Just entered the polyamory world - and have a question
Scott
I've spent the last couple of days reading your wonderful newsgroup,
but I have a question for those of you out there already in a poly
relationship. My wife and I had a discussion only two nights ago
about possibly being involved with other people if the opportunity
presented, and now I feel incredibly free as a result and I love her
even more than I did before, not because of her "giving permission" as
such, but because I feel like the variety I now realise have been
craving for many years (we are approaching our 7th anniversary) is
suddenly possible. If it never happens, that's OK - I don't feel
restricted anymore. Therefore, I'm happier and able to give more love
than I would have otherwise.
Now comes the scary part, and my question. What's next? I'm
definitely happy to wait and just see what happens, see what fate
brings me, but I'm curious as to how others made the progression from
actually deciding to allow subsequent lovers into their lives, to
really making it happen.
Did you strike out? Did you consider not doing it at all and then
something happened? Did things just take their own course beforehand,
and you discussed it with your "primary" after the fact? I guess this
question relates to those of you who were already in a serious
relationship beforehand.
I love the feeling, I just don't know what the future holds, and maybe
that's OK.
Thanks for reading... :)
Scott
Xiphias Gladius
>Now comes the scary part, and my question. What's next? I'm
>definitely happy to wait and just see what happens, see what fate
>brings me, but I'm curious as to how others made the progression from
>actually deciding to allow subsequent lovers into their lives, to
>really making it happen.
I'm in the stage where you are. Not really looking for anything in
particular, having a relationship in which poly is a possibility, but
not dating anyone else, and not particularly looking for anyone.
I've heard RJ, I think it was, describe it as "not not looking." I'm
open to possibilities if they occur, but I feel no particular call to
make any happen.
It's not a bad situation to be in.
- Ian
Bearpaw
All my best relationships have started when I was "not not looking".
It's a zen thing, I guess.
Bearpaw
--
~~~~~~~~~~~ bear...@earthlink.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether
it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the
wrong remedy." - Ernest Benn
FaeDrake
relationship. We had been dating for about two years when he brought up the
subject of non-monogamy (we didn't know the word polyamory until later). He
was the one seeking variety and I assented. I accepted his perspective
from a moral and philosophical standpoint, but didn't really imagine ever
wanting or having an additional romantic relationship of my own. A year
later we said wedding vows that were exempt of the traditional possessive
overtures.
A couple of still-monogamous years later a mutual friend of ours (once local
but moved LD) and I became close. My husband and I privately jested that
this friend and I could have more than a platonic friendship. Yet, I
couldn't bring myself to initiate anything with him due to various questions
and fears: "Does he really like me in *that* way?", "Its not worth risking
the friendship between the three of us.", "Why would he want to be in a
secondary relationship?".
About a year later, this LD love interest admitted that he did indeed like
me in *that* way. Over the span of several months, I tentatively brought up
subjects of polyamory, loving more than one person, and the perspective my
husband and I share. He was not familiar with poly at first, but he came to
be accepting of the notion that our friendship didn't have to be restricted
along the typical lines.
After much communication about what was and was not okay with all three of
us, I made one solo weekend visit to his city two months ago. It went very
well, without any regrets from any side. That said, we're still very much
taking things day by day... We're sorting through feelings of jealousy, the
feelings of wierdness the two guys now have about their friendship, etc.
This is totally new territory for all, so we're moving slowly and treading
lightly. There have been some "maybe this wasn't such a good idea" and
"time to pull back and discuss things" moments. My husband wasn't
expecting me to be the first to have an additional relationship any more
than I was. (He teasingly wishes I'd find a nice woman, and I teasingly
remind him that if I wasn't interested in men we wouldn't be together.)
At present, we've agreed that I can make these LD visits on a one-at-a-time
approval basis. The second of which might happen next month. As for my
husband... .. . he's still looking.
I hope you've gleaned something from my "monogamy to polyamory to present"
speel. :)
John P.
> Now comes the scary part, and my question. What's next? I'm
> definitely happy to wait and just see what happens, see what fate
> brings me, but I'm curious as to how others made the progression from
> actually deciding to allow subsequent lovers into their lives, to
> really making it happen.
I imagine the most "correct" answer is that the correct answer is unique
to you. For my wife and I, we don't ever actively look, but rather are
always open to possibilities that present themselves.
--
***************************
* Guns cause Crime *
* Like *
*Cameras cause Pornography*
***************************
Birch
> Hi Everyone,
Hi, Scott!
> Now comes the scary part, and my question. What's next? I'm
> definitely happy to wait and just see what happens, see what fate
> brings me, but I'm curious as to how others made the progression from
> actually deciding to allow subsequent lovers into their lives, to
> really making it happen.
>
> Did you strike out? Did you consider not doing it at all and then
> something happened? Did things just take their own course beforehand,
> and you discussed it with your "primary" after the fact? I guess this
> question relates to those of you who were already in a serious
> relationship beforehand.
Story time! I don't have any generalizations, just what I've done.
I met L when we were 16. Really. We were officially a couple at 17.
Somewhere in that first year we made up an imaginary lover of the
opposite sex, to tell our parents about if things got... interesting.
We had a lot of fun with our imaginary lover, and started talking
about what would happen if we *really* found someone else we wanted to
be involved with. At 18 we went to college in different states. Zie's
a cuddle slut, and in a rush of freshman hormones fooled around with
someone. I was upset. (I later determined because I hadn't been told
of the possibility of fooling around with this person in advance, and
I get really really jealous and insecure when it's someone I don't
know and trust. I mean, it's like lending the motorcycle to someone
I've never met: stupid!) L fooled around with one other person that
year. I was horney, and H, who I wanted, was too polite to show any
interest. So when M kissed me, I surprised zir by kissing back. M
had.. issues... and that ended in a lot of pain for everybody. That
winter, L and I decided that in the future, lovers must be met, like
at dinner, on at least one occasion prior to any fooling around.
I moved to the college L was at the next year. We were pretty
self-absorbed, if anyone tried to hit on us, we missed it. If they
could get a word in edgewise. Sigh. But there was something missing
from my life. L diagnosed a lack of H. We both emailed zir a lot, and
finally wrote "I want you to be part of my life." Zie said yes. All
the negotiating was done long distance, there were visits over spring
breaks, miscommunications, etc. But that was three years ago now (in a
month) and things are gong really well now. H is only 5 hours away,
and I get to see zir almost once a month.
I met LK in person, but we got to know each other over email. When zie
first found out zie was dying, zie wanted to die with no regrets, and
told me zie was attracted and zie and zir spouse aren't monogamous. I
asked, hadn't zie noticed H (who was living in the same town as L and
I over the summer, and had spent time with us and LK) was involved
with me? No! Oh.. well... zie is. That's been going on for a year now,
and until last January, we were 2 hours apart.
I met G less than a week after moving here. Zie announced... probably
late July? at least by Aug 9... that zie wanted to seduce me. I
thought zie was teasing, or doing non-serious flirting a little
heavier than I was used to. Right. Zie and zir spouse invited us (L
and me) to dinner, as a "welcome to the area" thing when we first
moved in (zir spouse graduated from the same college L did, and L and
G work in the same building). They hadn't determined by then whether I
was a boy or a girl, even though they knew my legal name, which is
realy obveous. It was.. interesting... for a few minutes. We stayed
late, even though there was work the next day. We do the same weekend
(and occasional weeknight) hobby, and see each other there. We spent
20 hours together in the car last August (zie was so amused by me
making up little songs during the drive that on the way home we didn't
even use the radio). On that trip, zie reiterated interest, I
reiterated not enough time (2 very dear lovers, one family level lover
dying slowly and painfully). A month ago, L and I stay at their house,
and zie starts petting me. And tells me that the wonderful thing about
sex with friends is that it doesn't take any extra time. That doesn't
seem right to me, and I've just resolved that tonight, actually
(everybody's happy).
L and I never assumed monogamy, but we were a couple for 2.5 years.
H was brought in as a second lover for me, even though zie didn't and
doesn't have anyone else yet, and hadn't had multiple relationships
before.
LK already had other lovers when we started, and when I met zir. Zir
spouse had other lovers, too, and was quite vocally encouraging.
G had other lovers when we started, and when I met zir.
Birch
not sleeping when I should
Scott
No it isn't Ian, and thanks for providing an apt way of describing my
(and your) present situation, even if you didn't coin the term. Since
I made this post my wife and I have had more discussions and things
have become even clearer than before and she appears to have no
jealousy whatsoever (shed didn't get that piece installed, as the a.p.
FAQ says), which makes it easy for me to go forward with things.
However, the "not not looking" doesn't quite fit the bill at this
stage. You see, there's a woman I work with who I'm attracted to and
it appears the reverse also applies. I don't plan on making any
moves, but I of course will not reject any of hers if they come my
way. She is single and not in a relationship right now. However, she
knows I'm married and, until a few days ago, I have been shutting down
any feelings or avenues for expression towards her. That has now
changed of course, and I can be more open, though not too open as to
appear threatening to her, nor to create suspicion amongst the rest of
my colleagues.
So I'm in a bit of a quandry, but happy to bide my time until the
moment arises, if it ever does. My quandry comes from wondering how I
might let on that it's OK if she wants to move on me - that my
marriage does not restrict me from getting close to her like 98% of
other marriages do. Still, having only been "out" (at least as far as
my wife and I having discussed this goes) for a few days, I certainly
don't want anything to happen too soon, until I can get used to the
idea of being poly.
Lots to think about, and thanks to everyone who has replied,
particularly the two of you who posted your stories - they are exactly
what I wanted to hear and I thank you for sharing them with the rest
of us.
This newsgroup is perhaps the nicest, warmest place I've yet seen on
the 'net in the 8 years I've been reading newsgroups. :)
Best regards to all of you,
Scott
Scott
> I hope you've gleaned something from my "monogamy to polyamory to present"
> speel. :)
Very much so - exactly what I was looking for and thank you. :) One
thing I've noticed is that often it can take years between the
agreement to go poly and it actually happening. I think that's
partially because the original twosome are happy with each other and
therefore feel no pressure to find someone, because they're already
fulfilled with their current partner. At least it feels that way for
me right now.
