First dates
Josh Marantz
it just me? I seem to have problems getting some sort of spark going
over dinner, even though the conversation is usually pretty good. I'm
not often comfortable talking to people I've recently met about
substantive, personal topics. In my experience, that's the only way
I'm likely to get to know someone well enough to see whether there's a
potential relationship for us.
What do you think is a good first date activity? Maybe at dinner
there's too much pressure on intelligent convesation, and there
should be more of an emphasis on distraction? Of course, everyone's
different, but I want your opinions.
While I'm at it, how do people tend to meet their dates?
-Josh
--
Joshua Marantz You make my life and times
Viewlogic Systems, a book of bluesy Saturdays
jo...@viewlogic.com And I have to choose...
Rich Wingerter
out about them. Politely ask any question that comes to mind. People
love to talk about themselves (present company excepted) and showing
interest in your friend helps them feel comfortable toward you. Let
your natural curiosity get the better of you, open up your mouth and
ask questions.
Of course, if you are judgemental about their answers, you can blow it
pretty fast....
Giving them *honest* feedback about things you like helps, too. For
example, "I think you are the most gorgeous woman I ever met!"...if
she is...will probably get you somewhere.
The fact that you are "not comfortable talking to people you have just
met about substative, personal topics" may be a clue why you are not
getting any sparks. If you are not comfortable with someone, it's
hard for you to spark.
--Rich Wingerter
Angelo the Postmaster
>Do other people have a great deal of trouble with first dates, or is
>it just me? I seem to have problems getting some sort of spark going
>over dinner, even though the conversation is usually pretty good. I'm
>not often comfortable talking to people I've recently met about
>substantive, personal topics. In my experience, that's the only way
>I'm likely to get to know someone well enough to see whether there's a
>potential relationship for us.
>
Well from what you said above... it seems that you are going to
make a decision about your date in one night!
Your not the only one to have troubles.... but then getting
a spark a dinner is not easy; I like to get the sparks going
somewhere where if sparks turn to fire... there will be no need
to put them out. *grin*
I think the best thing to do... and I have seen everyone say
this... "Is just go out and have fun". You only run out
of things to say when you care too much... and if you have
nothing to say, who cares! Let her talk for a while.
An easy way to get someone going is to offer a little bit
about yourself, and then ask them.
EXAMPLE: When I'm not posting to the network, I like to surf,
work out at Gold's gym, deep sea fishing... what
kinds of things do you like to do?
Then you find out thier HOT Button! And expand on their
interests!
>What do you think is a good first date activity? Maybe at dinner
>there's too much pressure on intelligent convesation, and there
>should be more of an emphasis on distraction? Of course, everyone's
>different, but I want your opinions.
>
I like dinner! I want to talk. I like to talk. I'll talk
thier ears off! But... I do not make a choice of whether or
not she is it for the "potential relationship". That is too
much pressure! One thing that I do not like as a first date
is the Movies. How am I going to get to know someone at
the movies? How are they going to get to know me?
Josh... give up the intelligent conversations and go out and
talk about your date, yourself, your pets, anything.
>While I'm at it, how do people tend to meet their dates?
>
I live on the beach... *grin* PLus I *love* it when friends
try to fix me up! It is real neat just to meet people... talk
to them... heck with "potential mate" stuff! HAVE FUN!
angelo
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Angelo the Postmaster
misg!ang...@travis.csd.harris.com
I have never been hurt by anything I didn't say. - Calvin Coolidge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: I value little my own opinions, but value just as little
those of others. - Montaigne
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher K. Oei
[stuff deleted]
>What do you think is a good first date activity? Maybe at dinner
>there's too much pressure on intelligent convesation, and there
>should be more of an emphasis on distraction? Of course, everyone's
>different, but I want your opinions.
I like going out to movies. It's nice for me to be able to spend a little
time together first without feeling pressured to talk.
>While I'm at it, how do people tend to meet their dates?
I tend to meet people in my classes and in the dorms. The usual, I
suppose.
K. Khan
In article <63...@travis.csd.harris.com> ang...@misg.csd.harris.com (Angelo the Postmaster ) writes:
>
> Well from what you said above... it seems that you are going to
> make a decision about your date in one night!
Hey, why shouldn't he? It's common knowledge that women decide within the
first 5 minutes whether they will be going to bed with a man or not!!
Edward V. Wright
> make a decision about your date in one night!
> Your not the only one to have troubles.... but then getting
> a spark a dinner is not easy;
Obviously, you missed all the messages a few months ago from women who
felt that if a man did not show a spark at their first meeting then he's
not worth dating. Yes, it is hard... on the other hand, if you don't,
you may never get a second date.
> I think the best thing to do... and I have seen everyone say
> this... "Is just go out and have fun". You only run out
> of things to say when you care too much... and if you have
> nothing to say, who cares! Let her talk for a while.
This works well, if the other person is a good talker. If she's a bit
shy or inhibited or can't think of anything to say, things can get awkward.
Not that you have more obligation to carry the conversation than she does,
but someone better.
>>What do you think is a good first date activity? Maybe at dinner
>>there's too much pressure on intelligent convesation, and there
>>should be more of an emphasis on distraction? Of course, everyone's
>>different, but I want your opinions.
For me, a first date is usually a short, informal sort of thing -- lunch,
perhaps. The type of date you're talking about is more likely to be a
"second-date activity" for me. These usually take place in the evening
or on a weekend afternoon.
If it's an evening date, I prefer to attend some entertainment such as
a play, concert, ballet, circus, movie, etc. before dinner -- something
you can talk about later. I don't really care much for the traditional
idea of a movie after dinner -- sitting in the dark next to someone who
you can't see or talk to doesn't seem like much fun (unless you intend
to "make out").
If it's an afternoon date, I usually plan something outdoors, such as
a picnic, horseback riding, or nature hike in pleasant surroundings.
(And have a backup plan in case of bad weather.) Here, the activity
and surroundings can serve as a subject for conversation.
pav...@gw.syr.ge.com
> In article jo...@viewlogic.com (Josh Marantz) writes:
>>While I'm at it, how do people tend to meet their dates?
> I live on the beach... *grin* PLus I *love* it when friends
> try to fix me up! It is real neat just to meet people... talk
> to them... heck with "potential mate" stuff! HAVE FUN!
Hey, Angelo, how do you arrange to have your friends try to fix you up?
None of my friends have done that for me, even though it's known that I
am available and looking. (on the other hand, maybe THEY don't know how,
or don't know anyone themselves...).
Just curious.
Andy
Marcia Bednarcyk
|> What do you think is a good first date activity? Maybe at dinner
|> there's too much pressure on intelligent convesation, and there
|> should be more of an emphasis on distraction? Of course, everyone's
|> different, but I want your opinions.
For first dates, I like to choose an activity that allows the possibility of
unlimited conversation, but provides a distraction for the inevitable lulls.
Things like museums (especially hands on museums), walks in parks, hikes (but
not too strenuous...err on the easy side to start with, you can always go
climb that mountain later), and parties with mutual friends (if applicable).
These are generic ideas; your knowledge of the person involved will probably
engender other ideas.
Also, these activites are in public (just in case things don't go quite right),
and provide "easy outs" if one party or the other decides they want to call
things to a halt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk ADDRESS: m...@cisco.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
"... the meaning of life is to be happy, try not to hurt people, and hope
you fall in love."
Angelo the Postmaster
>
>In article ang...@misg.csd.harris.com (Angelo the Postmaster ) writes:
>>
>> Well from what you said above... it seems that you are going to
>> make a decision about your date in one night!
>
>Hey, why shouldn't he? It's common knowledge that women decide within the
>first 5 minutes whether they will be going to bed with a man or not!!
I really do not believe that within the first 5 minutes a woman
knows whether or not she will be going to bed with me! If I
do not want to... she won't! *grin*
Really now... I have met some girls before that I disliked for
what ever reasons... and then have become very attracted to them
at a later date... and even end up together. And I am sure
that the feelings were mutual at first.
Yea, within the first 5 minutes... both women and men may think
to themself that the other is my type... but until they talk...
you never know.
Angelo the Postmaster
>
>Obviously, you missed all the messages a few months ago from women who
>felt that if a man did not show a spark at their first meeting then he's
>not worth dating. Yes, it is hard... on the other hand, if you don't,
>you may never get a second date.
>
that message. But If they had a good time... without the spark,
I wonder if they would go out again?
Angelo the Postmaster
>
>Hey, Angelo, how do you arrange to have your friends try to fix you up?
>None of my friends have done that for me, even though it's known that I
>am available and looking. (on the other hand, maybe THEY don't know how,
>or don't know anyone themselves...).
