What's wrong with tits??
00mnm...@bsu-ucs.uucp
to be attracted to someone because of whatever body parts they
may or may not have.
i don't see what the big deal is. so what if you are walking down
street and see someone who has long hair(which you love) and
decide to strike up a conversation with them.
or if you are in a bar and see a women with a nice pair of
headlights. and want to see if you can get her home in your bed.
it is human nature for someone to be attracted to something over
another. why did you choose to read this. maybe because it had an
interesting title that stimulated your brain(or something else).
it goes for anything. why did you choose your bedcover/curtains/
sheets ? because you liked the way the looked.
now sure it is wrong to think that just because someone has a
physical quality that you are attracted to that this person
a)will find you attractive b) will be as good as they look.
they may be the biggest putz on the face of the planet.
and you can't base your entire relationship on that physical
quality. but you have to start somewhere.
and i say..so what if a guy is staring at my chest when he is
talking to me. my chest is part of me, a part i am proud of.
if it gets a guy to notice me that is fine, because i know i
am intelligent enough to get his attentions to other things
that are more interesting, like my mind, my sense of humor, etc.
*mara*
Angelo the Postmaster
>i don't see what the big deal is. so what if you are walking down
>street and see someone who has long hair(which you love) and
>decide to strike up a conversation with them.
>
Yes... I agree! I too *love* long hair... it feels so good on
my chest! *grin* And to run the fingers down long hair...
I have got a question for anyone who has lived with someone
with real long hair... Have you ever been walking around the
house and have gotten hair in between your toes... pulled a
hair out of your pants later in the day, or even got tangled
up in it?
>or if you are in a bar and see a women with a nice pair of
>headlights. and want to see if you can get her home in your bed.
>
I do not know about straight to bed... but if she has long hair too!
>and i say..so what if a guy is staring at my chest when he is
>talking to me. my chest is part of me, a part i am proud of.
>if it gets a guy to notice me that is fine, because i know i
>am intelligent enough to get his attentions to other things
>that are more interesting, like my mind, my sense of humor, etc.
>
I wonder if I would mind if a girl was staring at my buldge
while talking to me? *grin*
angelo
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Angelo the Postmaster
misg!ang...@travis.csd.harris.com
I have never been hurt by anything I didn't say. - Calvin Coolidge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: I value little my own opinions, but value just as little
those of others. - Montaigne
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David Resnick
>ok, i have been following all this talk about how it is _wrong_
>to be attracted to someone because of whatever body parts they
>may or may not have.
It's not wrong per se, but I think it's much better to be open to other,
less obvious attractions as well.
>it goes for anything. why did you choose your bedcover/curtains/
>sheets ? because you liked the way the looked.
You mean you don't check whether or not they're machine washable?
I certainly do.
------- Dave
--
David Resnick is my real name. There are at least two other David Resnicks
also living in Atlanta. I am not a dentist. I am not an investment advisor.
I am a software engineer who lives alone with his pet cat. Please do not
leave messages on my answering machine for the other David Resnicks. Thank you.
Mike McEwin
> and i say..so what if a guy is staring at my chest when he is
> talking to me. my chest is part of me, a part i am proud of.
A few times I've caught myself briefly talking to a girl's chest and
I have to wonder what is going through the girl's mind. I usually
start smiling when I look up, because I'm sure they noticed.
> if it gets a guy to notice me that is fine, because i know i
> am intelligent enough to get his attentions to other things
> that are more interesting, like my mind, my sense of humor, etc.
If two people never get close enough, they may never know how
interesting each other are. Besides, it's good for the economy..
just look at the cosmetics and fashion industries. :)
> *mara*
Mike.
Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
> I have got a question for anyone who has lived with someone
> with real long hair... Have you ever been walking around the
> house and have gotten hair in between your toes... pulled a
> hair out of your pants later in the day, or even got tangled
> up in it?
Not really, but I love it when he leaves those long wavy hairs in the sink ...
it's so *cute* ... even though it guarantees a huge hairball in
the shower hair trap every morning ... :-)
James or Brian
*Sniff* Some of us are house broken and don't leave lttle
furry scum rings in the sink. Geez.
What surprised me when my hair hit midback length, was how much
more turned up on my hair brush and comb. What irks me is that one of my
cats still attacks my pony tail and the other thinks the elastic holding
it is a fursnarl. Ever been woken at 2 in the morning by a heavy cat
straining to pull the pony tail off the back of your head by the so-called
'snarl'? Gah. Better than that ominious quiet pause before minuet pounces
on the back of my head as I sit in my comfychair, I suppose...
James Nicoll
Don Keller
the right to be offended if a guy looks at her tits. You wouldn't be wearing
it if you didn't want us to. Also, "we" wouldn't expect you to look us in the
eye if you saw a guy with a testicle hanging out of his pants.
Another thing is that it is that first physical attraction that gets us to
meet one another. You women out there don't look at some god like creature and
think, "Wow! I bet he has a great mind. I think I'll introduce myself."
NOT!!
What you really think is, "I wonder if he is a great lay?!?!" and in the first
two minutes of just looking at him, you've had 2 kids and are filling for
a devorce.
In all, I'm saying a agree with the person who first wrote this.
Bamm-Bamm
Marianna Max
>Another thing is that it is that first physical attraction that gets us to
>meet one another. You women out there don't look at some god like
>creature and think, "Wow! I bet he has a great mind. I think I'll
>introduce myself."
>What you really think is, "I wonder if he is a great lay?!?!" and in the
>first two minutes of just looking at him, you've had 2 kids and are
>filing for a divorce.
Look I don't want to down play physical attractiveness, yes its true I
wouldn't want to make love to someone I wasn't physically attracted to but
it is a permissive factor NOT (at least for me) a causitive factor. I may
see someone that I think looks good but that is not sufficient motivation
for me to go out of my way to meet them. For me to really be attracted to
someone I must have already "met" them, ie exchanged words, gotten some
insight into what's going on inside their heads, something. Am I the only
one out here that feels this way?
Max
Dude
> Look I don't want to down play physical attractiveness, yes its true I
> wouldn't want to make love to someone I wasn't physically attracted to but
> it is a permissive factor NOT (at least for me) a causitive factor. I may
> see someone that I think looks good but that is not sufficient motivation
> for me to go out of my way to meet them.
Out of curiosity, what might be sufficient motivation for you to go out of your
way to meet someone? Hmm, and what would you consider out of your way? No
wait, let me re-phrase that :-). What would be the most you would do that you
would NOT consider to be going out of your way?
> For me to really be attracted to
> someone I must have already "met" them, ie exchanged words, gotten some
> insight into what's going on inside their heads, something. Am I the only
> one out here that feels this way?
I was under the impression that most of the posters felt this way, including
me.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Harrington Computer Geek Merrimack College, N. Andover, MA
pa_...@merrimack.edu Commit random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Even if Merrimack College could figure what I just said, they
wouldn't admit it.
00mnm...@bsu-ucs.uucp
> wouldn't want to make love to someone I wasn't physically attracted to but
> it is a permissive factor NOT (at least for me) a causitive factor. I may
> see someone that I think looks good but that is not sufficient motivation
> for me to go out of my way to meet them. For me to really be attracted to
> someone I must have already "met" them, ie exchanged words, gotten some
> insight into what's going on inside their heads, something. Am I the only
> one out here that feels this way?
>
> Max
well my question is how do you met people in the first place?
Steve Gombosi
reacquaint myself with the latest babblings of the newly nubile. The catchy
title lures me with the promise of typical Usenet adolescent (oops, repeating
myself) ravings.
With a feeling of smug satisfaction, I read the following:
>In article <1992Jan05.0...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> dke...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Don Keller) writes:
>
>>What you really think is, "I wonder if he is a great lay?!?!" and in the
>>first two minutes of just looking at him, you've had 2 kids and are
>>filing for a divorce.
Two minutes? Performance problems aside, have they done something to the
gestation period since I was last in a position to worry about it?
I'm so glad you know what women are thinking...I've been trying to figure
that out for a number of years. Can I hire you as a translator?
In a world so wracked by political upheaval and economic uncertainty, it's
wonderful to know that the level of Usenet dialogue remains traditionally
low.
Then I find that pubescent drollery followed by this:
In article <1992Jan5.1...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> dr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
>Look I don't want to down play physical attractiveness, yes its true I
>wouldn't want to make love to someone I wasn't physically attracted to but
>it is a permissive factor NOT (at least for me) a causitive factor. I may
>see someone that I think looks good but that is not sufficient motivation
>for me to go out of my way to meet them. For me to really be attracted to
>someone I must have already "met" them, ie exchanged words, gotten some
>insight into what's going on inside their heads, something. Am I the only
>one out here that feels this way?
>
>Max
Madam, it's totally impermissible to make an intelligent comment in the
soc.* groups. If you insist upon thinking with something other than your
glands, you'll just have to go somewhere else. Harrumph!
To answer the question posed by the thread:
Absolutely nothing, of course. In their proper place, as it were. Did someone
suggest otherwise?
To answer the question posed by the astute Ms. Max:
No, you're not.
Steve
Rich Wingerter
|> Amazing...I haven't read this group in about 4 years and I suddenly decide to
|> reacquaint myself with the latest babblings of the newly nubile. The catchy
|> title lures me with the promise of typical Usenet adolescent (oops, repeating
|> myself) ravings.
|>
|> With a feeling of smug satisfaction, I read the following:
|>
|>
|> Two minutes? Performance problems aside, have they done something to the
|> gestation period since I was last in a position to worry about it?
|>
|> I'm so glad you know what women are thinking...I've been trying to figure
|> that out for a number of years. Can I hire you as a translator?
|>
|> In a world so wracked by political upheaval and economic uncertainty, it's
|> wonderful to know that the level of Usenet dialogue remains traditionally
|> low.
Notice that he went to soc.singles to look for intellectual
stimulation...
|> Then I find that pubescent drollery followed by this:
|>
<Max's tale deleted>
|>
|> Madam, it's totally impermissible to make an intelligent comment in the
|> soc.* groups. If you insist upon thinking with something other than your
|> glands, you'll just have to go somewhere else. Harrumph!
|>
|> To answer the question posed by the thread:
|> Absolutely nothing, of course. In their proper place, as it were. Did someone
|> suggest otherwise?
|>
|> To answer the question posed by the astute Ms. Max:
|> No, you're not.
|>
|> Steve
I guess that makes you a minority of two. :-)
--Rich Wingerter
Angelo the Postmaster
>
>Look I don't want to down play physical attractiveness, yes its true I
>wouldn't want to make love to someone I wasn't physically attracted to but
>it is a permissive factor NOT (at least for me) a causitive factor. I may
>see someone that I think looks good but that is not sufficient motivation
>for me to go out of my way to meet them. For me to really be attracted to
>someone I must have already "met" them, ie exchanged words, gotten some
>insight into what's going on inside their heads, something. Am I the only
>one out here that feels this way?
>
>Max
I feel the same way! The second biggest turn on is someone
with something upstairs! *smile*
Marianna Max
Where Steve?
Marianna Max
Good queston! I'm still single so there you go. Actually I meet people thru
work and friends mostly, or thru hobbies. About the only time I will
approach a stranger is when I am dancing. I like to swing dance and I am
new to this area so I have gone alone to one of the local dances and have
asked men to dance with me. I haven't met anyone that way that I would like
to date however.
Max
Marianna Max
>In article <1992Jan5.1...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, dr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
>> Look I don't want to down play physical attractiveness, yes its true I
>> wouldn't want to make love to someone I wasn't physically attracted to but
>> it is a permissive factor NOT (at least for me) a causitive factor. I may
>> see someone that I think looks good but that is not sufficient motivation
>> for me to go out of my way to meet them.
>
>Out of curiosity, what might be sufficient motivation for you to go out of your
>way to meet someone? Hmm, and what would you consider out of your way? No
>wait, let me re-phrase that :-). What would be the most you would do that you
>would NOT consider to be going out of your way?
I am not the kind of person that would, for example, see someone across the
room and decide to go introduce myself. I don't think there is anything
wrong with this, its just not something I would do. It like I don't really
focus on or notice someone until something happens to capture my attention.
I'm sure this is true for many people, its just that for me those qualities
that provoke this response are rarely if ever physical. Usually when I
become interested in getting to know someone better it is the result of
some interaction that makes me say to myself "Well we have something in
common, or here's something I've never heard of before". Once that has
occured I might ask them out, at the very least whenever I encounter them I
am paying more than ordinary attention to them.
As far as your question goes ... for example going out of your way may mean
something as simple as figuring out where they eat lunch (let's say they
work at the same place as you) and starting to eat lunch at the same place
and time. Stuff like that. Not going out of your way means just that, not
altering your normal activities to increase the chances of encountering
that person again.
>
>> For me to really be attracted to
>> someone I must have already "met" them, ie exchanged words, gotten some
>> insight into what's going on inside their heads, something. Am I the only
>> one out here that feels this way?
>
>I was under the impression that most of the posters felt this way, including
>me.
Glad to hear it, although I must say that this was not my impression from
many of the postings that talk about initial attraction coming from
physical appearance.
Max
Marianna Max
You mean the biggest turn on, not the second biggest don't you? Don't you
guys know that the most important erogenous zone is the brain?
Max
David M. Alexander
No, you are not the only one.
Dave Alexander
Don Keller
The only thing I can figure out here, is that you go out with not great looking
guys and feel that you need to find other things about them that turn you on.
I might be the only one but a slender good build good looking woman turns me
on at first sight more than a 300 lb blimp. I'm sorry if that sounds bad to
all you out there, but you know it's the truth for most people.
Bamm-Bamm
Steve Gombosi
>>Madam, it's totally impermissible to make an intelligent comment in the
>>soc.* groups. If you insist upon thinking with something other than your
>>glands, you'll just have to go somewhere else. Harrumph!
>
>Where Steve?
I wish I knew...:-(
Steve
Angelo the Postmaster
>
>You mean the biggest turn on, not the second biggest don't you? Don't you
>guys know that the most important erogenous zone is the brain?
>
Gee... it was my hands not keeping up to my mind again! And Yes!
A erogenous zone is the most important brain. *hee hee*
Just kidding Max! *HUG*
Fergie (Andy)
I think this is likely why I am S.O. less, experience says women take you being
friendly as meaning you only ever want to be friends, and once friends in their
eyes that is it only ever friends.
Fergie
Gaile Simmons
>I think this is likely why I am S.O. less, experience says women take you being
>friendly as meaning you only ever want to be friends, and once friends in their
>eyes that is it only ever friends.
Well, I must admit that after a month on soc.singles, I'm beginning to wonder
whether "I am the only one", too. I keep reading that women do things that I
don't do. Am I honestly that odd? I'm not after men for their money (in fact,
I've been known to subsidize people less fortunate than myself); I don't
date men just because of their looks (in fact, I generally agree to at least
one date with anyone who asks me, assuming that I'm available); I prefer men
who treat me well to men who treat me poorly (although I've had experience
with the latter); I try to be honest with people when we split up; I enjoy
being friends with people before dating them (and don't mind when it becomes
apparent that they are interested in more); when I LJBF someone, I usually
mean it (if I don't, I try to explain why)... Okay, I'll admit that I rarely
approach men, but I don't think that I'm that subtle about my interest. I've
had guys tell me that I'm pretty obvious.
I am having real problems believing that women are as bad as they would seem,
from posts on this newsgroup. Surely, for every nice guy, there is an
equally nice woman around somewhere? Or AM I THE ONLY ONE?
I know, I know... I'm actually fooling myself. I'm really after rich hunks
who treat me badly and I just haven't noticed. Shall I post pictures of the
guys that I've dated? Show you my VISA bills for restaurants, flowers,
hotels, ...?
Mean Green Dancing Machine
soc.singles has ~150,000 readers. Of that number, at most 300 post with
any regularity. Therefore, *none* of us can claim to speak for any
fraction of the readership.
--
--- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
@netcom.com
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
How dare you assume I'm crooked?!
Mark Israel
> I am having real problems believing that women are as bad as they would
> seem, from posts on this newsgroup.
The posts (by men) on this newsgroup give an unflattering and
unrepresentative picture of women.
There are zillions of men who've met wonderful women who are now
their SOs. But why would *they* be reading soc.singles?
What did you expect soc.singles to be? What else would it be but
a cesspool to which complainers and men with problems are irresistibly
drawn?
> Surely, for every nice guy, there is an equally nice woman around
> somewhere?
Yes, but she probably doesn't have Net access.
user...@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca Mark Israel
"Oh, don't think I did a skimpy job. I looked it all up in the *big*
encyclopaedia!" -- C. M. Kornbluth
David M. Alexander
>In article <1992Jan7.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> A.P.Fe...@newcastle.ac.uk (Fergie (Andy)) writes:
>>I think this is likely why I am S.O. less, experience says women take you being
>>friendly as meaning you only ever want to be friends, and once friends in their
>>eyes that is it only ever friends.
>
>Well, I must admit that after a month on soc.singles, I'm beginning to wonder
>whether "I am the only one", too. I keep reading that women do things that I
>don't do. Am I honestly that odd? I'm not after men for their money (in fact,
>I've been known to subsidize people less fortunate than myself); I don't
>date men just because of their looks (in fact, I generally agree to at least
>one date with anyone who asks me, assuming that I'm available); I prefer men
>who treat me well to men who treat me poorly (although I've had experience
>with the latter); I try to be honest with people when we split up; I enjoy
>being friends with people before dating them (and don't mind when it becomes
>apparent that they are interested in more); when I LJBF someone, I usually
>mean it (if I don't, I try to explain why)... Okay, I'll admit that I rarely
>approach men, but I don't think that I'm that subtle about my interest. I've
>had guys tell me that I'm pretty obvious.
>
>I am having real problems believing that women are as bad as they would seem,
>from posts on this newsgroup. Surely, for every nice guy, there is an
>equally nice woman around somewhere? Or AM I THE ONLY ONE?
Actually, yes, this is pretty uncommon in the real world; realize that people
who post to soc.singles is a self-selecting group not at all strongly
correlated with the universe at large. This seems unfortunate.
Dave Alexander
Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
>whether "I am the only one", too. I keep reading that women do things that I
>don't do. Am I honestly that odd?
>I am having real problems believing that women are as bad as they would seem,
>from posts on this newsgroup. Surely, for every nice guy, there is an
>equally nice woman around somewhere? Or AM I THE ONLY ONE?
No, Gaile, it's just that the majority of the vocal men on soc.singles
appear always to be of the firm conviction that women only want rich,
good-looking jerks, and this explains why they personally are SO-less.
I don't know what this says about those men, or about the women
they've encountered, but personally, I don't plan to sit still and
be tarred with the same brush. I'm not Nice, but I can play it
on TV; I want someone whom I find attractive, whether Comso says
he's attractive or not, who is a Nice Guy, whom I can respect and
admire, who has his own life and will let me have mine. (Oh yes,
and the Worcestershire. Can't forget that.)
trygve lode
in <1992Jan8.0...@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
ga...@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Gaile Simmons) writes
> I am having real problems believing that women are as bad as they would
> seem, from posts on this newsgroup. Surely, for every nice guy, there
> is an equally nice woman around somewhere? Or AM I THE ONLY ONE?
Good question--except that it hasn't been my experience that women are
particularly bad at all; most of my friends are and always have been
women and my best and closest friend is very definitely female.
I've never been turned down or dumped by mean and horrible women (I
wouldn't have asked them or gotten involved with them if they
were)--I've been turned down and dumped by a lot of really wonderful
women who had perfectly valid reasons. Whether it was "I'm not
comfortable with someone as strong as you" or "I've met someone else who
really turns my crank," the reasons were valid--you can't keep on making
a relationship work if it's not working for you emotionally.
However, in our culture there are some types of either sex (age,
personality, appearance, whatever) of whom the supply vastly outstrips
the demand and some of us do occasionally get on forums like this and
bemoan our fate. (If nothing else, we'll occasionally get responses like
"yes, there's really nothing particularly execrable about your being a
tall, well-off, hopelessly romantic, vegetarian weightlifter who drives
a Porsche and designs stereo equipment, starts corporations, works in
chainmail, stained glass, and gingerbread, performs medieval-style
weddings, publishes "The Unnatural Enquirer," and has a desk set made
out of Legos--not, of course, that I'd actually date you myself, but
really, there's nothing wrong with all that.")
> I know, I know... I'm actually fooling myself. I'm really after rich hunks
> who treat me badly and I just haven't noticed. Shall I post pictures of the
> guys that I've dated? Show you my VISA bills for restaurants, flowers,
> hotels, ...?
Unfortunately, I think most of us (male or female) have been in a
relationship with someone who had been in a lot of abusive relationships
in the past and, after saying how wonderful it was to be with someone
nice, then dumped us for another abusive relationship. Certainly not
all women or men are like this, but there are times when it's happened
so often that it probably feels like they are.
Greg Skinner
>I am having real problems believing that women are as bad as they
>would seem, from posts on this newsgroup. Surely, for every nice
>guy, there is an equally nice woman around somewhere? Or AM I THE
>ONLY ONE?
Possibly there exists a compatible partner for everyone. However,
there is no guarantee the two of you will meet. You may be separated
by a great distance, or by the relative positions you occupy in
society, or by intervening circumstances.
--gregbo
Daniel Mocsny
>> I feel the same way! The second biggest turn on is someone
>> with something upstairs! *smile*
In article <1992Jan6.2...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> Max writes:
>You mean the biggest turn on, not the second biggest don't you? Don't you
>guys know that the most important erogenous zone is the brain?
The brain is the organ which sees.
The portion which sees is larger than the portion which speaks and
hears.
Therefore, while you are correct that the brain is the primary erotic
organ, this is perfectly consistent with being visually stimulated.
And wanting to be visually stimulating to others.
--
Daniel Mocsny
This seems to work now: dmo...@piglet.cincinnati.oh.us
Claimer: Yes, I do speak for "piglet communications".
Dave Johnson
>>I am having real problems believing that women are as bad as they
>>would seem, from posts on this newsgroup. Surely, for every nice
>>guy, there is an equally nice woman around somewhere? Or AM I THE
>>ONLY ONE?
Yes, Gaile, you ARE the only one. Which of course means that you
need to start thinking about how you are going to deal with the
149,998 Nice Guys (tm) who read soc.singles and now know that you
are the only nice woman around anywhere and will be showing up at
your door starting this weekend....
Me? I'm not a Nice Guy. Even without the (tm).
--
Dave Johnson
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man."
--Kathleen Turner in Body Heat
Meloney Cregor
>I don't have the latest Arbitron data handy, but I believe that
>soc.singles has ~150,000 readers. Of that number, at most 300 post with
>any regularity. Therefore, *none* of us can claim to speak for any
>fraction of the readership.
Yes, you can. You can speak for 1/150,000.
Gaile Simmons
> What did you expect soc.singles to be? What else would it be but
>a cesspool to which complainers and men with problems are irresistibly
>drawn?
Opps, I'm obviously in the wrong group. I thought that this was a forum
for people to discuss being single. Why isn't it called soc.cesspool, then?
By the way, what's a nice guy like you doing in a place like this? :-)
Daniel Mocsny
writes:
>Well, I must admit that after a month on soc.singles, I'm beginning to wonder
>whether "I am the only one", too. I keep reading that women do things that I
>don't do. Am I honestly that odd?
If you post on soc.singles, you are already a very rare breed of cat.
I don't know that that should correlate with being odd in other ways,
but that would not surprise me.
I bet if you lined up all the regulars on soc.singles, you would not
find many who could be mistaken for ordinary people. And not just because
you'd collapse from exhaustion after lining them up.
> I'm not after men for their money (in fact,
>I've been known to subsidize people less fortunate than myself);
We've been through this N times.
To summarize:
1. Some women find successful men more attractive than unsuccessful
men. Money is only one of several measures of success these women
consider.
2. Some women do not care whether a man is successful or not.
3. However, virtually no women *SEEK OUT* and favor unsuccessful men.
At least, I have never met such a woman. Perhaps because I've always
been successful, though so far only monetarily comfortable (not rich).
The net effect is that almost every man can improve his chances with
women in general by becoming more successful, all other things being
equal. His success is unlikely to hurt his chances with any women, and
with some women it *will* help enormously.
>I don't
>date men just because of their looks (in fact, I generally agree to at least
>one date with anyone who asks me, assuming that I'm available);
I guess that few men who want to date you will be satisfied with
one date. Your assertion would make more sense if you talked about
the men you agree to sleep with, for example. Have you slept with
a selection of men accurately representing the existing ranges of
all major qualities? (Appearance, body type, education, age, income,
occupation, race, etc.) Note that to do this, one would have to be
rather promiscuous. (The definition of "promiscuous" is "having more
sex partners than I have", where "I" is the person using the word.)
>I prefer men
>who treat me well to men who treat me poorly (although I've had experience
>with the latter);
I have to believe that most women do not want to be abused. Even if it's
not true, I still have to believe it. However, the question may not be
so much what you want, but what you will put up with. And what you will
go back to. The evidence is very strong that a lot of women will keep
going back, voluntarily, to men who mistreat them by just about any
reasonable definition of "mistreat". If you aren't like that, good for
you. But if even 10% of women gravitate toward abusers, that is probably
enough to keep the abusers in business.
A lot of men have even suggested that a man can score points with the
average woman by deliberately mistreating her. It's hard to imagine
this tactic working on a person of intelligence, but the average person
is not very intelligent.
>I try to be honest with people when we split up;
I am almost always as honest with a person as they want me to be. But
few people really want that. Most would rather have you tell them what
they want to hear.
>Okay, I'll admit that I rarely
>approach men, but I don't think that I'm that subtle about my interest. I've
>had guys tell me that I'm pretty obvious.
Obvious: she winks at me and smiles from across the room.
Pretty obvious: she winks at me and smiles, while licking the stem
of a soft-drink bottle.
Very obvious: she walks over to my table, plunks a boom box on the
floor, and delivers a strip-o-gram.
Incredibly obvious: she opens her mouth and asks me out.
>I am having real problems believing that women are as bad as they would seem,
>from posts on this newsgroup. Surely, for every nice guy, there is an
>equally nice woman around somewhere? Or AM I THE ONLY ONE?
You have already told us you will dump a man who looks at pictures of
naked women. You are therefore not "nice" by my definition. I would
consider a woman like you to be amazingly cruel and insensitive,
although you probably mean well.
Everybody is "nice" if you ask them. But that is not the opinion that
matters to another person.
>I know, I know... I'm actually fooling myself. I'm really after rich hunks
>who treat me badly and I just haven't noticed. Shall I post pictures of the
>guys that I've dated? Show you my VISA bills for restaurants, flowers,
>hotels, ...?
I would be curious to see pictures of the men you have slept with
along with pictures of the men you have rejected. Some trends might
emerge. But if they did, that would be nothing for you to apologize
about. You do not owe the world sexual satisfaction. If you want to
spread your legs only for men who drive Porsches, that is perfectly
within your rights. Anybody silly enough to gripe about it at least
knows what car to buy. It's much worse to be rejected for no correctable
reason.
Meloney Cregor
>The brain is the organ which sees.
>
>The portion which sees is larger than the portion which speaks and
>hears.
>
>Therefore, while you are correct that the brain is the primary erotic
>organ, this is perfectly consistent with being visually stimulated.
>And wanting to be visually stimulating to others.
True enough, however, you missed the point. You are projecting your (and
perhaps other men's) visual needs on to women and the picture is a bit
fuzzy. Women (vast generalization, but mostly true) don't need or
rely on visual stimulation for arousal. ( It's *wayyyyyyyyy* down on the
list of erotic necessities. ) But, women do require mental stimulation.
In a nit-picking sort of way (I just happened across a nit field), the brain
would be the second largest erogenous zone. The first is skin.
Due to the effects of estrogen, women's skin is thinner than men's and a
great deal more sensitive. The effects of simply touching, can be amazing.
Thomas Gasser
I agree with Gail. This isn't a place to complain about the SO's (or SO
want a be's). Lets learn to look at ourselves and found out way
relationships haven't worked. I know that I have done things in the past
that have prevented what could have been healthy, long term relationships.
If you always are having problems with the opposite sex maybe all women (
(men) are not bad but You are doing something wrong. It maybe as simple as
looking for the wrong kind of person to be with.
Thomas Gasser
(612) 624-4427
Dept of Neurosurgery
University of MN
THO...@EPX.HSCS.UMN.EDU
Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
>1. Some women find successful men more attractive than unsuccessful
>men. Money is only one of several measures of success these women
>consider.
>
>2. Some women do not care whether a man is successful or not.
>
>3. However, virtually no women *SEEK OUT* and favor unsuccessful men.
>At least, I have never met such a woman. Perhaps because I've always
>been successful, though so far only monetarily comfortable (not rich).
I could argue for 3, Dan, since an unsuccessful man can awaken
the maternal instinct in a woman. However, like abusive men, I
don't think a woman ever says consciously "gee, I really want to
date someone who is always coming up with new projects and failing
miserably in all of them," but I have known women who ended up
with a string of unsuccessful men.
As for 1, sure, I'll bite -- I prefer men who are successful
at whatever they're doing. I go for someone I can respect.
This does NOT always translate to big fat wallets, however --
the many students I've dated were poor as churchmice, and
since I seem to have this habit of getting involved with astronomers
and physicists, I do know that success in that field doesn't
necessarily translate into the kind of bucks you see in other
fields.
>(The definition of "promiscuous" is "having more
>sex partners than I have", where "I" is the person using the word.)
Hmm, I've always included the alternate definition: "promiscuous"
means "sleeping with other people but not *me*," again, where "me"
is the person using the word ... I've been called a slut for sleeping
with exactly ONE person ... who was not the person doing the name-calling.
Such is life.
>A lot of men have even suggested that a man can score points with the
>average woman by deliberately mistreating her. It's hard to imagine
>this tactic working on a person of intelligence, but the average person
>is not very intelligent.
I think people who react favorably to this do so because they
confuse the mistreater with a person in a position of power
(in other words, someone who is not desperate). That's my theory,
at any rate. Smarter people can tell the difference between someone
who just isn't crawling desperate and someone who is plain rude.
Gaile Simmons
>naked women. You are therefore not "nice" by my definition. I would
>consider a woman like you to be amazingly cruel and insensitive,
>although you probably mean well.
Actually, if you look at what I wrote, I never said that I would "dump"
anyone. I said that it was likely that we would break up. I can honestly
say that I have never dumped anyone exclusively because of their use of
pornography. I've discussed this with several people over email. After
learning more about me and my "sordid past", I find that men usually
agree with me that an SO who "reads" porn in front of me in public would
be showing an unusual lack of respect for my feelings. I am certain that
there are men reading this who can vouch that I am not "amazingly cruel and
insensitive" when it comes to their use of porn.
In fact, I prefer mutually agreeing to break up with someone, rather than
dumping them. If porn is quite important to a man, I doubt that he will
want to go out with me any more than I will want to go out with him.
AN...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
In article <m0l1esz...@piglet.uucp>, dmo...@piglet.UUCP (Daniel Mocsny)
says:
>I am almost always as honest with a person as they want me to be. But
>few people really want that. Most would rather have you tell them what
>they want to hear.
>
Heavens, Dan, you just said earlier that you want the woman you date to
give up the idea of marrying you so you can see if she's worth marrying.
If she asked you "do you want me to give up the idea of marrying you
so that you can see if I'm worth marrying?" would you answer her honestly?
If she asked you "is there a possibility of us being married in the
future?", would you answer her honestly? Or would that screw up the
test of seeing whether she's worthy (if she knows you're considering it
as a possibility)? ? And in the name of "honesty", wouldn't she be dishonest
if she pretended not to want to marry you, just so that you would consider
marrying her?
Lee Anne
Jonathan Leech
> I bet if you lined up all the regulars on soc.singles, you would not
> find many who could be mistaken for ordinary people.
I find a very strong correlation between liking someone's posts in
this group and liking them in person.
--
Jon Leech (le...@cs.unc.edu) __@/
"The imaging team is moving from its ``instant science'' mode to
a more leisurely ``fast science'' mode."
- Dr. Bradford Smith, Voyager Imaging Team
Mark Israel
>> What did you expect soc.singles to be? What else would it be but
>> a cesspool to which complainers and men with problems are irresistibly
>> drawn?
>
> [...] I thought that this was a forum for people to discuss being
> single.
It is.
> Why isn't it called soc.cesspool, then?
Newsgroups are typically named according to their *subject*, not
according to their *nature*. "Singles" is what this newsgroup is
*about*. "Cesspool" is what this newsgroup *is*.
> By the way, what's a nice guy like you doing in a place like this? :-)
"Nice"??? Sometimes, maybe. I try to use tools appropriate for the
job. You can't catch a fighter jet with a butterfly net.
*Why* am I here? Because I'm a man with problems and with an axe to
grind, same as the rest of 'em.
*What* am I doing here? Learning. Teaching what I've already learnt.
Trying to make this newsgroup a safer place for butterflies. And, of
course, wasting my time.
Dude
> In article dr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
>>
> I feel the same way! The second biggest turn on is someone
> with something upstairs! *smile*
Oh suuuuure, Angelo, like a waterbed in her bedroom! :-)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Harrington Computer Geek Merrimack College, N. Andover, MA
pa_...@merrimack.edu Commit random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Even if Merrimack College could figure what I just said, they
wouldn't admit it.
ap....@layout.berkeley.edu
>> Surely, for every nice guy, there is an equally nice woman around
>> somewhere?
>
> Yes, but she probably doesn't have Net access.
>
Hey, I'm a nice women and I have access to the Net! You shouldn't be so
negative.
See ya
Bob Ashley
One problem ... excerpt courtesy of the ACS Administrator
Your mail has been receieved by ap....@layout.Berkeley.EDU
There is no such alias as ap.3121.
Your message could not be fowarded and
has been removed from the ACS system.
BA
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Ashley
GTE - Contel Federal Systems
Internet: ash...@mailhost.lab.oasis.contel.com
Telephone: (703)-818-4656
Fax: (703)-818-5484
GO SKINS
rON.
He is looking to change the name of the group to soc.limerance.
r.
rON.
';-)
r.
Mike McEwin
>dmo...@piglet.UUCP (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>>Therefore, while you are correct that the brain is the primary erotic
>>organ, this is perfectly consistent with being visually stimulated.
>>And wanting to be visually stimulating to others.
>True enough, however, you missed the point. [...]
>Women (vast generalization, but mostly true) don't need or
>rely on visual stimulation for arousal. ( It's *wayyyyyyyyy* down on the
>list of erotic necessities. ) But, women do require mental stimulation.
I would guess, at least in general, that women are more mentally stimulated
by what they hear than what they see. Can anyone else verify this?
>In a nit-picking sort of way (I just happened across a nit field), the brain
>would be the second largest erogenous zone. The first is skin.
This is getting silly comparing organs and zones. It doesn't work. :)
Mike.
james.j.dutton
Well it looks like in this particular case Mocsny case could'nt be better
proven. No smiley face.
Gaile Simmons
> I would guess, at least in general, that women are more mentally stimulated
> by what they hear than what they see. Can anyone else verify this?
Well, I'd say that they're about equal. I can get really turned on by a good-
looking guy, and I can get really turned on by a guy who says things that I
like. In fact, I can get really turned on by a guy who isn't good-looking and
doesn't talk a lot if he just *does* the right things. :-) Perhaps we do
ourselves an injustice by limiting ourselves to one kind of input? Eyes, ears
and skin can *all* be erogenous zones. Why would anyone care to specialize?
The difference, for me, is that I'm more likely to want to spend my
time (outside of bed) with the guy who says the right things. Eventually, the
good-looking guy loses. Then again, the best sex that I ever had was with
a man who was good-looking, said all the right things and *did* all
the right things. :-) Nothing wrong with having it all!
I honestly can't say that I'm not turned on by visual stimuli. It really
helps if the guy that I'm considering is physically attractive to me (where that
may not be what another woman considers physically attractive). It's just not
a strict requirement.
I probably don't need to say this, but all of the above is just personal
experience and isn't meant to say anything about the "average" woman.
Daniel Mocsny
>In article <m0l1cV5...@piglet.uucp> dmo...@piglet.UUCP (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>>Therefore, while you are correct that the brain is the primary erotic
>>organ, this is perfectly consistent with being visually stimulated.
>>And wanting to be visually stimulating to others.
>
>True enough, however, you missed the point. You are projecting your (and
>perhaps other men's) visual needs on to women and the picture is a bit
>fuzzy.
I apologize for being unduly vague. The article by "Max" I was
responding to (yes, I am quite responsive, albeit irresponsibly)
appeared to be questioning why men see things the way they do. Perhaps
Max was really meaning to askwhy do men erroneously assume women will be
like men, but that was not how I read the article.
Also, notice my deliberately careful wording. I merely said that being
visually stimulated is *consistent* with the brain being the primary
erotic organ. I did not say that the brain does nothing other than see.
> Women (vast generalization, but mostly true) don't need or
>rely on visual stimulation for arousal. ( It's *wayyyyyyyyy* down on the
>list of erotic necessities. ) But, women do require mental stimulation.
I understand this, but my point was that visual stimulation *is* one
form of mental stimulation.
Also, the fact that most women don't need or rely on something does not
preclude them from being able to enjoy it anyway. But obviously, most
men probably aren't very visually stimulating to their partners, and
few women use visual pornography.
>In a nit-picking sort of way (I just happened across a nit field), the brain
>would be the second largest erogenous zone. The first is skin.
But the brain is still the erogenous zone. The brain processes the
sensory data and creates the illusion of sensation occurring at a
given site on the body. It's all in the brain, regardless of where the
sensory data is coming from.
>Due to the effects of estrogen, women's skin is thinner than men's and a
>great deal more sensitive. The effects of simply touching, can be amazing.
Yes, I have verified this repeatedly. Nothing like a good massage to put
a woman into the frame of mind I got into when I first saw her. In fact,
a man who doesn't know how to use his hands well is probably not playing
with a full deck.
Angelo the Postmaster
>> I bet if you lined up all the regulars on soc.singles, you would not
>> find many who could be mistaken for ordinary people.
Could you expand on this one Daniel! I really do not know
what you are trying to say. Or should I say... I really
can not believe that you said that!
angelo
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Angelo the Postmaster
misg!ang...@travis.csd.harris.com
I have never been hurt by anything I didn't say. - Calvin Coolidge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: I value little my own opinions, but value just as little
those of others. - Montaigne
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
pav...@gw.syr.ge.com
> whether "I am the only one", too. I keep reading that women do things that I
> I've been known to subsidize people less fortunate than myself); I don't
> date men just because of their looks (in fact, I generally agree to at least
> who treat me well to men who treat me poorly (although I've had experience
> being friends with people before dating them (and don't mind when it becomes
> apparent that they are interested in more); when I LJBF someone, I usually
> mean it (if I don't, I try to explain why)... Okay, I'll admit that I rarely
> approach men, but I don't think that I'm that subtle about my interest. I've
> had guys tell me that I'm pretty obvious.
>
> from posts on this newsgroup. Surely, for every nice guy, there is an
> equally nice woman around somewhere? Or AM I THE ONLY ONE?
Oh, you're not the only one, and you probably not fooling yourself either (at
least not too much). But you didn't notice the give-away you specified in an
earlier post:
"... my husband and I ..."
You aren't available, i.e. aren't single. We guys are griping about the women
who are left over that are still theoretically available (and left over
for good reason, in a goodly number of cases). As you specified also earlier,
you never have trouble getting offers, so you're probably rarely (if ever)
available. It appears that all but a microscopically tiny fraction of the
"nice women" are not open for offers. So who do we single guys meet?
Uh-huh.
<terminate gripe mode>
Andy "Edsel" Pavlin
computer geek in transition
Meloney Cregor
>I understand this, but my point was that visual stimulation *is* one
>form of mental stimulation.
I agree and in truth it just comes down to we each have our 'prefered'
form of mental stimulation.
>Also, the fact that most women don't need or rely on something does not
>preclude them from being able to enjoy it anyway. But obviously, most
>men probably aren't very visually stimulating to their partners, and
>few women use visual pornography.
Not at all. I appreciate a nice set of thighs as well as the next person.
They just aren't a prequisite for tummybumps. 'Course, it don't hurt.
>But the brain is still the erogenous zone. The brain processes the
>sensory data and creates the illusion of sensation occurring at a
>given site on the body. It's all in the brain, regardless of where the
>sensory data is coming from.
Well, yes, if you want to get right down to the nitty gritty (oh, let's
go for it!) the brain is "THE" erogenous zone.
>>Due to the effects of estrogen, women's skin is thinner than men's and a
>>great deal more sensitive. The effects of simply touching, can be amazing.
>
>Yes, I have verified this repeatedly. Nothing like a good massage to put
>a woman into the frame of mind I got into when I first saw her. In fact,
>a man who doesn't know how to use his hands well is probably not playing
>with a full deck.
No, even more than that. Just TOUCHING. Simply running the fingertips
down the cheek, or the back or... goodness, it makes me twitter just to
think about it. Sigh. And the LO is far away again.
Marianna Max
Of course you are right, luckly not everyone is visually stimulated by the
same thing. Actually however, visual stimulation is secondary to other
sensory inputs for me (smell, touch, taste). Does this fall out along
male/female lines? For example, I am much more turned on by an sexy story
than a sexy picture.
Please don't send me your sexy stories by E-mail, I don't have time or
privacy to read them!
Max
Don Keller
Do you know why you are stimulated more by stories. Although the stories set the sceen, your imagination "sees" what it wants to see in order to "turn you on"That's what's wrong with music videos. But that is a whole other can of worms.
just my thoughts.
See Ya]
Bamm-Bamm
Meloney Cregor
>Of course you are right, luckly not everyone is visually stimulated by the
>same thing. Actually however, visual stimulation is secondary to other
>sensory inputs for me (smell, touch, taste). Does this fall out along
>male/female lines? For example, I am much more turned on by an sexy story
>than a sexy picture.
Yup. Most male pornography is visual in nature and most female pornography
is textual in nature. Witness the huge success of Harlequin romance
novels. It's a matter of stimulating the imagination, IMO. I find the
less explicit type to be much more arousing than the explicit variety. I
guess this would be the difference between a onepiece bathing suit and a
string bikini.
Marcia Bednarcyk
|> Well, I must admit that after a month on soc.singles, I'm beginning to wonder
|> whether "I am the only one", too. I keep reading that women do things that I
|> don't do. Am I honestly that odd?
After 5 1/2 years with soc.singles (geez, it's really been that long), I
*still* wonder whether I'm the only one. I also wonder where the guys meet
these women they're posting about....and figure they must have something
that we are not told about that attracted them in the first place....
There are "nice women" around, just like nice guys, but somehow they never
seem to end up together...I have some theories about that, but no evidence.
Besides, people don't tend to post when they are in a great relationship and
things are going along happily, they tend to post when they are dissatisfied
or hurt or whatever.
I don't think you're that odd...or there are a great number of us who are happy,
self-sufficient, giving, accepting, etc. (hey! look at that ego!) who don't do
what is often posted about who are odd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk ADDRESS: m...@cisco.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
"... the meaning of life is to be happy, try not to hurt people, and hope
you fall in love."
Chris Hudson
>string bikini.
I _personally_ find a onepiece bathing suit on a woman to be much more stimulating than a string bikini. It leaves much more to the imagination........
___________________________________________________________________________
i've been lying all my life with silence
and i need to find the words to tell you...
--- sam phillips
___________________________________________________________________________
| |
Chris Hudson | b17a!medch!chris | IW17A5
205-730-1375 | ch...@medch.b17a.ingr.com | Intergraph Corporation
Gaile Simmons
>But you didn't notice the give-away you specified in an
>earlier post:
>
> "... my husband and I ..."
>
>You aren't available, i.e. aren't single.
Well, I'm sorry that I've been giving people this wrong impression. In fact,
my husband is dead. I'm sorry that I have problems calling him my "ex", and
I never thought to call him "my *LATE* husband". I came to this group to
discuss being single, rather than to look for dates; it never occurred to
me to be careful about whether I sounded single or not. I apologize for
any misunderstanding that this might have caused.
I'm single. I'm available. I also like to think that I'm a nice person.
I'm in the same boat as all of the other nice, single, available people
out there. But, I get tired of all of the complaining. I feel
confident that the women that I know who say that there are no nice men
out there, and the men in this group that I see complaining about the lack
of nice women, are *wrong*!
Being on the net certainly is teaching me to be very careful about what I
say. I hope that I'm getting better at this.
>As you specified also earlier,
>you never have trouble getting offers, so you're probably rarely (if ever)
>available.
True. I'm available right now. But I don't expect to always be available.
I'm in the process of reevaluating what I want from a relationship. I'm
in no hurry to get involved again. (Well, *parts* of me are in a hurry, but
I'm trying to teach them a little discipline. :-)
I feel confident that I can meet lots of nice people, when I decide
that I don't want to be single. I would do that by making myself available.
Trying to do things that I enjoy, because I know that people are more
attracted to me when I'm happy. Going places where I can meet people with
common interests, because common interests make a relationship more likely
to work. Being basically content with my life and positive in my outlook,
because I know that nothing turns people off like being desperate. (Besides
which, I have no desire to spend my life miserable. If I never find anyone,
I'd rather have lived my life the best that I can.) Trying to grow and
learn, because the more that I have to offer, the more attractive people
find me.
Look, I know that I've said that people find me attractive. But, I'll let
you in on a secret. I'm no raving beauty. When I look in the mirror, I
don't always know why people find me attractive. But, I have my suspicions.
I smile a lot. I care about people. I enjoy talking with people and try
to draw them out.
The fact that I've worked in the sex trades doesn't mean that I fit Daniel's
concept of the perfect woman. Playboy and Penthouse wouldn't want me.
I like my body, but it wouldn't win any contests. Unless I smile, I'm
probably pretty plain. I know at least 4 of the people in this group and they
could probably vouch for all of this. (Then again, do I really want tons
of people posting "Yup, Gaile's downright ugly except for her personality"? :-)
>It appears that all but a microscopically tiny fraction of the
>"nice women" are not open for offers. So who do we single guys meet?
I *will* admit that it can be difficult to find the right person.
All that I can suggest is to keep looking. I'll also admit that I think
that men have the harder role in the courtship game; I wish that I knew what
to suggest.
>computer geek in transition
One transition that you might want to consider is to stop complaining about
the lack of available women. I've already tried to start a thread about
places that single men can go to meet single women. I'd like to see more
positive suggestions about both enjoying being single while you are, and
finding someone nice. Then again, maybe this group *is* soc.cesspool and
I'm just in the wrong place.
drieux, just drieux
]
] Not really, but I love it when he leaves those long wavy hairs in the sink ...
] it's so *cute* ... even though it guarantees a huge hairball in
] the shower hair trap every morning ... :-)
Oh Pooh!
first off this is about Humans, NOT CATS!
Or does your Longhair have a problem wherein he coffs up fur balls?
{beginning to understand why Pooh is single maybe? She seems to
go outside of her species for dates!}
What confuses me most is that when My hair gets to
what I like to call PatrioticRedBloodedAllAmericanMinuteMan Length,
as opposed to:
KneeJerkWimpLiberalLongHairSoftOnKommunismScuzBagDrugAddledMoralPervert Length, [1]
there is a nasty habit of it doing the 'velcro trick' with my beard!
ciao
drieux
ps: why does my ProblemOlderWoman have a HeartAttack when I
mention going to see a Marine Corp Barrack Barber?
[1] and YES! there is a difference!
Snoopy
| You are projecting your (and perhaps other men's) visual needs on to
| women and the picture is a bit fuzzy.
Probably the result of watching the intros to James Bond movies too
many times.
_____
/_____\ Snoopy
/_______\
|___| cse.ogi.edu!sopwith!snoopy
|___| {illian,loop,parsely,qiclab,sequent,techbook}!sopwith!snoopy
"Dogs are much better to sleep with than cats."
Michele Guillet
Mark Israel
> Unless I smile, I'm probably pretty plain.
Wherefore rejoice!
That minimizes unwanted attention from men, while leaving you the
power to attract men whom you want to attract (by smiling at them).
Lucky, lucky you!
James Davis Nicoll
had what few social skills I now have, and I spent my life reading at parties
I couldn't avoid because I lived in the house they were held in. We're talking
total-geek city here. In my book, what she did was nice.
Apparently she doesn't remember this, but*I* do. God, what a pathetic
social life I have....
At least now I can wow the babes with my encyclopedic knowledge of
the continuity of government sites used in the event of a nuclear war
involving Canada (Borden, Carp, Penhold, Shiloh, Debert, Valcartier,
and Nanimo). Ye haw.
James Nicoll
Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
>Or does your Longhair have a problem wherein he coffs up fur balls?
>{beginning to understand why Pooh is single maybe? She seems to
>go outside of her species for dates!}
No, no, no, silly drieux! I have two DomesticShortHairs and
one DomesticatedForeignLongHair. Hope this clears everything up.
>what I like to call PatrioticRedBloodedAllAmericanMinuteMan Length,
>as opposed to:
>KneeJerkWimpLiberalLongHairSoftOnKommunismScuzBagDrugAddledMoralPervert Length, [1]
>[1] and YES! there is a difference!
Oh, sure ... about three inches ... ;-)
>ps: why does my ProblemOlderWoman have a HeartAttack when I
>mention going to see a Marine Corp Barrack Barber?
Because you should really go to Bruno 'The Lash' PunkRUs Boutique :-)
ciao
Pooh
po...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
drieux, just drieux
] >In article dmo...@piglet.UUCP (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
] >> I bet if you lined up all the regulars on soc.singles, you would not
] >> find many who could be mistaken for ordinary people.
]
] Could you expand on this one Daniel! I really do not know
] what you are trying to say. Or should I say... I really
] can not believe that you said that!
Oh thank Heavens I am not a regular here....
ciao
drieux
ps: still just a shyQuietNaiveInnocentWaifFromASmallTownInTheMidWest
drieux, just drieux
] >I guess this would be the difference between a onepiece bathing suit and a
] >string bikini.
]
]
] I _personally_ find a onepiece bathing suit on a woman to be much more stimulating than a string bikini. It leaves much more to the imagination........
if you like OnePiecers, you'll love the khaki combo with
rucksack and....
ciao
drieux
ps: maybe it was her flak jacket....
the way the body armour clung to her so commandingly....
drieux, just drieux
]
] Actually however, visual stimulation is secondary to other
] sensory inputs for me (smell, touch, taste). Does this fall out along
] male/female lines? For example, I am much more turned on by an sexy story
] than a sexy picture.
One of the many graces that those of us who are
as blind as bats without our spectecles are graced with,
besides nocturnal habits, and a tendency to locate our
query by sonar, is less dependence upon visual data.
ciao
drieux
ps: tactile, it is tactical sometimes...
ObSobStory: Once Upon a time I found myself in
a most compromising position, beyond the range
wherein I could see her, and yet not far enough
out for her to see me... heavens but we would
have been lost were we not holding on for dear life...
Thank goodness we didn't roll over on our glasses....
CatWoman
] po...@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
] ] Not really, but I love it when he leaves those long wavy hairs in the sink ...
] ] it's so *cute* ... even though it guarantees a huge hairball in
] ] the shower hair trap every morning ... :-)
]
] ps: why does my ProblemOlderWoman have a HeartAttack when I
] mention going to see a Marine Corp Barrack Barber?
Because I agree with Pooh!!
ObPeeve: Guys who complain about their hair when I wish mine were
even HALF as cooperative and curly!!
Diana
rON.
not >beast< but creature,perhpas';-)
We've established that there are several reasonable places totry and
locate such women (things involving dancing or cooking seem to be predominant).
One thing we haven't established is if there are these women in >my< age
range.
Most of the women who have been posting all seem to be really decent people,
and we would probably get along just famously- but am I going to have to
wait another 13 years until I hit 40 to find on for myself? Most older women
I've talked with about the subject seem to indicate their preference is towards
men that are older (ie- more in their won age range).
So I guess the question du jour in this arena is:
Are there nice women who are in the 20-30 year old range? Where do >you< hide
out?
rON. (blow...@triton.unm.edu!ariel.unm.edu)
"It is only with the heart that one see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye."
Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
>So I guess the question du jour in this arena is:
>Are there nice women who are in the 20-30 year old range? Where do >you< hide
>out?
Well, these days I'm hiding in a private trading floor from 5 pm to
6 am three nights a week, and sleeping most of the rest of the time ...
if you stop by, please bring me a sandwich or something ...
Gadfly
user...@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
> There are zillions of men who've met wonderful women who are now
> their SOs. But why would *they* be reading soc.singles?
For its entertainment value. And because we've met a hell of a lot of
great people through it.
> What did you expect soc.singles to be? What else would it be but
> a cesspool to which complainers and men with problems are irresistibly
> drawn?
Well, speak for yourself.
> > Surely, for every nice guy, there is an equally nice woman around
> > somewhere?
> Yes, but she probably doesn't have Net access.
Now *that's* true. Perhaps if your expectations about the net were
more realistic you wouldn't be so disappointed. It's fun, but
should not be construed as real life. Perhaps it needs something akin
to a Surgeon General's label. Something like "WARNING: This medium
has been found to be highly addictive to laboratory animals."
*** ***
Ken Perlow ***** *****
12 Jan 92 ****** ****** 22 Nivose An CC
***** ***** gad...@ihlpa.ATT.COM
** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE! *** *** TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE! ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
Mark Israel
>> What did you expect soc.singles to be? What else would it be but
>> a cesspool to which complainers and men with problems are irresistibly
>> drawn?
>
> Well, speak for yourself.
Hi, Ken! I did not mean to imply that *all* men in soc.singles were
complainers or had problems -- merely a higher-than-elsewhere proportion
of them. I stand by this assertion.
> Perhaps if your expectations about the net were more realistic you
> wouldn't be so disappointed.
*I* have not been disappointed. I was suggesting that perhaps
*Gaile's* expectations were too high.
> It's fun, but should not be construed as real life.
That's what I was trying to say!
> Perhaps it needs something akin to a Surgeon General's label.
> Something like "WARNING: This medium has been found to be highly
> addictive to laboratory animals."
:-) Touche'!
Gaile Simmons
> *I* have not been disappointed. I was suggesting that perhaps
>*Gaile's* expectations were too high.
Oh. Good thing that you told me that; I'm not sure that I realized that
was what you were saying.
It's true that my expectations may have been too high. On the other hand,
I've been enjoying my time here and am getting a lot of positive feedback
on my posts. I came to the net seeking intellectual stimulation and
I came to this group seeking a forum for discussing being single. I've
found both of these things.
