HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgacker@ISIS.GSFC.NASA.GOV (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Romantic scenes everywhere?
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:09:35 GMT


	O.K. I admit it, I'm a visual person.  I've always been 
curious as to how people respond to both romantic scenes and sexually
provocative love scenes in media, (I also like them in literature, so
keep that in mind).  What turns you on?  Does Hollywood show too much
or too little?  A friend of my SO's commented on "Basic Instinct" and
said she like Michael Douglas better with about half his clothes on,
not "nekkid".

	Scenes I like, as examples:

	Bugle Boy commercial where the wife comes to the door wearing
only a shirt and suggests "Why don't you try this one on first?"

	Bugle Boy commercial where the other guys are playing golf and
speculating that the wife is keeping hubby home to do housework, but
they are actually getting hot and steamy.

	Love scenes between Richard Gere and Debra Winger in "An Officer
and A Gentlemen", the ending was great too!

	The first love scene in "Excalibur" - HOT!

	Kevin Costner demonstrating the proper way to apply polish to
a woman's toenails in "Bull Durham", Susan Sarandon as the feet.

	The first kiss between Fleischman and the pilot on last year's
"Northern Exposure", in the kitchen, banging around the pots and pans.

	Literary love scenes:  "The Key to Rebecca" by Ken Follett.  Love
scene is 95% dialogue.  Totally brilliant, and exciting.

	Romantic repartee on the train in "North by Northwest", one of the
absolute ALL-TIME greats.  Excerpt:  Cary:  "When I meet an attractive 
woman, I have to act like I'm not interested in making love to her."
Eve-Marie:  "Why?"  Cary:  "She might find the idea objectionable." 
Eve-Marie:  "Then again, she might not."

	Romantic repartee under the fireworks in "To Catch a Thief".  Cary
and Grace Kelly for you non-Hitchcockians.

	Any candidates for best movie kiss?

	Let's get this going, I'm interested in other people's ideas.  I'm
an aspiring, hoping to be inspiring, novelist.

	My best recent line, to a female friend frustrated with a non-
committal male:

	"Look, you've got to tell him there's a lot of reasons to go out
with a person, but 'just to go out' is not one of them."

	Thanks for listening.  See you after the weekend.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@isis.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Subject: Re: LOVE sucks. No question about it.
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:13:06 PDT

In article <1992Apr7.174021.12605@ultra.com>, stcroix@ultra.com (Bill St. Croix) writes:
> 
> I don't believe in the stars or the planets or angels watching from
> above, but I believe there's a Ghost of a Chance, we can find someone to
> love and make it last...
                                              [N. Peart]

It's gonna be a cold day in hell, before I'm coming back to you...

                                              [G. Moore]

Sorry.  Being both a big Rush fan and a big blues fan, I just couldn't
resist...  :-)

Greg
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7060 soc.singles:11214 soc.couples:2108
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:16:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.romance
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <89El02o5c9Kk00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
+You missed the point, guy.  As I've tried to make clear in a few other
+postings, my feelings have nothing whatsoever to do with viewing women
+as property.  The point is that a person ACTIVELY trying to mess up an
+existing relationship is showing a lack of respect for the relationship
+and for BOTH of the people in that relationship.  Asking someone out

So I suppose barging into some guy's house and demanding that his
wife make a choice between her husband and me is out of the
question.

Note the tone of voice.. and the implied possessions.

It's wonderful to be both moral and never been involved in
relationships which force one to evaluate one's own behavior and
stated morals.

-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: hoff@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Wildfire)
Subject: Re: Remaining friends with an ex SO.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:24:32 GMT

stefanos@concour.cs.concordia.ca (KIAKAS stefanos) writes:

>        i hope it works, but i can see problems in the future ( i.e. a new SO
>who does not like the fact that we were once lovers ) and i would like to hear 
>from people who have had experiences like this, the problems they encountered 
>and the way they handled them. plus any other hints that may be helpful.
>thanx,
>stef

If you get a new SO that objects to the fact that you're still friends with
a lover, maybe that SO isn't for you.  People should just others based on
who they are, not who they slept with.  I know that the people who have 
the most problems with this are usually the insecure ones.  I went out
with a guy once, and yes, we were lovers.  We broke it off years ago, but
we are still very close friends.  In fact, after breaking up we got even 
closer once we both got over it.  The problem came when he got a new gf
who was a girl I knew.  She thought that I was still "after" him and
thus I posed a threat.  Luckily, she didn't get break apart our friendship.
I had realized after we broke up that we were fighting all the time and
it just wasn't working out. Now, five years later, he said that letting go
of me was the stupidest thing he's ever done, but that's in the past and
we've changed a lot in many ways.  I've got someone else I'm happy with,
he broke up with that other SO cuz she was trying to manipulate him, etc, 
while she was heavily flirting with his best friend....but that's another 
story.  Anyway, yes, it can work.  You just need to give it time to get
over each other and respect each other's space.  If she feels she can't
handle it right now, don't push it and give her plenty of space.  If
she truly wants to be your friend, it'll happen.
				-Wildfire-

