British women

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Don't send me hate mail

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

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
>
>And if you come in France you have to apply garlic too!

Even if you just come *to* France?
--
Adrian Smith

JPC

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

D. Miller

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

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!!
>
> 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

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to


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

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

www http://www.horrida.demon.co.uk/stev.html

Beth

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> was rabbiting on a bit about
> >wrote:

> 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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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
>
>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*.

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <ne...@chal.demon.co.uk> was rabbiting on a bit about

> >have a *hug* and some chocolate.

> my kinda man
> :->

My OS is designed to please when programmed
in the right way ;)

Andrew Marshall

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to
<be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> writes

>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?

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

<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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

In article <33b4d37...@news.enterprise.net>, Bob Brenchley
<Brenc...@aol.com> was rabbiting on a bit about

<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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

In article <5p1jo1$kef$1...@news.swan.ac.uk>, gw0...@swansea.ac.uk was

rabbiting on a bit about
>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.:)
>
> >Beth, fat, old and ugly but bright and reasonable good company on a
> >date. --
>
>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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

In article <8d49EAAm...@cheeseshop.demon.co.uk>, mousetrap
<mous...@cheeseshop.demon.co.uk> was rabbiting on a bit about

>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......
>;-)

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

gx...@dial.pipex.com

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

Beth

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

In article <wapiiiAO...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>, Beth
<be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> writes
>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?
(fnip)

>>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.
>
>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*.

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

"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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

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.
>
>I *really* hope that was a joke.
>
>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

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

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

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

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

unread,
Jul 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/1/97
to

Beth <be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote:

><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

unread,
Jul 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/1/97
to

"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

unread,
Jul 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/1/97
to

> 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

unread,
Jul 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/1/97
to

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

unread,
Jul 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/1/97
to

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

unread,
Jul 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/1/97
to

st...@horrida.demon.co.uk

unread,
Jul 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/2/97
to

>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

unread,
Jul 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/2/97
to

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? ;-)
>
>Er, I might just be able to rustle something up.
>
>Fifi

Can *I* join this queue ?
--
mousetrap

Julie Bennett

unread,
Jul 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/2/97
to

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

unread,
Jul 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/2/97
to

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

unread,
Jul 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/2/97
to

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:
[snip]

>
>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

unread,
Jul 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/2/97
to

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

unread,
Jul 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/2/97
to

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

unread,
Jul 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/3/97
to

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

unread,
Jul 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/4/97
to

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-