.

Joe and Marty, two musician friends of mine got married on their property
up in the Santa Cruz Mountains.  During the ceremony the minister sprinkled
"fairy dust" on their heads.  The musician providing the music before, during
and after the ceremony included a world class old time bluegrass fiddler. He
would play snippets of songs during the ceremony.  When they talked about 
finding love he broke into "Over the Rainbow".  After they were pronounced
man and wife they each had a song for each other.  He grabbed his guitar and
joined the musicians in "Please Release Me".  She followed it up by singing
"All of Me".  There dog, "Hank", was the ring bearer.

I have a friend whose sister married a man that was a native indian.  The
wedding ceremony took place in a Teepee and included smoking a peace pipe.
-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Size 8? (Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:51:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e 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 <MARTINC.92Dec13170556@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.080112.67513@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>   You want her to sit on your *ribcage*?  Face it, Charles...
>
>So far I've not gotten any better offers....

I thought I had suggested a better sitting location...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:46:20 GMT

JoeMan@ (Joe Tooman) writes:

>Not to bitch or anything, but it seems to me that the female does not have
>any problem finding a guy anytime she feels like she wants a relationship.

Funny.  I thought it was the other way around.  Yes, I *have* had my share
of boyfriends in my quarter of a century, but to be honest, the vast majority
were during the high school years.  I really didn't date much in college.  I
didn't date during my freshman, sophomore, or junior year.  It wasn't until
I was a senior that I began to date someone seriously.

>As a guy, I find that it is very hard to find a female that seems intrested.

I'm sure that there are plenty of females in the same position.  While I
was in college, I had a lot of very nice, very funny female friends who 
could not for the life of them get a date.  They were reasonably attractive
women as far as societal standards go.

>I have a good personality and I am told I rate an 7 on a scale from 1 to 10
>looks wise.  

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, looks aren't everything.  I'd rather have
a guy who is a 10 on the personality scale.  I admit, there are certain 
guys I find more physically attractive than others, but looks are /not/ my
first consideration.

>In my last relationship, my SO always commented how a guy would
>ask for her phone number once a day on average, while I have never been asked
>once for my phone number except by some undesirables.

Well, this may be your former SO's experience.  It's not mine.  Yes, men
have asked me for my phone number before, but I have to wonder if your 
ex was exaggerating somewhat.  Or maybe she really does have a shining 
personality that just draws people to her.  Who knows?

>Maybe it is I don't do
>something right, or am not that persistant, but I am sure envious of women
>at this point.  I am moderatly shy, but that will not stop me from asking
>a woman I am intrested in for her phone number, but it would be a whole lot
>nicer if it was the other way around!  Oh well, what do you guys think...

Heck!  If I met a guy I really, really liked, I'd probably ask for his
phone number.  Of course, most of the guys I know who are candidates are
already attached.  (Sigh!)

Believe me, Joe, things are tough all over.  :-)  No, really, I guess I 
can't complain too much about my situation.  I /have/ had offers (more than
one even) since I broke up with the ex.  

By the way, why were the women who asked you for your phone number
"undesirable"?  Do you mean this in a physical manner?   Because I think 
that if you look beyond the exterior, you might be surprised.  

>---------
>Joe Tooman
>aa422@cleveland.freenet.edu

Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:09:42 GMT

In article <BzA2sI.1JGG@austin.ibm.com>, frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:

|> Sorry to butt in, but couldn't resist.  Let me see if I got the gist
|> of your position: you want "equal" partnership with a guy, but want him,
|> expect of him, to pick up the tab?  
|> 
|> It looks as though in your "equality", one "partner" is more equal than 
|> the other.

Not at all (speaking for myself of course and not for Sharon and whoever
else you were talking to).  If you ask, you pay.  Simple, easy, and if one
of the other people has a problem, let them speak up. Personally, I generally
will assume I'm paying until "instructed" otherwise, to avoid the rather
more awkward position of being caught in the opposite assumption. But that's
just me.