Scott
Scott
> Story time! I don't have any generalizations, just what I've done.
Thanks very much for sharing your story. Lots of complicated
relationships, by the sounds! I'm still getting used to the zie and
zir thing - is that peculiar to this newsgroup, or to your
geographical region? I suspect the former.
I'm not sure if I'll get involved in tons of relationships over the
coming years, but everybody is of course different. Right now I'm
just enjoying the idea of it. :)
Scott
Rose Platt
> I'm curious as to how others made the progression from actually deciding
> to allow subsequent lovers into their lives, to really making it happen.
My progression went like this:
* When my boyfriend C and I got together, we agreed to have an open
relationship, but we were much too wrapped up in each other for the
first six NRE-filled months to look at anyone else. Then I went away for
a month, during which time I went totally insane (pretty literally)
trying to convince one of the people where I was to get involved with
me--he was monogamously involved with someone else and had no interest
in me to start with, so it was a nicely futile project--and C called me
to say "I met this girl". When I got home, C and "this girl" had gotten
to be good friends, and I quite liked her boyfriend and he quite liked
me, so we all swap-dated a bit, but nothing ever really happened.
* C and I eventually broke up, and I went promptly into a twenty-month
monogamous relationship with his friend L. I _really_ wanted it to be
open, but L wasn't comfortable with the idea at all. So my first
experience of having a lover outside of a primary relationship was
cheating on L with S. *nosewrinkle* It was one of those "I know I'm
leaving him anyway" situations, but that doesn't make me any happier
about the way things went. I told L that I couldn't deal with monogamy
anymore, and that while he was welcome to be one of my partners, I
couldn't promise exclusivity. He said "Is this about S?" and I said
"No", because a lot of it wasn't... but in some ways, I feel worse about
that lie than I do about cheating in the first place. It's one thing to
have fucked things up badly enough that cheating seems like the only
option. It's another to look someone you care about in the eye and lie
in response to a direct question. One of my guidelines for how I live my
life is to never, ever put myself or anyone I love in anything
resembling that position again.
* So of course I promptly went off and hooked up with S. That was on a
non-monogamous basis from the very start, and I went a little bit crazy
with the freedom: I picked up a couple of local guys from an IRC channel
I hung out on, one for a one-afternoon stand and the other for what
turned into a series of dates where he'd pick me up from school and we'd
go have sex in the back seat of his car, or at his house if no one else
was home. That was the first time I'd had acknowledged, permitted lovers
outside of a primary relationship. I liked the _theory_ a lot. The
reality wasn't actually all that satisfying, so eventually those
relationships faded. It got much better when S fell in love with a
woman, introduced her to me, and got to watch us fall in love with each
other. We were a very happy triad for a while.
Eventually I left them for another monogamous relationship, which lasted
two and a half years before I hit the I-can't-do-this stage again, and
took another year and a half to fully end. *sigh* Since then, all of my
relationships have been poly from the get-go, and there are no veto
agreements (though I do listen when my partners say "I would rather you
didn't sleep with so-and-so because [whatever]", and can't actually
think of a situation where I wouldn't respect that preference, since I'm
unlikely to fall in love with someone one of my partners despises, and
they're all pretty easy-going people). My negotiations with potential
lovers look basically the same regardless of how many people I'm
involved with. Right now I have three partners and assorted
friends-I-sleep-with-when-our-schedules-mesh, and it all works pretty
amazingly well.
--Rose
--
Rose Platt, Designer & Thileiast
http://www.gordiandesigns.com/ ~^~ ro...@gordiandesigns.com
Tying knots in bits of string for money since 1999
Birch
> Thanks very much for sharing your story. Lots of complicated
> relationships, by the sounds!
It sounds a lot more complicated than it is. Besides one month of
confusion with G, it's just happened really naturally. Lots of
communication, but I like talking to my lovers :-)
> I'm still getting used to the zie and
> zir thing - is that peculiar to this newsgroup, or to your
> geographical region? I suspect the former.
I picked it up here, I've never heard anyone use them verbally, except
when talking about people on this newsgroup who prefer to be referred
to by them. I use them for a couple reasons: it amuses me when people
can't figure out my sex - I made one really good friend online who
assumed the wrong way, and was quite surprised to meet me in real
life; and it gives my lovers an extra degree of anonymity.
Good luck, and if you want me to babble about my lovers more, just let
me know. I like to talk about them even more than my motorcycle, and
that's saying something (L teases me that we've always been poly,
because there's always been the bike).
Birch
J.Hunter
"Scott" <anso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b2bba227.02110...@posting.google.com...
I know exactly how you feel - even if you don't use the freedom, you feel a
great sense of freedom anyway, and affection towards your partner. And the
next step is, when you do use the freedom, you feel great too. I mean making
love is great, but it's somehow made even better knowing that you have wifey
at home for you. If you weren't married, you'd have the same freedom, but it
wouldn't be the same thing, would it?
So I think the thing to remember is that the original relationship is what
makes it possible, and your commitment there is primary. Once that is
settled, then you can do what you want. But always negotiate any changes
within that first relationship. Things change, so keep talking about it.
Really this is no different from what you have already agreed between you,
which is that you are committed to each other.
Ryk
<b2bba227.02110...@posting.google.com>
anso...@yahoo.com (Scott) wrote:
>No it isn't Ian, and thanks for providing an apt way of describing my
>(and your) present situation, even if you didn't coin the term. Since
>I made this post my wife and I have had more discussions and things
>have become even clearer than before and she appears to have no
>jealousy whatsoever (shed didn't get that piece installed, as the a.p.
>FAQ says), which makes it easy for me to go forward with things.
>
>However, the "not not looking" doesn't quite fit the bill at this
>stage. You see, there's a woman I work with who I'm attracted to and
>it appears the reverse also applies.
Did you get there so quickly, or was this a "hidden agenda" issue?
There's a huge difference for some people between hypothetical
partners someday and real partners right away.
Go back and have the whole conversation over again, filling in names
and dates to make sure your partner is still comfortable.
>So I'm in a bit of a quandry, but happy to bide my time until the
>moment arises, if it ever does. My quandry comes from wondering how I
>might let on that it's OK if she wants to move on me - that my
>marriage does not restrict me from getting close to her like 98% of
>other marriages do. Still, having only been "out" (at least as far as
>my wife and I having discussed this goes) for a few days, I certainly
>don't want anything to happen too soon, until I can get used to the
>idea of being poly.
Continue to be a friend. Go out for coffee together. Talk. Take your
time. After all, you have years and years ahead of you, don't you? I'm
sorry if that sounds harsh, but we have seen lots of fast paced poly
drama around here and the fast pace seems to correlate well with
crashing and burning.
Slow down, Talk lots with everybody, and above all, Check back in with
your current partner to make sure the wires aren't crossed.
Ryk
Mary Kay
>
> So I think the thing to remember is that the original relationship is what
> makes it possible, and your commitment there is primary. Once that is
> settled, then you can do what you want. But always negotiate any changes
> within that first relationship. Things change, so keep talking about it.
> Really this is no different from what you have already agreed between you,
> which is that you are committed to each other.
I'd just like to add .02 here. My husband and I have just been through
some fairly intensive talks on the subject of opening our marriage to
other partners. It wasn't easy: it felt risky and there were
misunderstandings and what not. But it's been incredibly wonderful for
us. It re-affirmed for both of us how much we love and are loved. It's
brought us closer and made us happier. It revealed some problems that
are now being fixed. Even if we don't ever end up with otherloves, the
results of the discussion make it all worthwhile.
MKK
--
There are 10 types of people in the world; those who understand binary,
and those who don't.
anon
> some fairly intensive talks on the subject of opening our marriage to
> other partners. It wasn't easy: it felt risky and there were
> misunderstandings and what not. But it's been incredibly wonderful for
> us. It re-affirmed for both of us how much we love and are loved. It's
> brought us closer and made us happier. It revealed some problems that
> are now being fixed. Even if we don't ever end up with otherloves, the
> results of the discussion make it all worthwhile.
>
> MKK
My wife was bisexual when I first met her. We had each broken up with our
previous lovers. We discussed her attraction for women from the beginning
and it was something that excited me. We discussed as a fantasy having a
woman join us; in reality I didn't mind her having a female lover all to
herself or together with me. It aroused me to bring this up during our
lovemaking, and usually it seemed to arouse her. In the past year she has
started asking if it would be ok to add a man in fantasy. Since it was only
fantasy I went along with it, but I preferred a woman. Two weeks ago she
confessed that she has been having sex with two men she met on Yahoo chat. I
was surprised, but not angry. I was ok with her having other lovers as long
as she was careful in whom she chose and used protection. I also felt
liberated to have the freedom to have other women if I found any that I was
interested in. It seemed we had agreed to have an open relationship and that
the primary marriage was to remain the most important.
The happy scenario soon changed. My first thought was to contact old female
friends that I had attractions to in the past but couldn't do anything
because I was married. My wife was upset and jealous that I wanted to turn
to friends; she was ok only with my having strangers. She especially
objected to any common friends that we have together. Old girlfriends that I
had been sexually involved with in the past were the greatest threat. So, I
have found myself in a situation where she is free to have anyone she wants
while anyone I might want is vetoed by her.
The second problem arose when I questioned her about using protection and
she said she knew her men were safe because they were professionals and nice
guys. She confessed to having unprotected anal sex with the first one which
scared the hell out of me; that is the most dangerous sexual thing you can
do as far as AIDS and hepatitis C. It turned out to be a one night stand
with that guy. Her second guy she is still seeing, but he is married and his
wife is suspicious and trying to catch him in an affair. She is developing
an emotional involvement with this guy and doesn't make him use protection
either.
After much discussion and telling her she had to use protection with
strangers we compromised that she could continue to have her one special one
without protection as long as any others would be with protection. I also
insisted that for safety the others had to be kept to a select few. We
seemed to be in agreement. I still had no one for myself.
During the next week I found that she was spending much time on the phone
with him and planning their meetings. A couple of nights I stayed away so
they could be together at our house. I soon found out that she had little
desire to have sex with me because it couldn't compare to the thrill of her
new love. Actually, one night she wouldn't have sex with me because she was
planning to see him afterwards and didn't want my cum in her. She gave in
and let me have sex with her, but I had to go buy her a douche so she could
get clean for him! I also noticed that her tone of voice with me had changed
to being very sarcastic and demeaning. I take Viagra, and she has said that
her other men don't need it and implied that I was less of a man since I
(sometimes) need it. I always felt that the Viagra had solved that problem
for us. She has always had self-esteem problems due to her weight. She feels
that she is unattractive to me since I need the Viagra; although I have
assured her that it is the same with anyone I'm with. She also says she
resents my fantasy of her being with another woman, since she should be
enough. However, she did mention that one time her other guy was losing his
erection and all she had to do was mention having a three way with a woman
and him to get his erection back. Its ok for him to enjoy the fantasy, but
wrong for me. Now I feel that I can't share any fantasies with her.
Last Tuesday one of her 14 cats (all indoor!) was sick and had lost a lot of
weight over a few weeks. We found out that the cat was in end stage renal
disease and there was little hope. She wanted him to have a kidney
transplant and there was no limit on how much we would spend on him. I knew
we couldn't afford the expense, especially since the cat was 11 years old
and we would be risking two cats, since one of the healthy ones would be the
donor. I decided to have the cat euthanized, and I held him while it was
done. She was hysterical when she found out and hated me for killing her
cat. She retaliated by getting back on yahoo and meeting more than 20 new
men in our local area. She told them our phone number and where we live. She
was making plans to meet them for sex. She basically told me to fuck off and
that she was free to fuck anyone she wanted.
The next morning I was the one in severe depression and I knew one of us
needed psychiatric help. I have a friend who is a psychiatrist, but he can't
be our doctor because of the personal friendship. He has been strongly
urging me to get her into a hospital. She is bipolar, and it has become
clear that she has been manic this whole time. The cat dying has put her
into psychosis and depression. I confronted her and told her our marriage
was over unless she got herself under control. At first she said she wanted
me to move out and I told her I would. Then she switched to crying and
saying she couldn't live without me and that she wanted to die to be with
her dead cat. I called my psychiatrist friend and he told me to call the
police and ask for the CIT officer and explain that she was suicidal. I
reasoned with her to let me take her to the hospital voluntarily; she at
first consented, but then backed out and resisted. She went to bed and said
she wanted to sleep and be left alone. My psychiatrist friend's wife is my
wife's closest female friend and she came over to help me convince her to
go. My wife relented and we took her to the hospital. She cursed me and said
she was going to divorce me when she gets out and hates her female friend
and her psychiatrist husband for putting her through this. She finally
signed herself in voluntarily and proptly took me and our friends off the
list of people the hospital was allowed to communicate with. She has since
called me because she needed me to bring her things from home. She has
agreed to put me back on the list so I can talk to her doctors, but our
friends she has not, and she says she is no longer their friend. She told me
tonight on the phone that the psychiatrist who saw her over the weekend was
appalled at my fantasy of her having a woman lover, and that my psycho
pathology had led to her current mental state. I only intended it as
fantasy. When she found a woman I encouraged it, but didn't require it or
really care if I was a part. I have been reading this group for a while, and
I thought that it might be an enjoyable lifestyle for us if she could handle
it. Her psychiatrist thinks polyamory is certain destruction for any healthy
marriage and I am sick for ever bringing it up. When she gets out of the
hospital, I should never share any fantasy I might have involving anyone
other that her. On the other hand she told me tonight that she intends to
call her married lover as soon as she is able to. I don't want to forbid it,
but I asked her to wait and let us talk it out with a therapist and decide
how to keep it sane. I briefly looked around to find someone for myself, but
as soon as I realized she was not rational I lost all desire to do this. I
think I would have enjoyed polyamory, but now I know it is an impossiblilty
for me with this wife anyway. I want the marriage to work, because I do love
her, but I'm not sure if it can work.
Scott
> >However, the "not not looking" doesn't quite fit the bill at this
> >stage. You see, there's a woman I work with who I'm attracted to and
> >it appears the reverse also applies.
>
> Did you get there so quickly, or was this a "hidden agenda" issue?
> There's a huge difference for some people between hypothetical
> partners someday and real partners right away.
It sounds like a hidden agenda, but actually it isn't. The whole
discussion with my wife (don't feel comfortable using the term
"primary" yet, maybe in time I will) started after I had a recurring
sexual dream 3 nights in a row, with the 3rd night being last Monday,
prompting me to scour the internet to find out why these things
happen. Came up with the "repressed sexual desires" angle, which I
confided to my wife, also mentioning that I was attracted to my work
colleague, and had been for some time, as probably the reason for the
dreams. She understood and was accepting, as she always is. This is
a major reason, among many, why I cam all the way from Australia to
Michigan to marry her. :)
My wife and I have done some swinging before - and decided it wasn't
for us, although we met some very nice people - and I had in the past
mentioned that she could have complete freedom if she ever found
another person she felt strongly about, particularly an "old flame" of
hers. This time I actually asked her if it was OK for me to do the
same and she said "of course". So we discussed all that this entails,
and I mentioned my co-worker, and that I would not actually "chase"
her, but leave things open to opportunities, rather than shutting down
my emotional and physical reactions to her, as I have been for the
whole time I've been working with her, which is about 9 months now.
To summarize, it might partially be a hidden agenda, although I would
prefer to say "viewable agenda", since I am not hiding anything from
my wife, never have and never will. I know you weren't implying that,
but I wanted to set the record. I am constantly reassuring my wife
that I love her and always will, and that this new relationship - IF
it happens - will be taken in veru small steps.
> Go back and have the whole conversation over again, filling in names
> and dates to make sure your partner is still comfortable.
She is, and I really appreciate your concern. It's too tempting to
rush into something like this, when you've been given the green light.
I certainly need time to get used to the idea of this change of
approach before I do something I might regret. Of course she does
too, although she's not as enthusiastic as I am, which is another
reason to take things slowly and keep communicating. I need to also
be more explicit towards my wife with respect to my feelings for M.
(my coworker), so that she isn't taken aback if something suddenly
does happen.
> Continue to be a friend. Go out for coffee together. Talk. Take your
> time. After all, you have years and years ahead of you, don't you? I'm
> sorry if that sounds harsh, but we have seen lots of fast paced poly
> drama around here and the fast pace seems to correlate well with
> crashing and burning.
I agree with all of that, absolutely. I've spent lots of time
thinking this weekend, especially about the friends part. I'm strongly
attracted to M., but that isn't enough - I need to get to know her
first, outside of our professional environment. My personal past,
when I was single, contained quite a number of crash-and-burns.
Hopefully I've learned something. Thanks for reinforcing the thought
of taking my time. If she's truly going to connect with me on a
longer-term basis, she will be prepared to wait also. Problem is, she
doesn't know I'm available and I don't know how to tell her. Hence
the tenor of my original post. That being said, if I can become her
friend, that will go a long way towards creating the opportunity to
tell her how I feel and explain my "situation".
> Slow down, Talk lots with everybody, and above all, Check back in with
> your current partner to make sure the wires aren't crossed.
I'm making my best attempts to do all of this. Again, thanks so much
for your concern, and I promise to keep you guys posted!
Regards,
Scott
RJ
That's a pretty good expansion on it, Ian.
Not not-looking does require a bit of patience; when I was feeling
not-patient enough, I would schedule practice dates with friends
who knew we would never date as sweeties and go out to dinner and a
movie. In most cases where I did that, I wound up meeting someone
that I wound up going out on a for-real date within a week or two
afterwards.
RJ
--
"No wonder I like your brain. You are obviously situated at that
articulate-insightful-smart-quirky edge of the universe occupied by
librarians, lawyers and former telemarketers." --Teramis
+++ RJ Johnson ++ http://www.rahul.net/arjay ++ r...@xocolatl.com +++
Ryk
<b2bba227.0211...@posting.google.com>
anso...@yahoo.com (Scott) wrote:
>She is, and I really appreciate your concern. It's too tempting to
>rush into something like this, when you've been given the green light.
> I certainly need time to get used to the idea of this change of
>approach before I do something I might regret. Of course she does
>too, although she's not as enthusiastic as I am, which is another
>reason to take things slowly and keep communicating. I need to also
>be more explicit towards my wife with respect to my feelings for M.
>(my coworker), so that she isn't taken aback if something suddenly
>does happen.
Sounds like you are on the right track.
>> Continue to be a friend. Go out for coffee together. Talk. Take your
>> time. After all, you have years and years ahead of you, don't you?
>Hopefully I've learned something. Thanks for reinforcing the thought
>of taking my time. If she's truly going to connect with me on a
>longer-term basis, she will be prepared to wait also. Problem is, she
>doesn't know I'm available and I don't know how to tell her.
See above. Once the friendship develops some substance outside the
work environment you will both have a basis to talk more about your
personal lives and it will become a natural part of the conversation.
Ryk
Scott
[long snip]
> I
> think I would have enjoyed polyamory, but now I know it is an impossiblilty
> for me with this wife anyway. I want the marriage to work, because I do love
> her, but I'm not sure if it can work.
I'm very saddened to hear all of this, but I am grateful to you for
sharing your pain and telling your story. In a lot of ways it shows
how polyamory doesn't work if the relationship is perhaps not strong
enough to start with. I get the impression that your poly decision
revealed some problems in your marriage that might or might not have
surfaced anyway. Yes, it certainly sounds like it isn't for you and
your wife. Doesn't mean it won't work for others, though, and I know
you're not saying that.
I'm learning that communication before action is of prime importance
in these situations. Small steps are also extremely important. No
jumping in before you've discussed things fully. My wife and I have
agreed to talk about everything before we take any action, as we have
always done. Our marriage is always to come first, and on that we
have total agreement. I guess I'm a little more fortunate than most.
We are also in agreement that we may never have other partners, or
maybe only one of us will. But whatever the case, if any situation
gets to the point where our marriage is threatened, then the marriage
has to come first. This is especially important because we have four
kids, and we have other long terms plans (such as moving overseas in
five years) that are not to be threatened. It's useful I guess to
have things like that as motivation not to screw things up.
In your situation, I wish you all the best and hope that, if things
don't work out for your marriage, that things work out for you
personally in the long run.