>Just curious.
>
women at work with daughters want to fix me up too. I have
to say that one time I did go out with this daughter from
someone here at work... and it did not work out... It really
was the pits too... cause I really liked the mother, and it
did change our relationship.
Vincent Li
>jo...@viewlogic.com (Josh Marantz) writes:
>
>>What do you think is a good first date activity? Maybe at dinner
>>there's too much pressure on intelligent convesation, and there
>>should be more of an emphasis on distraction? Of course, everyone's
>>different, but I want your opinions.
>
>I like going out to movies. It's nice for me to be able to spend a little
>time together first without feeling pressured to talk.
>
>>While I'm at it, how do people tend to meet their dates?
>
>I tend to meet people in my classes and in the dorms. The usual, I
>suppose.
our chances and blew it, eh? I suppose I can always go to night school.
Actually, it might not be such a bad idea. Meet new friends while you
learn! 8-)
-- Vince Li
---------------------------------------
v...@mprgate.mpr.ca |-) It works well under pressure: Another thing
vin...@triumfcl.bitnet |-] you can say about your pillow. -- Mr Boffo
Dude
> it just me? I seem to have problems getting some sort of spark going
> over dinner, even though the conversation is usually pretty good. I'm
> not often comfortable talking to people I've recently met about
> substantive, personal topics. In my experience, that's the only way
> I'm likely to get to know someone well enough to see whether there's a
> potential relationship for us.
So, let's see: you'd like a "spark". By your definition, a "pretty good
conversation" is not the same as a spark. Am I correct in reading the the only
way for you to get a spark is to talk about "substantive, personal topics"?
However, you are not comfortable talking about "substantive, personal topics"
with people you've recently met. Can I presume that your first dates are
usually people you have recently met? Am I making sense? You seem to want to
be personal and not be personal at the same time. If this is so, perhaps you
could make a choice (the choice would not have to be the same all the time).
> What do you think is a good first date activity? Maybe at dinner
> there's too much pressure on intelligent convesation, and there
> should be more of an emphasis on distraction? Of course, everyone's
> different, but I want your opinions.
My opinion is that you hit it with your statement about "too much pressure". I
believe you might be trying too hard to develop a what you see as a
relationship. What would a relationship offer you that "pretty good
conversation" would not, or that "emphasis on distraction" would not? I would
offer that a large part of a relationship could simply involve "pretty good
conversation" and "distractions" consistently over a period of time. The rest
often grows from those.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Harrington Computer Geek Merrimack College, N. Andover, MA
pa_...@merrimack.edu Commit random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Even if Merrimack College could figure what I just said, they
wouldn't admit it.
K. Khan
In article <63...@travis.csd.harris.com> ang...@misg.csd.harris.com (Angelo the Postmaster ) writes:
>
> And it always seems like the Married
> women at work with daughters want to fix me up too. I have
> to say that one time I did go out with this daughter from
> someone here at work... and it did not work out... It really
> was the pits too... cause I really liked the mother, and it
> did change our relationship.
Hence the old adage: "Never fish off the company pier."
It's a lesson I learned the hard way, too. :-(
K. Khan
In article <63...@travis.csd.harris.com> ang...@misg.csd.harris.com (Angelo the Postmaster ) writes:
>>>
>>> Well from what you said above... it seems that you are going to
>>> make a decision about your date in one night!
>>
>>Hey, why shouldn't he? It's common knowledge that women decide within the
>>first 5 minutes whether they will be going to bed with a man or not!!
>
> knows whether or not she will be going to bed with me! If I
> do not want to... she won't! *grin*
OK, but that's the RARE exception to the rule; usually it a given that
the man will want to jump in the sack. <BIG stereotypical grin>
Edward V. Wright
> A spark or nothing... *grin* Wow. You are right, I did miss
> that message. But If they had a good time... without the spark,
> I wonder if they would go out again?
Well, the woman who posted the original message said that she would not
even go out with a man unless she felt a spark, so the question of having
a good time would never arise. She said that such dates were a waste of
time and she would certainly feel miserable because she would keep wishing
she was somewhere else. Several other people supported her view, so I don't
think it's uncommon.
I once went out with a woman who told me after the first date that she had
had a great time and I was "a wonderful guy" and "some woman would be really
lucky to have me," but she didn't want to go out again because she "didn't
feel any spark." I find people like this really frustrating because they
put the burden of proof on you -- it isn't enough that there's no reason not
to date you again, you must find a reason why they should -- but they won't
tell you precisely what they're looking for, hiding behind vague terms like
"spark" and "chemistry" instead, and then impose a stringent limit on the time
you have figure it out.
Mark Israel
> I once went out with a woman who told me after the first date that she
> had had a great time and I was "a wonderful guy" and "some woman would
> be really lucky to have me," but she didn't want to go out again
> because she "didn't feel any spark." I find people like this really
> frustrating because they put the burden of proof on you -- it isn't
> enough that there's no reason not to date you again, you must find a
> reason why they should --
No, there is no "burden of proof on you", and to "find a reason"
probably wouldn't help you. When someone rejects you (and inevitably
*some* people will, whether for good reasons or for no reason), the only
burden on you is to search elsewhere for what you want.
> but they won't tell you precisely what they're looking for, hiding
> behind vague terms like "spark" and "chemistry" instead, and then
> impose a stringent limit on the time you have figure it out.
"You're a wonderful guy, but I don't feel a spark" could mean: "I
myself am not consciously aware of all the factors that cause me to be
attracted to a man. But I do know that I seldom get *more* attracted to
a man after the first date -- seldom enough that rejecting you is a safe
bet."
Then again, it could mean: "Your obnoxious anti-physical-fitness,
anti-psychology, and anti-too-many-other-things blather turns me off!
But I'm too polite to tell *you* that!"
You must search elsewhere for clues.
user...@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca Mark Israel
"Oh, don't think I did a skimpy job. I looked it all up in the *big*
encyclopaedia!" -- C. M. Kornbluth
Lui Sieh
>I once went out with a woman who told me after the first date that she had
>had a great time and I was "a wonderful guy" and "some woman would be really
>lucky to have me," but she didn't want to go out again because she "didn't
>feel any spark." I find people like this really frustrating because they
>put the burden of proof on you -- it isn't enough that there's no reason not
>to date you again, you must find a reason why they should -- but they won't
>tell you precisely what they're looking for, hiding behind vague terms like
>"spark" and "chemistry" instead, and then impose a stringent limit on the time
>you have figure it out.
I'm lucky I haven't met women like that. She might be a superficial type.
For one, it's rare to find a person with the ability to size up a person
and then project the course of events. Secondly, relationships take *time*.
Lots of it. If she didn't want to invest time in a person who she felt was
"wonderful", then what other reason is there to know a person? Yes, I know
that there are many, if not most, people who enter into relationships first
without now their partner in anyway except casually or sexually. That's
alien to me and I probably won't ever understand that.
//Lui
--
Dum loquimur, fugerit invida Aetas: carpe diem,
quam minimum postero. Horace, Odes, I.xi.7
What about my opinions? ==>> /dev/null
Anita Hsiung
>Do other people have a great deal of trouble with first dates, or is
>it just me? I seem to have problems getting some sort of spark going
>over dinner, even though the conversation is usually pretty good.
I usually have fantastic first dates. (After that, they become
normal.) First of all, by definition, first dates are when you are
excited, interested in getting to know the other person, your hormones
are working overtime, your adrenalin is pumping. It's almost, but not
quite, like opening night of your show, but that's another matter.
Anyway, first dates, I "test" my date on body language (I love reading
on that stuff and trying things out on people), you know, how you
"divide" the table up, is the other person as nervous as you are, what
kind of impression are you giving, all in good fun, of course!
There's always lots to talk about, after all, you don't really know
anything about the other person. What do they do? Personal hobbies?
Do they sing in their car? Anything's fair game!
>What do you think is a good first date activity? Maybe at dinner
>there's too much pressure on intelligent convesation, and there
>should be more of an emphasis on distraction?
Dinner is great! There is nothing like face-to-face to gauge a
potential SO. After all, you may be spending a lot of time talking to
this person, and you want to know how you react to each other. You
already know how people react at movies or fairs or other impersonal
stuff like that. But, pressure. I hate it, but I thrive on it!
>While I'm at it, how do people tend to meet their dates?
Well, when you're out of school, it's work, clients (make sure he/she
isn't in charge of your contract!), things you do after work (theatre,
volunteer work), NetNews, old high school chums' parties.
-- Anita --
Andy Gallo
> "You're a wonderful guy, but I don't feel a spark" could mean: "I
>myself am not consciously aware of all the factors that cause me to be
>attracted to a man. But I do know that I seldom get *more* attracted to
>a man after the first date -- seldom enough that rejecting you is a safe
>bet."
Although I'm "new" here, I'll venture a post...
I'm not sure how to react to the "no_spark = no_go" attitude.
A wise man once said "its not the kill, its the thrill of the chase".
In my last serious relationship (which I'm surprised I can remember
considering how long ago it was, sigh) the young lady HATED me at
first sight. She honestly hated me. (Those that know me can, I'm
sure, easily see how that could happen.) There was no spark for sure,
only the fires of hell shooting out of her eyes when I passed by. I,
of course, fell madly head over heels at first sight. I was determined
to "make her mine". (Are we allowed such sexist language on this
newsgroup?) It took me six months, maybe longer, to soften her anger
and get that first date, but it did happen. The first date was so-so.
The second better. The third... This was a classic "start slow,
finish hard" relationship. My biggest problem was to have patience
because I was so completely entranced by her, ie. I had to wait for her
to "catch up". She's now engaged...to some other guy. Oh well.
The moral of the story - no spark does not always equal no chance.
There's a "thin line between love and hate".
However (to contradict myself), my last "date", which was
(thankfully) fairly recently was blind (my first blind, but probably not
my last). We knew right away there was no "spark" and we let it drop.
The moral - if both parties have no spark there is no chance.
Of course there are exceptions to this (and every other) rule. 8-)
> Then again, it could mean: "Your obnoxious anti-physical-fitness,
Since I'm new to this group, I'm not sure how to interpret
that last comment. Is it intended to imply something negative about
overweight people?
Hey man, its ethnic. 8-)
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
> Andy Gallo | ga...@cis.udel.edu | U. of Delaware Computer Science <
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
> Let my inspiration flow in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... <
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
Fluffy the Wonder Bunny
> Although I'm "new" here, I'll venture a post...
Welcome welcome welcome!
> I'm not sure how to react to the "no_spark = no_go" attitude.
>A wise man once said "its not the kill, its the thrill of the chase".
"It's not the thrill of the kill, but the challenge of the chase."
and
"Once I've had a woman, I find it difficult to remember why it was
I chased her." (paraphrased -- but I kinda like this one **snicker**)
>> Andy Gallo | ga...@cis.udel.edu | U. of Delaware Computer Science <
Fluffy the Wonder Bunny
Poster Boy for the
Romantic Fire Association.
========================= Fluffy the Wonder Bunny ============================
"A present from the heart: I'm not here because I'm supposed to be here,
or because I'm trapped here, but because I'd rather be with you than
anywhere in the world." -- Richard Bach, "Bridge Across Forever"
================== cadesj...@descartes.waterloo.edu =======================
Angelwing
spark" and chose not to go out with him again.]
>
>> but they won't tell you precisely what they're looking for, hiding
>> behind vague terms like "spark" and "chemistry" instead, and then
>> impose a stringent limit on the time you have figure it out.
>
> "You're a wonderful guy, but I don't feel a spark" could mean: "I
>myself am not consciously aware of all the factors that cause me to be
>attracted to a man. But I do know that I seldom get *more* attracted to
>a man after the first date -- seldom enough that rejecting you is a safe
>bet."
>
> Then again, it could mean: "Your obnoxious anti-physical-fitness,
>anti-psychology, and anti-too-many-other-things blather turns me off!
>But I'm too polite to tell *you* that!"
>
Mark is pretty close as far as my experience goes. I have used those
*exact* words myself more than once. To me "spark" and "chemistry" are
not vague terms. Rather they are bona fide descriptions of what goes
on between me and someone I want to know deeper and more intimately.
"Spark" is what happens when I'm looking into his eyes and we've not
yet kissed and when one or the other of us manages to drag our eyes apart,
well it causes a spark. And "chemistry" is what happens when the lips
and tongue meet -- the saliva together, *if* the chemistry is right,
tastes just wonderful. It's not vague I tell ya'. And you can often
tell if there's spark or potential for either during the first date.
Of course, I usually know BEFORE the first date and hence don't even
both to go through with it, but I have been fooled before. (Not often.
Experience, you know.)
Angelwing - Science anyone?
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing | "Bring me another boy - this one's *
* University of Washington| burst!" Dr. Dr. (The TV show) *
*---------------------------------------------------------------*
Walter Lego
>
>Mark is pretty close as far as my experience goes. I have used those
>*exact* words myself more than once. To me "spark" and "chemistry" are
>not vague terms. Rather they are bona fide descriptions of what goes
>on between me and someone I want to know deeper and more intimately.
>"Spark" is what happens when I'm looking into his eyes and we've not
>yet kissed and when one or the other of us manages to drag our eyes apart,
>well it causes a spark. And "chemistry" is what happens when the lips
>and tongue meet -- the saliva together, *if* the chemistry is right,
>tastes just wonderful. It's not vague I tell ya'. And you can often
>tell if there's spark or potential for either during the first date.
>Of course, I usually know BEFORE the first date and hence don't even
>both to go through with it, but I have been fooled before. (Not often.
>Experience, you know.)
>
Oh, no! Now all the Nice Guys are going to accuse you of being shallow and
demand equal time from women for people that are spark-challenged. Perhaps
the thread will change from "Why can't Nice Guys get women?" to "Why can't
Nice Guys create sparks?"
I agree with your description except that "sparks" can happen even if you
don't drag your eyes apart. It is as if some lighting behind you reflected
for a moment in the other's eyes as they moved imperceptibly (and very often
it is the case, which might fool some people).
The only thing that "sparks" and "chemistry" guarantee is good sex without
having to get to know the partner too well. Guarantees nothing about the
quality of long-term relationships. It is just wonderful to have a long-term
mate in which "sparks" happen with sufficient regularity and the "chemistry"
is "just always there" and hence it is not surprising that it forms the basis
for the mate selection criteria for a majority of people in this culture.
However people with several marriages behind them tend to claim that "sparks"
and "chemistry" are heavily influenced by context (and sometimes alcohol)
and non-existent when people wake up in the morning after a couple of
years of marriage. They also claim that "sparks" and "chemistry" can be
induced by mutual respect, love and understanding. I guess I won't know
until I get there.
Walter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am posting under a pseudonym for personal reasons. There is
enough info in the headers to determine my posting site and possibly even
determine my login name which is all the information you get from other
postings except that in this case you KNOW for sure that the name in the
headers is a pseudonym. If you don't like the idea put me in your kill file.
Edward V. Wright
> If she didn't want to invest time in a person who she felt was
>"wonderful", then what other reason is there to know a person?
Ah, now, that's the $64,000 question. The only answer that I'm
able to get is "spark" or "chemistry", as if giving a name to
the thing tells me what the thing is.
Edward V. Wright
>First of all, by definition, first dates are when you are
>excited, interested in getting to know the other person, your hormones
>are working overtime, your adrenalin is pumping. It's almost, but not
>quite, like opening night of your show, but that's another matter.
It most certainly is not like the opening night of a show! I know --
I'm directing my first Shakespearean play Saturday night, and I just found
it this week we're expected to do two shows that night instead of one, and
I'm hoping no more actors get sick between now and then, and I hope all the
props show up on time.... I may not have great luck with women, but no first
date was ever like this! ;-)
Edward V. Wright
> No, there is no "burden of proof on you", and to "find a reason"
>probably wouldn't help you. When someone rejects you (and inevitably
>*some* people will, whether for good reasons or for no reason), the only
>burden on you is to search elsewhere for what you want.
I did not say that there was a burden on me to find out the reason after
I was rejected. I said the burden was on me to guess was what this "spark"
was and show I had it beforehand to prevent being rejected. Obviously, you
can't read very well today, Mark. You must be "limerant."
> "You're a wonderful guy, but I don't feel a spark" could mean: "I
>myself am not consciously aware of all the factors that cause me to be
>attracted to a man.
In that case, wouldn't a rational person sit down and analyze the factors
before making a decision? Isn't that what you psychologists call "getting
in touch with your feelings?" Or is it politically incorrect to think about
such things without the services of a trained professional?
Angelo the Postmaster
>
>Anyway, first dates, I "test" my date on body language (I love reading
>on that stuff and trying things out on people),
>
or a "AHH" when you pinch him? *smile*
angelo V
(o o)
( v )
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^--m-m--^^^^^
Angelo the Postmaster ^^V^^
John R. Grout
(stuff deleted)
>However people with several marriages behind them tend to claim that "sparks"
>and "chemistry" are heavily influenced by context (and sometimes alcohol)
>and non-existent when people wake up in the morning after a couple of
>years of marriage. They also claim that "sparks" and "chemistry" can be
>induced by mutual respect, love and understanding. I guess I won't know
>until I get there.
What was it that Lea Thompson's character said to Michael J. Fox's character in
"Back to the Future (I)"? It was something like "I feel like I was kissing my
brother".
IMHO, sparks (between healthy people, anyway) _are_ important, because they are
a sign that the other person is the "right" kind of person who will not "smell
too much of mother's milk" (i.e., remind one too much of one's parents and
allow one to have an original relationship which doesn't easily get trapped
into a repetition of one's parents relationship); this idea, along with many
others on this topic, comes from an excellent (if somewhat intellectual) book
by Dr. Ethel S. Person of Columbia entitled "Dreams of Love and Romantic(?)
Encounters: The Power of Romantic Passion".
--
John R. Grout | INTERNET: j-g...@uiuc.edu
|
University of Illinois | If you don't knock,
Urbana (and Champaign), IL USA | no one can answer!
Edward V. Wright
>To me "spark" and "chemistry" are not vague terms.
Oh? Then, can you tell us what they mean?
>"Spark" is what happens when I'm looking into his eyes and we've not
>yet kissed and when one or the other of us manages to drag our eyes apart,
>well it causes a spark.
Sorry, no good. You aren't allowed to define something using the same
word in the definition. So far, you've only told us that a spark is
something that causes a spark. You make it sound like it's some sort
of electrostatic discharge caused by moving your eyes apart, but I'm
sure this is not what you mean: it's an analogy or metaphor. The problem
is, analogies are only useful for explaining things when both the explainer
and explainee know what the analogy means.
>And "chemistry" is what happens when the lips
>and tongue meet -- the saliva together, *if* the chemistry is right,
>tastes just wonderful.
I'm not sure whether you mean "taste" in the literal sense or as
another figure of speech. If I could reproduce the molecules on
a piece of paper and handed it to you, would the chemistry still
be there?
If the answer is "yes," then there's a wonderful marketing opportunity
here for some biotechnology company. If the answer is "no," then once
again, you're dealing in analogies and still haven't told us anything.
But, in either case, if this definition held, how could a woman tell
a man he had no chemistry when she never kissed him? (Hm, could this
be the origin of the phrase "dry lab"? :-)
Marcia Bednarcyk
|> Well, the woman who posted the original message said that she would not
I think you might be talking about me, and that thread we enjoyed a few months
ago :-). I don't really have time to do this, but when has that ever stopped
me from jumping right in....
|> I find people like this really frustrating because they
|> put the burden of proof on you -- it isn't enough that there's no reason not
|> to date you again, you must find a reason why they should --
You are the one that wants to go out with them, not they with you. If you want
something from them that they do not, you are the one who has to go after it.
And if the person in question has already stated there is no spark, it's
fairly obvious that you want something that they do not, so it is up to you
to convince them (or not, as the case may be). If they wanted you, and you
did not want them, the burden would be on them to convince you to go out with
them.
For me, spark is very quantifiable in an emotional sense. I *know* when I'm
attracted and when I'm not. I just can't put that feeling into words.
Mark Israel
>> "Spark" is what happens when I'm looking into his eyes and we've not
>> yet kissed and when one or the other of us manages to drag our eyes
>> apart, well it causes a spark.
>
> Sorry, no good. You aren't allowed to define something using the same
> word in the definition.
Merely mentally substitute a "." for the "," in Angelwing's comment,
and you get a non-recursive definition. If you, Edward, had sincerely
been trying to understand Angelwing, you would have done that.
Why do you keep trying to catch people in verbal snares, Edward?
You did it when you "proved" that people to whom physical attractiveness
was important were "superficial" (by defining "superficial" as "concerned
with what is on the surface", and equivocating on the word "concerned").
You did it when you "proved" that "limerent" was a synonym for
"romantic" (by scanning through my limerence spiel for the first
occurrence of the word "romantic"). And you're doing it again now.
Courtship consists in speaking from the heart, not in trying to
overwhelm people with your cleverness!
If you insulate your real feelings with a thick wall of defensive
intellectual trickery, then *of course* no romantic sparks will fly!
Mark Israel
> Someone was complaining recently that many women told them they
> wouldn't bother going on a date with anyone they weren't already
> pretty interested in. I think this whole thread about "sparks"
> explains very well why women feel this way.
>
> If a woman has to give some detailed description about why the sparks
> and chemistry didn't happen, she would probably be pretty inclined
> to skip anything where she wasn't PRETTY DAMN SURE they were going to
> happen.
>
> When guys aren't satisfied with this kind of reason (which is pretty
> truthful, IMHO), it makes women less and less eager to go out on
> "exploratory" dates.
Right right right!
Are you listening, o NiceGuys? *Are you listening*?
Mark Israel
>> No, there is no "burden of proof on you", and to "find a reason"
>> probably wouldn't help you. When someone rejects you (and inevitably
>> *some* people will, whether for good reasons or for no reason), the
>> only burden on you is to search elsewhere for what you want.
>
> I did not say that there was a burden on me to find out the reason after
> I was rejected. I said the burden was on me to guess was what this
> "spark" was and show I had it beforehand to prevent being rejected.
And *I*'m saying that the cause of the spark is often either random
or beyond your control -- *so* often that counting on a certain
proportion of rejections may be more practical than trying "to prevent
being rejected".
> Obviously, you can't read very well today, Mark. You must be
> "limer[e]nt."
Not currently.
>> "You're a wonderful guy, but I don't feel a spark" could mean: "I
>> myself am not consciously aware of all the factors that cause me to be
>> attracted to a man.
>
> In that case, wouldn't a rational person sit down and analyze the
> factors before making a decision?
First of all, nobody is 100% rational. Secondly, she may not be able
to analyse the factors. Thirdly, she may think that analysing the
factors "takes some of the romance out of it". Fourthly, she may feel
that she is successful enough at romance already that analysing factors
would be a waste of her time. Fifthly, even if she *has* analysed the
factors, she may be disinclined to apprise you of the results.
> Isn't that what you psychologists call "getting in touch with your
> feelings?" Or is it politically incorrect to think about such things
> without the services of a trained professional?
To clear up possible misunderstandings:
(1) I am not a trained professional at anything except programming
computers.
(2) Dorothy Tennov (who coined the word "limerence") also wrote a book
called _Psychotherapy: the Hazardous Cure_. Although she's (legally)
qualified to practise as a clinician, she does not do so, because of the
hazards she perceives.
"Getting in touch with your feelings" sounds good to me! (But it's
not a technical term in psychology as far as I know.) If you know *what*
you feel (even if you don't know why you feel it), then you're already
more "in touch with your feelings" than some.
If you want to debate psychology in general (as opposed to the
psychology of love in particular), then please do so in sci.psychology,
not here. If you want to talk about romance, but are more interested in
debating than in helping or in being helped, then please consider
switching from alt.romance to soc.singles. I'm sure Daniel Mocsny will
make you welcome.
Lui Sieh
>
>> If she didn't want to invest time in a person who she felt was
>>"wonderful", then what other reason is there to know a person?
>
>Ah, now, that's the $64,000 question. The only answer that I'm
>able to get is "spark" or "chemistry", as if giving a name to
>the thing tells me what the thing is.
Yes, I think it's so vague is because everyone has their own idea of
what it is. What really gets me is that people can actually *think*
that such "sparks" and "chemistry" on the first try are prerequisites
for continuing a relationship. Pretty superficial, IMO.
My present lover and I met through her ex, my college roomate. We
were best friends for a long long time even after they went separate
ways and then one day, there was that "chemistry" :-). UH-HUH!! :-)
The problem with such an approach is that you can be extremely enamoured
with a total jerk. But because you are encouraged by that "spark", some
of the signs you should be watching for gets buried and you may become
involved in a destructive relationship. This also happened to my present
lover with my ex roomate.
Okay, flame away. Besides, it's cold here :-).
Kiran Wagle
>For me, spark is very quantifiable in an emotional sense. I *know* when I'm
>attracted and when I'm not. I just can't put that feeling into words.
But can you put into words what _causes_ you to feel the spark?
--
From the corrections column in a July Fresno, CA _Bee_:
"An item in Thursday's [issue] about the Massachusetts budget crisis made
reference to new taxes that will help put Massachusetts 'back in the
African-American.' The item should have said 'back in the black.'"
Robbie Felix
>Yes, I think it's so vague is because everyone has their own idea of
>what it is. What really gets me is that people can actually *think*
>that such "sparks" and "chemistry" on the first try are prerequisites
>for continuing a relationship. Pretty superficial, IMO.
