dpw@rayssd.UUCP (10/22/84)
>> line for the great love_sex god <<
Since I was not able to see the original submittion for net.love_sex
I don't know what was proposed. I will throw my two cents worth in
anyway.
I think that such a group is much needed. I propose the instead of
net.love_sex that the group be net.relationship. This would cover
all facets of love, sex, marriage, living with one other, breaking up
and all of the other goodies. Please no flames. I know that this
is covered in part by net.singles. I also feel that net.singles is
getting a lot of what should be in such a group but net.singles is the
closest thing to it and has therefore became a catch-all for anything
to do with interpersonal relationship. With it being broader it opens
up the subject to all aspects of interpersonal relationships. I feel
that I have a lot to learn about dealing with people. It would be
very nice to have a news group devoted to the subject of relationships.
Outside of sex there is not to much different between husband and wife
type relationship and any other relationship. I understand that the
degree of the feeling and involvement are different but a lot of the
problems are same.
submitted for your approval.
Darryl Wagoner
decvax!brunix land line: 401-847-8000 x4089
allegra-------\ home line: 401-849-5730
---- !rayssd!dpw
linus-------/jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (11/01/84)
Darryl Wagoner says: >I propose the instead of net.love_sex that the group be >net.relationship. This would cover all facets of love, sex, >marriage, living with one other, breaking up and all >of the other goodies. In fact, such a group was created many, many moons ago but it is not being used for the purpose it was intended for. It is net.social. People just continue to use net.singles!! --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullan