British women
Don't send me hate mail
I've heard that the ratio of women to men is 8 to 1 in Britian.
Is this true?
This sounds like the place for me to be!!
The compition is too fierce here in the U.S.. It's about 50/50 . I
can't get a date over here!! Either the girls are lying to me or they
are really dating someone or they are married.
I'm planning a trip to Europe this summer and would like to make some
female friends while I'm over there.
Steve McKinty - Sun Microsystems Grenoble
In article <33adf226...@news.preferred.com>, ThisAd...@fake.com (Don't send me hate mail) writes:
>I've heard that the ratio of women to men is 8 to 1 in Britian.
>
>Is this true?
8 to 1? What a ridiculous idea. Its actualy closer to 20 to 1.
That is due mostly to certain British sexual practices (which I dare
not name in public) in which the female partner strangles her lover
while in the throes of orgasm.
In Victorian times it was not unusual for her to then devour the
lucky man, but that practice was outlawed under EU legislation
sometime in the 70's. That did cause a major public health hazard
for a time, but the privatisation of funeral parlours, and their
consequent expansion, have largely rectified the 'disposal' problem.
>I'm planning a trip to Europe this summer and would like to make some
>female friends while I'm over there.
I'm sure you'll be most welcome, but do remember to apply salt and
vinegar *before* approaching the ladies, its most ill-mannered to use
it in their presence.
Steve
--
Steve McKinty |
Sun Microsystems ICNC |
38240 Meylan, France | Unsolicited e-mail advertising
email: smckinty (AT) france.sun.com | is not welcome.
Parvaze Bashir
ThisAd...@fake.com (Don't send me hate mail) wrote nothing of any
substance
Get a life moron, HTH
Parvaze
Real e.mail address: par...@ix.netcom.com
Adrian Smith
In article <5om12v$q7p$1...@netserv.univ-lille1.fr>, JPC <chadourne@univ-
lille3.fr> writes
>In article <1997Jun2...@France.Sun.COM>, smck...@sunicnc.France.Sun.COMż
>says...
>>I'm sure you'll be most welcome, but do remember to apply salt and
>>vinegar *before* approaching the ladies, its most ill-mannered to use
>>it in their presence.
>>
>>Steve
>
Even if you just come *to* France?
--
Adrian Smith
JPC
D. Miller
Don't send me hate mail wrote:
>
> I've heard that the ratio of women to men is 8 to 1 in Britian.
>
> Is this true?
>
>
> The compition is too fierce here in the U.S.. It's about 50/50 . I
> can't get a date over here!! Either the girls are lying to me or they
> are really dating someone or they are married.
No way ! Girls said THAT ? To YOU ?
Mike Harvey
In article <33adf226...@news.preferred.com>, ThisAd...@fake.com
(Don't send me hate mail) wrote:
> I've heard that the ratio of women to men is 8 to 1 in Britian.
> Is this true?
> This sounds like the place for me to be!!
I wouldn't give someone as clueless as you much of a chance if the odds were
80 to 1 in your favour.
Mike H (Feeling pissed off after wasting the morning in camberley.)
--
Mike H mha...@argonet.co.uk
Words are unable to speak of love like a smile in a whisper does.
Barry
Don't send me hate mail <ThisAd...@fake.com> wrote in article
<33adf226...@news.preferred.com>...
> I've heard that the ratio of women to men is 8 to 1 in Britian.
>
> Is this true?
>
Are we talking about buying themselves lacey undies??
gw0...@swansea.ac.uk
On 1997-06-23 chad...@univ-lille3.fr(JPC) said:
>And if you come in France you have to apply garlic too!
Yup, those women don't like plain white sauce, and
make sure you don't let it loose its moisture, because they *hate* the skin
that will otherwise occur.:-)
73, de Toby Fisher
email: gw0...@swansea.ac.uk, tel. 01792-295896
Nettamer, the best dos-based ppp package around;
visit http://people.delphi.com/davidcolston/ and find out for yourself!
Net-Tamer V 1.08.1 - Registered
Beth
In article <01bc8271$af0bc230$2e2c70c2@lucas_server_1>, Christopher
Michael Lucas <denr...@hotmail.com> was rabbiting on a bit about
>there are more guys than women. But in many large cities (throughout the
>western world) there are slightly more women of working age between 20-40
>than equivalent men. As a Brit, whenever I went to the USA I found it far
>easier to get good looking dates than in London. However, there are some
>great places in Europe, Amsterdam, Antwerp and Oslo all have their fair
>share of gorgeous women. Moscow, Prague and Bratislava I am told are also
>very good places.
argh!!!
since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
give me a good conversationalist
and civilised person any day over a uniform-featured, self-absorbed
bore....
and yes - I do know that some lookers have brains.
But you get the gist.
Beth, fat, old and ugly but bright and reasonable good company on a date.
--
be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk http://www.flyboat.demon.co.uk/
"Never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom’s.
Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own.":NELSON ALGREN
Wendy A. S. Taylor
In article <+rPxOXAS...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>,
Beth <Be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>argh!!!
>since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
>give me a good conversationalist
>and civilised person any day over a uniform-featured, self-absorbed
>bore....
>
>and yes - I do know that some lookers have brains.
>But you get the gist.
>
>Beth, fat, old and ugly but bright and reasonable good company on a date.
Beth, don't take me wrong, but I wish you wouldn't denigrate yourself. You're
far from old, you certainly aren't ugly and in many people's books your
weight isn't exceptionally large. You're right about the brightness and
company, though.
I missed the orginal post as I killfile on multiple crossposts, but looks
aren't as important as intellect and personality.
Wendy
Bob Brenchley
Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <01bc8271$af0bc230$2e2c70c2@lucas_server_1>, Christopher
>Michael Lucas <denr...@hotmail.com> was rabbiting on a bit about
>>there are more guys than women. But in many large cities (throughout the
>>western world) there are slightly more women of working age between 20-40
>>than equivalent men. As a Brit, whenever I went to the USA I found it far
>>easier to get good looking dates than in London. However, there are some
>>great places in Europe, Amsterdam, Antwerp and Oslo all have their fair
>>share of gorgeous women. Moscow, Prague and Bratislava I am told are also
>>very good places.
>
>argh!!!
>since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
>give me a good conversationalist
>and civilised person any day over a uniform-featured, self-absorbed
>bore....
>
>and yes - I do know that some lookers have brains.
>But you get the gist.
>
>Beth, fat, old and ugly but bright and reasonable good company on a date.
Beth! BETH!!! B E T H !!!
You are not fat you are cuddly, womanly [and quite a few others.
You are not old. I'm not old so you can't be cos you are younger than
me. You are also younger than Nev and as he is Young you can't be old
so there.
Ugly?? you can't be, you are a woman - end of story.
As to the rest, will tell you /after/ we have had a date :)
HTH.
Bob.
mousetrap
In article <33b4d37...@news.enterprise.net>, Bob Brenchley
<Brenc...@aol.com> spouted forth with gusto:
>Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>argh!!!
>>since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
>>give me a good conversationalist
>>and civilised person any day over a uniform-featured, self-absorbed
>>bore....
>>
>>and yes - I do know that some lookers have brains.
>>But you get the gist.
>>
>>Beth, fat, old and ugly but bright and reasonable good company on a date.
>
>
>Beth! BETH!!! B E T H !!!
>
>You are not fat you are cuddly, womanly [and quite a few others.
>
>You are not old. I'm not old so you can't be cos you are younger than
>me. You are also younger than Nev and as he is Young you can't be old
>so there.
>
>Ugly?? you can't be, you are a woman - end of story.
>
>As to the rest, will tell you /after/ we have had a date :)
Grab your coat, Beth......
;-)
--
mousetrap
"I can see a miracle, and through it all we rise and fall, tear it apart and
stay forever and I know where heaven is, and somewhere in between miracles
happen"
st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:31:14 +0100, Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>argh!!!
>since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
>give me a good conversationalist
>and civilised person any day over a uniform-featured, self-absorbed
>bore....
Aye, its the old saying whats inside counts more..personality is more
important and so on. This is true in most cases, but when it comes to
choosing a "mate", as opposed to friend, then looks do count., thats
undeniable..
--
Steve aka Agrippa
email st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
........ s...@netcomuk.co.uk
Beth
In article <33b4e1ed...@nntp.netcruiser>, st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
was rabbiting on a bit about
>wrote:
>
>
>>argh!!!
>>since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
>>give me a good conversationalist
>>and civilised person any day over a uniform-featured, self-absorbed
>>bore....
>
>Aye, its the old saying whats inside counts more..personality is more
>important and so on. This is true in most cases, but when it comes to
>choosing a "mate", as opposed to friend, then looks do count., thats
>undeniable..
I deny it
absolutely
unless we take the line that love is blind?
I know the guy I am besotted with was *totally* physically unappealing
to me when I met him. Even now I would have to be honest and admit that
he is no oil painting - but to me he is *gorgeous*.
Of course, he isn't my mate. And he never will be.
:-{
Beth
st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:48:30 +0100, Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>>
>>Aye, its the old saying whats inside counts more..personality is more
>>important and so on. This is true in most cases, but when it comes to
>>choosing a "mate", as opposed to friend, then looks do count., thats
>>undeniable..
>
>I deny it
>absolutely
Well as a severly disabled person, with a blindingly obvious deformed
body, I have found that in this case its true in 99% of (womens)
minds. Friendship, sympathy, pity, well meaning talk about, how you
are such a sweet, wise, courageous guy, etc etc, and I`m not
predjudiced and there`s someone out there for you ( but never them )
are what usually are given, but anything tending towards a
relationship, no. Perhaps I`m too passive, a symptom of what I am, and
with those I have felt good about I just continue in my own way, never
being pushy and thus they slip away and find someone else...
Anyway enough of that ranting, the friends I do have are special to
me.......and maybe that 1% will show up one day
>
>- but to me he is *gorgeous*.
>
>Of course, he isn't my mate. And he never will be.
And why not......hmmm.
Sheldon Simms
In article <wapiiiAO...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>, Beth
<Be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <33b4e1ed...@nntp.netcruiser>, st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
> was rabbiting on a bit about
> >On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:31:14 +0100, Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>argh!!!
> >>since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
> >>give me a good conversationalist
> >>and civilised person any day over a uniform-featured, self-absorbed
> >>bore....
> >
> >Aye, its the old saying whats inside counts more..personality is more
> >important and so on. This is true in most cases, but when it comes to
> >choosing a "mate", as opposed to friend, then looks do count., thats
> >undeniable..
>
> I deny it
> absolutely
You're fighting the evolved tendencies of the male mind. If you keep
it up for a million years or so, you might win.
--
W. Sheldon Simms III | 2000 is *still* the 20th century
she...@atlcom.net |
Beth
In article <098816420E1F2994.61A00928C942974E.00FCB2DAE3514B18@library-
proxy.airnews.net>, Sheldon Simms <she...@atlcom.net> was rabbiting on
a bit about
>In article <wapiiiAO...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>, Beth
><Be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <33b4e1ed...@nntp.netcruiser>, st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
>> was rabbiting on a bit about
>> >On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:31:14 +0100, Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>argh!!!
>> >>since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
>> >>give me a good conversationalist
>> >>and civilised person any day over a uniform-featured, self-absorbed
>> >>bore....
>> >
>> >Aye, its the old saying whats inside counts more..personality is more
>> >important and so on. This is true in most cases, but when it comes to
>> >choosing a "mate", as opposed to friend, then looks do count., thats
>> >undeniable..
>>
>> I deny it
>> absolutely
>
>You're fighting the evolved tendencies of the male mind. If you keep
>it up for a million years or so, you might win.
I know
<tongue in cheek>
we are all bitches, out for what we can get
</tongue in cheek>
Ashley Hinton
> unless we take the line that love is blind?
It is, it can also be stupid and illogical which
is what I hate most about it. I don't mind the blind
bit since there is much more to people than just the
exterior looks.
> I know the guy I am besotted with was *totally* physically unappealing
> to me when I met him. Even now I would have to be honest and admit that
> he is no oil painting - but to me he is *gorgeous*.
I was absolutely blown away by someone who I'd not
even met (the stupidiy playing it's part) and despite
realising that I was in for a very hard time even if
things had worked out, I was still madly in love and
totally willing to take whatever hurt could come (the
illogical part) - to me she was just mindblowing, and
even after spending time with her I didn't consider looks
much, although they played a part.
> Of course, he isn't my mate. And he never will be.
yeah... there are those people to all of us. Those
that will never be.
> :-{
have a *hug* and some chocolate.
--
_/_/ Ashley -= Ashley Hinton, Oxfordshire, UK =-
_/_/ <ash...@chal.demon.co.uk> <http://www.chal.demon.co.uk>
Stuart A. Bronstein
Beth <Be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
>>
>>Aye, its the old saying whats inside counts more..personality is more
>>important and so on. This is true in most cases, but when it comes to
>>choosing a "mate", as opposed to friend, then looks do count., thats
>>undeniable..
>
>I deny it
>absolutely
>
>to me when I met him. Even now I would have to be honest and admit that
>he is no oil painting - but to me he is *gorgeous*.
I agree. Too many people mistake infatuation based on physical
attraction for a deeper connection based on other factors. The problem
with this approach is that physical beauty often fades quickly, and (if
that's the only basis for a relationship) so will the relationship
itself.
>
>Of course, he isn't my mate. And he never will be.
>:-{
What's the problem, Beth? Isn't he married? %-)
Stu
"My heart is a bargain today. Will you take it?"
-- W.C. Fields (attributed)
Beth
In article <AFDAEE40...@chal.demon.co.uk>, Ashley Hinton
<ne...@chal.demon.co.uk> was rabbiting on a bit about
<snip>
>have a *hug* and some chocolate.
my kinda man
:->
David Reid
In outpouring of consciousness known as <33b4d37...@news.enterprise
.net>, Bob Brenchley <Brenc...@aol.com> spake thusly:
>
>You are not fat you are cuddly, womanly [and quite a few others.
ITYM Huggable.
--
David Reid Da...@davita.demon.co.uk http://www.davita.demon.co.uk
WARNING:
This message contains sensitive electrons, do not drop, do no expose to
dust or moisture, do not expose to extremes of temperature. NO USER SERVICEABLE
PARTS INSIDE.
Ashley Hinton
> >have a *hug* and some chocolate.
> my kinda man
> :->
My OS is designed to please when programmed
in the right way ;)
Andrew Marshall
>>wrote:
>>>argh!!!
>>>since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
IMHO, and IME, **never**.
>>>give me a good conversationalist
>>>and civilised person any day over a uniform-featured, self-absorbed
>>>bore....
Absolutely
>>
>>Aye, its the old saying whats inside counts more..personality is more
>>important and so on.
Damn right it is
> This is true in most cases, but when it comes to
>>choosing a "mate", as opposed to friend, then looks do count., thats
>>undeniable..
is it hell as like
>
>I deny it
>absolutely
as do I, totally; to me, it's far more about someone becoming your best
friend *first*, and, in the fullness of time, *maybe* becoming your
'mate'<tm>, lover, or whatever, as a possible natural progression
(or not :-( )
>unless we take the line that love is blind?
For me, I'm afraid it was - see below
>I know the guy I am besotted with was *totally* physically unappealing
>to me when I met him. Even now I would have to be honest and admit that
>he is no oil painting - but to me he is *gorgeous*.
<coredump, mode=romantic>
I know that the woman I *used* to be besotted with (from about 7 years
ago until nearly 3 years ago) became first and foremost a *very* close
friend, and only *then* did I become interested in her as a possible
'mate' (that's how it works with me), but sadly nothing more came of it;
she chose another, with whom, I am told by a third party, she is happy.
To me (and to many others), she is gorgeous, too. But physical
attraction, although most certainly there, was not the foundation of our
friendship (and of my love for her); it was a meeting of minds, of
outlooks on life, of viewpoints, of understandings, of reasons for
delight or laughter; of intuition as to each others' feelings. The
sudden, delightful, shared look and warm, infectious grin that instantly
confirms your parallel thoughts about a situation. The instinctive train
of thought or plan of action which is born of understanding of each
others' way of being; which grows in carrying out those plans, driven by
the instinct that what you are doing *feels* right, *is* right, and will
be good for both of you; and which matures with the look of delight, the
cry of joy, the kiss, the hug, the dance together round the room, or
whatever else may ensue, that is not so much a direct response to what
one has done, but far more a delighted appreciation of the thoughts and
instincts which prompted one's actions. Knowing, and not needing to
worry or question. Being comfortable and at ease together.
But I was still suddenly and unexpectedly shot down out of a cold
November 1994 sky, with the port engine trailing smoke, and with very
little control (no website, so can't post the allegorical story); and
the crash landing and subsequent repairs *hurt*. Since then I haven't
been able to believe in love again. There have been a few sparks, some
recent and some less so, but each time now I have to force myself to
open up my fusebox, firmly pull out the fuse for that circuit, and lock
it back away in the safe, on those occasions when it has sneaked out of
the aforesaid place and back into its holder, lest I cause anyone
heartache or embarrassment with my clumsy feelings.
</coredump>
Beth, I trust you won't think me presumptuous or arrogant in saying that
I do at least know how you feel. I hope your luck turns out a *lot*
better than mine (mind you, that can't be difficult :-)).
OK, if I get *plonked* by anybody, or indeed everybody, so be it; but
what's above is the honest truth and I can do no better than that.
Regards,
Andrew.
--
Andrew Marshall.
Stuart A. Bronstein
<gw0...@swansea.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 1997-06-27 Be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk said:
> >since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
>
> Here here! I never worry about such things as looks.:)
Not even your own?
Stu
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Stuart A. Bronstein
D. Miller <de...@demon.net.uk> wrote:
>Beauty is in the female is more important than in the male.
>
>It's not possible to get an erection listening to someone's interesting or
>witty conversation. However an intellectually challenged female with an
>attractive appearance gets the required physical response every time.
Absolutely and utterly untrue. I was having the most delightful
telephone conversation with a lady of my acquaintance recently. It was
completely non-sexual, completely non-erotic, but quite intimate in terms
of the sharing of hopes, fears, etc.
And the emotional connection resulting from that intimacy certainly got
me physically aroused.
I think anyone who relies on physical beauty alone to get turned on is
only heading for disappointment, since that will someday fade. And then
where will your relationship be?
Stu
"He's turned his life around. He used to be depressed and miserable. Now
he's miserable and depressed."
--David Frost
Beth
<snip compliments trawled for>
:-)
> You are also younger than Nev and as he is Young you can't be old
>so there.
um
are you sure about that?
Beth
In article <5p1jo1$kef$1...@news.swan.ac.uk>, gw0...@swansea.ac.uk was
rabbiting on a bit about
> >since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
>
>
> Here here! I never worry about such things as looks.:)
>
>
>Well, you know, I can't speak for the looks Beth, but I'm always looking
>for those after some conversation, and ultimately more, of course.:-))
Hey Toby
My perfect date!!
:-)
Ed
I would like to meet a British woman I am ion the northeast of the
U.S. and met a few in my life and thought they were pretty down to
earth and easy to get along with, if any of you British women get to
the u.s. drop me a line :) http://users.ids.net/~edmac/ed.htm
Beth
In article <8d49EAAm...@cheeseshop.demon.co.uk>, mousetrap
<mous...@cheeseshop.demon.co.uk> was rabbiting on a bit about
>>>and civilised person any day over a uniform-featured, self-absorbed
>>>bore....
>>>
>>>But you get the gist.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>so there.
>>
>>Ugly?? you can't be, you are a woman - end of story.
>>
>>As to the rest, will tell you /after/ we have had a date :)
>
>Grab your coat, Beth......
>;-)
aw
and I am busy tonight
got a date with a birthday boy for a curry.....
Nev? are you out there? are you coming for curry too?
D. Miller
gx...@dial.pipex.com
Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Beth, fat, old and ugly but bright and reasonable good company on a date.
Beth, none of the above except bright and very good company on a date,
or should I say a boink.
Fifi, saving a Dashing White Sergeant for Beth
st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
On 28 Jun 1997 19:03:04 -0700, ad...@crl11.crl.com (Stuart A.
Bronstein) wrote:
>Absolutely and utterly untrue. I was having the most delightful
>telephone conversation with a lady of my acquaintance recently. It was
>completely non-sexual, completely non-erotic, but quite intimate in terms
>of the sharing of hopes, fears, etc.
>
>And the emotional connection resulting from that intimacy certainly got
>me physically aroused.
>
I totally agree on that too., having been "there". It doesnt require
sight to become physically aroused, nor does it take, cheap sexual
talk a la 0898 etc numbers, if we`re talking conversation only.. Just
sometimes the conversation with the person gets into close emotional
waters, as you said, and a "connection" is made. Call it if you will,
a precursor of "love". I think its that you beging to "feel" you are
giving them needed emotional support, or things along this line and
its this bonding that is stimulating..
After all, by that rather one diminseional attiitude, how do blind
people fall in love , or becomed aroused ?
Ahh, but then again, what if you meet this person and they are a pile
of green bubbling slime..heh !!
gx...@dial.pipex.com
Beth
In article <33B5BC...@demon.net.uk>, "D. Miller"
<de...@demon.net.uk> was rabbiting on a bit about
>Beauty is in the female is more important than in the male.
>
>It's not possible to get an erection listening to someone's interesting or witty
>conversation.
>However an intellectually challenged female with an attractive appearance gets
>the required
>physical response every time.
never been turned on by a sexy husky voice?
never been turned on by a subtly suggestive dooble entendre?
never had telephone sex?
Beth
In article <5p59f0$l...@bore.pipex.net>, "gx...@dial.pipex.com"
<gx...@dial.pipex.com> was rabbiting on a bit about
will he be kilted?
>
Beth, hopefully
Stuart A. Bronstein
Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> interjected:
: Nick Sellors <ni...@derby.org> was rabbiting on
: >Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>
: >>we are all bitches, out for what we can get
: >
: ><cynic>Ain't that the truth</cynic>
: Nick's trolling again
: Beth - not biting
I agree. The word "golddigger" is much more appropriate.
Stu
When I heated my home with oil, I used an average of 800 gallons a
year. I have found that I can keep comfortably warm for an entire
winter with slightly over half that quantity of beer.
--Dave Barry
Stuart A. Bronstein
In uk.singles Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: "gx...@dial.pipex.com" <gx...@dial.pipex.com>
: >Fifi, saving a Dashing White Sergeant for Beth
: will he be kilted?
: Beth, hopefully
Q: Is anything worn under your kilt?
A: Everything is in working order, think you.
Stu
"We have several set forms which are held as law, and so held and used
for good reason, though we cannot at present remember that reason".
Chief Justice Fortescue, 1458
Steve McKinty - Sun Microsystems Grenoble
In article <33B5BC...@demon.net.uk>, "D. Miller" <de...@demon.net.uk> writes:
>Beauty is in the female is more important than in the male.
>
>It's not possible to get an erection listening to someone's interesting or witty conversation.
Surely that rather depends on the voice of the soemone?
>However an intellectually challenged female with an attractive
>appearance gets the required physical response every time.
Even the morning after when the previous evening's wine has worn off?
Steve
--
Steve McKinty |
Sun Microsystems ICNC |
38240 Meylan, France | Unsolicited e-mail advertising
email: smckinty (AT) france.sun.com | is not welcome.
Miriam Dean
In article <wapiiiAO...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>, Beth
<be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <33b4e1ed...@nntp.netcruiser>, st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>argh!!!
>>>since *when* did perceived good looks make for a good date?
>>Aye, its the old saying whats inside counts more..personality is more
>>choosing a "mate", as opposed to friend, then looks do count.
>
>the guy I am besotted with was *totally* physically unappealing
>to me when I met him. Even now I would have to be honest and admit that
>he is no oil painting - but to me he is *gorgeous*.
And I think that packaging is extremely important, I frequently judge
people by their looks and would mostly rather go out with someone good-
looking, superficial, loud, with big hair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Purple Aardvaark on Heat ltd. Miss Vesuvius was dumbfounded. Her new
assistant Quentin Wymmpe had looked grateful when she had threatened to
stuff his head down the lavatory in the executive washroom.
--
Miriam Dean
Bob Brenchley
"D. Miller" <de...@demon.net.uk> wrote:
>Beauty is in the female is more important than in the male.
>
>It's not possible to get an erection listening to someone's interesting or witty conversation.
Oh yes it is...
>However an intellectually challenged female with an attractive appearance gets the required
>physical response every time.
Oh no she doesn't
Bob.
Beth
In article <33bcbd73....@news.prestel.co.uk>, Stephen Milner
<Elr...@bigfoot.com> was rabbiting on a bit about
>she...@atlcom.net (Sheldon Simms) the great and wise eloquently
>explained to all :
>
>>You're fighting the evolved tendencies of the male mind. If you keep
>
>Oxymoron alert.
tea in keyboard
Beth
Stephen Milner
Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> the great and wise eloquently
explained to all :
>In article <33bcbd73....@news.prestel.co.uk>, Stephen Milner
><Elr...@bigfoot.com> was rabbiting on a bit about
>>she...@atlcom.net (Sheldon Simms) the great and wise eloquently
>>explained to all :
>>
>>>You're fighting the evolved tendencies of the male mind. If you keep
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Oxymoron alert.
>
>tea in keyboard
Tetleys or Earl Grey ?
Regards, Steve
http://www.bestiary.com/walrus/
I love cats because I enjoy my home;
and little by little they become its visible soul
Chris Hedley
In article <01bc8271$af0bc230$2e2c70c2@lucas_server_1>,
"Christopher Michael Lucas" <denr...@hotmail.com> writes:
> there are more guys than women. But in many large cities (throughout the
> western world) there are slightly more women of working age between 20-40
> than equivalent men.
Actually, as far as the UK is concerned, you seem to've managed to
completely invert this! There're more women than men in the UK, but
in the 25-50 agegroup women are significantly outnumbered by men,
according to various sources.
> As a Brit, whenever I went to the USA I found it far
> easier to get good looking dates than in London.
Oh dear, how shallow some blokes can be. OTOH, this is the same criterion
women apply to prospective dates, so I shouldn't be so damning, I suppose!
Chris.
Beth
In article <33c4e0e6....@news.prestel.co.uk>, Stephen Milner
<Elr...@bigfoot.com> was rabbiting on a bit about
>Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> the great and wise eloquently
>explained to all :
>
>>In article <33bcbd73....@news.prestel.co.uk>, Stephen Milner
>><Elr...@bigfoot.com> was rabbiting on a bit about
>>>she...@atlcom.net (Sheldon Simms) the great and wise eloquently
>>>explained to all :
>>>
>>>>You're fighting the evolved tendencies of the male mind. If you keep
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Oxymoron alert.
>>
>>tea in keyboard
>
>Tetleys or Earl Grey ?
EG of course
mousetrap
In article <5p82hb$j...@freyja.mimir.com>, Nuala <nu...@mimir.com>
spouted forth with gusto:
>Stuart A. Bronstein <ad...@crl7.crl.com> wrote:
>
>>I agree. The word "golddigger" is much more appropriate.
>
>
>Nuala, had enough of this in another newsgroup.
But you sorted *them* out.......
--
mousetrap, who's been lurking.....
"I can see a miracle, and through it all we rise and fall, tear it apart and
stay forever and I know where heaven is, and somewhere in between miracles
happen"
Stuart A. Bronstein
Nuala <nu...@mimir.com> wrote:
>Stuart A. Bronstein <ad...@crl7.crl.com> wrote:
>
>>I agree. The word "golddigger" is much more appropriate.
>
>I *really* hope that was a joke.
Actually, it *was* meant ironically. I have actually met very few (women
or men, the incidence is about the same) who regard money as an
aphrodisiac. (My ex wife is one.)
Stu
Women have their faults,
Men have only two:
Everything they say,
And everything they do.
Julie Bennett
gx...@dial.pipex.com (gx...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Beth, fat, old and ugly but bright and reasonable good company on a date.
>
>Beth, none of the above except bright and very good company on a date,
>or should I say a boink.
So take *that* Beth! You just don't know what you're talking about!
>Fifi, saving a Dashing White Sergeant for Beth
BTW Feef, got an extra one lying around for your old pal Jules? ;-)
Julie
--
"Whenever I see your smiling face I have to smile myself, because I love you, yes I do. When you give me that pretty little pout, it turns me inside out, it's something about you baby..."
-James Taylor-
Stuart A. Bronstein
Julie Bennett <ju...@samsara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>gx...@dial.pipex.com (gx...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>
>>Fifi, saving a Dashing White Sergeant for Beth
>
>BTW Feef, got an extra one lying around for your old pal Jules? ;-)
Only if he's been mislaid. (What's that joke about the similarity
between men and floors?)
Stu
"Tempus edox, homo edacior, which I would translate: Time is blind, but
man is stupid."
--Victor Hugo, The Hunchback of Notre-Dame
gx...@dial.pipex.com
Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5p59f0$l...@bore.pipex.net>, "gx...@dial.pipex.com"
><gx...@dial.pipex.com> was rabbiting on a bit about
>>Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Beth, fat, old and ugly but bright and reasonable good company on a date.
>>
>>Beth, none of the above except bright and very good company on a date,
>>or should I say a boink.
>>
>>Fifi, saving a Dashing White Sergeant for Beth
>will he be kilted?
Anything's possible.
Fifi
Bob Brenchley
"D. Miller" <de...@demon.net.uk> wrote:
>I suppose the voice takes on a new dimension for those carrying a white stick.
Well they say love is blind - and so is sexual attraction. A voice, a
smell, a touch, a dream - all can start the ball rolling just as
instantly as a glimpse.
Bob.
Ariel4UKMs
> I've heard that the ratio of women to men is 8 to 1 in Britian.
>
> Is this true?
>
> This sounds like the place for me to be!!
>
> The compition is too fierce here in the U.S.. It's about 50/50 . I
> can't get a date over here!! Either the girls are lying to me or they
> are really dating someone or they are married.
>
> I'm planning a trip to Europe this summer and would like to make some
> female friends while I'm over there.
You are sadly misguided.
There are actually 200 men for every woman in Britain, and as male harems
are against the State Religion, 199 have to kill themselves at the
mass selections each summer solstice.
Visitors are welcome to this touching ceremony, as long as they take part.
AND ARIEL4UKMs STICKS HER MONOTONOUS TUPPENCE IN AGAIN:
I've TOLD you (English) guys... COME OVER HERE!!! There are hoards of
attractive American female Anglophiles who are dying to meet you!!! Or
just offer us lodging over there! As for you American men who can't get
dates here.... So sorry... but the accents are all wrong. We want Brits!!
We want Brits!! O-N-L-Y!
(And to think that Hugh really did go off to Hollywood Boulevard and PAY
for it... But he's started something with us, anyway... now we all want
one just like him.)
Sheldon Simms
In article <AFDDF5829...@samsara.demon.co.uk>,
ju...@samsara.demon.co.uk (Julie Bennett) wrote:
> gx...@dial.pipex.com (gx...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>
> >Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>Beth, fat, old and ugly but bright and reasonable good company on a date.
> >
> >Beth, none of the above except bright and very good company on a date,
> >or should I say a boink.
>
> So take *that* Beth! You just don't know what you're talking about!
>
> >Fifi, saving a Dashing White Sergeant for Beth
>
> BTW Feef, got an extra one lying around for your old pal Jules? ;-)
Why do I think this would never have been said face-to-face?
--
W. Sheldon Simms III | 2000 is *still* the 20th century
she...@atlcom.net |
D. Miller
Beth wrote:
>
> never been turned on by a sexy husky voice?
Yes but it was always accompanied by a sexy body and a pretty face.
> never been turned on by a subtly suggestive dooble entendre?
Ditto above.
> never had telephone sex?
No way ! Those holes are way too small for me.
D. Miller
st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
>Friendship and rapport with a partner are certainly important, but my own
>experience shows that it can be a questionable foundation for a long term
>commitment on its own. Desire and passion are equally important, and if
>they aren't strong initially, will they stand the test of time? Some
>people say they'll stand it better if these feelings have grown slowly,
>but what stops the tumultuous feelings growing too? Hmmmm.
On the friendship thing I agree. Its important to start out as
friends, but experience has shown that if you run the friendship thing
for too long, then a relationship becomes highly unlikely. If two
people have any feeling towards each other, and usually, as friends or
not, these will surface earlier rather than later, then thats the time
to act on them.. Otherwise the tendency is for all the usual cliches
along the lines of "we can`t get involved, our frienship would be
ruined" etc and hesitation, fear etc to surface, Any dual feelings
for each other tend to go out of sync from then on, following which
the friendship usually breaks up, or becomes somewhat less than it
was...
There are always exceptions to the rule though....
mousetrap
In article <5pcu50$i...@bore.pipex.net>, "gx...@dial.pipex.com"
<gx...@dial.pipex.com> spouted forth with gusto:
>ju...@samsara.demon.co.uk (Julie Bennett) wrote:
>
>
>>>Fifi, saving a Dashing White Sergeant for Beth
>
>>BTW Feef, got an extra one lying around for your old pal Jules? ;-)
>
>
>Fifi
Can *I* join this queue ?
--
mousetrap
Julie Bennett
she...@atlcom.net (Sheldon Simms) wrote:
>ju...@samsara.demon.co.uk (Julie Bennett) wrote:
>> BTW Feef, got an extra one lying around for your old pal Jules? ;-)
>
>Why do I think this would never have been said face-to-face?
Well, you don't know me and Feef very well then do you? She owes me one
after giving me the cold from hell and laringitis when I was already over
due to have my baby. I had my fingers crossed for a week that I wouldn't
go into labor, it would have been no fun if I couldn't scream!
Julie, not that it was fun after I did have my voice back...
Sheldon Simms
In article <AFE036C8...@samsara.demon.co.uk>,
ju...@samsara.demon.co.uk (Julie Bennett) wrote:
> she...@atlcom.net (Sheldon Simms) wrote:
>
> >ju...@samsara.demon.co.uk (Julie Bennett) wrote:
> >> BTW Feef, got an extra one lying around for your old pal Jules? ;-)
> >
> >Why do I think this would never have been said face-to-face?
>
> Well, you don't know me and Feef very well then do you?
That's true. I retract my comment.
Nick Leverton
In article <E1A820F5850DD7A5.86331DE1...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
she...@atlcom.net (Sheldon Simms) writes:
>ju...@samsara.demon.co.uk (Julie Bennett) wrote:
>> gx...@dial.pipex.com (gx...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>> >Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Why do I think this would never have been said face-to-face?
Beacuse you don't know any of the people in question ?
N.
--
Uk.Singles web site: http://www.mimir.com/singles/
Read the FAQ before posting: http://www.mimir.com/singles/faq.html
John J Smith
In article <19970701201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Ariel4UKMs <ariel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>AND ARIEL4UKMs STICKS HER MONOTONOUS TUPPENCE IN AGAIN:
>
>I've TOLD you (English) guys... COME OVER HERE!!! There are hoards of
>attractive American female Anglophiles who are dying to meet you!!! Or
>just offer us lodging over there! As for you American men who can't get
>dates here.... So sorry... but the accents are all wrong. We want Brits!!
> We want Brits!! O-N-L-Y!
Another one who cannot tell the difference between English and British..
>(And to think that Hugh really did go off to Hollywood Boulevard and PAY
>for it... But he's started something with us, anyway... now we all want
>one just like him.)
Hate to tell you this, Ariel, but Hugh Grant aint exactly Britains
most respected Englishman either....
Smid
Ariel4UKMs
Steve, a/k/a Agrippa, writes regarding American women's preferences for
Englishmen's accents:
"Aye Ariel, I`ll agree with you on that....having been on IRC in the
past, and now "the Palace", you`re right in saying the American female
just luurrrves the accent......they`re constantly saying so.....hmm,
and there are far more women over there "looking" in relation to men,
compaired to sad old UK..heh. Ariel, I did go over there......she
loved my voice...but don`t think she could quiet cope with my
body....ahh well. Maybe next time."
Steve, you should have snuck out to the bars and found someone who could
"cope" with your body... With Englishmen, I think the attraction begins
with the accent, then we're hooked by the mannerisms (I refer to
gentlemen, now), and frankly, if a man is attentive and appreciative
enough towards a woman, very few physical drawbacks he may have will
impede mutual desire or devotion on her part.
"IT depends though on what you think of as an accent....hopefully not
the cliched "Bob hoskins cockney", or sauve royal......there are quite
a wide variety over here..form the worst.....Birmingham....sorry any
Brummies reading.....and I was born there...but I escaped young...to
the other extremes, of the really far back 20 plums in your mouth.
Take your pick."
No, you're right here, Steve--Hoskins will never be a sex symbol in the
States, for various reasons... but I have other "sister" Anglophiles on
AOL who don't care what sort of British accent a man has. They like
everything from English Cockney to Scottish burrs and Irish brogues. I
must confess I prefer the posher, cultivated accents... too much taken for
Grant-ed: as in Hugh, Richard E., Cary, et alia.
I am absolutely enthralled that so many American women all over are as
Brit-crazed as we are on AOL... I'm actually trying to organize us, at
present. ;-))
How much room did you say you have? We're a small group, so far, we
"hardcore regulars" on-line over there... I hope to build us all into our
own separate country, some day... Britain isn't doing any more colonies
these days, is it? LOL ;-D
Keep in touch, luv... I'll e-mail you separately when they're all up on my
web site.
Best wishes,
Ariel ('Ri)
David Reid
In outpouring of consciousness known as <vPKZgEAgr$uzE...@cheeseshop.dem
on.co.uk>, mousetrap <mous...@cheeseshop.demon.co.uk> spake thusly:
>In article <5pg24r$r...@freyja.mimir.com>, Nuala <nu...@mimir.com>
>spouted forth with gusto:
>>
>>Ok, 'Anglo' is not the same as British and Irish isn't even British.
>>If you insist on stereotyping people, try to keep track of this sort
>>of detail. And it's really rather offensive to say you're attracted
>>to someone just because of their ethnicity.
>
>Did she say "just because" ?
She may not have said it explicitly, but that's certainly the impression
I get from her posts. She doesn't seem to have grasped that English and
British are not interchangeable, that Irish is not covered by either and
that failing to understand the difference between the three is not
likely to win her many friends around these parts.
I'm just surprised it seems to have taken some people several days to
spot her lack of cluefullness.
--
David Reid Da...@davita.demon.co.uk http://www.davita.demon.co.uk
WARNING:
This message contains sensitive electrons, do not drop, do no expose to
dust or moisture, do not expose to extremes of temperature. NO USER SERVICEABLE
PARTS INSIDE.
Julie Bennett
she...@atlcom.net (Sheldon Simms) wrote:
>ju...@samsara.demon.co.uk (Julie Bennett) wrote:
>> Well, you don't know me and Feef very well then do you?
>
>That's true. I retract my comment.
Okay, you're forgiven. You don't happen to wear a uniform, do ya? ;-)
Julie
--
"If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do well matters very much."
-Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis-
Andrew Marshall
In article <5paufs$d...@leofric.coventry.ac.uk>, "Wendy A. S. Taylor"
<ccx...@coventry.ac.uk> writes
>
>Friendship and rapport with a partner are certainly important, but my own
>experience shows that it can be a questionable foundation for a long term
>commitment on its own.
> Desire and passion are equally important, and if
>they aren't strong initially, will they stand the test of time? Some
>people say they'll stand it better if these feelings have grown slowly,
>but what stops the tumultuous feelings growing too? Hmmmm.
I see what you mean, but I've always believed in friendship/rapport as
the mainstay of a relationship, the passion etc. being the icing on the
cake, or the oil for the wheels, as it were. I cannot speak from
personal experience of the latter, but I have most certainly seen this
in practice with long-term successful couples I know or have known.
>>she chose another, with whom, I am told by a third party, she is happy.
>
>Do third parties always know?
I have not the *slightest* doubt that this third party knows.
> Since then I haven't
>>been able to believe in love again. There have been a few sparks, some
>>recent and some less so, but each time now I have to force myself to
>>open up my fusebox, firmly pull out the fuse for that circuit, and lock
>>it back away in the safe, on those occasions when it has sneaked out of
>>the aforesaid place and back into its holder, lest I cause anyone
>>heartache or embarrassment with my clumsy feelings.
>
>I can't comment on your personal situation, but despite all my own personal
>anguish, I still feel the pleasure is worth the risk of pain.
One part of me recognises that you are quite right; however another part
is still saying 'several times bitten, a hundred times shy'. I just have
to be more positive, and convince myself that the next time, whenever
that may be, *will* have a good chance of working out well.
Regards,
Andrew.
--
Andrew Marshall.
st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
On 3 Jul 1997 12:24:11 +0100, nu...@mimir.com (Nuala) wrote:
>Ok, 'Anglo' is not the same as British and Irish isn't even British.
>If you insist on stereotyping people, try to keep track of this sort
>of detail. And it's really rather offensive to say you're attracted
>to someone just because of their ethnicity.
Offensive, I don`t think so.. this is an age old thing...It happens
here too, with "British" women drooling over Italians..for their
accents, (and other things ) or French.....I`ve even had English
female friends saying they just luurve Scotsmen. This is not a perfect
world, and very few people are attracted to another on the basis of
personality alone...we all have our little hankerings. Voice sometimes
matters, for those of us lucky enough not to be deaf but its not
everything.......after all, I`m sure you`ve sometimes found a voice
compelling...or, the opposite, a voice that really grates...
After all, slightly off the track, but is it offensive that a lot of
women are obssed that the man must be talller than her ?.....I see
that a lot....I don`t give a damn wether a women is shorter than me or
taller than me..but a lot of women, it seems must have a "taller" man.
You could go on and on with this list........
See, it seems we are all attracted to another for a wide variety of
reason, some on the surface, and then those below........
John J Smith
In article <33bcc9a6...@nntp.netcruiser>,
<st...@horrida.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 3 Jul 1997 12:24:11 +0100, nu...@mimir.com (Nuala) wrote:
>
>After all, slightly off the track, but is it offensive that a lot of
>women are obssed that the man must be talller than her ?.....I see
>that a lot....I don`t give a damn wether a women is shorter than me or
>taller than me..but a lot of women, it seems must have a "taller" man.
>You could go on and on with this list........
There might well be something to being attracted to a genetically
compatible mate, which would explain the small->tall connection.
Apparently someone explained that pheromone attraction is based on
whether someone has a contrasting immune system. Hmmn. Even though
we might not want babies, maybe our attractions are based on them...
Smid
John J Smith
In article <867991...@llondel.demon.co.uk>,
Dave {Reply address in.sig} <no...@llondel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19970701201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> ariel...@aol.com (Ariel4UKMs) writes:
>>
>> I've TOLD you (English) guys... COME OVER HERE!!! There are hoards of
>> attractive American female Anglophiles who are dying to meet you!!! Or
>> just offer us lodging over there! As for you American men who can't get
>> dates here.... So sorry... but the accents are all wrong. We want Brits!!
>> We want Brits!! O-N-L-Y!
>>
>If you pick the right time then you can come to a boink, or if you are
>lucky we might even put on a special one for you.
'Ere, no-one has mentioned "bad-teeth" yet...
Smid
John J Smith
In article <5pipjd$2...@freyja.mimir.com>, Nuala <nu...@mimir.com> wrote:
>John J Smith <J.J....@ftel.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>There might well be something to being attracted to a genetically
>>compatible mate, which would explain the small->tall connection.
>
>genetically compatible? EMWTK
Well, obviously not just taller, given that at average heights a man is
taller than a woman. However, women who are less than the average height
tend to match with taller men in order to breed a next generation which
might be the average height/taller.
I mean genetically compatible in terms of offspring, or at least
genetically advantageous.
Smid
Stephen Cass
nu...@mimir.com (Nuala) writes:
>I am Irish, female, redheaded, computer literate, smart, depressive
>have freckles and a tattoo. But I am more than just the sum of
>these parts. And anyone who sees me just as these characteristics,
>or even worse, just the ones they are interested in, isn't seeing me.
Yes, she's forgetting chocoholic.
Steve
- who, for the sake of friendship, is not even going to mention the lousy
Doom playing.
Wendy A. S. Taylor
In article <5piuut$k...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>,
Ah, that tends to go without saying round these parts.
Wendy
John J Smith
In article <5pj1pa$2...@freyja.mimir.com>, Nuala <nu...@mimir.com> wrote:
>John J Smith <J.J....@ftel.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Well, obviously not just taller, given that at average heights a man is
>>taller than a woman. However, women who are less than the average height
>>tend to match with taller men in order to breed a next generation which
>>might be the average height/taller.
>
If the person in question is unhappy about their height, it is viewed as
such.
>Tall people are more likely to get back ache.
That sounds like a bit of a dodgy information there.
>>I mean genetically compatible in terms of offspring, or at least
>>genetically advantageous.
>
>You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
And what makes you think that exactly?
These are theories put forward as reasons why some attractions happen in
some people. If you take them as some sort of indicator that they apply
to all, and take for instance you are small and don't particularly
find tall people attractive, then that is you, the theory doesn't
apply to you. It is just some persons reasoning on the subject of
attraction and matching with a view to producing a siblings which have
less attributes the parents didn't like about themselves. It isn't,
like *anything* on the subject of attraction, applicable to all.
There isn't any answers, just some ideas.
But then again, you seem to be so informed on the subject, yet unable to
form any words of argument, apart from "You're wrong". Is this just
another stock response, like the one about baldness (that was you, wasn't
it?)
Smid
Bob Brenchley
David Reid <da...@davita.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>She may not have said it explicitly, but that's certainly the impression
>I get from her posts. She doesn't seem to have grasped that English and
>British are not interchangeable, that Irish is not covered by either and
>that failing to understand the difference between the three is not
>likely to win her many friends around these parts.
When I went to school I was taught that the Island of Ireland was part
of the 'British Isles' and therefore Irish people were British.
English on the other hand referred to either people who came from
England or people who spoke the language (because to most foreigners,
if you speak English you are either English or American, and as they
don't want to offend the plump for English.)
>
HTH.
Bob.
Wendy A. S. Taylor
In article <fHEhZHAX...@g8bur.demon.co.uk>,
Andrew Marshall <and...@g8bur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I see what you mean, but I've always believed in friendship/rapport as
>the mainstay of a relationship, the passion etc. being the icing on the
>cake, or the oil for the wheels, as it were. I cannot speak from
>personal experience of the latter, but I have most certainly seen this
>in practice with long-term successful couples I know or have known.
It is much more than icing on the cake, oil for the wheels may describe
it a little better, but even that doesn't give it adequate weighting
in the scheme of things. It is both a logical and physical
demonstration of feelings and the number of marriages I know where that
demonstration has wained to the point of non-existance has left one or
other party, or indeed both, feeling that they aren't cherished and
loved. It is too often symptom of a change in feelings towards the partner,
the demise of what rapport might have existed at one time.
>One part of me recognises that you are quite right; however another part
>is still saying 'several times bitten, a hundred times shy'. I just have
>to be more positive, and convince myself that the next time, whenever
>that may be, *will* have a good chance of working out well.
Life is full of change and I'm not sure I believe in 'happy ever after'.
I believe in happy, but I think that I'm inclined to cherish each moment
without trying to pin all my hopes on it being forever. Sometimes that
which we love is crushed by the weight of our hopes and dreams.
Wendy
John J Smith
In article <5pjb5r$2...@freyja.mimir.com>, Nuala <nu...@mimir.com> wrote:
>John J Smith <J.J....@ftel.co.uk> wrote:
>
>who know little to nothing about evolutionary theory making really basic
>mistakes while attempting to use it to explain why some people are
>attractive. It's one of these subjects that appears to be simple so
>lots of people think they understand but it's actaully far more subtle
>than they realise.
Would you considering "choosing a mate with a view to making your siblings
have less attributes similar to those you dislike about yourself",
evolutionary theory?
Smid
(That view seems to forget that each generation will just find something
different to hate about themselves...)
st...@horrida.demon.co.uk
On 4 Jul 1997 17:11:52 +0100, nu...@mimir.com (Nuala) wrote:
>
>Ah, but you're missing my point - in that case, your voice is
>attractive because you are, whereas in the original case you are
>attractive because of your voice. It is this which makes all
>the difference to me.
Chicken and egg, this.........
>
>>We are "animals", and like
>>it or not, base physical things do come into play in
>>attraction.......
>
>I'm not giving out about being physically attracted to people (as
>one of the biggest letches I know, that would be hypocritical of me)
>I'm complaining about emphasis on one trait and ignoring everything
>else about a person.
Yes, but what I meant is that you can`t easily separate the
two...physical attraction from the rest...but, sure, to fall in love
with a person, just because of their voice is silly, However, I don`t
quiet think we`re far enough evolved yet to ignore the "physical" part
of our being. So in each relationship, things are different, for some
the physical attraction might comes first, then the attraction to
"the person" next, in others, attraction to the person first, and then
"physical" attraction next.....
>>You have a tatoo, hmm of what,
>
>A biohazard symbol.
Highly dangerous to approach then......except with protective clothing
no doubt...
Ashley Hinton
"Dave {Reply address in.sig}" <no...@llondel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Unfortunately being British doesn't automatically stop someone being
> stupid. However, we did manage to export most such types a few thousand
> miles to the west :)
ROTFL :-) Thank you - that has to be quote of the week.
--
_/_/ Ashley -= Ashley Hinton, Oxfordshire, UK =-
_/_/ <ash...@chal.demon.co.uk> <http://www.chal.demon.co.uk>
mousetrap
In article <5pipds$2...@freyja.mimir.com>, Nuala <nu...@mimir.com>
spouted forth with gusto:
>I am Irish, female, redheaded, computer literate, smart, depressive
>have freckles and a tattoo. But I am more than just the sum of
>these parts. And anyone who sees me just as these characteristics,
>or even worse, just the ones they are interested in, isn't seeing me.
And obviously a little under utilised in your current employment
today......
--
mousetrap, wondering where one goes to find a job like this.....
Stuart A. Bronstein
Nuala <nu...@mimir.com> wrote:
>
>I do. It's reducing people to parts and fetishing them. Which
>is the quickest way in the world to ignore the parts of them that
>doesn't fit with how you want them to be. It's what objectification
>is all about. You make someone into the 'other' and then you can
>treat them the way you want without paying attention to their needs.
Unfortunately too many people do that. And when their relationships fail
they have no idea what happened.
>I am Irish, female, redheaded, computer literate, smart, depressive
>have freckles and a tattoo. But I am more than just the sum of
>these parts. And anyone who sees me just as these characteristics,
>or even worse, just the ones they are interested in, isn't seeing me.