>
date. Chemistry is one good one. It is something that most feel
compelled to explore. The feeling that there is some intriqueing
hint of something that you want to investigate is a good reason to
see someone a second time.
It doesn't really matter if you can define it, what matters is that
it is really just following a hunch, trusting intuition.
I felt there was this kind of something about my lover.There was.
The second good reason? Mutual interests. If you don't fall in love
with someone you share interests with, who cares? You still have found
someone you can pursue your favorite stuff with! You have made a
friend. If it does develop into love, you have the basis for something
REALLY awesome.
Sometimes the hunch is wrong as far as chemistry. I have found that on
a second date I found out something that eradicated any "chemical"
appeal I might have had previously. It doesn't always work out, but it
is worth pursueing ( if for no other reason, what the hell else is a
person to do for 70 years!) if only because it is fun.
Turns out my hunch lead to this person with whom I share common
interests, common values and a lot of other cool things, but I had no
idea when I followed my hunch! I was lucky, maybe it was superficial,
but it worked for me!
This is not a flame. I am glad you found your honey,too!
Common interests are at least one of the "ties that bind"./
...oops...wrong newsgroup....:-)
rf
tony
>>While I'm at it, how do people tend to meet their dates?
>Well, when you're out of school, it's work, clients (make sure he/she
>isn't in charge of your contract!), things you do after work (theatre,
>volunteer work), NetNews, old high school chums' parties.
NetNews, BBSes, informal bbs group meetings are the activities I've
found best for meeting people and making dates. You can really get to know
people by exchanging messages with them for a period of time. You can learn
everything about them. I met my wife this way, we communicated just via bbs forabout a month, then by phone and bbs, then after about 3 months we made a date,
then after about a year from the date we first started exchanging messages we
got married.
Before meeting my wife though I would get to know a person and then I'd
suggest we get together so I could show her how to do something on the computer.Nine times out of ten first dates went great because we already considered each
other friends. On occasion I've gone out with women I've talked to on "Adult"
boards. These dates usually went very well too, because we both knew what we
expected from the date before we met. An awful lot of inhibitions can be strip-ped away by being honest with the other person as you get to know them via mes-
saging back and forth. Unlike meeting someone at a club (where you know absol-
utely nothing about them), when you already know a lot about them it eliminates
almost all of the first date jitters. Some shy people may need Powdermilk Bis-
cuits, but I'll swear by bbsing & net mailing any ol' day. Btw... multi-user
bbses with online chat capability (with private group features) are a partic-
ularly nice way to get to know your next potential S.O.
===============================================================================
|| *** Tony Safina ***** uunet!Coplex.Com!disk!tony ***** to...@disk.UUCP *** ||
===============================================================================
Nick Rothwell
>"Spark" is what happens when I'm looking into his eyes and we've not
>yet kissed and when one or the other of us manages to drag our eyes apart,
>well it causes a spark.
Sorry, no good. You aren't allowed to define something using the same
word in the definition.
Well, nit-pick away, but the above description is pretty close to what I've
experienced. It's a specific and definite sensation, and quite delightful,
and... it's happened to me exactly once. I know what it is, though.
>And "chemistry" is what happens when the lips
>and tongue meet -- the saliva together, *if* the chemistry is right,
>tastes just wonderful.
I have to admit, though, I'm lost here...
Nick.
--
Nick Rothwell, LFCS, Edinburgh | Wanted dead or alive: Bit-99, Orla DSE-9, Elka
ni...@dcs.ed.ac.uk | Synthex, Grundig 2000, ZX-81, TV21, Big Rat,
Mentation Consultancy Services | Spectrum SPV, Shado Mobile c/w spare missiles,
cas...@cix.compulink.co.uk | Mac's Car with batteries, Seaview + Flying Sub.
Edward V. Wright
>I think you might be talking about me, and that thread we enjoyed a few months
>ago :-). I don't really have time to do this, but when has that ever stopped
>me from jumping right in....
Marcia, if you don't have time to post, then please don't do it. If you do post,
you have no right to expect people not to respond because you don't have time for
it.
>You are the one that wants to go out with them, not they with you. If you want
>something from them that they do not, you are the one who has to go after it....
>If they wanted you, and you
>did not want them, the burden would be on them to convince you to go out with
>them.
Sure, but that wouldn't justify my playing games like "let's see if you can
guess what I really want." If a woman asked me why a did not want to go out
with her, I would do my best to tell her honestly, but politely, why I felt
the way I did. For example, "I'm sorry, Marcia, I'm sure you have many nice
qualities, but I'm looking for a more highly articulate woman. I'm afraid
someone who can't put her feelings into words just doesn't appeal to me. Also,
I prefer women who are very tolerant and open-minded. I'm afraid someone who
believes she can judge a man's worth based on a single meeting just isn't right
for me."
Edward V. Wright
>Aww Ed! Sheesh! I didn't know I was going to be graded on this!
No, I'm just giving constructive criticize. I won't actually grade
until I see the final draft. :-)
>Oh good heavens man! I'm *sure* you know what I mean and you're just being
>obtuse!
No, I don't. I don't know what it means, and you won't tell me. Not
only won't you tell me what it means, you won't even acknowledge the fact
that other people might have no idea what you're saying.
>I'm talking literal here. To me -- somebody who's going to be good in bed
>just tastes good. There is a *bit* more to it than
>just the saliva thingie ... has to do with touch and the sound of his
>voice and the way he smells.
At last, someone has finally given me a straight answer! "Chemistry" is
a purely physical thing: apparently, if I understand your description, it
is the sum of the physical (but non-visual) stimuli that you get from a
member of the opposite sex. Okay, let me ask an extra-credit question:
Why do these outweigh deeper qualities like loyalty, honor, compassion,
understanding, etc. in the minds of so many people?
Edward V. Wright
> Why do you keep trying to catch people in verbal snares, Edward?
Because language, Mark, is the only tool we have to communicate ideas,
and people who use words they do not understand literally do not know
what they are talking about. Just as people who make up nonsense terms
like "id," "ego," "limerence," etc. to describe fictional concepts and
then engage in a conspiracy to pretend those words represent real things
are wasting people's time and eroding the already pitifully low signal-to-
noise ratio of Western civilization.
Edward V. Wright
>> Obviously, you can't read very well today, Mark. You must be
>> "limer[e]nt."
> Not currently.
I did not say "limerent," Mark, I said "limerant." I claim the same
right as you and Dorothy Tennov to make up new words at any time to
describe my own high-fallutin notions. "Limerant" is a word I've just
made up to describe people who are obsessed with boring other people
with the concept of "limerence." Now that I have defined a new psychological
problem, I will be glad to set up a treatment program for you, Mark, for
a mere $50 per hour. I sincerely hope you are not too limerant to seek help.
> If you want to debate psychology in general (as opposed to the
>psychology of love in particular), then please do so in sci.psychology,
>not here. If you want to talk about romance, but are more interested in
>debating than in helping or in being helped, then please consider
>switching from alt.romance to soc.singles.
From what I've seen, many people here would love to talk about romance,
but every time they open their mouths someone starts talking about "limerence."
Angelwing
definition because I use the word twice. Good heavens!]
>>Aww Ed! Sheesh! I didn't know I was going to be graded on this!
>
>No, I'm just giving constructive criticize. I won't actually grade
>until I see the final draft. :-)
Oh goody.
>>Oh good heavens man! I'm *sure* you know what I mean and you're just being
>>obtuse!
>
>No, I don't. I don't know what it means, and you won't tell me. Not
>only won't you tell me what it means, you won't even acknowledge the fact
>that other people might have no idea what you're saying.
Uh .. Ed? Maybe it's just you. Other people have acknowledged that they
know what I'm talking about. Maybe you just have never experienced it.
That's quite probably what the problem is. That and the fact that you seem
to have absolutely no imagination whatsoever! Other people might have no
idea what I'm saying (there, happy) and I pity them. And I have advice
and hope --- Lighten UP!! Loosen up! Look at people. Smile. Take a
chance fer cryin' out loud!!
>>I'm talking literal here. To me -- somebody who's going to be good in bed
>>just tastes good. There is a *bit* more to it than
>>just the saliva thingie ... has to do with touch and the sound of his
>>voice and the way he smells.
>
>At last, someone has finally given me a straight answer! "Chemistry" is
>a purely physical thing: apparently, if I understand your description, it
>is the sum of the physical (but non-visual) stimuli that you get from a
>member of the opposite sex.
Yeah yeah ... but it's not *completely* physical. I mean, there has to
be some sort of mental connection. Doesn't have to be a BIG connection.
But hey, we're not animals you know!
> Okay, let me ask an extra-credit question:
>Why do these outweigh deeper qualities like loyalty, honor, compassion,
>understanding, etc. in the minds of so many people?
Ooooo well - I don't know if I can say it outweighs so called deeper
qualities. I'm saying that you can't ... I mean *I* can't have all the
so called deeper qualities WITHOUT the chemistry being there. But
that's just me. To some people, the physical side of the relationship
is not all that important. And to those people I say ...WAKE UP! :-)
Better?
Angelwing - #1, make me laugh; #2, make me swoon; #3, make me breakfast
Sara Maxwell
>At last, someone has finally given me a straight answer! "Chemistry" is
>a purely physical thing: apparently, if I understand your description, it
>is the sum of the physical (but non-visual) stimuli that you get from a
>member of the opposite sex. Okay, let me ask an extra-credit question:
>Why do these outweigh deeper qualities like loyalty, honor, compassion,
>understanding, etc. in the minds of so many people?
>
>
qualities, it comes from them. One needn't have a full complement of
them, but you should have at least ONE, to get a spark going with me.
You seem to be asking both what IS spark and WHY does it happen.
They're two very different questions. What it IS is that eye-contact
stuff discussed already, a warm sizzle that makes me want to HAVE a
person (I don't mean just sexually), to bring them into my life and know
their thoughts and have them know me. Physical mainfestations, at the
most extreme: can't break eye contact, flushing, slack-jawed drooling,
dizziness, genital tingling, breathless adrenalin surges. The urge to
merge--this phrase I think best captures the components of lust and
identity involved.
What causes it? I think the conviction that the person is a kindred
spirit in regards something that's important to your identity. So I
could feel a spark with someone because, say, he seems to think about
sex alot in a cheerful way i find comfortable, but not be interested in
him because, say, I think he's an idiot. Or it could be because of some
shared nonsexual value--I had a bad crush on a guy once because he
seemed to be very compassionate and kind without being blind about
people--that is, he wasn't fooled, but he was nice anyway. I aspire to
that myself, see, so I liked it in that special way in him. Then there
are all those tricky ones to explain, like I LOVE pale white skin and
loose thick blackest black hair and twinkling eyes. I guess it's a
Celtic look--no my father doesn't look like that, but given my family
background it's probably no coincidence that look sets my heart apatter
where, say, a Norse god look does not. I remember reading some 19-th
century woman writing that she fell in love with men who were the sort
of man she would be if she were a man instead of a woman. Not that this
is just a hetero thing--my point is that i think we spark with people
who are alternative identities. The urge to merge again.
If you want a precise abstract accounting of what qualities are needed
in what degrees to offset other qualities and result in spark, you're
not going to get it from me. But that doesn't mean it's nonsensical. A
kind of butterfly effect, perhaps, where small differences bounce off
one another and add up to big differences. I've never been in the
position of not understanding why I did or didn't spark with someone.
But then I've always liked Nice Guys. I don't understand why some women
spark with some guy who's a total asshole and they know it, while they
don't spark with someone they really like. I did spend a long time with
a Problem Guy once, but I knew what I liked and what I didn't. (I
didn't like the Problems.).
I don't know why people hunger after being told exactly what's wrong
with them. Isn't a pleasant No thankyou better than being told by a
person you adore exactly how they think you fall short? Contrary to
what someone said, I don't think it's unfortunate that women have been
socialized not to say a blunt "Stop asking me out." I think it's nice.
And I think most grown up men respond to unwanted attention in the same
way, it's just that women are less apt to put men on the spot with
invitations, so it comes up less.
Good Lord, that was a mouthful.
Happily in love with a nice guy (whom I first noticed for his statuesque
physique, to be honest),
Sara
cause a spark. Maybe most. But I can't really remember ever not being
able to understand why I didn't spark with someone I liked in other
ways. Of course, I've always liked Nice Guys, so I've never been in
that thing of sparking with some total asshole while wondering why i
couldn't spark with some totally nice guy i really liked.
>
Andy Gallo
>
>Angelwing - #1, make me laugh; #2, make me swoon; #3, make me breakfast
>
I cringed when I saw this. I can handle #1 and #3, but not
#2. Making someone laugh is not a problem - on dates I ususally try to
be entertaining. Either my dates are being very polite and laugh out of
courtesy or I really can make them bubble. I'd like to believe the
latter. Making them breakfast (ahem, lets just say, cooking them a
meal) is no problem. I pride myself on being rather handy in the
kitchen. (Of course I generally look like I'm not starving.)
Its #2 that makes me cautious. I can't ever remember making
someone swoon. I'm not sure I could make someone swoon. I just don't
think I have that raw animal magnetism that (ahem) body chemistry,
that body shape. I've been likened to a teddy bear. How many times
have you ladies swooned over your teddy bear?
So what are we to do. No spark, no swoon, no oportunity to make
them breakfast...
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
> Andy Gallo | ga...@cis.udel.edu | U. of Delaware Computer Science <
Meloney Cregor
>that body shape. I've been likened to a teddy bear. How many times
>have you ladies swooned over your teddy bear?
Goodness. I don't think I could count the times....
Mark Israel
>> Why do you keep trying to catch people in verbal snares, Edward?
> Because language, Mark, is the only tool we have to communicate ideas,
I agree that language is an important tool for communicating ideas.
Your use of verbal snares perverts it from that purpose.
> and people who use words they do not understand literally do not know
> what they are talking about.
True, but who are these people? Because Angelwing used a "," instead
of a ".", *she* doesn't know what she's talking about??? Because *you*
introduced the word "concerned" into a discussion and then equivocated
on it, *other* people don't know what they're talking about? Because
*you* rejected the concept of limerence without attempting to understand
it, *I* don't know what I'm talking about? Get double precision!
> Just as people who make up nonsense terms like "id," "ego,"
> "limerence," etc. to describe fictional concepts and then engage in a
> conspiracy to pretend those words represent real things
Limerence is real. It is familiar territory, delimited by a (for
many people) new boundary.
The evidence *for* the reality of limerence is the shock of recognition
that I, and many people I've heard from, felt on first reading the
list of symptoms. (Of course, there are also many people do *not* feel
this shock. This is sometimes because they're already using some word in
common use to mean "limerence" (but others would interpret their word
differently, which impedes communication). And sometimes it's because
they simply haven't encountered any situations yet where the
limerent/nonlimerent dichotomy is important.)
Now, where is the evidence *against* the reality of limerence?
"Id" and "ego" you can take to sci.psychology.
> are wasting people's time
Feel free to use your kill file. Not all people think I'm wasting
their time.
> and eroding the already pitifully low signal-to-noise ratio of Western
> civilization.
Is noise defined as "anything that doesn't appeal to Edward V. Wright"?
Or do you have some other definition?
In article <ewright....@convex.convex.com>, ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> I did not say "limerent," Mark, I said "limerant." I claim the same
> right as you and Dorothy Tennov to make up new words at any time to
> describe my own high-fallutin notions. "Limerant" is a word I've just
> made up to describe people who are obsessed with boring other people
> with the concept of "limerence."
I think you made it up *after* you used it. You fail. :-)
> Now that I have defined a new psychological problem, I will be glad to
> set up a treatment program for you, Mark, for a mere $50 per hour.
Piker! :-) I have never charged anyone a cent for the help I have
offered here.
> From what I've seen, many people here would love to talk about romance,
> but every time they open their mouths someone starts talking about
> "limerence."
Is "romance" the *only* word we're allowed to use in alt.romance? :-)
Or are we allowed some words to identify related concepts?
Edward V. Wright
>I don't know why people hunger after being told exactly what's wrong
>with them. Isn't a pleasant No thank you better than being told by a
>person you adore exactly how they think you fall short?
In the short run, perhaps. Look at it this way: Suppose you had a
life-threatening (but potentially curable) disease. Would you want
your doctor to tell you about it? Of course you would. The news
might be distressing; it would certainly be more pleasant to hear
him say, "It's nothing serious. Don't worry about it." But it's
more important to find out what's wrong with you and what you can
do to recover from it.
It's the same way when a person is repeatedly told that he (or she)
cannot be loved because he has no spark. Sure it hurts. But
if this woman he adores tells him how he falls short, perhaps he
can address those shortcomings. And maybe, some day, when he meets
another woman he adores, she will not think he falls short.
Piercarlo Grandi
vli> Hmmm...How do you do that when you've graduated & working? Guess we had
vli> our chances and blew it, eh? I suppose I can always go to night school.
vli> Actually, it might not be such a bad idea. Meet new friends while you
vli> learn! 8-)
Actually it might well be a great idea! One of the great advantages is
that women that attend night schools are often nice, down to earth
characters that really care to make that extra effort to learn new
things and improve themselves and have intellectual curiosity.