Now of course, the fact that men still seem to ask for dates far more often
than women (at least in my experience) means the man still gets to pay more.
But that's a different thread.

jds

***************************************************************************
                               * Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith                     * Passion and poems and sex
smith@fl08-g.comm.mot.com      * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
                               * I won't shut my mouth for less.
                                                - shriekback
***************************************************************************
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Surrogate companion
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:18:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec17.181826.1871
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Dec17.174336.12046@cheshire.oxy.edu> ac@cheshire.oxy.edu (Aileen Cho) writes:
>  After reading various threads, I wuz inspired to throw out some stuff:
>--Anybody else suffer from the "understudy for the part" syndrome?

	Better than "can't get to audition" complex. *sigh*

>  Yes, this has constantly happened in my (admittedly short) life. One
>friend in particular gets together with and breaks up with the same girl an
>average of once a year, and every interim period between has "returned" to
>me -- we hold hands, I hang out with his family, and then he gets together
>with her again (it's especially strange because I'm friends with her too).
>No, it's not a _bad_ thing -- it's just that I get insecure sometimes -- how
>come I"m always the "backup?"

	You might need to join a better company of players. Things do tend to
get better as you and your peers get out of college; things tend to
settle down....

	Not that this guaruntees you ANYTHING.....

> --Which is another thing.  People talk about the "can-MOTOS-be-just-friends"    
	Thought we settled that question. Of course they can't.

>  No, I'm no
>relating to men romantically" myself, but geez, what am I missing here?

	Could be that the men you're with don't match your maturity level.
Hard to do in college....

-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@u.washington.edu
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:54:27 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Women: would you go out with a man dum
 <1992Dec17.201312.2999@exu.ericsson.se>

In article <1992Dec17.201312.2999@exu.ericsson.se>, exudtn@exu.ericsson.se
(Derek Nelson) says:
>>>In article <1992Dec16.172504.29957@cbnews.cb.att.com>
>eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
>>>   I have to.
>>In article 92Dec16200914@hatteras.cs.unc.edu, martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu
>(Charles R. Martin) >writes:
>>No you don't.
>Yes, she does if and only if, she is smarter than every man on the planet.    h
>Whic
>may or may not be the case depending on your point of view. :-)
>Derek

If Piglet is up in the cerebral wattage zone where it gets damned
hard to quantify, she may be making an assertion about her ability
to get along with male type people of the same general wattage.  Or,
to be sure, their ability to cope with her.

It doesn't neccesarily mean she thinks she's got a brain the size of a
planet.

Graydon
From: souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Thanks for 7 inches
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:18:27 GMT
Organization: Only after coffee.


In article <15928@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <BzC13o.DIv@CAM.ORG> souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:
>>In article <15906@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>|>The best sign I've seen at a ski resort is one at the top of one of the
>|>advanced runs at Mammoth.  It reads, "When your friends say go, you have
>|>the right to say no. The life you save may be your own."  
>|
>|Too bloody right. I let myself be guided off the lift by these guys.
>|I left the idiots as soon as I got to the bottom. 
>|
>|The mountain doesn't care if you do the run, or avoid it entirely.
>
>Yes it does. 
> ... John with ski patrol working for safety... [deleted for brevity]

Ok, you're right, the workers at the site care. What I meant was the
mountain as a granite entity doesn't care if you live or die on its
slopes. It will still be there long after we're all gone, so what's
the point of "proving" anything?

Francois.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rock@medch.b17b.ingr.com (Chris Hudson)
Subject: Re: Over 40 and single....Anyone that "OLD"?
Reply-To: rock@medch.b17b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:58:25 GMT

In article <lj1chmINNo8q@news.bbn.com>, dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
|> 
|> I know where I was when Kennedy got shot.  My mom, who was eight
|> months pregnant with me, was flushing the toilet when the handle
|> broke off and slashed her wrist open.  So I was inside of my mother
|> in the emergency room as she tried to convince the doctor that she
|> hadn't tried to commit suicide and she didn't need to have an emergency
|> C-section for psychiatric reasons, she just needed her damned arm sewn
|> up.  And the police were asking my father how depressed she had been
|> lately and how often he beat her, and he was trying to explain that she
|> had just flushed the toilet.
|> 
|> Does that count, Ken, huh, does that count?
|> 
|> Dawn
|> 
|> Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
|> "Folk Song" by Bongwater

Dawn, you seem to have lead an interesting life, even *before* were born...