But isn't it at least a place to start?
Stu
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/
_/ Happiness is not having what you want. _/
_/ It is wanting what you have. _/
_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Stuart A. Bronstein
Nuala <nu...@mimir.com> wrote:
>mousetrap <mous...@cheeseshop.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Did she say "just because" ?
>
>Have you been reading her posts? All she talks about is how cute
>the English accent (especially Hugh Grant's) is. I haven't noticed
>any other factors being mentioned so far.
If you go back and look at her original post she says that she likes
passive men who are willing to engage in cooking, concerts, clubs,
cinema, cruises around Manhattan, among others.
Still pretty shallow and superficial. But then, some men like that.
Stu
When I heated my home with oil, I used an average of 800 gallons a
year. I have found that I can keep comfortably warm for an entire
winter with slightly over half that quantity of beer.
--Dave Barry
Stuart A. Bronstein
Wendy A. S. Taylor <ccx...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote:
>Andrew Marshall <and...@g8bur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I see what you mean, but I've always believed in friendship/rapport as
>>the mainstay of a relationship, the passion etc. being the icing on the
>>cake, or the oil for the wheels, as it were. I cannot speak from
>>personal experience of the latter, but I have most certainly seen this
>>in practice with long-term successful couples I know or have known.
>
>It is much more than icing on the cake, oil for the wheels may describe
>it a little better, but even that doesn't give it adequate weighting
>in the scheme of things. It is both a logical and physical
>demonstration of feelings and the number of marriages I know where that
>demonstration has wained to the point of non-existance has left one or
>other party, or indeed both, feeling that they aren't cherished and
>loved. It is too often symptom of a change in feelings towards the partner,
>the demise of what rapport might have existed at one time.
For me it's closeness and intimacy that creates the passion. Sure, an
attractive woman can interest me for a while. But I am bored quickly.
However, when I find someone compatable and who attracts me on an emotional
basis, there are too many things going on, too many things to share to
become bored.
Stu
"My heart is a bargain today. Will you take it?"
-- W.C. Fields (attributed)
Wendy A. S. Taylor
In article <33c38b0f...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Sue Purdam <s...@catatonic.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Yes, she's forgetting chocoholic.
>>Ah, that tends to go without saying round these parts.
>I thought it was a pre-requisite for posting here?
Indeed, a taste for it does no harm at all.
Wendy
Be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk
On 1997-07-02 br...@worlock.demon.co.uk said:
>Oh... sorry... you meant **travel** to the US didn't you...
NO, you were supposed to go to some remote clifftop on the
west coast of Ireland, lean back, and 'fire'! However, I'm not
sure you could cover the 2100 miles to the east coast of the US.
73, de Toby Fisher
email: gw0...@swansea.ac.uk, tel. 01792-295896
Nettamer, the best dos-based ppp package around;
visit http://people.delphi.com/davidcolston/ and find out for yourself!
Andrew Marshall
In article <5pjaov$j...@leofric.coventry.ac.uk>, "Wendy A. S. Taylor"
<ccx...@coventry.ac.uk> writes
>It is much more than icing on the cake, oil for the wheels may describe
>it a little better, but even that doesn't give it adequate weighting
>in the scheme of things. It is both a logical and physical
>demonstration of feelings and the number of marriages I know where that
>demonstration has wained to the point of non-existance has left one or
>other party, or indeed both, feeling that they aren't cherished and
>loved.
I have certainly been told (I too have had to lend a sympathetic ear on
occasions) of a cessation of things physical as being a factor in the
failure of one relationship, but the base reason for the breakup was far
more serious and entirely unrelated to the physical side. I do also know
several couples where, even after 20-plus years, the physical 'spark'
always has been, and still is, a blazing, roaring furnace; but their
mutual respect, rapport and 'best-friendship' is still quite clearly the
cornerstone of their success as couples.
> It is too often symptom of a change in feelings towards the partner,
>the demise of what rapport might have existed at one time.
I agree that if a relationship is fundamentally collapsing, any
remaining physical element is typically the first casualty.
>Life is full of change and I'm not sure I believe in 'happy ever after'.
Nor do I; but 'happy while it lasts' would be nice for once.
>I believe in happy, but I think that I'm inclined to cherish each moment
>without trying to pin all my hopes on it being forever.
I'd hope to be able both to enjoy the 'present-day' of a relationship
for the delight it is, and also perhaps to dream of a pleasant long(er)-
term, but without becoming either excessively or primarily focused on
the future. I'd certainly not put all my eggs in the 'forever' basket -
*especially* these days.
> Sometimes that
>which we love is crushed by the weight of our hopes and dreams.
I do accept that excessive intensity can be off-putting to a potential
partner; it's the measure of 'excess' which is often difficult or
impossible to gauge until it's too late. At the extreme, I knew one
woman who would flirt heavily on occasions, but would go totally
ballistic at the mildest response. Further down the scale, another
regarded even the occasional date (like every couple of *months* or so)
as 'overwhelming her'. At the other end of the range, I recently learned
of an opportunity I had unwittingly had many years ago, but which I had
not dared to pursue for fear of destroying a friendship (which, BTW, is
still very much alive, but due to circumstances can now never be more
than that).
Regards,
Andrew.
--
Andrew Marshall.
Unsolicited advertising matter unwelcome. Offenders may be blacklisted.
Stephen Milner
David Reid <da...@davita.demon.co.uk> the great and wise eloquently
explained to all :
>In outpouring of consciousness known as <vPKZgEAgr$uzE...@cheeseshop.dem
>on.co.uk>, mousetrap <mous...@cheeseshop.demon.co.uk> spake thusly:
>>In article <5pg24r$r...@freyja.mimir.com>, Nuala <nu...@mimir.com>
>>spouted forth with gusto:
>>>
>>>Ok, 'Anglo' is not the same as British and Irish isn't even British.
>>>If you insist on stereotyping people, try to keep track of this sort
>>>of detail. And it's really rather offensive to say you're attracted
>>>to someone just because of their ethnicity.
>>
>>Did she say "just because" ?
>
>She may not have said it explicitly, but that's certainly the impression
>I get from her posts. She doesn't seem to have grasped that English and
>British are not interchangeable, that Irish is not covered by either and
>that failing to understand the difference between the three is not
>likely to win her many friends around these parts.
>
>I'm just surprised it seems to have taken some people several days to
>spot her lack of cluefullness.
I think I might have upset her when I did though <g>
Regards, Steve
http://www.bestiary.com/walrus/
I love cats because I enjoy my home;
and little by little they become its visible soul
Stephen Milner
ad...@crl4.crl.com(StuartA.Bronstein) the great and wise eloquently
explained to all :
>On 1997-06-30 Be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk said:
> ><Elr...@bigfoot.com> was rabbiting on a bit about
> >>Tetleys or Earl Grey ?
> >EG of course
>
>You are Jean-Luc Picard and I claim my 5 free enterprises.:)
Shirley YM your five free guided tour of Holmfirth.
(ISTR that's where he originates from)
Stephen Milner
nu...@mimir.com (Nuala) the great and wise eloquently explained to
all :
>mousetrap <mous...@cheeseshop.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Did she say "just because" ?
>
>Have you been reading her posts? All she talks about is how cute
>the English accent (especially Hugh Grant's) is. I haven't noticed
>any other factors being mentioned so far.
Just to add my 2c (Doh... 2p) worth, I think the attitude is pathetic
and not more than a little shallow. As far as I'm concerned people can
find the strangest reasons for attraction, each to their own. I
shouldn't react to this form of patronising behaviour, but I do find
it winds me up.
Stephen Milner
>John J Smith <J.J....@ftel.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Well, obviously not just taller, given that at average heights a man is
>>taller than a woman. However, women who are less than the average height
>>tend to match with taller men in order to breed a next generation which
>>might be the average height/taller.
>
>And taller is an evolutionary advantage how? Tall people are more
>likely to get back ache.
Maybe, but as a race aren't we getting taller as time goes on. This,
to me, would suggest that being taller does confer some advantage, but
I'm not sure what. Either that of 'g' is slowly deacreasing over time.
>You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
That probably applies to the above anyway.
Stephen Milner
>John J Smith <J.J....@ftel.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>There might well be something to being attracted to a genetically
>>compatible mate, which would explain the small->tall connection.
>
>Ummm, how does your partnet being taller than you make them more
>genetically compatible? EMWTK
Yeah, I mean, if you were the same size you could share jeans much
easier.
Stephen Milner
>>You have a tatoo, hmm of what,
>
>A biohazard symbol.