-- 
 And the seeds of love were sown   <>                   -Wildfire-
 And nurtured with desire          <>             hoff@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
 And when they started to grow     <>           lmh44500@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
 They grew like WILDFIRE!          <> Disclaimer:  Who ME?!?!?! (innocent look)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: hevern@u.washington.edu (M. Hevern)
Subject: Re: a question
Organization: U.W. Information Systems
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:41:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.134409.1@runt.appstate.edu>, grs01153@runt.appstate.edu writes:
> Some smart ass responded to my question with something about a jack in the box.
> Well perhaps I should ask it again. What exactly constitutes cheating on someone
> with whom you are in a relationship?.....I am asking because I am curious...I
> realize everyone has a different definition, but it will be interesting to see
> the differences and similarities between (among?) parts of the country and
> sex...-- 

If you think you've cheated, then you have. If your partners definition is different and you know and have agreed to respect there definition then don't, you've cheated. It's simple.

--	MH
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
       | Michael Hevern			| Voice: (206) 685-3229        |
       | University Of Washington	| * "I can't dance...          |
       | Information Systems		|    I can't talk...           |
       | 4545 15th Ave. NE		|    The only funny thing about|
       | Seattle, WA 98105		|    me is the way I walk."    |
       | Mail Stop: JE-41               |       -- Genesis             |
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
	Disclaimer: If I said it I probably meant it.  My employer isn't
		responsible for my opinions.
From: bentkopj@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul J. Bentkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: re: Newbie ... Please Don't Flame.
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:03:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Hello Folks;
	
	I know I might be new to this news group, but what is it
	about... What topics do you discuss ... Is it to learn
	about Romance or develop Romances, etc...

	My questions might be simple and foolish but please bare 
	with me.

	Thanks.

Paul.
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7189 soc.singles:11435 soc.couples:2153
From: rmelvil@hughes.hacgate.UUCP (Richard Melville)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Do You Remember - early '60s edition
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:10:45 GMT
	<1992Apr14.194624.7275@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com>
	<1992Apr14.233824.8673@morrow.stanford.edu>
	<1992Apr15.191857.8294@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hughes Aircraft of Canada Limited, Calgary AB
In-reply-to: joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com's message of 15 Apr 92 19:18:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.191857.8294@cbfsb.cb.att.com> joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (joni.dunlap) writes:

>   what about spider bikes with sissy bars and banana seats ?
>   Joni :)

I thought it was monkey bars and banana seats...

--
----------------                        "I want to spend more money on bikes.
Richard Melville			 I think I need to see a psychiatrist."
Hughes Spatial Data Systems Division     Dave Bridges
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:07:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.183534.20255@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> garvey@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Heather Garvey) writes:
>sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>>rnjx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>>
>>**(stuff deleted here and there)**

>>Whether enticing a participant in another relationship to persue one
>>with you is moral or immoral, in my opinion, is strictly a matter
>>of personal choice.  Of course, knowning the self righteous and
>>opinionated attitudes displayed in this newsgroup by some (and the rest
>>of society), I'm sure you are going to hear from many who think you 
>>to be a low life slime if you did.  
>
>	If you purposely went out of your way to disrupt two people's
>relationship, I'd call you a slime. If you told the person "I am
>very interested in you." or "I'd like to get to know you better." or
>some similar way of clearly and firmly letting your feelings and
>wished be known, well, I'd NEVER call anyone a slime for that. It's 
>never a sin to *tell* someone how you feel. If that person decides to act
>on it, then whatever happens, happens. :) But I think it would be really 
>low to run around spreading lies or such to attempt to break up two 
>people who truly care about each other.
>
I thought that was a given.  Of course the intentions should be honest
and sincere.  If someone went after another (whether they were in a 
relationship or not) just for the hell of it, they are "slime".
				StEvE
>
>>Whether they want this to interfere with their situation,
>>that's their choice.  
>
>	Very true. 
>
>--
From: pfleming@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick E Fleming)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: More Ed and Teresa (was Re: Love Sucks.....)
Date: 17 Apr 92 21:03:04 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

Teresa Kline writes:

>Boy, Pat.  When you enter the games, you do it with a vengeance, don't you?

