poly newb
Josh
run a business and have little time to go meet new people. The people
I get attracted I tend to know well, but they either keep being in a
monogamous relationship (and it's against my code of ethics to alter
those relationships) or they're otherwise unavailable. So my question
is: where do you all meet people. I've been off the market for 7
years! I feel like a fish out of water when I go out.
Aahz Maruch
There are two basic options:
* Stay in "not not looking" mode, meaning that you're open to
opportunities that present themselves but don't seek out opportunities to
start relationships. You would probably do better by socializing in
venues where there are poly people (e.g. science fiction fandom or SCA or
Ren Faire), but because dating isn't the point of these social
activities, you really should attend them for their own sake rather than
because you're hoping to find sexual/romantic relationships.
* Do the traditional dating thing with a poly twist, which means using
sites like okcupid.com and polymatchmaker.com. I'm currently trying out
OKCupid, and it's going okay -- though most of my matches are people I
already knew (or knew of).
There's also the option of trying to find your local swinging community,
though that's usually rather different from polyamory.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"This is Usenet. We're all masturbating in public places." -DH
Serene Vannoy
> So my wife and I opened up or marriage about a year and a half ago. I
> run a business and have little time to go meet new people. The people
> I get attracted I tend to know well, but they either keep being in a
> monogamous relationship (and it's against my code of ethics to alter
> those relationships) or they're otherwise unavailable. So my question
> is: where do you all meet people.
I have met most of my partners in poly-friendly space online (here in
alt.poly, for example, or on LiveJournal), and gotten to know them
before meeting in person.
It occurs to me to wonder why, if you don't have time to go meet people,
you think you have time to sustain another relationship. This isn't
meant to be disrespectful; I just know that new relationships do take
time to maintain, just as existing ones do.
> I've been off the market for 7
> years! I feel like a fish out of water when I go out.
Yeah, I don't tend to do the dating thing because I feel like it really
doesn't fit with my personality -- I'm awkward on first meeting in the
best of circumstances, and when I feel like a possible romance hinges on
how not-stupid I can manage to be, that is not the best of
circumstances. So I'm MUCH more likely to go out to do either something
I'm really interested in that has nothing to do with poly (my volunteer
job; a poetry reading), or to go to a poly-friendly or poly-themed event
that's not about dating (for example, a few of the poly groups around
here have monthly dinners that are just chances to get together,
socialize, and discuss anything under the sun)
One thing I will say has helped me is to be out as poly in public. That
is, I mention that I have multiple partners when it comes up, and I have
"polyamory" in all my online profiles in one form or another. That way,
if someone else is looking for a poly person to hang out with, they know
they've found one without having to dig too hard. Plus, since I don't
tend to do the "dating" thing with people I don't already know, people
are more likely to already know I'm poly when the subject of dating
comes up. Saves having that embarrassing "Oh! Ew. Never mind." that I
imagine comes of being asked out by a monogamous person who didn't know
I was poly.
My current partners are both people I met online. I knew Guy here for
years before we started dating, and James found me in a search for local
poly atheists (okay, local poly atheist hotfatchicks) on LiveJournal.
Serene
--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue March '09!
http://42magazine.com
"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at
the bottom of the garden." -- Richard Dawkins
Todd Michel McComb
>You would probably do better by socializing in venues where there
>are poly people (e.g. science fiction fandom or SCA or Ren Faire),
I'd sure be miserable at places like this.
>There's also the option of trying to find your local swinging
>community, though that's usually rather different from polyamory.
Different from or a subset of? (One of my girlfriends resents being
told she's "not really poly" FWIW.)
Anyway, there are also specifically poly social gatherings, at least
in the Bay Area. Who knows about the OP....
Serene Vannoy
> In article <gpj19v$t9f$1...@panix3.panix.com>, Aahz Maruch <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> You would probably do better by socializing in venues where there
>> are poly people (e.g. science fiction fandom or SCA or Ren Faire),
>
> I'd sure be miserable at places like this.
>
>> There's also the option of trying to find your local swinging
>> community, though that's usually rather different from polyamory.
>
> Different from or a subset of?
I think "different from, but with lots of overlap". That is, swinging
isn't poly, but some swingers are poly, and some poly people are swingers.
> (One of my girlfriends resents being
> told she's "not really poly" FWIW.)
I think it's obnoxious, in almost all cases, to tell someone they're not
what they say they are. (Of course, sometimes it's appropriate to be
obnoxious.)
>
> Anyway, there are also specifically poly social gatherings, at least
> in the Bay Area. Who knows about the OP....
There are specifically poly gatherings in many, many large cities, and
lots of small towns.
Aahz Maruch
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>In article <gpj19v$t9f$1...@panix3.panix.com>, Aahz Maruch <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>You would probably do better by socializing in venues where there
>>are poly people (e.g. science fiction fandom or SCA or Ren Faire),
>
>I'd sure be miserable at places like this.
How do you know? ;-)
>>There's also the option of trying to find your local swinging
>>community, though that's usually rather different from polyamory.
>
>Different from or a subset of? (One of my girlfriends resents being
>told she's "not really poly" FWIW.)
Orthogonal to. Swinging can be done in more or less poly-like ways, but
many swingers are antithetical to romantic relationships, particularly
long-term ones. Many swingers are also antithetical to male/male
sexuality. One of my partners identified as monogamous for some years
while swinging and only changed zir identity to poly after we started
discussing getting involved.
Who tells your girlfriend that she's not really poly?
>Anyway, there are also specifically poly social gatherings, at least
>in the Bay Area. Who knows about the OP....
Even when that's an option, they tend to fall into the fandom/SCA
category in terms of not being meet markets.
Lane
@agricola.medieval.org:
>>There's also the option of trying to find your local swinging
>>community, though that's usually rather different from polyamory.
>
> Different from or a subset of? (One of my girlfriends resents being
> told she's "not really poly" FWIW.)
>
>
I still think "different" is the right adjective. The two are different
traits. They are certainly not mutually exclusive, however.
Lane
Todd Michel McComb
>How do you know? ;-)
Well.... I don't have an interest in the topics, especially not
sci-fi. And although I know many people who do, and enjoy some of
their company, when they get together with others of the same
persuasion in my presence and get into detailed jargon-filled
conversations about some particular passion they share in these
areas, my eyes glaze over and I look for something else to do. So,
it doesn't seem like a very good fit for me.
>Orthogonal to.
Here is one paper that defines swinging as a subtype of polyamory:
http://www.polyamory.org/~joe/polypaper.htm
>Many swingers are also antithetical to male/male sexuality.
Yes, this is typical. But that's *certainly* orthogonal to poly.
>Who tells your girlfriend that she's not really poly?
Well, it would seem, you, if I'm reading your "orthogonal" comment
correctly.
Aqua
> In article <gpjnbj$g8o$1...@panix3.panix.com>, Aahz Maruch <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> How do you know? ;-)
>
> Well.... I don't have an interest in the topics, especially not
> sci-fi. And although I know many people who do, and enjoy some of
> their company, when they get together with others of the same
> persuasion in my presence and get into detailed jargon-filled
> conversations about some particular passion they share in these
> areas, my eyes glaze over and I look for something else to do. So,
> it doesn't seem like a very good fit for me.
You do realise that by being here, in alt.poly, you are in fact in the
company of a lot of people interested in "sci-fi", engaging in detailed
passionate conversations? And your eyes don't look particularly glazed
over, and you don't seem to have found something else to do?
Aqua
accepting zir place on some fringe of fandom.
Todd Michel McComb
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>You do realise that by being here, in alt.poly, you are in fact in the
>company of a lot of people interested in "sci-fi", engaging in detailed
>passionate conversations? And your eyes don't look particularly glazed
>over, and you don't seem to have found something else to do?
If you're telling me that these conventions spend the vast majority
of their time discussing something other than their nominal topic,
and that the attendees don't particularly mind if someone has no
knowledge or interest in the nominal topic, well... OK. I guess,
at that point, I'd wonder why that was the nominal topic at all.
If that's too oblique, I'm sure many people here are very interested
in sci-fi (I actually knew that), but I don't see that being a big
topic of discussion around here.
Aahz Maruch
>>
>>How do you know? ;-)
>
>Well.... I don't have an interest in the topics, especially not
>sci-fi. And although I know many people who do, and enjoy some
>of their company, when they get together with others of the same
>persuasion in my presence and get into detailed jargon-filled
>conversations about some particular passion they share in these areas,
>my eyes glaze over and I look for something else to do. So, it doesn't
>seem like a very good fit for me.
Like alt.poly, fannish gatherings are mostly (but *NOT* entirely)
composed of people specifically interested in the ostensible subject
matter, but the discussions tend to range over a rather wide range. In
fact, the running joke in rec.arts.sf.fandom is that SF/F and fandom are
off-topic.
Aqua nailed it, really. ;-)
>>Orthogonal to.
>
>Here is one paper that defines swinging as a subtype of polyamory:
>
>http://www.polyamory.org/~joe/polypaper.htm
That's unfortunate, but Geri isn't the be-all and end-all of polyamory;
certainly most people currently posting to alt.poly would disagree with
her claim. Given that the paper was written a decade ago, it's even
possible that Geri has changed her opinion.
>>Many swingers are also antithetical to male/male sexuality.
>
>Yes, this is typical. But that's *certainly* orthogonal to poly.
The point is that swinging culture is different from poly culture;
generally speaking, poly culture is supportive of all sexualities.
>>Who tells your girlfriend that she's not really poly?
>
>Well, it would seem, you, if I'm reading your "orthogonal" comment
>correctly.
Then you're not reading correctly. What I mean by "orthogonal" is that
whether someone is a swinger is completely unrelated to whether zie's
poly. You can be poly, a swinger, both, or neither. In addition,
swinging and poly between them do not comprise the entire spectrum of
polysexual behavior; for example, someone whose relationships consist
entirely of casual sex outside the context of swinging would be neither.
Todd Michel McComb
>Given that the paper was written a decade ago, it's even possible
>that Geri has changed her opinion.
Here's one from Geri in '06:
http://www.numenor.org/~gdw/psychologist/bipolycounseling.html
I'm familiar with more recent papers by psychologists, but I cannot
cite them on the web.
>The point is that swinging culture is different from poly culture;
>generally speaking, poly culture is supportive of all sexualities.
Agreed.
>Then you're not reading correctly. What I mean by "orthogonal"
>is that whether someone is a swinger is completely unrelated to
>whether zie's poly.
Sure, that's easy to understand, but that's not all you said.
When you said "... but many swingers are antithetical to romantic
relationships, particularly long-term ones" I took that to suggest
an exclusion of those people from the realm of "poly." Not so?
Aahz Maruch
That obviously doesn't apply to swingers who are also poly. ;-) Many
swingers are definitely antithetical to polyamory, and many poly people
return the favor. :-(
Kai Jones
McComb) wrote:
>In article <gpjnbj$g8o$1...@panix3.panix.com>, Aahz Maruch <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>How do you know? ;-)
>
>Well.... I don't have an interest in the topics, especially not
>sci-fi. And although I know many people who do, and enjoy some of
>their company, when they get together with others of the same
>persuasion in my presence and get into detailed jargon-filled
>conversations about some particular passion they share in these
>areas, my eyes glaze over and I look for something else to do.
Wow, what do you suppose it is about you that causes fans to ignore
you and have an interesting conversation instead?
> So,
>it doesn't seem like a very good fit for me.
Actually you demonstrate some of the characteristics of fandom that I
see in myself: arrogance, judgmentalism, intolerance of others, and
bad manners. Maybe you're fan after all, and just don't know it.
--
Kai Jones sni...@panix.com
Smartass by nurture as well as nature. Oh yeah, and I'm contrary, too.
Todd Michel McComb
>That obviously doesn't apply to swingers who are also poly. ;-)
>Many swingers are definitely antithetical to polyamory, and many
>poly people return the favor. :-(
OK, I think we understand each other.
Todd Michel McComb
Kai Jones <sni...@panix.com> wrote:
>Wow, what do you suppose it is about you that causes fans to ignore
>you and have an interesting conversation instead?
People often think I have a knowledge or interest.
>Actually you demonstrate some of the characteristics of fandom
>that I see in myself: arrogance, judgmentalism, intolerance of
>others, and bad manners.
Well, good luck with that.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
I don't 'date'; I'm only romantically interested in people I know. In
this I may resemble your situation.
Where I have met people:
The partner: a game store.
The first second boyfriend: the same game store.
The TOCOTOX: at a gathering to which he was brought by my roommate's
girlfriend, who was unsurprised that we hit it off.
The crazy ex: online game.
The furry ex: game run by the TOCOTOX.
Recent ex: another newsgroup.
My dear competitor: online game.
The Celt: local social gathering and then religious community.
(You may correctly deduce from this list that I'm some kind of gamer.)
In short: I meet people doing the sorts of things that I was doing
anyway. This provides a filter for those people who are liable to flip
out dealing with a sarcastic, geeky, polyamorous, religious loonie,
gamer woman. If the people wind up able to tolerate my presence through
the straightforward filters of life, and I wind up interested in them, I
ask them if they're interested in me. If they're not, we go back to
playing Race for the Galaxy or whatever; if they are we work out what,
if anything, we want to do with it.
- Darkhawk, though I haven't played Race in a while
--
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
Miche
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Todd Michel McComb) wrote in
> <gpjntn$6f1$1...@agricola.medieval.org>::
> In which case, I suspect you're not.
>
> Saying "Swingers aren't poly" is like saying "left-handed people aren't
> blonde."
What if we're only blonde sometimes?
Miche (not dyed bye her own hand)
--
Electricians do it in three phases
Miche
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Miche) wrote in
> <micheinnz-9931B...@news.itconsult.net>::
> You are so going to get spanked one of these days. :)
>
> You know what I mean- it's a category error.
Promise? ;)
And yes, I know. But then again, I'm a walking category error.
Miche
Rob Wynne
>> >>Who tells your girlfriend that she's not really poly?
>> >
>> >Well, it would seem, you, if I'm reading your "orthogonal" comment
>> >correctly.
>>
>> In which case, I suspect you're not.
>>
>> Saying "Swingers aren't poly" is like saying "left-handed people aren't
>> blonde."
>
> What if we're only blonde sometimes?
>
>
I'm just gonna use this as an excuse to post what is possibly my favourite
xkcd comic ever:
--
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/
Aahz Maruch
Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>Miche <mich...@gee-mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What if we're only blonde sometimes?
>
>I'm just gonna use this as an excuse to post what is possibly my favourite
>xkcd comic ever:
>
>http://xkcd.com/508/
Sorry, I don't get it.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"Every flame is sacred, every flame is great." --Orc
David Weinshenker
> Josh <joshua....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So my wife and I opened up or marriage about a year and a half ago. I
>> run a business and have little time to go meet new people. The people
>> I get attracted I tend to know well, but they either keep being in a
>> monogamous relationship (and it's against my code of ethics to alter
>> those relationships) or they're otherwise unavailable. So my question
>> is: where do you all meet people. I've been off the market for 7
>> years! I feel like a fish out of water when I go out.
>
> I don't 'date'; I'm only romantically interested in people I know.
Yeah, I'm confused about the whole "dating" thing (to the extent that it
appears to involve "interacting with someone in order to get acquainted
because you're attracted to them"): how would I know that I was so fond
of someone as to actually be open to "romantic" attraction, before even
at least becoming friends?
-dave w
David Weinshenker
> I'm a walking category error.
No personals on alt.poly...! :)
-dave w
--
i thought that i heard you laughing
i thought that i heard you sing
i think i thought i saw you try
-r.e.m., "losing my religion"
Miche
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Miche wrote:
> > I'm a walking category error.
>
> No personals on alt.poly...! :)
Hee. :)
illecebra
<snip>
> Yeah, I'm confused about the whole "dating" thing (to the extent that it
> appears to involve "interacting with someone in order to get acquainted
> because you're attracted to them"): how would I know that I was so fond
> of someone as to actually be open to "romantic" attraction, before even
> at least becoming friends?
>
> -dave w
I find that highly ritualized dating tends to appeal mostly to the people
who think there are universal "rules" about how relationships work, and
need that structure so that things are predictable and feel "safe",
unlike just going with the flow and having to negotiate terms like those
of us who don't live with such assumptions. As such, I don't find myself
very compatible with such people, even though I do sometimes discover an
attraction to someone soon after meeting them.
-- Illecebra
Aahz Maruch
illecebra <ille...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>I find that highly ritualized dating tends to appeal mostly to the people
>who think there are universal "rules" about how relationships work, and
>need that structure so that things are predictable and feel "safe",
>unlike just going with the flow and having to negotiate terms like those
>of us who don't live with such assumptions. As such, I don't find myself
>very compatible with such people, even though I do sometimes discover an
>attraction to someone soon after meeting them.
Do you consider OKCupid highly ritualized dating?
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"Remember: every time somebody does something nice for somebody else, Ayn Rand
gets another pitchfork shoved up her ass in Hell." --William December Starr
Kai Jones
published this:
>I find that highly ritualized dating
What is this "highly ritualized dating" of which you speak?
--
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
illecebra
> In article <72fsp0F...@mid.individual.net>, illecebra
> <ille...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>I find that highly ritualized dating tends to appeal mostly to the
>>people who think there are universal "rules" about how relationships
>>work, and need that structure so that things are predictable and feel
>>"safe", unlike just going with the flow and having to negotiate terms
>>like those of us who don't live with such assumptions. As such, I don't
>>find myself very compatible with such people, even though I do sometimes
>>discover an attraction to someone soon after meeting them.
>
> Do you consider OKCupid highly ritualized dating?
I don't think it falls into the category of dating at all -- if you
haven't met outside a matchmaking service, I don't think that's really
dating.
That said, I'm not one who would ever patronize matchmaking services.
-- Illecebra
illecebra
> On 19 Mar 2009 21:46:08 GMT, illecebra <ille...@nowhere.invalid>
> published this:
>
>>I find that highly ritualized dating
>
> What is this "highly ritualized dating" of which you speak?
Pretty much anything with a strictly set script one is expected to
follow. One example is, man asks for date, woman accepts, man picks
woman up (possibly with a gift in hand), they go to dinner, useless small
talk is made (because one shouldn't talk about anything else on a first
date), man pays, couple attends movie or play or some such which man
chose and bought tickets to, again useless small talk is made, man takes
woman home.
There are many other scripts, but the gist of it is that it's about going
through the ritual as impressively as possible more than having fun or
getting to know someone. It's just not something I find useful or
enjoyable.
-- Illecebra
Rob Wynne
> There are many other scripts, but the gist of it is that it's about going
> through the ritual as impressively as possible more than having fun or
> getting to know someone. It's just not something I find useful or
> enjoyable.
>
"I find you very attractive. Your aggressive moves toward me indicate
that you feel the same way. But still, ritual requires that we go through a
number of platonic activities before we...have sex. I'm simply proceeding
with those activities. But in point of actual fact, all I really want to do
is have intercourse with you as soon as possible. You're gonna slap me now."
--John Nash, in "A Beautiful Mind"
Guy W. Thomas
I don't know what you mean by "highly ritualized", but I think you're
making a big generalization about folks who find dating useful. Dating
is a societal norm. I used to date, because I didn't know any different.
It didn't really work for me. My most successful relationships just
kinda grew. I knew them both pretty well before we ever went on an
actual face to face date. The one relationship that started with dating
ended pretty badly for me. Still that's me. For other folk it may be
exactly the right thing.
--
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
Guy W. Thomas
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:35:22 -0700, Kai Jones wrote:
>
>> On 19 Mar 2009 21:46:08 GMT, illecebra <ille...@nowhere.invalid>
>> published this:
>>
>>> I find that highly ritualized dating
>> What is this "highly ritualized dating" of which you speak?
>
> Pretty much anything with a strictly set script one is expected to
> follow. One example is, man asks for date, woman accepts, man picks
> woman up (possibly with a gift in hand), they go to dinner, useless small
> talk is made (because one shouldn't talk about anything else on a first
> date), man pays, couple attends movie or play or some such which man
> chose and bought tickets to, again useless small talk is made, man takes
> woman home.
If that's a date, I've never been on one.
Aahz Maruch
Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The one relationship that started with dating ended pretty badly for
>me. Still that's me. For other folk it may be exactly the right thing.
Wouldn't say exactly the right thing, but my long-term relationship that
started with something closest to a dating paradigm is 13.5 years old and
going strong.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
'When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him: "Whose?"'
--Don Marquis
Ruth Lawrence
"Guy W. Thomas" <xang...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wqGdnfa1jp2nUV7U...@giganews.com...
> illecebra wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:35:22 -0700, Kai Jones wrote:
>>
>>> On 19 Mar 2009 21:46:08 GMT, illecebra <ille...@nowhere.invalid>
>>> published this:
>>>
>>>> I find that highly ritualized dating
>>> What is this "highly ritualized dating" of which you speak?
>>
>> Pretty much anything with a strictly set script one is expected to
>> follow. One example is, man asks for date, woman accepts, man picks
>> woman up (possibly with a gift in hand), they go to dinner, useless small
>> talk is made (because one shouldn't talk about anything else on a first
>> date), man pays, couple attends movie or play or some such which man
>> chose and bought tickets to, again useless small talk is made, man takes
>> woman home.
>
> If that's a date, I've never been on one.
I have, once.
Ruth
Stef
Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>illecebra <ille...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> There are many other scripts, but the gist of it is that it's about going
>> through the ritual as impressively as possible more than having fun or
>> getting to know someone. It's just not something I find useful or
>> enjoyable.
>>
>
>"I find you very attractive. Your aggressive moves toward me indicate
>that you feel the same way. But still, ritual requires that we go through a
>number of platonic activities before we...have sex. I'm simply proceeding
>with those activities. But in point of actual fact, all I really want to do
>is have intercourse with you as soon as possible. You're gonna slap me now."
>--John Nash, in "A Beautiful Mind"
I am *such* a sapiosexual.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** cat-and-dragon.com/stef ** firecat.livejournal.com **
**
ARE YOU EXHAUSTED BY STRUGGLES WITH FOOD?
"If so, what on *Earth* are you eating?!
Have you thought of killing it first?" -- Araiguma
illecebra
> illecebra wrote:
<snip>
>> I find that highly ritualized dating tends to appeal mostly to the
>> people who think there are universal "rules" about how relationships
>> work, and need that structure so that things are predictable and feel
>> "safe", unlike just going with the flow and having to negotiate terms
>> like those of us who don't live with such assumptions. As such, I
>> don't find myself very compatible with such people, even though I do
>> sometimes discover an attraction to someone soon after meeting them.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "highly ritualized", but I think you're
> making a big generalization about folks who find dating useful. Dating
> is a societal norm. I used to date, because I didn't know any different.
*Exactly* -- I'm at a point of my life where I just don't want to put
time or energy into a potential partner who still does things just
because he thinks he's supposed to. The relationships I'm looking for
don't fit these social norms, so I choose not to waste my time with
people who haven't questioned the norms.
<snip>
> For other folk it may be exactly the right thing.
That's fine, but I'm not other people. Such a paradigm is completely
incompatible with me.
--Susan
Lane
@mid.individual.net:
> That's fine, but I'm not other people. Such a paradigm is completely
> incompatible with me.
>
You're obviously more highly evolved.
Lane (eyes rolling)
illecebra
*rolls them back*
Why is it that when someone around here says "X person/attitude/
relationship style is incompatible with me", there's always a response
taking offense?
Oh yes, it's USENET, land of shortsighted drama.
Different people have different needs. I'm incompatible with a lot of
people -- people who smoke, people who insist on monogamy, people looking
for a full time D/s relationship, people who want to move in and raise a
family together, people who are anti-self-defense, people who don't like
hands-on projects (hey, let's build a new deck this weekend!), people who
drink alchohol more than I am comfortable with (which is almost none),
people who like to hang out at clubs all the time, people who don't like
the outdoors, people who communicate less bluntly than I do, people who
are neat freaks... I could go on and on.
That doesn't mean I think all those people are evil or unworthy. It
means that I don't think we could be happy in a romantic relationship
with one another. Guess what -- sticking two people together does not a
good relationship make -- a satisfying relationship requires some
compatibility.
I know what works for me. YMMV, of course.
--Susan
(Not compatible with everyone on the planet, always on the lookout for
interesting compatible people.)
Lane
news:72krv5F...@mid.individual.net:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:19:51 +0000, Lane wrote:
>
>> illecebra <ille...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in news:72itjnFq7ui2U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> That's fine, but I'm not other people. Such a paradigm is
>>> completely incompatible with me.
>>>
>>>
>> You're obviously more highly evolved.
>>
>> Lane (eyes rolling)
>
> *rolls them back*
>
> Why is it that when someone around here says "X person/attitude/
> relationship style is incompatible with me", there's always a response
> taking offense?
I can't speak for any other experiences you may have had, but I have
found your writing to be rather condescending to others who have made
different choices than you. You have also been directly judgemental of
people based on little data about the full circumstances of their
situation.
Your recent dismissiveness of what you call "ritualized dating" is the
most recent example.
That is why I rolled my eyes.
Lane
Stef
illecebra <ille...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>Why is it that when someone around here says "X person/attitude/
>relationship style is incompatible with me", there's always a response
>taking offense?
There isn't. It matters a great deal how you say it, and about what.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** cat-and-dragon.com/stef ** firecat.livejournal.com **
**
I've never understood the fascination with "sexy" underwear. How can
underwear be "sexy"? It doesn't read books, nor can it tell me about the
latest film its seen. -- eve_l_incarnata
Serene Vannoy
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:19:51 +0000, Lane wrote:
>
>> illecebra <ille...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in news:72itjnFq7ui2U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> That's fine, but I'm not other people. Such a paradigm is completely
>>> incompatible with me.
>>>
>>>
>> You're obviously more highly evolved.
>>
>> Lane (eyes rolling)
>
> *rolls them back*
>
> Why is it that when someone around here says "X person/attitude/
> relationship style is incompatible with me", there's always a response
> taking offense?
For what it's worth, I didn't read your statement as being "I'm more
highly evolved," but rather, as the kind of statement I prefer to read
here, being one in which you speak solely for yourself. (I will say that
the first sentence "That's fine, but I'm not other people" did sound
snotty to me, but I'm not entirely against being snotty, which should be
obvious to anyone who's known me more than a half hour, and I think
you've known me at least a year. ;-)
Serene
--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue March '09!
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
David Weinshenker
> illecebra wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:19:51 +0000, Lane wrote:
>>
>>> illecebra <ille...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in news:72itjnFq7ui2U1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> That's fine, but I'm not other people. Such a paradigm is completely
>>>> incompatible with me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You're obviously more highly evolved.
>>>
>>> Lane (eyes rolling)
>> *rolls them back*
>>
>> Why is it that when someone around here says "X person/attitude/
>> relationship style is incompatible with me", there's always a response
>> taking offense?
>
> For what it's worth, I didn't read your statement as being "I'm more
> highly evolved," but rather, as the kind of statement I prefer to read
> here, being one in which you speak solely for yourself.
And that's also a pretty clear example and description of the whole "why are
people so touchy about generalizations around here?" thing. (The basic notion
is that, no matter what, someone's gonna be an outlier, and these differences
should be respected - rather than glossed over in ways that might leave the
Different People feeling left out - so anything that seems to be phrased as
true of "us in general" tends to get a "speak for yourself - some of us might
not be like that at all!" reaction, from the structure of the way it is said.)
For similar reasons, I sometimes avoid the use of "you" as an abstract
reference, in favor of "one": the latter seems a little stilted and
formal in ordinary conversation, but it's not so likely to be mistaken
for a direct reference when intended as an abstract one.
Miche
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
That's why I love the Minnesotan construct "a person", as in "You know,
a person could really appreciate that point of view."
But then, with the wacky neurology and things, I would say that,
wouldn't I.
illecebra
<snip>
>> For similar reasons, I sometimes avoid the use of "you" as an abstract
>> reference, in favor of "one": the latter seems a little stilted and
>> formal in ordinary conversation, but it's not so likely to be mistaken
>> for a direct reference when intended as an abstract one.
>
> That's why I love the Minnesotan construct "a person", as in "You know,
> a person could really appreciate that point of view."
>
> But then, with the wacky neurology and things, I would say that,
> wouldn't I.
>
> Miche
Hehe, I haven't heard that expression in *ages*. One of my grandmothers
used to use it.
Thanks for the smile,
Illecebra
Josh
> In article <386af909-5a18-4ef8-ab83-1ca1ac17c...@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Josh <joshua.j.oak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >So my wife and I opened up or marriage about a year and a half ago. I
> >run a business and have little time to go meet new people. The people
> >I get attracted I tend to know well, but they either keep being in a
> >monogamous relationship (and it's against my code of ethics to alter
> >those relationships) or they're otherwise unavailable. So my question
> >is: where do you all meet people. I've been off the market for 7
> >years! I feel like a fish out of water when I go out.
>
>
> * Stay in "not not looking" mode, meaning that you're open to
> opportunities that present themselves but don't seek out opportunities to
> start relationships. You would probably do better by socializing in
> venues where there are poly people (e.g. science fiction fandom or SCA or
> Ren Faire), but because dating isn't the point of these social
> activities, you really should attend them for their own sake rather than
> because you're hoping to find sexual/romantic relationships.
>
> * Do the traditional dating thing with a poly twist, which means using
> sites like okcupid.com and polymatchmaker.com. I'm currently trying out
> OKCupid, and it's going okay -- though most of my matches are people I
> already knew (or knew of).
>
> There's also the option of trying to find your local swinging community,
> though that's usually rather different from polyamory.> "This is Usenet. We're all masturbating in public places." -DH
good suggestions. I'll be looking into it. I actually have a bit more
time than I let on, having thought of it. It's just that I like my
time spent on high-quality endeavors. Bars have been not working. But
I like your suggestions a lot.
Josh
> is, I mention that I have multiple partners when it comes up, and I have
> "polyamory" in all my online profiles in one form or another. That way,
> if someone else is looking for a poly person to hang out with, they know
> they've found one without having to dig too hard. Plus, since I don't
> tend to do the "dating" thing with people I don't already know, people
> are more likely to already know I'm poly when the subject of dating
> comes up. Saves having that embarrassing "Oh! Ew. Never mind." that I
> imagine comes of being asked out by a monogamous person who didn't know
> I was poly.
Unfortunately, because of public perceptions, and the nature of my job
(which I'm not yet willing to divulge), I don't have online profiles,
nor who I mention polyamory in it as it could have a negative impact
in my finances. My boss has also specificaly requested for that reason
I keep discreet.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> good suggestions. I'll be looking into it. I actually have a bit more
> time than I let on, having thought of it. It's just that I like my
> time spent on high-quality endeavors. Bars have been not working. But
> I like your suggestions a lot.
If you don't like hanging out in bars, then it seems to me that the sort
of people who like hanging out in bars aren't as likely to be compatible
with you as people you might meet doing something you _do_ like.
- Darkhawk, jus' sayin'
--
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
Miche
<e86942be-8ab6-4858...@x29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Josh <joshua....@gmail.com> wrote:
And so that's not your real name in your e-mail address up there, right?
Josh
> In article
> <e86942be-8ab6-4858-a1eb-af2f43221...@x29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
dammit. See? newb.