Hide & Seek
Cpl4Third
relationship. It seems we spend more time seeking than ever finding a
compatible mate. We are a disabled,interracial,bisexual,nudist couple.
We have no children. I am Black and partner is Asian. I am 53 and she
39. Both of us are disabled. We do not have close family or friends
who believe in what we do. 14 years ago we decided to explore the idea
of having a slim to average build bi-female or single bi-mom with
small children live-in with us. We felt our lives would be enriched
having someone to interact with. In addition, having a feeling of
being connected and be the family we always wanted. But we have had
our races,gender combination,our disablities or other reasons held
against us. Poly families seem to be whites only club. We are still
looking and hoping to find our mate. An interracial poly family would
be a wonderful combination of humanity.
Guy W. Thomas
Well first this reads like a personal ad trying to pretend it isn't. You
should know that personal ads aren't welcome here. There's other places
to do that sort of thing. Like, is poly matchmaker still around? OKCupid
is another place that people have found helpful.
I think finding partners when you're looking for them is a difficult
task. Partly because when you're looking it seems like you give off, at
least IME, a certain amount of "neediness" that isn't very conducive to
developing relationships. You have an added hurdle in that you have
pretty specific desires. I found things get easier if you just try to be
open to what develops rather than placing too many requirements on a
budding relationship. Think about it. It's a lot to ask of an individual
to become part of an entire family. It's hard enough to start a
relationship with one person. Add on more people it's a little bit more
difficult.
I'm a person with a disability and I have managed to find two people
that can stand me. I don't think that there is a conscious "whites only"
attitude in the places I hang out in, but we live in a prejudiced
culture and the poly communities are no more immune to this than anyone
else. I'd like to think we're more accepting, but I am a white guy and
most (but not all) of my friends are white.
--
Guy W. Thomas
San Leandro, CA
http://www.xango.org http://stonebender.livejournal.com/
"If you can't believe what you read in comic books, what can you believe?"
-- Bullwinkle J. Moose
Serene Vannoy
> I'm a person with a disability and I have managed to find two people
> that can stand me.
I think you mean "adore me".
> I don't think that there is a conscious "whites only"
> attitude in the places I hang out in,
I don't, either, but I do think there's an unconscious bias of white
people, including you and me, to gravitate toward other white people.
> but we live in a prejudiced
> culture and the poly communities are no more immune to this than anyone
> else. I'd like to think we're more accepting, but I am a white guy and
> most (but not all) of my friends are white.
Yeah.
Serene
--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue is here!
http://42magazine.com
"But here's a handy hint: if your fabulous theory for ending war and
all other human conflict will not survive an online argument with
humourless feminists who are not afraid to throw rape around as an
example, your theory needs work." -- Aqua, alt.polyamory
Guy W. Thomas
> Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>
>> I'm a person with a disability and I have managed to find two people
>> that can stand me.
>
> I think you mean "adore me".
*blush*
> > I don't think that there is a conscious "whites only"
>> attitude in the places I hang out in,
>
> I don't, either, but I do think there's an unconscious bias of white
> people, including you and me, to gravitate toward other white people.
Exactly.
> > but we live in a prejudiced
>> culture and the poly communities are no more immune to this than
>> anyone else. I'd like to think we're more accepting, but I am a white
>> guy and most (but not all) of my friends are white.
>
> Yeah.
>
> Serene
>
--
Guy W. Thomas
Maureen
> My partner and I get frustrated looking for a third to be in our poly
> relationship. It seems we spend more time seeking than ever finding a
snipped
I agree that this looks like a personal ad in disguise.
And I can think of several nonwhite poly folks, several of which show up
here from time to time. If you take the time to read on this group you
will find that almost everyone has problems finding partners because
they are poly/fat/male/female/mono/disabled/poor/have children/etc
Maureen
Pat Kight
I'd probably trim that down to "almost everyone has problems finding
partners".
That said, I also know I'm speaking as someone who has (mostly) dated
other white people. I like to think that's been a function not of
preference but of who I know ... and I acknowledge that the pool of
people I know well enough to consider a romantic relationship is mainly
... other white people. Which kind of sucks, when I think about it.
Cpl4Third, whether or not your post was meant as a personal ad, how do
you go about "looking" for partners? I'm not sure personals are the best
way, although I know others here have met sweeties that way.
My own experience has been that looking for a partner - particularly one
who meets a set of criteria - has never really worked for me. What has
worked is doing things I enjoy doing with other people who enjoy them,
too, getting to know them and, once in a while, striking a spark that
leads to deeper involvement. That includes face-to-face and on-line
interaction...
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Serene Vannoy
> Maureen wrote:
>> Cpl4Third wrote:
>>> My partner and I get frustrated looking for a third to be in our poly
>>> relationship. It seems we spend more time seeking than ever finding a
>>
>> snipped
>>
>> I agree that this looks like a personal ad in disguise.
>>
>> And I can think of several nonwhite poly folks, several of which show
>> up here from time to time. If you take the time to read on this group
>> you will find that almost everyone has problems finding partners
>> because they are poly/fat/male/female/mono/disabled/poor/have
>> children/etc
>
> I'd probably trim that down to "almost everyone has problems finding
> partners".
I guess I'd trim further -- "almost everyone who is looking for partners
has problems finding them". I don't look for partners, in general, so I
don't have problems finding them.
>
> That said, I also know I'm speaking as someone who has (mostly) dated
> other white people. I like to think that's been a function not of
> preference but of who I know ... and I acknowledge that the pool of
> people I know well enough to consider a romantic relationship is mainly
> ... other white people. Which kind of sucks, when I think about it.
I know what you mean. I also know that I personally (not saying
*anything* about you, honest) have some racist baggage that makes me
less comfortable, on average, around strangers of color than I am around
white strangers, and I fucking HATE that. I mean, odds are I will make
more white friends if I'm uncomfortable around people of color who
aren't friends yet. But I dislike the part of me that is racially
biased enough that this is even true a tiny percentage of the time, even
after years and years of trying to eradicate those biases.
Aahz Maruch
Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>Pat Kight wrote:
>> Maureen wrote:
>>>
>>> And I can think of several nonwhite poly folks, several of which show
>>> up here from time to time. If you take the time to read on this group
>>> you will find that almost everyone has problems finding partners
>>> because they are poly/fat/male/female/mono/disabled/poor/have
>>> children/etc
>>
>> I'd probably trim that down to "almost everyone has problems finding
>> partners".
>
>I guess I'd trim further -- "almost everyone who is looking for partners
>has problems finding them". I don't look for partners, in general, so I
>don't have problems finding them.
What evidence is there that "almost everyone" looking for partners has
difficulty? I mean, we mostly hear from people having problems. I would
be willing to grant "most people" without quarreling, but I see enough
people who don't have a lot of difficulty at various points in their
lives that I think "almost everyone" needs substantiation.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"I've gone through the 'kid in the candy store' stage of polyamory, and I've
gone through the 'candy store with tummy ache' stage of polyamory." --JeffreyH
Guy W. Thomas
> In article <7i5m4nF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>> Pat Kight wrote:
>>> Maureen wrote:
>>>> And I can think of several nonwhite poly folks, several of which show
>>>> up here from time to time. If you take the time to read on this group
>>>> you will find that almost everyone has problems finding partners
>>>> because they are poly/fat/male/female/mono/disabled/poor/have
>>>> children/etc
>>> I'd probably trim that down to "almost everyone has problems finding
>>> partners".
