eirikur@amber.DEC (Eirikur Hallgrimsson) (08/13/84)
Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!wisen Subject: Re: Re: 'forward women' - (nf) Posted: Fri Aug 10 21:58:36 1984 #R:alice:-294200:inmet:8200023:000:264 inmet!wisen Aug 8 12:38:00 1984 For me, the biggest problem is just getting a phone number to call! . |\ ------Bruce Wisentaner /| \ cca!ima! \ / | \ esquire! --inmet!wisen o / | \ harpo! / ^_. _/___|===== O\/`O \_______/] \_( Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!amd!dual!zehntel!hplabs!hp-pcd!hp-dcd!hpfclk!fritz Subject: Re: Re: "forward women" Posted: Fri Aug 10 11:57:00 1984 Nf-ID: #R:alice:-294200:hpfclk:91900002:000:1676 Nf-From: hpfclk!fritz Aug 7 10:57:00 1984 Right on, Anita. Sure, it was scary. Sure, you had doubts as to whether it was a smart thing to do. So do us guys! I am (according to women who know me well) a very sensitive, gentle person. I am a good listener. I am all those great things that a non-macho man is supposed to be. However, I am NOT 1) very brave about asking women out, nor 2) very good at detecting if a woman is interested in me! (I am certain that the two weaknesses reinforce each other, making for a vicious cycle.) I am also somewhat awkward/uncomfortable in social situation with a new MOTOS. This makes it fairly traumatic for me to initiate a relationship, as I will often try to pursue someone *I'm* interested in, but who isn't interested in me. (In high school, my favorite Charlie Brown quote was: "It's hard on a face when it gets laughed in!") As a result, I am sure I have missed out on satisfying relationships because I didn't know a lady would be interested, and thus chickened out. Stupid? You bet! But that's the way it's been. I'm working on it, but still have a long way to go. Luckily for me, there have been several nice women who took the initiative and asked *me* out. My two most significant relationships resulted from the woman initially asking me, or from the woman actively chasing me after I asked her out once or twice. While it can be a little unnerving, it is extremely flattering -- and will certainly get the man's attention. So, ladies, give it a try. Any male who is turned off by a forthright woman probably has other outdated attitudes, and you wouldn't want to get serious about him anyway, right? :-> Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!amd!dual!sunybcs!forys Subject: RE: Re: Asking men out Posted: Fri Aug 10 09:05:27 1984 From alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) Posted: Tue Aug 7 13:14:18 1984 > If she can't be direct with you in the beginning, don't count > on her being any more direct later on. You may be expected to > figure out (guess? read her mind?) what she's feelings and what > she wants all the time. Not necessarily. You could be dealing with a shy girl who isn't sure how to make the first move -- she's waiting for the guy to do it. Once he has, she becomes more at ease around him and more herself. This probably goes for either sex. > I've been in this situation, and I found it very uncomfortable. > I prefer to be around people who aren't afraid to be direct and > honest. (I'm a lousy mind reader.) You *might* be missing out on some fine people just because you can't understand them. I don't find it uncomfortable -- It's actually more like a quality I endeavor to find. No, I can't read minds either -- but I wouldn't want to -- people wouldn't be as interesting! UUCP: {cmc12,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!forys {allegra,decvax}!watmath!sunybcs!forys ARPA, CSnet: forys.buffalo@rand-relay Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall Subject: Re: Open Letter to Jeff Posted: Thu Aug 9 07:18:56 1984 Ah, meditation. Chuq is right--there are a lot of different definitions for it. However, I have to disagree with his saying that ``serious'' meditation involves a shutting-out of the external world. In Zen meditation (zazen) the student is instructed specifically not to shut out the outside world--but not to allow it to disturb concentration, either. This may seem to be a subtle difference, but it is quite important: one of the chief objectives of Zen is a clearing of the perceptions, a removal of the coloration of perception caused by expectations. Thus walking becomes just walking, etc., with the action and the perception of the action being part of the same reality. This is opposed to the object of certain other types of meditation, which are aimed at devotion to a diety or concept, or at shutting out external reality as an aid in contacting an inner or ``higher'' reality. Personally, I disagree with these as objects of meditation, but to others they certainly may be valid aims. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Subject: Re: Interesting perspective on flowers as the ideal gift.... Posted: Wed Aug 8 11:41:57 1984 > [Dave Taylor] > I often give friends (read female friends) flowers as they are > ideal as a gift... > ...Try giving > someone a bunch of wildflowers and a stolen rose or two from someones > garden (ha ha)....pretty cheerful thing to do for zero dollars! Wildflowers, maybe; Stolen flowers, no. Try telling your female friend they're stolen. See how much she respects you for it. (It shows you really think a lot of her.) I imagine it really cheers up the person you stole them from, as well. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17 Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall Subject: Re: RE: Re: Why Some Nice Guys Don't Get Dates Posted: Thu Aug 9 04:58:59 1984 The clothes you put on your body can say a lot about what you think of it--whether it is self-loathing, self-respect, or self-worship. Someone who makes the effort to wear good-looking but comfortable clothes seems more like someone I'd like to know than someone who either doesn't give a damn about how they look, or someone who over-dresses, often in ``fashionable'' outfits that have little respect for a body's health and comfort. ``Inner beauty'' is important, but it has some externally-noticeable signs. One of these is a reasonable concern for appearance. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!robin Subject: open marriages Posted: Wed Aug 8 15:18:45 1984 Judy made an interesting comment: >It really makes me mad when I get the impression that people EXPECT >their spouse to cheat on them sometime - and are willing to accept >it. I suppose that with an attitude like this an "open" marriage >sounds comforting. But let me tell you from my own experience that >IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY. You don't have to settle for that. I know several couples who have 'open' marriages (and relationships) and that is exactly what they have done: one partner has had to settle for something less than what they wanted to begin with. Most (can I use that word now :-)) of these relationships come from one person deciding that they want their sexual freedom ("People aren't like soap, they don't wear out." grrrr) while the other would prefer an exclusive relationship. With a difference of opinion so great, someone has to give and it's usually the one who wants an exclusive relationship. You and your husband are lucky in that you agreed that you would be sexually exclusive even in the face of long separation. -- Robin Beal @ wisconsin ...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!robin robin@wisc-rsch.arpa Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd Subject: Re: children & religion/homosexuality Posted: Tue Aug 7 22:09:00 1984 muttermuttermumblemumble > Now to the fun... > > >:< presumably most of us are single and therefore have no > >:< children, and therefore no reason for these topics. if you > >:< can find a flaw in this logic... > > sorry, dave, just can't resist: >... Oh, hell. Now what do I do? I follow net.singles, am married, don't have kids and won't, but am interested in topics relating to raising children (because, among other things, they're the future and, with any luck for me, will be running the show long before I'm gone) -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been. Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd Subject: Re: "forward women" Posted: Tue Aug 7 21:48:01 1984 >on the subject of asking men out: >... >case 1: the guy already likes you. then 9 times out of 10, he'll call you. >so there's no need for you to call him. OK, if you believe that it's really .9 probability (I would guess more like .6-.7) and you don't care to lose your bet. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been. Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!sunybcs!forys Subject: RE: makeup Posted: Fri Aug 10 16:14:27 1984 > > I think nearly everybody looks GOOD with a mess of makeup > > because you really don't see the person. From rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Posted: Wed Aug 8 17:33:49 > Thats exactly what makes a person look BAD to me. > Makeup is a big turn-off unless used sparingly. > It gives me the impression of a person who lies > to cover up the truth. First, don't hack up my postings and spit them back out with the meaning altered. Second, In my opinion, women wear makeup because they aren't really sure of themselves -- they *think* their best features are their looks and they want to enhance them as much as possible to "make up" for their personality (hence the name). Then, what might happen is since the woman gets such good results with just makeup and some nice clothes, she sees no need to further develop her personality and it stagnates. That might be why you find it a "turn-off". Alright ladies, if I'm wrong (and it wouldn't be the first time), why *do* you wear makeup? Just to *look* nice? UUCP: {cmc12,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!forys {allegra,decvax}!watmath!sunybcs!forys ARPA, CSnet: forys.buffalo@rand-relay Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women Path: decwrl!amd!fortune!hpda!