Messages on CompRef's WOMEN - MEN message base

Message #5
From: Alex 116
To: all
Date: 11-27-90 22:01:56
Subject: Lets start a topic going... hmmm

Ok 'chelle, I'm going to do my part to get your new sub off to a
flying start. Here's my question;

Why is it that I constantly hear women complaining about "how shallow
men generally are" and, yet, I (too) often find out that the only
men these women ever go out with are lounge lizards. I mean, if a
guy is not "cool enough"  to get drunk off his butt
at the local meat market on satuarday night, then they won't even
consider meeting him. Like, how many guys pick up a woman at a bar
with intentions of having more than a short affair, if that much?
It cracks me up because, being a guy, I know what the average joe,
at the bar, wants and, knowing many women, I know what the average
Sue is looking for. But I keep asking myself why the heck these people
keep asking everyone why the other sex is so shallow and they're
all bitches and bastards, etc, etc! Come on, what do you expect to
be finding in a nightclub??? Oh well, I see a lot of disallusionment
going on in both sexes outlook of the other. My problem is that I
hardly fit the "lounge lizard" stereotype, yet, I find myself
constantly having to prove to women that I'm not a jerk... seems
that, unless proven otherwise, a guy is jerk, is a jerk, is a jerk...
I wonder how many other men feel like I do???

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=6

Message #6
From: Marc 21
To: Alex 116
Date: 11-28-90 08:58:19
Subject: Human Nature... Men and Women

   In answer to your question about women who say they don't like
shallow men but seem to pick up on the same type, there is one thing
to keep in mind.  What people say versus what they do are two differen
things.  A person may want a mate that is not shallow... but is more
than willing to let their criteria go lower when they want temporary
company.  Some people go to "meat markets" just to have fun, others
go to meet someone new (not a serious relationship), while others
go to find a mate.  I think most go for the second reason... men
and women alike.
   The best way to tell what a person is really after is to watch
their actions.  If someone tells you they want a meaningful relationshop
and no shallow people, yet you see them constantly going to "meat
markets" and picking people up... you can conclude that they really
desire that short relationship and they haven't made up their minds
yet on what they want for a long term relationship.  If someone says
they love you but their actions say different, chances are theyt
are lying to you or have a different idea of love than you do.
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

   Remember... when ALL else fails... WATCH THEIR ACTONS!!!!


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=7

Message #7
From: Jeff 122
To: All
Date: 11-29-90 08:28:45
Subject: Men as stereotypes..

I must say, I have noticed a similar attitude in some (but not ALL)
women.  One explanation that comes to mind is simply that of habit/conditi
oning/addictive-type behavior patterns.
  Have you ever noticed that people tend to go from relationship
to very similar relationship, time and time again?  It's probably
unconcious and beyond the persons control, just as is alcoholism
or other addictive behavior.
  One example that comes to mindis that of really attractive females..
Many times I'll see someone I know casually and see her with some
new guy, and just by LOOKING at him, I know he is as big an idiot
as the last guy I saw her with.. and I wonder "gee, why is that?"
And then I realize that these kinds of guys are the only types stupid
enough not to be somewhat frightened of females that LOOK like this...
So the poor girl gets hit on by these idiots much more often and
sooner... and ends up only going out with idiots, hence, all guys must
be idiots, since she has never had a good experience ... "But, I
go out with LOTS of guys, and they are all the same.."
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
How does that song go? "pretty women walking with gorillas on my
   Any thoughts anyone?    Jeff

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=8

Message #8
From: Brant 12
To: Marc / Chelle
Date: 12-15-90 13:46:42
Subject: Women and Men

    Gosh, I dunno why women and men aren't totally candid with
each other.....I know I, for one, prefer being TOTALLY candid,
whipping out that 35mm or video camera when they LEAST expect it!

    ...heheh.....seriously, I have always found that if everything
is out in the open, you can't get in trouble.  If the girls you're
dating know about each other, they can't accuse you of two-timing, I try to let them know all about what's going on in my
life.... role model in this is John Derek, who went from a relationship
with that Swedish actress (can't remember her name), to Linda whatsherface
 to Bo Derek, having intensely involved relationships with each,
dropping down 15 or 20 years in age each time, and he was so open
about it, so candid, that the women not only understood and forgave
him, but they're all STILL FRIENDS with him!

    I saw Linda and Bo on the same talk show, and the host kept asking
how they could not help but hate John, and they both agreed that
he was so open and sensitive and explanatory, that they still loved
him and understood why he was leaving them for the much younger woman.
(also interesting how similar these women look : ( I remember their
names now : Ursala Andress, Linda Evans, and Bo Derek))

   I believe Linda was about 30 when John left her for a 16 year
old California blonde named Bo.....

   Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning men leaving women{for
a series of younger women......I understand it, given mens need for
visual stimulation (interesting statistic here : I read that the
frequency of sex in a relationship is directly related to the AGE
of THE WOMAN, not the age of the man.  Younger women seem to inspire
arousal more often in men of ANY AGE!)

   But I am noting John Derek's masterful use of candidness and
open, sensitive discussion in a relationship.

   As for staying friends with a woman without sex, I once let a
good friend of mine stay at my apt for about 2 months, sleeping in
my bed with me 4 or 5 nites a week, sharing a bathroom, etc, and
we kept it platonic.  I was dating someone else at the time, she
knew all about it, and trusted me.   BELIEVE IT, OR NOT!  hehehe

                 References available on request,


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=9

Message #9
From: Mickey 11
To: Purple Hearters
Date: 02-14-91 10:49:13
Subject: Thoughts on VD

 Happy Valentines Day, gang!    Here's hoping you have all
 remembered to do something special for those special loved
 ones in your life, and have plans for some serious licking
 and sucking this evening.   Me...?   Welp, Admiral and I plan
 to surprise Brant tonight with fun little toy we bought at
 last weekend's Puter PJ Party.   It's an industrial strength,
 kick-started 4-stroke Hercules Vibrating Butt Plug from Bubba
 Luv Inc.   We just know he's gunna love it to death... esp if
 he doesnt read the directions!

 Love permeates the very air we breath today....  Or was that
 just Robert Goulet flying around in a helicopter with a massive
 PA system?    VD seems like an appropriate day to posulate a few
 of mine own thoughts on Love.....

 How quickly love flowers in the hearts of the young, inexperienced
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
 and foolish... brimming with tumescent temerity, while hormones
 flush through your veins like an OD of Jolt cola.   But before you
 get carried away by the spirit of the day, or the heat of the
 passionate moment remember Mickey's Stark Reality Rule : Love is
 the IDEAL thing, marriage is the REAL thing.  Confusion of the
 real with the ideal never goes unpunished.   Love must be built on
 truth, not on dreams, and the knowledge of what we recognize
 ourselves to be, rather than what we think its fashionable to be.
 This is why so many young marriages fail... the partners arent
 old enough to truly know themselves yet, or havent quite matured
 into who they will ultimately be.   People make a mistake in trying
 to find love in others before finding it in themselves first.
 Love begins when another person's welfare becomes more important
 than your own.    Finally, remember that love means never having
 to say you're...  1. ruptured ; 2. swaybacked ; 3. eviscerated ;
 4. embalmed.    Happy Valentines Day!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=10

Message #10
From: CompuJock 9
Date: 02-14-91 21:09:33
Subject: Last post:

In a word "Hallelujah!"  I luv your philosophy on love... contained
no bull and spoke enough of reality to shake apart any idealist's
visions on the matter... sharp mind, Mick.  Why do I get the feeling
that you were not the type to be standing in line at the flower shop
today, paying $75 for a dozen roses???!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=11

Message #11
From: Brant 12
To: CompuJock 9
Date: 02-17-91 14:06:42
Subject: Flowers on Valentines Day

    I agree with you, CompuJock ('cept why are you using your
SPORTS board Moderator account on the Men & Women board?????),

    ...anyways, ya, I think we've let the commercial / consumer
interests blow PURCHASED gift giving all out of proportion on the
various holidays....but at the same time I must point out that I
feel that the main group to buy into this tendency is WOMEN...they
spend HUGE amounts of money buying vastly overpriced clothes, makeup,
and furniture.....yet we as men are accessories to this crime, when
we let ourselves get involved with this monetary debacle....

   First Christmas went commercial, with Sears catalogs influencing
the rural people to buy big-city merchandise.  Now little Bobby just
HAS to have the Ninja Turtle Helmet with matching gun, or the other
neighborhood kids will make fun of him......birthdays have gotten
pretty commercial, too, but because it's not a special DAY, the
advertisting moguls haven't really gotten the handle on manipulating
birthday purchases yet......

   But VALENTINES DAY, or VD day as Mick so romantically terms it,
has fallen prey to these mavens of commercial crassness.  Women REQUIRE
their men to come home with bouquets of flowers, the more expensive
the better, to "prove their love".  This phenomenon is hand in hand
with the jewelers successful indoctrination of wedding-bound females,
where the size of the diamond (along with the monthly payments) is
supposedly directly related to the love a man is attempting to evince.

   While married men might get by with a slightly grubby little bunch
of roses bought at a freeway offramp, or a single boxed rose sold
at a 1000% markup....but SINGLE guys feel bound to trek down to their
local ripoff flower shop (who make the vast majority of their profits
on Valentines, Mothers Day, and Christmas), plop down a days pay
for 12 flowers, to prove they are "worthy" of her love.

   I for one rebel against this sort of manipulation, and as a side
effect of this quickly find out which girls can rise above their
cultural conditioning, and which ones have succumbed to "outspending
the Joneses".....for Valentines Day I went around to the various
flowering bushes and plants, trimmed off a bunch of different pretty
flowers and greens, and spent an hour or so putting together what
I thought was a pretty nice bouquet.  It was made of about half red
azaleas, half pink camellias, and trimmed with some sweet pea flowers
of various purple shades.

  *I* liked it, and lucky for me the girl I gave it to liked it, too!

                                    Rebel without a Rose,


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=12

Message #12
From: Alex 116
To: Rebel without a rose
Date: 02-17-91 23:07:42
Subject: ^^^

If it's true what they say --" 'admiration' is how much your fellow
man resembles yourself"-- then I must admit that I truely admire
your philosophy and stragegy with women... it sounds almost exactly
the same as mine. I've come to the point where, as mentioned in my
last post, I get disgusted at the thought of x-mas time, v-day, or
any other (official) "special day" coming along. I've been a
fanatical student of psychology/sociology for many years, and am
used to looking at "normal life" from a different viewpoint then
most. To me, these so-called "special days" are just so plainly
phoney --"phoney," when I try to do them onto others... "insulting"
when others try to charm me through them. It all seems so clear to
me, the manipulation/wishful thinking/etc, that people who do this
stuff go through. But the circus goes on, as one can plainly see
by the long lines and exorbidant prices at the flower shops, the
other day. Don't people ever wise up to the reality of it all? Perhaps,
as I believe, they really DO know the game but, for fear of inflicting
hurt onto others, or, maybe, for fear of departing from the norm,
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
they decide to follow the rest of the sheep.{
It really kills me, in the case of x-mas, to see people make holiday
plans, over the course of half a year prior, to have a "good time"
on a certain day. They spend months and months buying, buying, buying,
often spending money they don't have, on things the recipiant surely
won't want, or can't use. All the while they are going through these
motions, they tell themselves that they are having fun. But their
actions often speak to me the story that they havn't the fainest
clue as to why they are doing what they are. And, in the end, the
"special day" comes around and, by now, it has been so well planned
out, down to the last detail, that it is a dreadful bore to experience!
No more spontainaiety is involved in it... all the gifts, words,
and expressions have been thought about for months already, played
out in everyone's minds a million times over... all that is left
is to go through with the motions and REMEMBER that part of your
planning required you to "have a good time"... so you wear the
neccessary smile on your face.
Is this how it really works or what?!!! UGGGG! I hope it makes some
of you as sick to think about it as it does me!

                         Guru in standing....

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=13

Message #13
From: Gerry 261
To: Alex 116
Date: 02-18-91 05:55:58
Subject: On the other hand ..{

Rituals of passage and the like are an important part of human experience,
and we tend to have far to few of them in modern western culture.

Just because retailers try to commercialize or otherwise exploit
a given event does not mean tha one has to be sucked into same to
mark the event.

Christmas, Valentine's Day and the like are meant to be events which
mark and celebrate.  Coming annually, they also mark cycles in our
existence, much as do the seasons (which are usually celebrated in
some form in most cultures).

I, for one, love to give and get valentines -- particularly ones
which reflect some thoughtfulness.  Perhaps if we males were a little
more communicative of our love and other passions, we wouldn't need
something like Valentine's day to prompt us?

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=14

Message #14
From: Julie 137
To: To the Rebels.....
Date: 02-19-91 20:00:00
Subject: Thoughtfulness....

If I can speak for some women, at least myself,  I do not
believe women look at the dollar amount of a gift or the
exact event she receives it.  I would like to believe people
in general will treat others, especially a loved one, they
way they want to be treated.  And yes, holidays etc.. become
very profit conscious and 'keep up with the Jones' but you have the right
to make the choice of the way you want to spend it.  I appreciate
the thoughtfulness and caring that a man will put into celebrating
holidays and Valentine's Day.  I would love a single rose
as much as I would a dozen roses.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=15

Message #15
From: George 133
To: All
Date: 03-13-91 10:48:17
Subject: She smokes!

Ok, here's one for you bbs Dear Abbey's.
On our second date, I discovered that the lady I've since
become interested in, smokes cigarettes.   She did not smoke
at all on our first date.   But after dinner on the second
date, she lit up.   I never used to consider myself really
anti-smoker, altho I've never been a smoker myself.  But I
realized that night that I had never actually date a smoker
before.   I realized this when I almost gagged kissing her.
The residual cigarette taste and smell was over-powering.
Now, I realize that for a whole younger generation, smoking
has become unfashionable.   But this lady is 34 years old,
and has been smoking since she was 21.    We've been out
several times since then, and are getting closer.   So the
question is, how do you make it clear that the smoking makes
you want to gag, without alienating her and coming off like
some shrieking intolerant anti-smoking activist?
Any suggestions?    Anyone else ever deal with a smoker?
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=16

Message #16
From: Rob 285
To: George 133
Date: 03-14-91 07:41:27
Subject: SMOKE!

Be honest and tell her that kissing her is like kissing an ash tray.
Well mabye that is a bit drastic but do try to be honest.  The 90's
is a decade full of fitness and health and keeps growing every day.
Point out to her the REAL dangers of smoking and ask her if she can
at least abstain from smoking around you.  As you both grow closer
and see more and more of each other she will in turn be smoking less
that is if she does abstain from smoking around you.  Also keep things
fun so that there is somthing always there to keep her mind off of
smoking.  How ever this is a view of a non-smoker so I think it is
important to look at this situation from both sides.

Any other suggestions guys???

                             See Ya


-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=17

Message #17
From: Marc 21
To: George 133
Date: 03-14-91 10:03:39
Subject: Smoking...

   George... I have had experience dating smokers.  Let me tell you
this.... you will never change her.... so telling her it bothers
you will not change things.  You have a decision to make... do you
want a smoker for a close compainion or not?  Only you can make that
choice.  But if you decide to stay with her, be prepared to live
with it... trying to get her to smoke will only cause problems.
In the immortal words of Super Chicken... 'You knew the job was dangerous
when you took it Fred'.
   There can be comprimise... if you get married to her, she may
not mind smking outside or in a special smoking section of the house.
But you should have this issue settled well in advance.  Don't spring
it on her.  Decide now what you want in a person.... DO NOT TRY TO


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=18

Message #18
From: Jeff 122
To: George 133
Date: 03-14-91 19:30:31
Subject: Smoker...

There have been so many times when I have noticed some female somewhere,
thought she was attractive and then WHAM!  Out comes the cigarettes,
and it's all over.  I don't even LOOK again.  Because I know that
A) I hate cigarettes.  I hate the way they smell.  I hate the way
they make YOU smell.  I hate the way they make people TASTE. And,
B) I have absoulutely NO chance of making that person change themselves,
no matter what happens.  And,  C)  Cigarette smoke makes me sick.
Being around smokers gives me a MONDO headache, makes it impossible
for me to breathe and does other nasty things to me.  So why would
I want to be around someone that reminds me of how sick I get around
smokers???  Even if they don't smoke around me?  YUCK!

Nope, George.  It's not worth it. I also look at it in this light:
Everyone on this planet knows smoking kills you.  And if someone
has so little respect for themselves and are so out of touch with
their body that they don't know what they are doing to it...well,
how can I expect them to be good for me at all??  Uh, uh, no thanks.
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=19

Message #19
From: Brant 12
To: George 133
Date: 03-14-91 21:17:06
Subject: Smokers

     I dated a girl that smoked back in high school....she also
chewed a lot of bubble gum, which made for a very sweet/ashy taste
when I kissed if you rolled a wet peice of gum around
in an ash tray, and then chewed it.....yum yum it's not

    As for Marc's warning about not trying to change a smoker, I
agree that you can't try to force her to quit the habit, that's
something she has to do on her own motivation.....but I know a girl
that smokes occasionally, and she NEVER smokes around her boyfriend,
so change to that degree is possible.....

   I would definitely let her know, as tactfully as possible, that
you would prefer she didn't smoke around you.....and be sure and
use positive reinforcement : first time you have a chance to smooch
when she has a clean taste, play it up, sit down and neck for 10
minutes......if like most girls she loves to kiss and get that much
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
attention, this sort of reward will have far more effect than trying
to forbid her from smoking, and being angry when she does..... for shrieking intolerant anti-smoking activism, I've found
that when you're dealing with strangers that smoke in areas they're
not supposed to, reasoning with them doesn't work.....I carry a little
net bag of dogshit with me, and when they refuse to stop smoking
in our communal air, I start swinging it around and around....SURE
it gets on them, and makes their clothes stink, but HEY, we all have
our little HABITS, right?


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=20

Message #20
From: David 150
To:  ...
Date: 03-15-91 00:14:53
Subject: Smokers and smoking.

A real tough subject. Both my parents are smokers. My little sister
and brother also smoke. I don't. ...  .... Anyway,
as I was saying, I have dated smokers in the past, since it doesn't
really bother me that much. Only one had an objectional taste when
kissing. There is one lady I know that I've kissed while between
drags on her cig and she doesn't taste of smoke or cigarettes at
all. Beats me how she, or the others, do it .
Now, as to changing a smoker, well, the positive stuff is great and
you should use it a lot. But, you'll NEVER force a smoker to quit.
They have to want to do it and even then, you need to be positive
and help, not complain about failures. For many smoker, it's a crutch
because of being nervous besides being a habit. Many  smokers
I've met have a lower self image of themselves, then a nonsmoker
does. Helping to make that smoker feel better about themselves will
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
help a lot. .... Last of all, it all depends on how much you like
or love this smoker. For the lady I love and feel strongly about,
I will put up with her smoking. Maybe hoping and helping to get her
to stop, but never forcing. ....  Gee, we all have our bad
habits, to some degree or another. She may not like the way you clean
your fingernails or comb your hair, or even the deoderant you use.
If you can look past the habits  and see the person,
then maybe there's something there for you. If you can't, then maybe
she's not the one for you and you need to look some more.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=21

Message #21
From: Mickey 11
To: George133
Date: 03-15-91 01:12:09
Subject: Huffing about Puffing

  CReffers to the rescue of another digital dilemma!
  Lotsa great advice already posted....  I gotta agree
  with Brant & Marc.   Compromise may be feasible, but
  forget about trying to break your belle of an addictive
  habit she has had for so many years.    The question ya
  have to ask yourself is, can I live with a smoker ?

  For me, like Jeff122, that answer would be a resounding NO.
  Know just what ya mean Jeff... Brant and I have remarked
  on the same phenomenon.   Lighting up is an instantaneous
  and irrevocable turn-off, a lasting negative first impression
  that makes a caustic statement about your character, lack of
  self-esteem, and lack of concern for the comfort and well-being
  of those around you.    Smoking makes your hair and clothes
  stink, your breath unbearable, ruins your sense of taste,
  and is a definite DONT DO on a first date, as George's wench
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
  seems to know.     The whole subject raises the need for a
  repeat posting of "Mickey's Delerious Dating Dictates".
  (Remember that, DB ?   Posted long ago on The Asylum as
  "Binary Personality and How to Detect it" as I recall.)
  Too lengthy and too late to get into it all now.   But perhaps
  an excerpt from the section on DONT DO's on a First Date......

  DONT DO's FOR WOMEN (like George's girlfriend) ON A FIRST DATE:

1- Dont describe in great detail, the problems with your ovaries,
   your thighs, or your mother.
2- Dont leave a copy of "Bride" magazine on the coffee table.
3- Dont put on your makeup at the dinner table.
4- Dont say things like "I love Lamborghinis" if your date is
   driving a used Yugo.
5- Dont describe all your prior boyfriends as "insane dweebs
   with tiny dicks."
6- Dont slip your phone number to the waiter.
7- Dont belch audibly, and then blow your nose on the tablecloth.
8- And never ever pull out a welding torch to light-up your
   Julio Bros imported Cuban 6" cigar with aromatic leaf wrapper.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=22

Message #22
From: George 133
To: All
Date: 03-19-91 11:26:36
Subject: Thanks!

You guys won't believe how helpful you've been!  I made a
hardcopy of all your anti-smoking messages, and gave it to
Leslie.   After she got over being puzzled and pissed, she
got a laugh out of the whole thing.   More importantly, it
got us talking about her smoking habits.    Actually I didn't
have to say much.   Your posts made every argument for me!
Although she agreed that breaking the habit altogether is
unlikely, she promised not to smoke on my house, car, or
anytime we're on a date.   Works for me...for now!
But in case she lapses, I will prepare one of those little
swinging sacks of shit, and have a cigar-lighting blow torch
at ready access.   Too funny!   And Leslie would like to see
some Dating Don'ts for MEN.    Maybe I can get her to logon
here.   Doubt she will be willing to take on the whole board
on the smoking issue however!     Thanks to those who posted!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=23

Message #23
From: Holly 294
To: All
Date: 03-20-91 19:48:53
Subject: Hi!

Hello everyone!  I'm new to the board, and I guess I'm supposed to
introduce myself.  I guess I'll start with the vital stats, though
you could get them from browsing me, I suppose . . . I'm 29 years
old, live in San Clemente, and have recently become a first grade
teacher.  That may SOUND easy, but it's kept me very challenged,
so I spend a lot of my time just trying to become the best teacher
I can be--I got my masters in education in November, and I still
take classes a couple nights a week on subjects ranging from self-esteem
to computer technology to elementary science.  I never thought there'd
be so much to learn just to teach 6 year olds!  Anyway, when I'm
not in class (teaching one or taking one), I enjoy getting together
with friends, going out to eat (I LOVE interesting and exotic food,
and anything HOT and SPICY!), seeing movies, plays, shows, etc.
I'm not much of a sports person, though I force myself to run and
lift weights to stay in shape (and counteract the stress of being
in a room with 28 six year olds all day!).  I just got my modem for
Christmas, so much of my free time is spent exploring the fascinating
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
world of BBSing.  I'm finding it rather addicting!  Anyway . . .
I'm looking forward to some E-mail exchanges with some of you, and
hopefullly I can even put some faces to names at one of the excursions!
Until then . . .

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=24

Message #24
From: Robert 231
To: PB's
Date: 05-29-91 18:09:27
Subject: My kind of woman

Girls are always asking what the hell guys want in women
anyways.   Just perfection in form and personality, that's all.
I just found it - in the June issue of Playboy.   Have you guys
seen LISA MATTHEWS, the 91 PlayMate of the Year?    My kind of
woman:  5'9" tall with long legs, and long blond hair to match.
Very attractive in a very wholesome sort of girl-next-door way.
I wished I lived next door, in Ventura, where Lisa is from.
Refreshing attitude too, in the issue's interview.   Notice of
Playboy's annual winners have improved since they began letting
the readers do the voting!    Here's a far better rep for our
beautiful Southern Cal women than the typical beach bimbette.
She's 22 years old too - perfect!    Why is it that so many
women butch off their long locks when they get older?   Guys
love long hair, and short hair only makes women look old.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=25

Message #25
From: David 150
To: all
Date: 05-30-91 00:02:08
Subject: Women with long hair.

Yep. They do look better with long hair, I have to agree. .....
.... However, it falls in my face and tickles my nose when she's
on top.  .. So, just off the shoulder is fine with me. .....
... Also, I kinda liked Vickie LaMotta when she was in a photo spread.
Now, there's a woman! Yum.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=26

Message #26
From: Gerry 261
To: Robert  231
Date: 05-30-91 05:05:19
Subject: Women and Long Hair

I like whatever looks best on a particular woman.  My Lady Susan
had her hair extremely short on top for a time, with just a bit of
shag in the back.  The hair was as short as a crewcut.  I loved it!
There was something wild and primitive about it ... rather like pierced
ears.  She just happened to have the hairline and face shape to get
away with that.  She'd would not look good in long hair, and others
might look only silly with such a cut.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=27

Message #27
From: JONI 354
To: Robert 231
Date: 07-17-91 17:52:53
Subject: women !

{Personally, I think women's lib sucks !!!  But more than that, I
think guys with certain attitudes suck even bigger !!!! I myself,
would probably feel more comfortable without all the equality crap,
but I do ask{guys out, and when they accept (hint hint, you know
who you are !!){I will go out with them.  But I also like to be treated
{ike a lady, even if I'm the one who did the asking. That is something
that most guys today have forgotten how to do. Even if I'm dressed
in a tight pair of levis, I still deserve to be treated properly.....
not like a commodity or somethi{g that is purchased or fought over.
That type {f action went out long ago....... Guys beware, t{ere are
still some of us who like the way we used to be treated and I, for
one, never asked for things to change. If y{u don't like it, change
it !!!!!!
P.S.  I also wear dresses, long, short, tight, loose, low cut, or
turtle neck........{..but I still would like to be treated like a
person !!!!

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=28

Message #28
From: George 133
To: Robert 231
Date: 07-18-91 12:44:17
Subject: Try Bud Dry

     It has been said that the only true romantics are men.
This is true, in part, because western culture has placed the
role of sexual aggressor on the male.    But it's also true that
women revel in their role, or at least rely on it to avoid having
to do the awkward dating rituals, like asking.    But Robert, part
of your frustration is undoubtedly the particular women you're
interested in here.   At that age, and in environments like Palm
Springs or the River, you're going to find just the sort of vain,
immature women, that are only looking for a dance partner, who
you characterize.    I'll tell you this, however - things do improve
with age.   Women become much more outgoing and aggressive as they
grow older.    So you have something to look forward to!
     I personally don't agree with Joni and David.   First, I think
the Women's Lib movement both benefitted women and our society.
We're still trying to get a grip on some troubling consequences,
like child care, and female death rates, but overall it has been
beneficial.    I do feel that women are hypocritical at times in
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
their equality, invoking women's lib when it behooves them, and
invoking old-fashioned values when that behooves them.
Second, I'm really sick of the male bashing going on in our society
today.   Comments like David's are typical.   Here's a scenario
where a guy has a specific gripe against some female behavior,
and somebody manages to twist it around into a male fault!
We see American men being bashed in movie and TV programs, in
advertising, and even in the courtroom.   Where is the "equality"
in divorce court, or in child custody issues, or sexual harrassment
cases?     Women didn't stand for this kind of negative stereotyping,
and misrepresentation at the hands of the law.   Why do men?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=29

Message #29
From: Brant 12
Date: 07-19-91 12:29:01
Subject: The Changing roles of the Sexes in the '90's

    I agree with the vast majority of what George expressed,
both on some female hypocrisy taking advantage of Women's Lib,
and also the male bashing prevalent in many areas, particularly
advertising. (Like for instance, David, when you see home-cleaning
products advertised, and the wife is a smug know-it-all, and the
husband is a hopeless bumbling fool....this may endear watching
housewives, but there is a growing backlash){

    As for "being treated like a lady", Joni, versus "treat me
like a person", aye, there's the rub.......the modern view of good
treatment is essentially asexual, where NO ONE is a sex object
(I think the worst examples of this are some of the new-found
"liberated" women, who have moved into the traditionally male world
of high incomes and stress, and unfortunately have also adopted some
{of the worst of the traditionally male attitudes regarding sex objects,
treating men like sex machines that are ready to do anybody anytime)
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

    The toughest part of relationships in the 80's and 90's is that
the "new order" of equality has not stabilized, or become homogenous.
Compare this to the 1950's, when nearly everyone in America knew
their role, enjoyed conforming, and therefore had very little doubt
as to the rights or wrongs of behavior in any situation.

   While I personally welcome the ranks of women to share all aspects
of traditionally male life, I do recognize that there is a broad
spectrum of beliefs and attitudes in todays society.....women's attitudes
vary from the 50's leftovers of wanting to stay in the traditionally
female roles, thru the "let's be equls" attitudes, to the militant
"men are pigs" Cosmo the same time men's attitudes
vary from the same 50's conservatives, thru the "let's be equals",
to the overly sensitive weakling typified by "Evan" in the Bud Dry

    I also agree with George as to the continuing inequality
in the child custody, divorce, and sexual harrassement courts....these
are leftovers from the old days, and they need to be brought up to would seem that while Women's Lib has won ground
in many areas where women suffered inequities, it is now up to
"Men's Lib" to rectify those areas where men suffer inequities.

    I think the biggest challenge for people in today's world is
twofold : first, to develop and follow their own codes of action
in the modern world.  Men particularly, suffer from a lack of a
modern role model, but for both sexes we are cutting new paths
in social behavior.  Secondly, the trick lies in learning what
types of people share your particular feelings regarding all these
new rights and behaviors, then recognizing and cultivating them as
friends and lovers.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=30

Message #30
From: Mickey 11
To: Robert 231
Date: 07-20-91 11:36:33
Subject: Miller Genuine Draft for me...

   Has it occurred to you that perhaps the individual women you've
   been chasing were either not interested in you, or were not interested
   in what you were offering.    As George suggested, you don't go to
   places like the river or PS to find lasting, meaningful relationships.
   You go out there for a good time, dude, not to find a girlfriend.
   Consider it a good time if you enjoy a woman's company for the
   day or the week, but don't be disappointed if she doesn't conceal
   herself in your luggage for the return trip home!

   Nevertheless, I understand what you have your cork in a screw about.
   There's alot of vain flirting and flaunting by women at that age.
   It's a way for young women to be validated.    I share George's
   experience, however....  Things get much better with age!   First,
   those raging hormones that have been flowing thru your veins like
   so much Jolt Cola since you were about 15, begin to subside.
   Second, as they grow older, women become more self-confident in
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
   their sexuality.   They grow more comfortable, and more aggressive.
   This includes things like asking guys out on dates, as well as
   initiating sex.    Third, thru most of your life, there have been
   slightly more males than females.   Mother Nature has taken
   careful consideration of the fact that mortality rates for males
   under age 25 are higher than for females under 25, due to in large
   part to males' self-destructive behavior, wars, etc.   Starting
   at age 25, you'll find slightly more females than males.  This
   demographic fact continues for the remainder fo your life.
   So ya see, Robert, ya DO have something to look forward to!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=31

Message #31
From: Julie 50
To: Robert
Date: 07-28-91 16:04:57
Subject: Cake and eat it too......

   well, I think men can be put in that catagory too, expecially if
you are looking to meet people in places you are referring to...the
river and palm springs.  Can you honestly say you would expect to
find anything more than alot of 'show-boating' and flirting in those
places?  I definitely would not take men seriously.
   I think the sexually revolution is more than just the dating scene.
There is alot of validity in Brant's post of a flux between the 50's
and today.  Yes, if women  want equality they should feel o.k. in asking
men out and paying for somethings.  But you have to remember not all
women maybe in the economical position that men are, and may not feel
comfortable in that position either.  I feel the older women get the
more self confident we become.  Remember, alot of women are still
being raised by the product of the 50's and we have not reached totally
equality of the sexes.  And in Brant's post that goes the same for
men, i.e.  child custody and divorces.
   In short Robert, if you are looking for something, a good relationship
with a woman, you should look elsewhere than the river and palm springs.
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
There people play and  want their cake, and to eat it too.
   Maybe try asking friends to set you up, or I have found health clubs
can sometimes be a nice place to meet quality people, at least it
has been for me............

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=32

Message #32
From: Robert 231
To: Mickey 11
Date: 07-31-91 11:31:14
Subject: Ouch!

     Ouch, just bruised my ego!    Sure, I had considered that
they obviously weren't interested in me.   Rejection is tough
to take, but that's not what started this debate among my group
in Palm Springs.   What actually got this whole thing going
was our observation that these bimbos weren't interested in
anyone!    See, we were sitting at the table just behind this
group of girls at Pompeii's.    They were all 21-23 or so,
all babes, and all dressed to kill, looking really good.  They
were obviously drinking alot and having a good time.   For the
most part they were all facing away from our table, looking down
toward the door and dance floor.    And all they were doing was
ripping on guys they saw, or those who came up and asked one of
them to dance.    The shit they were saying was amazing, stuff
guys should hear more often.   They commented on a few dudes they
obviously liked, but never asked anyone to dance themselves.
     They just typified what guys suspect and resent about women
and the sexual roles we're forced into and they enjoy.   First,
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
they're totally hypocritical.   Women always blast guys for judging
women on looks, the old "10" scale and all that.  But they do the
same damn thing, maybe just more discretely most of the time.
These girls were outspoken cuz they were drinking, and didn't realize
we were eavedropping on them.    And women are hypocritical cuz
while they enjoy all sorts of sexual equality they never had in
Western societies in past generations, they still enjoy the benefits
of very old fashioned sexual roles when it comes to dating.   They
turn on the seductiveness, but wait for the guys to make the moves,
and then blast them when they do.    None of the girls ever asked
one of the guys with the good butts they liked to dance, but they
sure criticised guys that asked them for their "dumb come-ons."
Women are cowards!    They are vain, hypocritical cowards when it
comes to dating and sexual roles.
     Yes, perhaps some of the frustration comes from the particular
scene.    I wasn't surprised nobody jumped in my luggage at PS.
But I do look forward to this day when the demographics start
favoring the guys, and when the women start becoming more confident
and aggressive.   Just when is this, Julie?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=33

Message #33
From: Mickey 11
To: Magicians
Date: 11-08-91 10:34:48
Subject: Cumming to the AID of your Johnson...

  ....Guess his Johnson wasn't magic enough.   What a bummer, both
  for the Lakers, and for Magic personally, who seems to be a really
  decent human being.   But geeoood.... Judging from yesterday's
  media coverage, you would have thought the President had been

  ....Magic is going to do far more to raise consciousness about AIDS
  than Rock Hudson did.   The media will see to that!   After all,
  ol' Rock was taking it up the butt... one of those "high risk"
  activities for contracting AIDS.    Anyone CAN get the disease,
  but most all of those who have actually contracted it are those
  engaging in high risk activities......
       1- Homosexuality
       2- Slamming dope into your arms
       3- Sex with prostitutes
       4- Tainted blood transfusions
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
       5- Invasive medical procedures
       6- Traumatic contact with someone infected
       7- Promiscuous & unprotected sex
  The vast majority of those who have contracted AIDS to date fall
  within those first two catagories.   Heterosexual sex with a partner
  who does not engage in any of the first six practices is the least
  likely way of contracting AIDS.   The last figure I read (about
  a year old) was that statistically your odds of contracting AIDS
  from a single act of heterosexual sex was 1 in 900,000.    That
  makes sex with a responsible partner seem pretty safe.

  How good ol' Magic contracted the disease wasn't specified in
  yesterday's press conference.   However, I just have a hunch we
  can rule out homos, heroin, and prostitutes.   Medical and traumatic
  contact are possibilities.   But I imagine when you're one of the
  world's most famous and wealthy basketball players, you get ALOT
  of interesting offers...from very willing women.   It's sad to think
  that one of his ladies may have given it to him, but it does seem
  the most likely.    If so, and if he continues to conduct himself
  as he did yesterday, and receives such media attention, Magic Johnson
  may well become the definitive POSTER BOY for AIDS in mainstream
  America....  "If he can get AIDS, anyone can get AIDS."   Magic's
  disease may do more than Rock Hudson's or all the statistics in
  the newspaper to bring the disease out of the closet.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=34

Message #34
From: Nancy 211
To: Vickie 317
Date: 11-13-91 11:52:41
Subject: HIV in women

It may well be a fact that more men in general have HIV than women
but I believe it is only because less women have bothered to be tested.
 I work in a hospital and we frequently make the first diagnosis
of HIV or AIDS when women are sick and in the hospital.  Most of
the men we see have already been diagnosed.  This is only MY observation
but it is a frequent observation.
If you want to do a survey, then first ask yourself if you have bothered
to be tested...I have.  We should all be tested and know our status.
 What we did 10 years ago does matter.
Gawd, I feel like I just did a sermon.  Sorry bout that. :)

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=35
=> c

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=35

Message #35
From: Brant 12
To: Nancy 211
Date: 11-13-91 20:19:27
Subject: HIV testing

     I agree people these days should be tested.....and the best
way to motivate that is for women (ever the sexually responsible
gender) to require their men to get tested, and a couple thinking about
going ballistic, I mean starting a sexual relationship, could show
each other their....negative results.

    I've been tested.....a mere few months ago, and no new sexual
partners since then, gosh ding it.....the Public Health Lab of the
Orange County Health Care Agency does it for's a walk
in, 5 mins to take a blood sample (they open a new needle container
in front of you, and wear a new pair of rubber gloves), and you get
a numbered receipt......

    Two weeks later, you call and get an appointment time, and walk
in, 5 mins in a private room to give you the results, and you walk
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
out.....happily armed with your ticket to ride.....heh

    When I got my results, there was a very finely groomed young
man in the waiting area, big studly guy, crying his eyes out behind
sun glasses........after all, being HIV positive IS a death sentence,
10 years tops, 2 or 3 average.  If you test positive on the first ELISA test,
they repeat it, and if that is positive as well, they do the more
expensive (and far less false positives) test...I forget what it's

   OC Health is located at 1729 W. 17th St, in Santa's
just west of Bristol on 17th, right across the street from Santa
Ana college (now called Rancho Santiago college, ha)....the section
that does the testing is the Special Diseases lab...ask at the Info
desk and they'll direct you what color line on the floor to follow....

    They recommend that anyone who has had unprotected sex (they
mean without a condom, not paternity insurance!) in the last 7 or
8 years get tested......or shared needles.....and they mean hypo's,
not biting repartee....

    There's a hotline number : 1-800-922-2437

           Spanish Speaking  : 1-800-222-7432

      Hearing Impaired / TDD : 1-800-553-2437

     Oh ya, if you were captured in suspense, my results were NEGATIVE
("HIV antibody NOT detected.")

                                 Your neighborhood Clean Machine,

                                                TasT Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=36

Message #36
From: Mickey 11
To: Yous'All
Date: 11-21-91 11:40:56
Subject: Only the Best...

  Welp, as announced on the hatter board, our very own
  Admiral13 and Cathy22 are getting married on January 11th.
  The Admiral has asked me to be his Best Man.... quite an
  honor!    Now, the question is...what all are the duties
  and privileges of the Best Man ??   Has anyone here ever
  been a Best Man before ?   Besides popping a Valium down
  the Groom's throat before hitting the altar, whatdya do ?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=37

Message #37
From: CHARLES 425
To: Mickey 11
Date: 11-21-91 19:56:24
Subject: The best....

Having done this duty i will tell you that you have 3 primary duties.
One, the keg for the bachelor party is solely your responsibility,
but then so is drinking it. You'll want to feed the groom to be something
a bit more potent, like party pee. Two, The stripper is also your
responsibiliy, and the success of the party rests on the "quality"
of the entertainment. Three, you gotta get the groom to be so damned
plastered that he will be totally unable to make a mad dash for the
side door of the church during the ceremony. This state of dimentia
to which you will elevate him will also provide for numbing all other
though processes. He won't remember what he is doing and the recovery
period will be long enough that by the time he comes around it will
be too late.
To Admiral: if you read this. Congratulations and best wishes.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=38

Message #38
From: Admiral 13
To: Charles/ Mick/ all
Date: 11-22-91 21:37:29
Subject: Hahahaha....

   Thanks, thanks, and thanks. Yep, the Ad man is attaching the
ball & chain to his ankle. It's drydock for this naval man.

   Oh well, plans for the wedding seem to be about complete. Not
bad, considering about 2 weeks ago, we finally got a reception location{
This won't be any hokey wedding, either. It'll be stocked with hosted
bar, gourmet food, and 16 piece big band!If you're invited, consider
yourself lucky!...hehe (no modesty here).

   To those of you that are wondering, "WHO THE HELL IS THE ADMIRAL,
ANYWAY?", you're not alone. The past few months have been busy
ones,{but I want all of my friends to know that you're not forgotten.
I think of you guys always...

   Anyway, about the Best man's duties...   Charles, I think the
Mick has taken the duties of{Best man rather seriously. It appears
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
that I will have one HELLUVA bachelor party, and to just have a keg
there would be cheapening it. I'm obviously not privvy to al{ the
details, but I know I'M bringing my slicker!!

   That's it for now. I just have one more thing to say...

        "I'm in HELL! SHOOT ME! SHOOT ME!!!"

                 Thank you.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=39

Message #39
From: Charlie 38
To: Mickey 11
Date: 11-23-91 08:13:21
Subject: Best man duties

Recently I was the best man in a wedding and quite honestly,
I really didn't know what the hell I was doing. Part of the
problems related to the groom (that he said he didn't want
any female entertainment at his bachelor party and then I learned
that some guys mean yes when they say no) but other problems
were related to some traditions that are not universally held
by all.  Case in point, the groomsmen get the bride and groom
a gift that they can use at the wedding (toasting goblets, a
cake serving set, etc...) and this present is given at the
rehearsal dinner.  I learned of this tradition AT the rehearsal
dinner and after I discussing this tradition with others I found out
that this tradition is not widely held......but hell, I did not
know if the bride and groom held it.

Outside of what Charles has mentioned, and being at all the functions...
including rehearsals, rehearsal dinners, showers, etc......Don't
forget the post wedding activities:  making a toast at the reception,
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
getting all the bride and groom's gifts on the road, etc.
One nice touch, I think, that the one of the ushers and I did is
to take the groom out to breakfast before the wedding...I think
that helped relax the groom.

Take care and good luck,

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=40

Message #40
From: George 133
To: Mickey 11
Date: 11-25-91 00:26:49
Subject: The Best Man

    I've had that honor twice in life, so can help answer that
question.   It may not seem like such an honor when you get the
tux bill, and then have to wear that monkey suit in an outdoor
wedding on a hot June day.   But look on the bright side: at least
YOU aren't the one tying your balls to a chain!
    Seriously, as Best Man you are responsible for helping the Groom
do everything he is too busy to do.   This includes arranging for
the bachelor party, as well as several wedding day duties.   You're
to help the Groom dress for the ceremony, and make sure he has the
license and the ring.   You are in charge of the ushers at the wedding.
Make sure they know what to do, and are at the church early.  Make
sure the couple's transportation to/from the reception is all set.
And if they're leaving straight away for the honeymoon, make sure
that the luggage and reservations are squared away.   At the reception,
you're obliged to give the first toast to the happy couple.   And
the first dance involving wedding party members (after the bride/groom)
is traditionally shared between you and the Maid of Honor.
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
Make sure the Minister, as well as the reception people, get paid.
After that, it's one big party.   Unless, of course, your groom starts
to get cold feet.   In which case it is also your duty to provide
some strong whiskey, or if need be, a short shotgun.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=41

Message #41
From: George 133
To: All
Date: 12-11-91 11:29:29
Subject: Bill Smith's rape trial

     Thank god that Bill Smith's rape trial is coming to a close.
I don't know about the rest of you, but everyone here is sick to
death of the "William Kennedy Smith" rape trial.   I'm sick of
hearing constant updates on the radio, sick of reading about it
every morning and every night in the newspaper, sick of it on
Eyewitness News, and most of all sick and tired of the endless
coverage on CNN.   You would think this was the trial of a
presidential assassin or something!
     CNN didn't give this much continuous coverage to the Persian
Gulf war.   I don't know how these people sleep with themselves at
night.   Their coverage has been disgraceful, salacious, hypocritical,
and obscene!     Would anyone care about this Florida case if they
addressed the defendant by his name, Bill Smith?    Of course not.
But his middle name is "Kennedy" and he is related to the famous
family.    Consequently, this is the "William Kennedy Smith" rape
trial.   And what hypocrits the Media are.   They hold forth their
virtue, saying that they won't reveal the victim's name, and they
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
blank out her face with a grey dot on your TV screen.   But then
they devote their day-long schedule to live coverage of the trial,
exposing the defendant's face for the world to see, and trying him
in a national court of lard-assed television viewers.
     And as the trial has unfolded, it has become increasingly clear
that this whole case may be unfounded.   The victim, whoever she is,
says it was rape on the lawn of the house.   Smith says it was
consensual, on the beach outside the compound.    Well, nobody at
the house heard or saw anything.   And guess what the forensics
experts turned up: sand in her clothing.   Not grass, but sand.
She denies ever being on the beach that night.
     And if the charge is unfounded, what then?   Courtesy of CNN,
Smith has already been ruined for life.   Perhaps Smith should sue
the woman for false prosecution.   But I doubt that CNN would devote
all day to coverage of that trial.   How would YOU like to have such
an intimate encounter and accusation tried in front of the whole nation?
Personally, I don't think a "public" trial should mean this kind of
salacious live broadcasting.   The founding fathers adopted the concept
of a public trial for the protection of the defendant.  In this case,
it seems to be working to the great detriment of the defendant.
And what does this incident, if unfounded, say about women??

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=42

Message #42
From: Alex 116
To: all
Date: 12-11-91 18:13:13
Subject: rape trial

Just an observation about this Kennedy rape trial and others;
Isn't it odd how when there is an attempt to not disclose the
identity of someone involved in a rape, it is always the identity
of the female that is protected, and not the male? To me that
suggests a cultural idea of the male (perpertrator) as having a
position of higher power in the trial,  having more strenth, etc,
than the female. The results of today's news about Kennedy being judged
not guilty reinforce the idea that women are at great odds when they
bring a case of rape to the court system --Or, one might add, a case
of job discrimination, sexual harrasment, etc.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=43
=> c

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=43

Message #43
From: Gerry 261
To: George 133
Date: 12-11-91 21:02:10
Subject: Not Quite

There was both sand AND grass residue on her clothing.  You complain
of the excessive coverage, and perhaps because of that didn't pay
attention.  One of the very most KEY things was how Smith tied the
two together ... sex in the sand first, and then sex on the lawn
a half hour later.  Whatta guy!

I'll grant you that had Joe Doaks from Pomona raped Patty Jones from
Corona, you wouldn't have heard a thing about it.  Still, the famous
names do have the value of attracting public attention to a more
than serious issue.  However motivated, CNN and the rest of the media
have done us all a favor in highlighting the complexities and possibilitie
s of date rape.

I'll tell you what I think happened:  I think they had consensual
sex on the beach, but he raped her on the lawn.  She didn't dare
say that was the way things happened and went for it the hard way.
To make matters worse, the prosecuting attorney (Lash) was an incredibly
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
inept dolt who did more to get Smith off than the defense did.  What
a sorry excuse for a lawyer.

Both parties have been scarred, but that won't affect their respective
lives to much of any degree.  She was not too bright, but all the
same I believe in my heart that she was raped.  I also half-believe
that Smith thought he didn't rape her.  None the less, he did.

Tough decision.  Tough issue.  It is over for them, but for you ....
 ... ?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=44

Message #44
From: Mickey 11
To: Duane 461
Date: 12-12-91 10:31:11
Subject: The Jury Is In...

  With little more than an hour of deliberation, the jury
  aquitted "Bill Smith" of all charges.   Seems they were
  as unimpressed with the evidence as those of us watching
  on the boob tube.

  If CNN is the pimp, then they are pandering to a country
  full of television whores.   Their rating's skyrocketed
  this past week, as they broadcasted the trial live.
  Duane said it.... money, money, money.   George, ya gotta
  take the Media's claims of virtue with a grain of salt.
  In our society with "Freedom of the Press" embedded at the
  deepest level of our founding, we implicitly view the Media
  as the Fifth Estate of government, an almost sacrosanct arm
  of society.   But in truth the Press is a business.   It is
  ultimately motivated by money.

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
  The truth, and innocent people like Smith, often get trampled
  in the press' pursuit of profits.    His reputation has been
  ruined for life, so that CNN could profit from a week's worth
  of excellent ratings.   No more immediate proof of this slander
  could be asked for than Gerry's comment..... The man is aquitted
  of all charges, but in his mind Gerry believes him really guilty.
  How many others in TV-land must feel similarly.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=45

Message #45
From: George 133
To: Joni 54
Date: 02-10-92 11:44:08
Subject: Kiss & Tell

    Yes, I read newspapers too.   But I haven't been reading
articles about men kissing and telling.   This seems to be a
female phenomenon.   My point was simply to raise the question,
what does this say about women?   I mean, don't you think this
kind of thing helps give women a bad name?   It takes two to
tango, but these women come off like some kind of innocent
victim.   In reality, they are just as responsible for their
acts, and the fortune or misfortune it brings them, as are the
men involved.   And "fortune" seems to be the operative word.
Because the root of all this evil seems to be money.   I was
referring not only to those cases mentioned by Mickey11, but
all the similar stories in recent memory: Anita Hill, William
Kennedy Smith, Jessica Hawn, Bill Clinton, Donna Rice, Mike
Tyson, Tai Collins, etc.
    For financial gain, the women in these cases have publicized,
and sometimes fabricated, the details of their involvement with
rich or famous men.   What does this say about women?   What message
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
of warning does this give to men?    And why does the American Media
seem so enraptured with these sordid tales?    I mean, let's say it
was true that Bill Clinton had a 12 year affair with some woman.
So what?
                                                 Lonesome George

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=46

Message #46
From: Robert 231
To: George 133
Date: 02-19-92 11:33:28
Subject: So what?

    So what, indeed!   It should be a "so what" if you're
judging the man as a peer, in realistic terms.   But the
media tends to put our candidates up on a pedestal, then
get up on their soapbox, and pass judgement accordingly.
But as someone mention on the Debate board, they do this
for money reasons.  And would it not be great if we could
judge those reporters by the same pedestal standards they
apply to politicians.
    Maybe we ought to be judging our political candidates
with regard to such issues as whether or not they've had
affairs outside of marriage, not from a soapbox perspective,
but rather from a realistic peer perspective.   Every study
you ever read about "infidelity" has AT LEAST two-thirds of
the respondents admitting to affairs.    Why should our leaders
be any different?   Are we asking them to be super-human?  To
have perfect backgrounds, status quo lifestyles, no vices, no
compulsions, no sexual attractions?
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
    How does the saying go, "Marriage is a wonderful institution,
but who wants to live in an institution!"    The state of
monogomous marriage is a societal contrivance.   It runs
contrary to mankind's basic nature.   In pre-civilization, men
and women did not mate for life.   But as larger and larger
groups of humans began organizing into the larger and larger
and more complex arrangements that created the first societies,
the need for communal harmony overrided the need for unrestricted
freedom of individual sexuality, and the rules of acceptable
sexual norms and arrangements were soon codified.   With variations,
and periodic experiments, mankind has been struggling with these
rules for 6,000 years.   Struggling, because while they serve the
communal good, many of society's rules conflict with our basic
natures as human animals.   There is a whole school of philosophical
thought which describes how much of the emotional angst, psychological
aberrations, violent tendencies, and other difficulties that
individuals and societies suffer through are the direct or indirect
result of humans trying to cope with societal structures that are
contrary to their basic natures.
    To the point, EVERYONE has had, or will have, sexual encounters
with others outside of marriage.   It's basic human nature.   So,
even if the Clinton story was true, I agree with you, SO WHAT?
Should we vote against a man soley on the grounds that he has does
something totally consistent with human nature, which fully two-thirds
of Americans also admit to doing?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=47

Message #47
From: George 133
To: Robert 231
Date: 02-21-92 11:59:09
Subject: Animal Nature

    That's an intriguing philosophy.  Are there any specific
books detailing that school of thought?   It reminds me of
some of the lyrics from a Jethro Tull song, "Skating Away on
a Layer of Thin Ice."   It goes something like, "...But you
were born into Humanity, and so into Society.  One day you'll
wake up, a million generations, removed from expectations,
of being who you really want to be."     Powerful sociological
statement there.
    I'm also reminded of the Kung bushmen of Africa's Khalahari
Desert.   These people have evolved little in the past 5,000
years.  Civilzation has gradually pushed them onto the most
inhospitable livable land on Earth.   And yet, to subside and
to have and do everything they need, the Kung bushman works
exactly 2.2 days per week.    Now you be the judge of which
society is the more advanced - ours, in which we work 5 days
per week, commuting to work in tin caskets on wheels thru
clogged freeways, engaging in an endless variety of self
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
destructive behaviors, suffering thru all manner of disease,
both physical, psychological, and emotional - or the bushman,
who is content, and who works just 2.2 days per week.
    The question is, Robert, how do you ACT on your philosophy?
How would you shape a society on an alternative philosophy?
We talk alot, especially in America, about individual liberties,
but like Honeybees in the hive, the reality is that complex
social structures like societies demand precedence.   The rules
we struggle under, because they conflict with our basic natures,
were undoubtedly first established precisely because our basic
natures worked contrary to successful civilization.
    Maybe this goes beyond the point you had in mind.  I mean,
I agree that the concept of monogomy is not natural for humans.
And it's certainly true, from my experience, that after a few
short years living with this social construct, the sexual interest
fades.   But there are additional forces at work in that.  Men
become less consumed by sex after their 20's.   (The Medicos say
women peak in their mid-30's.)   Still, there HAVE been alternate
social arrangements in human history that apply to the immediate
male/female point you were making.
    Were you aware that throughout much of Japanese history, it
was the norm for spouses to have a lover outside of marriage?
There were two "significant others" in the life of all upscale
Japanese - your spouse, the person you really shared your life
with, and your lover, the person you simply shared physicality
with.   The former was for life.   The latter was for however
long both parties wanted.   Lovers were occasionally exchanged.
Such an arrangement might satisfy this aspect of human nature
your were talking about.    Look how different our culture is.
If you have an "affair" outside of marriage in our society,
there MUST be something WRONG with you, or with the marriage.
I agree with you that this is nonsense, and contrary to human
     But in the larger sense, the rules that have governed society
since the Mesopotamians first got their shit together have been
aimed precisely at curbing our basic natures.   As much as we may
howl about individual liberty, the individual has taken a back
seat to the needs of civilization for over 5,000 years.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=48

Message #48
From: Dawn 287
To: George 133
Date: 02-24-92 01:08:08
Subject: Japanese Polygamy

I've heard of this ancient Japanese social institution
which considered lovers outside of marriage to be acceptable
and understood.  But wasn't it only for men?   As for how
such a philosophy might be added to our own culture, the
whole premise reminds me of the hippie movement -- psychedelic
peace, free love, and pass the marijuana, brother.   It was
just this kind of indiscriminate sex and perversion that got
us where we are now -- the AIDS crisis!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=49

Message #49
From: Mickey 11
To: Rob/George/Dawn
Date: 02-24-92 10:02:20
Subject: Nature -vs- Society

 ....Fascinating digital discussion here.   I recall learning in
 college about that school of thought which holds that many of
 any given society's ills can be attributed to the extent to which
 that society's rules and norms conflict with what is termed the
 "natural state of man."    But as I recall, the ongoing issue within
 this philosophical school is just what IS the natural state of man??
 Some such presumptions are really speculative.   But, for the purpose
 of this discussion, it seems a safe assertion to say that lifelong
 monogamy was not the natural state of pre-civilized mankind.  Our
 basic nature is to mate with whomever we find attractive.  Now,
 whether or not this should be a desirable aspect of civilized society
 is a moral issue open for debate.   Bear in mind, morality, like
 many of the social conventions under discussion here, is a contrivance.

 Speaking of morality... spare me, Dawn, the moralistic preaching
 about the root causes of AIDS.    Your post echoes of some right
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
 wing fundamentalist freak, who believes AIDS is god's punishment
 for homosexuality, fornication, and/or Rap music.
 And presumably the Japanese norm of permitting sexual liasions
 outside of marriage was for BOTH men and women..... It takes two
 to tango, yeah?

 I read a study of couple of months ago that suggests maybe WOMEN
 have a better understanding of basic human/animal nature in this
 regard than men do.....   A survey asked 1,000 men and women which
 of these would bother them more :
 60% of the male respondents answered "A" that sex would be of more
 concern to them.   But 75% of the female respondents answered "B"
 that they would be more upset if their partner had become emotionally
 involved with someone else.    Perhaps, from the female perspective,
 the ancient Japanese system would work well here and now.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=50

Message #50
From: Robert 231
To: Dawn 287
Date: 03-03-92 10:38:24
Subject: Causes and Cures

    Does "promiscuity" cause AIDS and other venereal diseases?
Or is it perhaps that the concept of "promiscuity" causes all
manner of diseases, both medical and social.   Is it rather
maybe that the rules and restrictions of society which run
contrary to mankind's basic instincts in this regard force
people into hypocritical positions, and dangerous, self
destructive beahvior?   Think about it!
(More generally, medicine really has no clue what causes AIDS
at this point.   People who exclaim that AIDS cannot be
transmitted via casual contact, things like tears, spit, or
sweat, cannot prove it, and are merely parroting the politically
correct line on this issue.)
    No one book that I have, George, is devoted to the "Natural
State of Man" question, but there are such books.  I have two
books of philosophical overviews that cover this school of thought.
I'll email you the information.    It's true that the different
proponents of this school argued about what exactly constituted
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
the natural state of man.  But nobody has disputed the fact that
prehistoric man was not monogomous.   Men and women simply did not
mate for life.   Marriage was a contrivance of society.   Perhaps,
as you say, because it served to stabilize things, like other of
socety's restrictions.   But what has been the consequence thousands
of years later on the individual.   I love your lyric comparison.
It's true  -  We are a million generations removed from expectations
of what early civilized man probably hoped to achieve with society.
Who sung that?    Anyhow, the point is, monogamy is not natural for
men and women.   Societal rules in this regard force us into
hypocritical roles, and seemingly illicit behavior.   And it gives
the Media something to howl about.    I mean, if there was no
hypocritical propriety to observe about sexual practices and monogamy,
do you think anyone would have given a damn that Jimmy Swaggart liked
to watch prostitues striptease for him before blowjobs?   On the
contrary, if the contrivances of sexual morality and monogamy were
not in place in this society, not only would nobody have cared, but
Swaggart likely would not have even engaged in the risky practice.
His outlet for his very natural desires would have been a safer, less
destructive avenue  -  like maybe a female colleague, or other
aquaintance.   The encounters would have been for mutual satisfaction,
not for money.   And the whole experience would not have been viewed
as wrong, or damaging to the otherwise happy relationship he enjoyed
with his wife.
    Is this such an idealistic outlook?   Sure, libertarians may howl
uselessly, like pissing in the wind, about unobtainable or counter-
productive personal freedoms.   And you may be right that the whole
history of civilization has been on limiting personal freedoms in
pursuit of making society more stable.    But I ask if this  -  If
the rules of society de-stabilize the individual, how stable is that
society in the long run?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=51

Message #51
From: Brant 12
To: Mickey 11
Date: 03-11-92 15:23:03
Subject: Monogamy : hallmark of civilization, or scourge of sexuality?

     I agree that monogamy is not the "natural" state of homo
sapiens, and that it is a contrivance of civilization.   Someone
stated that it was a creation of men, for the purpose of not having
to raise other mens progeny.

    I think that men DID create monogamy, but only unilaterally.
I think that when mankind settled down from hunter / gathering to
agrarian, craft, and industrial modes, men started requiring monogamy
of their mates.  This reflects the historical domination of men over
women, in the vast majority of cultures.

   (Note here to whoever hailed the Kalahari Bushmen as the height
of leisure-time cultures : the hunter/gatherer mode requires a very
large amount of land per person, which is why as population density
goes up, the amount of time required to "make a living" tends to
go up as well.)
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

    Anyways, historically, while men have required monogamy of their
women, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SO CONSTRAINED.  The Japanese men, for
example, required monogamy of their wives, but they traditionally,
(and still do) openly maintained mistresses.   These two roles, wife
and mistress, tend to come from different classes of Japanese society.
While it takes two to tango, this does not necessitate that Japanese
wives were not monogamous.

    In recent history, as work has become less physical and thus
allowed the rise of feminism, wives have begun requiring that monogamy
is reciprocated.  Jewish men at the time of Christ commonly required
monogamy of their wives, yet were not so constrained themselves.
But today, adultery is grounds for divorce, by either sex.

    Another reflection of the rise of womens power in modern society
is the enforcement of laws against prostitution.  It is in the interest
of wives that their husbands not have the ready sexual alternative
of a prostitute.
    In my opinion, much of the modern woes can be traced to the
weaknesses inherent in an isolated "nuclear family", combined with
the rise of households where both the parents work.  Add to this
the high percentage of divorce in modern society, which is commonly
attributed to the rise of feminism and womens job careers, and you
have an entire generation of children who are all too often isolated,
where their welfare and education is no longer a top priority in
the family.......especially in single-parent households, the children
inevitably cannot possibly receive the amount of time and attention
which best serve their development.

     Please note, I am not attempting to place blame on feminism,
or women in general, for these societal trends.  I personally welcome
women as equals in power, be it in the workforce, the political arena,
and in parenting.   But unfortunately, when the male/female inequities
have been in flux, one result has been a reduction in the emphasis
on childraising.

    Historically, there have been many various family structures,
with different roles and power alignments.  The decline of the
"extended family" pattern alone can be linked to all sorts of
concomitant woes, such as the elderly languishing in nursing homes,
single parent families, and the decline of moral development in children.

    If anyone here has read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert
A. Heinlein, in it the author examines several future possibilities
for family structures and power alignments, including sexuality and
inheritance.  It's also a darn good sci-fi tale, as well.  RAH is
known for his probing examinations into the sexual and ethical mores
of our culture, notably in "Stranger in a Strange Land".

    Welp, I think this post has grown long a parting
note, tho, Mick, altho I agree with you that Dawn's moralist stand
on AIDS as "perverted" reeks of the Moral Minority, I think she did
have one point that rang true : that the sexual patterns of homosexuals
did play a part in the spreading of AIDS, at least in this country.
While "promiscuity" to heterosexuals might mean 2, 3, or 10 partners
in one year, studies of homosexuality commonly attribute a number
of sexual partners per year to be in excess of 200 for a large percentage
of that population, notably the San Francisco "bath house" habitues.
Add to that the predilection of the AIDS virus to prosper in anal
tissue, and you have an appreciable disease vector.

                                 Indefatigable T Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=52

Message #52
From: George 133
To: Anyone
Date: 06-25-92 11:51:13
Subject: Women and Men

     I read in the newspaper where a "Women Only" health club
was court ordered to open their membership to men also.   West
Coast Fitness Health and Wellness Centers were sued by a man
who was denied membership on the basis of sex.    When the club
lost the suit, guess what they did.    They closed.    Rather
than open membership to men, they ceased operation.
     Now, is it just me, or does there seem to be a double standard
at work here?    I mean, there have been countless civil suits in
recent years in which women have demanded entry into what were
all-male organizations.    Everything from the "Boys Club of America"
to civic organizations, and private clubs have been assailed by
women, who sued for, and won, access.    But it seems that when the
high-heel is on the other foot, women would rather fight than switch.
                                            Lonesome George

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=53
=> c 

Message #53
From: Alex 27
To: George 133
Date: 06-25-92 18:51:18
Subject: ^^^

I agree with you, George. But I have to wonder why the health club
would have closed its doors... seems a bit odd that they'd do it
just because they were going to have to let men in, doesn't it? Perhaps
they went bankrupt due to court costs, or something along the lines
of that???

Here's a pet peeve of mine, along the same lines.... when was the
last time you heard of a club having a Gentleman's night, where cover
is free for the guys?!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=54

Message #54
From: Alex 27
To: Gerry
Date: 06-25-92 23:07:32
Subject: Gentleman's night

But my point is, don't you think it is sexist for a club to only
offer discounts/incentives/etc to women, and not to men also?
Shouldn't a club be held to the same rules and guidelines as any
other business(?)... namely, that there should be no discrimination
between the sexes in the operation of the business???
And I don't agree with you on "...there is no inviting challange
when it comes to men." If there wasn't, then the women wouln't be
be there in the first place...  I don't think that the financial
discounts/incentives/etc are the only thing that draws in
women's business. My point here is that the clubs would still be
able to bring in the women if the (present) discounts were
eliminated, or given to men also.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=55

Message #55
From: Gerry 270
To: Alex 27
Date: 06-28-92 17:34:27
Subject: Sluts

Calling men `sluts' hardly invites them to behave as same.  The use
of the pejorative term was advised.  Ya gotta know that I have more
than a little sympathy for men and their plight in modern society
... especially vis a vis women.  If y'all have forgotten, I'll be
glad to burden you once again with the MEN AS GARBAGE DUMPSTERS files.

You got it!  When women REALLY expect and truly want men to behave
differently, men will do so.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=56

Message #56
From: Robert 231
To: Gerry 270
Date: 07-07-92 11:42:46
Subject: Sex roles

     I do recall the gist of your "dumpster" posts.   I recall liking
it.   It sometimes seems we are living in an era in which "affirmative
action" has become fairly equated with "reverse discrimination."
This is true not only for racial issues, but for sexual issues also.
     However, I have to agree with your critics here, that it's silly
to say men are sluts.    Unless you're just making a joke.   Such
a generalization, if ernestly made, really only reflects the roles
of the sexes in our society.    Being one of my pet peeves in life,
I have written about sex roles on bulletin boards, this one included
as I recall.
     The roles we are all molded into sexually are frustrating, at
best, for most everyone, and positively self-destructive for some.
No, I'm not talking primarily about sexual "identity" as in questioning
whether or not one is heterosexual or homosexual.   And I'm not talking
about being well-adjusted to "deviant" behavior, as in whether or
not you actually prefer sheep in black lace.     I am talking about
all the stupid little steps that comprise the dance of sexual interaction.
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
Not just sexual intercourse, but how the rules and roles of the act
of intercourse seem to have determined every other aspect of male/female
interaction.    It's as if the missionary position had decided the
whole character of our society in terms of sex roles.
      And who wouldn't like to live by some slightly different rules?
Who wouldn't like to live in a society where "equality" wasn't just
an egalitarian ideal, but was a reality taken for granted.  Especially
in terms of sexual interaction!     I would love to tweak some of
the rules.    A couple of little examples have already been mentioned
here:  Ladies Nights at clubs, and women being the sexual aggressors.
Why not sponsor Mens Nights too?    And how about living life by the
rules that EITHER sex could make an approach on somebody they find
attractive... ask to dance, or for a date.   Women paying for dates.
Women taking the lead in initiating sex.    Men as sex objects in
advertising.    Women opening doors.    Redefining the concept of
marriage...  with Women as primary or equal bread winners... dumping
the notion of sexual monogamy... and ending the gross discrimination
of divorce, in which the baby and the bath water both go to the woman.
I could go on and on.    With just my personal preferences of what
to tweak and how.    Yours might be the same, or much different.
      But I'm sure everyone would love to do the same thing, play
by a better set of rules.   Why don't we?    How do we get stuck with
the rules that governed our grandparents' sexual interaction?   Why
can't we evolve by our own self-determination?    What is it about
human civilization that change requires the ugly upheaval of revolution?
Revolution which offers no guarantee of positive results, or equally
unhappy side-effects.
     Seems I have more questions than answers.    But I do know that
I resent male bashing.   I don't like being called a slut simply because
of the sex role I've been forced into by the time and place in which
I live.    I would like to see far more equality between the sexes
in terms of these sex roles!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=57

Message #57
From: Gerry 270
To: Alex 27
Date: 07-09-92 18:43:38
Subject: Male Sex Symbols

Not that many years ago, there was no Chippendales; no PlayGirl;
and no plastering of women's magazines with stories about, and semi-nude
pictures of, hunks.

Women hoot at men on the street -- not as often as the reverse,but
they do.  Women are in general much more open about their sexuality
and appreciation of masculine physiques.  One is as likely, when
standing in the grocery line, to see a hunk on a magazine cover as
a fox.

Let me cop to a bit of self-realization that has come to me along
with this revolution:  I don't know about how the women feel abou
about the ultra-foxes they see in men's magazines and the like, but
I can tell you that I feel intimidated by the hunks.  I think to
myself:  "How can I compete with men like THAT?"  The hunks set up
nearly impossible standards of attractiveness, and I know that.
I also know that women LIKE the hunks.  I feel uneasy that any woman
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
I am with might easily be sighing internally when she spots one such.
The whole thing elicits in me feelings of inadequacy -- and even
jealousy at times.  My self image wavers as I find myself lacking.

In the process, women have lost a little of the innocence I had attached
to my "object representations" of them.  I am an old fart, and maybe
just a little old-fashioned as a result, but it feels a little sleazy
to me.  There is the old double standard in me, of course, as I don't
think it particularly sleazy that I like beautiful -- especially
naked -- women.

I dunno.  Maybe I am all alone in this, but it has been confusing
to me.  I really struggle trying to make sense of my own sexuality
and that of women, trying to bring those sexualities into sync with
my ideals of romantic love and commitment.

                        Gerry (Yahoo) Ellenson

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=58

Message #58
From: Sysop 1
To: CReffers
Date: 07-16-92 14:39:37

 ......Good digital discussion going here......
        As I browse back thru past posts here on the  board
         there's alot of electronic eloquence to be found in our
          DigiDiscussions of Men & Women............

 ......Wish we could maintain this level of prolific 'puter prose....
        But it seems to come in spurts.    Which reminds me of my
         last date......  But that's another terminal tale..............

 ......It does bring to mind Mickey's Escape Axiom..... BEHIND EVERY
         Now that has nothing to do with the purpose of this post,
          but in the interests of tangential irrelevance, I felt
           compelled to mention it.

 ......What this post DOES concern is our search for a Good Woman!
        No, this isn't leading into a puter personal......
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
         Actually, we are in need of a new Referee to take charge
          of this en & Women subboard..........

 ......Vickie has moved, and so won't be calling The Excursion anymore.
        Which means we need a new COMPUCUTIE to manage our  board.
         This is a Ref position for a female CReffer.
          Who would like to be the new  board leader ?
           Check out the #1 post for the lowdown on what this particular
            subboard is all about......   Then post your interest!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=59

Message #59
From: Bev 88
To: Sysop 1
Date: 07-19-92 16:28:44
Subject: interest!!!!!!

Hey Micky!!! "over here!!"  I'm interested and would like a chance!
I especially like debates. the one on Monogamy was VERY interesting!
so can I.... be considered that is?.... laters...Bev

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=60

Message #60
From: Catherine 22
To: Sysop 1
Date: 07-23-92 00:40:55

I would love to!  As you well know I am a very sexual and outspoken
person and I think I would be able to keep this board moving!
      Ciao,  Catherine 22

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=61

Message #61
From: Sysop 1
To: Alla You's
Date: 07-24-92 18:45:46
Subject: New  Ref !

  Please welcome Bev88 are our new Referee in charge of the
  en & Women subboard.   Bev has taken over DigiDuties
  from Vickie, who has moved....and frankly had never done
  much with the sub anyways.     Bev promises to breathe
  some fresh binary air into this sub... designed not only
  as the introduction sub for new users, but as our forum
  for digital discussion of social/sexual issues.   Bev will
  offer a fresh female perspective on terminal topics rasied
  here, and encourages all other female CReffers to share
  their two cents worth!

  Thanks to Cathy and Marcia and the others who expressed their
  interest in taking over the CompuCutie4 position.   Bev beat
  ya to the puter punch...and has been talking about this for
  awhile.     Okay CompuCutie, let the puter posting begin!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=62

Message #62
From: Admiral 13
To: All
Date: 08-04-92 13:12:57
Subject: Personal Ads...

   Have you ever looked at the personal ads in a newspaper? I think
all of us have been tempted to answer them at one time or another.
You have to admit, those ad descriptions sound too good to be true
sometimes! Well, the Admiral Institute for Advanced Intellectual
Studies has done extensive research into these ads, and the people
that place them. Here now is a list of descriptive words and their
true meanings. Good luck in finding that Mr./Ms. Right!....

ADVENTUROUS          enjoys trips to exotic places at your expense
AFFECTIONATE         clings like Glad Wrap
AMBITIOUS            cutthroat
ARTISTIC             nuts
ASSERTIVE            assaultive
ATHLETIC             can walk unassisted
BANKER               teller
BLOND                brunette
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
CALLIPYGIAN          could moon Europe
CLASSY               looking for Mr Goldbar
CONFIDENT            obnoxious
CUDDLY               fat
CUTE                 funny looking
DISCRIMINATING       won't date a cadaver
DIVORCED             bitter
EARTHY               allergic to bathing
EDUCATED             can read and write
ENERGETIC            manic
EXCEPTIONAL          ordinary
FLEXIBLE             doormat
FULL FIGURED         thar she blows!
INTENSE              homicidal
INTROSPECTIVE        suicidal
LOYAL                won't leave if you're dropped
                     from the Forbes 400
MOODY                manic-depressive
MYSTERIOUS           wanted by the FBI
NONSMOKER            quit 2 hours ago
OFFBEAT              ready for the Ha-Ha Hotel
OUTGOING             will sleep with all your friends
PETITE               dwarf
PRACTICAL            dull
PROFESSIONAL         employed
RENAISSANCE WOMAN    can't hold a job
RUBENESQUE           can't get out of bed without a forklift
SENSITIVE            whiny
SENSUOUS             nymphomaniac
SEPARATED            just had an argument with her husband
SHY                  catatonic
SPIRITUAL            Moonie
STABLE               boring
STRONG               ball-buster
SWEET                dumb
TALL                 pituitary case
TRADITIONAL          you pay
VEGETARIAN           malnourished
VIVACIOUS            loud
VOLUPTUOUS           see "cuddly"
ZAFTIG               see "voluptuous"
ZANY                 will boil your rabbit

   There you have it. Post your hunting results here!...


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=63

Message #63
From: CompuCutie 4
To: anyone
Date: 08-20-92 13:27:23
Subject: open engagement.........

Here is an interesting theory... an open engagement! an interesting
way of saying I want to marry but not right now!! or is it I want
to have my cake and eat it too?... Is an "open engagement" the same
as an "open marrige" or an "open relationship"?  I think this is
a plan of "man" once again the "rough draft" speaks from the past
to execute a plan of "having it all". Personally I don't really think
marriage is intended to be "for ever and ever"... so why go through
it all..? If one was ment to be "for ever to one" then  why  have
divorce laws? and if marrige was not to be considered "temporary
at best" because after all NO ONE OWNS another person, their feelings
or the  emotions! and given a temporary condition then why even go
through the "social crapola" of the cermony, the expense, and the
eventual hell of "trying to work it out"?...
this is hopefully a "post" that some one will respond to! and by
the way... I do know of many "HAPPILY" married peoples... I just
wonder when and if they awake will they still be able to smile or
will it be a "grimmace"?...
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

        lets hear something on this!!! o.k.?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=64

Message #64
From: Alex 27
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 08-20-92 14:58:18
Subject: Open Engagement

Well I've never heard of an open engagement before. Offhand, if I
understand you correctly, I have to wonder what the purpose would
be. Does "open" imply that one could be engaged to Several people
at the same time? If so, then what sort of commitment is that...
a commitment to be perhaps someday be involved in an open marriage
with this person, too?
Offhand, it does sound rather silly to me.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=65

Message #65
From: Robert 231
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 08-20-92 17:22:45
Subject: "Social Crapola"

   Your "open engagement" notion is what I would call "dating".
But I agree with much of the rest of what you said concerning
marriage and the notion of "till death do us part".   That is
so much social crapola.   Society is full of contradictions,
contrivances, and crapola.   A few months ago, maybe before
you were a member here, I wrote some posts saying almost the
same thing.   It turned into some frank debate here, and on
other boards.
   Maybe the posts are still saved back somewhere.  We talked
about how the western concept of marriage is an artificial
construct of society that runs contrary to the natural state
of man.   We make ourselves miserable, through denial, infidelity,
divorce, guilt, and all the rest for the fundamental reason that
we play by rules which contradict our very natures.
   Why?  Well, maybe your other post offers some answers.   Males
may hold the physical power in life, but precisely because of that,
females develop their power of persuasion and manipulation.   Marriage
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
has always worked to the benefit of female desires and aspirations.
And these days, so does divorce.    And women wonder why men are
reluctant to "commit".

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=66

Message #66
From: Alex 27
To: Robert
Date: 08-20-92 18:05:06
Subject: Reluctant to commit

I don't there is neccessarily any reluctance, on the part of men,
to commit to something. It's more like there is reluctance to commit
to something that's perceived as a losing proposition... namely,
the traditional marital relationship.
  That's an important distinction to make because it counters the
common (misconcepted) notion that men are lacking in the ability
to be devoted partners in a relationship --while of course, implying
that women, due to some aspect of their femininity, are not lacking
in that respect.

Also, I don't agree when you say that "...marriage has always worked
towards the benefit of (sic) female desires and aspirations." It
acheives several desires and apirations of Males as well...  that
of the wife being a status symbol, property, etc.  I don't think
that the problem lies with men and women using each other as a means
towards desires and aspirations. I think that the problem is more
that these desires and aspirations are self-defeating to both
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
parties involved. For instance, if each partner only sees  their
own self worth as being a reflection of who they're married too,
then they're they're bound to end up in a neurotic relationship...
with each partner always expecting things of the other that they
themselves should provide (for themselves).
  The main point is the (traditional) marrital relationship is
a failure... it only works for neurotics who are convinced that they
cannot exist without the (perceived) perpetual security of
a spouse in their life. I think that if we took the time to realize
how much ability we have to take care and love themselves, then
they we wouldn't all so easily side-step the responsibility of taking
care of Ourselves... and, in turn, we wouldn't so easily enter
unrealistic marriages that are based on unrealistic expectations
of what the other spouse is to provide for us.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=67

Message #67
From: Gerry 270
To: CompuCutie
Date: 08-21-92 20:09:22
Subject: Marriage

     >an open engagement! an interesting way of saying I want to
      marry but not right now!! or is it I want to have my cake
      and eat it too?... Is an "open engagement" the same as an
      "open marriage" or an "open relationship"?

Any so-called `open' relationship is destined to failure.  The
human, emotional fact is that we are psychologically pre-wired
for exclusive relationships.  `Open' relationships are fine, I
suppose, if neither person wants or is capable of commitment,
and is looking, primarily, for lots of sex.  In that case, why
bother with an engagement at all?  Any person, male or female,
who bit on such an offer must be desperate indeed ... or of like

     >I think this is a plan of "man" once again the "rough
      draft" speaks from the past to execute a plan of "having
      it all".
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

Ain't necessarily so.  I had a female client that I saw off and
on for close to ten years who tried desperately to cling to the
idea of an open relationship, even though I invited her to
consider it closely.  In the end, she had to give it up.  The
point, however, is that women may try to evade commitment as
much as men.  I've also known women who would ONLY date married
men in order to escape commitment ... and who dropped the
hapless male when he bailed out of marriage to be with her.
Women still use men as GARBAGE DUMPSTERS, and men tend to
accept that role.  I'll re-upload the relevent post at

     >Personally I don't really think marriage is intended to be
      "for ever and ever"... so why go through it all..?

Marriage, or the equivalent psychological relationship, is
indeed intended to be for life.  There are ANIMALS who mate for
life.  The problem with human life matings is that so many
psychological variables come into play -- not the least of which
are the projections and distorted perceptions of each person
about the other.  Anything less than an intended and pursued
life commitment ends in what I think is unresolveable loss and
pain for the parties involved.

You only have so many years.  It takes a lot of time and effort
to develop and maintain relationships.  It takes as much time
and more to build something of a life and secure home for each
party.  The later in life that it falls apart, the less likely
it is that EITHER party will be able to build something of a
life and security in later years.  I'd say that marriage -- or
the equivalent commitment -- should be intended to be "for ever
and ever", or don't mess with it. For that to work, each party
has to be clear on who they are, and who the other is.

     >If one was ment to be "for ever to one" then  why  have
      divorce laws?

Because people are imperfect in perception and intent -- and
because, if the relationship has been relatively enduring, there
is much to be decided by an impartial judge as to who gets what
from the fruits of the relationship.

     >and if marriage was not to be considered "temporary at
      best" because after all NO ONE OWNS another person, their
      feelings or the emotions! and given a temporary condition
      then why even go through the "social crapola" of the
      cermony, the expense, and the eventual hell of "trying to
      work it out"?...

Marriage is not at all about ownership.  It is about a commit-
ment to take life on as a team.  OF COURSE NO PERSON CAN OWN
ANOTHER.  If establishing flesh turf is why someone enters into
marriage, it is destined to fail.  Ownership is not the point --
and is psychologically and interactively impossible.  Do I
detect some concern about the dominance/submission issue?  Just
as it is not possible to MAKE someone FEEL something, it is not
possible to dominate another without the cooperation of that
person.  One has no worry about domination unless one has a wish
to be submissive, and fears that wish.

I might add that the ceremony and expense need not be great at
all.  Marriage is about the couple, and not anybody else.

That is about all there is space and time here for me to reply.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=68

Message #68
From: Larry 316
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 08-24-92 15:26:11
Subject: Open relationships...

   I don't think that marriage is a 'natural' thing for humans to
do, nor is having closed relationships. Marriage is a lifetime
commitment to face life together but how many friends does one
normally have that last a lifetime?  Most of us will, sooner or
later, grow away from our friends and make new ones. The same is
true of lovers.
   As to closed relationships, they are quite unnatural. In a
study done on such things (you can look up the name of the study
and who did it in a book called 'Group Marriage' in yer local
library, if you wish) it was found that over 70% of so-called
monogamous marriages had at least one member having extra-marital
affairs. 70%!  This hardly indicates that most couples are truly
   I think it's fun to, every once in awhile, meet with someone
new or different and make love or kiss or whatever. Most of my
former girlfriends seem to feel much the same and I'm sure I
could have saved a couple of wonderful relationships if I had
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
realised that this is normal earlier and done away with jealously
in my life earlier.
   My wife and I have an open relationship (we got married due to
family pressures) and while we rarely act on that freedom, it's
wonderful to have the openness and honesty and freedom that most
married couples don't allow each other. I have the feeling that
our relationship will last much longer than most.
   Gerry, I think I would say that the human, emotional fact is
that we are psychologically cross-threaded for exclusive
relationships.  If 70% of monogamous couples are 'fooling around'
and I suspect that that is a correct number, then obviously most
people aren't happy with the way our society is set up.
   On the topic of credit, it just ain't so that the credit
rating follows that man out of a marriage. Credit follows
whomever has it. In my marriage I have the credit rating since my
wife never established any of her own. We are working on getting
her credit cards of her own and she is on the car loan we got so
if she wants out of our relationship in the future she will have
a credit rating of her own.  My brother, who is very fiscally
irresponsible, has a horrid credit rating.  He married a woman
with an A+ credit rating and they keep their credit ratings
totally separate. She still has good credit while he has none.  I
think in most cases the man uses his credit to get loans and
cards and the wife just gets 'second user' cards and such and
that's why she has no credit rating at the end of a marriage. She
never had one in the first place.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=69

Message #69
From: Gerry 270
To: Larry 316
Date: 08-24-92 18:25:12
Subject: Infidelity

That is not proof that monogomy is not wired in ... just proof of what
I said.  People enter into relationships with few clues as to the
possible future, play too many games in the process, and fail to
understand, and be willing to do, what it takes truly to engage the

I just can't see anyone `cheating' on anybody.  Further, the relationship
is doomed once one party is engaged in another relationship.  The
coupling cannot be saved once that happens.

If one cannot get what one wants/needs in the extant relationship,
why stay in it at all?  Bail and go looking for what you really need.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=70
=> c 

Message #70
From: Robert 231
To: Gerry 270
Date: 08-26-92 18:19:48
Subject: Check your owners manual

     Psychologically pre-wired for exclusive relationships.
What does that mean?    Where do you get this stuff?    It sounds
like maybe you've had your head buried in the keyboard for too long!
Or perhaps you have been ensnared by the hyper fem-lib hysterics,
hook, line, and sinker?    An avid reader of Cosmopolitan magazine?

     The engineering analogy of our inscrutably complex psyches as
being "wired" seems imprecise at best, and misleading at worst.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume we grasp your meaning,
that human nature involves certain predispositions.    And the
specific quality asserted here by you is that it is human nature
to be predisposed to exclusive sexual relationships.    Wrong!

     The whole notion of relationships, of marriage, of exclusivity
is a construct of civilization.    The distinctive features of
mankind's different societies in this area of civilized existence
provide contemporary evidence that humans are NOT predisposed to
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
any single philosophy of sexual interaction or arrangement.
Belief systems and social/sexual arrangements vary from culture
to culture, and vary across time.     Considering what a great many
rules and norms we live by in our own civilized society, there are
relatively FEW universal laws of social/sexual interaction.

     But even more compelling than the contemporary evidence provided
by comparing and contrasting existing cultures, is the evidence given
by human anthropology.     In our pre-history (notably concomitant
with pre-civilization) mankind was NOT monogamous.     Cavemen did
not develop the concept of "marriage."      Marriage, and all those
terms, like "cheating" in which you couch your argument, is an
artificial construct of civilization.      We had this discussion
here a few months ago, I know, because I participated in it.  I do
not know if old posts are saved that long, but you might read over
them if so.     I brought out the issue of the Natural State of Man.
That is, how we existed absent the artificial constructs of society,
many of which are contrary to our Natural State.    It is precisely
this conflict which causes so much misery in so many of our lives.

     This is an academic argument to a certain extent.   We are stuck
with civilization.    We are trapped by the rules and norms of the
time and society in which we live.     But I believe it is helpful
to understand our fundamental natures, to ponder them in view of the
needs and benefits of civilization, and to relate our internal
conflicts and frustrations to the often opposing forces of our
Natural State and the artificial constructs of civilization.   Who
knows, perhaps with time and reflection, a society will evolve
that reconciles these opposing forces.    I'm sure its members will
enjoy far happier lives.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=71

Message #71
From: Sysop 1
To: Robert 231
Date: 08-27-92 09:54:55
Subject: Old posts....

     Posts on The Excursion are manually deleted & packed,

     which means I have the option of saving selected worthwhile

     posts for as long as we like.    The hatter board, for

     example, contains the highlights of all of our post-excursion

     reviews for the past two years.       Some of the better 

     board DigiDebates and posts have been saved also, including

     a few from the discussion on monogamy you're referring to.....

     It starts back at message #59...........

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=72

Message #72
From: Robert 231
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 09-14-92 11:01:59
Subject: Speaking of vanity

       Speaking of female vanity, did anyone happen to hear the
hilarious conversation on the Mark & Brian program last week
regarding not-so-prim primping in the Ladies Lockerooms of
health clubs!      Some lady called in talking about all the
nude vanity she has witnessed over the years, all of which was
topped last week when she saw a woman BLOW DRYING HER PUBIC HAIR.
       Have I missed something, or this just a feminine oddity?
Do women do this regularly?   And are they trying to straighten
out their little pubic hairs or what?    Is this a hot new trend,
for which we will soon see supporting products... Pubus Mousee,
Dippity Pube, Pubic Tint & Streak!   
       Which reminds me, isn't the Miss America pageant coming
up sometime soon?    Time for hysterical fem-libbers to come
shrieking forth from their closets in protest.    Sit down ladies,
plug in your hair dryers, and enjoy the show!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=73

Message #73
From: Donna 15
Date: 09-17-92 21:46:52
Subject: Here's one for YOU!

Within the past two weeks, on two separate occasions, two male co-workers
of mine hit me with the same question in hopes of gaining the
female perspective on the subject.  The fact that they BOTH asked me the
same question was purely coincidental and they had not discussed the
subject with anyone else prior to asking me.  But today at lunch when the
second person asked me, about 10 minutes into the resulting conversation,
the first person who had asked the question came over and the three of us
discussed it together.

What they BOTH asked me was:

    "Donna, why do you wear a ring on the RING FINGER of your LEFT hand
     when you are NOT married or attached to anyone?"

I was fairly stunned by the question; it seemed so obvious to me--I
SIMPLY ENJOY JEWELRY!  I ALWAYS wear three rings whenever I go
anywhere--the same two on my right hand, and I alternate the one I wear
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
on the ring finger of my left hand.  I think only one of those that I
wear on my left hand could possibly be misconstrued as an engagement
ring as it is a diamond cocktail ring.

My co-workers both said that if they see ANY type of ring on THAT finger
of a woman's left hand, that they INSTANTLY assume that the woman is
involved in a relationship and they will NOT approach her!  I found this
reasoning to be totally ILLOGICAL!  My co-workers were quite adamant
about their views and said that most members of the male species share
the same line of thought.

I told them that I didn't think that women felt that way, that most
would probably wear a ring on the ring finger of their left hand
REGARDLESS of their status of involvement.  I said that most women
would not feel insulted if they were wearing a ring that was obviously
NOT an engagement or wedding ring and a gentleman approached them.

This line of reasoning really angered one of my co-workers.  He went so
far as to say that it shows where the moral code of today's female is
if they WANT to be approached.  He basically stated that only SLIME
would approach a woman who was wearing a ring.

Anyway, after our little discussion, I went and talked to several female
co-workers of mine.  ALL that I talked to felt the same way that I do;
that unless it is blatantly obvious that the ring is a wedding or
engagement ring, that it shouldn't prevent a man from approaching a

Tonight, a male friend of mine called me.  I posed the question to him.
He pretty much agreed with what my male co-workers said.  Now this really
has me concerned!!  Do most men REALLY feel that ANY ring on the third
finger of the left hand AUTOMATICALLY means that the woman is spoken
for?  And do most women REALLY feel that unless it is specifically a
wedding or engagement ring, that it shouldn't matter to the men, and it
is OK to wear a ring on ANY finger; that it shouldn't be construed as a
signal that they are involved!

If this is the case, then there is MAJOR miscommunication between the
sexes!!  I thought it might be interesting to pose the question here and
see what the men and women here feel and think on the subject.

What do YOU think?  Should a ring (ANY ring) be worn on the third finger
of a woman's left hand be worn ONLY if the woman is attached?  Is a woman
who is wearing one generally judged by the male population as ATTACHED?
Do women generally feel that it is OK to be single and wear a non-wedding
or engagement ring on that finger and that it SHOULDN'T be construed as a
signal to the male species that they are attached?


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=74

Message #74
From: Robert 364
To: Donna 15
Date: 09-17-92 23:50:30
Subject: Rings and things...

    Just a second let me check something here..... Yep, they're
still there. I was beginning to wonder with all the sensitive
artsie stuff I've been writing in my converstion with Alex.
Anyhow... As a man, I would have to say that most of us do
consider the ring to be a sign of involvement.
    Personally it's not something I check for when first looking
at a woman, but I know my friends do. I will go and talk to her
then when we are talking I may notice the ring. However, then I
am close enough to see whether it is an engament ring or wedding
band and if I'm unsure (there are a lot of different styles and
tastes out there you know) I'm already in conversation so I will
just ask.
    My friends on the other hand won't even approach the women
that have them I guess thinking they are a waste of time. Think
about it how close would you have to be to get a good look at it,
if you're looking at someone from across a room how would you
know what kind of ring it is.
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

Wait... here comes my roomate... I'll ask him...

    He said he always looks and he does consider it a sign of
involvement. He also said he is a dog though and would approach
the girl anyway if he really wanted her. It's true too, he is a
dog! Anyhow, my advice to you (if you're worried about being
considered out of the running by men), would be to not wear it.
Otherwise, you're probably limiting yourself to being approached
by the occasional guy like me who will ask, or the dogs who don't
    If so many women do feel the way you do them we do have a
major communication problem, but I see it as a problem of
tradition. Traditionally in our society that finger represents
engaged or married, that's all there is to it really.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=75

Message #75
From: Alex 27
To: Donna
Date: 09-18-92 00:31:04
Subject: rings

Well I'm too stupid to easily tell the difference between a wedding
band and a decorative ring soooooo... as a rule of thumb, if I see
any sort of ring being worn, then I pretty much assume that the woman
is either spoken for, or at least wants to give that impression --perhaps
to keep men away.
The sorry part is that I don't feel I'm alone with this view.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=76

Message #76
From: Jeff 25
To: Donna 15
Date: 09-18-92 08:07:26
Subject: Rings on fingers...

Certainly from my perspective and the perspective of most of my male
friends, a ring on the ring finger on the left hand means that
the gal is married or involved.  The second option is that that girl
doesn't want to be approached.  I've known a coupla gals that do
this, just keep a ring on there and it keeps most everyone away.

I for one won't generally approach someone wearing a ring on that
finger for anything other than ordinary BS socializing conversation
in a situation where such interaction is common.  I won't even bother
to talk to someone outside of a situation like that if she's wearing
a ring on that finger.  It doesn't matter what kind of ring it is.
I've seen wedding rings that look like they came out of a cereal
box and vice versa.  How are you supposed to tell?  A part of this in
me stems from being too damn logical in my internal thought processes.

And this illustrates the inherent difference between how males and
females THINK.  To me, it's incredibly simple: the societal convention
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
is that if you're married, you wear a ring there.  An extension of
that is that you wear a ring there if you want people to stay away.
And there's he HUGE difference.  In my viewpoint, you've got SEVEN
BLOODY OTHER FINGERS to wear rings on, why would someone put a ring
on their ring finger, unless it belonged there?  It's never even
occured to me that a gal would wear a ring there just because she
likes it.  It doesn't make any sense.  But according to Donna, this
is indeed the case.  Yikes!

I guess the moral of the story is, gals, if you don't want to scare
guys away, take the ring offa that finger.  Cause that's the way
we think.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=77

Message #77
From: Admiral 13
To: Donna 15
Date: 09-18-92 08:12:12
Subject: Jumping through the rings...

   Chalk one more up for the guys side.  I admit that I was also
the type to look to that ring as a sign of their involvement with
another, or at least as a sign of their desire to get involved (lots
of women want to be left alone, and have told me that's why they
wear the ring there.

   If I was really interested in a girl, I may strike up a conversation
and inquire as to their marital status.  Sometimes, my inquiry would
pay off.

   If I could get a good look, I would see what kind of ring it was.
If it was obviously not an engagement ring, I would proceed further.
If it was questionable, I would make the judgment call...

   I have no objection to women wearing rings. And no, there is no
'law' that says a woman can't wear a ring on that finger if they're
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
not 'attached' in some manner.  But sometimes a guy needs all the
help he can get in chasing the opposite sex, and that's one way that's
been fairly accurate.

   A woman has 8 fingers for rings (10 if they wear thumb rings).
All I ask is they pick from 7. If they're unattached, leave that
one bare.

   ...and Donna, you fear that there is MAJOR miscommunication between
the sexes?  Honey, anytime that the fact of women 'synchronizing'
their cycles can remain largely unknown to the other sex, there IS
major miscommunication, not to mention all the OTHER problems that
plague male/female interaction. where's my Playboy??


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=78

Message #78
From: Brant 12
To: Donna 15
Date: 09-18-92 11:37:40
Subject: Ring around the rosie....

     I think your surprise, and the agreement of your female friends
on the issue, versus the definite contradiction from the vast majority
of males on this issue, illustrates one of the basic differences
between men and women : women see things in shades of grey, while
men look for black and white.   To many women, the difference between
an engagement ring and other types of rings is obvious, while to
men, there either IS a ring on THAT finger, or NOT.

    Additionally, I think men view hitting on married (or engaged)
women as a lowly act reflecting a lack of honor.....and to risk making
such a stigmatized act based on a judgement call where we KNOW our
understanding of various types of rings is weak is clearly NOT WORTH IT!

    'Smatter of fact, just YESTERDAY I was talking to the very attractive
girl who sits in front of me in a Psych lab class, when I noticed
she had diamond rings on the ring fingers of both hands.  Out of
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
the blue I ventured to ask if she was married, and she said with
surprise, "No...".  She said the ring on her right hand was her old
engagement ring, while the one on her left was a gift from her mom.
When I seemed surprised she would keep and wear her old engagement
ring, she informed me that under California law, if the guy breaks
off the engagement, the girl can legally keep the ring, while if
the girl breaks it off, she is required to return it.  Anyone know
if this is actually CA law?

   As a sidenote, just the fact that I asked her if she was married
made it seem as if I was interested in her, which puts a twist on
an otherwise innocent conversation.

   My conclusion?  Now where did I leave that conclusive thought?
Oh yeah, it's this : that there are some basic differences in the
way men and women view the world, and while they are lessening as
equality rises, both sides need to respect the other.   Research
has shown that women tend to have, on average, a more external locus
of control....they look for explanations of life's events in outside
causes such as religion and horoscopes and palm readers, moreso than
men tend to.  Men can slam this, or try to understand where the female
viewpoint differs.

    Men, on the other hand, tend to be more visually stimulated than
women.  They like to look at the female form, be it in Playboy or
just driving down the street.  Women can denigrate this, and bewail
that "if he really loved me, he wouldn't NEED to look at other women!",
OR they can try to understand and tolerate the male viewpoint.

                                              Sigmund Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=79

Message #79
From: Donna 15
To: All
Date: 09-18-92 20:05:11
Subject: Well so far....

....we've heard strictly from the men here, and the majority seem
to be in agreement with my co-workers in that they will not go near
a woman who wears ANY ring!!  One co-worker of mine said that if
a woman is wearing a STRING on that finger, he won't approach!!

I posed the question on two other boards, and for the most part,
the men who responded on the other boards are in agreement with the
men here, and most of the women who responded have said that it shouldn't
matter.  I also asked more of my co-workers today, and the answers
were pretty much in line with what was expressed here EXCEPT that
a couple of the women I talked to said that they will wear a ring
on that finger ONLY when they want to be left alone.  So I guess
these were in agreement with the male point of view.  I did talk
to ONE male today who actually said that 15 years ago, he would have
taken a ring as a sign of involvement, but DEFINITELY NOT TODAY!!!

I am just finding this all very amusing that the majority of men
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
and women seem to feel so opposite on the subject!!  One co-worker
kind of restated what Brant said in that men see things in digital
mode; either the bit is turned on or it is turned off--there are
no in betweens, it's a zero or it's a one.

In any case, a lot of interesting and amusing points have been brought
up.  Perhaps when the dialog has run it's course, I will compile
all responses into one file and upload it here for anyone who is

This all has helped me to better understand the male perspective,
although I can't honestly say whether knowing this will actually
impact my behavior.  We shall see!!!

Well....I wish some of the women on the board would post!!  I'd love
to see what the other women here think!!

                                         ciao for now....


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=80

Message #80
From: Mickey 11
To: Donna 15
Date: 09-18-92 22:58:55
Subject: Posing Puter Postulates...

   ......Count in another electronic echo here.....

           ....I will concur with all the above.........

           Given the social convention such as it is, what ELSE is

           a guy left to believe, except that the lady is hitched ?!?

           ....And expecting that MEN can discern from 10 feet the

               distinction between a wedding or engagement ring, and

               some other type of decorative gemstone, is laughable !!

   ............From pre-pubescence on, WOMEN have far more experience

               with jewelry than men............
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

   ......So if you're looking for love ladies, take a lesson from

         the guys on this, and lose that better-than-latex contraceptive

         misplaced ring !!

   ..........................And speaking of the ladies, DB raises an

   issue that I was discussing here with Bev88 a couple of months ago.


   I see alot of electronic eloquence flying back and forth between

   the sexes here... in private mail.    Yet, like most systems,

   posting on the Pubs is dominated by the GUYS alone.    Why ?

   Donna, would you care to fire the opening salvo in THIS digital


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=81

Message #81
From: Donna 15
To: Mickey 11
Date: 09-19-92 09:58:18
Subject: I can't speak for other women....

and more importantly, I can't speak for the other women on THIS board!!
I have to say that I regularly call 2 other boards that are using
the same software as this board, and women DO seem to participate
much more on the other boards.

I tend to fluctuate.  I go through moods where I prefer to just stay
in the background.  Sometimes that is related to periods where I just
plain DON'T have a lot of time or energy to spend on the boards and
what time I DO have is mostly devoted to E-mail.  Sometimes it is
simply because I don't feel strongly enough about things that are
being discussed to post.  I usually post when I have the time to
do so, and when I FEEL like I really have something to contribute--
even if it is just some off-the-wall humorous remark.

But back to the question of why the women here don't spend more time
posting.  One speculation might be related to the fact that this
board is simply a two-line board, and because of that, a lot of us
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
don't like to tie the system up for long periods of time.  Maybe
the women here prefer to spend their allotted time answering the
E-mail that they get.  I really don't know....that's just a thought.

I do know that my original post here that I also posted on the other
boards, raised a fair response by the women on the other boards.
I thought it would do the same here.....guess I was wrong!!!

                                          ciao for now....


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=82

Message #82
From: Robert 231
To: All
Date: 09-19-92 10:42:03
Subject: Rings and things

Donna:  Although I am not one to immediately scope for rings,
        if I do see one, then the assumption is she is married.
        This is the norm.    The question is not why do men so
        think, but why do YOU think otherwise?

Chuck:  I don't believe there is any such law on the books.
        Maybe just judges' decisions in case by case incidents.
        I do know that our contemporary engagement ring concept
        grew out of the antiquated European dowry concept.  The
        family of the bride used to "pay" the groom's family a
        dowry for taking their daughter.   In anticipation and
        exchange of that dowry, some gift was given by the groom.
        Kind of an "insurance" that he wouldn't back out.   Today
        we no longer have the dowry, but here we are, still spending
        huge sums on rings, with "precious" stones that really aren't.

Mickey: It's the same everywhere.   The percentage participation of
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
        female users on all the boards I've ever been on has been
        low.   A part of it may be what Donna said, that they are
        busy answering EMail.   But as I've argued before, I think
        women are often just cowards.   Afraid to be assertive, scared
        to take the lead, unwilling to initiate something, be it in
        dating or in posting their feelings and opinions on public
        bulletin boards.    I'll say this for this BBS, the quality,
        if not the quantity, of posting is superior.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=83

Message #83
From: Donna 15
To: Robert 231
Date: 09-19-92 13:10:25
Subject: Why do *I* think otherwise???

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I have only spent
about 2 years out of the past 20 (since I was 18) being truly single.
I was married for 12-1/2 years, then "uninvolved/single" for about
a year, then in a 1-1/2 year long relationship, then in a 4 year
relationship, and have been again "uninvolved/single" for the past

Getting married at 18, I never had to deal with the games and rules
of single life, and I WAS wearing a ring when I met the two men I
had the two other relationships with.  In fact, I was wearing a ring
when I've met virtually ALL of the men I have dated over the years.

In any case, I've always felt as I said above, that it should be
OK to wear a non-wedding/engagement ring on THAT finger!!  Especially
today.  I guess I'm not always a traditionalist!!  I guess what has
really surprised me about this whole thing is finding out that most
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
men ARE very traditional on THIS subject!!  I have to admit that
I'm finding it rather refreshing!

When it comes to men....when I see one who is NOT wearing a wedding
ring, I assume he is SINGLE.  But....when I see one who is wearing
a ring on his ring finger of  his left hand and it ISN'T a wedding could be a college ring....or something with stones or
even diamonds in it......I ALSO assume that he ISN'T married!!  Of
course I fully realize that a large percentage of married men DON'T
wear a wedding ring.  My ex never wore his.....and no, that never
really bothered me.  But how are these same men who refuse to wear
wedding rings able to say that when they see ANY ring on a woman's
left hand ring finger, that they assume she is attached???


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=84

Message #84
From: CompuCutie 4
To: anyone!!!
Date: 10-24-92 22:40:53
Subject: What exactly is......?

love?.. I appreciate Shakespear alot and in one of his "poems", he
states that  He questions wheather love actually (true or other wise)
exist! He points out that everytime one falls in "love" then they
profess to "never have loved or felt like this before". And truly
feels that THIS time it's forever only to find out that it was only
an iterlude in ones life!  I too (after reading this ) tend to questions
the meaning of the word and it's meaning! I mean after all How many
times have YOU said.... "I'll love you for ever!" or even "till death
do us part"? only to find it dying in the legal channels of our "life
time"?                  Just curious... He also has one on "progress"..
and feels that there is no such thing as progress because EVERYTHING
has been done before, comparing life to the ocean waters never needing
toe3xD{{_o+}OoC)&g0]Mo~,*=v/rU?q%\ Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=85

Message #85
From: Dave 411
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 10-27-92 04:44:38
Subject: Love...

   I think love exists... but if your asking if it's always floating
above us like the Ozone layer and reaches down and grabs two of us
now and then... I don't think so...
   Although it is kind of like an atmosphere... that two people
share and still feel when the other isn't there... This I guess would
be called "true love"... The problem is there is no way to tell if
the other person feels it... Now I wonder... If you are in love with
someone who doesn't love you... Is the love you feel within yourself
any less than it would be in the case of "true love?" Afterall the
love you feel comes from inside of you... just because you later
find you din't connect at the same level of attraction does that
mean you didn't feel it...
   I think, if you BELIEVE you felt it, then you probably did.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=86

Message #86
From: David 40
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 10-27-92 11:16:48
Subject: "Love"

Well, I think we all 'feel' love towards a member of the opposite
sex when there is some attraction and closeness. The degree  to which
we feel 'love' can depend on just how close to that other person
we are. There is certainly the possibility that we can feel 'true
love'  and not have the one
we feel towards, return that feeling, or feel it as much as we'rwe
feeling. I have had this happen to me and it can be pretty confusing,
at times. That's where GOOD communication between people comes in.
That, and understanding our own feelings and being able to accept
that, as the saying goes, "it takes two to tango". Be it dancing,
fighting, or love, it's a two way street and we should always allow
for the other persons feelings. I usually try to make it my rule
of thumb that if there's a problem in a relationship, it's my fault
because I didn't uderstand the other person. Then I consider the
possibility that maybe that other person didn't understand me, again,
maybe thru something I did or didn't say or do. What we do and how
we behave and act are always open for interpertation  and how
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
others see us is not always how we think we're coming across. One
of the main reasons for poor communication in these times, is the
'fear' of hurting someone elses feelings, which is valid, but, if
we didn't go around feeling like we've been put upon and 'hurt',
then maybe we'd get a better understanding of each other and have
better communicatin between the sexes.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=87

Message #87
From: Dave 411
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 10-28-92 05:17:36
Subject: well.....

   I have a little more food for thought... There is absolutely nothing
wrong with comparing our past relationships with our present and
future ones... After all, If you don't know where you've been you
won't know how to gauge where you are going... Furthermore, as humans
we need to know that we are getting the best things we are capable
of getting out of life... But there is a very dangerous area that
we have to stay away from...
   Somewhere in our minds we have this ability to actually "enhance"
our past memories to the piont that no one could possibly live up
to our expectations... Personally I think this is how it happens...
Our built in pain defenses have the ability to suppress it... then
we don't see the pain anymore and we're left with the memories of
joy we felt, perhaps the joy becomes maximized as a way to minimize
the pain... I don't know... but I do know that when a void is filled
in our lives we seem to be able to rationalize all the bullshit that
comes with it!!!
   So after the relationship (and the recovery period) there we
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
are with the our enhanced memories and an even bigger void then if
we never knew the person who filled it at all... Then our next lover
comes into our life and we expect them to fill it... and they can't...
   My point............
                ............Beware of the OVERSIZED void!!!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=88

Message #88
From: CompuCutie 4
To: Dave 411
Date: 10-29-92 22:27:34
Subject: love

yes.. but when you say to someone "I love you more than I've loved
ANYONE before" and then that "love" doesn't work out..(sorry Jeff
the quotes just HAVE  to be here..)  and you love someone else and
say to them.. the VERY same words... and each time you mean them
more than before.. then when IS the true and correct and HONEST feelings
of love.... and how do you know for a  FACT that this is THE love
you've been looking for? I think it's all time related. As the season
are, more people don't want to be alone so they feel "love" when
in actuallity they are feeling the need for human companionship and
the desire is soo strong they don't want to be alone EVER again,
so they find someone that they can be comfortable with and call it
happiness and sometimes it works out, sometimes it dosen't! I feel
you need to be o.k. alone with yourself before you can be o.k and
happy with someone else.. you have to like and / or love yourself
before anyone else can... and how about re-incarnation of lovers
from era's long past? finding themselves again HUNDREDS of years
later, sometimes married to other people sometimes freee and able
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
to marry each other again. DO YOU  think this is possible? Is it
possible that Bill Shakespear was right when he said that history
repeats itself and that all things have happened before and will
do so again, that all things have already been invented, all horizons
explored, and all seas both earthly and celestrial have been explored
and named, and that they will continue to be "redone" until time
is no more? humm...

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=89

Message #89
From: Dave 411
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 10-30-92 04:46:22
Subject: Love/Shakespeare...

   Do you truly believe you are feeling love with each successive
relationship... or do you just really Really REALLY like the fact
that you are not alone or bored anymore???
   Do you like the person still being there when you wake up in
the morning? Do you feel unihibited in their presence? Is it easy
to communicate with them... Sexually... Intellectually... Spiritually...
   Possibly the reason you tell the person you love them MORE then
you have ever loved ANYBODY else is because these new feelings are
so fresh... You may not even love them at all..........
            ..........You may simply be entertained by them?
   How do you know if they are the love you have been looking for...
That definition is entirely your own... Step outside of the relationship
and look in at it... Do you believe this is what you want... or does
it feel like you are settling for less... Is the atmosphere there
or when they're out of sight are they out of mind... It's your call...
   As far as Bill goes... Sure history will repeat itself... but
I've never thought that saaaayyy... Anne and I were actually Catherine
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
and Heathcliff or Monica and I, Romeo and Juliet... I do like to
entertain metaphysical thoughts, but re-incarnation isn't one I feel
very strongly about... The reason Shakespeare's works have endured
for so long is because the story lines question the same things we
question today... The issues remain timely and will throughout time...
We still have obsessive murders... We still have incest... We still
have romantic suicides... Elsinore Demark 1600 or Elsinore California
1992 we don't know anymore about love then they did..........
            ..........except for maybe the G-Spot! 

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=90

Message #90
From: Julie 50
To: Brant
Date: 11-15-92 10:47:11
Subject: Ridiculous........... me is interpreted as, do you act yourself with the one you
love.....or are you trying to create an image of the ideal love?
Maybe ideal love would be getting that makeover when the real
you is the next morning.  Ridiculous is being with the one you love
and singing in the shower, the car or living room and dancing when
listening to your stereo at home.
In basics, to me it is feeling comfortable with your partner. To be
able to have fun with one another.  And in my prior quote, MAN....
the term is not directed to your gender.....I thought after that I
should have put 'person.'
So.....Brant.......are you Ridiculous......I bet you are.

I agree with Robert, if we could answer the question..What is love?
We would all have talk shows and writing best sellers.  But instead
we debate here.

To add to my feelings of love........Love looks forward, and hate
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
looks back, while jealous anxiety has eyes all over its head!!!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=91

Message #91
From: George 133
To: All
Date: 11-16-92 11:28:02
Subject: What is love

     Although at one point in my life I was a believer, one of the
faithful, a member of the Church of Romantic Love... more recently
I have come to the conclusion that the whole notion of "love" is a
gigantic hoax.    Love is a fraud, perpetuated by each generation
on the next because they're ashamed to admit that they never really
quite grasped the mythical golden ring during the merry-go-round of
their own lifetimes.

     If the myth was merely a sweet delusion, no problem.   But this
fairy tale of romantic love, of love ever-lasting, of mating for life
and living happily ever after is terribly destructive on our psyches.
Our failure to grasp and hold this most elusive and effervescent of
emotions results in anxiety, resentment, divorce, suicide, and more.

     I'm not some bitter hermit, hardened by brutal experience.
But experience has made me a realist.    None of us has much of a
handle on what "love" really is.    All the empty platitudes in these
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
posts prove that.   It's Hollywood talking.   It's the banal philosophy
of movies, TV, magazines and pulp fiction reflected here.   What do
any of us really know about love?    Most of us can define and describe
any other emotion in greater, more concrete, detail than we can "love."
Maybe it's not an emotion at all.    Maybe that's going too far.
But I personally do feel that our contemporary notions of romantic
love and marriage are unrealistic, and do not reflect the true inner
psyches of human beings.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=92

Message #92
From: David 40
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 11-16-92 14:00:59
Subject: Loving more than one time.

I also feel that a person can love more than one person at a time!
We've all felt that 'attraction', at times, while we were 'in love',
to another. I think it happens to the male more than the female,
but not limited to one sex or the other. ..... I read an interesting
article a few years ago about 'basic instincts'. The writer/researcher
was saying that many of our social 'habits' as far as sexual overtures
go are deeply ingrained into us geneticly. In prehistoric times,
it was the female who had the job of staying at home and nurturing
a family and 'investing' time and energy doing that. The male had
the urge  to spread his 'seed' as widely as possible and also
hunt for food. The female would pick the 'best' male for her to fullfill
her need for security. Hence the competition between males for the
females for sexual reason  and the 'pickiness'
of the females. Heck, look at teenagers and you can see this to this
day! hahaha. .... Anyway, now that we're suppose to be more intelligent
and aware and have those 'basic' things under control, we can have
a close and loving social group. Right? hehehe. Nice idea, but not
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
all of us can handle those basic feelings, even when we know what
and where they come from and the cause. We still feel threatened
by others, even in this day and age when we don't need to be. At
least socially, if not intimately. Along in there is trust, with
that relationship. Also selfconfidence. We need to trust in others
and be selfconfident in ourselves to the extent that we don't need
to be 'worried' about 'losing' a mate 

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=93

Message #93
From: Charles 35
To: George 133
Date: 11-17-92 20:19:37
Subject: Love....

George, you have a lot of guts to say that you are not "some bitter
hermit, hardened by brutal exprience."  It sure sounds like it to
Maybe I'm not a realist? But I have experienced love, I have also
experienced divorce. Neither of these experiences have soured me
on the concept of love. I will grant you that movies, literature
and the boob tube do paint a terribly inaccurate picture of love,
but they also paint an inaccurate picture of life in general.

So you ask the question; What is love? My answer is partially emotion,
but it's mostly feeling. Connecting with a person. Being in tune
with each others needs, ambitions, goals, feeling, etc..
It's not the "fairy tale romantic love......" perpetuated by myth.
But it does exist. However, it's not necessarily permanent, but what
is. Remember, nothing is permanent but change.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=94

Message #94
From: Mickey 11
To: CompuCupids
Date: 11-19-92 11:01:48
Subject: LOVE IS.....

  While it's true enough that the Media poisons our perceptions of love
  and war alike with pop psych platitudes, it seems to me that even the
  most decorated Doctors of Sexology and Love Lexicography are of only
  marginally more help in telling us just what this thing LOVE actually
  is.    Like the esteemed Nobel physicist who can describe for you a
  hundred properties of a "wave" in precise mathematical detail, but
  can't quite ever really explain the damn thing, even self-styled
  experts on love are hard-pressed to define and explain LOVE.

  Maybe we're too preoccupied with the gamesmanship, treating love as
  though it were a contest, with a set of prescribed rules and moves
  that must be followed.    Love is more instinctive.   And the first
  instinct involved is the desire to give rather than receive.

  So, just as with spectacular sunsets, crackling fires, and the sweet
  taste of butterscotch, perhaps we should simply savor the moment with
  love, reveling in its inexplicable grip, even as we enjoy the
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
  addlepated axioms used to describe it...........

  It is not love that makes the world go around.   The quest for power
  and money will always leave love quivering alone in second place.
  But don't be too discouraged.   We should never look back.   There
  isn't time.   And time is life's most singularly irreplacable
  commodity  -  whereas love can grow again.    So it's true that it is
  better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all.  We
  should never pass up a promising opportunity to love.   Our contrived
  morality should be re-arranged to reflect that.    If Life is a freeway,
  Love is the fuel at gas stations along the way.

  Love is a feeling that has the incredible power of making you believe
  what you would normally treat with deep suspicion.   It makes your head
  swim, and your heart sink, and grows out of a mutual need and
  responsiveness, a sharing of intense desire and pleasure, and the
  recognition of a certain niftiness in someone else.

  In matters of romance, most women hate a quitter, and they don't much
  care for a beginner either.    Love is like eating mushrooms....  you
  don't know whether it's the real thing until it's too late.   Love is
  also like potato salad.....  when you share it with someone it's a
  picnic.    But if all the world loves a lover, how come so many fathers
  and husbands are mad at Brant ?     Maybe it's cuz you can't build a
  love nest with another man's bird.

  Love means never having to say you're....  (a) ruptured  (b) swaybacked
  (c) eviscerated  or  (d) embalmed.     And it's true that money cannot
  buy love, although it can buy something that looks and acts like it.
  But any lover you buy will eventually be bought away from you.

  True love is enduring, but it is also fragile.   When held tightly, true
  love warms the soul.   But when held too tightly, it breaks like a
  brittle light bulb.   Love is narcissistic, but should not be egoistic
  or possessive.   It can't be fulfilled between men and women when both
  are not allowed autonomy.    If that freedom results in your lover
  ending up in the arms of another, don't automatically grab your blow
  torch and immolate yourself on your bed.    Distinguish the arms from
  the heart, an affair from a true love.    Arms may appear closely
  connected to the heart, but are actually separated by the groin, at
  the far end of the torso.

  Love is like a flame  -  a little oil makes it burn much brighter.
  We're all big kids, and our favorite adult toys are one another.
  All the merchandise at the Erogenous Zone is the fun optional
  accessories, and just like Christmas toys, remember that batteries
  are not included, and some assembly may be required.
  So pop a butterscotch, enjoy the sunset, and stoke that fireplace.
  Love's flame burns eternal, but our individual lives  -  and loves  -
  do not.    Enjoy one another while you're here.   Enjoy love while
  it lasts.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=95

Message #95
From: Dave 411
To: Mickey and All...
Date: 11-20-92 00:02:20
Subject: Can't buy me love...

11=>And it's true that money cannot buy love, although it can buy
    something that looks and acts like it. But any lover you buy will
    eventually be bought away from you.

   Excellent post... But this point sparked some thoughts... I think a
persons financial situation is every bit as much a quality they possess
as... Intellect... Education... Hair color.. Eye color... Height...
Weight... Views... and everything else we add together when we decide if
we love another or not...
   I think there are those who are incapable of loving someone without
money... Just as I (being 6'5") would be incapable of loving someone who
was too short... There would be a mental block between the two of us
which would disallow the feelings...
   Admittedly a great percentage of the people who would not be able to
love someone without money would most likely be shallow and definately
be materialistic... So the real question isn't whether or not money can
buy love... but rather, whether you want the kind of lover the money
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
would attract...
   As for being bought away... We all pretty much agree that love comes
and goes... So wouldn't it really just be going... For some reason (I
guess to somehow validate ourselves) we always search for something to
blame it on... We usually say we have been used... but that always seems
to be with hindsight... rarely when we are in the situation...

   Is there any real difference between someone loving you for your
physical/mental qualities or loving you for your financial qualities...
Someone with a better body/mind can pull your lover away just as quickly
as someone with a bigger bank account... Probably even more quickly...
Therefore, I could argue that all love is "materialistic" in nature...
   Love is the result of stimulation... We love those who make us feel
good... The ones who take us to a higher plane... Isn't it just a matter
of whether your lover is stimulated by......

        ......your body... your brains... or your 911 Turbo...

And finally...
11=>Enjoy love while it lasts.

Bravo... Regardless of the catalyst that brought it to you...

                      Enjoy those senses,
                                     Empirical Dave...

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=96

Message #96
From: Julie 50
To: Dave 411
Date: 11-22-92 10:31:13
Subject: Love...

   Well, for the sake of argument, let's say, as you do, that there
is no difference between loving someone for their physical attributes,
and loving them for their money.    Still, this is not the same as
saying there is no difference between loving them for their money,
and loving them for their intellect, personality, opinions, etc.
Physical attributes and money are superficial qualities.   Personality
etc are internal qualities.    Big difference!    You can have a happy
fling with somebody based of superficial qualities.   But for an
enduring relationship, love of those internal characteristics is essential.

   Sure, there are material girls out there, mostly interested in
a man's money.   These women give women a bad name.   And you've got
to wonder:  is she in love with YOU...or your MONEY.

   People make the mistake of trying to find love in others without
finding it in themselves first.    We are all anxious to fall in love,
because it's a waste of life to move through it without love, and
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
because love makes two people into one, an unbeatable team.  Under
the most rewarding circumstances, love is the accurate estimate and
supply of another's needs, which are then cherished, even when those
needs involve wet noodles and ancient Celtic rituals.  ;)

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=97

Message #97
From: STACY 467
To: Mickey 11
Date: 11-23-92 20:33:53
Subject: It's better to...

   I don't agree that it is better to be with someone than with no
one at all.  LOve comes in many forms, not always in the shape of
a lover. If I don't happen to be dating someone at a certain point
in time, I don't go looking for someone to fill the empty half of
bed, I sleep diagonally amd wait.  If the Creator has deemed it necessary
for me to be on my own, I may ask why but I don't get upset by it
any more.
        I tried the "I'll date him just cuz he's the only one available
right now" route and all I got was a shallow experience. It didn't
even get to the friendship phase. When I'm not in a relationship
I use the time to work on myself, figuring that's what the Creator
had in mind for me. If there is some other meaning, I'll find out
when the time is right.
        On the flip side, I don't hole up in my apartment and wait
either. One sure way to meet someone you're interested in is to do
the things that interest you anyway, and see who else is there. Think
about the things you want in a partner and don't compromise your
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
standards. It may take a while, but would you rather wait a while
for the right one or have a few flings and risk missing when they
come along?
        AIDS has surely tainted the way we all search for that special
someone. Given the risks, I'd rather wait until I'm sure there is
something substantial to the relationship before risking life and
my job on a "maybe."

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=98

Message #98
From: Leslie 404
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 12-09-92 15:11:33
Subject: Men in love

     What I would like to know is, how is it that men fall in
love so quickly, and yet take so long for commitment?
You know, they say that men fall in love first, and take longer
to recover from break-ups.   Women, they say, fall in love more
slowly, and take splits harder, but recover more quickly.  My
own experience verifies this.    But if men fall first, why
does it take them so long to commit to a relationship?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=99

Message #99
From: Alex 27
To: Leslie
Date: 12-09-92 16:32:12
Subject: love/commitment

I didn't realize there was any connection between love and
commitment?! Are you not speaking about two entirely different
subjects? Love is not a pre-requisite to commitment, and vice-versa.
I think that love is Not a means to an end, such as marriage. Love
is an end, in and of itself. There's no such thing as Conditional
And I belive you're mistaken, I've never heard of any study that
shows one sex to "fall" in love faster than the other. And of course,
no psychologist in his right mind would ever be so bold as to
prepose that anyone could "fall" into love in the first place!
"Falling in love" is a mental game that children (short and tall
both) play. On the other hand, mature adults  CHOOSE, by their own free
will, to build or create a relationship. And there's no reason to
believe that either sex is more capible of, or inspired to, build
that relationship faster than the other.

Love can be expressed in an infinite number of forms. Perhaps
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
you think that a man's love is incomplete until it results in
commitment (marriage)? If so, then perhaps the incompleteness may not
lie in his love but, rather, in your inability to recognize his
form of love... it may not be expressed the same way as yours, and
it may not have a goal of commitment attached to it, but it is
none-the-less as strongly felt.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=100

Message #100
From: Mickey 11
To: Leslie 404
Date: 12-11-92 10:47:01
Subject: In & Out and In & Out.....

  ........No, this won't be a puter plug for hamburgers........

  .....Sounds like the kinda pop-psych you see in rag mags like Cosmo.
       No joke.....   in describing the editorial content of this
       month's Cosmopolitan, the cover includes these brilliant bits
       of vocabularly....  "blooey"  and "fraidycat"

  ..........Cosmo directs itself at the contemporary, liberated,
            competent working woman, and then proceeds to treat
            her like a neurotic, helpless little girl.   Yet ya
            never see a woman ridiculed for reading Cosmo the way
            ya do men for reading Playboy.    I'll stack up the
            editorial and literary content of any issue of Playboy
            against any issue of Cosmo any day!

  ....Commitment.....  otherwise known as "the big 'C' word"....hah!
      Seems like the sexes approach this issue entirely differently.
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
      Men prefer to make a love affair an interlude, while women yearn
      to make it a career.      Men always want to be a woman's first
      love, while women have a more subtle instinct....  to be a man's
      last romance!        The distinction begins to manifest itself
      the first time a couple has sex.     Women view it as something
      of a commitment in itself, as well as a means to a larger end.
      Men, compelled by animal imperatives of "conquest", view it
      as a end, not a means.      Thus we get Mickey's CompuCupid
      Codicil of Ways & Means.....  The chief effect of love is to
      drive a man half crazy,  while the chief effect of marriage
      is to finish the job!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=101
=> c

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=101

Message #101
From: Leslie 404
To: All
Date: 02-05-93 10:08:53
Subject: creative gift giving

      With Valentine's Day a week away, here is a question for all
you romantics.     Why are men so often so unoriginal in their gift
giving?    How many of you guys give flowers and chocolate every
year?   How many have this in mind again this year?    Don't get me
wrong.   We love roses and flowers.     Now, the chocolate most of
us can do without! :)     The point is that when you're married, or
when you've been dating the same person for awhile, things can get
stale, not the least of which is originality in gift giving.
My ex-husband once gave me a GIFT CERTIFICATE for Valentine's Day!
It seems to me that nothing shows less thoughtfulness than a gift
      What's good for the gander, is good for the goose, in this case.
Girls, this works both ways!    The suggestion here is for more
creativity in gift giving, not just at Valentine's Day, but at every
holiday, or no holiday.    When was the last time you gave something
nice to your significant other simply because it was Friday, for example?
      And rather than just GIVE a THING, how about DOING something
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
nice for her/him!     The possibilities are limited only by your
imagination.     Like maybe a surprise weekend get-a-way.   Pack his/her
luggage in secret, and surprise them at work Friday afternoon, to
be whisked away for the weekend.    And speaking of work, if you do
plan to get VD flowers guys, have them sent to her at work rather
than just waiting at home.   It's a nice touch that most women will
really appreciate.    Likewise, singing telegrams and other public
displays of love are always touching.
      How about a dinner date at the restaurant where you had your
first date?    How about a train trip for two to your favorite local
city, like Santa Barbara, Las Vegas, or San Diego?   Or a quick plane
ride up to San Francisco, dinner for two at Fisherman's Wharf?
Glamour photos make a fun romantic gift.   A "beefcake" shot for her,
and a "cheesecake" shot for him.     Or rather than buying anything,
how about MAKING something yourself?     Are you an artist, seamstress,
woodworker, writer, or have any other skill or craft?   Then create
something for your significant other.   It's the most thoughtful kind
of gift.
      All that's just off the top of my head.   Maybe others here
have other more creative gift giving ideas.   Whatever you do, don't
fall into that rut of unimaginative gift giving.   Do something different
for the One you love!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=102

Message #102
From: Laura 466
To: David 40
Date: 02-05-93 14:01:46
Subject: typical male

Dave, I think that Leslie's ideas were great. Often times men give
women lame, or typical gifts, or worse yet they buy their significant
other some trashy nighty outfit, and act like they've spent so much
time and thought on the woman. Get real, sexy undies are for the
man's pleasure. Don't act like it is such a sacrifice. It's mnuch
better if the woman buys the outfit for him, than him for her. Next
time try a more sentimental or special VD present. Perhaps a quiet
spot on the beach with a blanket and some wine, or flowers sent ot
work is often nice... or best of all, why not call up that special
someone and for no apparent reason at all, in the middle of the day
just say those three little words we all love to hear (and not "wanna'
have sex", Dave) just kidding! Anyway, great thoughts Leslie... I
think I'll try and be more original this year.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=103

Message #103
From: Mickey 11
To: Leslie 404
Date: 02-06-93 11:29:09
Subject: Gift-Giving Geese....

  .......I'm with you.........
         .....Originality and creativity are the keys to truly
                 thoughtful gift giving........

  .......Giving a gift certificate is about as impersonal as a
               gift can get...........

  .......Of course, women are nearly as guilty whenever they give
               the proverbial cop-out gift of a necktie to a man.

  .......Give something different.....  do the unexpected........
               Or just put a new twist on the traditional gift.......
                   Like the guy who gave his girlfriend a giant tin
                     of heart candies......buried somewhere in which
                       was a diamond heart pendant........

  .......Or like last year at Cathy & Admiral's Wedding.......
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
         .....They had not planned on having a Limo for the big day.
                 So my gift was quite a surprise when it rolled up
                    to the driveway.........

  .......As DigiDave mentioned, kidnapping is always a fun surprise.
             And Boudoir Photography is a hot gift these days........
                 I just did a shoot for a lady whose husband has a
                    thing for Cher......    So she wanted to mimic a
                       shot of one of Cher's hottest posters, blow it
                          up poster-size, and give it to him for a VD
                             gift.....  singularly creative!

  .......Of course, one of the best things you can do for Valentines
            this year is join your binary buddies at our VALENTINES
               PUTER PAJAMA PARTY and WINE TASTING next Saturday........

  .......Still in all.....
            ....If you want to give the gift that keeps on giving......
                    Give a pregnant cat..............

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=104

Message #104
From: Sysop 1
To: CReffers
Date: 02-21-93 00:43:08
Subject: NEW  REFEREE !!

 The proverbial Battle of the Sexes......  like WrestleMania, it's
 an unwon and unwinnable myth that mocks anyone who wastes more than
 a few spare moments on it.     And just like WrestleMania, no head
 lock lasts very long.   Cuz as we all know, love is a tie that binds
 that which marriage buckles together.

 As gruntbrained as it may be to speak of the superiority of one sex
 over the other, still there's no end of misinformation and frustration
 out there.....   lost Lolitas and dazed dudes... befuddled winners of
 the Nobel Passion Prize for Masochism.     Which is precisely where
 CRef's en & Women subboard comes in.

 Here those of you in the Fast Lane for Flipsville can co-mingle, like
 the funds in Charles Keating's bank accounts, or like E.Coli bacteria
 and Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers.     The  board is our forum not
 only for new user introductions, but for digital discussions on this
 proverbial Battle of the Sexes......  expressive electronic eloquence
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
 on society, dating, sexuality, loving, surviving, and the smoothest
 handcuffing techniques!

 The CRef Referee in charge of this forum is CompuCutie4.
 It is my pleasure to introduce a brand new  board Referee.
 Cristina has taken over as CompuCutie4, and promises binary brilliance
 and electronic eloquence.      Like all our subboard Refs, Cristina
 enjoys level <8> unlimited access and Co-Sysop status.    Please welcome
 our new CompuCutie, and share your puter posts with her and the rest of
 us here on CRef's en & Women board.    Have fun gang!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=105

Message #105
From: Compucutie 4
To: all
Date: 02-21-93 12:29:01
Subject: It's game time!

What an honor it is to be this boards ref!

The subjectiveness of this particular board gives us all an
opportunity to express ourselves without risking or fearing
being proved wrong...  insane and cold perhaps, but not wrong!
On the other hand, we can share our romantic/sexual/idealistic
and loving self without worring about getting our feelings
trampled upon as so often happens in our society.

This unique board requires us to be bold and honest...
        To search within ourselves...
               To stand for what we believe...

For that is the only way for us to profit from these discussions.
Truly understanding the opposite sex is the key to a wonderful
relationship.  How many times have we heard: "Why is she doing
that?" or "What is he thinking?" Let's resolve our differences here...
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

In the past we have talked about commitments, superiority, HIV
testing, smoking, marriage, gifts, love, etc...  there is so much
out there...

I have a question for y'all:
How does a man decide whether or not to pick up a date or meet
them at a pre-arranged place?  How does he decide whether to open
up doors or pick up the tab?

I realize a lot rests on the man's shoulders so I am curious as to

Does he just do his own thing and  hope that his date
doesn't mind, or do they change according to who they are taking out?

In dating I have seen many things, and the differences make it all
such a guessing game.  I've been told that "back in the old days"
there was no question, the man did it all.  But times they be a
changing, and one doesn't know what to expect.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=106

Message #106
From: Cristina 77
To: David 40
Date: 04-02-93 12:51:24
Subject: size...

It's not the size of the wand, but the magic in it...

It's not the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean...

It's not the size of the pen, but the penMANship...

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=107

Message #107
From: Irma 269
To: all
Date: 04-15-93 14:43:08
Subject: Intro

Hello everyone!  Glad to be on the Board.  If any of you need a massage
feel free to write me a private message here.  I am a licensed massage
therapist trained in Swedish/Esalen, Acupressure and Polarity Therapy.
 I look forward to hearing from you.

        A little about me...I have spent all my years   in So.
California.  I enjoy music, film, art and poetry.  I study alternative
and holistic healing therapies and am very interested in Chinese
Five Element Medical Theory and Ayurvedic Medicine from India.

                                         See Ya...Irma

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=108

Message #108
From: CompuCutie 4
To: Everyone
Date: 04-25-93 22:49:58

 Here's an interesting  topic that y'all may enjoy comparing and
 commenting upon.    It's the Sex Survey of American male habits
 released last week.    You may have read or heard about it.
 Excerpts have been printed in all the papers and news magazines.

 Using a federal grant, the Alan Guttmacher Institute conducted
 a confidential survey of 3,321 men between the ages of 20 - 39.
 Among the survey's findings :

 *  23% of the men had had 20 or more sexual partners in their lives.

 *  28% reported having had only one, two, or three partners.

 *  The median number for all respondents was 7.3 partners.

 *  Only 2.3% reported having ever had any type of homosexual experience.

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
 *  Only 1.1% reported being exclusively homosexual.

 *  25% said they had used at least one condom in the preceding month.

 *  15% of the men thought using a condom suggests you have AIDS.

 *  28% reported having had at least one group sexual experience.

 *  4.6% of the men said they were still virgins.

 This study was one of the largest ever undertaken of male sexual
 behavior, and was published in the journal Family Planning Perspectives.
 Several interesting facts were revealed.    As men become older, they
 become more sexually experienced, but less sexually interested.
 The study confirmed that the condom has indeed become a common aspect
 of sex once again.     And the study's figures on homosexuality are
 far lower than the landmark Kinsey study conducted in 1948.   Since
 then the generally accepted figure for homosexuality has been 10%.
 This study indicates that only 2.3% of men have ever had any type of
 homosexual experience.

 Any comments, questions, comparisons, or self-revelations?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=109

Message #109
From: Brant 12
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 04-26-93 06:58:59
Subject: Jokes and Sex

    I assume, Cristina, that the reason most women find that joke
offensive, and most men look over their shoulders before laughing,
is cuz the joke's humor is based on the assumption that the reason
that women get battered (and fried) is entirely their fault, and
even implies justification for the male's actions.....I won't say
man, cuz real men don't hit women.....

     ...course if real women don't hit men either, then is it ok
to hit back a female who hits you?    ....rhetorical only, here.....

      Very interesting survey, Cristina....did it say what sort of
sampling technique Guttmacher used?  Did he achieve the proverbial
"probability sample", that all sex researchers have wet dreams about?

    Kinsey invented a "100% response" sampling technique, one of
the many innovations he used, whereby he would go around and ask
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
groups to participate in his survey, but only if they all agreed
that everyone in the group would answer.  So when a given church
group or fraternity would agree to answer, they all participated.
Kinsey never said what percentage of groups refused to participate.

    Refusal rates are the bane of sexual surveys: they are the first
source of bias, and therefore the first thing you should check when
you study sexual statistics.  Hunt's survey in the 70's (I think)
had an  80% refusal rate, which means that of 10 people he asked,
8 refused to answer.  Obviously that can skew the results, as the
more prudish people refuse to participate.

    The famous Shere Hite report, much lauded by feminists and held
up as justification for "men are pigs", had a 96% refusal rate, and
that was even when she mailed her survey to primarily feminist groups
such as the National Organization for Women and Ms magazine subscribers.

     I know Cristina just left about a half hour ago for a week in
Sacramento......but did anyone else see what Guttmacher's survey
method was?

                                               Sex Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=110

Message #110
From: Alex 27
To: all
Date: 04-29-93 22:49:55
Subject: Women in the military

Any of you have an opinion on the new additon of women into combat
roles in the military? I was really offended to hear some of the
backlash that followed the announcment of the new rules. For
example, I heard one gov't official say that "...americans are not
ready to see their wives and daughters paraded down the middle of
Baghdad." --the implication being that americans ARE ready to
see their husbands and sons being paraded there. How sick that sounds
to me... to hear that mens lives are valued less than womens'. What
a bunch of sexist cr*p. I want to see women in the military and I
want to see as many women be tortured and die in combat as do
men. I feel that when men are the only ones involved in wars, and
when at the same time men's lives are undervalued, then this country
will keep on entering wars on whimsical terms. I hope that with the
new female presence, then perhaps americans will be less likely to
enter new wars so lightheartedly.

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=111

Message #111
From: Jeff 25
To: Alex 27
Date: 04-29-93 23:19:58
Subject: Women in combat...

Is such a noble idea.  The biggest problem I see is the inherent
society-driven-in subconscious concept of keeping women from danger.
You can be as enlightened and progressive thinking as anybody, but
that little tiny reptillian part of your subconcious says, "No WAY!"
and that, my friend, is gonna screw things up in combat.  I just
cannot see us being able to get away from that, no matter how much
we want to.  "Women and children first" is so ingrained into our
DNA it ain't even funny.  And that little fact is going to be a supreme
wrench in the whole works.

I think it'd be a great idea, if it could be made to work.  I do
not think it can be made so.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=112

Message #112
From: Cristina 77
To: Alex 27
Date: 05-01-93 16:03:16
Subject: women in combat...

I have no problem with women in combat...
If they want to put on camies and defend their country, more power
to them.  They have just as much of a right to sign up as men do.
My problem comes in with the possibility of DRAFTING women into combat

It takes a special type of woman to join the armed forces.  Where
many are very normal, most have the reputation of being dikes or
sluts thriving in a male dominated profession.  The main stipulation
in drafting women would have to be... if they are pregnant they don't
go... but after they have the kid, would they be forced to go then?

Somehow I can't visualize the typical 100 pound "porsche" girl witha
rifle in hand, trecking through rugged terrain, having to make life
threatening group decisions.

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=113

Message #113
From: Alex 27
To: Cristina 77
Date: 05-03-93 19:57:03
Subject: Women in combat

Cristina:   "It takes a special type of woman to join the armed

Uh, but don't you also think that it takes a special type of man
to join the armed forces ? Or are you being sexist and thinking
that all men just have this Natural inclination to join such an
organization? --much less do you think that all men have the ablility
to perform the required combat role well, just because of their

Also don't forget that women --inc your "100lb porshe girl" type--
have been in combat for many moons already. For example, the
Viet Cong used women; Isreal drafts women; The ancient Amazons had
armies exclusively of women; The ancient Sweedish armies were
co-ed and even had all female brigades --which, btw, were greatly
feared by other (male) armies!

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=114

Message #114
From: Brant 12
To: Jeff 25
Date: 05-04-93 22:55:05
Subject: Women in the military.....

       Jeff, many of your feelings about women being introduced into
combat roles in  the military are widely shared in this country,
and I think you're trying to present them in a non-sexist way.....

     BUT, when blacks were introduced into the military in a
non-segregated role, the arguments against them were almost identical
to yours against women.....and I don't think anyone today regrets
that landmark progressive decision....esp General Powell.....heh

     Ya, Chris, I've heard of the one-breast-less Amazons, cuz that
one got in the way of the twanging bowstring....and I believe most
historians agree they were fictional.....

     I see no problem with women jet fighter pilots, or helicopter
pilots...and if a woman can carry a gun and fight as well as the
minimum required of a male soldier, then I say let her do it if she
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c'll be a while before they draft women into the trenches,
tho, I'd say..... for sexual harassment, it'll be no different than with
gay soldiers....everyone has the right to life without sexual harassment,
and the responsibility to stand up for themselves as much as possible,
and not cry "litigation" at the drop of the hat.....


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=115

Message #115
From: Leslie 404
To: All
Date: 05-05-93 13:20:54
Subject: Pleasurable reading

   Has anyone here seen for sale the new romance novel they have
been talking about on Mark & Brian the past few days?   It's
called "The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty" and it's apparently
quite delicious.

   Since producer Nichole confided to Mark & Brian that she
literally "got off" on the book while laying in the sand at
the beach, there has been a run on the book.    A stream of
women have been calling in with similar stories.    Now the
book is nowhere to be found.     I've checked the bookstore
near work here, and two grocery stores with large romance
libraries.   Nada.     I'm not sure who the author is, but
if anyone has heard of its whereabouts for sale, please let
me know.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=116

Message #116
From: Chris 378
To: Leslie 404
Date: 05-06-93 17:25:32
Subject: CofSB

Believe the author of that is Anne Rice, of "Vampire Lestat" et al
fame. Have seen the book on my brother's bookshelf in a boxed set
with two others by same - prob try Bookstar, if not in stock can
order (friend manager of same, so promote).

->It's what's left out that's telling<-

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=117

Message #117
From: Cristina 77
To: all
Date: 05-12-93 23:38:01
Subject: women in the military

This article came out in the newspaper a few days ago:
"Army's best drill sergeant is no brute"

    "WASHINGTON - in a about-face for the fire-breathing,
     order-barking sereotypical drill sergeant of yore,
     the Army has named a woman Drill Sergeant of the
     Year for the first time.

     "It's better to lead by example than intimidation
     and fear," said soft-spoken Staff Sgt. Jill Henderson,
     27, from Fort McClellan, Ala., who recently beat
     15 male colleagues for the honor."

The article goes on to point out that 263 of the 2,548 drill
sergeants are women.
Personally, I have a problem with the Fort being named after
General McClellan... how fitting that the fort is in Alabama!
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=118

Message #118
From: George 133
To: James 332
Date: 05-14-93 11:43:12
Subject: Sergeant Jill

    Welcome to the board, James.   I think you'll like it!

    As for women serving in the military, not only do I believe
that women should be "allowed" to serve, I feel that they should
be "obligated" to serve just the same as men.    How did it come
to happen in a society in which women claim equal rights that
only men get drafted?

    If women are going to enjoy the fruits of society, then they
ought to work to serve society.    But the same should be true
for everyone.    Immigrants come to mind here.     A generation
ago, John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for
you, ask what you can do for your country."     Precious little
of that sentiment survives today.

    I think everyone should serve our country for a stint.
Either in the military, or in social services, police, medicine,
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
environment, etc.     We should take all of our graduating 18 year
olds and welcome them into society with a year of service.   Not
only would it be beneficial to society, but it would give them an
opportunity to grow and mature before entering college or the
work force.    Same thing for immigrants.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=119

Message #119
From: CompuCutie 4
To: all
Date: 05-16-93 23:42:51
Subject: Older commitments!

"Devoted Bachelors Enjoy Life Without Marriage"

"E.N." wrote to Dr. Joyce Brothers about a concern over
what her chances were of getting a 48-year old bachelor
to marry her.

The Doctor writes back...

       "...Frankly, your chances of getting a 48-year-old
bachelor to the altar are not too good.  There are probably
a number of psychological reasons why he has so consistently
avoided legal commitment.
       "...Only about one out of six never-married men older
than 40 will ever marry.
       "...Waelher [psychologist] said that they told him
they ended their relationships because they feared losing
control over their sense of self-determination.
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
       "We know that often when people fear intimacy and
marriage, they're reflecting the failure they've observed
in their parents' marriages."

Should women go straight to asking about the relationship
the man's parents have in order to determine if the man
will ever commit?


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=120

Message #120
From: CompuCutie 4
To: kissers
Date: 07-13-93 22:27:13
Subject: Kissing

So are signs of love and desire really in someones kiss?
How much can a person tell from the way their partner kisses them?
If you don't like the way a person kisses, does that mean you should
        just end the relationship there?

Here is what Glamour had to say about these questions:

        "How Good is He at Kissing?"

"You probably haven't discussed someones kissing since junior high
school, but chances are you still judge him - at least in part -
by his kiss.  Like Julie, you may find yourself taking inventory:
"If my heart races and I barely notice his scratchy sweater, " she
says, " he's a good kisser.  If I am totally oblivious to the fact
that I am standing ankle-deep in snow, suffering back spasms because
he is a foot taller than I, he's great."

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
"Don wasn't sure that Amy was right for him until they kissed for
the first time.  "She was just the most incredible kisser - elegant,
sensuous, playful.  It was fun to kiss her and that made everything
feel right."  Laura concedes, "Sex is important, but what I really
love is kissing.  If someone is good at it, I could kiss him for

"Our first kiss was horrible."  says Lynn.  "He missed my mouth completely
and spent several seconds slobbering on my chin.  Then he practically
stuck his tongue down my throat.  It was such a turn-off that I was
convinced we were incompatible.  But something drew us back together,
and after we grew closer, the sparks really flew.  Our kissing became
fabulous, far and away the best I'd ever experienced.  We're married
now and kissing keeps getting better."


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=121

Message #121
From: CompuCutie 4
To: kissers
Date: 07-13-93 22:49:24
Subject: Kissing cont.

As for CReffers...

Out of some 12 refs that we have monitoring the boards, only one
sixth wrote down that they have a preference for deep wet kisses
that last for three days...

That sixth consisted of only men...

I am led to assume by these statistics mentioned above that
it isn't a "chick" thing to be overly concerned with kisses, and
also led to assume that it really isn't that important.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=122

Message #122
From: CompuCutie 4
To: all
Date: 07-13-93 23:12:11
Subject: More Kissing

Now comes the survey...

I would like y'all to respond via private E-mail the following questions:

What is it that women like men to do while kissing?

What is it that men like women to do while kissing?

We aren't talking major fore-play here...   just plain making-out.
All names will be confidential and only results will be published

Please have your multiple fetishes in by Saturday...

Why???  Because there is more to kissing than lip smacking!

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
        Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=123

Message #123
From: CompuCutie 4
To: all
Date: 07-19-93 09:59:48
Subject: Mo' kissing

I really appreciate all y'all who have already given my valuable
input for the kissing survey!

BUT...  I need more of you to participate... especially women...

The concensus among the men who have voiced their opinions feel that
women should be more aggressive...

        * Let's hear some response....    NOW! *

If you want them to know what you like but are too shy to do it one-on-one
then now is your chance to do it annonymously.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=124

Message #124
From: Tina 467
To: everyone
Date: 07-25-93 03:21:14
Subject: new user

hi. gotta type fast cause I am running outa time.  It is 3:15 am
and I am still up. (I am a night owl).  I am also 27, female, in
pretty decent shape (122 lbs) love to ride my bike, play tennis and
lift weights.  I read anything I can get my hands on and love animals.
Have 2 cats.  and last but never least, I am very (deliriously) happily
married. (gross, huh?) I am really shy (NOT) and ifyou write me I
will write back...only thing is I don't like blue mail (monochrome
screen) seriously, please keep it reasonably clean...looks like I
missed a great party!  Will have to make the next one...but I think
I'll keep my clothes on...heh...anyway, thats me in a nutshell (nuthouse?)
Happy to be here,

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=125

Message #125
From: Kim 270
To: Tina 467
Date: 07-25-93 18:26:05
Subject: Welcome

Hi tina.  Im kim270.  Welcome aboard.  Ive only been doing this a
for a while so Im pretty new too.  The happily married part sounds
great.  Im single but soon to be married also.  You may have read
the congrats announcement about me and Charlie35.  We hosted the
July excursion and it was a blast.  Really hope you can make the
upcoming luau.  These people are generally really great people and
its always fun.  Welcome aboard and hope to meet you and the significant
other sometime.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=126

Message #126
From: CompuCutie 4
To: Women
Date: 07-28-93 12:30:02
Subject: Kissing

The following are compilations from responses to the survey.
What men like women to do...

Top ten answers on the board:

1.   Holding, Hugging, Pressing bodies against each other.

2.   Light fluttering tongue.

3.   Groping.

4.   Aggressiveness is good... men don't want a "cold dead fish
                waiting for the man to make all the moves."

5.   Show enthusiasm, let it be known when there is something
                 that turns you on.

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
6.   Slightly opened mouth.

7.   There is no law limiting a woman to kiss and nibble only
                 the mouth... go for the neck and ears.

8.   Initiate kisses, even in public.

9.   Spontaneity is great, go for what feels good.

10. Medium pressure... no face smashing or attempts to go
                 for the heart.

Is there something you feel has been left out??
Inquiring minds want to know!

                         Feel free to post your comments.


-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=127

Message #127
From: CompuCutie 4
To: Men
Date: 07-30-93 12:29:01
Subject: Kissing

What women like men to do while kissing...

Top  eight answers on the board:

1.   Keep the first kiss conservative.

2.   Put passion into the kiss.

3.   Softness and tenderness.

4.   Playfulness.   (Eskimo kisses are cute)

5.   Grab a handful of hair.

6.    Facial caressing.

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
7.   Ear and neck nibbling.    (Keep the tongue out of the ear)

8.   Feel out upper body and waist.

Do y'all agree with these?


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=128

Message #128
From: Cristina 77
To: Laura
Date: 08-10-93 10:53:37
Subject: ...

Interesting article Laura...
TOWMA...   A group for "the other woman/man"...
two words....


It has even become a joke now to say:   "He's going
to divorce her soon and marry me."  Wake up!  It's
not going to happen.  Yet there are still tons of
women that actually go for it. Not only are they
being lied to, but they are lying to themselves.  No
wonder they need a support group, just hope that it
serves to make them realize their foolishness and
not to help them cope with the situation as is.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=129

Message #129
From: Brant 12
To: Laura 466
Date: 08-10-93 17:18:47
Subject: British Medical Journal article

      The QUALITY of semen has declined?

      What were the tests????

      The Taste Test?

      Shooting for Distance versus Accuracy, you make the call?

      Quantity?   Is more than a mouthful a waste?

      All kidding aside, that's very interesting.  One side effect of
industrialization is that the birth rate inevitably declines.  This is
usually attributed to working patterns, where the men and women have
less time and interest in families....but I'll betcha that another
contributing factor is physical condition: when men are out of shape and
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
don't eat right, their sperm count goes down.

     Velly intelistink.....I guess doing pushups is DOUBLY important
in regards to sex, eh?

                                                 Sex Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=130

Message #130
From: CompuCutie 4
To: Everyone
Date: 08-17-93 10:37:24
Subject: Sexually Aggressive Women

     Traditionally, almost every facet of social-sexual interaction
 between men and women is predicated upon male initiative.   From the
 initial contact, to dating, to intercourse, to marriage, our society
 seems to have designed things so that it's all up to the man.   This
 arrangement causes no end of frustration for both sexes.   It can not
 only be a burden for men sometimes, but they also miss out on the sweet
 pleasures of being the one "chased" sometimes, not to mention missing
 out on relationships with women who they had no notion were interested.
 For their part, women are reduced to sitting by the telephone, to playing
 coy games, often attracting unwanted attention while the real object of
 their interest sometimes seems clueless.

     But it doesn't have to be this way.   And not all women are satisfied
 with the traditional role.    When it comes to dating and sex, some
 women are far more aggressive.    Much more like men.    The question is,
 does this threaten men?    And does it threaten more "traditional" women?

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
     We have all seen women unafraid to approach a man in a nightclub,
 and ask him to dance.    Seen women who dance as though they are making
 love.    Seen women seducing a man in public.   And known women who are
 not shy about asking for exactly what they want in bed.    It seems to
 work for them.    But can it work for other women?   And do such
 aggressive women put men off?

     A friend typifies how many women feel:  "I don't have that much
 nerve.   I'm afraid of rejection.   It takes me a long time in a
 relationship to reach the point where I can initiate sex.   I could
 never imagine coming on to a man our first time together, or carry
 a condom in my purse.   I'd die of embarassment if anyone found out."

    Sexually agressive women suffer no such inhibitions.   She propositions
 men as easily as most women play coy, and doesn't hesitate to tell a
 partner exactly what she wants.     But being sexually aggressive does
 not translate into being promiscuous in the healthily agressive woman.
 And being healthy also means that her aggressiveness is not motivated
 by some neurosis.      Healthy women are agressive from libido, not
 from twisted outlooks on men.    And staying healthy in this era means
 at least serial monogamy and safe sex.

    So how is this healthy sexual aggressiveness accomplished?   For
 centuries, sexy dress and coy flirting have been standard toys in women's
 game of seduction.    The aggressive woman also displays her body in
 alluring attire.   But when it comes to behavior, she's more like a
 man  -  utterly straight-forward.    As one woman observes, "I shouldn't
 have to act subservient to get sex.    I'm fiercely independent, and the
 ways women typically attract men make no sense to me.   I can't fling
 my hair around and play hard to get.   And I never say no when I mean
 yes."     Other women behave more traditionally at first, becoming
 aggressive when the relationship becomes sexual:   "When we finally
 begin sleeping together, I completely let loose, initiating sex,
 introducing the toys, orchestrating the games."

    Frequently, talk becomes an outlet for women with a straight-on style.
 They find subtle ways to introduce sex into conversation.   Or comment
 to a man who among a party's guests they find attractive.   Men are often
 intrigued by a woman who is willing and able to discuss sexual topics in
 a meaningful, detached manner.    You can talk about books or articles
 that you have read, or social/sexual issues in the news.

    Being sexually aggressive means between the sheets too.  Gael Greene,
 author of "Delicious Sex", warns that most men will not respond well
 to drill-sergeant orders in bed.    Abrupt sexual demands may turn a
 man off, cause premature ejaculation, or impotence.     The sexually
 agressive woman tells her man exactly what she likes, and how to
 accomplish it.    "Men respond to hot and dirty talk.   Physical
 guidance is also helpful when he's close, but not quite there."
 Women who go after their own orgasm can actually be a relief to men.
 They may feel less pressure to "perform."     As women grow more
 mature and experienced, all this becomes easier.    Younger women who
 are not yet fully comfortable with their own sexuality tend to be
 more reserved.

    Does all this seem accurate, guys?   And do women feel comfortable
 with being sexually aggressive?    Does it turn men off when a woman
 initiates sex?    Do you think lowly of a woman who approaches you in
 a nightclub?   Share your own thoughts here.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=131

Message #131
From: Marian 489
To: CompuCotie 4
Date: 08-17-93 12:48:57
Subject: Agresive women...

...well, I personally like women who are aggresive...I'm not turned
off at all when a woman innitiates sex... that turns me on... But
{I can say the same for all the men... I'm still a novice at this
subject... (nice essay ther, CompuCutie...that would have taken me

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=132
=> c

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=132

Message #132
From: Alex 27
To: CompuCutie
Date: 08-18-93 21:45:52
Subject: Aggressive Women...

I find aggressive women to be a major turn-on... while, on the other
hand, I really find it a big turn-OFF to be around a woman who plays
the traditional passive role in every part of a relationship.
I tend to view a passive woman as being rather immature, and not
ready for (what I'd label as) a mature adult relationship of
equal give-and-take.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=133

Message #133
From: Brant 12
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 08-19-93 00:19:27
Subject: Aggressive Babes in Toyland....

     Personally, I like equality in a relationship.  I like women
who feel an equal right to initiate, and an equal responsibility
for dealing with the outcome.

    Aggressive women are a relatively new phenomenon on the American
social scene, however, and there are still some bugs to be worked
out.  One common problem is when a woman takes the initiative and
a guy isn't interested, the woman may not deal well with the rejection.
Where men are all too acquainted with rejection, and are expected
by all to deal with it (emotional repression, a male specialty),
a woman may lash out.

    Another pitfall for the modern aggressive woman is going overboard.
When a conservative woman steps out of character and say, pats a
man's butt, it's viewed as "cute" by everyone.  When a man pats a
woman's butt in the wrong context (a stranger, for example), it's
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
almost universally viewed as a crass maneuver.

     But it is the aggressive female who may take the initiative without
regard for propriety.  She can become a kid in a candy shop, grabbing
butts and cackling with glee, and there is little recourse men have
to offer.  Where a woman is trained to slap the offending male, this
is not available to men.  Even rebuffing sexual advances is a
new phenomenon for the American male, who as part of his masculinity
is traditionally expected to take on all comers, so to speak.

    So how should the modern woman comport herself?  The best way
is, whenever doubt exists, to turn the tables and ask how THEY would
feel.  Any behavior by women, if a woman would not want it done to
her by a man, is wrong for women as well.

    To the modern woman I extend a hand :  welcome down off that
pedestal...enjoy your new abilities, but be aware of the concomitant
responsibilities, and whatever you do, don't drag that pedestal along
behind you: there's no jumping on and off to suit a whim.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=134

Message #134
From: Kim 270
To: DAVID 470
Date: 08-19-93 14:12:05
Subject: Quality men,,,or lack of!!!!

I have to disagree with your comment about women not choosing to
marry because of a lack of "quality" men.  I think the world is full
of "quality men", however, it is not just quality that makes a lasting
and fullfilling relationship.  Because of our generations high stress
and pressured schedules I feel that compatibility is a much greateer
issue than is quality.  Finding someone compatible is alot more difficult
than finding someone with "quality"
Like myself, may of us have very full schedules and find it difficult
to find enough quality time to devote to "weeding out" all those
quality individuals who just arent compatible, just to find that
one quality individual who is.
I think with the diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, added to
the mobility of modern society, finding a compatible mate is becoming
increasingly more difficult and that as a rule, we are becoming lazy.
We no longer have time or patience to go throught the traditional
courting process and as females, we have determined that inspite
of popular belief, we dont "need" men to satisfy our basic primal
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
needs, (i.e. shelter, food, protection..etc.)
Quality men are abundant,,,I know quite a few of them...but only
1 of them do I choose to spend my life with...and thats an issue
of compatibility.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=135

Message #135
From: Leslie 404
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 08-22-93 23:07:15
Subject: Being aggressive

   While there may be a few men intimidated by aggressive ladies,
I think that most guys appreciate being on the receiving end
occasionally.    But just as women aren't accustomed to this
role, neither are men.   And their reactions may sometime be
interpreted as being threatened.    Over the years, women develop
finesse in dealing with all the invitations, advances, and come-ons.
Not so with men.    They may be taken a bit off guard when a lady
takes the initiative.   And that reaction can be interpreted wrong.

   Who really gets threatened by aggressive women are OTHER women.
In the competitive game of attracting male attention, women who
are not "playing by the rules" irritate those who are.   You should
hear just how gutteral the viscious sniping can get!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=136

Message #136
From: Mickey 11
To: Brant 12
Date: 08-23-93 10:19:24
Subject: The Puter Pedestal

  Such electronic eloquence.....  well said there, T Rex !
  I also appreciate women who aint afraid of initiating contact,
  whether it's a dance, a date, or sex......    But along with
  this equality seems to have come certain hypocrisies and
  pointed inequalities.     The "do unto others as you would
  have done unto yourself" barometer of appropriate behavior
  seems like a good one.... for both sexes.

  As for dragging the proverbial pedestal along......   I see this
  all the time, particularly in the workplace.   Where women have
  penetrated once male-only professions, they all too often seem to
  want their cake, and eat it too, demanding equality when that
  suits them, and perching themselves atop their pedestal when
  that suits them.

                                      Slap my face.....
                                      Or pinch my butt.....
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
                                      But don't do both........


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=137

Message #137
From: George 133
To: CompuCutie 4
Date: 08-25-93 11:05:03
Subject: Aggressive

      Confident in taking initiative - fine.   Pushy, however - no.
I don't like pushy women.   Probably no more than women like pushy
men.    And this applies to sex, as well as dating.    If ol' "willy"
is not in the hopping mood, it's not going to happen, and having your
woman pushing for sex only makes it worse.

      Your elements of aggressiveness include alluring attire, and
here I'm in total agreement.    Men like to see women in revealing,
attractive clothing.    This business of leaving things to the
imagination is overblown.    To really capture a man's imagination,
dress to kill.     But women more often seem to dress with other
women in mind, which means "playing by the rules" as Leslie said.

                                         Lonesome George

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=138

Message #138
From: Brant 12
To: Alex 27
Date: 10-05-93 12:38:54
Subject: wanna bet?

    I'll betcha ten bucks that the percentage of women who are self-
proclaimed feminists and are lesbian is higher than the percentage
of women who are NOT self-proclaimed feminists and are lesbian.

    I never said that the lesbian contingent was the MAJORITY of
the feminist movement, all I said was that the feminist movement
attracts women who have no need for men (lesbians), and women who
harbor a lot of anger and resentment against men.....

    Personally, I would count myself as a feminist, in the sense
that I believe women should be considered equals....not identical
to men, for each gender has its own strong and weak points....but
now that civilization has rendered most of the classical purposes
of physical strength unneccesary, women can take their place alongside
men as equals.

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=139

Message #139
From: Alex 27
To: Brant
Date: 10-05-93 14:00:09
Subject: ...

      --"...all I said was that the feminist movement attracts women
         who have no need for men (lesbians), and women who harbor
         a lot of anger and resentment against men."

  So basically your statement is saying that feminists
 may be divided into two catagories; lesbians, and heterosexual
(women) who are upset at the status quo (set by the men).
  I believe your mistake is to take the common view that the feminist
movement is comprised both of women, and for the benefit of women
(only). It's not. Excluding certain fringe groups, it's fair to say
that mainstream feminism is directed at the improved relations of
BOTH sexes. Hence, the movement's goal begs the question of why would
a movement aiming for benefits for both sexes, then include within
it a "lot of anger and resentment" against 1/2 of it's members?
  The point is that being feminist doens't imply nor necessitate hating
men. Hence I don't agree that feminism has ever encouraged lesbianism
as a 'necessary' means of independance from men, and therefore I
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
don't feel that lesbians are the only type of women to be attracted
to this movement. A female feminist can still have a need for men
and, vice-versa, a male feminist can still have a need for women.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=140

Message #140
From: Brant 12
To: Alex 27
Date: 10-05-93 20:06:06
Subject: read it again, Alex

     Come on, Alex, are you just trying to make this difficult?

     I never "divided feminism into two groups, lesbians and women
who have a lot of anger towards men", not even close....all I said
was that the feminist movement attracts these types of women, so
that the percentages of them are higher in feminist groups than in
the general population.   Like say there's maybe less than 5% of
the general population of women is lesbian....well, then what I was
saying is that there's a higher percentage of lesbians in the feminist
groups, particularly the radical fringe ones.

    Since when has the feminist movement goal been "an improvement
in relations between the sexes"????   I'd say the feminist movement
goal was more "improving the power position of women relative to
men in this society".

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
    And given the existence of lesbians (who don't need men sexually),
and the existence of women who harbor a lot of anger (for many reasons)
against men, they would be attracted to a movement that seeks to
establish a power base for women that is not dependent on men.

    To summarize and hopefully keep you from twisting things around
again :




      Sheesh, enough of this.....doesn't anyone else have an opinion?


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=141

Message #141
From: Stacy 67
To: Brant 12
Date: 10-05-93 22:21:47
Subject: Yea, someone else does

1. I am a feminist

2. I am not, nor do I intend to become, a lesbian

3. I do not hate men

4. Although they can be fun and interesting to have around, I do
   not NEED men in my life

5. If, as you say, you are a feminist, are YOU aspiring to become


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=142

Message #142
From: Stacy 67
To: Jeff 25
Date: 10-05-93 22:28:41
Subject: ^^^

        ROFL.......  How utterly P.C. of you!!!


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=143

Message #143
From: Laura 99
To: Stacy 67
Date: 10-06-93 04:10:52
Subject: Good points...

I too was wondering that since Brant was saying that feminists attracks
lesbians..and/or women who have an axe to grind with men...and that
he himself is a feminist...Well, what does that make him? Is he in
fact a man who has an axe to grind with men, and therefore likes
women, or perhaps a man potentially aspiring to become gay, or else
perhaps a female who had undergone the sex change to become a male
feminist? (Grin)...and as for Alex saying that he is a male feminist
and yet he has a need for he also implying that a male
feminist might NOT have a need for women..thus nulifying the reasons
to be a feminist at all? (G)

I personally am not a feminist, or a member of the ERA, or a woman's
libber, or a  lesbian....but I do not support blatent male favoritism,
or females who are unfairly treated. Perhaps there ARE a few more
Lesbians per population in a feminist movement, but there are also
more lesbians per population in San Fransisco..than in the US on
a whole. Its like comparing apples to oranges! You should compare
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
the number of lesbians in a female male-chauvinist group to a feminist
group before making such statements.....your control groups are FAR
too large diversified..and it would take years of studies and lots
of wasted tax-payers money to make such a generalized statement be
able to be factually supported! While there is some possible logic
behind such statements about this is still unsupported!

                                My two cents worth,


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=144

Message #144
From: Brant 12
To: Stacy 67
Date: 10-06-93 22:39:20
Subject: Are you guys just trying to make my life a living hell?

     WHEN did I EVER say that feminists aspire to become lesbians????

     I originally said I felt that was a "reactionary" view, thus
implying that I did not agree with it, neh?

     Besides, Stacy, you used to be gay, and now you're a straight
feminist, so what does that mean?


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=145

Message #145
From: Stacy 67
To: Brant 12
Date: 10-06-93 22:45:25
Subject: Since when...

        ...did you ever get the idea that I "used to be gay"?
If you refer to my general state of being as an upbeat, positive
thinking, optimistic person I will say that I still am that way.
If you imply that I was at one time homosexual you are quite mistaken.

        No accusations have been made by me, Brant, only asking a


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=146

Message #146
From: Admiral 13
To: All
Date: 10-08-93 20:18:07
Subject: Equality.

   Do we all consider the terms 'FEMINISM' and 'EQUALITY' interchangeable?

Couldn't a person be one, but not the other?


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=147

Message #147
From: Mickey 11
To: 12,27,67,etal
Date: 10-11-93 10:03:23
Subject: Grinding the Feminist Axe....

  From my experience, in college and at work, I have to concur
  with Rantus Brantus that the percentage of women who are
  lesbian is greater within the ranks of the various Feminist
  Organizations than the American population as a whole, and
  that many active feminists evidently have an axe to grind
  against men.

  Consider the recent feminist conference at the University of
  Chicago Law School, attended by such feminist luminaries as
  Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, the two women who have
  tried repeatedly in various legislative forums to get their
  anti-pornography bill passed.    The bill would authorize any
  victim of a sex crime to sue civilly, in addition to whatever
  criminal action occurs, not only the suspect, but the creator
  of any "pornographic" movie, book, magazine, TV show, or
  photographs that the suspect watched or read.    The 7th Circuit
  Court of Appeals said of their proposed law : "This is thought
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
  control.   It establishes an approved view of women, of how they
  may react to sexual encounters, of how the sexes may relate to
  each other."

  Anyhow, attendees at the Chicago conference lined up for buttons
  and posters before setting down to business.    A few samples of
  the feminist buttons offered :
    "So many men, So little ammunition"
    "Dead Men Don't Use Porn"
    "The best way to a man's heart is thru his chest"
  One poster offered depicted a bloodstained .45 caliber automatic
  handgun with the caption, "FEMININE PROTECTION."

  Dworkin asserts in a speech that men ejaculate as a method of
  marking and claiming women as their property.     MacKinnon, in
  her speech, argues that an erection "is neither a thought nor a
  feeling" but a weapon against women :  "Men come doing this.....
  Women being exposed, violated, humiliated, degraded, mutilated,
  dismembered, gagged, tortured and killed."     In a telling moment,
  a frenzied group of feminists physically ripped to shreds copies
  of Madonna's book "Sex".

  As extreme as these positions seem, they do inspire other women
  toward militantism.    Consider a recent event at the University
  of Maryland, where a group of women in a feminist art class
  posted billboards around campus with the heading :
  The billboards then featured a list of men's names.....  Every
  male name from the student directory to be exact.

  A seemingly contradictory, but still outrageous, chapter was added
  to the feminist manifesto by last year's book "The Erotic Silence
  of the American Wife" in which author Dalma Heyn encourages married
  women to have extramarital affairs.    Gloria Steinem hailed the
  book, saying "marriage will never be the same."     Feminist writer
  Barbara Ehrenreich said, "Heyn reminds us that for women, as well
  as men, sex is a fundamentally lawless creature, not easily confined
  to a cage."

  And yet caging sex in the workplace has been one of the greatest
  and most impacting of Feminist achievments in recent years.  In
  a nation supposedly ruled by law and equality, in which most legal
  findings are based on the "reasonable person" doctrine, Sexual
  Harassment is now legally defined by the "reasonable woman" doctrine.
  Extraordinary!    And that definition grows in scope all the time.
  Referring to the E.E.O.C.'s code on sexual harassment, news columnist
  John Leo writes : "Driven by feminist ideology, we have constantly
  extended the definition of what constitutes illicit male behavior.
  Very ambiguous incidents are now routinely flattened out into male

  Modern militant feminism has moved far beyond the obsolete issues
  of equality.    Brant's analysis is correct that for many active
  feminists the stuggle has little to do anymore with sex or equality.
  Today it's about power.    Shrieking lezbo feminist fanatics like
  Dworkin and MacKinnon have made it clear that it's no equality of
  power they seek, but rather a tyrannical domination.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=148

Message #148
From: Brant 12
To: Cristy, Laura, Alex, Stacy
Date: 10-16-93 12:09:53
Subject: Feminist leadership.....

     So, Laura, what do you think of Mick's long and  well-researched
post on feminism?   Do you agree with the feminist leaders Dworkin
and MacKinnon, that a militant response towards men is the answer?

    Does wearing a t-shirt that says "So many men, so little ammunition"
assert your female power?   Cristy, do you think an erection is a
"weapon against women"??   These statements are being made by the
feminist leaders.....or are there other feminist leaders with whom
you agree more?   What are their names?  What are their views?

    Do you self-proclaimed feminists out there think that after a
sex crime occurs, like rape, that the victim should have the right
to civilly sue the publishers of Playboy if the perpetrator looked
at one before he committed the crime?

    Alex, how would you feel about your name being posted on a billboard
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
at CSUF under the heading "Potential Rapist"?   Don't you think these
militant feminists are violating your rights by posting this sort
of broad-band public accusation based only on your gender?

    Stacy, do you think that sexual harassment should be defined by women
only, or by a view that both genders concur with?

                                           Anti-Feminazi Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=149

Message #149
From: Brant 12
Date: 10-18-93 20:05:27
Subject: another slant on same sorta topic.....

     It started with the stewardesses a while back : they were sueing
their employers for harassing them about their weight, even docking
their pay if they exceeded a certain level....., 3 cocktail waitresses at a casino in Las Vegas are sueing
their employer for "harassing them if they gained weight, and for
requiring them to wear skimpy costumes, and dangerous high heels".

     The stewardesses seemed to me to be a tough case to call.  About
20  years ago the rules requiring them to be SINGLE were abolished,
and now you have all sorts of old, dumpy, ugly matronly stewardesses.
But so what, you say?   They're hired to bring you food and take
care of you, not titillate and be sex objects.   Why should it matter
how much they weigh?

     Well, first off those are NARROW aisles they work in, and for
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
one I don't want some big old butt staring me in the face when I'm
traveling, thankyouverymuch.  But I'm a sexist pig-dog, you say.
Hmmmm.....this may be true.   But what do MOST of the flying, paying
public want?  Can the individual customers communicate their wishes?
Can anyone say : "Whoa, you're WAY too fat, we'll NEVER take off
until you get to the BACK of the plane!"   I think not.
(Similar situation with non-smokers rights : it's very hard to stand
up for health and clean air on an individual basis, which is a large
part of why anti-smoking laws are being legislated.....halellujah!)

    Can we poll and survey the customers?  Most similar research
shows that most American men prefer reasonably slim women to serve
them, or work with them, and that even American women are prejudiced
against fat people, in almost any situation you name.

    But let's move to the cocktail waitresses.  These women are
definitely HIRED as sex objects.  Any other view is sheer naive idealism.
They agree at hiring time to wear skimpy outfits, with lots of tits
and ass showing, wear a lot of makeup, sometimes put their hair into
certain styles.  Maintaining the figure they were hired in at would
seem a reasonable request.  (I just remembered about some fat woman
sueing the Rusty Pelican restaurant a while back, for not hiring
her to be a cocktail waitress.)
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

    If they accept the job AS A SEXUAL OBJECT, then can they then
object to the management's requirements to maintain their sexual
appeal?  What about the loss of business if they give in to fatness,
when all the paying horndoggy men take their liquor and tip money
elsewhere?   Are they going to sue the customers for being sexist?
Are they going to sue the men for having any sexual desires whatsoever?

    What's next, fat prostitutes sueing for business?  "I'm sorry
sir, but if you don't patronize me for at least 10% of your business,
I'm going to sue you for discrimination against fat women."

    What's next, the Bovine Strippers Union?

                                                  Anti-FaT Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=150

Message #150
From: Laura 99
To: Brant 12
Date: 10-19-93 00:06:44
Subject: C'mon....

I can understand some of your views....but what's next...taking
all the fat people of the world onto a deserted island and starving
them? O.K. when you want a cocktail waitress or a prostitute...Sure
you are looking for an attractive woman to serve you. If you work
at a top-less better have the T&A to handle it. Same with
modeling and the like. BUT, a stewardess...while they should appear
somewhat attractive and presentable..I don't think that they should
all look like centerfolds! I'm sorry, but not ALL travelers on airlines
are Horny men....there are a few women who fly and the like. Should
they require that the male pilots run out down the aisle during the
flight and do a little male-exotic dance for the female passengers!
Next thing you know...only babe, sexy people can have any job that
deals with the public. I think of stewardesses as more business type
people rather than sex symbols. I want them to feed me the right
meal, and make the drinks the way that I like them...and give me
a pillow when I want to sleep, and headsets to hear music. But that
is IT! I don't want them to accompany me home, and tuck me in! If
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
you get a stewardess or steward who looks professional and competent,
then I am matter their weight. Not necessarily OBESE
or anything...but presentable!
My advice to you...if you get some fat girl serving your meal...when
she turns to serve the other side of the aisle...don't look in her
direction...thus avoiding the big butt shot!
This whole topic can shift both ways...what about skinny, scrawny
men..or anarexic women! Human skelatons don't look to hot either!
So, hire people for their skills and decent presentability...don't
judge everyone just on their outsides....because truly many of the
best people I know...aren't those with the perfect bodies..on the
contrary...they seem to often be SOOOO obsessed with their looks,
that they are annoyingly vain! And I cannot work with those types!


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=151

Message #151
From: Brant 12
To: Laura 99
Date: 10-19-93 11:46:34
Subject: GET OVER IT?????


     That I have a preference?   Yes, it is SOO much more Politically
Correct to have no opinion whatsoever.

     It would seem to me that what you stated in your post is largely
the same in content to mine : I said that the stewardess issue is
"tough to call", and was examining the issue, as to whether or not
stewardesses should be stringently required to be sexually attractive,
or should merely be constrained to "reasonable size in order to fulfil
their job requirements".

    We agree that cocktail waitresses and prostitutes are justifiably
under more pressure to be sexually attractive, and should accept
these constraints.  I'm surprised you accept that fatness is less desirable
in those contexts.
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

    I suppose the same argument could apply to "skeletal" exotic
dancers of either sex.   So the argument is not based on fat/not-fat,
but more towards an ideal weight, centered on sexual attractiveness.ˇ
    So again, what should I "get over"?  Are you implying that I,
personally, am overly obsessedˇwith looks?  Or that I am "annoyingly

    I would counter that this is a public discussion of general issues,
not a personal battle where private characteristics are fair game.ˇˇ

    This is not a place to discuss how you do your makeup, or I do
my hair.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=152

Message #152
From: Karen 204
To: Brant 12
Date: 10-19-93 13:57:45
Subject: Equal Sexuality

    I have always believed in total equality between the sexes,
in those areas of life where it is appropriate, desirable, and
beneficial.    The workplace is one such realm.
    Any friend or aquaintance I've ever known who was an active
feminist was unsatisfied with even that basic limit.   They aim
for some more total, idealistic equality that completely excludes
hetero-sexuality.    Yes, I do think many of them are either
lesbian, or have some real emotional difficulties.
    We are all sex objects, men and women both.    But because you
can fairly view a woman or a man, in one realm of life, as a sex
object, does not mean you cannot view him/her in another light in
another realm.      I may dress to impress for a night out.   And
I may dress to impress at work.     Different realms, different looks.
That's why I don't automatically view another woman's sexually
exploitive activity as demeaning to all women.
    But the workplace is different.    This is a realm for competence,
not sexuality.   That's how I want to be taken at work.    Sexuality
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
is inappropriate in the working realm, and it's much more of a problem
for women.    Look how many more women's jobs than men's jobs involve
sexuality.   How would YOU like to be hired or fired or moved based
on some female boss's opinion of your sexuality?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=153

Message #153
From: Stacy 67
To: all
Date: 10-19-93 17:06:19
Subject: weight limitations

        Have an old friend who's a stewardess, and when she started
working for United many moons ago, they told her that her weight
couldn't go above a certain limit.  This was NOT because they wanted
her to look like a sex object or because they were being descriminatory,
but because there are STRICT weight limitations for what planes can
carry.  Her extra 5-10 pounds meant that much less in carry-on or
checked luggage capability for the passengers.  Also, it was not
only the women who were held accountable, but also the men; and not
just stewards/stewardesses, but also the pilots.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=154

Message #154
From: Brant 12
To: Stacy 67
Date: 10-21-93 00:10:18
Subject: Sexuality and feminism.....

      Very interesting, Stacy, puts a whole new light on the
stewardess / weight issue....makes it a lot less sexist, eh?

      Karen, I agree wholeheartedly with your post about the workplace
being a place where the purpose is competence on the job, not how
sexually attractive you are.....but we weren't talking about your
average office job, we started with stewardesses and moved into cocktail
waitresses and prostitutes...... you really think that sexual attractiveness is not a
key characteristic in these last two arenas?   If a woman accepts
a job as a cocktail waitress knowing exactly what sort of attire
goes with the job, does she have a right to complain about it later?

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
       New point : recent article in Playboy mag, titled "How to
make your woman better in bed".......what do you think, is it sexist?
Doesn't the word "make" imply some level of hapless manipulation?

      Seems sexist to me, pretty blatantly so....... think about this: you WON'T find it in Playboy, cuz
Playboy would never put such a sexist title on any article about
improving sexual relations......

      ....but you WILL find it in this month's Cosmopolitan mag!
"How to make your man better in bed" isn't it JUST as sexist?
Why aren't men picketing and boycotting Cosmo, and its sponsors?

Why don't women recognize that two sexist slurs don't make it right,
nor the world a better place to live.....Cosmo is full of such blatant
sexism....I remember one a while back : "Why women are smarter, stronger,
and BETTER than men".

      What IS this crap?   Is it revenge for all the perceived wrongs
that liberated Cosmo readers feel has been done to womankind?

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
     Doesn't it seem like women should exhibit behavior towards men
that they would want men to exhibit towards them?  Shouldn't they
demand that womens magazines show the same level of sexual fairplay
that women want to see in mens magazines?

     Perhaps we'll call it the Golden Rule of Sexuality : treat the
opposite sex as you would have them treat you.

                                                    Sex Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=155

Message #155
From: Mickey 11
To: Brant 12
Date: 10-21-93 13:17:23
Subject: Sex and the Cosmo girl.....

  Haha..... Clever rhetorical technique, hoser.......

  Reminds me of a survey I read several years ago concerning sexual
  bias and stereotyping in advertising.   Researchers independently
  studied groups of men and women for their perceptions and reactions
  to how the two sexes are portrayed in advertising.   Vast majority
  of women stated that Madison Avenue does paint females in a poor
  light.    And given transcripts of ads, cited some specific examples.
  Majority of women felt men were more favorably portrayed.   Trouble
  was, the transcripts both groups had been given had been deliberately
  twisted.... the roles had been reversed.    Conclusion is that we are
  all far more sensitive to perceived slights against us, or our own kind,
  while ignoring or shrugging off similar slights against others.

  Still in all....   I will stack up any year's worth of Cosmopolitan
  against any year's worth of Playboy.    For content, style, editorial
  integrity, quality fiction, and significant commentary, Playboy beats
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
  the panties off Cosmo.     Cosmo is a hack rag for advertisers, a
  monthly piece of fluff that endeavors to console, cajole, and connive
  it's feminine readership as if they were mindless twits.   Based on no
  particular foundation or position, Cosmo tries to be all things to all
  women.    It pigeon-holes men, while telling women that their qualities,
  feelings, and characteristics are boundless.    Everything is okay by
  Cosmo.      Don't believe it ?    I've subscribed to both mags for years.
  I have plenty of back issues to illustrate the point.    From cover to
  content, Cosmo is the most sexist rag I know.

  As for sex appeal on the job......   T Rex, I think you're on edgey
  ground here.    To what extent would you carry your argument that
  some jobs require tolerance of sexuality ?   Should a cocktail waitress
  have to tolerate drunken insults and butt pinching because that's
  part of her job ?    Should a prostitute have to tolerate getting
  slapped around cuz that's part of her job ?
  Should a wood chuck chuck wood cuz ya know Chuck would ?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=156
=> c 

Message #156
From: Brant 12
Date: 11-03-93 08:39:32
Subject: Men's Rights - when a woman is pregnant

     A friend gave me a Glamour mag the other day, to read an article
about computer programs that emulate a human therapist.  After I
read it, I was perusing the other articles (between sneezing from
all the perfume scents in the issue), and found a blurb about "Where
Men Stand", or men's rights in the pregnancy / abortion / adoption
equation.....thought it would be interesting to share here:

                          Where Men Stand

Nearly 1.6 million women in the U.S. choose abortions each year.
Twenty years ago, Roe vs Wade secured a woman's unimpeded right to
first-trimester abortion.  Planned Parenthood vs Danforth, three
years later, struck down the requirement of spousal consent.  Last
year, the Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood vs Casey that
even spousal notification was more of a hindrance than the American
constitution could allow.
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c

The pro-choice movement is reviled as the "pro-abortion movement"
by Operation Rescue, but it's called the "women's-choice movement"
by still another significant set: the men scattered across the country
who have struggled to have a say of their own.  Some have sought
injunctions to block abortions, only to be left mourning when the
law leaves them without permanent recourse.  Others, who would have
chosen adoption or abortion, have discovered a different kind of
powerlessness, retreating into detachment, ignominy or neglect as
styles of fatherhood.

While James Bopp Jr., the general counsel for the National Right
to Life Committee, acknowledges that the Casey decision has closed
the issue of seeking stays, the New York City-based National Center
for Men will file a class-action suit in U.S. district court later
this year, arguing that equal protection under the law necessitates
giving men the right during the first trimester to relinquish all
future financial responsibility to a child.

The thinking goes: if women have the right to bring a child into
the world without considering men's wishes, men should have the right
to waive the related responsibility.  Support for this legal position
has come from unlikely places.  Karen DeCrow, former president of
the National Organization for Women, has argued that "autonomous
women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect
men to finance their choice."  But while changes in law may free
a man's checkbook, the ties of kinship will continue to be forged
against his will.


    What do y'all think?  It would seem to me that if a couple chooses
to have sex, it is with equal consent and responsibility.  But if
the choice for baby vs abortion is strictly the woman's, with her
higher level of power in the decision should come a higher level
of responsibility.  If the man has no power in the decision, why
should he have to accept financial responsibility, which could cost
him a fourth or fifth of his after-tax income for the next 18 years?

                                                      Sex Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=157

Message #157
From: Robert 231
To: Brant 12
Date: 11-08-93 13:20:12
Subject: Sex Rex?

Yeah, that's a good point.   Why does the focus of all this legal
and moral wrangling center on WOMEN'S rights?    What about the Father?
Men should have equal say about abortions.    Doesn't Dad have rights
when Mom wants to abort their baby?

And what about the reverse?   When Dad does not want to be a Dad, but
Mom does?    It seems the way things are now, the woman has all the say.
There are lots of circumstances, particularly when the couple is not
married, that having an abortion might be preferred option.   Men should
have 50-50 input on that decision.     You're correct, it's just not
right to ask a man to pay child support for years for a child he never
wanted, and wouldn't have had, if the law was more equal in this area.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=158

Message #158
From: George 133
To: Robert 231
Date: 11-09-93 10:25:13
Subject: Financing their choices

     As has been observed on this screen before, society is a
contrivance of human invention.    The tenets of social arrangement
and interaction are mostly artificial constructs that often don't
reflect true human nature at all.     Consequently, we're constantly
confronted with the idiocies and hypocrisies of our daily lives.
This is another good example.

     It's interesting that N.O.W. supports the notion that men should
not have to finance the independent choices of women, because this
sure doesn't reflect the practical moral attitude of the majority of
American women.    Women have always expected men to support unwanted
pregnancies.    And under the welfare system, when dad splits, it's
all the taxpayers supporting them.     Women have long used pregnancy
as a tool to try to hook men, and save marriages.    If women believe
it's reasonable to require a man to support a child he doesn't want,
consider the equivalent reverse  -  that a dad alone gets to decide
if the mother should have an abortion.   She gets no input, and if
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
he so decides, then she has to pay.

     I can tell you from first-hand experience about another social
idiocy that's getting totally out of hand  -  "Sexual Harassment"
We are finally winding down from 6 months of unfortunate tension in
my corporate office, which all began with a sexual harassment complaint
by two discontented female employees.     Maybe I will go into the
details later (maybe not), but suffice it to say that the complaint
was unfounded from the beginning.    Yet our office has been turned
upside down, two employees quit, and another one transferred, we've
lost countless productive manhours, and the only people who seem to
have come out ahead were the lawyers.
                                                 Lonesome George

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=159

Message #159
From: Robert 231
To: George 133
Date: 11-14-93 17:07:36
Subject: Harassment Hypocrisy

Too true!   Everyone seems to have one great example of sexual
harassment hypocrisy.   So tell us your office story.
And what do others think about the Senator Packwood controversy?
Alot of what's claimed sounds just like the sort of outrageous
real harassment that evrybody agrees is wrong.    But is this a
crime?   Does it deserve a Senate investigation, prying into his
private diary?     And how many of all these recent claims against
him are valid, how many embellished, or just plain falsified by
women who foresee big bucks in lawsuits???

Speaking of which, how about that case in Virginia where the wife
whacked off her husband's penis with a kitch/n knife.   She later
claimed it was "self-defense" and that he had raped her earlier.
It turns out that she faked some of the evidence.   The jury only
deliberated 4 hours before aquitting him.    Now she goes to trial.
But should domestic assaults by women ever be considered self-defense?
Isn't leaving, calling police, or getting a lawyer and divorce the
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
more rational options?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=160

Message #160
From: Jeff 25
To: Robert 231
Date: 11-14-93 21:37:26
Subject: Whack that peepee...

Reminds me of an old Kinneson routine: "You won't be needing THIS..."


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=161

Message #161
From: George 133
To: Robert 231
Date: 11-15-93 11:01:22
Subject: You be the judge

    Talk about a violent double standard.   I'm amazed at how many
people seemed to think that woman's mutilation of her husband was
somehow justifiable, or just a joke.    A woman friend last week
said she thought it was "just great."    Huh?

    As for our own saga of sexual harassment here, I'm so paranoid
now that I'm reluctant to give out many details.    Here's the quickie
synopsis of the whole mess.

    Last March our Regional Director disciplined two account assistants
for not doing their jobs.   In addition to their office tasks, this job
requires supporting the Account Execs they're assigned to, by making at
least one phone call and one personal visit to each client to make sure
they are satisfied, and ask about any additional needs.    These contacts
are all carefully documented, and are an important part of our business.

     These two women were not really doing this part of the job.  They
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
were making the phone calls okay, but were not making the personal
customer visits.    But in some cases, they were writing that they had
done so, faking the documentation.    They finally got called to the
carpet for this.    When confronted by the boss, part of the written
reprimand discussed appropriate business attire.    Office wear for an
account assistant is not all that critical.    But what they wear when
visiting clients is.    And our Policies & Practices manual requires
appropriate business attire.    These two girls were coming to work,
often similarly dressed, in stuff like jeans and shorts, sometimes even
tennis shoes.    Only later did we all learn that they were roommates.
It seems they conspired in daily dress just as they would later conspire
on their sexual harassment complaint.

    In short, they made an official complaint to the state board of
equal employment, and promptly got a lawyer, charging sexual harassment
over the reprimand.    They claimed that the Regional Manager had told
them they should be wearing business skirts and high heels.   He states
that during the conversations with the two, they asked what exactly was
meant by appropriate business attire.   He gave them several examples,
which included business skirts and heels.     That's the end of it.

    Now, if all this sounds rather innocuous to you, it did to all of
us as well.    There's no touching or groping here, no rude remarks,
no offers of promotions or raises for sex, no dirty jokes at their
expense.    It's simply two female employees who aren't doing their
jobs, are lying about it, and as an aside are not dressing properly
for a professional business environment.

    Yet the manager and our company was sued civilly, has been investigated
by the state, and has only in the past 3 weeks seen the light at the end
of this ridiculous tunnel.    The suit has now been dropped, in exchange
for adopting the state board's recommendation to further clarify our P&P
manual dress code, and for putting on a Sexual Harassment Training Seminar
for all employees.    The two girls have quit, and the Regional Manager
is to be transferred to our Dallas office.

    So you all be the judge.   Is this sexual harassment?   Or is it
really just another example of people taking advantage of the system?
In my opinion, these two women simply manipulated the system, capitalizing
on what's a hot topic at the moment.   At least they didn't score any
money out of their complaint.    But they have turned our office upside
down, and created alot of unnecessary tension.    Such bullshit!   I mean,
as a man, if my boss told me that coming to work in jeans and tennis shoes,
and faking my account logs, was unacceptable, I could not sue him for
sexual harassment.    Why can a woman fall back on this?

    The consequences of all this are not pleasant.   I thought I had a
pretty good handle on the issue as a Supervisor.   But now I'm afraid to
say anything at work.    Female employees seem to have become the enemy.
The attitude around here now is, if somebody's having fun, then somebody
else must be offended.   And it looks like this will be the first year
since I've been here that there will be no Christmas party.   Our whole
P&P manual is being revised, all more restrictive and explicit.  Our
Seminar is scheduled for next week.   Stand by to stand by....

                                                Lonesome George

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=162

Message #162
From: Mickey 11
To: George 133
Date: 11-16-93 18:24:42
Subject: I be de Judge.....

   .......sounds like quite a CompuCrock to this judge.......

                   .......... many people today use and abuse our judicial system
           as a form of private enterprise, an artful dodge, which
            the system itself seems to encourage....  maybe cuz it's
             such good business for judges and lawyers, eh.......

   .......and sexual harassment is turning into something of a
           cottage industry itself.....  now the biggest bureau
            within the federal government's EEOC.....  with scores
             advocates, lawfirms, and consultants who are now making
              a nice living litigating, defending, preventing, and
               "raising consciousness" over sexual harassment issues.

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
   .......from a moral standpoint, i think the reason that more people
           haven't protested the unchecked expansion of what's deemed
            and litigated to be "sexual harassment" is that nobody
             supports the sort of repulsive behavior that generally
              makes the headlines on this topic.... and we rarely hear
               about bogus incidents like yours.

   .......and as you may learn in your training on the issue, what
           now legally constitutes a "hostile working environment"
            is judged by the "reasonable woman" standard, and will
             really scare you......   you may have thought you lived
              in a free society, but not where the workplace is now
               concerned........ your company has evidently discovered, if a supervisor
           does not take effective action to address a complaint of
            sexual harassment, it is their deep pockets who will be
             tapped in civil suits......    there is tremendous
              pressure to take action, even on unfounded complaints.

   .......still in all, your company is doing itself a diservice if
           you all self-destruct over the bogus incident.....
            women aren't the enemy....  and it seems like a rockin'
             good Christmas office party might be just the ticket
              to relieve the corporate tension........

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=163

Message #163
From: Brant 12
To: JOHN 439
Date: 11-18-93 12:06:55
Subject: me....please!!!

     ....reminds me of that old Jack Benny bit :

     ....take my wife.....please!


       .......well John, this board is SO exciting that the last
time Cristina 77 sat on my head (the back side, unfortunately), it
took my chin two weeks to heal from the concrete burn....and that
was at the Cref-sponsored weekly rollerhockey game....

     ....this board is SO exciting, we hadda get 14.4 modems to keep
up with the gossip....

     ...this board is SO exciting, the party pachyderms here often
stand up thru limo moon roofs and swill champagne while denigrating
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
the hapless party pikers as we pass amongst them.....

                                                     ParT Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=164

Message #164
From: Cristina 77
To: Charlie
Date: 11-30-93 16:47:16
Subject: Divorce...

I have nothing against divorce, especially in the situation that
you describe, but I do uphold my view that it WILL have some kind
of effect on the child.  With the frequency that divorces are happening,
this specific effect resulting from the dysfunction, will soon be
the norm.  That doesn't mean that it is right, or that it is totally
negative.  It just happens to be an emotional scar that eventually
will lead the child, as an adult, to react to a relationship in a
different way.

Also, I don't think that I necessarily have to experience something
to see its effects.  Kind of like stabbing myself to see if it really
does hurt...  All I need to do is to look around my classroom, and
see the effect that dysfunctional families have on the child.  i
see some that have been kidnapped by their parents, traded off by
weeks from home to home, those that have been physically and mentally
abused, and the list goes on...  They have problems, not the typical
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
problems a child will have, but chronic behavioral difficulties.
 In many ways, since I see these kids daily and the effects that
their parents have on them, it is very close to home.

I understand your point (quack, quack!) but what worries me is the
more severe detrimental dysfunctions, and their effects on innocent
children who learn so much from their parents.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=165

Message #165
From: Brant 12
To: Dave 41
Date: 12-01-93 00:46:26
Subject: Too much love, in all the wrong places....

     As per your question about "can too much love and overprotection
result in dysfunctional children?":

     In 1963 Eriksen grouped parenting styles on two dimensions:
affectionate/responsive and controlling....this yields a two by two
matrix :
                         Controlling              Uncontrolling
                  |                         |
Warm / Responsive |    Authoritative        |     Permissive
                  |      parent             |       parent
                  |                         |
                  |                         |
Aloof/Unresponsive|    Authoritarian        |     Uninvolved
                  |      parent             |       parent
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
                  |                         |
    A lot of men from the 1950's use an Authoritarian style : their
word is law, and no explanation required, with little warmth.
Authoritative is best (very similar words, unfortunately!), and the
most work : you have to be controlling (discipline, interested),
and also warm and responsive.

   But the "too much love" can be bad in the "Permissive" style:
"a warm but lax pattern in which parents make few demands, do not
monitor children's activities, and rarely exert firm control over
their behavior".  This is love without discipline, or interest.

   In 1967 and 1971 Baumrind studied pre-school children and their
parents, and identified three groups of child behavior linked to
three of Eriksen's parenting styles : the authoritative style yielded
"energetic-friendly" children, the authoritarian style yielded
"conflicted-irritable" children, and the permissive style resulted
in "impulsive-aggressive" children.

   Expanding on "impulsive-aggressive" behavior: "these youngsters,
particularly the boys, tended to be bossy and self-centered, rebellious,
aggressive, rather aimless, and quite low in independence and achievement.
Also found were low social and cognitive competencies." love without discipline can result in problems....not
necessarily "too much love", but a lack of "tough love", perhaps.....

Source : Developmental Psychology, Shaffer, 1993

                                                    Sigmund Rex

ps....did anyone see the movie "Overboard" tonite, with Goldie Hawn
and Jeff Bridges (sp?)....he loves his boys, but he lets them do
whatever they want....and even in the movie at least one had a reading
deficiency.....I would say he qualified as a "permissive" parent....

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=166

Message #166
From: George 133
To: Cristina 77
Date: 12-02-93 10:38:09
Subject: Emotional Baggage

     Here's hoping you someday find your fantasy marriage.  And that
the crystal carriage never shatters.    Because people like you tend
to be the most devastated by divorce.    True, divorce is terribly
unfortunate, but you should not be so quick to dismiss divorcees as
having too much "emotional baggage" to even consider getting involved
with.     If divorce is bad, trying to hold together some marriages
is far worse.

     I felt like such a total failure following my divorce, like I
had really screwed up life.    I was depressed for a year.   But it
only took discovering how much better another relationship could be
to help get over that period of "baggage."    Thank goodness not all
never-married women felt as you do, that I was not worth dating.

     And I would make one other observation about some of your
typical well-adjusted June Cleaver types - they are often gold-digging
over-anxious wanna-be brides, desperately seeking a man with the
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
right sized wallet with whom to walk down the aisle.     Imagine being
asked questions about your salary and retirement benefits by a date.
It has happened to me several times in the past three years.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=167

Message #167
From: Cristina 77
To: George 133
Date: 12-02-93 15:59:36
Subject: Wowwww...

Hello, is everybody listening?
I am talking ONLY about the KIDS of divorced and abused children.

Your implication about this supposed "bubble"  I live in is quite
off base.  It is an entire other issue being dysfuncional, leading
to issues about committment and trust.  What you have alluded to
is is a bunch of shallow, anxiously awaiting marriage women, coming
from any type of background.

I have said nothing against divorcees...  I have already clarified
that adults can make mistakes, and correct them.  The emotional baggage
is the childs, and whether they let it develop into a chronic problem
or not in their future depends on the severity.

So, Divorces are NOT the issue here, and women after wallets and
marriage may come from Cleaverish families, but he lack of being
dysfunctional obviously doesn't make them ideal dating mates.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=168

Message #168
From: Brant 12
To: George 133
Date: 12-02-93 17:48:56
Subject: You're on "Date Quiz"!!

     Ya, I've had some beauts in that department, being quizzed by
dates for "worthiness".....'course the all-time SoCal classic is:

    " you own, or rent?"

    But one time after a girl had told me she had some tax problems
coming out of her marraige, and I had commiserated by telling her
about my joyful experiences with the IRS, she came up with:

   " you have any other credit problems?"

    ....she also wanted to know whether or not I had ever had a traffic
ticket, or an arrest warrant.....

   But on another date, a FIRST date, I got :

    "What sort of car do you drive?"      .....a Honda

    "Really?  What model?"                ....uhh...Civic

    "Oh?  What YEAR?"                     (at this point I got out
                                           a #2 pencil)

   .....yup, the old date quiz for worthiness.....what would be the
equivalent male questions, if we were to turn the tables?

    How bout : "Do you get PMS?"

               "Do you partake in pre-marital sex?"

               "When you're really angry, do you find yourself clutching
a pair of scissors?"

                                                      Sex Rex

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=169

Message #169
From: Julian 486
Date: 12-03-93 11:46:33
Subject: Introduction


My name is Julian. I am 5'11" tall Brown hair, Brown eyes.
I am kinda new at this sort of BBS. As I'm sure you will be able
to tell. Just ask me anything and I will reply. I'm not sure of what
to write in this intro. I have made an essay so anyone can read that
if they would like. Well i hope I can make some new friends here.
Everyone can't have too many friends.

Well happy holidays everyone.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=170

Message #170
From: Leslie 404
To: Brant 12
Date: 12-03-93 12:13:09
Subject: Gold-diggers

Women like this give all of us a bad name, in my opinion.
In an era past, social structure placed women in the position
of seeking physical and financial security from men.  That
day is gone.    So how do these dinosaurs survive?   Perhaps
because there are men out there who invite and encourage the

If you all made a prompt exit at insulting date questions like
"How loaded are you?" gold-digging women would disappear.  But
there at least as many men who desire to "buy" a wife as there
are women who want to be "kept."

It's a question of WHY couples marry, and living with your choices.
Different people marry for very different reasons.   If two people
happen to agree that the financial aspect of union is key, it may
work out okay.    Most marriages I've watched fail were for other

When couples marry too young, or whenever sexual attraction is
the biggest factor, marriages most often seem to fail.   Couples
tend to grow apart.   And when sex fades, what are they left with?
You better LIKE each other, and have common interests, if you're
going to spend a lifetime together.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=171

Message #171
From: Cristina 77
To: Leslie 404
Date: 12-03-93 15:49:34
Subject: sexual attraction...

As to looking for qualities, a friend of mine wanted a woman who
knew how to cook, above being a total babe... his reasoning:

You won't always be horny, but you will always be hungry.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=172

Message #172
From: David 470
To: Leslie 404
Date: 12-09-93 23:05:53
Subject: Yes . . .

I agree that the "gold diggers" era has past and that some
women and men still insist on perpetuating it today.  My
question is this - Would you allow a man to pay for you on
a date?  If not, are you busy Saturday night?


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=173

Message #173
From: Dave 451
To: All
Date: 12-24-93 14:12:11
Subject: Essay

(I just thought I might leave my Electronic essay here as well):
Hi!  My name is Dave.  I would just like to say a few brief words
(this is what President W.H. Harrison said before proceeding to
deliver the longest inaugural address in history) about myself.
I am 26 years old, I live in Huntington Beach, and I go to school
at Golden West College.  My Major is Computer Programming (but I'm
not a nerd--in fact, my favorite part of computers is the very
artistic Computer Graphics).
My hobbies include astronomy, creative writing, photography,
drawing, dancing (I'm just branching out into this one), chess,
movie-going, theatre-going, museum-going, rented-video-going, and
nature-loving.  I also like romantic walks in the park and on the
Politically, I'm usually perceived by others to be a Liberal, but
I hate labels.  I'm liberal about civil rights, women's rights and
the environment, but I'm fiscally conservative and pro-life.
Temperamentally, I am a warm an emotional person and an incurable
romantic (Myers-Briggs type: INFJ).
Some other less-than-vital statistics:
Favorite Movies: Bringing Up Baby, Blithe Spirit, Hot Millions,
Hopscotch, and other "oldie" comedies.
Favorite Novels: The "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Trilogy
(All five of them).
Favorite Musicals: Cats, My Fair Lady, Once Upon a Mattress
Favorite Comedians: Rita Rudner, Mark Russell, Paula Poundstone,
and the late Robert Benchley (God bless him!).
Favorite T.V. shows: Mary Tyler Moore, Dick Van Dyke, Columbo, and
 most of the "Britcoms" including Fawlty Towers and Yes, Prime
Favorite Music: Vangelis, Ray Lynch, Mozart, Pete Seeger, Simon

and Garfunkel, Gilbert and Sullivan, and most others.
Favorite Planet (besides Earth): Neptune.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=174

Message #174
From: Cristina 77
To: All
Date: 01-17-94 11:44:29
Subject: Quotable Quotes...

On stereotyping:

Leave me once, you are a typical male.

Leave me twice, I am a hopeful female.

Leave me three times, I am a typical female.

                                Annonymous Female

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=175

Message #175
From: Dave 41
To: Cristina 77
Date: 01-17-94 15:00:39
Subject: So tell us...

   Just what does this quote mean to you...


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=176

Message #176
From: Bruce 622
To: All
Date: 01-17-94 17:05:32
Subject: Bruce returning

Hi, back again, account was deleted due to inactivity.  I was Bruce
42 and Mr. Opinion.  I have been using modems since '69 when I called
a mainframe computer using a teletype at 110 baud and wrote programs
in BASIC.  Now I work as a software engineer and also write reviews
of CD-ROMs and multimedia products.  I have been published in CD-ROM
World, The CD-ROM Reporter, CD-ROM Professional and on The CD-ROM
of CD-ROMs.  The company I work for makes a voice controlled
home automation product and it makes me feel good to know that
I'm doing something to help the physically challenged.  I also
am co-SIG leader for the CD-ROM SIG at the NOCCC and provide
multimedia telephone help for that club. It's a great computer
club.  Call (714) 998-8080 for recorded information on the
NOCCC.  They usually meet the first Sunday of the month at
Chapman Universsity in Orange.

I'm 40, 6'00", 250, brown hair, beard and glasses.  I'm
straight acting an d looking.  I'm bisexual and prefer guys
younger than me with little body hair.  If you are a gal I
like the way Demi Moore looked in Ghost.  Redheads are a
special turn-on for me.  I'm into bondage, no pain and prefer
the master role.

Interests include: computers, electronics, Hi-Tech goodies,
BBS'ing, collecting software, watching movies, reading,
bowling, shooting pool, SEX, writing, magic, hypnosis and card
and board games especially Scrabble and small stakes poker.

I am not a member of any political party or religious
denomination, but I do believe a lot of the doctrines of the
Libertarian Party and The Seventh Day Adventist Church.  I
rarely attend services or contribute to canidates, but I do
vote when I'm allowed to.

I'm a bit shy and haven't attended many board activities: a
movie premiere, a trip to the Magic Castle.  When I was a
party animal the party revolved around alcohol and drugs.  I
no longer use drugs and rarely drink.  I don't like to drink
and drive even if within legal limits.  I usualy have friends
visit me and play with the computer or watch movies.  I also
meet people off dating BBS's that cater to homosexuals.

If you want to know anything else write me.

Information effective: 1/94

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=177

Message #177
From: Jerry 623
To: All
Date: 01-27-94 09:12:16
Subject: Intro

Hi folks.  I'm new to this bbs but not to bbs'ing.  I'm interesting
in meeting people on this board whether for the purpose of dating
or just for the purpose of a simple friendship.  I'm 40, 5'9", I'd
venture to say fairly good looking and an overall good person.  I've
answered the questionnaire and completed the electronic essay.  Please
feel free to read both and drop me a line.  It is always nice signing
on to find that there is mail.  Hope to hear from you.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=178

Message #178
From: Leslie 404
To: Cristina 77
Date: 01-28-94 18:08:52
Subject: Anonymous

That sounds more like a typically traditional woman simply
not taking charge of, and responsibility for, her own life.
A critical key to empowerment is self-activation.  That means
taking charge of your own life.   And taking responsibility
means not blaming others for your life's mishaps and misfortunes.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=179

Message #179
From: Cristina 77
To: Leslie 404
Date: 01-28-94 18:59:31
Subject: Self-Activation.....

I find it easier to take full control of my brain... no problem there.
But the heart....  that's on its own activation!
The control would be as to how I react to certain heart-felt feelings.

These reactions are what could be determined as "typical" or not.
Since we are of limited resources as to what we can do (excluding
boiling bunnies and pulling a "Bobbit") most reactions would be considered

The annonymous quote, I think, simply stereotypes, not defines.


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=180

Message #180
From: Barracuda 4
To: Everyone
Date: 02-04-94 14:14:11
Subject: Women Behind the Wheel


   "It's bad in the morning.  Especially on the turnpike.
    I would say that 60% of the women drivers are still
    applying make-up, doing their hair, adjusting their
    rearview mirrors so they can look at themselves.  I
    think it should be included in the list of contributing
    factors in crashes : 'Cosmetics.'"

                                        .....Gene Gracey
                                        Commander of the
                                        Florida Highway Patrol

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=181

Message 181 has been deleted.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> uit,=182

Message #182
From: Bob 555
Date: 02-17-94 23:33:25
Subject: New member introduction

Hi everyone,  I am fairly new to this BBS.  I am a 47 year old
(look younger) professional engineer/businessman. I am of
average height and build with redish-blonde hair and trim beard.
I am a nonsmoker, have never done drugs, and a social drinker
and have been divorced for 12 years.  My wonderful 15 year old
daughter (Donna), my dog (Rebel) and I (BOB555) live in a large
Anaheim home.

I enjoy people, entertaining, BBQ's, fun, sunshine, mountains,
beach, desert, long scenic drives, ethnic dining, Sunday
brunches, camping, fishing, boating, sailing, shooting (use to
shoot competitively), travel, movies, comedy, watching car/boat
racing, Crestline, Big Bear, Santa Barbara.

I own a motorhome, houseboat, skiboat, dirtbike and other
outdoor toys.  I own a party house with swimming pool, hot tub
(always HOT), pool table, footsball table, pinball machines,
jukebox with oldies, etc.

I was born in Riverside, Ca.  My father was in the Army. He
spent 23 years in 38 houses.  I was drafted and spent my two
years in California and Europe.  I have lived in Anaheim since
1970.  I have lived or traveled in most of the USA including
Alaska, Hawaii.  Mexico and Canada.  I have also lived in Japan
and Europe.

I made a career as an electronics engineer.  For years now I
have owned a small engineering and manufacturing company.  To
offset the other end of the teetertater I am a Hypnotist -
however it is a continuing interest and education and not an
active practice.

I have a positive outlook on life.  I am honest, caring, and
enjoy good conversations with the right lady.  I am a great
kisser, who enjoys cuddling and snuggling, and holding hands
while walking along the beach at sunset.  Cuddling in front of
my fireplace or a campfire.  I am loyal when in a one-on-one
relationship.  I shoot straight and expect the same from others.

Leave me a message discussing more about your interests and
desires in life.  Tell me what makes you smile, laugh and what
are your needs.   Your jacuzzi or mine??

If any males leave me mail, I will only discuss Electronics,
Computers and Ham Radio.  I have been a ham for 35 years.  I was
very active years ago. In recent years I come and go.  I yap on
the radio sometimes from my car.  All I do from home is build
electronic projects from time to time.  I built and own lots of
linked together private 440Mhz repeaters.

WORK-- I am looking for new customers/contracts.  For eight
years I have owned and operated a company known as Anatron.  We
provide Electronic Engineering Services and coordinate outside
assembly. We specialize in designs from concept thru outside
assembly.  We can provide analog, digital, and microprocessor
hardware, software and packaging designs by contract.  We have
also designed and fabricated numerous test stands and can
provide reverse engineering if you require boards, systems, etc
that are obsolete.  Pass this on to your Engineering Manager or
Test Department Manager.  Send me mail if you have problems or a
work load more than your company can handle.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=183

Message #183
From: Cristina 77
To: All
Date: 02-27-94 00:22:58
Subject: ...

What do you call a lesbian?

        Another damn woman trying to do a man's job!


No Dave, this means nothing to me personally!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=184

Message #184
From: Dave 41
To: Cristina 77
Date: 02-27-94 22:35:05
Subject: Hmmm...

   Well that's too bad... there coulda been sumpin' there...!

                                      Heheh... DigiDave...

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=185

Message #185
From: Robin 276
To: Gracey
Date: 03-14-94 17:18:49
Subject: Re: Women on the road

Oh sure, like you aren't busy drinking your coffee and eating doughnuts?
I think MALE DRUNKENESS should be a category too! Do you think all
accidents are caused by women, perchance?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=186

Message #186
From: Donald 378
To: Anyone
Date: 03-22-94 22:42:30
Subject: The games peaple play.

I'm tired of all the games peaple play like putting up faces to just
impress someone of the opposit sex.  I'm 35 and work 3 jobs right
now I haven't got time for all the BS of playing some game to find
out if I'm intrested in someone.  I wnat to just go out and go dancing
and have fun for right now.  I'm a lonely guy that likes peaple but
can't find one he could really go far.  I'm a romantic and that seems
to be a fault in a man.  It seams that nice guys finish last and the
creeps get the girl.  I know so amny ladies living with guys that
treat them like crap and they take it because they love them and
I usally treat my ladies like gold and they leave because they fell
out of love or something.  I really don't understand it.....I'm confused
and frustrated.
                                        Don 378

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=187

Message #187
From: Leslie 404
To: Donald 378
Date: 04-21-94 14:01:23
Subject: Boxers -vs- Briefs

   Gee Don, it sounds like a good letter for Ann Landers or something.
Does CompuRef have an Ann Landers equal?    It seems like it would be
a good addition to a board.    "Cyber Ann's" Advice to the Confused
and Frustrated.      Hang in there, Don!

   So, some school girl pops off to the President of the United States
during a publicity meeting, and it's making international news.  The
hot topic:  Whether Bill Clinton wears Brief underwear or Boxer underwear.
And now it's the topic of the moment in our office.

   So what IS it CompuRef guys, Boxers or Briefs???   The women have
got to know!   George, anything to say on this topic, hmmm...?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=188

Message #188
From: Christian 346
To: Leslie 404
Date: 04-21-94 22:02:01
Subject: Briefer the Better

Actually it's neither Boxers or Briefs!!!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=189

Message #189
From: Brant 12
To: Leslie 404
Date: 04-21-94 23:50:49
Subject: wonderwear

      I'm into briefs for day to day wear, and silk boxers for wearing
around the house, specially on a hot day.....I like to buy both boxers
and briefs with colors, patterns, leopard spots, camouflage, some
sorta entertaining visual thang.....

      ...the problem with boxers is that when you're wearing jeans
that are at all snug fitting, ya get down one leg, and then when
you lift a leg to go up stairs or climb something, ya get CRIMPED,
and ya know, there's nothing worse than a crimp in your weasel.

         ...and remember, ya can't push a rope.

                                           Fit to be Tied,

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous?

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=190

Message #190
From: Mickey 11
To: Leslie 404
Date: 04-22-94 00:33:00
Subject: Inquiring Minds....

        .......since you asked.......

      in uncle bill's camp on this hot issue......

                    ....chalk up another one for briefs.........

                        .....outgrew boxers back in junior high........

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=191

Message #191
From: George 133
To: Leslie 404
Date: 04-22-94 10:00:07
Subject: Thanks DEAR

       Okay, okay, so I'm the last of the boxer dinosaurs.
So riddle me with office ridicule.   As it happens, I'm on
the cutting edge of the fashion pendulum.   Boxers are back
in now with high school and college age guys.

       My grandfather wore boxers.   Most men my age wear
briefs.    And now boxers have come back into fashion.  It's
amazing how circular fashion trends are.   Look at 70's styles
you see back now, clothes and hair both.  It's scary!

       In a different vein, after all the crap in our office
the past year, I had a whole other take on this "hot" office
topic  -  sexual harrassment.    With all the unfortunate
silliness we've been through here, what do you think would happen
if I or one of the other guys went around asking the females here
what type of underwear THEY were wearing?

-> Resume listing: es, o, ontinuous? c
                                             Lonesome George

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=192

Message #192
From: Steve 570
To: George 133
Date: 04-25-94 12:15:29
Subject: Harassing underwear

You know what would happen if you went around asking female
colleagues what kind of underwear they wore, even in jest.
Some malcontented bitch would file a Sexual Harassment complaint,
and you and all your supervisors would be in a frenzied back-peddle.

BTW.... it's briefs for this boy!

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=193

Message #193
From: Kerry 369
Date: 04-25-94 18:41:02
Subject: Hello again...

Hello all you party pachyderms! It your old friend Kerry, (or as
some of you might remember KC. It's been a long time, but Im back
in circulation and hope to become an active member of this unique
`puter society once again. Wish I could have mad it to the softball
game but things have a tendancy to come up and I couldnt make it.
Hope to hear from all of my old friends and any and all people who
want to become new friends.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=194

Message #194
From: Admiral 13
To: Kerry.
Date: 04-27-94 00:39:30
Subject: NOOOOOOO!!!!

   It's BACK!!!


-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=195

Message #195
From: Jeff 399
To: ---------------
Date: 05-05-94 14:14:08
Subject: hello

hello i am new to this system and i am looking for a new or used
computer 386. if anyone has a system that they don't need anymore
please let me know in e-mail. thanks

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=196

Message #196
From: Matthew 362
Date: 05-05-94 23:17:16
Subject: me

Hello - just wanted to keep with the program and enter my quick intro
on this message.  Ive filled out 100 questions, wrote an essay and
now this!  Any more & I'll have writers block (hehe).  Anyway, drop
me a line, like to meet some new people.  I'll be talking to you

Matthew 362

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=197

Message #197
From: Donald 378
To: Jeff 399
Date: 05-21-94 23:16:02
Subject: Your on the wrong message board

You need to post that on the "$" bouard for money this on relationships
and men and women.

                                                Hope you find it
                                                        Don 378

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=198

Message #198
From: Donald 378
To: Leslie 404
Date: 05-21-94 23:19:13
Subject: I wear briefs for everyday use but for evening with a close lady

I wear boxers for casual comfort.  Silk is my preference..

I had a lady friend who loved to wear boxers as casual wear....
The y looked good on her.
PS  I'm feeling better, but still lonely but I can live with it.

-> Which message (1 - 198)?
-> rowse,nter public reply,uit,eply privately,=0

M = Men & Women (7 minutes left)