Open Marriage vs. Polyamory
Bonnie
What is the difference between an Open Marriage/Relationship and Polyamory?
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
In my book, that's like asking: "What is the difference between a pecan
and a nut?" An open marriage or open relationship is one type of polyamory.
---
Jennie Dailey-O'Cain | "It should be 'standard language
jenn...@umich.edu | *idd*eology', not 'standard language
http://www.intranet.org/~jenniedo/ | *eye*deology'."
U of Michigan Germanic Linguistics | -- Rosina Lippi-Green
Steve Karmesin
>
> >What is the difference between an Open Marriage/Relationship and Polyamory?
>
> In my book, that's like asking: "What is the difference between a pecan
> and a nut?" An open marriage or open relationship is one type of polyamory.
To continue that thought for the newbies:
An open marriage implies (to me...) that there is a primary relationship,
the marriage, and some number of secondary relationships. Whether "open
marriage" implies that those other relationships are just sexplay or if they
have strong emotional components varies depending on who is speaking and
listening.
Polyamory more general in that it includes:
1) Relationships that don't have a primary but do have a number of partners of
whatever type.
2) Triads, quads etc where loving relationships outside of that group may or
may not be "allowed".
and many other permutations.
Steve K.
Carol Suelzle
>Dave Hutchison (dav...@primenet.com) wrote:
>: Bonnie <bhut...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>:
>: >What is the difference between an Open Marriage/Relationship and Polyamory?
>:
>: An open marriage/relationship is one part of polyamory. Polyamory includes
>: all combinations of couples, threesums, and poly love combinations. Poly
>Why do you exclude singles?
Because swingers (ususally) exclude single males from their clubs, events, and
gatherings. I *personally* have never seen an ad for a club, group or
gathering that didn't expressly say 'couples only' or 'no single men'.
The treatment of single women, is however, a different matter.
Carol
Steve Pope
> angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu (Angi Long) writes:
>) The type of swingers which practices recreational sex with multiple
>) people, but does not accept multiple *love* relationships, is poly-
>) *sexual*, but not poly*amorous*.
> I do not think we should reject swingers
> because they practice a different kind of poly than you or I do.
"poly" is a broader term than "polyamorous". In my vernacular
(not that anyone should care what my vernacular is....),
"poly" means having (in practice, or at least by preference)
multiple partners, openly, whereas "polyamorous" means that in
addition more than one of these relationships involves love.
I would say that a swinger who specifically rules out romance
in his outside relationships, would not claim to be polyamorous.
Steve
William R. Ward
) xlnt <law...@gsusgi2.gsu.edu> wrote:
)>On 3 Feb 1996, Mark Evans wrote:
)>] Many types of "swingers" have nothing what so ever to do with polyamoury.
)>On your second point, I'd like to know what kind of swingers are in no
)>way poly...
) The type of swingers which practices recreational sex with multiple
) people, but does not accept multiple *love* relationships, is poly-
) *sexual*, but not poly*amorous*.
I thought we had agreed to disagree on this point, and accept swingers
if they wish to consider themselves polyamorous. After all "eros" is
one of the classical forms of love is it not?
Let's try not to be cliquish and exclusionist. I don't welcome
personals ads by anyone, but I do not think we should reject swingers
because they practice a different kind of poly than you or I do.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward Bay View Consulting http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
her...@bayview.com 1803 Mission St. #339 voicemail +1 408/479-4072
her...@cats.ucsc.edu Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA pager +1 408/458-8862
Mark Evans
: xlnt <law...@gsusgi2.gsu.edu> wrote:
: >On 3 Feb 1996, Mark Evans wrote:
: >] Many types of "swingers" have nothing what so ever to do with polyamoury.
:
: >On your second point, I'd like to know what kind of swingers are in no
: >way poly...
:
: The type of swingers which practices recreational sex with multiple
Who are certainly the "loudest" and most visible type.
: people, but does not accept multiple *love* relationships, is poly-
: *sexual*, but not poly*amorous*.
Angi Long
>On 3 Feb 1996, Mark Evans wrote:
>] Many types of "swingers" have nothing what so ever to do with polyamoury.
>On your second point, I'd like to know what kind of swingers are in no
>way poly...
The type of swingers which practices recreational sex with multiple
Dave Hutchison
>The type of swingers which practices recreational sex with multiple
>people, but does not accept multiple *love* relationships, is poly-
>*sexual*, but not poly*amorous*.
Good point.
But...not all "swingers" are just out for recreational sex. Many want
loving intimacy and a relationship couple to couple. Often its the
recreational sex swingers that get all the attention but I can assure you
many "swingers" are seeking just as much "amorous" as many who consider
themselves poly. The only real difference is "swinging" is usually
associated with couples and poly with any combinations of mf.
The practical problem is the overabundance of men looking for sex more than
loving relationships that flood into swinging thinking they can get sex.
Therefore in swinging there is a huge oversupply of men and very little
demand for them by couples.
Also commiteed couples sharing with other commited couples (but not always
just as a couple), seems to help to some extent the problem of jealousy.
We would love to stress more poly and less swinging....but we believe its
not practical since already we get 200 single men for every 20 couples for
every 1 or 2 single women contacting us. So we take the route of perhaps
more poly relationship ideas within swinging since couples only (and single
women welcome) avoids the huge oversupply of male energy!
Dave, Liberated Christians, Phoenix Az
Teaching Positive Intimacy and Women Centered Sexuality
Exposing False Traditional Biblical Teachings
For Free Info request from dav...@primenet.com
Over 1400 subscribers get our Free Internet Newsletter
Ken Chaddock
>Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 09:16:24 UNDEFINED
>Because swingers (ususally) exclude single males from their clubs, events, and
>gatherings. I *personally* have never seen an ad for a club, group or
>gathering that didn't expressly say 'couples only' or 'no single men'.
>The treatment of single women, is however, a different matter.
I think this has more to do with equal numbers that anything else Carol.
Men are still generally (big generalization here) easier with casual sex or
even non-casual but non-committed sex than women (I would like to think that
this is changing but it hasn't changed significantly yet).
If these clubs were open to single men, I think you would find far more men
than women in attendance.
...Ken
Angi Long
>angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu (Angi Long) writes:
>) The type of swingers which practices recreational sex with multiple
>) people, but does not accept multiple *love* relationships, is poly-
>) *sexual*, but not poly*amorous*.
>I thought we had agreed to disagree on this point, and accept swingers
>if they wish to consider themselves polyamorous. After all "eros" is
>one of the classical forms of love is it not?
I don't see how anybody can apply the root "amory" to something that
doesn't in any way involve "love." I'm not sure to exactly what the
term "eros" applies, but I don't think many people nowadays consider
sex, in and of itself, to be love. Friendships are one type of love
relationship, so swingers who have sex with friends fall under the
"polyamory" label (at least under one corner of the umbrella). But
those who swing with strangers only, and don't even consider their
multiple partners "friends," are IMO misusing a term if they call
themselves "polyamorous," just as I would be misusing a term if I
tried to call myself (in the literal sense) "virginal." I'm all in
favor of letting people pick their own labels, but there are some
limitations on how far the meaning of a term can reasonably be
stretched.
His Holiness the Pope
Question, for anyone wishing to comment: does *love* relationship necessarily
mean *long-term* relationship?
There have been periods in my life where I have had a number of one-night
stands, but I have never felt that these were "recreational sex" -- there was
always a deeper connection there. It seems to me that the realm of human
experience which can truthfully be called "love" includes, at times, these
intense and extremely short-lived experiences -- sometimes sexual experiences
-- shared betweeen two (or more) people. To me, these experiences are no less
beautiful or good or spiritual than long-term, "serious" relationships -- they
simply have a different sort of beauty, a different sort of goodness, a
different sort of spirituality.
Comments?
-jason
(No, I don't have a cute .sig file. And I NEVER use smileys.)
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>There have been periods in my life where I have had a number of one-night
>stands, but I have never felt that these were "recreational sex" -- there was
>always a deeper connection there.
I don't have one-night-stands, for lots of reasons, and can't really say
I comprehend them. So I'm curious about one point -- if you meet
someone, and you have a "deep connection" with him or her, and you have
sex, and that sex isn't awful, why does it ever stay a one-night-stand?
I mean, if things are really that great, why stop?
Samantha Star Straf
to hang out on alt.polyamory I was scared away since my relationships were
not leadint to a one-house type marriage then I wasn't really poly at all,
I was just a swinger. I haven't heard anyone express my feelings as well
as Jason here:
His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
>There have been periods in my life where I have had a number of one-night
>stands, but I have never felt that these were "recreational sex" -- there was
>always a deeper connection there. It seems to me that the realm of human
>experience which can truthfully be called "love" includes, at times, these
>intense and extremely short-lived experiences -- sometimes sexual experiences
>-- shared betweeen two (or more) people. To me, these experiences are no less
>beautiful or good or spiritual than long-term, "serious" relationships -- they
>simply have a different sort of beauty, a different sort of goodness, a
>different sort of spirituality.