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!blenko Subject: Re: Objectification & Penthouse Posted: Thu Aug 9 19:20:06 1984 For he who asked why the pictures in magazines like _Penthouse_ or (say) _Hustler_ are degrading, etc...... I believe one of the main objections is that PARTS (not the whole) of the female anatomy are shown, especially in _Hustler_, and many people knowledgeable in psychology, etc., think that this helps to dehumanize a man's view of a woman. Allows him to think of her as just a set of breasts, legs, whatever part appeals to him: not as a person with feelings. I still don't understand. Would you be happier if they showed face, arms, legs, etc. all in the same photo? And what does dehumanize mean? If I see pictures of a woman's feet from lots of different viewpoints, in different positions, what does that mean? Does it mean that when I see a woman walking down the street, whom I don't otherwise know, that I think feet are a primary characteristic of her being? Does this mean that I think her feelings are less important? I sure don't think that that's what I think! I also happen to know that men have feet: how is my view of men and women, then, going to be different? One might point out that some of the bizarre things women are shown doing in these magazines are exactly that: contrived, unrepresentative, or misleading. But they can only influence those who don't know better. So then, the problem is that some people having no better way to form expectations about sexual roles than from porn magazines -- and that certainly isn't an objection to porn magazines. Tom Newsgroups: net.singles,net.kids Path: decwrl!amd!dual!zehntel!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Stat-L:acu Subject: Re: Parents' "rights" and responsibilities Posted: Wed Aug 8 12:14:33 1984 Quote without comment -- from "Dear Abby," Wednesday August 8, 1984: >DEAR ABBY: It seems that lately in your attempts to "get with it," >you are really screwing up. You defend a child's right to privacy, >and say that parents should not look at their children's yearbooks >without permission. > > Come on, Abby. Everyone knows that children have no rights. It is >the responsibility of the parents to see that their children are >reared in a clean and wholesome atmosphere. > > Children need to be protected -- not given rights to do wrong. > > Outraged in Orange, Calif. Transcribed by: -- Mark Shoemaker /dev/shoe ...!pur-ee!pucc-k:acu mas@purdue Religion is the process of finding our inner strength. --Tolbert McCarroll Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!amd!dual!zehntel!ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert Subject: Re: dressed nicely? Posted: Thu Aug 9 06:00:18 1984 > I like it when men are dressed nicely at work. I think it looks > professional. Only, I've never seen a nicely dressed man at work that > didn't have shoes of some sort on. :-) OK Woodstock, what do you mean by "looks professional"? Looking professional may be greasy grimy coveralls for a mechanic, a conservative suit and white shirt for an IBMer, a sleezy dress and tons of makeup for a member of the oldest profession. Do you like seeing men dressed nicely (whatever you mean by that) because you like the way they look when they dress that way, or because then their physical image fits the stereotype associated with their job title? I like having a range of acceptable attire. If I feel like dressing up a little I can, if I feel like dressing down a little I can. Must be a real drag to have to wear a specific uniform every day. (remember a three piece suit is just a much a uniform as any other) Re: makeup I agree with whoever it was that said that makeup is only successful if it's undetected. Does anyone actually *like* metallic blue eyelids? -ick- -- _____ /_____\ how in blue blazes do they expect a EE to cook on a gas stove? /_______\ |___| Snoopy ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!amd!dual!zehntel!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!llf Subject: Re: dressed nicely? Posted: Thu Aug 9 07:26:47 1984 Dressed "nicely" means dressed appropriately for the work and environment you happen to be in. It does not mean wearing a flimsy dress and high heel shoes on a hiking trip. C'mon, Snoopy, you should know that! Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!fbr Subject: women asking men out Posted: Tue Aug 7 15:22:51 1984 One of the things that middle age brings is a form of objectivity about one's own existence, and a new knowledge of passionate depth. This enables some men to relax and be interested in a broad range of people, both men and women, without resorting to the one-dimensional games which inevitably surround fantasies of sexual encounter. The ones that get invited out are the ones who give, who listen, who truly care about their human fellows. There is always some little way to please an individual you are going to meet, to let them know you appreciate their existence. Besides, it feels good. fbr Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women Path: decwrl!decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!bonnie!clyde!watmath!deepthot!julian Subject: Re: Women's bodies Posted: Wed Aug 8 14:03:03 1984 Some research was reported not long ago in the Globe & Mail (Toronto) which indicates