Now that's what I'd call cool.
Stephen Milner
ariv...@aqverpg.pb.hx (Nev Young) the great and wise eloquently
explained to all :
>Whether or not some people are offended by anothers admission of being
>attracted to another for, at least in part, their ethnicity. I can see
>no harm in someone making that admission.
I suppose the problem for me comes when I get sick of hearing about
it, to the point where I feel I'm viewed as an object of desire
because of my accent. Accent's are rather a variable comodity. I can
speak all proper like, or I can speak fairly Broad Yorkshire. It would
appear that changing my accent changes my attractiveness, as
demonstrated earlier this week.
Do I think that makes the attraction shallow and worthless. You bet I
do. I see no harm in making the admission that someones ethnicity will
affect their attractiveness, It's the reaction generated from a little
leg pulling that suggests that it's an obsession.
I was going to mention earlier this week that the 'lurve' of the BBC
accent might be related to the percieved financial worth of the person
with that accent, but I didn't wan't to open that can of worms.
However, the debate seems to have got a little deeper, and I felt that
it might add something of value now. Besides, I'm orff to Romania on
Monday and I felt like being naughty.
Stuart A. Bronstein
mousetrap <mous...@cheeseshop.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>John J Smith <J.J....@ftel.co.uk> spouted forth with gusto:
>>>who know little to nothing about evolutionary theory making really basic
>>>mistakes while attempting to use it to explain why some people are
>>>attractive. It's one of these subjects that appears to be simple so
>>>lots of people think they understand but it's actaully far more subtle
>>>than they realise.
>>
>>Would you considering "choosing a mate with a view to making your siblings
>>have less attributes similar to those you dislike about yourself",
>>evolutionary theory?
>
Perhaps her father is planning to adopt, and he needs advice.
Stu
"Passepartout could not behold without a certain fright these
women, charged, in groups, with conferring happiness on a single Mormon.
His common sense pitied, above all, the husband....
"When the Mormon had recovered his breath, Passepartout ventured to
ask him politely how many wives he had; for from the manner in which he
had decamped, it might be thought that he had twenty at least.
"'One, sir' replied the Mormon, raising his arms heavenward. --'one,
and that was enough!'"
--Jules Verne
Around the World in 80 Days
Nick Leverton
In article <5pivcg$b...@leofric.coventry.ac.uk>
>>Yes, she's forgetting chocoholic.
>
>Ah, that tends to go without saying round these parts.
Just be careful not to overdo the salt and pepper.
N, going for a second and hopefully more successful batch next week.
--
Uk.Singles web site: http://www.mimir.com/singles/
Read the FAQ before posting: http://www.mimir.com/singles/faq.html
gw0...@swansea.ac.uk
On 1997-07-05 Be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk said:
>On 1997-07-02 br...@worlock.demon.co.uk said:
>>Oh... sorry... you meant **travel** to the US didn't you...
<snip>
I should at this point say that this message was, as I'm sure you
worked out, from me and not from Beth.
Something very strange occurred which I have never seen before, whereby some
of the messages I wrote were in fact from me but showed as being from someone else, I think there's one from Wirlock
somewhere as well, and I appologise.
73, de Toby Fisher
email: gw0...@swansea.ac.uk, tel. 01792-295896
Nettamer, the best dos-based ppp package around;
visit http://people.delphi.com/davidcolston/ and find out for yourself!
Net-Tamer V 1.08.1 - Registered
Nev Young
Beth used up bandwidth on Sat, 5 Jul 1997 12:47:59 +0100 with
>>Shirley YM your five free guided tour of Holmfirth.
>>
>>(ISTR that's where he originates from)
>
>really?
>
>can anyone substantiate this?
>Beth, trawling for stuff for her new Yorkshire web pages.
I believe he still has a house just outside Otley.
----------------------------------------------
<Nev Young> <rot13>ariv...@aqverpg.pb.hx</rot13>
The trouble with words is that
people think you mean what you say
rather than what you ment to say.
----------------------------------------------
David Curtis
I thought this file I found on a mailing list might go down well at this
juncture. Apologies to anyone who has seen it before. I found it very
amusing and instructive:
How to Satisfy a Woman
Lick, paw, ogle, caress, praise, pamper, relish, savor, massage,
empathize, serenade, compliment, support, dig, floralize, feed,
laminate, tantalize, bathe, humor, placate, stimulate, jiffylube,
stroke, console, bark, purr, hug, baste, marinate, coddle, excite,
pacify, tattoo, protect, phone, correspond, anticipate, nuzzle,
smooch, toast, minister to, forgive, sacrifice, ply, accessorize, leave,
return, beseech, sublimate, entertain, charm, lug, drag, crawl,
tunnel, show equality for, spackle, oblige, fascinate, attend,
implore, bawl, shower, shave, ululate, trust, dip, twirl, dive, grovel,
ignore, defend, milk, coax, clothe, straddle, melt, brag, acquiesce,
aromate, prevail, super collide, fuse, fizz, rationalize, detoxify,
sanctify, help, acknowledge, polish, upgrade, spoil, reddi-whip, embrace,
delouse, accept, butter-up, hear, understand, jitterbug, mosh,
locomote, beg, plead, borrow, steal, climb, swim, hold her hair while
she's puking in the toilet, nurse, resuscitate, repair, patch,
crazy-glue, respect, entertain, calm, allay, kill for, die for, do a
nickel in Attica for, dream of, promise, exceed, deliver, tease,
flirt, enlist, torch, pine, wheedle, cajole, angelicize, murmur,
snuggle, snoozle, snurfle, hezbollah, jihad, elevate, enervate,
alleviate, spotweld, serve, rub, rib, salve, bite, taste, nibble,
gratify, take her to Funkytown, scuttle like a crab on the ocean floor
of her existence, diddle, doodle, hokey-pokey, hanky-panky, crystal
blue persuade, flip, flop, fly, don't care if I die, swing, slip,
slide, slather, mollycoddle, squeeze, moisturize, humidify, lather,
tingle, slam-dunk, keep on rockin' in the free world, wet, slicken,
undulate, gelatinize, brush, tingle, dribble, drip, dry, knead, fluff,
fold, blue-coral wax, ingratiate, indulge, wow, dazzle, amaze,
flabbergast, enchant, idolize and worship, and then go back, Jack, and
do it again.
How to Satisfy a Man
Show up. Naked.
David
--
Email -> sha...@comlab.ox.ac.uk *NOT* the address in the header.
Homepage -> http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/users/sharon.curtis/
v 3.12 GM/CS d s:++ a-< C++ U+ p L !E W++ N++ o+ K W-- O? M-- V--
PS? PE? Y PGP- t-- !5 X- R- tv--- b+++ DI+ D- G e++++ h- r z+(--)
Alan H Jones
In article <CLG+WFAw...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>, Beth
<be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>tea in keyboard
>>
>>Tetleys or Earl Grey ?
>
>EG of course
Are Socialists drinking Earl Grey now? Aaaargh! Nurse, the screens!
--
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
# Alan H Jones * I live each day as though it is my last #
# Manchester UK * ...and one day I know I'll be right! #
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
gw0...@swansea.ac.uk
On 1997-07-05 Be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk said:
>On 1997-07-02 br...@worlock.demon.co.uk said:
>>Oh... sorry... you meant **travel** to the US didn't you...
<snip>
I should at this point say that this message was, as I'm sure you
worked out, from me and not from Beth.
Something very strange occurred which I have never seen before, whereby some
of the messages I wrote were in fact from me but showed as being from someone else, I think there's one from Wirlock
somewhere as well, and I appologise.
73, de Toby Fisher: email: gw0...@swansea.ac.uk,
gw0...@swansea.ac.uk
On 1997-07-02 bdu...@crox.demon.co.uk said:
>respond to this dim wit! Having looked at it, he sort of left
>himself wide open; I mean nobody posts BMP's these days do they??
Well yes, apparently, but not often.:)
73, de Toby Fisher
email: gw0...@swansea.ac.uk, tel. 01792-295896
Beth
In article <D$dYIVAgC...@antler.demon.co.uk>, Alan H Jones
<al...@antler.demon.co.uk> was rabbiting on a bit about
>In article <CLG+WFAw...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>, Beth
><be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>tea in keyboard
>>>
>>>Tetleys or Earl Grey ?
>>
>>EG of course
>
>Are Socialists drinking Earl Grey now? Aaaargh! Nurse, the screens!
not only that but Socialists are even drinking the occasional fine
claret.
Beth
--
be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk http://www.flyboat.demon.co.uk/
"Never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom’s.
Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own.":NELSON ALGREN