>-jason
I currently have 2 primaries that I am building something long term with,
but I have other relationships to that last from an eveing to a few months,
and for me that is an important part of my polyamoryness
--
------------------------------------
Samantha Star Straf st...@mcs.com http://www.mcs.net/~star/home.html
The only solution to a Bad Hair Day is a Good Hat
His Holiness the Pope
>His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
>
>>There have been periods in my life where I have had a number of one-night
>>stands, but I have never felt that these were "recreational sex" -- there was
>>always a deeper connection there.
>
>I comprehend them. So I'm curious about one point -- if you meet
>someone, and you have a "deep connection" with him or her, and you have
>sex, and that sex isn't awful, why does it ever stay a one-night-stand?
>I mean, if things are really that great, why stop?
>
Because sometimes the deep connection is very dependant on the exact
circumstances: people find themselves in just the right place at just the right
time that something amazing can happen between them. Another time, another
place: forget it. There wouldn't be anything there.
To give an example (one that doesn't involve sex, btw): once, back when I was
an undergrad, I was at this dance party/rave sort of thing. As I was milling
through the crowd, I passed this highschool-aged girl. Our eyes met and... how
can I describe it? There was this *click* and instantly we both knew that
something wonderful was going to happen between the two of us. I think we
began holding hands before we had even introduced ourselves. (Btw, I was not on
any drugs when any of this was happening.) We spent the rest of the night
holding hands, dancing, occasionally talking, but conversation seemed
superfluous. Our connection was not intellectual, nor was it sexual: it was
kinesthetic. (Any dancers out there? You'll know what I'm talking about.)
I've danced with lots of people, and doing contact improv I've experienced
amazing physical communication with people, but never the way I connected with
this girl (her name was Carol) that night. Just standing there, pressing my
fingertips to hers, it was as if we had become one flesh: a physical intimacy
I've never experienced in sex.
I never saw her again after that night, and never really wanted to: it was
clear, from what little we told each other about ourselves, that we had nothing
in common: she was a highschool girl, into drugs and clothes and parties, I was
a college student, into Derrida and irony and pretension. It was something
special about that night, that place, that let us be so close. Seeing her
again, after what we had shared that night, would have been tragically
disappointing. Does that make sense?
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>jenn...@kira.intranet.org (Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain) writes:
>>if you meet
>>someone, and you have a "deep connection" with him or her, and you have
>>sex, and that sex isn't awful, why does it ever stay a one-night-stand?
>>I mean, if things are really that great, why stop?
>
>Because sometimes the deep connection is very dependant on the exact
>circumstances: people find themselves in just the right place at just the right
>time that something amazing can happen between them. Another time, another
>place: forget it. There wouldn't be anything there.
To me, then, it doesn't seem like the connection is really all that
"deep". Or maybe I just mean something different from "deep connection"
than you do.
For example, there have been several (not many) times over the course of my
life where I've sat down with someone, and spent a whole evening with him or
her just *connecting*. Talking about serious, personal things we'd never
told anyone else, just because we felt that connection. That's what I
think of when I hear of a "deep connection" that develops instantly or
very quickly -- the sense of knowing one another before talking. I've never
had sex under circumstances like that, but if I were a slightly different
person in slightly different circumstances, I can imagine wanting to.
But then I would want that new-found connection to continue after that
night! And I can't really imagine developing a connection that deep and
having it just *poof* be gone the next day.
[example story about meeting high-school girl at a rave deleted]
>I never saw her again after that night, and never really wanted to: it was
>clear, from what little we told each other about ourselves, that we had nothing
>in common: she was a highschool girl, into drugs and clothes and parties, I was
>a college student, into Derrida and irony and pretension. It was something
>special about that night, that place, that let us be so close. Seeing her
>again, after what we had shared that night, would have been tragically
>disappointing. Does that make sense?
Not really, not to me. I would have wanted to see her again. I would
have wanted to learn everything about her, probably. Maybe you could
have been good for each other, who knows. She could have helped you
loosen up, and you could have helped her grow. Just maybe.
To me, you just don't give up a deep connection like that once you've
found one.
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>>I can't really imagine developing a connection that deep and
>>having it just *poof* be gone the next day.
>
>It's not gone the next day because one still remembers it. But
>circumstances may not warrant changing one's life to keep that
>connection growing.
Now *that* I understand. But not really caring about keeping a
connection *growing* isn't the same as not wanting to have it at all.
>>To me, you just don't give up a deep connection like that once you've
>>found one.
>
>It depends on how much room there is in your life for more people.
There's always room in my life for more people. What it depends on is
how much time I'm willing to give up to nurture the relationship. I can
imagine (I wouldn't do it, but I can imagine it) getting into a casual
sexual relationship with someone who I had a deep connection with, and
not really having the desire to nurture that relationship in any major
way. So for me, what it would probably turn into is something that we'd
enjoy when we happened to be together, but we wouldn't ever go to any
great effort to be together. But I just can't imagine having that once,
and never wanting to experience it again, ever.
Stef Jones
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
>His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
>>jenn...@kira.intranet.org (Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain) writes:
>>>if you meet
>>>someone, and you have a "deep connection" with him or her, and you have
>>>sex, and that sex isn't awful, why does it ever stay a one-night-stand?
>>>I mean, if things are really that great, why stop?
>>Because sometimes the deep connection is very dependant on the exact
>>circumstances: [...]
>
>To me, then, it doesn't seem like the connection is really all that
>"deep". Or maybe I just mean something different from "deep connection"
>than you do.
Probably.
>For example, there have been several (not many) times over the course of my
>life where I've sat down with someone, and spent a whole evening with him or
>her just *connecting*. Talking about serious, personal things we'd never
>told anyone else, just because we felt that connection. That's what I
>think of when I hear of a "deep connection" that develops instantly or
>very quickly -- the sense of knowing one another before talking. I've never
>had sex under circumstances like that, but if I were a slightly different
>person in slightly different circumstances, I can imagine wanting to.
>But then I would want that new-found connection to continue after that
>night! And I can't really imagine developing a connection that deep and
>having it just *poof* be gone the next day.
It's not gone the next day because one still remembers it. But
circumstances may not warrant changing one's life to keep that
connection growing.
I love rainbows, but I don't travel around the world seeking them.
>Not really, not to me. I would have wanted to see her again. I would
>have wanted to learn everything about her, probably. Maybe you could
>have been good for each other, who knows. She could have helped you
>loosen up, and you could have helped her grow. Just maybe.
>
>To me, you just don't give up a deep connection like that once you've
>found one.
It depends on how much room there is in your life for more people.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
** st...@netcom.com ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef/
Join the blue ribbon campaign for free speech online: http://www.eff.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Question authority!"
"Why?"
Stephen Dedman
>In article <stefDMK...@netcom.com>, Stef Jones <st...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>I can't really imagine developing a connection that deep and
>>>having it just *poof* be gone the next day.
>>
>>It's not gone the next day because one still remembers it. But
>>circumstances may not warrant changing one's life to keep that
>>connection growing.
>Now *that* I understand. But not really caring about keeping a
>connection *growing* isn't the same as not wanting to have it at all.
>>>To me, you just don't give up a deep connection like that once you've
>>>found one.
>>
>>It depends on how much room there is in your life for more people.
>There's always room in my life for more people. What it depends on is
>how much time I'm willing to give up to nurture the relationship. I can
>imagine (I wouldn't do it, but I can imagine it) getting into a casual
>sexual relationship with someone who I had a deep connection with, and
>not really having the desire to nurture that relationship in any major
>way. So for me, what it would probably turn into is something that we'd
>enjoy when we happened to be together, but we wouldn't ever go to any
>great effort to be together. But I just can't imagine having that once,
>and never wanting to experience it again, ever.
>---
>Jennie Dailey-O'Cain | "It should be 'standard language
>jenn...@umich.edu | *idd*eology', not 'standard language
>http://www.intranet.org/~jenniedo/ | *eye*deology'."
>U of Michigan Germanic Linguistics | -- Rosina Lippi-Green
I've never had a one-night stand with anyone without intending to start
an ongoing relationship, or without wanting to experience it again. But
wanting, needing, and being able to aren't the same thing. I'm (mostly)
happy in the relationship I have, but I still miss my first long-time
partner (who's now married, mono, and on the other side of the world),
and we broke up nine years ago. I'm still friends with *all* of my
ex-lovers, and I have other female friends I would love to sleep with, but
none of us are prepared to change our lives sufficiently to have an ongoing
sexual relationship.
Sometimes, a one-night stand has been enough to give us what we
needed from each other. It hasn't always been enough to give us
everything we wanted, but hey, how many of us get everything we want?
- Stephen Dedman
- Just my opinions, but they're for sale if you want them -
dei...@intranet.org
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
>
>>>someone, and you have a "deep connection" with him or her, and you have
>>>sex, and that sex isn't awful, why does it ever stay a one-night-stand?
>>>I mean, if things are really that great, why stop?
>>
For me, I guess, I don't want to stop unless circumstances don't
allow the relationship to continue. Like if that person is going to move
out of state in 2 months, or for whatever reason decides not to see me. (I
hate it when that happens. . .) Possibly, it is a relationship that
cannot be maintained because it would hurt other people, or jeopardize
the persons involved, somehow.
>
>For example, there have been several (not many) times over the course of my
>life where I've sat down with someone, and spent a whole evening with him or
>her just *connecting*. ... ...
>But then I would want that new-found connection to continue after that
>night! And I can't really imagine developing a connection that deep and
>having it just *poof* be gone the next day.
>.... ....
>To me, you just don't give up a deep connection like that once you've
>found one.
>
I don't 'give up' something like that. I keep it in my memories
for as long as I can. I hold on to the things I have learned and enjoyed
and regretted. The primary reason that my 'connections' have sometimes
been brief is geography. I am in college, and I meet people who are
college age. I lose a lot of special and dear friends when they (or I)
move. I would rather connect and love them, even if I know our time is
limited, than not follow up on a connection. I am sad when it ends, but I
move on, and I think each new relationship, no matter how brief, teaches
me something. (Often about myself! *chuckle*)
Just the way I am,
*shrug*
Deirdre
"better late than never"
David Stagner
marriage or marriage-like relationships. You don't have to want to
spend the rest of your life with someone to love them. You don't even
have to *like* someone in order to be in love with them. But to
commit to and live with someone is much more difficult.
Ideally, my wife and I would like to someday find another couple to
share a double marriage with. But the combinatorics are bad. A
three-way relationship means three two-way relationships as well as
the three-way. A four-way relationship means six two-ways (and
three-ways too). And that doesn't even bring questions of children
in (we already have two). So we're looking at all the problems of
marriage anyway, squared. And then you throw in questions of sexual
preference... I'm bisexual but my wife is not. It becomes very
complicated.
So it's easy to poo-poo "swinging" and sneer that it is inferior to
polyamory. But in practice, functional polyamory is a lot more
difficult than simple "open marriage". So while we dream of finding a
compatable couple for life, we have our lovers on the side. Not
necessarily what we want, but it does allow us the pursuit of other
sexual partners, which is some satisfaction at least.
-dave
George A. Stathis
>His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
>
>>stands, but I have never felt that these were "recreational sex" -- there was
>>always a deeper connection there.
>
>I don't have one-night-stands, for lots of reasons, and can't really say
>sex, and that sex isn't awful, why does it ever stay a one-night-stand?
>I mean, if things are really that great, why stop?
The answer is: It quite often does *not* stop. My best friend
Makis had a one-night stand last week, and now he has... three
girlfriends, including one he met last night, in my presence.
Not talking of myself, in case you think I lie or self-advertise.
One-night stands ideally _do_ develop into relationships, IMO,
but... with three girlfriends now, HOW can my friends find the
_time_ for a fouth one? THIS is the problem. The problem is
ONLY a _technical_ one: Lack of time. Other than this, some
one-night-stands are better than others, and indeed some of
them tend to need no further contact than the simple
exchange of phone-numbers for future meeting again...
I write this from Athens, Greece by the way. We are a group
of polymorous non-sexist people growing through the _energy_
of meeting new people all the time. NOT being vampires either!
YMMV.
Best Wishes
George
(hype...@hol.gr)
Mark Evans
: In article <4faj9r$p...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu (Angi Long) writes:
: >The type of swingers which practices recreational sex with multiple
: >people, but does not accept multiple *love* relationships, is poly-
: >*sexual*, but not poly*amorous*.
:
: Question, for anyone wishing to comment: does *love* relationship necessarily
: mean *long-term* relationship?
This is a point which tends to be skipped over. Quality vs quantity.
: There have been periods in my life where I have had a number of one-night
: stands, but I have never felt that these were "recreational sex" -- there was
: always a deeper connection there. It seems to me that the realm of human
The "deeper" connection is something between the people involved, which may well
not be obvious to others.
: experience which can truthfully be called "love" includes, at times, these
: intense and extremely short-lived experiences -- sometimes sexual experiences
: -- shared betweeen two (or more) people. To me, these experiences are no less
: beautiful or good or spiritual than long-term, "serious" relationships -- they
Also it is quite possible for people to have long lasting relationships with
little or no emotional connection.
: simply have a different sort of beauty, a different sort of goodness, a
: different sort of spirituality.
:
: Comments?
:
: -jason
Mark Evans
: His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
: >stands, but I have never felt that these were "recreational sex" -- there was
: >always a deeper connection there.
: I don't have one-night-stands, for lots of reasons, and can't really say
: someone, and you have a "deep connection" with him or her, and you have
: sex, and that sex isn't awful, why does it ever stay a one-night-stand?
: I mean, if things are really that great, why stop?
Do long term friendships always spring from a casual meeting you have
with someone? Even if the meeting is really good. Maybe you happen not
to meet that person again, maybe the quality of what happens is really
"time specific". Why do people assume that when sex is involved things
suddenly should be different.
His Holiness the Pope
>His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>>if you meet
>>>someone, and you have a "deep connection" with him or her, and you have
>>>sex, and that sex isn't awful, why does it ever stay a one-night-stand?
>>>I mean, if things are really that great, why stop?
>>
>>time that something amazing can happen between them. Another time, another
>>place: forget it. There wouldn't be anything there.
>
>"deep". Or maybe I just mean something different from "deep connection"
>than you do.
>
>life where I've sat down with someone, and spent a whole evening with him or
>told anyone else, just because we felt that connection. That's what I
>think of when I hear of a "deep connection" that develops instantly or
>very quickly -- the sense of knowing one another before talking.
Yes, I think we do mean different things when we say "deep connection". I have
certainly experienced the sort of connection you talk about here, and while
"talking about serious, personal things" is one way of connecting to someone,
is one _sort_ of connection one can have, I don't consider it the only or
"deepest" connection. In the example I gave, my connection with Carol (the
girl I met at a rave) had nothing to do with any intellectal communication, or
even with any emotional (in the sense that I think you would probably give to
the word) connection. It was a sensual, kinesthetic connection. That's too
reductive: it was more than that, but these are the only words I can find to
describe it.
There is such a tendency now to consider one's emotional/intellectual self as
the "real" or "most important" part of one's self. I consider that just as
unbalanced and sad as thinking that one's physical appearance is the only
"real" or "important" aspect of one's self. Yes, I am an emotional and
intellectual being. I am also a corporeal being, a sexual being, a spiritual
being. There are an infinite number of levels at which two people can connect,
an infinite number of modalities in which communication can take place. The
few, crude labels our language gives us -- "emotional", "sexual", "spiritual",
"intellectual", "sensual", "kinesthetic", etc. -- don't even begin to map out
the myriad shades of human experience, the ways that people can share
themselves with one another. Some connections can last a lifetime. Others, by
their very nature, are ephemeral, and last only a few days or hours or seconds.
They can all be beautiful, deep, spiritual -- if one is willing to see them
that way.
I believe in remaining open to these beautiful moments of connection with other
people, but part of that openness involves knowing when to hold on and when to
let go. Being open means letting an experience be what it is, and not what one
wants it to be: if it's the beginning of a life-long friendship, that's
wonderful; if it's a single intersection between one's life and another's,
never to be repeated, that can be wonderful as well.
Maybe none of this makes sense if you haven't experienced it yourself. I don't
know. My experience is tied so intimately to my philosophy of life, my deepest
beliefs (which are more or less Taoist), that it's hard to relate that
experience to those who don't share that philosophy and those beliefs.
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>In the example I gave, my connection with Carol (the
>girl I met at a rave) had nothing to do with any intellectal communication, or
>even with any emotional (in the sense that I think you would probably give to
>the word) connection. It was a sensual, kinesthetic connection.
I have a hard time conceiving of that kind of connection being present
and an emotional connection being completely absent. <shrug>
How did you know, if you didn't really have a deep emotional connection
with her, that you would have been as incompatible as you claim you would
have been? What is it that made you want to keep that connection on a
sensual level, and not get to know her on an emotional and intellectual
level?
---
"No one and no organization has the right to deny the people of Northern
Ireland a peaceful future, and I am determined to do all that I can to see
that the enemies of peace do not succeed."
-- Bill Clinton, voted "Irish-American of the Year"
(condemning Friday night's breach of the 17-month ceasefire by the IRA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennie Dailey-O'Cain <jenn...@umich.edu> http://www.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
Fred Cherny
In <4fidqr$u...@motown.coast.net>, Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
(jenn...@kira.intranet.org) wrote:
: His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
: >jenn...@kira.intranet.org (Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain) writes:
: >>if you meet
: >>someone, and you have a "deep connection" with him or her, and you have
: >>sex, and that sex isn't awful, why does it ever stay a one-night-stand?
: >>I mean, if things are really that great, why stop?
: >
I agree with Jennie. In fact, I'll go one step further. Even if the sex
*were* awful, why give up on the relationship? Sex is a matter of
communicating affection (at least, in part). If something didn't work the
first time, could it be because you don't know each other well enough to
relax and have fun together? Or is sex something more like *magic*?
: >Because sometimes the deep connection is very dependant on the exact
: >circumstances: people find themselves in just the right place at just the right
: >time that something amazing can happen between them. Another time, another
: >place: forget it. There wouldn't be anything there.
: To me, then, it doesn't seem like the connection is really all that
: "deep". Or maybe I just mean something different from "deep connection"
: than you do.
: For example, there have been several (not many) times over the course of my
: life where I've sat down with someone, and spent a whole evening with him or
: her just *connecting*. Talking about serious, personal things we'd never
: told anyone else, just because we felt that connection. That's what I
: think of when I hear of a "deep connection" that develops instantly or
: very quickly -- the sense of knowing one another before talking. I've never
: had sex under circumstances like that, but if I were a slightly different
: person in slightly different circumstances, I can imagine wanting to.