Regards,
Scott
Rose Platt
> I'm in the stage where you are. Not really looking for anything in
> particular, having a relationship in which poly is a possibility, but
> not dating anyone else, and not particularly looking for anyone.
>
> I've heard RJ, I think it was, describe it as "not not looking." I'm
> open to possibilities if they occur, but I feel no particular call to
> make any happen.
>
> It's not a bad situation to be in.
It might cause some of us who thought you were in an explicitly
not-poly-right-now relationship to be kicking ourselves for not
encouraging possibilities to occur, though. *)
Xiphias Gladius
Platt) wrote:
>Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>> I've heard RJ, I think it was, describe it as "not not looking." I'm
>> open to possibilities if they occur, but I feel no particular call to
>> make any happen.
>>
>> It's not a bad situation to be in.
>
>It might cause some of us who thought you were in an explicitly
>not-poly-right-now relationship to be kicking ourselves for not
>encouraging possibilities to occur, though. *)
Hey, I put the big sparkly fish on my badge!
(At alt.polycon, there are a bunch of stickers that people can put on
their badges as a sort of "badge code" to let people know things about
themselves. "Not not-looking" was a big sparkly fish sticker.)
(And the question of whether I'm in an explicitly not-poly-right-now
relationship is a little complicated. . . I'd be glad to explain more
by email to anyone whose interested, but the short answer is that "not
not-looking" is not a bad approximation.)
- Ian
Scott
All very good advice and thank you again. The last day or two has
involved quite a bit of internal wrestling, and I appear to now have
reached a point of stability in my own mind, where I am happy to wait
and not rush anything with this person.
Despite my 7 year marriage, I am still spectacularly naive when it
comes to initiating an intimate relationship. I get close to the fire
and then I start chaging my behaviour. I've got to somehow unlearn
this and try to treat prospective relationships as friendships first,
then intimacy second. This might be relatively easy for some (or
maybe not?), but it isn't for me. When I met my wife, she was married
at the time, so I relaxed because I figured she was unavailable, and
then it was easy to be a friend. When I knew her marriage was in
trouble and she wanted out, then it was easy to transition to being
supportive and then falling in love.
In the case of a single woman that I'm attracted to, where I know she
is "available" right off the bat, it seems to be much harder to try
the friendship angle first. I have no idea why. I'm going to try
real hard though, and maybe this time it will work out. If not, then
it was never going to.
Sorry for babbling, but I greatly helps me to chronicle my thoughts
here, so that I can potentially see where I might be going wrong.
Regards,
Scott
Rose Platt
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:36:55 -0800, use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose
> Platt) wrote:
>
> >Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >> I've heard RJ, I think it was, describe it as "not not looking." I'm
> >> open to possibilities if they occur, but I feel no particular call to
> >> make any happen.
> >>
> >> It's not a bad situation to be in.
> >
> >It might cause some of us who thought you were in an explicitly
> >not-poly-right-now relationship to be kicking ourselves for not
> >encouraging possibilities to occur, though. *)
>
> Hey, I put the big sparkly fish on my badge!
That's one of those stickers that means something so different for each
person that I didn't bother memorizing it.
Ah well. I'll just have to come back to Boston. Shucks.
Xiphias Gladius
Platt) wrote:
>Ah well. I'll just have to come back to Boston. Shucks.
Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
- Ian
Pat Kight
*waves hand*
Yes, please.
--
Pat Kight
who'd like to be able to teleport a mere 300 miles, never mind Bali ...
kig...@peak.org
Lorremiddy
Pat Kight wrote:
> Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:45:49 -0800, use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose
>> Platt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ah well. I'll just have to come back to Boston. Shucks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
>> doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
>> visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
>> Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
>
>
> *waves hand*
>
> Yes, please.
You'd think there'd be a cadre of engineers on it...
like, now.
Lorre (tapping foot, arms folded over chest)
Miche
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
That would really seriously rock.
Miche
--
So what if the universe is a pointless mass of hydrogen refuse powered
by entropy. I'm spreading ketchup on a rubber duck, and after that I'm
going to brush its teeth. So there.
-- Rob Landley
Bearpaw
> > >
> > >Ah well. I'll just have to come back to Boston. Shucks.
> >
> > Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
> > doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
> > visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
> > Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
>
> That would really seriously rock.
In some contexts, yes. In other contexts, it would seriously suck.
Some places only survive as places worth getting to as long as they
remain difficult to get to.
shil...@alumni.unh.edu
And you think there isn't, why?
Suzanne
--
Suzanne Hillman shil...@alumni.unh.edu
OpenPGP KeyID 0x7024BE2C
Key available from http://www.theworld.com/~wispfox/pgpkey.asc
The Boat Sank... Get Over It.
shil...@alumni.unh.edu
>> Pat Kight wrote:
>>
>>> Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:45:49 -0800, use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose
>>>> Platt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ah well. I'll just have to come back to Boston. Shucks.
>>>>
>>>> Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
>>>> doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
>>>> visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
>>>> Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
>>>
>>> *waves hand*
>>>
>>> Yes, please.
>>
>> You'd think there'd be a cadre of engineers on it...
>> like, now.
>>
>> Lorre (tapping foot, arms folded over chest)
>
> And you think there isn't, why?
>
explaining myself:
I'm sure that there is someone, somewhere working on that...
Not claiming that I know that someone is, though. :)
Suzanne, confusing herself again
--
Suzanne Hillman shil...@alumni.unh.edu
OpenPGP KeyID 0x7024BE2C
Key available from http://www.theworld.com/~wispfox/pgpkey.asc
Once I dreamed I was a butterfly...
Am I now dreaming that I am a butterfly
or is the butterfly now dreaming that she is me?
Aqua
> Despite my 7 year marriage, I am still spectacularly naive when it
> comes to initiating an intimate relationship. I get close to the fire
> and then I start chaging my behaviour. I've got to somehow unlearn
> this and try to treat prospective relationships as friendships first,
> then intimacy second. This might be relatively easy for some (or
> maybe not?), but it isn't for me. When I met my wife, she was married
> at the time, so I relaxed because I figured she was unavailable, and
> then it was easy to be a friend. When I knew her marriage was in
> trouble and she wanted out, then it was easy to transition to being
> supportive and then falling in love.
>
> In the case of a single woman that I'm attracted to, where I know she
> is "available" right off the bat, it seems to be much harder to try
> the friendship angle first. I have no idea why. I'm going to try
> real hard though, and maybe this time it will work out. If not, then
> it was never going to.
If it helps you get back into the "she's not available and I can
concentrate on being friends" mode, just because she is single and
therefore availably from your point of view doesn't mean that she will
be positive to being in a polyamorous relationship. Even as she finds
out that despite being married you are available, she might not want to
involved. Certainly, if she's never heard of polyamory, she's much more
likely to respond well to it if she first learns of it as something one
of her friends does, rather than something she should consider doing
with said friend.
Aqua
Miche
Bearpaw <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Miche <mich...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
> > > use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose Platt) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Ah well. I'll just have to come back to Boston. Shucks.
> > >
> > > Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
> > > doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
> > > visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
> > > Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
> >
> > That would really seriously rock.
>
> In some contexts, yes. In other contexts, it would seriously suck.
> Some places only survive as places worth getting to as long as they
> remain difficult to get to.
That's true enough.
Let's have them only in urban areas, then?
Xiphias Gladius
wrote:
>Miche <mich...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>> > use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose Platt) wrote:
>> > >
>> > >Ah well. I'll just have to come back to Boston. Shucks.
>> >
>> > Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
>> > doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
>> > visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
>> > Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
>>
>> That would really seriously rock.
>
>In some contexts, yes. In other contexts, it would seriously suck.
>Some places only survive as places worth getting to as long as they
>remain difficult to get to.
I just want a teleport booth within a quarter mile of the houses of
each of my friends. Who wants to be easily accessible. I don't want
teleport booths along the Appalachian Trail, or at Macha Picchu.
- Ian
Ryk
<bearpaw01-3E2A5...@news.fu-berlin.de>
Bearpaw <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Miche <mich...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>> > use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose Platt) wrote:
>> > >
>> > >Ah well. I'll just have to come back to Boston. Shucks.
>> >
>> > Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
>> > doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
>> > visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
>> > Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
>>
>> That would really seriously rock.
>
>In some contexts, yes. In other contexts, it would seriously suck.
>Some places only survive as places worth getting to as long as they
>remain difficult to get to.
It's probably a market thing, that there's just not enough people who
want to pay enough to be there to make it profitable for them to be
easy to get to. And that's just fine with me.
I suspect that we may succeed with strategies that reduce tourist
impact before we succeed with cheap teleportation.
Assuming teleportation has some kind of resource cost, lots of places
will remain difficult to get to. What's likely to cause more of a
problem is making relatively easy places to get to much easier to get
to. I'm reminded of an SF story called "The [something] floating riot
club" or something like that outlined the social problems of "flash
crowds".
Another aspect is that the value of experiencing a place is often tied
to how one got there. Sometimes the process is more important than the
outcome. It takes all day for us to sail to Sacket's Harbour, yet we
could get there in an hour by car. Sacket's is lovely and historic and
we've never been there by car. A similar dynamic might affect
teleportation, making it easier for the masses to get to Disney World.
Ryk
Pat Kight
> In article <bearpaw01-3E2A5...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> Bearpaw <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Miche <mich...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose Platt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ah well. I'll just have to come back to Boston. Shucks.
>>>>
>>>>Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
>>>>doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
>>>>visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
>>>>Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
>>>
>>>That would really seriously rock.
>>
>>In some contexts, yes. In other contexts, it would seriously suck.
>>Some places only survive as places worth getting to as long as they
>>remain difficult to get to.
>
>
> That's true enough.
>
> Let's have them only in urban areas, then?
Or ... hmmm ... noodlenoodle ... engineer them to include a
protective-of-the-place-and-invisible-to-all-other-visitors-bubble option.
I mean, since we're asking ...
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>
>Assuming teleportation has some kind of resource cost, lots of places
>will remain difficult to get to. What's likely to cause more of a
>problem is making relatively easy places to get to much easier to get
>to. I'm reminded of an SF story called "The [something] floating riot
>club" or something like that outlined the social problems of "flash
>crowds".
Alfred Bester did it first, but I think Larry Niven coined the phrase
"flash riot".
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2002 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
"Happy Agreement Day!"
"I'm glad we have a day for agreement, and tomorrow we can get back to
our usual disagreement." --AM/SJM
serene
> Another aspect is that the value of experiencing a place is often tied
> to how one got there. Sometimes the process is more important than the
> outcome. It takes all day for us to sail to Sacket's Harbour, yet we
> could get there in an hour by car. Sacket's is lovely and historic and
> we've never been there by car.
>
Okay, I have to visit y'all some day. This sounds lovely, and
you've not even described it yet.
serene
--
"If all your friends threw their breasts off a bridge, would you
throw *your* breasts off a bridge?" -- cute-poet-chick
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
>
>I'd just like to add .02 here. My husband and I have just been through
>some fairly intensive talks on the subject of opening our marriage to
>other partners. It wasn't easy: it felt risky and there were
>misunderstandings and what not. But it's been incredibly wonderful for
>us. It re-affirmed for both of us how much we love and are loved. It's
>brought us closer and made us happier. It revealed some problems that
>are now being fixed. Even if we don't ever end up with otherloves, the
>results of the discussion make it all worthwhile.
Cool!
Um, you do know there are some people who'd like to hear about the final
outcome of that discussion, right? (Well, yeah, I know it isn't ever
"final final", but you knew what I meant.)
serene
bear...@earthlink.net (Bearpaw) wrote:
> All my best relationships have started when I was "not not looking".
>
All mine have started when I was actively not looking, if that's
not too much of an oxymoron. Hmm.
serene
I was too chicken for the fish.
serene, now thinking of Good Friday, for reasons her mother would
understand
serene
> I've heard RJ, I think it was, describe it as "not not looking." I'm
> open to possibilities if they occur, but I feel no particular call to
> make any happen.
"Me, too," though I do feel some longing about it sometimes.
Perhaps more after a weekend with 85 attractive poly people than
at other times, but ya know how it is.
>
> It's not a bad situation to be in.
Nope. Not bad at all.
serene
Mary Kay
>
> Cool!
>
> Um, you do know there are some people who'd like to hear about the final
> outcome of that discussion, right? (Well, yeah, I know it isn't ever
> "final final", but you knew what I meant.)
Well, no I didn't. What do you know that I don't? Bot of us want to
give it a try and we've negotiated a set of guidelines we both feel we
can live with. Not everything is perfect for either of us, but hey,
that's marriage.
However, with truly remarkable timing it looks like a big stressor has
just hit us. What we thought was, hell it was, a definite job offer in
Seattle has just been revoked. On whim near as we can tell. All of a
sudden life Has Changed, so I'm not sure what will happen now.
MKK
--
There are 10 types of people in the world; those who understand binary,
and those who don't.
Cheryl Martin
>Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
>>
>>I'd just like to add .02 here. My husband and I have just been through
>>some fairly intensive talks on the subject of opening our marriage to
>>other partners. It wasn't easy: it felt risky and there were
>>misunderstandings and what not. But it's been incredibly wonderful for
>>us. It re-affirmed for both of us how much we love and are loved. It's
>>brought us closer and made us happier. It revealed some problems that
>>are now being fixed. Even if we don't ever end up with otherloves, the
>>results of the discussion make it all worthwhile.
>
>Cool!
>
>Um, you do know there are some people who'd like to hear about the final
>outcome of that discussion, right? (Well, yeah, I know it isn't ever
>"final final", but you knew what I meant.)
Ayup.
Cheryl
(standing in this here line pondering orientation)
--
*Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; Loving *
*someone deeply give you courage---Lao Tzu *
*Personal: http://www.grumpywitch.org *
*Arizona Polyamory http://www.grumpywitch.org/azpoly.html *
Scott
>
> If it helps you get back into the "she's not available and I can
> concentrate on being friends" mode, just because she is single and
> therefore availably from your point of view doesn't mean that she will
> be positive to being in a polyamorous relationship. Even as she finds
> out that despite being married you are available, she might not want to
> involved. Certainly, if she's never heard of polyamory, she's much more
> likely to respond well to it if she first learns of it as something one
> of her friends does, rather than something she should consider doing
> with said friend.
Yes, this has certainly crossed my mind - one of the many things I've
been thinking about. I don't have high expectations, despite the
"signs" I'm getting, and I have a solid base in my current
relationship to fall back on if this one falls through. But yes, this
is probably the biggest unknown - how she might respond when she finds
out my situation. I believe it takes a special person to accept
someone on a "part-time" basis and no more.
I'll give it time and it'll sort itself out.
Scott
Rose Platt
> Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Cool!
> >
> > Um, you do know there are some people who'd like to hear about the final
> > outcome of that discussion, right? (Well, yeah, I know it isn't ever
> > "final final", but you knew what I meant.)
>
> Well, no I didn't. What do you know that I don't? Bot of us want to
> give it a try and we've negotiated a set of guidelines we both feel we
> can live with. Not everything is perfect for either of us, but hey,
> that's marriage.
>
> However, with truly remarkable timing it looks like a big stressor has
> just hit us. What we thought was, hell it was, a definite job offer in
> Seattle has just been revoked. On whim near as we can tell. All of a
> sudden life Has Changed, so I'm not sure what will happen now.
Eek! I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope things settle out well, one way
or another.
--Rose (the one who lives with Kiri and Doug and thus hears about you
even though she has yet to meet you or your husband or your garage)
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
>Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Um, you do know there are some people who'd like to hear about the final
>> outcome of that discussion, right? (Well, yeah, I know it isn't ever
>> "final final", but you knew what I meant.)
>
>Well, no I didn't. What do you know that I don't? Bot of us want to
>give it a try and we've negotiated a set of guidelines we both feel we
>can live with. Not everything is perfect for either of us, but hey,
>that's marriage.
<patiently> You're a *librarian*.
>However, with truly remarkable timing it looks like a big stressor has
>just hit us. What we thought was, hell it was, a definite job offer in
>Seattle has just been revoked. On whim near as we can tell. All of a
>sudden life Has Changed, so I'm not sure what will happen now.
Ick. Sorry to hear that.
Steve Heller
>Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:45:49 -0800, use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose
>> Platt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ah well. I'll just have to come back to Boston. Shucks.
>>
>>
>> Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
>> doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
>> visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
>> Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
>
>*waves hand*
>
>Yes, please.
I'd like one too.
--
Steve Heller
http://www.steveheller.com
Author of "C++: A Dialog", "Optimizing C++", and other books
Free online versions of "Who's Afraid of C++?" and "Optimizing C++" are now available
at http://www.steveheller.com/whos and http://www.steveheller.com/opt
Steve Heller
>In alt.polyamory, Miche <mich...@myrealbox.com> (Miche) wrote in
><micheinnz-96ECD...@news.itconsult.net>::
>
>|> Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
>|> doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
>|> visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
>|> Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
>|
>|That would really seriously rock.
>
>ish. It would certainly change society in interesting ways, some of them
>not so welcome. See, inter alia, "Flash Crowd" (Harry Harrison, IIRC). And
>think what Al Qaeda would do with it.
Or read "Ringworld" (or "The Stars My Destination" for a slightly
different version of relatively readily available teleportation).
Mary Kay
> Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
>
> > Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cool!
> > >
> > > Um, you do know there are some people who'd like to hear about the final
> > > outcome of that discussion, right? (Well, yeah, I know it isn't ever
> > > "final final", but you knew what I meant.)
> >
> > Well, no I didn't. What do you know that I don't? Bot of us want to
> > give it a try and we've negotiated a set of guidelines we both feel we
> > can live with. Not everything is perfect for either of us, but hey,
> > that's marriage.
> >
> > However, with truly remarkable timing it looks like a big stressor has
> > just hit us. What we thought was, hell it was, a definite job offer in
> > Seattle has just been revoked. On whim near as we can tell. All of a
> > sudden life Has Changed, so I'm not sure what will happen now.
>
> Eek! I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope things settle out well, one way
> or another.
>
> --Rose (the one who lives with Kiri and Doug and thus hears about you
> even though she has yet to meet you or your husband or your garage)
LOL! I'm sorry--I didn't mean to give a wrong impression. Jordin's
been doing the consulting gig for 6 years now and he just turned down
several offers on account of having this new thing. And he spent some
time today turning them back on, so it' isn't like we're in danger of
starving or foreclosure or anything. It's just that this was a dream
job that would have allowed him to do something he'd always wanted to
do, and thought he was going to get to do it. And now... Well, he's
pretty depressed.
MKK--and hi! to Doug and all
Mary Kay
> In article <1fljrr5.1mj3pzbp5c07bN%mar...@kare.ws>,
> Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
> >Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Um, you do know there are some people who'd like to hear about the final
> >> outcome of that discussion, right? (Well, yeah, I know it isn't ever
> >> "final final", but you knew what I meant.)
> >
> >Well, no I didn't. What do you know that I don't? Bot of us want to
> >give it a try and we've negotiated a set of guidelines we both feel we
> >can live with. Not everything is perfect for either of us, but hey,
> >that's marriage.
>
> <patiently> You're a *librarian*.
Um. That whooshing sound was something passing right over my head.
You're gonna have to be more patient.
Rose Platt
> Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1fljrr5.1mj3pzbp5c07bN%mar...@kare.ws>,
> > Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
> > >Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Um, you do know there are some people who'd like to hear about the final
> > >> outcome of that discussion, right? (Well, yeah, I know it isn't ever
> > >> "final final", but you knew what I meant.)
> > >
> > >Well, no I didn't. What do you know that I don't? Bot of us want to
> > >give it a try and we've negotiated a set of guidelines we both feel we
> > >can live with. Not everything is perfect for either of us, but hey,
> > >that's marriage.
> >
> > <patiently> You're a *librarian*.
>
> Um. That whooshing sound was something passing right over my head.
> You're gonna have to be more patient.
Vast percentages of alt.poly readers appear to share a librarian fetish
(and probably wouldn't mind sharing a librarian, but that's beside the
point). I believe Aahz is implying that your profession alone is enough
to get people interested in whether you might be available FSVO
available, quite aside from your personal charms, which I'm told are
considerable.
--Rose
Leslie
In <1flk0mp.rx9b8aanan1lN%mar...@kare.ws>, Mary Kay said:
> Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > In article <1fljrr5.1mj3pzbp5c07bN%mar...@kare.ws>,
> > Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
> > >Well, no I didn't. What do you know that I don't? Bot of us want to
> > >give it a try and we've negotiated a set of guidelines we both feel we
> > >can live with. Not everything is perfect for either of us, but hey,
> > >that's marriage.
> >
> > <patiently> You're a *librarian*.
>
> Um. That whooshing sound was something passing right over my head.
> You're gonna have to be more patient.
Oh, my god. :) Try this on for size to start with:
"Librarians are the secret masters of the universe. They control information.
Don't ever piss one off." --Spider Robinson, _The Callahan Touch_
*stepping aside to avoid being trampled in the expected stampede of
alt.polyfolk rushing to worship at the feet (and/or other body parts,
especially the brain) of MKK*
Leslie, who got a membership in the Quality Paperback Book club for
the free OED access.
--
** "If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane." - J. Buffett **
*** The FAQS of Usenet: <news:news.newusers.questions> ***
**** If you love any of your rights, defend all of them. ****
RJ
>In <1flk0mp.rx9b8aanan1lN%mar...@kare.ws>, Mary Kay said:
>> Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > In article <1fljrr5.1mj3pzbp5c07bN%mar...@kare.ws>,
>> > Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
> [re the expected line forming over there --> for MKK &/or partner]
>> > >Well, no I didn't. What do you know that I don't? Bot of us want to
>> > >give it a try and we've negotiated a set of guidelines we both feel we
>> > >can live with. Not everything is perfect for either of us, but hey,
>> > >that's marriage.
>> >
>> > <patiently> You're a *librarian*.
>>
>> Um. That whooshing sound was something passing right over my head.
>> You're gonna have to be more patient.
>
>Oh, my god. :) Try this on for size to start with:
>
>"Librarians are the secret masters of the universe. They control information.
>Don't ever piss one off." --Spider Robinson, _The Callahan Touch_
>
>*stepping aside to avoid being trampled in the expected stampede of
>alt.polyfolk rushing to worship at the feet (and/or other body parts,
>especially the brain) of MKK*
You might want to go back and re-read what the name of the librarian
in that story was. I somehow think Mary Kay has seen that reference
before. :-)
RJ
--
"No wonder I like your brain. You are obviously situated at that
articulate-insightful-smart-quirky edge of the universe occupied by
librarians, lawyers and former telemarketers." --Teramis
+++ RJ Johnson ++ http://www.rahul.net/arjay ++ r...@xocolatl.com +++
Miche
ChickPea <no-spam-...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, Miche <mich...@myrealbox.com> (Miche) wrote in
> <micheinnz-96ECD...@news.itconsult.net>::
>
> |> Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
> |> doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
> |> visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
> |> Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
> |
> |That would really seriously rock.
>
> ish. It would certainly change society in interesting ways, some of them
> not so welcome. See, inter alia, "Flash Crowd" (Harry Harrison, IIRC). And
> think what Al Qaeda would do with it.
In my version of the world that has these, there is no al-Qaeda.
Miche
Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
> ChickPea <no-spam-...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In alt.polyamory, Miche <mich...@myrealbox.com> (Miche) wrote in
> ><micheinnz-96ECD...@news.itconsult.net>::
> >
> >|> Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
> >|> doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
> >|> visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
> >|> Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
> >|
> >|That would really seriously rock.
> >
> >ish. It would certainly change society in interesting ways, some of them
> >not so welcome. See, inter alia, "Flash Crowd" (Harry Harrison, IIRC). And
> >think what Al Qaeda would do with it.
>
> Or read "Ringworld" (or "The Stars My Destination" for a slightly
> different version of relatively readily available teleportation).
"Ringworld" was very close to my vision of this, yes.
Leslie
In <Pine.LNX.4.44.021113...@mauve.rahul.net>, RJ said:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Leslie wrote:
> >In <1flk0mp.rx9b8aanan1lN%mar...@kare.ws>, Mary Kay said:
> >> Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> > <patiently> You're a *librarian*.
> >>
> >> Um. That whooshing sound was something passing right over my head.
> >> You're gonna have to be more patient.
> >
> >Oh, my god. :) Try this on for size to start with:
> >
> >"Librarians are the secret masters of the universe. They control
> > information. Don't ever piss one off."
> > --Spider Robinson, _The Callahan Touch_
> You might want to go back and re-read what the name of the librarian
> in that story was. I somehow think Mary Kay has seen that reference
> before. :-)
http://www.vex.net/~leslie/filksong.html
Hence the oh-my-god reaction. :)
Leslie, whose (sadly very outdated) webpage got a mention in the back
of _The Callahan Chronicals._ (Speaking of oh-my-god!)
Xiphias Gladius
Platt) wrote:
>Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
>
>> Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > <patiently> You're a *librarian*.
>>
>> Um. That whooshing sound was something passing right over my head.
>> You're gonna have to be more patient.
>
>Vast percentages of alt.poly readers appear to share a librarian fetish
It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
with someone.
"Geek fetishes" and "librarian fetishes" are just applications of
that.
- Ian
Steve Heller
Which makes it even harder to understand the response to my invitation
(posted here) to consider joining a high-IQ Internet group.
>"Geek fetishes" and "librarian fetishes" are just applications of
>that.
--
Xiphias Gladius
<st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
>Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
>>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
>>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
>>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
>>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
>>with someone.
>
>Which makes it even harder to understand the response to my invitation
>(posted here) to consider joining a high-IQ Internet group.
In my case, it's because most of the people I've met who were parts of
high-IQ groups were really not very bright, and, while I can deal with
not-very-bright people, dumb people who think they're smart drive me
batty.
- Ian
heather e blair
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
>with someone.
I wonder if there's anybody out in the world who wants a dumb partner
or one with no sense of humor?
--
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." -- Vice President
Dan Quayle, 11/30/88
Xiphias Gladius
blair) wrote:
>In article <vdi4tu47e1q49710i...@4ax.com>,
>Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
>>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
>>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
>>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
>>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
>>with someone.
>
>I wonder if there's anybody out in the world who wants a dumb partner
>or one with no sense of humor?
I think that there are people to whom it is more or less important.
I'd suspect that there are also people who'd rather have partners who
they don't feel threatened by, and who feel threatened by
intelligence.
- Ian
Bearpaw
[nod] And people generally lacking in humor might prefer a similar
partner. The sort of people I think of as "grim" tend to have little
patience with people who often find things amusing, and probably would
not want to be involved with them.
Bearpaw
--
~~~~~~~~~~~ bear...@earthlink.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether
it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the
wrong remedy." - Ernest Benn
Steve Heller
Yes, I've run into that problem as well, but not to any significant
degree with the group I was referring to.
Steve Heller
>In article <vdi4tu47e1q49710i...@4ax.com>,
>Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
>>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
>>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
>>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
>>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
>>with someone.
>
>I wonder if there's anybody out in the world who wants a dumb partner
>or one with no sense of humor?
Or an average programmer?
ElissaAnn
"Bearpaw" <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bearpaw01-34353...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
> >
> > h4...@midway.uchicago.edu (heather e blair) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <vdi4tu47e1q49710i...@4ax.com>,
> > >Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
> > >>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
> > >>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
> > >>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
> > >>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
> > >>with someone.
> > >
> > >I wonder if there's anybody out in the world who wants a dumb partner
> > >or one with no sense of humor?
> >
> > I think that there are people to whom it is more or less important.
> >
> > I'd suspect that there are also people who'd rather have partners who
> > they don't feel threatened by, and who feel threatened by
> > intelligence.
I'm vaguely remembering a song with the lyrics: "I like 'em
big and stupid..."
>
> [nod] And people generally lacking in humor might prefer a similar
> partner. The sort of people I think of as "grim" tend to have little
> patience with people who often find things amusing, and probably would
> not want to be involved with them.
I don't know what you're talking about, and while you're at it, wipe
that smirk off your face.
Elissa
--
http://members.aol.com/elissaann
"Welcome to heaven; here's your harp and tuning key.
Welcome to hell; here's your harp."
Mary Kay
>
> *stepping aside to avoid being trampled in the expected stampede of
> alt.polyfolk rushing to worship at the feet (and/or other body parts,
> especially the brain) of MKK*
>
Giggle. I wonder if I ought to explain a bit more of why I introduced
the topic into my marriage.
See, about 18 months ago, I discovered that I wasn't nearly as
monogamous as all previous evidence indicated. I fell in love with
someone else. I couldn't make it go away no matter how hard I tried,
and I did try, so I decided to go with it. Especially since it seemed
to be making no difference at to how I felt about my husband. So really
I'm more interested in one specific person right now. (And if he
doesn't answer my email pretty dammed soon I may in fact Get Over It in
a hurry.) Not that I mind people worshipping me or my body parts of
course. :-)
Mary Kay
> In article <vdi4tu47e1q49710i...@4ax.com>,
> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
> >more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
> >alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
> >"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
> >are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
> >with someone.
>
> I wonder if there's anybody out in the world who wants a dumb partner
> or one with no sense of humor?
They probably wouldn't phrase it that way, but the evidence indicates
that there are a fair number of people who have partners of that type.
Though probably none of them hang out here.
Mary Kay
>
> Vast percentages of alt.poly readers appear to share a librarian fetish
> (and probably wouldn't mind sharing a librarian, but that's beside the
> point). I believe Aahz is implying that your profession alone is enough
> to get people interested in whether you might be available FSVO
> available, quite aside from your personal charms, which I'm told are
> considerable.
>
<blush> Oh, um. That's very sweet, thank you.
Bearpaw
> > > >or one with no sense of humor?
> > >
> > > I think that there are people to whom it is more or less important.
> > >
> > > I'd suspect that there are also people who'd rather have partners who
> > > they don't feel threatened by, and who feel threatened by
> > > intelligence.
>
> I'm vaguely remembering a song with the lyrics: "I like 'em
> big and stupid..."
Julie Brown!
"I Like Them Big and Stupid"
When I need somethin' to help me unwind
I find a six foot baby with a one track mind
Smart guys are nowhere, they make demands
Give me a moron with talented hands
I go bar-hopping and they say last call
I start shopping for a neanderthal
The bigger they come the harder I fall
We love 'til we're done then they're out in the hall
{Refrain}
I like 'em big and stupid
I like 'em big and real dumb
I like 'em big and stupid
What kind of guy does a lot for me
A Superman with a lobotomy
My fathers outa Harvard
My brothers outa Yale
But the guy I took home last night
Just got outa jail
The way he grabbed and threw me, ooh it really got me hot
But the way he growled and bit me, I hope he had his shots
The bigger they are the harder they'll work
I got a soft spot for a good lookin' jerk
{Refrain}
I met a guy, who drives a truck
He can't tell time but he sure can ... drive
I asked his name and he had to think
Could I have found the missing link
He's so stupid you know what he said
Well I forgot what he said, 'cause it was so stupid
The bigger they come the harder I fall
We love 'til we're done then they're out in the hall
{Refrain}
> > [nod] And people generally lacking in humor might prefer a similar
> > partner. The sort of people I think of as "grim" tend to have little
> > patience with people who often find things amusing, and probably would
> > not want to be involved with them.
>
> I don't know what you're talking about, and while you're at it, wipe
> that smirk off your face.
That's not a smirk ...
Xiphias Gladius
<eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>> > >In article <vdi4tu47e1q49710i...@4ax.com>,
>> > >Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>> > I'd suspect that there are also people who'd rather have partners who
>> > they don't feel threatened by, and who feel threatened by
>> > intelligence.
>
>I'm vaguely remembering a song with the lyrics: "I like 'em
>big and stupid..."
Julie Brown, "I Like 'Em Big and Stupid" We've got it on vinyl..
"When I need something to help me unwind
I find a six foot baby with a one track mind.
Smart guys are nowhere; they make demands.
Give me a moron with talented hands.
I go bar-hopping, and they say 'Last call'
I start shopping for a Neanderthal.
"The bigger they come, the harder I fall
In love 'till we're done, then they're out in the hall.
"I like 'em big and stupid. I like 'em big and real dumb.
I like 'em big and stupid.
"What kind of man does a lot for me?
Superman with a lobotomy
My father's out of Harvard, my brother's out of Yale
The guy I took home last night just got out of jail.
The way he grabbed and threw me, it really got me hot
But the way he growled and bit me, I hoped he had his shots.
"The bigger they are, the harder they'll work
I've got a soft spot for a good-looking jerk
CHORUS
"I met a guy who drives a truck
He can't tell time, but he sure can . . . drive.
I asked him his name, and he had to think.
Could I have found the missing link?
He's so stupid, you know what he said?
Well, I forgot what he said, because it was so stupid!"
From TRAPPED IN THE BODY OF A WHITE GIRL, also on the soundtrack of
EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY, a movie which has Geena Davis, Jeff Goldblum,
Damon Wayans, Jim Carrey, and Julie Brown, which, I think, is a great
cast.
- Ian
Pat Kight
Pat Kight
> I wonder if there's anybody out in the world who wants a dumb partner
> or one with no sense of humor?
Alas, yes, there is. Are.
Case in point: A former something-or-other of mine who failed to become
more than a something-or-other after confessing that he really preferred
his partners to be dumb because "they aren't as much work."
--Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Xiphias Gladius
>Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>> In my case, it's because most of the people I've met who were parts of
>> high-IQ groups were really not very bright, and, while I can deal with
>> not-very-bright people, dumb people who think they're smart drive me
>> batty.
>
>Thank you for saving me the typing. Now, what are you doing in my brain?
Looking at the journalism bits, mostly. I really like journalists.
Investigation, people-skills, *and* writing.
- Ian
Xiphias Gladius
wrote:
>Julie Brown!
>"I Like Them Big and Stupid"
>
>When I need somethin' to help me unwind
[ . . . snip . . .]
For the record, even though Bearpaw and I may think in similar
manners, he is much taller than I am.
- Ian
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
>Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:37:06 -0800, use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose
>>Platt) wrote:
>>>
>>>Vast percentages of alt.poly readers appear to share a librarian fetish
>>
>>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
>>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
>>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
>>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
>>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
>>with someone.
>
>Which makes it even harder to understand the response to my invitation
>(posted here) to consider joining a high-IQ Internet group.
There's a difference between "high-IQ" and "smart"; I've got one partner
who's very unlikely to qualify for a "high-IQ" group even though I think
zie's smart (as in, does very well with *applied* intelligence). More
than that, there's a difference between grouping people mechanically by
intelligence and having a personal interest in associating with people
who are intelligent by one's personal standards.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2002 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
"Happy Agreement Day!"
"I'm glad we have a day for agreement, and tomorrow we can get back to
our usual disagreement." --AM/SJM
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
>
>Giggle. I wonder if I ought to explain a bit more of why I introduced
>the topic into my marriage.
>
>See, about 18 months ago, I discovered that I wasn't nearly as
>monogamous as all previous evidence indicated. I fell in love with
>someone else. I couldn't make it go away no matter how hard I tried,
>and I did try, so I decided to go with it. Especially since it seemed
>to be making no difference at to how I felt about my husband. So really
>I'm more interested in one specific person right now. (And if he
>doesn't answer my email pretty dammed soon I may in fact Get Over It in
>a hurry.) Not that I mind people worshipping me or my body parts of
>course. :-)
Cool! I'm glad you and Jordin sound like you're handling it well.
shil...@alumni.unh.edu
> Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
>>Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:37:06 -0800, use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose
>>>Platt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Vast percentages of alt.poly readers appear to share a librarian fetish
>>>
>>>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
>>>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
>>>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
>>>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
>>>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
>>>with someone.
>>
>>Which makes it even harder to understand the response to my invitation
>>(posted here) to consider joining a high-IQ Internet group.
>
> There's a difference between "high-IQ" and "smart"; I've got one partner
> who's very unlikely to qualify for a "high-IQ" group even though I think
> zie's smart (as in, does very well with *applied* intelligence). More
> than that, there's a difference between grouping people mechanically by
> intelligence and having a personal interest in associating with people
> who are intelligent by one's personal standards.
Thanks, Aahz; you saved me from having to figure out how to phrase that! ;)
Or, at the very least, from having to phrase it in a manner that people
might have understood...
Suzanne, spending too much time in perl this morning.
--
Suzanne Hillman shil...@alumni.unh.edu
OpenPGP KeyID 0x7024BE2C
Key available from http://www.theworld.com/~wispfox/pgpkey.asc
That damned pink elephant followed me home again.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> In article <bfj4tu8i32f9hflf1...@4ax.com>,
>> Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Which makes it even harder to understand the response to my invitation
>>>(posted here) to consider joining a high-IQ Internet group.
>>
>> There's a difference between "high-IQ" and "smart"; I've got one partner
>> who's very unlikely to qualify for a "high-IQ" group even though I think
>> zie's smart (as in, does very well with *applied* intelligence). More
>> than that, there's a difference between grouping people mechanically by
>> intelligence and having a personal interest in associating with people
>> who are intelligent by one's personal standards.
>
>Thanks, Aahz; you saved me from having to figure out how to phrase
>that! ;)
You're welcome.
>Or, at the very least, from having to phrase it in a manner that people
>might have understood...
>
>Suzanne, spending too much time in perl this morning.
Well, that explains things. ;-)
RJ
>In article <bfj4tu8i32f9hflf1...@4ax.com>,
>Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
>>Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:37:06 -0800, use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose
>>>Platt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Vast percentages of alt.poly readers appear to share a librarian fetish
>>>
>>>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
>>>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
>>>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
>>>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
>>>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
>>>with someone.
>>
>>Which makes it even harder to understand the response to my invitation
>>(posted here) to consider joining a high-IQ Internet group.
>
>There's a difference between "high-IQ" and "smart"; I've got one partner
>who's very unlikely to qualify for a "high-IQ" group even though I think
>zie's smart (as in, does very well with *applied* intelligence). More
>than that, there's a difference between grouping people mechanically by
>intelligence and having a personal interest in associating with people
>who are intelligent by one's personal standards.
"High-IQ" does not equal "smart" does not equal "clever."
RJ
--
"No wonder I like your brain. You are obviously situated at that
articulate-insightful-smart-quirky edge of the universe occupied by
librarians, lawyers and former telemarketers." --Teramis
+++ RJ Johnson ++ http://www.rahul.net/arjay ++ r...@xocolatl.com +++
Steve Heller
>In article <bfj4tu8i32f9hflf1...@4ax.com>,
>Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
>>Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:37:06 -0800, use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose
>>>Platt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Vast percentages of alt.poly readers appear to share a librarian fetish
>>>
>>>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
>>>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
>>>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
>>>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
>>>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
>>>with someone.
>>
>>Which makes it even harder to understand the response to my invitation
>>(posted here) to consider joining a high-IQ Internet group.
>
>There's a difference between "high-IQ" and "smart"; I've got one partner
>who's very unlikely to qualify for a "high-IQ" group even though I think
>zie's smart (as in, does very well with *applied* intelligence). More
>than that, there's a difference between grouping people mechanically by
>intelligence and having a personal interest in associating with people
>who are intelligent by one's personal standards.
Yes, of course there is a difference. However, so long as there is a
significant positive correlation between one and the other, it may
still be worthwhile to consider the former "mechanical" grouping as a
potential source of people with whom one might want to associate.
Pat Kight
*smile*
Well, never mind that I do most of my writing in Usenet these days.
--Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
J.Jasper
What's the MPG on your batty? Is it an ethical vehicle?
<GD&R>
Ryk
<aqtvnr$23n$2...@news.orst.edu>
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>heather e blair wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there's anybody out in the world who wants a dumb partner
>> or one with no sense of humor?
>
>Alas, yes, there is. Are.
I'm not even sure it's an "alas". It's my impression that many people
are happiest in relationships with people who have a similar level of
intelligence and sense of humour. Besides, if there have to be dumb,
humourless people, isn't it better if they partner with each other and
leave the rest of us alone?