that 'soft porn' may be much more risky than is commonly believed. The researchers had groups of people ('normal healthy adults') in matched groups, view films. The people were told they were involved in a study if cinema styles or something like that. The researchers used various tests to examine the people's reactions, among other things towards the idea of rape, violence towards another person, etc. One group were shown soft porn film segments, carefully chosen to exclude *any* "violence". the other group saw neutral material, not related to sexuality at all. The researchers found, as I remember the story, that the people who saw the non-violent soft porn, afterwards displayed much more acceptance towards such things as rape, violence, unfaithfulness, and were much somewhat likely to start suspecting that their SOs might be or become 'unfaithful' sexually. The researchers were reported tp be somewhat embarrassed because they had to explain to the people in that group what had happened, and what seemed to have changed in their attitudes, by a 'de-briefing'. Of course, this is not conclusive, but it might be confirmed by other researchers, in which case it would start looking like a solidly confirmed phenomenon. Pending confirmation or otherwise, 'soft porn' should be treated with caution. Its being non-violent isn't necessarily 'safe'. Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!bonnie!clyde!watmath!deepthot!julian Subject: Re: "asking men out" Posted: Wed Aug 8 13:47:30 1984 It isn't a new thing. I remember being asked out (to my surprise) back in the early 1960s when I was in high school. That started a good friendship which lasted several years. It has happened to me a few other times since. Julian Davies deepthot!julian Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!bonnie!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!dan Subject: Gifts Posted: Tue Aug 7 12:58:35 1984 [this line is not here] Flowers, candy, backrubs, etc. etc. are fine, but... if you are trying to find an ideal gift for a particular person then by all means LISTEN and OBSERVE when you are doing things together. Odds are there will be all kinds of hints that you can use to give you ideas for a gift. Often the hint will be perfectly obvious. (E.g. the article a while ago about "The Annotated Alice".) I've had a lot of sucess giving women pearl jewlery. I think pearls look terrific on women, and you can spend just about any amount you want from ~$20 for a thin gold chain with a small pearl up to hundreds of dollars for necklaces. There's also lots of varieties of rings, bracelets, and earrings. Shop around a lot before you buy. (Dress up, go into a fancy jewlery store and let the sales representative teach you all about pearls, then go and shop the places without so much overhead.) Myself, I've always wished for a cuckoo clock. Dan Everhart John Fluke Mfg. Co. { decvax!microsof, uw-beaver, allegra, lbl-csam, ssc-vax } !fluke!dan Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!amd!dual!zehntel!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!gmk Subject: Re: Re: Tucumcari Posted: Thu Aug 9 07:11:00 1984 Nf-ID: #R:pucc-h:-91600:uicsl:27300001:000:311 Nf-From: uicsl!gmk Aug 9 09:11:00 1984 Nf-ID: #R:pucc-h:-91600:uicsl:27300001:000:311 Nf-From: uicsl!gmk Aug 9 09:11:00 1984 I saw the film too and loved it. I don't know who wrote the song but it was recorded by Linda Ronstadt and, possibly, Little Feat. I always thought the name the song was "Willin'" not "Dallas Alice" but maybe that was the name of the film. Newsgroups: net.singles Path: decwrl!amd!dual!zehntel!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:ab3 Subject: "Gluttons and Libertines" Posted: Thu Aug 9 14:18:16 1984 I just finished reading the above-mentioned book (written by Marston Gates) and I'd like to recommend it to all of you... The author discusses the taken-for-granted notions of clothing, social behavior, eating, and sex from a number of different viewpoints, and although he's certainly neither an anthropologist, sociologist, or psychologist, he makes some cogent points that would be of interest to those intrigued by those areas, or to anybody who has to live in the world today (guess that means us...). I will confess that I did skip the chapter on Insects as Food, but I plead mitigating circumstances; I hadn't had my morning coffee fix yet. The book is a good afternoon/evening read, and I think I might compare it in some ways to "The Rape of the A.P.E.", by Allen Sherman; it's focus is wider, though. -- ---Rsk UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, The sinners are much more fun...and only the good die young! etan, If you have relatives that you do not expect, or do not wish, to attend your wedding, what you send them is an announcement. It differs in that it doesn't have a reply card (which is tacky anyway) doesn't give the address of the church, needn't mention the reception, doesn't say RSVP, etc. Pick up a copy of Miss Manners, or any wedding guide. Eirikur Mon 13-Aug-1984 14:04 Marlborough uncorrected time.