I guess I'm just that way.  I'm reminded of Frank Cappra's "It's a Wonderful 
Life."  I keep thinking that youth is wasted on the wong people.  "Why don't 
you kiss her instead of talking her to death?" 

(*smak*)   :-X

     - Pat
.
-- 
- Patrick E. Fleming ------------------------------------------------------
- Department of Chemistry --- I'm looking for the spirit of a great heart -
- The Ohio State University ----------- Guk a 'mzimba Sala 'nhliziyo ------
- pfleming@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu --------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Subject: Re: LOVE sucks. No question about it.
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:08:22 PDT

In article <92094.093606RJD118@psuvm.psu.edu>, RJD118@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> LOVE sucks---unless you're in it.
> No matter what you say....when you're really, truly in LOVE,
> you can't say how much it sucks...cause it doesn't.

You're absolutely right.  But which is "real"?  The way you feel when
you're in love?  Or they way you feel after you lose it?  I would tend
to say that both are "real", and that the final measure is the balance
of the two.  In my experience, the pain outweighs the pleasure.  Others'
experience may well differ.

|  Greg Orman                               greg@pomona.claremont.edu  |
|                      Live to ride, Ride to live                      |
|    Would you like me to shoot you before or after I run you over?    |
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6715 soc.singles:10575 soc.couples:1933
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:32:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <75nG027bc0Nq00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>rnjx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>
>No.  Unequivocally it is never, ever ok.  If you know that the other person
>is in a relationship, then you are scum if you lift one little finger to
>try to damage or break up that relationship.  Obviously, if you don't know 
>that a person is involved, you aren't doing anything bad by wooing someone
>whom you think is unattached.  But the second you find out otherwise, you'd
>better back off entirely.
>
Would it be my responsibility to back off??????  Souldn't the person
involved in the relationship be the one to make the decision??????  It's
their relationship????? Who am I to decide what they sould or shouldn't
do. 

>Other posters have tried to mitigate this by bringing up situations where
>you "know" that the relationship is wrong for the other person, or you
>"know" that the other person is only involved because of some falling out
>with you.  None of that gives you the right to decide what's best for
>another person.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!  They should decide for themselves.  If they are
not interested in persuing the new relationship, let THEM say, "Sorry,
I'm involved."  Just because I might want a relationship with them, 
doesn't mean that they now have NO choice in the matter.  Therefore,
I can not assume the responsibility for breaking up the relationship.

>  If you think someone is making a mistake, you of course
>have every right to make your opinion known.  But there is a big, big 
>difference between saying, "I think you're making a mistake here", and
>saying, "Drop this guy and come away with me because I love you more and
>I'm better for you." 

The words would be totally meaningless UNLESS the other person feels
the same.  Why are you putting soooooooo much emphasis on what one
might say to another who's involved in a relationship.  It doesn't mean
shit unless BOTH people feel the same.  Just because I walk up to a
women and say "I love you more than your boyfriend does and I want you
to leave him for me" doesn't mean shit unless SHE feels the same way.
Otherwise, all she has to say is "No".  And your relationship with her
continues to remain "unthreatened".

> The former is just giving your honest opinion; the
>latter is actively trying to entice the person away from the existing
>relationship and toward you.  And that makes you scum.

I totally disagree with you.  The fact that I approach someone with
hopes of having a relationship with them doesn't make me anything except
someone who tries to go after what I think is right for me.  Labeling
me "scum" for doing so makes you dangerous.

			Steve
			
>--James Preston
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: mlb@cisco.com (Marcia Bednarcyk)
Subject: Re: What is love really about
Organization: The Dolphin Conspiracy, Phase II
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:20:52 GMT

In article <_mqj8a=.rfelix@netcom.com>, rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix) writes:
|> Anyway, she went to the minister of her church to help her decide
|> what to do. He told her that it was hard enough to make a relationship
|> work, that love was the "extra something" that made people want to
|> really work at it. He felt that marriages without love are even harder
|> to sustain than marriages with love ( which, he implied, are real
|> tough).

I guess I am looking at it from the other side: here, you are talking about
having everything but love; I was thinking about relationships that have love
and nothing else. In the first case, I think the relationship still has a
chance of succeeding; it wouldn't be as happy or successful as one with love,
but the love probably has a good chance of growing, especially if you like
each other.