: But then I would want that new-found connection to continue after that
: night! And I can't really imagine developing a connection that deep and
: having it just *poof* be gone the next day.
Again, Jennie makes a lot of sense to me. But then again, my sexual experience
is extremely narrow.
: [example story about meeting high-school girl at a rave deleted]
: >I never saw her again after that night, and never really wanted to: it was
: >clear, from what little we told each other about ourselves, that we had nothing
: >in common: she was a highschool girl, into drugs and clothes and parties, I was
: >a college student, into Derrida and irony and pretension. It was something
: >special about that night, that place, that let us be so close. Seeing her
: >again, after what we had shared that night, would have been tragically
: >disappointing. Does that make sense?
: Not really, not to me. I would have wanted to see her again. I would
: have wanted to learn everything about her, probably. Maybe you could
: have been good for each other, who knows. She could have helped you
: loosen up, and you could have helped her grow. Just maybe.
I can understand seeing someone and immediately feeling attracted to that
person. I have felt that before. On that basis, I can picture having
immediate sexual intimacy with her. Yet the idea of feeling that close
to someone for one evening, never to see her again, sounds bitterly
painful.
Again, I cannot speak from experience, having known only one woman
(my wife).
: To me, you just don't give up a deep connection like that once you've
: found one.
: ---
: Jennie Dailey-O'Cain | "It should be 'standard language
: jenn...@umich.edu | *idd*eology', not 'standard language
: http://www.intranet.org/~jenniedo/ | *eye*deology'."
: U of Michigan Germanic Linguistics | -- Rosina Lippi-Green
--
work: fch...@spd.dsccc.com home: TooMu...@why.net
................Love one another; enrich the world........................
"In much wisdom there is much grief, | "To touch is to heal, to hurt is to
and increasing knowledge results in | steal. If you want to kiss the sky
increasing pain." - Ecc. 1:18 | better learn how to kneel" - U2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Please don't confuse my opinions with my empolyer's.
deema...@peg.apc.org
jenniedo alt.polyamory 1:32 AM Feb 11, 1996
(at kira.intranet.org) (From News system)
Specific disclaimer: I'm no expert here. Although I am open to
more "casual" sex, I'm very picky and am not willing to deal with
murk, and absolutely not with "hunting and collecting". So my "one-
night stands", which I'd define as anything lasting under a week, are
probably limited to what I can count on my fingers and toes. I've had
some ongoing connections that stay in the "casual" basket, but some
of those have gone on for *years*.
Jennie Dailey-O'Cain (jenn...@kira.intranet.org) writes:
>His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
>>again, after what we had shared that night, would have been tragically
>>disappointing. Does that make sense?
>
>Not really, not to me. I would have wanted to see her again. I would
>have wanted to learn everything about her, probably. Maybe you could
>have been good for each other, who knows. She could have helped you
>loosen up, and you could have helped her grow. Just maybe.
>
>To me, you just don't give up a deep connection like that once you've
>found one.
{Responding blind: I haven't seen the initial post yet}
I agree and disagree with Jennie. The idea of seeing again someone you've
had a lovely experience with, as being "tragically disappointing" does not
make sense to me. Whenever I've had a brief spell with someone, and
it has been good, I feel a fondness and affection for that person, even if
it subsequently turns out we are so different as to be fundamentally
incompatible. We've shared something beautiful, been touched by the
spirit. How could I not have affection, not wonder and be willing to
talk to them about how their life is going, not give them a hug or a
smile should we run across each other in a cafe?
But Jennie, I also disagree. There may be (have been) times when a
meeting or union was "just right", and this does not recur. In some
cases, I have, as a result, been friends with that person ever
afterwords, although it never seemed appropriate to be deeply intimate
again. It has also happened that our worlds are so different that there
is little overlap, little dynamic for communication/sharing, and we
have drifted apart. But if we meet, at least there is usually a smile
between eyes... a recognition and honouring of what we've shared.
I don't feel right about entering into any relationship where I know I
wouldn't want it to go further. But I am loose enough that I can go
with the energy, if its right, and openness, honesty, celebration seems
to be there. I do have an attitude that allows me to go with this at a
far earlier place than many people, before I know the other
thoroughly.
Subsequently, I may find things in their nature, or their values, that
make me feel incompatable with that person. Our personalities may
not realy mesh. Our energies may be very different Our personal
difficulties may interact in ways that make things really difficult and
painful. There may be "opportunities" to do "inner work" but there is
always a measure of assessment about personal costs and benefits,
the amount of pain and effort likely to be involved, and how it will
affect other relationships and parts of our lives.. If I feel like it is more
than I am prepared to take on, at this point, I will honour our
connection and withdraw. If the other feels it is more than they want
to deal with, I also try to honour the connection and respect the
withdrawal.
And occasionally there are those wonderful connections that occur
where, unfortunately, people are in transit. Some can hit a level of
purity *because* the ongoing consequences seem less significant, and
love-in-the-moment safer. Sometimes long-distance relationships
result, often they don't, but it can be all right in either case. But I
would not enter such a relationship *on the basis* of its non-
continuance.
Dhanu
****************************************************************
Claimer:
You can confidently rely on the views expressed in this post
representing the true will of the divine, and the nature of the universe
--- I speak for all existence, everywhere and at all times.
****************************************************************
Dhanu River ELVES
Environment, Life, and Viable Eco-social Systems
email: el...@peg.apc.org
Stef Jones
> In article <stefDMK...@netcom.com>, Stef Jones <st...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >>having it just *poof* be gone the next day.
> >circumstances may not warrant changing one's life to keep that
> >connection growing.
> Now *that* I understand. But not really caring about keeping a
> connection *growing* isn't the same as not wanting to have it at all.
I think it's a matter of how one describes things. I might feel wistful
about a connection that I know isn't going to last because I've chosen not
to put that kind of energy into it. But I would not say that I "wanted" it
to last. It sounds like you might, though.
> >It depends on how much room there is in your life for more people.
> There's always room in my life for more people. What it depends on is
> how much time I'm willing to give up to nurture the relationship.
Another difference in description. If I'm not willing to give up more time,
another way of saying that is that there isn't enough room.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
** st...@netcom.com
** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef
What garlic is to food, insanity is to art.
Stef Jones
> I can understand seeing someone and immediately feeling attracted to that
> person. I have felt that before. On that basis, I can picture having
> immediate sexual intimacy with her. Yet the idea of feeling that close
> to someone for one evening, never to see her again, sounds bitterly
> painful.
I think it would be under some circumstances, especially if one feels one
doesn't have enough intimate connection in one's life. But if one does, then
another intimate connection can be enjoyed for the moment only.
If you go for a walk today and see something you find beautiful, would you
be bitter to know that you might never see that particular beautiful thing
again?
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
** st...@netcom.com
** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef
The average human being only uses 10% of his or her mind.
The rest is taken up by the operating system. -- MIT newsletter
bd1
>I don't have one-night-stands, for lots of reasons, and can't really say
>sex, and that sex isn't awful, why does it ever stay a one-night-stand?
>I mean, if things are really that great, why stop?
Sometimes distance gets in the way or the circumstance occurs just once...
I hate to let a moment pass just because it may never happen again...
I think I'd be feeling as though I was missing an awful lot of experiences
if I didn't seize the moment. I don't seek out 1NS's but if they happen
they happen...
bd1
>
>Bonnie <bhut...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>> What is the difference between an Open Marriage/Relationship and
>> Polyamory?
In the polyamorus relationship I was in I had two "wives", they each
had a husband and a wife. We were very committed to each other and
were completely sexually exclusive within our "marriage". We didn't
"swap" with other groups, couples or singles. We were this way until,
as in "monamorous" relationships, death parted us. The remaining two
of us were so devastated we could not continue together at that point
in our lives and we parted. Where there is multipled love, there lies
the risk of multiplied pain.
Open marriages do not imply this exclusive nature.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
>His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
>>
>>girl I met at a rave) had nothing to do with any intellectal communication, or
>>even with any emotional (in the sense that I think you would probably give to
>>the word) connection. It was a sensual, kinesthetic connection.
>
>I have a hard time conceiving of that kind of connection being present
>and an emotional connection being completely absent. <shrug>
"I have a hard time conceiving of the kind of emotional connection
that would allow a person to be married to two different people.
<shrug>"
I'll just point out that I have had a similar kind of kinetic or sensual
connection when dancing or swapping backrubs at a con. In fact, at one
con, I ended up having a one-night stand with someone after I'd spent
about five hours with her and less than a half-hour of conversation.
>How did you know, if you didn't really have a deep emotional connection
>with her, that you would have been as incompatible as you claim you would
>have been? What is it that made you want to keep that connection on a
>sensual level, and not get to know her on an emotional and intellectual
>level?
"How do you know, if you don't really have a deep emotional
connection, that you couldn't be satisfied in a monogamous
relationship? What is it that makes you want to spread your energies
between two men and not want to really get to know just one man on an
emotional and intellectual level?"
Sometimes it's a matter of not wanting to spoil a perfect moment.
Sometimes it's lack of opportunity. Sometimes it's a matter of having
something fall into your lap that you know you won't have time for
later, but you want to take a memory forward. Sometimes you just know
that a relationship won't work out, and you remember previous bad
experiences where you ignored that hunch. Lots of reasons.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
Fuck Senator Exon; abort Senator Hyde with a coathanger
Cora Louise Schmid
following the thread completely, as I'm going to cite any previous posts,
but I'm going to address some of the things raises in them. Just to let
you know.
I really think Jason is on to something with his point about the myriad of
possible levels of connection, and that connections can be ephemeral and
time/place depended. On more than one occasion I've been doing whatever
and I'll make eye contact with a total stranger and for whatever reason
we'll share a really big intense smile. Espeicailly on days when I'm
feeling down, this type of connection can have a huge impact on me. Is it
a connection? To me, definitely. It's communicating something very
intense, perhaps almost directly communicating emotion. But I've also
found no particular desire to get to know the people I've shared this
with- in one extreme case I shared this sort of experience with a
not-yet-talking baby, and don't consider the connection any less for that.
Sure, if any of these people did try to meet me, I wouldn't fight it, but
then I'd probably treat it as meeting any stranger. The shared smile
would be an experience to stand on its own, perhaps because part of the
beauty is that the communication we shared was so strong it occurred
between total strangers.
Some people have been asking, why wouldn't you push such a connection? how
do you know it wouldn't work? I guess to me, there is no need to push
such a connection if the connection stands alone. I feel there are some
sorts of connection which don't imply that the connected people are likely
to be compatible for any sort of longish term thing.
I think it was Jennie who implied that Jason's connection at the rave
might have led to a really neat relationship dispite appearent
differences, something like 'she could have helped you mellow out, and you
could have helped her grow up'. While I think we can learn from
differences, I don't see the need to use a temporary connection as a
reason for trying to change- from my aquaintence with Jason several years
back, I don't think he needs to be mellowed out, nor do think anyone
whould be have to "grow up" before they are ready to do it in their own
time. Certainly there are connections that are worth changing ourselves
to keep, or that by virtue of their existence change us, but I don't think
all connections must be of this type.
Anyhow, some random thoughts by Cora.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
co...@leland.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~cora/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Cuervo
> His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
>
> > In the example I gave, my connection with Carol (the girl I met
> > at a rave) had nothing to do with any intellectal communication,
> > or even with any emotional (in the sense that I think you would
> > probably give to the word) connection. It was a sensual, kinesthetic
> > connection.
>
> I have a hard time conceiving of that kind of connection being present
> and an emotional connection being completely absent. <shrug>
>
> connection with her, that you would have been as incompatible as you
> claim you would have been? What is it that made you want to keep that
> connection on a sensual level, and not get to know her on an emotional
> and intellectual level?
Some things get ruined when you try to push them beyond what they are.
Why should there HAVE to be an emotional and intellectual connection as
well as a sensual connection? Red's a pretty good colour all by itself
without trying to be blue too, if you know what I mean. Anyway, if you
add blue it's not red anymore it's purple.
(dumb analogy I know but it seems to work :-)
If you have something good, however transient, why break it by trying to
force it into being something it's not?
Claude
Michael Corbin
Devil requires that I point out the circular logic that has proven so
fruitful here: we only call 'em "one night stands" because with
historical perspective, they _didn't_ go any further, for whatever
reason.
I, personally, am not particularly interested in having one nighters.
At the same time, I note that there have been a few instances where that
is what they turned out to be. For me one of the requirements for
feeling enough attraction to someone to want to hop into bed is being
close enough to them on other levels for there to be more of a
connection. While I might see someone across that crowded aisle whom I
feel attracted to, that isn't enough to warrant bed-time for this bonzo.
--Michael--
bearpaw
> ...
>If you go for a walk today and see something you find beautiful, would you
>be bitter to know that you might never see that particular beautiful thing
>again?
Bingo! I've been lurking on this thread for a while, trying to figure
how to express the way I feel about this topic, and dammit if Stef
didn't just hit it bang on the head for me.
See, I think that *sometimes*, *some* things can be meaningful partly
*because* of their ephemeral (sp?) nature -- sunsets, sandcastles,
bubbles, butterflies, haiku, etc, etc. Just 'cause an event is short
doesn't mean it's *effect* necessarily is.
I love L more than I can possibly express, and I hope that love lasts at
*least* as long as we live. And maybe someday we'll find one or more
others with which we can share that kind of love. But just because I
happen to have a "'real' castle" doesn't mean I can't have fun with (and
perhaps get something meaningful out of) sandcastles. And encasing a
sandcastle in lucite would spoil it, you know?
Of course, that triggers the Next Question -- how to decide whether a
connection with someone is a "sandcastle", a "real castle", or one of
the myriad of other possible structures ...
Bearpaw
+---------- Bearpaw MacDonald bea...@world.std.com ----------+
| http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/ |
| "You can believe anything you want. The universe is not obliged |
\ to keep a straight face." -- Solomon Short /
George A. Stathis
>ded...@perth.DIALix.oz.au (Stephen Dedman) wrote:
>>I've never had a one-night stand with anyone without intending to start
>>an ongoing relationship, or without wanting to experience it again.
>
>Yeah!!! How come nobody ever pointed this out? We missed the point.
>The point being that... only assholes would want otherwise...
>
>>But wanting, needing, and being able to aren't the same thing...
<small snip>
>How similar to my own life this is, and to so many other peoples...
>
>>I'm still friends with *all* of my ex-lovers, and I have other female
>>friends I would love to sleep with, but none of us are prepared to
>>change our lives sufficiently to have an ongoing sexual relationship.
>BTDT...
>> Sometimes, a one-night stand has been enough to give us what we
>>needed from each other. It hasn't always been enough to give us
>>everything we wanted, but hey, how many of us get everything we want?
>
>PRECISELY!
>>- Just my opinions, but they're for sale if you want them -
>I wouldn't ever 'sell' opinions like yours. I simply _treasure_ them.
Well, I woke up the following morning to realize that... my worries
about what I had written came out true: Due to the fact that in my...
enthusiasm I had forgotten to 'phrase what I said _correctly_'(i.e.
in a way that conforms to some well-known Semantic straightjacket
of "correct" humility)... anyway...
I got an 'angry letter of protest', as follows:
At 09:43 мм 15/2/1996 -0800, dmand wrote:
>> >I've never had a one-night stand with anyone without intending to >> >start
>> >an ongoing relationship, or without wanting to experience it again.
>>
>> Yeah!!! How come nobody ever pointed this out? We missed the point.
>> The point being that... only assholes would want otherwise...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Now Debi protesting quite correctly, IMHO:)
>George! Why do you do this?! Don't you realize how arrogant and
>pompously condemning this sounds? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I've never had casual sex in my life. But I can imagine sharing a night
>of passion and tenderness with someone, knowing I'd probably never see
>them again.. knowing they lived too far away for me to be comfortable
>with an ongoing relationship. Does this really make me an asshole?
>There are people on the poly list who _have_ experienced something like
>this.. if both people are honest with each other and still want to share
>something beautiful, if temporary, I just don't see that being a >terrible thing.
>
>Debi
Well, Debi, who wrote this, received almost immediately an impulsive
(morning-coffee-inspired) 'Greek' reply saying "PRECISELY... you...
didn't understand what I said...", and so on... Oh dear! (No insults
fortunately, as I had managed to... drink most of the coffee, first!)
*********************************************************************
What is the problem here? IMNSHO, it's essentially a deep question of
*Semantics*. - And a rather deep, infuriatingly deep problem, IMO...
*********************************************************************
Sorry Deb, I had no patience this morning. I woke up after a night in
which a friend of mine (Makis) broke up with an American girl, due to
a *similar* misunderstanding!!! So, as soon as I saw your letter, my
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>The issue of time is an interesting one. I have a number of
>friends who feel strongly that having too many sex partners to
>give full (as full as the relationship development allows)
>emotional attention to them is a devaluing of the relationships.
I'd agree with that, but I think "as full as the relationship development
allows" is the key point.
I can imagine very well that someone who's already got a full plate in
terms of committed relationships, but not opposed to casual sex, might
not resist more casual relationships, but choose not to get involved with
someone if the relationship might lead to permanence.
Whoa, that was quite a sentence. I hope it made sense.
---
Jennie Dailey-O'Cain | If I ever want to hear the
jenn...@umich.edu | pitter-patter of little feet,
http://www.intranet.org/~jenniedo/ | I'll put shoes on my cat.
Cora Louise Schmid
>>I've never had a one-night stand with anyone without intending to start
>>an ongoing relationship, or without wanting to experience it again.
>
>Yeah!!! How come nobody ever pointed this out? We missed the point.
>The point being that... only assholes would want otherwise...
um.... you're kidding, right?
I mean, if someone *pretends* they want more in order to get someone in
bed with them, sure, maybe they're and asshole, but seems to me its the
lying and not the wanting sex that makes them so.
If two adults agree that they want to have sex once and then not try to
meet up again, why are they assholes?
Cora
Debbie Notkin
>Sometimes it's a matter of not wanting to spoil a perfect moment.
>Sometimes it's lack of opportunity. Sometimes it's a matter of having
>something fall into your lap that you know you won't have time for
>later, but you want to take a memory forward. Sometimes you just know
>that a relationship won't work out, and you remember previous bad
>experiences where you ignored that hunch. Lots of reasons.
Sometimes good sex is just good sex. Sometimes great sex is *just*
great sex.
The first time I was ever actually turned on, as a rather young woman,
I was making out with a man I didn't like, because I thought I should.
It was years before a potential lover I actually liked had the same
effect on me.
--
Debbie Notkin (ki...@slip.net)
Debbie Notkin
>Was an emotional connection completely absent? If you've read things
>I've said in previous posts to this thread, you'll remember that I do
>understand that an emotional connection can develop instantly and with
>very little conversation. What I don't understand is how you can have a
>"kinetic" or "sensual" connection and absolutely no emotional connection.
I think I agree with this. The catch is that the emotional connection
doesn't have to be pleasant, and it doesn't have to be mutual.
And that's me. Others' mileage almost certainly varies.
--
Debbie Notkin (ki...@slip.net)
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>>
>>I'll just point out that I have had a similar kind of kinetic or sensual
>>connection when dancing or swapping backrubs at a con. In fact, at one
>>con, I ended up having a one-night stand with someone after I'd spent
>>about five hours with her and less than a half-hour of conversation.
>
>I've said in previous posts to this thread, you'll remember that I do
>understand that an emotional connection can develop instantly and with
>very little conversation. What I don't understand is how you can have a
>"kinetic" or "sensual" connection and absolutely no emotional connection.
For me, in order for there to be an emotional connection, there has to
be verbal or written communication. If we ain't talking, we don't have
an emotional connection.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Michael Corbin <NATU...@delphi.com> wrote:
>While this discussion is valuable, and I'm enjoying reading it, The
>Devil requires that I point out the circular logic that has proven so
>fruitful here: we only call 'em "one night stands" because with
>historical perspective, they _didn't_ go any further, for whatever
>reason.
There's also the issue of intent: if you believe, going in, that 'all'
you'll have is a one-night stand, then you must make a decision about
whether that's something you want.
His Holiness the Pope
>Jennie Dailey-O'Cain (jenn...@kira.intranet.org) writes:
>
>>His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
>
>>>again, after what we had shared that night, would have been tragically
>>>disappointing. Does that make sense?
>>
>>Not really, not to me. I would have wanted to see her again. I would
>>have wanted to learn everything about her, probably. Maybe you could
>>have been good for each other, who knows. She could have helped you
>>loosen up, and you could have helped her grow. Just maybe.
>>
>>To me, you just don't give up a deep connection like that once you've
>>found one.
>
>{Responding blind: I haven't seen the initial post yet}
>I agree and disagree with Jennie. The idea of seeing again someone you've
>had a lovely experience with, as being "tragically disappointing" does not
>make sense to me. Whenever I've had a brief spell with someone, and
>it has been good, I feel a fondness and affection for that person, even if
>it subsequently turns out we are so different as to be fundamentally
>incompatible. We've shared something beautiful, been touched by the
>spirit. How could I not have affection, not wonder and be willing to
>talk to them about how their life is going, not give them a hug or a
>smile should we run across each other in a cafe?
Yikes! Once again Jason Lamport has used hyperbole to make a point and ended
up having to eat his words. Of course I didn't mean that simply _seeing_ her
again would have been disappointing. I meant that attempting to turn our
brief, beautiful encounter into a long-term relationship would have been
disappointing. Of course I felt affection for her, and in a way I would have
liked to have seen her again. At the same time, I'm quite certain that we were
so different from each other that, after maybe half an hour of conversation, we
would both be thinking "Gosh, what could I ever have seen in this person?
(S)He's really kind of annoying." I would much rather remember her as the
beautiful spirit she was to me that night, and not as she would seem to me
under other circumstances, and I would rather have her remember me as I was
that night, and not as I am under other circumstances.
I realize that I may have picked a bad example, because usually one doesn't
know at the time whether an encounter such as ours is meant to turn into a
long-term friendship or romance -- usually one doesn't know until one tries.
But in this case I knew -- trust me, I knew -- that an attempt at a long-term
friendship would never work, yet I refused and refuse to let this fact diminish
the beauty of what we shared that one night. Is this making any more sense?
George A. Stathis
>>
>>At 09:43 мм 15/2/1996 -0800, dmand wrote:
>
>
>Umm, George, if Debi had wanted the rest of the group to know what she
>said to you in email, she would have sent it to the rest of us, too. I
>can understand wanting to share your frustration, but is there any reason
>you had to tell us her name and identity? I mean, have a little tact.
You are absolutely right, Jen. I apologized to Debi for this both
privately and in the mailing list we are part of. Even though she did
(afterwards) give me a permission to repost, it was indeed tactless.
My only excuse is haste, as well as thinking that her posting came
originally from a semi-private space, a mailing list of >300 people.
George
Mean Green Dancing Machine
David Stagner <sta...@fish.cs.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>There is an important distinction between "in love" relationships and
>marriage or marriage-like relationships. You don't have to want to
>spend the rest of your life with someone to love them. You don't even
>have to *like* someone in order to be in love with them. But to
>commit to and live with someone is much more difficult.
You make it sound like those are the only two options. You're also
glossing over the distinction many people make between 'in love' and
'love'.
>Ideally, my wife and I would like to someday find another couple to
>share a double marriage with. But the combinatorics are bad. A
>three-way relationship means three two-way relationships as well as
>the three-way. A four-way relationship means six two-ways (and
>three-ways too). And that doesn't even bring questions of children
>in (we already have two). So we're looking at all the problems of
>marriage anyway, squared. And then you throw in questions of sexual
>preference... I'm bisexual but my wife is not. It becomes very
>complicated.
Leaving out the issue of 'marrying' another couple, I haven't noticed
that a couple-couple relationship is particularly complicated, even
given similar issues of sexual preference. I'd say one thing you need
to think about is whether you intend to functionally dissolve the
original couples, which I think *would* tend to complicate matters
considerably.
Also, I don't think that all of those relationships need to be precisely
equivalent. For example, my partner and I are currently dating another
couple, and the relationships between the two couples as singular
entities is stronger than any of the other cross-couple relationships.
I will say that more people should take more time to let things settle,
and that you should be careful about getting locked into any particular
relationship pattern.
>So it's easy to poo-poo "swinging" and sneer that it is inferior to
>polyamory. But in practice, functional polyamory is a lot more
>difficult than simple "open marriage". So while we dream of finding a
>compatable couple for life, we have our lovers on the side. Not
>necessarily what we want, but it does allow us the pursuit of other
>sexual partners, which is some satisfaction at least.
Again, you're using a definition of 'poly' that's quite a bit narrower
than mine. I certainly don't think my 4-year secondary is 'on the
side', despite the fact that zie isn't included in my day-to-day plans.
Fred Cherny
: In article <79500075@peg>, deema...@peg.apc.org writes:
: >Jennie Dailey-O'Cain (jenn...@kira.intranet.org) writes:
: >
: >>His Holiness the Pope <jlam...@pomona.edu> wrote:
: >
: >>>again, after what we had shared that night, would have been tragically
: >>>disappointing. Does that make sense?
: >>
: >>Not really, not to me. I would have wanted to see her again. I would
: >>have wanted to learn everything about her, probably. Maybe you could
: >>have been good for each other, who knows. She could have helped you
: >>loosen up, and you could have helped her grow. Just maybe.
: >>
: >>To me, you just don't give up a deep connection like that once you've
: >>found one.
: >
: >{Responding blind: I haven't seen the initial post yet}
: >I agree and disagree with Jennie. The idea of seeing again someone you've
: >had a lovely experience with, as being "tragically disappointing" does not
: >make sense to me. Whenever I've had a brief spell with someone, and
: >it has been good, I feel a fondness and affection for that person, even if
: >it subsequently turns out we are so different as to be fundamentally
: >incompatible. We've shared something beautiful, been touched by the
: >spirit. How could I not have affection, not wonder and be willing to
: >talk to them about how their life is going, not give them a hug or a
: >smile should we run across each other in a cafe?
: Yikes! Once again Jason Lamport has used hyperbole to make a point and ended
: up having to eat his words. Of course I didn't mean that simply _seeing_ her
: again would have been disappointing. I meant that attempting to turn our
: brief, beautiful encounter into a long-term relationship would have been
: disappointing. Of course I felt affection for her, and in a way I would have
: liked to have seen her again. At the same time, I'm quite certain that we were
: so different from each other that, after maybe half an hour of conversation, we
: would both be thinking "Gosh, what could I ever have seen in this person?
: (S)He's really kind of annoying." I would much rather remember her as the
: beautiful spirit she was to me that night, and not as she would seem to me
: under other circumstances, and I would rather have her remember me as I was
: that night, and not as I am under other circumstances.
: I realize that I may have picked a bad example, because usually one doesn't
: know at the time whether an encounter such as ours is meant to turn into a
: long-term friendship or romance -- usually one doesn't know until one tries.
: But in this case I knew -- trust me, I knew -- that an attempt at a long-term
: friendship would never work, yet I refused and refuse to let this fact diminish
: the beauty of what we shared that one night. Is this making any more sense?
Not to me. I probably should shut up and keep lurking - flame me if you like -
but I thought I'd add my thoughts to the "pot".
The problem I have is with your statement: Of course I felt affection for her,
... At the same time, ... after maybe half an hour of conversation, we
would both be thinking "Gosh, what could I ever have seen in this person?"
This seems a bit strange to me. If a woman were making love to me
and I knew she didn't honestly find me attractive as a person - that something
about the way I looked at her or touched her had turned her on - I think
I would lose my "enthusiasm" (as it were). I would feel a bit used - like
all she wanted was a thrilling experience and I happened to be convenient.
I know this didn't happen in your case, but it often does. It's what keeps
C&W music in business 8*). (The song "Insensitive" by ? comes to mind)
I guess the trick in pursuing sex for entertainment is in getting the rules
straight - on both sides. Only then can we play fair.
BTW, I appreciate your honesty about your experience. I believe we learn
a lot in this group from each other by sharing. Please don't be offended
by anything I said. I simply wanted to share my reaction to your experience.
: -jason
: (No, I don't have a cute .sig file. And I NEVER use smileys.)
Yours for the asking,
--
work: fch...@spd.dsccc.com home: TooMu...@why.net
........Love one another; Enrich the world; Nothing matters...............
Paul Austin
>
>Again, you're using a definition of 'poly' that's quite a bit narrower
>than mine. I certainly don't think my 4-year secondary is 'on the
>side', despite the fact that zie isn't included in my day-to-day plans.
>--
> --- Aahz (@netcom.com)
>
>Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
>
Opps, didn't mean to send all of your message away..
Just wanted to say that you have explained things the best I've seen
anyone do it. Describing the other couple as an enity and the two
enitys having a relationship, that is more how I saw our last
relationship.
el...@peg.apc.org
Jennie Dailey-O'Cain (jenn...@kira.intranet.org) writes:
>In article <79500076@peg>, <el...@peg.apc.org> wrote:
>
>>The issue of time is an interesting one. I have a number of
>>friends who feel strongly that having too many sex partners to
>>give full (as full as the relationship development allows)
>>emotional attention to them is a devaluing of the relationships.
>
>I'd agree with that, but I think "as full as the relationship development
>allows" is the key point.
>
>I can imagine very well that someone who's already got a full plate in
>terms of committed relationships, but not opposed to casual sex, might
>not resist more casual relationships, but choose not to get involved with
>someone if the relationship might lead to permanence.
>
>Whoa, that was quite a sentence. I hope it made sense.
It makes perfect sense..
I think the issue comes down to a sense that the situation where
someone "overcommits" doesn't work, because there is not
enough of them to go around, and beloveds get short-changed.
This feels somewhat "using" to me... Like the motive can't be for
quality of relationship, but must be for something else... That
raises the whole question of whether the "over-committer's" sex
partners are being related to as people, or whether there is an
element of something else (sex or love objects, sex or love
donors...).
Sometimes a reltionship in a web can suddenly take a *lot* of
time and attention. Recently one of my beloveds had a lot of
problems with one of zir beloveds, and I and zir other beloveds
put a lot of time in helping zir process things. But that sort of
temporary "high-demand" situation can usually be accomadated
by others in the web, as long as it doesn't go on too long. The
situations I see as not working is where extension is made to so
many people that someone, or everyone, must lose out. If
someone does overcommits frequently, I would really ask "what
is going on...."
Now, if I had a "full plate" in terms of commitment, I might
accept a casual relationship as long as it was clear that it would
almost certainly be casual. I'd still need it to be someone I liked,
and had no sense that I would object to "growing closer", but if,
for example, I was at a conference, and there was a really nice
spark or flame, I might get involved knowing that we'd part at
the end of the conference (and might, or might not, get back
together if events threw us together in the future).
What I'd have trouble with is where I, or the other, saw it as the
beginning of something ongoing, and the availability actually
wasn't there, and that was not made clear. There is too much
liklihood of pain, and it seems dishonest. If, for example,
someone local asked me to dinner, and we hit it off, and had a
wonderful time, and had sex, and then they became unavailable
on any basis because they were "fully committed" and only
wanted a "casual" relationship, that would, and has, hurt. And if
I saw that person out on another "casual" date with someone
else next week, I'd be really angry.... and I'd feel like I'd been
"collected".
Dhanu
****************************************************************
If what I do is not a perceiving and understanding of the
world in which I live,
may it help affirm or create the world in which I wish to
live.
Fred Cherny
: Fred Cherny wrote:
: > I can understand seeing someone and immediately feeling attracted to that
: > person. I have felt that before. On that basis, I can picture having
: > immediate sexual intimacy with her. Yet the idea of feeling that close
: > to someone for one evening, never to see her again, sounds bitterly
: > painful.
: I think it would be under some circumstances, especially if one feels one
: doesn't have enough intimate connection in one's life. But if one does, then
: another intimate connection can be enjoyed for the moment only.
: If you go for a walk today and see something you find beautiful, would you
: be bitter to know that you might never see that particular beautiful thing
: again?
To answer your question: yes, I do feel sad - not bitter - about
"beauties past", never to be known again. Who hasn't grieved at some point
in their life about their fading youth (for example)? I can embrace aging
as a natural experience, common to everyone. I will certainly remember
my youth with fondness (parts of it, anyway). And I will always feel
a bit sad at its passing.
But the point of this thread is one-night-stands and why they would
stay that way. You've made a good point (as usual) Stef.
No one in this group would deny the genuine beauty of sexual
ecstacy shared between two (or three or four) people <grin>
(we are discussing polyamory here).
After much "cogitating" - that is "thinking hard" for you high school
kids out there - I believe this boils down to something quite elementary.
Two (or more) people willfully engage in sexual acts for one or more
of the following reasons:
1. To conceive and have children (this leaves the homosexuals out;
but in the future...)
2. For communicating love, affection, and for sharing emotional
intimacy.
3. For entertainment.
Historically, sex has been viewed as providing a means for having a
family and for communicating love between a husband and wife, with
the "entertainment" part being a nice by-product of the two.
In our generation, attitudes widely vary. Some people hold to the
"traditional" view, others copulate for fun, initially, and
expore each other to see if something deeper is there
(literally, a reverse approach to tradition).
The "one-night-stand" deal is an extreme case. You know how it goes:
one person "says" (without really saying) to another "I'm attracted
to you for reasons I can't explain. I can't commit to anything more
that one night but I'd hate to pass up this opportunity. Are you up
for some fun?" To which the other replies with a yes, a no, or a slap
in the face 8^)
The situations vary, but you get the picture (I hope). Jennie (and I)
approach sexual relationships starting with (2) above. We are interested
in knowing whether we like a person before we use, abuse, and totally
degrade them (to quote Steve Martin). Jason, in this one case at least,
saw an opportunity for sharing sex with someone for fun (mostly), knowing
full well there was no opportunity for a long term relationship.
Is this a fair assessment of this thread? If it is, my question is,
can we really learn to think of sex as a form of recreation:
like softball or bowling? Or do we inevitably romanticize it?
I can't help but think sex is something more. Appreciating its
beauty requires more personal involvement than, say, appreciating
a flower for its beauty. Sex is more like gazing at the flower,
absorbing its beauty into your eyes and through your skin, and
letting it become a part of you.
I don't know about you, but I've rarely had this experience
playing softball <*grin*>. Then again, it depends on who's playing
<*double-grin*>.
Any thoughts? Sorry this post is sooo long. I couldn't think of a
way to make it shorter - I guess I could have deleted this sentence 8)
: --
: Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
: ** st...@netcom.com
: ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef
: The average human being only uses 10% of his or her mind.
: The rest is taken up by the operating system. -- MIT newsletter
--
work: fch...@spd.dsccc.com home: TooMu...@why.net
........Love one another; Enrich the world; Nothing matters...............
Erika Gale Grumet
: In article <4fsr6k$d...@newsflash.hol.gr>,
: George A. Stathis <hype...@hol.gr> wrote:
: >ded...@perth.DIALix.oz.au (Stephen Dedman) wrote:
: I mean, if someone *pretends* they want more in order to get someone in
: bed with them, sure, maybe they're and asshole, but seems to me its the
: lying and not the wanting sex that makes them so.
: If two adults agree that they want to have sex once and then not try to
: meet up again, why are they assholes?
i got dragged to a workshop last week called "sexual relations:
can you do it if your jewish". they do a few of those here each
year...usually the hard line strict interpretation...no premarital sex,
no same sex stuff, no sex outside marriage, etc. etc. etc. this time
though, we got the more modern approach, the more liberal view. and the
subject of one night stands came up...and, what we found out, is that
there is no explicit prohbition of things like premarital sex, or same
sex activities...and that according to the books, and not the "Scholarly
interpretations" one night stands are o.k. so long as theres honesty
from the beginning about it. that as long as you tell someone that its
purely physical before things happen then its fine. the books themselves
seem to be a lot more pragmatic than i thought....
-erika-
--
==============================================================================
sensual is running a feather down your lover's body.
kinky is using the whole chicken.
perverted is if the chicken is still alive...
twisted is using boneless skinless chicken breasts.
erika grumet anat...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
http://homepage.interaccess.com/~peetah/anathema anathema on irc
==============================================================================
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>I am delighted and not at all surprised that this sexual
>open-mindedness exists in Jewish people. My first big love was
>a Jewish woman who had four lovers (at the time) and taught me a lot
>about 'multiple relationships' ('polyamory' didn't exist at the time,
>most probably -late seventies). You shouldn't be surprised if Greek
>attitudes are exactly similar to what you quote... and I do believe
>Jewish and Greek people have a _lot_ of cultural similarities!!!
I'm a bit bothered by the way you tend to lump people into one neat
little category, George. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a don't-label-me,
but I think people should make sure the label fits before they use it. And
associating stereotypes with a label usually just muddles the issue.
The original poster was talking about one particular group of Jewish
people, in one town, in one part of the United States. She wasn't trying
to say that all Jewish people have open-minded sexual attitudes, or even
that this is either common or uncommon in Jewish people. There are
sexually liberal Jewish people and sexually conservative Jewish people.
And, if you don't mind me saying so, I'm sure the same is true for Greek
people.
gable jenny lynn
: say to each other something like "OK, enough fun, no more now, as
: we... agreed, so... let's get the hell out of here!"... :-) ROTFL!
*giggle*
It is just a matter of definitions and time:
one-night-stand: sex for a night
sex friends: sex for two+ nights (that was good, i want some more :) )
dating: i guess emotional involvement, though i've been somewhat fuzzy on
the exact definition ever since friend and sexual friend and dating began
to overlap.... now i just give up on labeling unless it's clear...
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The ability to love is http://www.imsa.edu/~jgable/
Skywind universal. The
Jenny Gable right to love These opinions are mine only,
should be though I wish the rest of the
too. world shared them too. :)
\/
Erika Gale Grumet
: *giggle*
: It is just a matter of definitions and time:
: one-night-stand: sex for a night
: sex friends: sex for two+ nights (that was good, i want some more :) )
: dating: i guess emotional involvement, though i've been somewhat fuzzy on
: the exact definition ever since friend and sexual friend and dating began
: to overlap.... now i just give up on labeling unless it's clear...
*smile* once it becomes something more than once or twice which we call
hooking up, we've taken to using phrases like "fuck buddy" (a tad vulgar
but fun), "friends with access" or "Friends with priveleges". my
personal fave is friends with access...
-erika-
Erika Gale Grumet
: anat...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Erika Gale Grumet) wrote:
<my reply to the initial post snipped...>
: I am delighted and not at all surprised that this sexual
: open-mindedness exists in Jewish people. My first big love was
: a Jewish woman who had four lovers (at the time) and taught me a lot
: about 'multiple relationships' ('polyamory' didn't exist at the time,
: most probably -late seventies). You shouldn't be surprised if Greek
: attitudes are exactly similar to what you quote... and I do believe
: Jewish and Greek people have a _lot_ of cultural similarities!!!
: Only one minor objection: Given that one _does_ have a 'beautiful
: casual sexual experience', WHY on earth should one... stop it
: from... happening again, if such repetition is *feasible*?
i never did say anything about not repeating it. if its feasible
or desirable, then go for it. (potential confusion...there wasa a
refernece somewhere to assholes and one night stands when i originally
replied....not my words. )
: The thing is... Do people who agreed to have a 'one-night-stand'
: say to each other something like "OK, enough fun, no more now, as
: we... agreed, so... let's get the hell out of here!"... :-) ROTFL!
sometimes and sometimes not. sometimes its sex sans cuddling...i
used to have a partner like that. cuddling was meant for emotional
attacments. he and i had a totally physical relationship in bed...we
left our friendship at the door. weve since broken off the sexual part
and remain good friends.
: This is what I meant by saying that "only assholes" would refuse
: the _repetition_ of a casual sexual encounter (if this is possible
: for them). It wasn't meant as a 'moralistic' condemnation...
not true. ive had some one night stands that im happy to leave
as such, though the other person may not be so inclined.
: Can I quote this elsewhere? It's really hilarious.
: Who is the author, and to whom should I attribute it? :-)
: Sounds a very... Greek definition, to me. ...LOL!!!
(the .sig is from my best friend and i...and too much vodka.
feel fee to quote it, the attribution would i suppose be to me.)
-erika-
--
George A. Stathis
>can you do it if your jewish". they do a few of those here each
>year...usually the hard line strict interpretation...no premarital sex,
>no same sex stuff, no sex outside marriage, etc. etc. etc. this time
>though, we got the more modern approach, the more liberal view. and the
>subject of one night stands came up...and, what we found out, is that
>there is no explicit prohbition of things like premarital sex, or same
>sex activities...and that according to the books, and not the "Scholarly
>interpretations" one night stands are o.k. so long as theres honesty
>from the beginning about it. that as long as you tell someone that its
>purely physical before things happen then its fine. the books themselves seem to be a lot more pragmatic than i thought....
I am delighted and not at all surprised that this sexual
open-mindedness exists in Jewish people. My first big love was
a Jewish woman who had four lovers (at the time) and taught me a lot
about 'multiple relationships' ('polyamory' didn't exist at the time,
most probably -late seventies). You shouldn't be surprised if Greek
attitudes are exactly similar to what you quote... and I do believe
Jewish and Greek people have a _lot_ of cultural similarities!!!
Only one minor objection: Given that one _does_ have a 'beautiful
casual sexual experience', WHY on earth should one... stop it
from... happening again, if such repetition is *feasible*?
The thing is... Do people who agreed to have a 'one-night-stand'
say to each other something like "OK, enough fun, no more now, as
we... agreed, so... let's get the hell out of here!"... :-) ROTFL!
This is what I meant by saying that "only assholes" would refuse
the _repetition_ of a casual sexual encounter (if this is possible
for them). It wasn't meant as a 'moralistic' condemnation...
Bear in mind that one-night-stands repeated even... twice are...
no longer "one-night-stands"! It's a question of Sexual Semantics...
> sensual is running a feather down your lover's body.
> kinky is using the whole chicken.
> perverted is if the chicken is still alive...
> twisted is using boneless skinless chicken breasts.
Can I quote this elsewhere? It's really hilarious.
Who is the author, and to whom should I attribute it? :-)
Sounds a very... Greek definition, to me. ...LOL!!!
George
Erika Gale Grumet
: In article <4gip0e$e...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>, anat...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
: (Erika Gale Grumet) wrote:
: > gable jenny lynn (j-g...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: >
: > : *giggle*
: >
: >
: >
: > *smile* once it becomes something more than once or twice which we call
: > hooking up, we've taken to using phrases like "fuck buddy" (a tad vulgar
: > but fun), "friends with access" or "Friends with priveleges". my
: > personal fave is friends with access...
: How about "friends with access privileges"? It's longer, but it sounds
: much more techie/geekie, which I think is a bonus. :)
i think if i were to try and tell someone that they were my
"friend with access privelges" my mind (yeah right...) might wander to other
things in the middle of it...
: *smoochies to Erika...*
*smoochies back to you cappy-cutie*
:
--
==============================================================================
sensual is running a feather down your lover's body.
kinky is using the whole chicken.
perverted is if the chicken is still alive...
twisted is using boneless skinless chicken breasts.
George A. Stathis
>
> i think if i were to try and tell someone that they were my
>"friend with access privelges" my mind (yeah right...) might wander to >other things in the middle of it...
>
What about... passwords? Do you use passwords for such access?
And do... a lot of hackers try to break through? ROTFL!!!!!!
George
Alan Bostick
anat...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Erika Gale Grumet) wrote:
> *smile* once it becomes something more than once or twice which we call
> hooking up, we've taken to using phrases like "fuck buddy" (a tad vulgar
> but fun), "friends with access" or "Friends with priveleges". my
> personal fave is friends with access...
To me, "friend with access" sounds like someone I can send email to.
--
Alan Bostick | "If I am to be held in contempt of court,
Seeking opportunity to | your honor, it can only be because the court
develop multimedia content. | has acted contemptibly!"
Finger abos...@netcom.com for more info and PGP public key
Erika Gale Grumet
: In article <4gip0e$e...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
: anat...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Erika Gale Grumet) wrote:
: > *smile* once it becomes something more than once or twice which we call
: > hooking up, we've taken to using phrases like "fuck buddy" (a tad vulgar
: > but fun), "friends with access" or "Friends with priveleges". my
: > personal fave is friends with access...
: To me, "friend with access" sounds like someone I can send email to.
a good friend who i had a crush on for a long time and i tend to
watch a lot of movies together. and in about three or four movies that
we watched within a few days of each other we noticed that the phrase
"access denied" came up in all of them...different films. directors and
genres. i knew she was straight, but when i _finally_ admitted that i
had a crush on her, she teasingly said "access denied". and we've used
it to describe any unwanted advances...especially sexual since then.
-erika-
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Fred Cherny <fch...@spd.dsccc.com> wrote:
>
>After much "cogitating" - that is "thinking hard" for you high school
>kids out there - I believe this boils down to something quite elementary.
Please avoid condescending remarks. If there are any high school kids
reading this newsgroup, I'm sure their vocabulary encompasses words much
more obscure than 'cogitating'.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
Netcom's news is hosed again, so please cc me by e-mail.