Ryk
shil...@alumni.unh.edu
> In article <H5J0J...@world.std.com>, <shil...@alumni.unh.edu> wrote:
>>Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> In article <bfj4tu8i32f9hflf1...@4ax.com>,
>>> Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Which makes it even harder to understand the response to my invitation
>>>>(posted here) to consider joining a high-IQ Internet group.
>>>
>>> There's a difference between "high-IQ" and "smart"; I've got one partner
>>> who's very unlikely to qualify for a "high-IQ" group even though I think
>>> zie's smart (as in, does very well with *applied* intelligence). More
>>> than that, there's a difference between grouping people mechanically by
>>> intelligence and having a personal interest in associating with people
>>> who are intelligent by one's personal standards.
>>
>>might have understood...
>>
>>Suzanne, spending too much time in perl this morning.
>
> Well, that explains things. ;-)
Does, actually!
Spending too much time coding or scripting makes my ability to verbalize
even more tenuous. Makes for interesting conversations at work, though!
Then again, I appear to have the most amazing ability to say things
which make people bite their tongues, so most conversations I have are
interesting, in some way. ;)
Suzanne
--
Suzanne Hillman shil...@alumni.unh.edu
OpenPGP KeyID 0x7024BE2C
Key available from http://www.theworld.com/~wispfox/pgpkey.asc
If you will practice being fictional for a while, you will understand that
fictional characters are sometimes more real than people with bodies and
heartbeats. -Richard Bach, _Illusions_
Bearpaw
Ick. Definitely a quick way to become *former*, in my book.
Pat Kight
> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>
>>heather e blair wrote:
>>
>>>I wonder if there's anybody out in the world who wants a dumb partner
>>>or one with no sense of humor?
>>
>>Alas, yes, there is. Are.
>>
>>Case in point: A former something-or-other of mine who failed to become
>>more than a something-or-other after confessing that he really preferred
>>his partners to be dumb because "they aren't as much work."
>
>
> Ick. Definitely a quick way to become *former*, in my book.
So fast it would make your head spin, yes.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Bearpaw
>
> aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
> >Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
> >>Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
> >>>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
> >>>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
> >>>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
> >>>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
> >>>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
> >>>with someone.
> >>
> >>Which makes it even harder to understand the response to my invitation
> >>(posted here) to consider joining a high-IQ Internet group.
> >
> >There's a difference between "high-IQ" and "smart"; I've got one partner
> >who's very unlikely to qualify for a "high-IQ" group even though I think
> >zie's smart (as in, does very well with *applied* intelligence). More
> >than that, there's a difference between grouping people mechanically by
> >intelligence and having a personal interest in associating with people
> >who are intelligent by one's personal standards.
>
> Yes, of course there is a difference. However, so long as there is a
> significant positive correlation between one and the other, it may
> still be worthwhile to consider the former "mechanical" grouping as a
> potential source of people with whom one might want to associate.
It may also be worthwhile to consider a group of people who seriously
consider that to be a potential source as a potential source of people
with whom one might *not* want to associate.
ElissaAnn
"Steve Heller" <st...@steveheller.com> wrote in message
news:dl75tu0q1jbbgk2j2...@4ax.com...
I'd rather look for intelligent people in groups of people with whom
I share interests and ethical standards. Otherwise, I'd just hang
out at my alumni club and pick up men! But the last alumni event
I went to was filled with financial professionals, and I didn't feel like I
had anything in common with most of them, as bright as they were.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Yes, of course there is a difference. However, so long as there is a
> significant positive correlation between one and the other, it may
> still be worthwhile to consider the former "mechanical" grouping as a
> potential source of people with whom one might want to associate.
Even if I might consider some subset of the people within a given
"mechanical" grouping to be potentially interesting people, I tend to
find that groups arranged on the basis of trait-sets rather than
interest-sets tend to be accompanied by a mindset or group structure
that makes all participants seem to present as tedious.
If I consider a spectrum of groups arranged on a continuum from
trait-focused to interest-focused, I find that the more extensively a
group portrays itself as being on the trait-focused side of things, the
less I feel I have in common with it, and, in some cases, the more
actively excluded and alienated I feel by it.
I don't have anything useful to say to people with an IQ of, say, 140+.
I have no points of reference that are meaningful to me. The grouping
is on the basis of something that is not a part of my daily life or
interest-set, and frankly, I don't find people who could say that having
an IQ of 140+ to be a part of their interest-set engaging in the
slightest.
Group me with people who share my interests, or my hobbies, or my work,
or who can provide me with thoughts, knowledge, or assistance with
something that matters to me, and I'll have a chance in hell of finding
someone I find engaging there. I'm no more likely to find someone
interesting because they have an IQ of 140+ than I am to find someone to
be a good potential partner because they're polyamorous. In fact, I
find that sort of thing a lousy first sorting criterion.
- Darkhawk, bloodymindedly ObPoly
--
Heather Anne Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
And if love remains, though everything is lost
We will pay the price, but we will not count the cost.
- "Bravado", Rush
Steve Heller
Steve Heller
I can tell you that the conversations here are often better than the
ones on that group, if that means anything (which I think it does,
although what I'm not sure).
Arthur D. Hlavaty
<no-spam-...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>In alt.polyamory, Miche <mich...@myrealbox.com> (Miche) wrote in
><micheinnz-96ECD...@news.itconsult.net>::
>
>|> Like I keep saying, the only REAL solution is to put little teleport
>|> doorways on everybody's block, so that we can all just pop in and
>|> visit each other, whether we're in Bali, or London, or Toronto, or San
>|> Francisco, or Chicago, or Aukland, or wherever.
>|
>|That would really seriously rock.
>
>ish. It would certainly change society in interesting ways, some of them
>not so welcome. See, inter alia, "Flash Crowd" (Harry Harrison, IIRC). And
>think what Al Qaeda would do with it.
"Flash Crowd" is by Larry Niven.
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
Arthur D. Hlavaty
>On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:37:06 -0800, use...@gordiandesigns.com (Rose
>Platt) wrote:
>
>>Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
>>
>>> Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> > <patiently> You're a *librarian*.
>>>
>>> Um. That whooshing sound was something passing right over my head.
>>> You're gonna have to be more patient.
>>
>>Vast percentages of alt.poly readers appear to share a librarian fetish
>
>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
>with someone.
>
>"Geek fetishes" and "librarian fetishes" are just applications of
>that.
That's more like mine.
Miche
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
That's one of my favourite movies of all time.
Miche
--
So what if the universe is a pointless mass of hydrogen refuse powered
by entropy. I'm spreading ketchup on a rubber duck, and after that I'm
going to brush its teeth. So there.
-- Rob Landley
Xiphias Gladius
wrote:
>Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>> In my case, it's because most of the people I've met who were parts of
>> high-IQ groups were really not very bright, and, while I can deal with
>> not-very-bright people, dumb people who think they're smart drive me
>> batty.
>What's the MPG on your batty?
I am not, in fact, Irish.
- Ian
Arthur D. Hlavaty
blair) wrote:
>In article <vdi4tu47e1q49710i...@4ax.com>,
>Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>It's more of a special case of "intelligence fetish", which is even
>>more common. I'm under the impression that at least 75% of the
>>alt.poly readers that I've discussed this with list something like
>>"intelligence/wit/curiosity/a love of learning" among the things that
>>are absolute requirements for them to have an ongoing relationship
>>with someone.
>
>I wonder if there's anybody out in the world who wants a dumb partner
>or one with no sense of humor?
Yes. Some wouldn't phrase it that way, but want someone like
themselves, someone who does not try to make them think until their
brains hurt. (Monty Python reference)
The old beautiful-but-dumb cliche may still appeal to some. I
had an uncle who wanted to marry one of those, and succeeded in the
latter beyond his wildest dreams (and of course it lasted much longer
than the former).
Xiphias Gladius
wrote:
> Besides, if there have to be dumb,
>humourless people, isn't it better if they partner with each other and
>leave the rest of us alone?
I laughed out loud.
- Ian
the lost chew toy
<piglet sets down can and moves away from monitor>
*splort*
--
Piglet, pig...@piglet.org March on Washington: www.piglet.org/MoW
6?? days down Ann B. for President!
??? to go. Burlingham/Burlingham in 2004!
Aqua
> Steve Heller wrote:
>
> >aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
> >
> >>Steve Heller wrote:
>
> >>>Which makes it even harder to understand the response to my invitation
> >>>(posted here) to consider joining a high-IQ Internet group.
> >>
> >>There's a difference between "high-IQ" and "smart"; I've got one partner
> >>who's very unlikely to qualify for a "high-IQ" group even though I think
> >>zie's smart (as in, does very well with *applied* intelligence). More
> >>than that, there's a difference between grouping people mechanically by
> >>intelligence and having a personal interest in associating with people
> >>who are intelligent by one's personal standards.
> >
> >Yes, of course there is a difference. However, so long as there is a
> >significant positive correlation between one and the other, it may
> >still be worthwhile to consider the former "mechanical" grouping as a
> >potential source of people with whom one might want to associate.
>
> It may also be worthwhile to consider a group of people who seriously
> consider that to be a potential source as a potential source of people
> with whom one might *not* want to associate.
I'd like to thank Ian and Aahz for expressing what I was thinking and
saving me the bother, and doubly thank BearPaw for expressing the extra
bit I wasn't quite sure I though but I'm pretty sure I do now I've seen
it written down.
I'd also follow up that *I* find it worth considering as a potential
source a group of people who should have no trouble being part of
another group, but based on their investigations have decided that
actual official group members of the second group are a potential source
of people to not associate with.
Aqua
Aqua
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:48:12 -0800, in message
>
> Pat Kight wrote:
> >heather e blair wrote:>
> >
> >>I wonder if there's anybody out in the world who wants a dumb partner
> >>or one with no sense of humor?
> >
> >Alas, yes, there is. Are.
>
> I'm not even sure it's an "alas". It's my impression that many people
> are happiest in relationships with people who have a similar level of
> intelligence and sense of humour. Besides, if there have to be dumb,
> humourless people, isn't it better if they partner with each other and
> leave the rest of us alone?
Generally, I agree totally with Ryk. I'm just disputing the choice of
the word "level" in "level of intelligence". I don't find it something
that ranks on a linear scale at all well. I do find that people with the
same general kind/flavour/colour of intelligence do tend to attract, and
this is fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned.
Aqua