With love alone, I have never seen a relationship succeed. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk                                        ADDRESS: mlb@cisco.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
"... the meaning of life is to be happy, try not to hurt people, and hope
you fall in love."
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:19:55 GMT

In article <sdc2aINN9d6@agate.berkeley.edu> ronan@codon3 (Karen Ronan;161 GPBB;x2-0884) writes:
>In article <89El02o5c9Kk00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>
>>as property.  The point is that a person ACTIVELY trying to mess up an
>>existing relationship is showing a lack of respect for the relationship
>
>Okay, someone shows a lack of respect for your relationship.
>So what? Why should that person be of the slightest importance?
>-Karen
>ronan@codon2.berkeley.edu
>
Finally a woman's point of view.  And I agree 100%.  Yes, the guy
may be an ass (or a fool) for actively trying to mess things up, but
he still should have no influence on the security and/or solidity
of the already existing relationship.

We rest our case.

					Steve
From: cs132093@cs.brown.edu (Mark "?" Prince)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Romantic music list
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:34:01
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Brown University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab1f.cs.brown.edu
In-reply-to: chu@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov's message of Thu, 16 Apr 1992 07:10:39 GMT

chu@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Eugene Chu) writes:
?> sean.casey@EMCB.CC.UTAH.EDU (SEAN THOMAS CASEY) writes:
?> >	Okay, folks, here's a new concept for this net.  I've read a lot of 
?> >complaints about how this has turned into a "bitch.net" about how men are 
?> >assholes and women are bitches and nobody can get along with anyone and no 
?> >one can get anyone else to be interested in them . . . . and this is 
?> >supposed to be a net about romance.
?>     "Romance is Hell"	- Matt Groening (just kidding)

	I love that comic strip!

But about songs, more really good ones are:

The Commitments:
	Try A Little Tenderness (especially)
	...anything else by them

Les Miserables:
	(I almost cry when I hear some of these songs.)
	On My Own (esp)
	(Shoot, can't think of the name of the other...first line
	which comes to mind is:

	Fantine sings:  "He took my youth in his stride...
			 he filled my days with endless wonder.
			"Still I dream he comes to me..."  

The romantic attraction of Les Mis isn't just the state of Cosette's
romance, but Eponine's and Fantine's loss of it.


	Question<"She's an angel, but I don't think she knows I know.
	I'm worried that something might happen to me if anyone ever
	 findsout." --TMBG>Mark

--
  _ QuestionMark _   "I don't want the   ((((((((((((((((?))))))))))))))))
 ( )    >>>>    ( )  world, I just want  Internet:   cs132093@cs.brown.edu
  (    (/OO\)    (   your half."         Bitnet:     st102207@BROWNVM       
  o     \__/     o      --They Might     Internet:   Mark_Prince@brown.edu
                           Be Giants     ((((((((((((((((?))))))))))))))))
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline)
Subject: Re: Ed and Teresa (Carp ????)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Yeah, *right* !
Date: 17 Apr 1992 08:14 EST  

In article <1992Apr16.202348.2280@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (karleen sue davis) writes...
>Since when does ANY alt.* group have a "supposed to"?  If you want THAT,
>make it rec.romance or some other crazy thing, and have it moderated.
> 
>And as far as I can tell, they're not doing the "romance chat thing" here.
>They're being silly, just like those of us who are reveling in 60s/70s/80s
>memories.  (And the rest of the people here are helping--throwing in OTHER
>silly things along the way.)  I had the impression that it was some kind of
>a parody on relationships/stereotypes/why-it's-hard-to-get-a-date or some
>such thing. 
> 
>And besides, you're outvoted.  7 for and 3 against.

Thanks, Karleen.  I hated to point out the obvious with the current 
Sanctity thread.  I don't see any question and answer anymore.  I see clear 
lines drawn and salvos going across no-man's-land.  Not *too* romantic.  
But if that's what *they* want to do...fine.
-- Teresa

		Life -- just for the FUN of it!!!!
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6890 soc.couples:2024 soc.singles:10901
From: lm89@ecs.soton.ac.uk (McIlhoney L)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.couples,soc.singles
Subject: Lyric about Self-Deception
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:12:30 GMT
Distribution: world,soc

Heard a song on the radio this morning, about lying to oneself (I'm
quoting from memory):

Crying
Never did anyone no good
No way, no how,
That's why I don't cry now.

Laughing
Maybe did somebody some good
Some way, some how.
That's why I'm laughing now.

Loving
Never did me any good
No way, no how,
So that's why I can't love you now.

Lying
Never did anyone any good
No way no how
So why am I lying now?
                              --Labi Siffre

Well, I thought it was deep.
Loz
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples