Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!mccolm From: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: What women want Message-ID: <6676@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 16:36:13 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6676 Posted: Mon Aug 26 16:36:13 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 04:52:30 EDT References: <688@ttidcc.UUCP> <723@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> Reply-To: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eric McColm) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 52 Summary: >4) Accessibility. Jerks have tremendous egos that are not easily bruised >by reality. They are more likely to approach a woman in the first place. >The nice guys are all on the sidelines, reading articles on what women >really want and, having normal egos, scared to death of rejection. Yep, that's me. Hiding out in the shadows, away from the dance floor. To those of us who see ourselves as nice guys, by virtue of our (perhaps too apparent) sensitivity, the usual hostile response is somewhat disconcerting. "No pain, no gain" may be a successful philosophy, but this is not what I really want from Friday night entertainment. My tirades on singles bars and similar places is long, boring, and unoriginal. So here's a different question: Where would women on the net *prefer* to meet men? And men to meet women? (Note: take "prefer" any way you want.) (Also note: Don't look to me for answers. I only know the questions.) >I was thinking that men must have their prototypical `woman they say >they don't want, but always get mixed up with'. I saw a reference to >a discussion on puppydogism, which I missed, but can guess. Is this >it? Any other candidates? And reasons why? I don't like it when the >discussion gets one-sided. Funny. I sat here for a long time, and finally realized I've probably been through just about the same thing. My first two SO's and all previous (less serious) relationships were with shall we say 'difficult' people. They were either very mercuric or very bossy, and dealing with them was really horrible, but never boring. The next SO was very opinionated, and was having a personality conflict of her own at the time. So this was about the same. And the previous comments about women who "lead men on, and then shut them off" or some such, well, I've run into several of them. It's really not that terrible, once you get used to it. But I really can't abide women who care for no-one but themselves. They offend my bleeding-heart liberal sensitivities. I'm reminded of a Doonesberry cartoon, picturing Mike, Mark, and Zonker discussing what they wanted in a woman. Mike answers last, feeling very frustrated, with something like 'All I want is a normal, heterosexual relationship with a nice woman.' Zonker and Mark smile at each other, and break into a chorus of "Dream the Impossible Dream." And the hero pats his horse, and rides off into the sunset. --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Quotes on the Nature of Existence: "To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare) "I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes "" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)