Night school students often are very good, solid, unpretentious people.
--
Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: p...@aber.ac.uk
AN...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
(Meloney Cregor) says:
>
>In article <1992Jan10....@udel.edu> ga...@fred.cis.udel.edu (Andy )
>Gallo
>writes:
>
>>that body shape. I've been likened to a teddy bear. How many times
>>have you ladies swooned over your teddy bear?
>
My teddy bear ... hmmm...I have an irrisistable urge to squeeze *him*
tight!!
Lee Anne
Edward V. Wright
>Uh .. Ed? Maybe it's just you. Other people have acknowledged that they
>know what I'm talking about. Maybe you just have never experienced it.
On, the contrary, I have seen the "spark" you speak of many times,
even in photographs. A professional photographer once told me
that the effect is easy to get -- just pick a subject who is
extremely near-sighted. I was confused, however, because I have
heard "sparks" mentioned so often in connection with romance that
I tought they might be a metaphor for something deeper and more
important than a vision defect.
>That's quite probably what the problem is. That and the fact that you seem
>to have absolutely no imagination whatsoever!
Really? Thanks. I'll keep that in mind when I play Merlin tomorrow
night. Wouldn't want the audience to think I had an imagination. And
then there was that poem I was going to finish this weekend...
I'm afraid it's you who are lacking in imagination. You cannot
imagine that a man might have anything more important than the
shape of his biceps, the index of refraction of his eyes, the
spectral distribution of his voice, the texture of his hand,
or the taste of his spit.
And yet there is a deeper aspect, which you cannot see because
you see only with your eyes, cannot hear because you hear only
with your ears, cannot feel because you feel only with your
hand.... It is the heart, the spirit, the soul, eternal and
infinite. Your puny "sparks" compare to this as the fireflies
compare to the sun. And this, as any true romantic can tell you,
is the real source of romantic love. The true romantic does not
look on his beloved and love her for her body; instead, he loves
her *despite* her body. And it could be no other way, for even
though her physical beauty might be the most perfect thing in the
physical world, still it pales to insignificance beside the true
inner beauty, and he does not see it.
>To some people, the physical side of the relationship
>is not all that important. And to those people I say ...WAKE UP! :-)
And live in your world, with your shallow chemistry and your
miserable sparks?
Never!
John Fereira
| >"Spark" is what happens when I'm looking into his eyes and we've not
| >yet kissed and when one or the other of us manages to drag our eyes apart,
| >well it causes a spark.
|
| Sorry, no good. You aren't allowed to define something using the same
| word in the definition.
|
I thought that Angelwings description of a "spark" was sufficent even if
she did use the word spark in it. Just reading her definition made me think
of the last time it happened to and I instantly visualized an incident last
weekend. The "spark" definately comes from the eyes. Oh, those eyes. It
doesn't take very long to tell whether there is a spark and nothing really
has to be done with it except to enjoy it.
After the spark it might take awhile to see if there is chemistry.
--
John Fereira
jo...@auxpex.com
Bob Ashley
|> In article <1992Jan10....@milton.u.washington.edu> intr...@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
|> >
|> >Angelwing - #1, make me laugh; #2, make me swoon; #3, make me breakfast
|> >
|>
|> I cringed when I saw this. I can handle #1 and #3, but not
|> #2. Making someone laugh is not a problem - on dates I ususally try to
|> be entertaining. Either my dates are being very polite and laugh out of
|> courtesy or I really can make them bubble. I'd like to believe the
|> latter. Making them breakfast (ahem, lets just say, cooking them a
|> meal) is no problem. I pride myself on being rather handy in the
|> kitchen. (Of course I generally look like I'm not starving.)
|> Its #2 that makes me cautious. I can't ever remember making
|> someone swoon. I'm not sure I could make someone swoon. I just don't
|> think I have that raw animal magnetism that (ahem) body chemistry,
|> that body shape. I've been likened to a teddy bear. How many times
|> have you ladies swooned over your teddy bear?
|> So what are we to do. No spark, no swoon, no oportunity to make
|> them breakfast...
|>
|> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
|> > Andy Gallo | ga...@cis.udel.edu | U. of Delaware Computer Science <
|> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
|> > Let my inspiration flow in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... <
|> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
|>
Teddy bears of the world ... UNITE!! (It was once noted by a professional
colleague that I was like a big Teddy Bear, et al. She meant well ...)
BA
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Ashley
GTE - Contel Federal Systems
Internet: ash...@mailhost.lab.oasis.contel.com
Telephone: (703)-818-4656
Fax: (703)-818-5484
"I'm looking for someone to change my life,
I'm looking for a miracle in my life,
And if you could see, what's it done to me,
To lose the love I knew could safely lead me through."
- Moody Blues, "Question"
GO SKINS
Gaile Simmons
>I don't know why people hunger after being told exactly what's wrong
>with them. Isn't a pleasant No thank you better than being told by a
>person you adore exactly how they think you fall short?
I've told men as honestly as I can why I'm not attracted to them, if asked.
I remember one man with extremely bad posture. He worked on fixing it and
I'm quite sure that other women will find him more attractive. Many people
in his life have commented on how much better he looks. How can that be a
bad thing?
I once told someone that he didn't smell good to me. We later found out that
garlic really affected him. He can now choose to avoid garlic when he's
courting. Again, I think that this knowledge can only help him.
I've helped men to choose new wardrobes. I've suggested that they try to
change their personal hygiene. I've suggested that they smile more.
I've suggested therapy, or self-improvement courses. Or, maybe, just reading
a newspaper so that they have something to converse about.
It's not always easy to tell people when they ask me what they can do to be
more attractive. But I don't mind being asked. If I can help someone
to find the right person, I want to help. If that person is me,
so much the better. :-) No matter what else, I admire their willingness to
try to improve themselves.
There are some things that people can't do anything about. There are some
things that are my own personal preferences, but that may not make them more
attractive to another woman. But, I think that it's a good thing for them
to ask and I try to help if I can.
Of course, sometimes the only answer is: I just don't find you attractive.
There's no "spark". I'm not interested.
Ricardo Rueda
>In article <1992Jan10....@milton.u.washington.edu> intr...@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>>
>>Angelwing - #1, make me laugh; #2, make me swoon; #3, make me breakfast
>>
>
> I cringed when I saw this. I can handle #1 and #3, but not
>#2.
This might be a silly questionbut what does swoon mean. sorry, no dictionary
handy.
--
Ricardo Rueda | O.K., maybe it's just that
rru...@leland.stanford.edu | I have lead a sheltered life.
pav...@gw.syr.ge.com
> In <1992Jan9.0...@eddie.mit.edu> ma...@eddie.mit.edu (Anita Hsiung) writes:
>>First of all, by definition, first dates are when you are
>>excited, interested in getting to know the other person, your hormones
>>are working overtime, your adrenalin is pumping. It's almost, but not
>>quite, like opening night of your show, but that's another matter.
> It most certainly is not like the opening night of a show! I know --
> I'm directing my first Shakespearean play Saturday night, and I just found
> it this week we're expected to do two shows that night instead of one, and
> I'm hoping no more actors get sick between now and then, and I hope all the
> props show up on time.... I may not have great luck with women, but no first
> date was ever like this! ;-)
Ah, but you're the director (where the show is now out of your hands), not an
actor or a back-stage technician. Ask THEM (especially the actors) what it's
like!
Andy "Edsel" Pavlin
alias "Robert Fryburger, Esq." from the Baldwinsville Theatre Guild's
production of "Lie, Cheat, and Genuflect"
Robbie Felix
( I don't care about people using drugs, but it is not something I
want in a partner). This person told me that he frequently flew a
plane and took halucinogenic drugs to enhance the experience.
I was very clear that I could be friends but would NOT date anyone
who used drugs.
He pushed and I agreed to a lunch or something less "date-like". I
chickened out at the last minute and told him that it was the drug
thing,it bothered me too much.
The guy BARBEQUED me. Told me I was crazy,dysfunctional, weird,
sexually repressed, and generally an over-all witch of a person.
I think many women find that men will ARGUE with the reasons!
Who wants to argue? I will not give someone ammunition to try
to convince me to do something I don't want to do!