>> I guess I'd trim further -- "almost everyone who is looking for partners
>> has problems finding them". I don't look for partners, in general, so I
>> don't have problems finding them.
>
> What evidence is there that "almost everyone" looking for partners has
> difficulty? I mean, we mostly hear from people having problems. I would
> be willing to grant "most people" without quarreling, but I see enough
> people who don't have a lot of difficulty at various points in their
> lives that I think "almost everyone" needs substantiation.
Why? I mean really. We are responding to a person who appears to have
had difficulty finding a partner. There is enough experience in this
group of people who have had trouble finding partners (especially when
people are looking) that it seems to be true a lot of the time. Granted,
it might not be strictly true (I'm not conceding this but it certainly
is possible) but do we need to be strictly accurate in every
conversation? To the point of substantiation?
I think this statement is on a par with telling someone who has just
broken up with someone that they will find someone else someday that
will treat them as they should be treated. We have no real evidence of
that but the odds are good and if we are wrong, so?
Todd Michel McComb
Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Granted, it might not be strictly true (I'm not conceding this but
>it certainly is possible) but do we need to be strictly accurate
>in every conversation? To the point of substantiation?
I think that's a valid question, but I know so many people who seem
to have no trouble finding partners, that I question the value of
this particular statement in general. I would say that "Many, many
people have trouble finding partners" is more accurate, and also
conveys the "you are not alone" message.
Todd Michel McComb
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>My own experience has been that looking for a partner - particularly
>one who meets a set of criteria - has never really worked for me.
>What has worked is doing things I enjoy doing with other people who
>enjoy them, too, getting to know them and, once in a while, striking
>a spark that leads to deeper involvement.
I was thinking about this recently in the context of the "I don't
date" message that I've seen from some group members.
One of my regular, fun activities is hanging out in public places,
having conversations with friends and/or strangers. (This mostly,
but not always, involves beer.) This is exactly what I do on a
date!
Meeting people in these situations where there is mutual attraction
& interest is easy for me. When/how to throw out the whole "Oh,
and *by the way* I already have a wife and 2 girlfriends" thing a
lot less so.
Todd Michel McComb
>racist baggage that makes me less comfortable, on average, around
>strangers of color than I am around white strangers, and I fucking
>HATE that.
Do you want any advice on that?
Aqua
> In article <u--dnajOg-3wHyDX...@scnresearch.com>,
> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>> My own experience has been that looking for a partner - particularly
>> one who meets a set of criteria - has never really worked for me.
>> What has worked is doing things I enjoy doing with other people who
>> enjoy them, too, getting to know them and, once in a while, striking
>> a spark that leads to deeper involvement.
>
> I was thinking about this recently in the context of the "I don't
> date" message that I've seen from some group members.
>
> One of my regular, fun activities is hanging out in public places,
> having conversations with friends and/or strangers. (This mostly,
> but not always, involves beer.) This is exactly what I do on a
> date!
Based on your description, I would not find that a fun activity and
would have no interest in doing it regularly. And I think many of my
friends feel similarly. So this means your strategy isn't open to us.
> Meeting people in these situations where there is mutual attraction
> & interest is easy for me.
Which is fine for you and the people you meet in these situations, but
it doesn't work for everyone, and particularly for the people it doesn't
work for, they shouldn't try to do it in order to meet people, seems to
be the verdict.
Aqua
Todd Michel McComb
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>Which is fine for you and the people you meet in these situations,
>but it doesn't work for everyone, and particularly for the people
>it doesn't work for, they shouldn't try to do it in order to meet
>people, seems to be the verdict.
I don't disagree, but I did want to mention how "dating" is, for
me, more or less following the advice Pat was offering. I thought
someone might think that was interesting.
Russ Allbery
I did, for whatever it's worth. I'm one of those people for whom dating
doesn't work, and I think that's a succinct and fairly good explanation
for why. I'm a big fan of the idea that people meet other people for
relationships largely in the process of doing things that they would do
anyway, but I'd never before drawn the line between that and people who
enjoy traditional dating.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Aahz Maruch
When the comment was made for the first or second time, I let it pass,
but now that this thread has clearly moved in the direction of noodling
about how to phrase that statement, I think it's entirely appropriate for
me to object to the basic sentiment.
Guy W. Thomas
I think we may be shading things a little too finely for my taste. I
also think that the original point wasn't whether there are people who
find partners easily. I think it was whether the act of "looking for a
partner" (especially with such specific criteria) made it easier or
harder to find one.
I'm sure that there are people who find lovers/partners easily. I think
that may just be because those people have whatever physical, emotional,
intellectual characteristics that are more widely valued by more people
than some folk do. I also think that those who can find lovers/partners
relatively easily don't feel a "need to find someone". At least in my
experience that "need to find" can be very offputting.
So if someone says I'm having trouble finding somebody and I've been
looking forever! The best things I've found to tell people is first lots
of people, myself included, have had that difficulty. I also know its
difficult to do, but I've had more success when I stopped looking so
hard and just started saying yes to things without them having to go any
where. Now none of this may be provable, but it worked (or seemed to)
for me.
Todd Michel McComb
Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think it was whether the act of "looking for a partner" (especially
>with such specific criteria) made it easier or harder to find one.
I thought I saw both messages there. Maybe this one was, as you
suggest, the more important one.
I certainly do think it's worth pointing out how, for you and others,
not-looking has been "paradoxically" more successful. I don't know
how widespread that is either, but then, if the OP had never
considered that, it's probably worth considering.
Guy W. Thomas
I wasn't questioning the appropriateness of your objection. I suppose I
was wondering why you would need substantiation. I thought this
conversation was still in the realm of trying to be supportive. Maybe
word geeky but supportive. Asking for corroboration feels like you're
trying to win an argument. Which I didn't think was happening, but it's
not particularly important I guess it's a style thing
Guy W. Thomas
people gave me that advice it did drive me a little nuts, but that's
what worked for me. When I got more relaxed about "the goal" things just
sorta hapenned.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> I'm sure that there are people who find lovers/partners easily. I think
> that may just be because those people have whatever physical, emotional,
> intellectual characteristics that are more widely valued by more people
> than some folk do. I also think that those who can find lovers/partners
> relatively easily don't feel a "need to find someone". At least in my
> experience that "need to find" can be very offputting.
I would tend to think of myself as finding partners fairly easily in
some ways, but I don't feel that I have much going for me in the
'characteristics that are more widely valued' is a modicum of
conventional attractiveness. (I'm too aggressive, blunt, and
short-tempered for most models of mainstream female attractiveness I'm
aware of in the cultures surrounding me, even setting aside my extreme
introversion and odd interest and socialisation patterns.)
What I do have going for me, if that's the right phrase, is ... not
being interested in A Partner. Which means that even at times in my
life when I was very lonely, I wasn't looking for Someone. I was at
most wishing that Someone Specific had interest in me; when it turned
out that they weren't, I didn't then continue to rack up rejections
seeking an abstract potential partner. I rattled around until I came
across a new Someone Specific instead.
So when I think of myself as 'finding partners easily', it means more or
less that in the particular moderately uncommon circumstance of me
finding people attractive enough to be willing to consider a
relationship with them, I have had more people say "Yes" than "No" to a
suggestion that we explore that possibility (especially as I have gotten
older and thus more skilled at being a functional human being).