Chris
-- 
Save the Sharks!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 I canna change the laws of physics, Captain, but I can find ye a loophole
Xref: sparky soc.singles:34385 soc.women:21668 soc.men:21438 ba.singles:2739 misc.legal:21531
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:17:30 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Dec18.053221.29205@netcom.com> aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelyn Aldridge) writes:
>rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
>
>
>>There's a big difference between: "telling my you'll do X and then
>>changing your mind later is lying" and "telling me you retain the
>>option to change you mind later is lying". The difference is that the
>>latter statement is false, whereas the former one is true. Now,
>>getting indignant about the lie itself may be rather petty and
>>ridiculous when compared to getting indignant about being capriciously
>>subjected to many years of involuntary servitude because of the
>                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>inaction of someone who agreed to take action to prevent it,
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>admittedly.
>
>	 The man doesn't have to make babies. He wants the luxury of having
>full intercourse without accepting the responsibility it entails. 

By the same token, the woman wants the luxury of having "full intercourse" AND 
having AND raising the child, yet it is _she_ who seems strangely unwilling to 
accept full financial responsibility for that unilateral decision, preferring 
instead to extract a forced subsidy from her Sugar Daddy, with the 
government's help and blessing.

Who's asking more? Who's being unreasonable here?

								- Kevin
From: fice@ug.cs.dal.ca (Richard Fice)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:48:28 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1992Dec11.052306.24744@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>     I set the follow-up of this article to soc.singles.
>
>In article <Byo2q9.AD8.1@cs.cmu.edu> Deborah_Brown@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu writes:
>>James Porter writes:
>>>
>>>  DH>> 1) The woman shall get an abortion.  The man shall pay
>>>  DH>>    50% of the abortion expenses
>>>  DH>> 2) The woman shall pay 100% of the medical expenses [Adoption]
>>>  DH>> 3) The woman shall pay 100% of the medical expenses [Keeping the child]
>>>  DH>>
>>>
>>>  DH>Isn't it funny how "pro-choicers" support only one choice?
>>>
>>>  Isn't funny how right to lifers always zero in on there main focal
>>>  point? Notice 2/3 of the above contents were adoption or keeping the
>>>  child.
>>-----
>>Yeah. Great. And just LOOK at the support for these choices:  woman
>>gets abortion, man pays 50%.  So far, so good.  He's taking his equal
>>share of the responsibility.  Woman wants to let the baby live, man
>>isn't even willing to pay 50% of the costs of the BIRTH, much less
>>take ANY responsibility for the child once born!!  Just as the poster
>>above says (sorry... lost track of the attribution), the only "choice"
>>supported by this contract is #1 - woman has abortion.  ANYthing else,
>>and she's completely on her own.
>>-----
>>Debbie
>
>     Actually, I have changed option #2 to the woman and man each paying
>50%.  That is a bit fairer.
>

But not very realistic.


---------------
Richard
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:07:48 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Distribution: usa
 <92350.203417SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1992Dec18.132930.17113@b8.b8.ingr.com>

In article <1992Dec18.132930.17113@b8.b8.ingr.com>, larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry
Billings) says:
>In article <92350.203417SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Graydon
><SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>> I mean, I'm seen a couple flip a coin for the bill.  One lady I went out
>> with, it was a case of who could pounce on the thing first (as a game,
>> not a serious run over the waitress behaviour.)
>Did you then have to wrestle her for it?  Could be a FUN game.  :)
>
>--
>Larry
>
>             This .sig file has been purposely left blank.

Nope.  75 lb weight advantage, and the lady is of Quaker convicitons to
boot.  Anything more conglicted that a tickle 'fight' is right out.

Graydon
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,misc.legal