Although, I didn't expect to find so many posts saying "There are no nice
women around. All women are horrible because <insert favorite complaint
here>." Someone has pointed out via email that I may have more
positive experience with relationships than the average person here. I
find it interesting to read people's experiences when they don't match what
I've experienced in my own life. I hope to learn to be able to share my
own experiences without sounding intolerant of other people and their very
different experiences.
I've had my own share of bad experiences. I'm single, so I obviously
haven't found what I'm looking for, either. I was trying to make positive
suggestions. I'm sorry if I have sounded angry, or if I've seemed to
discount other people's experiences. This has been a wonderful learning
experience for me. Thanks.
Douglas O'Neill
I agrre there is too much complaining on the net.
I may have been guilty of this myself but I've tried to do it in a
positive, light-hearted way. This net should be to help singles solve
their common problems and learn from each other. Not to complain about
the opposite sex.
I don't think you have to explain yourself at all. There is too much
flaming just for the purpose of flaming rather than to be constructive.
You speak honestly and directly and that is all that maters. Thanks for
your concern and constructive advice.
Doug
The eternal optomist, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
pav...@gw.syr.ge.com
> In article <1992Jan9....@gw.syr.ge.com> pav...@gw.syr.ge.com writes:
>>But you didn't notice the give-away you specified in an
>>earlier post:
>> "... my husband and I ..."
>>You aren't available, i.e. aren't single.
> Well, I'm sorry that I've been giving people this wrong impression. In fact,
> my husband is dead. I'm sorry that I have problems calling him my "ex", and
> I never thought to call him "my *LATE* husband". I came to this group to
> discuss being single, rather than to look for dates; it never occurred to
> me to be careful about whether I sounded single or not. I apologize for
> any misunderstanding that this might have caused.
Gaile, I'm terribly sorry (and I mean this!). I had no idea; the way you
were talking sounded like the two of you were still together. Since there
have been other married individuals contributing to this newsgroup, I simply
assumed that you were another one of those. Again, I apologize for any pain
I might have caused you by my remarks.
> I'm single. I'm available. I also like to think that I'm a nice person.
> I'm in the same boat as all of the other nice, single, available people
> out there. But, I get tired of all of the complaining. I feel
> confident that the women that I know who say that there are no nice men
> out there, and the men in this group that I see complaining about the lack
> of nice women, are *wrong*!
Again, I'm sure you're a nice person (putting up with my blithering when
I'm on an off day sure shows some signs of it). I've tried to give up on the
complaining, but somehow the topic seemed to be getting skewed in the usual
way: those who are already successful keep saying "Just try this!" when we
who are not successful already have tried that, and eventually, enough is
enough.
> Being on the net certainly is teaching me to be very careful about what I
> say. I hope that I'm getting better at this.
Yes, that is true. I've been learning that lesson as well (gotta remember to
never post the day after a blood donation; not enough oxygen in the brain
to prevent errors :-) ).
>>As you specified also earlier,
>>you never have trouble getting offers, so you're probably rarely (if ever)
>>available.
> True. I'm available right now. But I don't expect to always be available.
> I'm in the process of reevaluating what I want from a relationship. I'm
> in no hurry to get involved again. (Well, *parts* of me are in a hurry, but
> I'm trying to teach them a little discipline. :-)
>
> I feel confident that I can meet lots of nice people, when I decide
> that I don't want to be single. I would do that by making myself available.
> Trying to do things that I enjoy, because I know that people are more
> attracted to me when I'm happy. Going places where I can meet people with
> common interests, because common interests make a relationship more likely
> to work. Being basically content with my life and positive in my outlook,
> because I know that nothing turns people off like being desperate. (Besides
> which, I have no desire to spend my life miserable. If I never find anyone,
> I'd rather have lived my life the best that I can.) Trying to grow and
> learn, because the more that I have to offer, the more attractive people
> find me.
I agree with all of the above. I do this, too; my problem with meeting people
in such places is the usual: making the initial contact, so that we can get
beyond the initial superficialities and into seeing the real people involved.
> Look, I know that I've said that people find me attractive. But, I'll let
> you in on a secret. I'm no raving beauty. When I look in the mirror, I
> don't always know why people find me attractive. But, I have my suspicions.
> I smile a lot. I care about people. I enjoy talking with people and try
> to draw them out.
>
> The fact that I've worked in the sex trades doesn't mean that I fit Daniel's
> concept of the perfect woman. Playboy and Penthouse wouldn't want me.
> I like my body, but it wouldn't win any contests. Unless I smile, I'm
> probably pretty plain. I know at least 4 of the people in this group and they
> could probably vouch for all of this. (Then again, do I really want tons
> of people posting "Yup, Gaile's downright ugly except for her personality"? :-)
Sounds like some of my female friends here (but they're taken, too, except for
a few, and those few and I have generally discovered that we'd drive each other
crazy if we tried to go romantic anyway). Generally, those ladies have the
best personalities anyway; I can trust them (unlike some of the others).
>>It appears that all but a microscopically tiny fraction of the
>>"nice women" are not open for offers. So who do we single guys meet?
> I *will* admit that it can be difficult to find the right person.
> All that I can suggest is to keep looking. I'll also admit that I think
> that men have the harder role in the courtship game; I wish that I knew what
> to suggest.
I appreciate the thought; don't worry about me, though. Some of my above-
mentioned female friends are giving me a hand in some of the areas I need
work on; I read this group in search of additional insights (hoping to find
such in posts of complaining women, actually) to try to accelerate my
personal growth rate.
> One transition that you might want to consider is to stop complaining about
> the lack of available women. I've already tried to start a thread about
> places that single men can go to meet single women. I'd like to see more
> positive suggestions about both enjoying being single while you are, and
> finding someone nice. Then again, maybe this group *is* soc.cesspool and
> I'm just in the wrong place.
Actually, I think this is the first thing approaching a complaint I personally
have made on this net; I've asked questions in bewilderment, but generally
not complained. I know what the odds are; I didn't make the rules of
the game, but if I want to play, I have to obey them. That's why I declare
myself a "geek in transition"; I'm busily losing my geekhood, but I'm still
several laps behind those whose spent their time playing the game and
learning the rules, instead of being a good little nerd and avoiding the
game (for whatever reasons). Unfortunately, this is *not* a subject that
they teach in school; it has to be learned in real life, and it's tough
to learn when one keeps getting benched due to social handicaps (thanks to
some Higher Power [is this PC enough, folks? :) ] that I have no others).
Thanks for your comments.
Andy Pavlin
Huckleberry Muffin
>] >> I bet if you lined up all the regulars on soc.singles, you would not
>] >> find many who could be mistaken for ordinary people.
Angelo the Postmaster responds:
>]
>] ... I really can not believe that you said that!
>]
And I really can not believe that *any* soc.singles
regular would say that about one of Mocsny's postings!
cloyd
--
Cloyd Goodrum III " I've never held an ocean
UNCC Computer Science Department In the palm of my hand "
Charlotte, N.C. -- Nick Drake
unccvax!goo...@mcnc.org
Nancy Kersey
>I to like to know someone before making a move shall we say....
>
>I think this is likely why I am S.O. less, experience says women take you being
>friendly as meaning you only ever want to be friends, and once friends in their
>eyes that is it only ever friends.
>
>Fergie
On the contrary, Fergie -- you are simply a man of content which does
make being S.0.less any less unfortunate but the friends first concept is
my preference and always has been. I have great difficulty just "dating"
someone I have met once or twice at some function. not that I haven't but
the best relationships have always resulted from being friends first.
I've not met too many men who have openly stated this being their
preference too.
nancy
David Mark Herbert
Well Nancy, now you know of another. I like to get to know a woman
before "making a move". But I have another problem. I get the feeling that
when I approach a woman to try and become friends, she thinks that my goal is
to jump into the sack with her. I would like to have female friends. I would
like to be able to go out with a female friend as friends first. I find it
difficult to ask someone out and make her beleive it really is because of a
common interest and that I'm not trying to start a "dating" relationship. How
can I do this?
Dave.
--
___________________________________________________
David M. Herbert, University of Merryland
her...@wam.umd.edu
Gaile Simmons
>In article <1992Jan10.2...@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, ga...@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Gaile Simmons) writes:
>> Well, I'm sorry that I've been giving people this wrong impression. In fact,
>> my husband is dead.
>
>were talking sounded like the two of you were still together. Since there
>have been other married individuals contributing to this newsgroup, I simply
>assumed that you were another one of those. Again, I apologize for any pain
>I might have caused you by my remarks.
It's okay. I should learn to modify my language. I should have called him
my *late* husband. I'm not angry at you, or hurt. I *am* sorry for giving
people the wrong impression.
The worst reaction that I ever got was from a woman who laughed and asked
whether I'd killed him. Obviously, she didn't believe me when I said that
he had died. I think that she had assumed that we were divorced. Now,
*that's* a faut pas! (Have I got that spelled right?)
Mark Israel
> It's true that my expectations may have been too high. On the other
> hand, I've been enjoying my time here and am getting a lot of positive
> feedback on my posts. I came to the net seeking intellectual
> stimulation and I came to this group seeking a forum for discussing
> being single. I've found both of these things.