If the question were specifically put as whether or not I would find it
easy to locate someone new and negotiate the beginnings of a
relationship or sexual encounter with them, I would not claim to find it
easy at all, but I would also not claim that as a goal. I mean, I'm
pretty sure that if I count up all the people I have actually approached
in something resembling the manner that has started my relationships
(not counting ones I pined idiotically after in my teen years) I don't
run out of fingers...
It isn't actually at all clear what "finding lovers/partners" as a
process descriptor is pointing to. And given that I can either have a
really easy time with it or an overwhelmingly difficult time with it,
depending on which process I interpret it as, it's very hard to advise
on the subject at all. My gut impression is that most people who are
asking about how to "find a partner" are looking how to find A Partner,
rather than how to encounter more Someone Specifics to ask out. Which
is the thing that I think people are talking about when they say that
they don't think people have much luck when they try to "find a
partner".
- Darkhawk, not sure if any of that was clear
in all the meta, alas
--
Darkhawk - K. H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Come, take my body (Allelu--)
Come, take my soul (Take my soul--) "Dark Time"
Come, take me over, I want to be whole. October Project
Aahz Maruch
Because "almost everyone" is an extreme limiter. It's similar to the way
people speaking in generalizations often get thwapped around here; I said
that using "most" wouldn't make me twinge, but given that I have not had
a great deal of difficulty finding partners, I think "almost everyone"
excludes me and my experience. Should someone cough up evidence, I don't
mind being an outlier in fact, but I object to being made a random
outlier for no reason.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"....Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail..." --Siobhan
Pat Kight
I did. (-:
I think it reinforces my "doing things you enjoy doing" point, as does
Aqua's counter: If you *don't* enjoy doing something, then forcing
yourself to do it simply in order to meet people is probably not going
to be a whole lot of fun.
I suppose it *might* lead one to connect with others in a
misery-loves-company sense ("Come here often?" "Yeah, and I really hate
it!" "Oh, good - me, too! We should go get coffee and talk about that!")
but that seems like rather a long shot.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> It isn't actually at all clear what "finding lovers/partners" as a
> process descriptor is pointing to. And given that I can either have a
> really easy time with it or an overwhelmingly difficult time with it,
> depending on which process I interpret it as, it's very hard to advise
> on the subject at all. My gut impression is that most people who are
> asking about how to "find a partner" are looking how to find A Partner,
> rather than how to encounter more Someone Specifics to ask out. Which
> is the thing that I think people are talking about when they say that
> they don't think people have much luck when they try to "find a
> partner".
If I'm reading you right (and I'm only midway through my first cup of
morning stimulant), I share your gut impression.
It's the difference, I think, between imagining a hypothetical Ideal
Partner and going shopping for that ideal - which seems to me to be the
goal of many personal ads - and connecting with real, live people
engaged in mutually interesting/enjoyable pursuits and discovering that
one (or more) of them is a Someone Specific you'd like to get to know
better.
In theory, the first method might seem more efficient - but only if it
*works*, and I've seen little evidence that it does. Whereas I know
many, many stories of people "finding" partners and life-mates as a
happy consequence of hanging out working or playing with other people.
I'd be glad to hear examples of the shopping-list method working for
folks. I mean, it must, or personal ads wouldn't be so popular, right?
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Vicki Rosenzweig
2009 01:43:23 -0400:
>My gut impression is that most people who are
>asking about how to "find a partner" are looking how to find A Partner,
>rather than how to encounter more Someone Specifics to ask out. Which
>is the thing that I think people are talking about when they say that
>they don't think people have much luck when they try to "find a
>partner".
Many of them, certainly. There are still people whose goal is to be
engaged before graduating from college, because they have marriage as
a goal and think it will be harder to meet people outside the college
environment. This looks weird to me because it manifests as "try
harder in the pool of people they've already been socializing in for
three years" as well as because it seems to emphasize "being married"
over "finding someone they want to spend their lives with." And that
seems to involve looking for ways to seem more attractive to the known
people, or advice and/or encouragement on ways to ask someone out (or
get someone to ask them out)
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
"Regret, by definition, comes too late;
Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate." --John M. Ford
Vicki Rosenzweig
-0700:
>In article <u--dnajOg-3wHyDX...@scnresearch.com>,
>Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>>My own experience has been that looking for a partner - particularly
>>one who meets a set of criteria - has never really worked for me.
>>What has worked is doing things I enjoy doing with other people who
>>enjoy them, too, getting to know them and, once in a while, striking
>>a spark that leads to deeper involvement.
>
>I was thinking about this recently in the context of the "I don't
>date" message that I've seen from some group members.
>
>One of my regular, fun activities is hanging out in public places,
>having conversations with friends and/or strangers. (This mostly,
>but not always, involves beer.) This is exactly what I do on a
>date!
I may be misreading, but I gather that on a date, the people involved
are having conversations specifically with each other, not hanging out
and looking for or open to conversations with strangers or, usually,
more than brief conversations with people they already know who happen
to be in the same place for some reason (seeing the same movie, also
wanting Chinese food....)
In fact, one way to ruin a date, or squash what might have been a
budding romance/relationship, is for one of the people involved to pay
enough attention to outsiders that the other feels neglected. Whether
it's an old friend who also turns up, the waitress, or people who call
their cell phones, the other person on the date can easily read that
as either "s/he's not interested" or "I thought this was meant as a
date, but I guess s/he just wanted to hang out as friends."
For me, at least, there's a difference between going out with a
specific person (or two specific people), focusing on each other, and
going to hang out with a bunch of friends without a clear idea of who
will be there, and with the expectation that there may well be people
there who I've never met.
At least some people who don't date don't jump from "interesting
coversation at party (or bar)" to "would you like to go out with me?"
At least not without several months of running into each other at
other social things, and maybe saying "a bunch of us are going to X,
would you like to come along?"
[snip rest]
Todd Michel McComb
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>I'd be glad to hear examples of the shopping-list method working for
>folks. I mean, it must, or personal ads wouldn't be so popular, right?
Well, I think I've mentioned before that any of my relationships
that have really worked over a long period were started at times I
was specifically looking for a relationship. I don't know about a
shopping list, but I have a new primary partner (I guess we decided
that this summer or thereabouts) who I met on OKCupid. She really
*did* have a lengthy and specific list of criteria posted, and when
I read them, I thought "Wow, that sounds like me!" Eerie, even.
Me, well, I think I recently told someone that I'm probably willing
to date anyone as long as they aren't mean. What that all adds up
to, I'm not sure. Randomly meeting people when I'm not particularly
looking has been fun, but fun only.
Todd Michel McComb
Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>I may be misreading, but I gather that on a date, the people involved
>are having conversations specifically with each other, not hanging out
>and looking for or open to conversations with strangers or, usually,
>more than brief conversations with people they already know who happen
>to be in the same place for some reason (seeing the same movie, also
>wanting Chinese food....)
Yeah, there's a focus on a particular person, especially if you
want to get to know that person, but that happens with me sometimes
if a particular friend has something they really want to discuss
or whatever. So I agree there's some difference, but it still feels
to me like more or less the same activity.
Tangentially, my sweetie wants me to show her how to pick up women
in bars, but getting together once a week, we've been so focused
on each other, we never get around to anything like that. We
probably spent more time talking to random people earlier in our
relationship.
Aahz Maruch
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>
>Tangentially, my sweetie wants me to show her how to pick up women
>in bars, but getting together once a week, we've been so focused
>on each other, we never get around to anything like that. We
>probably spent more time talking to random people earlier in our
>relationship.
Once a week? Luxury!
Todd Michel McComb
>Once a week? Luxury!
Yeah, well, it's good to be reminded of this, but it's also hard
sometimes. Since our children go to school 80 miles apart, and we
don't want to disrupt them, it'll be this way for a while.
Shadow Eagle
> My partner and I get frustrated looking for a third to be in our poly
> relationship. It seems we spend more time seeking than ever finding a
> We have no children. I am Black and partner is Asian. I am 53 and she
> 39. Both of us are disabled.
Hi Guys, glad to here from other like minded people on here. just out
of curiosity, what are both of your disabilities? I have noticed that
most people have a hard time initially connecting with people who have
disabilities, on a romantic level UNLESS they get to know them first,
and then emotions get to develop as time goes on... but to initially
be looking for the intimacy before a good solid trusting friendship
has been developed... i think thats hard for most people. so the few
that its not hard for are more far between... so dont give up hope...
i'd recommend just try more and different ways of meeting new groups
of people.
> We do not have close family or friends
> who believe in what we do. 14 years ago we decided to explore the idea
> of having a slim to average build bi-female or single bi-mom with
> small children live-in with us. We felt our lives would be enriched
> having someone to interact with. In addition, having a feeling of
> being connected and be the family we always wanted. But we have had
> our races,gender combination,our disablities or other reasons held
> against us. Poly families seem to be whites only club. We are still
> looking and hoping to find our mate. An interracial poly family would
> be a wonderful combination of humanity.
You've been looking for a third for 14 years??? wow... congrads on
not getting fully depressed and still persevering. .
i wouldnt say that poly lifestyle groups are a 'whites'only' club...
but what i have noticed is that most other ethnic groups have a
tougher time dealing with jealousy and think they want monogamous
relationships... and since there are more white people in north
america, it will appear that poly groups are populated primarily by
whites. But like anyone, once you get to know them, and they you...
the groups are pretty much fun, and the people arent that bad and any
innate prejudices will have been washed away by how great you guys
are. (i most white people are wary of non-whites, only because they
dont know any well. so it's not on purpose that they're
uncomfortable). As for relationships... well, you can't change what
people are attracted to, but if you make friends with enuff people
outside your own circle, maybe one of the women you become friends
with will become more then a friend at some point.
best of luck,
and nice meeting ya,
Shadow.
(a black american indian male involved in a LDR with a hot white
girl. ;-)
Guy W. Thomas
*shrug* that paragraph I understand. Asking for substantiation of an
obvious (at least to me) generalization seemed, well, odd to me. Which
was why I asked. Besides I think the point was to be comforting to those
who have a hard time finding partners and to suggest that the act of
looking for a partner/lover may be part of the problem.
Aqua
[Finding relationship partners]
> I'd be glad to hear examples of the shopping-list method working for
> folks. I mean, it must, or personal ads wouldn't be so popular, right?
Not necessarily, it could be the "searching under the streetlight"
approach - the person really has no idea where to go looking, so they
look where it's easier.
Aqua
Serene Vannoy
No, thank you.
Serene
--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue is here!
http://42magazine.com
"But here's a handy hint: if your fabulous theory for ending war and
all other human conflict will not survive an online argument with
humourless feminists who are not afraid to throw rape around as an
example, your theory needs work." -- Aqua, alt.polyamory
Kai Jones
>I'd be glad to hear examples of the shopping-list method working for
>folks. I mean, it must, or personal ads wouldn't be so popular, right?
???? I know I've told this here before. I used a shopping list (also
personal ads--although I responded to them, didn't place any) to find
men to date after my divorce. And decided to marry my husband partly
because he fit my shopping list.
--
Kai Jones sni...@panix.com
This is as practical an exercise as taping 20 cents to my transmission so
that anytime I want to I can shift my pair a' dimes. Spider Robinson,
Pat Kight
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:37:37 -0700, Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>> I'd be glad to hear examples of the shopping-list method working for
>> folks. I mean, it must, or personal ads wouldn't be so popular, right?
>
> ???? I know I've told this here before. I used a shopping list (also
> personal ads--although I responded to them, didn't place any) to find
> men to date after my divorce. And decided to marry my husband partly
> because he fit my shopping list.
My memory isn't what it once was. (-:
If you'd care to unpack your shopping list a bit, I'd be interested (if
you don't care to, that's fine, too.)
The lists I see in the sorts of personals that get posted here seem to
me to be heavy on somewhat idealized details of appearance and
expectations ("someone who will fall in love with both of us", for
instance).
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Kai Jones
>Kai Jones wrote:
>> I used a shopping list (also
>> personal ads--although I responded to them, didn't place any) to find
>> men to date after my divorce. And decided to marry my husband partly
>> because he fit my shopping list.
>
>My memory isn't what it once was. (-:
>
>If you'd care to unpack your shopping list a bit, I'd be interested (if
>you don't care to, that's fine, too.)
Here's some of what I've written before:
I want to be in a relationship where we do
something, one of our hobbies, together. I didn't define which hobby;
he didn't have to love opera, for example.
[...]
I don't remember all of mine. Some of the terms were: doesn't care
about professional sports, reads for pleasure (including at least some
science fiction), honest, more direct than not, seldom if ever passive
aggressive, similar libido and likes the same things I like to do in
that area, intellectual, curious, helpful, generous with time and
energy if I need help (sidebar: after our second date my husband
helped me do yard work all day because the city inspectors were coming
to ticket me for too many weeds and uncut grass), self-supporting
financially, enjoys and seeks physical affection at a level similar to
mine (I like to hold hands and stuff like that), and of course
compatible with my kids and my parenting philosophy.
I didn't write all that out on the index card, just some keywords.
Some of that stuff came out of relationships that worked, some out of
how they didn't work.
>The lists I see in the sorts of personals that get posted here seem to
>me to be heavy on somewhat idealized details of appearance and
>expectations ("someone who will fall in love with both of us", for
>instance).
I understand, but don't blame the tool for how people use it.
I'm also noodling about the "person shaped hole" idea, because I had
that when I was single, and I don't perceive it as the unmitigated bad
idea that some people on a.p think of it. Not ready to share yet,
apparently--I sat here for 5 minutes thinking without typing any of it
out. Still working on it.
Aahz Maruch
The way I remember handling it when I was single was double-thinking.
From one side, I made a point of making a good life that I was happy
with; from the other side, I really wanted someone to sleep with at
night. I am moderately sure that if I ever lose my primary partner I
will return to that state.
Ed
@mid.individual.net:
> Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>
>
> > I don't think that there is a conscious "whites only"
>> attitude in the places I hang out in,
>
> I don't, either, but I do think there's an unconscious bias of white
> people, including you and me, to gravitate toward other white people.
I have never lived in northern California, but I grew up in an LA suburb
that was very white. I don't think I realized just how white it was
until I lived on the east coast where, at least in Center City
Philadelphia, I just found the integration of ethnicity much more
profound.
I would find it hard, now, to live in an area that was as segregated as
where I grew up.
(Granted, Colorado is not Philadelphia, but I do live in downtown Denver
and, honestly, the gay community seems a little more integrated...I
guess it's the common enemy thing but I haven't really thought about it
much.)
--
Ed
Todd Michel McComb
Ed <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I would find it hard, now, to live in an area that was as segregated
>as where I grew up.
I started in segregated schools, with forced integration (& busing)
when I was in third grade.
Pat Kight
I started school in Montgomery, Alabama, the year of the bus boycotts.
Not only were the schools segregated, but our teachers told us which
routes to take when walking home so we would avoid "those people" (I
distinctly remember the phrase, and being confused by it) and their
protests.
Fortunately, by second grade I was attending schools on military bases,
which were generally as integrated as the service itself, and where your
father's rank, not his race, was the primary class marker.
Decades later, moving from downtown Detroit to Western Oregon, I found
myself both shocked and uncomfortable at how few non-white faces I saw
on the street...
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Todd Michel McComb
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>Decades later, moving from downtown Detroit to Western Oregon, I
>found myself both shocked and uncomfortable at how few non-white
>faces I saw on the street...
Some places are really spooky that way.
Todd Michel McComb
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>I suspect that, if anything, you would have experienced an unusually
>high proportion of non-white people; that's certainly the case here,
>and I understand it's the same in the US.
The military here takes great pride in its racial integration, and
the techniques it uses to promote that diversity (I've done
co-trainings with them), but it's mostly white.
Miche
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> We've had the opposite experience; we've moved from a relatively
> cosmopolitan area to one that's really default Anglo-Saxon. I do miss
> that about Swindon- my daughter's first school had all sorts of kids,
> Cheshire is very white.
Considering how close Cheshire is to Wales, I'd be careful about
assuming "default Anglo-Saxon". ;)
Miche
--
Electricians do it in three phases
Steve Pope
>In alt.polyamory, (Pat Kight) wrote in
>>Fortunately, by second grade I was attending schools on military bases,
>>which were generally as integrated as the service itself, and where your
>>father's rank, not his race, was the primary class marker.
>I suspect that, if anything, you would have experienced an unusually
>high proportion of non-white people; that's certainly the case here, and
>I understand it's the same in the US.
Yes, but the fraction of non-white military brats in the DoDDS
schools was somewhat smaller than the fraction of non-white
servicemen/servicewomen, due to demographics and uneven
dependent-relocation policies.
Steve
Pat Kight
That's probably true, but on the bases where I grew up, it was a
noticeably larger fraction than in most of the off-base public schools.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Todd Michel McComb
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>Mostly - OK. In proportion to the general population? I'm willing
>to bet not.
I don't have the stats, but keep in mind that I'm accustomed to a
white minority.
Aqua
> Decades later, moving from downtown Detroit to Western Oregon, I found
> myself both shocked and uncomfortable at how few non-white faces I saw
> on the street...
One of the first things I noticed when I moved from Sydney to Brisbane
was not only how there were far fewer (East) Asians, but that the person
on the supermarket checkout was nearly always white.
At least in that part of Brisbane, many of the Asians are students,
often on government scholarships. Whereas I'd been living near
hundred-year plus Chinese and Korean communities in Sydney.
I now have a better idea where in Brisbane there's ethnic diversity, but
I think more of Brisbane is white, or thinks of itself as white. And
Inala, which feels like the UN, has a reputation as slum - pretty
straightforward racism IMHO.
Aqua
Miche
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Miche) wrote in
> <micheinnz-11285...@news.itconsult.net>::
> Well, OK. In fact, given the history and the nature of the landholdings
> etc, "default Norman" is probably closer. A large proportion of
> Cheshire belongs to the Duke of Westminster.
Well, I was thinking of your average person on the street rather than
landowners.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
I'd never noticed it myself, but I heard people at Wiscon make remarks
to that effect about Madison. After I'd heard the remark, I looked
around and did really notice it pretty strongly.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>
>> I don't think that there is a conscious "whites only"
>> attitude in the places I hang out in,
>
> I don't, either, but I do think there's an unconscious bias of white
> people, including you and me, to gravitate toward other white people.
>
>> culture and the poly communities are no more immune to this than anyone
>> else. I'd like to think we're more accepting, but I am a white guy and
>> most (but not all) of my friends are white.
>
> Yeah.
I've noticed that although Toronto is fairly diverse, a lot of the
social events that I attend aren't. I've often wondered about it,
since many of them are ostensibly "come one, come all," types of
events. I'm assuming that it's that the associated subcultures have
historically tended to be assumed to be the purview of mostly white
people and that that creates a situation where other people feel out of
place when they attend such events, making a self-perpetuating cycle. I
think that some projects online such as those attempting to encourage
for example sci-fi fans of colour to speak up, are good ideas, but I do
wonder about how best to diversify non-online events effectively.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Many of them, certainly. There are still people whose goal is to be
> engaged before graduating from college, because they have marriage as
> a goal and think it will be harder to meet people outside the college
> environment. This looks weird to me because it manifests as "try
> harder in the pool of people they've already been socializing in for
> three years" as well as because it seems to emphasize "being married"
> over "finding someone they want to spend their lives with." And that
> seems to involve looking for ways to seem more attractive to the known
> people, or advice and/or encouragement on ways to ask someone out (or
> get someone to ask them out)
To be fair, unless they go to a VERY small college, wanting to meet
someone while still at college doesn't really map directly to "try
harder in the pool of people they've already been socializing in for
three years," in any meaningful way. I mean, the University I went to
wasn't that large, but the population was WAY, WAY, WAY beyond the point
where I knew even a percent of the other students there. And really, it
*is* easier to meet people in University than after it -- there are a
lot more social opportunities, and a lot more people looking to meet
other people.
Kai Jones
<ir...@ambienautica.com> published this:
And you haven't yet made a lot of decisions that limit your choice
field to some extent. For example, you probably haven't yet bought a
house and had children, haven't yet become deeply involved in local
politics or a neighborhood culture. Most people in college/university
are in an ambiguous state, with lots of opportunities and choices
ahead of them; they can be more flexible about those opportunities and
choices to accommodate a partner(s) than someone who has already
chosen.
--
Kai Jones sni...@panix.com
Smartass by nurture as well as nature. Oh yeah, and I'm contrary, too.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." Winston Churchill
Todd Michel McComb
Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>I've noticed that although Toronto is fairly diverse, a lot of the
>social events that I attend aren't. I've often wondered about it,
>since many of them are ostensibly "come one, come all," types of
>events.
One of the first times I did diversity work with high school students,
there were several teens in the session, including a girl who
attended a local public school (one my children attend now, in fact)
and one who had left it for "alternative" school. That public high
school is very stratified, with some very rich people and some very
poor people (it's known for having perhaps the largest income
disparity around). One of the early questions we asked all the
kids was whether they thought their school environment welcomed
diversity. The first girl said that, yes, she was quite sure that
it did, because the main thing that determined your social standing
at the school was whether you attended the parties, and everyone
was invited to the parties. Full stop. I had to restrain the
second girl from physically attacking her.
>I do wonder about how best to diversify non-online events effectively.
Well, one classic method is for particular minority groups to begin
their own events, and once those get some traction, you can have
joint events. That can, obviously, be a long process.
Miche
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Miche) wrote in
> <micheinnz-AD0A8...@news.itconsult.net>::
> The "average person on the street" in Cheshire *is* a landowner :)
Ah, that's not the case here. And I assumed not there, from your
comment about the Duke of Westminster.
> We only have a half-million dollar house, and 1/3 of an acre- we're the
> poor people.
Yeah, I've heard housing prices in the UK are nutty. I thought ours
were bad enough.
Aahz Maruch
One hopes you never find out how expensive houses are in the SF Bay
Area... ;-)
Steve Pope
>Miche <mich...@gee-mail.com> wrote:
>> Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>> We only have a half-million dollar house, and 1/3 of an acre- we're the
>>> poor people.
>>Yeah, I've heard housing prices in the UK are nutty. I thought ours
>>were bad enough.
>One hopes you never find out how expensive houses are in the SF Bay
>Area... ;-)
I'm in a perfectly nice house in the SF Bay Area whose market
value is pretty much exactly what Marc states for his house
in Cheshire.
And no more than a month or two ago, you could pick up a house
in the Iron Triangle (less than 10 miles away) for $35,000.
Steve
Pat Kight
*nod* I had a *lot* of, um, "relationships" during the six years I spent
in college. In retrospect, I think of most of them as "practice"
relationships, in the sense that I had only a vague notion of who I was
becoming and what I wanted out of life, much less *who* I wanted. I got
the sense that was true for many others, too.
I came *this* close to marrying someone in college and was heartbroken
to the point of considering suicide when it didn't work out. Based on
how both of us changed and grew over the next few years after we broke
up, it would likely have been a disastrous marriage. And now that I
think of it, I can't call to mind a single marriage among my close
college friends that lasted more than a decade after we all went our ways.
This is veering rather far afield of the discussion, but it just
occurred to me, and now I'm wondering whether all those opportunities
and choices are more a case of learning experiences than, say, a way to
meet one's life mate(s). But maybe that's just me and the people I know.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Todd Michel McComb
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>In retrospect, I think of most of them as "practice" relationships,
>in the sense that I had only a vague notion of who I was becoming
>and what I wanted out of life, much less *who* I wanted. I got the
>sense that was true for many others, too.
I don't think I ever really put it together until close to age 40.
But I've been married 20 years to someone I met in college, and
it's been OK. I was pretty sure I wanted to marry someone in
college, and probably would've hung around until I did. Whether
that was a great idea, I couldn't say, but it's been at least OK.
David Weinshenker
> In article <B4mdneij5u9lhlnX...@scnresearch.com>,
> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>> In retrospect, I think of most of them as "practice" relationships,
>> in the sense that I had only a vague notion of who I was becoming
>> and what I wanted out of life, much less *who* I wanted. I got the
>> sense that was true for many others, too.
>
> I don't think I ever really put it together until close to age 40.
I still don't feel like I ever really have, and I'm in my
early 50's. (I haven't even ever had much in the way of what
would qualify as "practice relationships".) Of course, that
means if I ever do get to the point of "putting it together"
like that, it might not make much difference...
-dave w
Steve Pope
>Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>>> In retrospect, I think of most of them as "practice" relationships,
>>> in the sense that I had only a vague notion of who I was becoming
>>> and what I wanted out of life, much less *who* I wanted. I got the
>>> sense that was true for many others, too.
>> I don't think I ever really put it together until close to age 40.
>I still don't feel like I ever really have, and I'm in my
>early 50's. (I haven't even ever had much in the way of what
>would qualify as "practice relationships".) Of course, that
>means if I ever do get to the point of "putting it together"
>like that, it might not make much difference...
It's probably more of an un-learning process than a learning
process anyway... deconstructing aquired notions about relationships
may be one of the most important parts.
Steve
David Weinshenker
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I still don't feel like I ever really have, and I'm in my
>> early 50's. (I haven't even ever had much in the way of what
>> would qualify as "practice relationships".) Of course, that
>> means if I ever do get to the point of "putting it together"
>> like that, it might not make much difference...
>
> It's probably more of an un-learning process than a learning
> process anyway... deconstructing aquired notions about relationships
> may be one of the most important parts.
That's certainly part of the issue - I know I'm feeling totally
out of phase with a bunch of age-related expectations, for one
specific example!!
-dave w
Shadow Eagle
>
> Well, one classic method is for particular minority groups to begin
> their own events, and once those get some traction, you can have
> joint events. That can, obviously, be a long process.
Uhhh, very long, considering whites dont usually attend "minority"
functions, except for maybe comedian shows of some cross-over black/
hispanic/asian comics... while non-whites are used to being the
minority at a function, i've noticed whites dont handle it as well.
on-whites do hold their own events, more whites should check them out.
;-)
Shadow
Elise
I know several poly people of color, they do exist. I can't imagine
that race would be an obstacle for most. I do think that physical
attractiveness (subjective, I know), is a HUGE factor for anyone who
is online dating. I would also hazard a guess that a physical
disability, if severe enough to limit mobility, would be a detriment
for finding partners, since many people, poly and otherwise like to be
physically active with their partners, and/or prefer a partner that is
physically fit. Not to mention the problems it might cause in the
bedroom.
I'm a member of polymatchmaker, a dating site for poly people that has
almost 10,000 members. The majority of the members there are couples
who are seeing an unattached female third, or "HBB" (hot bi babe), as
they are often called there. One of our wiser members on there, who is
a bi female who used to be one of the proverbial "HBBs" until she
acquired two male primary partners, had this to say about seeking this
particular relationship dynamic:
I...think that MF couples should open themselves a little more to
other dynamics, as the numbers are disappointing.
There are 154.7 million women in the United States.
1.4% of them identify as bisexual. That's 2.17 million bisexual women
in the United States.
Of those, 56.7% of them are married. So 1.23 million of those bisexual
women are married, leaving 940,000 single, bisexual women.
That gives us a ratio of roughly 5-to-3, married-to-single bisexual
women. To extrapolate on that, it means that for every 5 couples
looking for a bisexual woman, only three of them might actually FIND
one. Or, for those that like percentages, a couple has a 60% chance of
finding a bisexual woman.
That is only considering finding a BISEXUAL woman....not necessarily a
bisexual woman who is interested in joining an established
couple....or a bisexual woman who is compatible with one or both of
the people in that couple... or a bisexual woman that is physically
attractive and within the age range sought by the couple...just one
that is bisexual.
The percentages go WAY down with every stipulation that you have.
Disease free? 1 out of ever 4 women are infected with herpes. So that
is a 45% chance of meeting a bisexual woman who does not have it.
Mentally healthy? Well, 1 in 3 women suffer from some mental disorder,
so that is a 30.15% chance of meeting a bisexual woman who is both
disease free and mentally healthy.
So imagine how the numbers go down when you add in stipulations such
as "no children" (54% of women are mothers, so now you have 13.9%
chance of meeting a bisexual woman who is disease free, has no mental
disorders, and has no children), "wants to have children" (10% of
women are infertile, so that drops our matching percentages to a
12.48%), is "professional" (28% of women have a bachelor's degree or
higher, so that is 8.99%).....and we haven't even checked on
personality and compatibility.
Imagine what it drops to if you add something such as "likes to read"
or "interested in outdoor activities".
Those are some LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG odds. While they are not QUITE as bad
as the Powerball, they are still so bad that *I* wouldn't be betting
on that hand. I won't bet on a poker hand that has less than a 30%
chance of taking the pot....9% is RIGHT out..
I really think that MF couples seeking the HBB should look more at the
numbers and decide if they are interested enough in polyamory to
consider other dynamics, or if they are willing to not only wait many
years to find that unicorn, but are willing to accept that it is
likely that they will NEVER find that unicorn, just like it is likely
they will never win the lottery.
I don't have a problem with people seeking a specific dynamic. I tend
to have problems with people who have unrealistic expectations.
Thanks to Caliann for this, forgive me for cribbing it but an awful
lot of poly people need to read this, IMO.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> I came *this* close to marrying someone in college and was heartbroken
> to the point of considering suicide when it didn't work out. Based on
> how both of us changed and grew over the next few years after we broke
> up, it would likely have been a disastrous marriage. And now that I
> think of it, I can't call to mind a single marriage among my close
> college friends that lasted more than a decade after we all went our ways.
>
> This is veering rather far afield of the discussion, but it just
> occurred to me, and now I'm wondering whether all those opportunities
> and choices are more a case of learning experiences than, say, a way to
> meet one's life mate(s). But maybe that's just me and the people I know.
I know I'm not one of your college friends mentioned above, but just as
a datapoint, Oksana and I met and got married in University, and we've
been together for more than a decade. :)
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
We went through a phase of daydreaming about moving to New Zealand after
we visited, and one of the compelling arguments in favour was that your
housing prices are insanely, incomprehensibly cheap compared to here.
:) (Although we were looking at Christchurch rather than Dunedin, so I
don't know how much of a difference that makes.) We currently live in
an 1100 square foot stacked townhome that's considered by most
Torontonians to be so far north as to not really be in Toronto anymore,
and we share walls/floors with neighbours on four sides (only the roof
and the front face aren't shared). A lot of that 1100sqft is lost to
stairways (the place is split across four levels), so it's actually
quite small in terms of livable area. Our place is about $325K, right
now, I would say, and it's a STEAL for this area. There's a little
house at the end of the road from us -- probably about the same size but
a standalone house with a little yard -- that went up for sale for a
million not long ago, and to get a decent starter home on a tiny yard in
our neighbourhood is probably on average about $700K. We jokingly refer
to our $325K place as "the projects," ever since we asked the builders
some questions about the construction and we got an answer that relied
heavily on the explanation that corners need to be cut when building
"affordable housing".
Todd Michel McComb
Elise <intrig...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I do think that physical attractiveness (subjective, I know), is
>a HUGE factor for anyone who is online dating.
What made you put the word "online" in there? I am just curious.
Steve Pope
>In alt.polyamory, (Steve Pope) wrote
>>I'm in a perfectly nice house in the SF Bay Area whose market
>>value is pretty much exactly what Marc states for his house
>>in Cheshire.
>>
>>And no more than a month or two ago, you could pick up a house
>>in the Iron Triangle (less than 10 miles away) for $35,000.
>
>That seems..... keenly-priced. Is it particularly unpleasant and/or
>dangerous there?
It's certainly a higher-crime area, and also a high-pollution
area. (There is a Wikipedia page on the Iron Triangle with
more description.) But it's not *all* that different from the
rest of the western strip of the east Bay Area -- Richmond,
west Berkeley, north Oakland and west Oakland. Mostly, with
an oversupply of housing units (600,000 units nationwide), the
bottom completely dropped out of the market for the least-desired
units in a given area.
Steve
Phoenix
> OK, this one stunned me out of lurking mode.
Elise, I am glad to see you post again.
Deborah
--
"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the
most shocking and inhumane."-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Aahz Maruch
Phoenix <drup...@clearspringlabs.com> wrote:
>Elise wrote:
>>
>> OK, this one stunned me out of lurking mode.
>
>Elise, I am glad to see you post again.
Which Elise?
Rob Wynne
> Those are some LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG odds. While they are not QUITE as bad
> as the Powerball, they are still so bad that *I* wouldn't be betting
> on that hand. I won't bet on a poker hand that has less than a 30%
> chance of taking the pot....9% is RIGHT out..
>
There's a poker game where you can win HBBs?
Man, I never get invited to the *good* parties. *pout*
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2010: Jan 8-10, 2010 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
Pat Kight
Did somebody declare Delurking Day in alt.poly without telling me? Where
are the balloons? The noise-makers? The party hats?
(So good to see you here, dear Lioness, and this post is spot. fucking.
on. Kudos to the original author, and to you for bringing it here.)
--
Pat Kight
One of those bisexual women, but pretty much not the one the usual
HBB-seeking MF couple is seeking.
Pat Kight
Yabbut you're a couple of those Wicked Poly Folks. And you didn't go to
college in the early 70s. (-:
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> We went through a phase of daydreaming about moving to New Zealand after
> we visited, and one of the compelling arguments in favour was that your
> housing prices are insanely, incomprehensibly cheap compared to here.
> :) (Although we were looking at Christchurch rather than Dunedin, so I
> don't know how much of a difference that makes.) We currently live in
> an 1100 square foot stacked townhome that's considered by most
> Torontonians to be so far north as to not really be in Toronto anymore,
> and we share walls/floors with neighbours on four sides (only the roof
> and the front face aren't shared). A lot of that 1100sqft is lost to
> stairways (the place is split across four levels), so it's actually
> quite small in terms of livable area. Our place is about $325K, right
> now, I would say, and it's a STEAL for this area.
*Looks around* at 2400-square-foot, 100-year-old home. Which could use a
good cleaning, but is otherwise in pretty good shape (modernized
plumbing, electricity, HVAC, relatively new roof, etc.)
Recalls that the purchase price in 2001 was $125K. And that the
next-door neighbor's house, twice this size (think "huge Victoria) was
on the market just before the housing bust for $380K and failed to sell
because it was considered overpriced for the area.
Counts blessings.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> In article <Ao-dndH8n9zNnFjX...@pdx.net>,
> Phoenix <drup...@clearspringlabs.com> wrote:
>> Elise wrote:
>>> OK, this one stunned me out of lurking mode.
>> Elise, I am glad to see you post again.
>
> Which Elise?
Apparently not the one I thought it was. Oops.
But a damned good post, anyway.
--
Pat Kight
*chuckling at the thought of a lurker wondering why she's getting such a
warm reception*
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> Elise wrote:
>> OK, this one stunned me out of lurking mode.
> (So good to see you here, dear Lioness, and this post is spot. fucking.
> on. Kudos to the original author, and to you for bringing it here.)
Oh, dear - my apologies! I (and apparently at least one other
alt.polyite) mistook you for another Elise, one who was a regular here
for many years and is (by some of us) much missed.
Welcome in your own right. The post is still terrific.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
nickie{D}
university in 1972. We added a third to our relationship in 1999.
nickie{D}
Pat Kight
Aahz Maruch
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>Aahz Maruch wrote:
>> In article <Ao-dndH8n9zNnFjX...@pdx.net>,
>> Phoenix <drup...@clearspringlabs.com> wrote:
>>> Elise wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK, this one stunned me out of lurking mode.
>>>
>>> Elise, I am glad to see you post again.
>>
>> Which Elise?
>
>Apparently not the one I thought it was. Oops.
Yeah, I wondered, too, but it was the wrong e-mail address and the
writing style doesn't match, either. ;-)
Elise
like a very interesting and diverse group.
Elise
On Oct 2, 12:10 pm, a...@pobox.com (Aahz Maruch) wrote:
> In article <LNudndWIErla_1jXnZ2dnUVZ_tadn...@scnresearch.com>,
> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>
> >Aahz Maruch wrote:
> >> In article <Ao-dndH8n9zNnFjXnZ2dnUVZ_tGdn...@pdx.net>,
Siobhan
<xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I
>also think that the original point wasn't whether there are people who
>find partners easily. I think it was whether the act of "looking for a
>partner" (especially with such specific criteria) made it easier or
>harder to find one.
I certainly seem to be stellar at finding new partners right when I'm
most trying to avoid getting into any additional relationships.
Siobhan
needs clones
Vicki Rosenzweig
-0700 (PDT):
That one assumes that every married bisexual woman is part of a couple
looking for a previously-unattached female third who will date both of
them. That doesn't match my experience. Granted, I am only one
bisexual woman: but my husband and I don't date together, or want to.
Nor do some of the other women I know who fit in that demographic,
namely, bisexual women married to men. [I also know at least four
bisexual women who are married to other women--though that offhand
think-for-thirty-seconds number is counting both halves of one female
couple.)
OK, from here on in I'm just playing with the numbers, because I do
agree with your basic point, which is that a lot of mixed-sex couples
are defining what they want narrowly enough that they're unlikely to
find it.
>
>That is only considering finding a BISEXUAL woman....not necessarily a
>bisexual woman who is interested in joining an established
>couple....or a bisexual woman who is compatible with one or both of
>the people in that couple... or a bisexual woman that is physically
>attractive and within the age range sought by the couple...just one
>that is bisexual.
>
>The percentages go WAY down with every stipulation that you have.
>Disease free? 1 out of ever 4 women are infected with herpes. So that
>is a 45% chance of meeting a bisexual woman who does not have it.
>Mentally healthy? Well, 1 in 3 women suffer from some mental disorder,
>so that is a 30.15% chance of meeting a bisexual woman who is both
>disease free and mentally healthy.
True, though I would hope that at least some of this is balanced by
couples who aren't asking for "disease free" because one or both of
them have herpes. ("Disease free" is an interesting
not-exactly-euphemism: how many of those couples would refuse to date
someone with diabetes or hypertension? Yes, this is tangential to your
point: welcome to alt.poly.)
>
>So imagine how the numbers go down when you add in stipulations such
>as "no children" (54% of women are mothers, so now you have 13.9%
>chance of meeting a bisexual woman who is disease free, has no mental
>disorders, and has no children), "wants to have children" (10% of
>women are infertile, so that drops our matching percentages to a
>12.48%), is "professional" (28% of women have a bachelor's degree or
>higher, so that is 8.99%).....and we haven't even checked on
>personality and compatibility.
I hope most people aren't making all of those stipulations
simultaneously--for example, some people who would say "no children"
are saying that because they're childfree, not because they want the
new person to have children with them. Similarly, I know a few people
who would be classed as "professional" based on how they earn their
livings, but do not have bachelor's degrees (one of whom is a high
school dropout).
>
>Imagine what it drops to if you add something such as "likes to read"
>or "interested in outdoor activities".
>
>Those are some LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG odds. While they are not QUITE as bad
>as the Powerball, they are still so bad that *I* wouldn't be betting
>on that hand. I won't bet on a poker hand that has less than a 30%
>chance of taking the pot....9% is RIGHT out..
Depends on how you define the bet: if I were looking, I wouldn't be
thinking I had to hit it off with the first person I found. The
flipside of that is "If s/he's one in a million, there are thirteen
like him/her in greater Los Angeles alone." 9% of 940,000 women is
84,600 in the United States.
Also: at a poker table the other players are trying to take money from
you. Dating at least ought to be a win-win game: if, at the end of the
evening (or the half hour at the coffee shop) you go home alone, so
does the person you had the date with.
>
>I really think that MF couples seeking the HBB should look more at the
>numbers and decide if they are interested enough in polyamory to
>consider other dynamics, or if they are willing to not only wait many
>years to find that unicorn, but are willing to accept that it is
>likely that they will NEVER find that unicorn, just like it is likely
>they will never win the lottery.
>
>I don't have a problem with people seeking a specific dynamic. I tend
>to have problems with people who have unrealistic expectations.
>
>
>Thanks to Caliann for this, forgive me for cribbing it but an awful
>lot of poly people need to read this, IMO.
>
Alt.poly tends to do it less numerically, but I agree.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
"Regret, by definition, comes too late;
Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate." --John M. Ford
Vicki Rosenzweig
-0700:
>In article <B4mdneij5u9lhlnX...@scnresearch.com>,
>Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>>In retrospect, I think of most of them as "practice" relationships,
>>in the sense that I had only a vague notion of who I was becoming
>>and what I wanted out of life, much less *who* I wanted. I got the
>>sense that was true for many others, too.
>
>I don't think I ever really put it together until close to age 40.
>
>But I've been married 20 years to someone I met in college, and
>it's been OK. I was pretty sure I wanted to marry someone in
>college, and probably would've hung around until I did. Whether
>that was a great idea, I couldn't say, but it's been at least OK.
I didn't "want to marry someone in college" in that sense--but I got
to talking to someone I met there, and one thing led to another, and
we've been together for 25 years.
And yes, that's an anomaly: quite a few of my friends who were married
at that age have since divorced (ranging from relationships I saw from
beginning to past the end, to women who have mentioned, in passing,
ex-husbands from well before I met them).
Todd Michel McComb
Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>Depends on how you define the bet: if I were looking, I wouldn't be
>thinking I had to hit it off with the first person I found. The
>flipside of that is "If s/he's one in a million, there are thirteen
>like him/her in greater Los Angeles alone." 9% of 940,000 women is
>84,600 in the United States.
The standardly quoted figure is that if you ask 10 people at a bar
for sex, 1 will say yes. If you are really wanting sex, asking
those 10 people doesn't seem too offputting, even if your 10% odds
sound terrible.
Aahz Maruch
Welcome to alt.poly! (Was hoping to write something longer, but no
spoons.)
Ed
@agricola.medieval.org:
You once said that you tried to show someone how to pick up women at a
bar. I never even tried to pick up women at a bar (even when I was
dating women) but I still don't go into a bar trying to pick up guys.
But if I walked into a bar and someone really caught my eye, I would
certainly spend some effort to find out more about him and go from
there.
Do people really go into a bar and ask 10 women for sex in hopes that
one will say yes?
--
Ed (not judging, just skeptical)
Todd Michel McComb
Ed <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Do people really go into a bar and ask 10 women for sex in hopes
>that one will say yes?
Of course. But, uh, one at a time.
Ed
@agricola.medieval.org:
How unimaginative. :)
--
Ed
Pat Kight
really, really annoying.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Todd Michel McComb
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>And for some of those who fall into the nine-out-of-10 group, often
>really, really annoying.
Like anything else, there are better and worse ways to express
oneself, and certainly more or less graceful ways to take rejection.
songbird
> Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>> I
>>also think that the original point wasn't whether there are people who
>>find partners easily. I think it was whether the act of "looking for a
>>partner" (especially with such specific criteria) made it easier or
>>harder to find one.
>
> I certainly seem to be stellar at finding new partners right when I'm
> most trying to avoid getting into any additional relationships.
>
> Siobhan
> needs clones
yes please! :)
songbird (george is my friend