>
> Although, I didn't expect to find so many posts saying "There are no
> nice women around. All women are horrible because <insert favorite
> complaint here>."
Hi, Gaile! I'm glad you've been enjoying soc.singles. Yes, you can
find all kinds of things here, including singles discussion and
intellectual stimulation. Just don't expect to get an accurate impression
here of how good or bad women really are.
You can find all kinds of things in a cesspool, as well. Just don't
expect to get an accurate impression of how smelly things really are. :-)
Paul Wallich
>After 5 1/2 years with soc.singles (geez, it's really been that long), I
>There are "nice women" around, just like nice guys, but somehow they never
>seem to end up together...I have some theories about that, but no evidence.
That's not true. I know a number of nice women (a category btw
that overlaps but !="good women") who have ended up with nice guys.
Is just like you say, none of them post here. (ok, so my ex-babe is
one of them . . .)
>Marcia Bednarcyk ADDRESS: m...@cisco.com
>"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
a good sig never goes out of style
paul unstylishly blank
0000-Admin(0000)
I've ALWAYS felt it was preferable to be friends first. However,
I have experienced almost exclusively that being friends first is
the easiest excuse a woman has not to get serious about a man.
"Oh, I'd hate to lose you as a friend, do you understand?"
Sure I do. She doesn't want to get intimate physically with me.
She has no interest in me as a partner sexually, and never will.
These are the statements that always end friendships for me. If she can't
trust me to not hurt her physically, but CAN trust me to tell me all her most
secret secrets, then what good am I to her? Sure, the argument is that
I shoudl be flattered and "ego stroked" to know she honors our friendship
so much, but doesn't physical pleasure mark the true bounds of where you
trust someone?
Or at least, shouldn't physical intimacy be part of true friendship?
Jim
0000-Admin(0000)
Dave,
As one of those guys who EASILY makes friends with women, (but has
extremely bad luck getting romantic)... the best way to make friends
with a woman is to treat her like a person above and beyond any sexual
attraction you might feel for her.
A smile, eye-to-eye (not eye-to-crotch-to-breasts-to-mouth-to-eye) contact
a warm-firm handshake, an offer to include her in your plan to go to the
cafe (not "I'll go if you'll go with me"), and asking her about her life,
hobbies, interests, job, family, school, etc. tend to make women less
apt to see your approach ( and cringe ) as a sexual advance.
Talking is important. Books, movies, food, studies, dreams, etc. are
very easy topics to talk about. Sex is a topic that you should avoid
when you want to be friends with a woman. (at least until you are already
friends).
It's basically very simple to befreind women. Treat them the same way
you want others to treat you, and they will like you immediately.
Good luck,
Jim
Mark C. Carroll
The fact that someone isn't interested in getting into a physical
relationship with you doesn't mean that they they don't trust you.
I'm a heterosexual guy; most of my closest friends are hetero women.
I trust them completely and without reservation; I have absolutely no
fear of their hurting me, physically or emotionally. But some of them,
I could never get involved with physically. It's not for lack of
trust, and it's not out of fear. It's just that I don't want to get
involved with them physically.
>Or at least, shouldn't physical intimacy be part of true friendship?
>
No. Not necessarily.
With some people, it is. With others, it isn't.
There are some friends who I see, and immediately give a big hug to,
and who I'm very physical with; there are others who I don't. I'm not
any closer to the people who I'm physical with than to the people who
I'm not. (In fact, I'm almost completely non-physical with my closest
friend.) It's just that with some people, the physical side is very
natural, and with others, it just simple isn't.
Sex and friendship are two different things: the people who you most
want to sleep with, and the people who you most want to _be_ with
aren't necessarily the same. (When they are, you've got something
special.) It's a much greater complement if you're someone that a
friend wants to be with.
<MC>
--
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC> ||"We the people are getting tired of your lies
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| We the people now believe that it's time
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || We're demanding our rights to the answers
|| car...@udel.edu || We elect a precedent to state of mind"-Fish
Seng Gan
>As one of those guys who EASILY makes friends with women, (but has
>extremely bad luck getting romantic)... the best way to make friends
>with a woman is to treat her like a person above and beyond any sexual
>attraction you might feel for her.
>
involved. Lets start a new thread of discussion.
Man with good plutonic relationship with women. Problem:
How to romantically involved with woman instead of just friends????
Question to woman: how do you decides to either romantically involved
with somebody or plutonic friend??
How can a man tell if you want to stay just friend or becoming intimate??
Here a poem to kick this off
Dreaming of you
---------------
Loving you is not what I should.
Forgetting you is not what I could.
In this lonely night, I am dreaming of you.
Seng C. Gan
Larry Margolis
> Man with good plutonic relationship with women.
Did Mickey have a Plutonic relationship? Was Minnie fucking Goofy?
And what about Donald - was he plucking Daisy's?
It makes one Disney just thinking about it...
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI at YKTVMV (Bitnet), mar...@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Eleanor Evans
Are we back to Trygve's "more bang for the buck"?
El
steven.m.stein
>>Man with good plutonic relationship with women.
NO
and it isn't necessarily something I feel I need to brag about!
Vicki Holzhauer
>
>>>Man with good plutonic relationship with women.
Unless you're into orbiting faraway planets, the word you're looking
for is plAtonic ... :-)
(as in Plato)
--
Vicki Holzhauer, NCAR/Research Aviation Facility
Internet: vi...@ncar.ucar.edu //// "It could probably be
shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native
American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain
Mark Israel
>>>> Man with good plutonic relationship with women.
> ^^^^^^^^
> Unless you're into orbiting faraway planets, the word you're looking
> for is plAtonic ... :-)
>
> (as in Plato)
Oh, I thought "platonics" was the technical term geologists use for
"continental drift". :-)
Go for Plutonic relationships! They're much more fun than platonic
relationships. Pluto was god of the underwear, after all. (Or is that
"underworld"? I alwheys get those two mixed up.)
Roger Tang
>In article <15...@ncar.ucar.edu>, vi...@steam.atd.ucar.edu (Vicki Holzhauer) writes:
>>>>> Man with good plutonic relationship with women.
>> for is plAtonic ... :-)
>"continental drift". :-)
No, "continental drift" is the technical term geologists use...
And plutonics refers to those big, igneous masses..er...slowly...
thrusting upwards. Usually of a granitic nature...
--
"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail: gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu
Dr Dr
writes:
"Here is another one. I have a lot of women friends but none are
"romantically involved. Lets start a new thread of discussion.
"Man with good plutonic relationship with women. Problem:
"How to romantically involved with woman instead of just friends????
"Question to woman: how do you decides to either romantically involved
"with somebody or plutonic friend??
"How can a man tell if you want to stay just friend or becoming intimate??
Hard to say. It's a devil of a question, one I'd hade to try to answer
without a lot of thought. Perhaps that's why spring is the season of new life
and romance -- plutonic relationships transform, and Venus vidi veni.
:-) :-)
--
Michael Price, M.D. (mt...@uiuc.edu)
"I wonder, therefore I might be." -- Descartes before de hearse....
Steve Gombosi
>In article <1992Jan29....@cbfsb.att.com> s...@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>>
>>>>Man with good plutonic relationship with women.
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>Unless you're into orbiting faraway planets, the word you're looking
>for is plAtonic ... :-)
>
>(as in Plato)
Hmmmph, snort, I should think that as a Real Classicist(tm) you'd remember
that Pluto was the god of wealth, as well as the Underworld (sort of the
Gotti of Olympus, as it were. I guess some things
never change, do they?). I thought it was a pretty good pun, myself.
I think this is just another post by one of those poor, demeter-ed males
who ceres-ly believes that if he just had(es) a Lode (hi Trygve) of money,
persephone some woman would find him attractive and not take him for
pomegranate. I think it took a lot of mocsny to write something like Dis,
myself.
Steve
Mark Israel
>> Oh, I thought "platonics" was the technical term geologists use for
>> "continental drift". :-)
>
> No, "continental drift" is the technical term geologists use...
No, I remember now. It's "plate tectonics".
> And plutonics refers to those big, igneous masses..er...slowly...
> thrusting upwards. Usually of a granitic nature...
You're right about plutons. On the other hand, people who know as
much geology as we do probably have rocks in their heads. :-)
user...@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca Mark Israel
"Being dead is essentially one of the most boring experiences in life.
That is, if you except being married, or dining with a schoolmaster."
-- Oscar Wilde (posthumous remark)
Roger Tang
>In article <1992Jan30.1...@milton.u.washington.edu>, gwan...@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>>> Oh, I thought "platonics" was the technical term geologists use for
>>> "continental drift". :-)
>> No, "continental drift" is the technical term geologists use...
> No, I remember now. It's "plate tectonics".
>> And plutonics refers to those big, igneous masses..er...slowly...
>> thrusting upwards. Usually of a granitic nature...
> You're right about plutons. On the other hand, people who know as
>much geology as we do probably have rocks in their heads. :-)
Hmmm....reminds me of my college days. I was deciding on my majors
and I ALMOST decided to go geology/psychology...so I could say that I know
what kind of rocks are in people's head...
So I decided to go communications/geology...so I can talk to rocks...
(Now folks...would you want to KNOW a person who'd decide on a college
degree purely for the sake of a bad pun....)