Charles R. Martin
Path: borg!mcnc!stanford.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wupost!udel!louie!fred.cis.udel.edu!gallo
From: ga...@fred.cis.udel.edu (Andy Gallo)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles
Date: 10 Jan 92 20:56:17 GMT
References: <1992Jan9.2...@milton.u.washington.edu> <ewright....@convex.convex.com> <1992Jan10....@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: use...@udel.edu (USENET News Service)
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Lines: 26
Xref: borg alt.romance:18121 soc.singles:88192
Nntp-Posting-Host: fred.cis.udel.edu
In article <1992Jan10....@milton.u.washington.edu>
intr...@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes: > >Angelwing -
#1, make me laugh; #2, make me swoon; #3, make me breakfast >
Its #2 that makes me cautious. I can't ever remember making
someone swoon. I'm not sure I could make someone swoon. I just
don't think I have that raw animal magnetism that (ahem) body
chemistry, that body shape.
There's always amyl nitrate. Failing that, a good GI 'flu seems to
work. (George Bush -- first president to fall over and throw up at a
state dinner on live television.)
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/mar...@cs.unc.edu/(nee c...@cs.duke.edu)
O/Department of Computer Science/Sitterson Hall/UNC/Chapel Hill, NC 27599
H/3611 University Dr #9N/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
Marcia Bednarcyk
And I've had a longer relationship with my teddy bear than many a man...
more loving, too :-). What can you say about someone who is always ready
to hug you...with no ulterior motives :-)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk (And Snuggles and Big Bear and M'bar..)ADDRESS: m...@cisco.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
"... the meaning of life is to be happy, try not to hurt people, and hope
you fall in love."
Marcia Bednarcyk
|> I think many women find that men will ARGUE with the reasons!
|> Who wants to argue? I will not give someone ammunition to try
|> to convince me to do something I don't want to do!
I'm glad someone else brought this up :-). This is the main, and overriding
reason that I will not go into an in depth discussion with someone why I
don't want to date them...because they won't just listen and accept it, they
have to *argue* with it. As if arguing will change my mind, or make me more
attracted to the person...if anything, it is the one thing that will seal the
doomed fate of a potential relationship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk ADDRESS: m...@cisco.com
Marcia Bednarcyk
|>
|> >I think you might be talking about me, and that thread we enjoyed a few months
|> >ago :-). I don't really have time to do this, but when has that ever stopped
|> >me from jumping right in....
|>
|> Marcia, if you don't have time to post, then please don't do it. If you do post,
|> you have no right to expect people not to respond because you don't have time for
|> it.
Please point out where I said that I didn't expect people to respond? I don't
see it in the part you quoted, nor do I remember typing it. The portion you
quoted was a quasi-humorous introduction.
|> Sure, but that wouldn't justify my playing games like "let's see if you can
|> guess what I really want." If a woman asked me why a did not want to go out
|> with her, I would do my best to tell her honestly, but politely, why I felt
|> the way I did.
First, who is playing guessing games? If I decline to see a man again because
I feel no spark, I do not expect him to figure out what he would have to do
to make the spark happen. The simple fact that I do not want to should
suffice. (And ditto for someone who does not want to go out with me. The fact
that he simply doesn't want to is reason enough.)
No one is "owed" an in depth analysis of someone's feelings about them,
especially if it makes that person uncomfortable. Especially when it's
something like chemistry, something emotional, something that may hinge on
what seems like nothing to the rest of the world, but may mean the universe
to you. Often there is no "justification" other than "that's the way I feel".
And none other is needed.
Marcia Bednarcyk
|> m...@cisco.com (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
|>
|> >For me, spark is very quantifiable in an emotional sense. I *know* when I'm
|> >attracted and when I'm not. I just can't put that feeling into words.
|>
|> But can you put into words what _causes_ you to feel the spark?
Not really...because every time it seems to be a different reason. Even if I
did go through the struggle to use the words as precisely as I know how, it
wouldn't guarantee that even if someone managed to duplicate exactly what I
had described set off the spark with me, it wouldn't guarantee that the
duplicator would set off the same spark.
For me, it's not predictable, it's not algorithmic, and it's not rational. So
trying to describe it in such terms is fruitless.
Mark Israel
> It's the same way when a person is repeatedly told that he (or she)
> cannot be loved because he has no spark. Sure it hurts. But
> if this woman he adores tells him how he falls short, perhaps he
> can address those shortcomings. And maybe, some day, when he meets
> another woman he adores, she will not think he falls short.
Are you sure that she means something different by "feel a spark
for" than you mean by "adore"? Or do you "adore" people on a purely
volitional basis?
In article <ewright....@convex.convex.com>, ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> And then there was that poem I was going to finish this weekend...
Is the sentiment of your poem to be found in Shakespeare? If so,
are you going to improve on his expression? :-)
> And yet there is a deeper aspect, which you cannot see because
> you see only with your eyes, cannot hear because you hear only
> with your ears, cannot feel because you feel only with your
> hand.... It is the heart, the spirit, the soul, eternal and
> infinite. Your puny "sparks" compare to this as the fireflies
> compare to the sun.
Very eloquent!
> And this, as any true romantic can tell you, is the real source of
> romantic love.
I agree that it's *a* real, and a necessary, source.
When you say "as any true romantic can tell you", does that mean
something more than "as anyone who agrees with me can tell you"?
> The true romantic does not look on his beloved and love her for her
> body; instead, he loves her *despite* her body. And it could be no
> other way, for even though her physical beauty might be the most
> perfect thing in the physical world, still it pales to insignificance
> beside the true inner beauty, and he does not see it.
You seem here to be saying that the "true romantic" sees only *not*
with his eyes, etc. Many of the great romantic poets saw with their
eyes and praised the beauty of their beloveds. Were they not "true
romantics" according to you?
> And live in your world, with your shallow chemistry and your miserable
> sparks?
You said (quoted on top) that you wanted to know what a "spark" was so
that you could "address those shortcomings" of yours. But I am now led
to believe that your real motive is to allow you to accuse your
*rejector* of shortcomings.
In view of behaviour like this, is it surprising that rejectors often
decline to give detailed reasons?
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>
Does two out of three count for anything?
--
--- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
@netcom.com
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
How dare you assume I'm crooked?!
Robbie Felix
>In article <1992Jan11.0137...@netcom.COM>, rfe...@netcom.COM (Robbie Felix) writes:
>|> I think many women find that men will ARGUE with the reasons!
>|> Who wants to argue? I will not give someone ammunition to try
>|> to convince me to do something I don't want to do!
>
>I'm glad someone else brought this up :-). This is the main, and overriding
>reason that I will not go into an in depth discussion with someone why I
>don't want to date them...because they won't just listen and accept it, they
>have to *argue* with it. As if arguing will change my mind, or make me more
>attracted to the person...if anything, it is the one thing that will seal the
>doomed fate of a potential relationship.
EXACTLY, Marcia!
If anything I shudder to think of a relationship based on a start like
this.
There is nothing worse than any kind of relationship with a person who
cannot accept "no". I hate this power-struggle stuff. These things get
harder to stop if you date the person even once after such an
exchange!
rf
CatWoman
] Sure, but that wouldn't justify my playing games like "let's see if you can
] guess what I really want." If a woman asked me why a did not want to go out
] with her, I would do my best to tell her honestly, but politely, why I felt
] qualities, but I'm looking for a more highly articulate woman. I'm afraid
] someone who can't put her feelings into words just doesn't appeal to me. Also,
] I prefer women who are very tolerant and open-minded. I'm afraid someone who
] believes she can judge a man's worth based on a single meeting just isn't right
] for me."
First off - I agree. It is much better to tell someone EXACTLY why
they don't appeal to you - whatever the reason is. Now wait for it..
BUT - I have had the experience of SIMPLY NOT KNOWING what it was
about the person that didn't appeal to me. To this day, some 5 years
later, I STILL don't know what the specific lack was. I know that
it is still a lack - the person STILL is not someone that appeals
to me as a 'relationship'. He's someone that I was good friends
with, but I DID 'give it a try', then when I couldn't articulate,
even to myself, the reason he didn't appeal to me, I lost the
friendship/cameraderie. I still feel VERY bad about how I treated
him. I couldn't explain it to myself, let alone to him, so I wound
up ignoring him, and hurting him in the process. And hurting myself
as well.
I don't regret not having a relationship with him. I know that I
would not have been happy trying to establish one. I DO regret
not having been able to explain what happened, and I regret the
way I acted. Could I have acted differently? Yes, of course.
At a different time and place, WOULD I have acted differently? I
honestly cannot answer that, either.
Point is - it may not be lack of willingness to be honest - it
may just be that the person DOES NOT KNOW why there is no 'spark'.
Diana
Bill Swindell
Sorry Ed, nothing about sparks here...
In <1992Jan10.0...@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> user...@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>>>> Why do you keep trying to catch people in verbal snares, Edward?
>>> Because language, Mark, is the only tool we have to communicate ideas,
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BZZZZZZT! Close but no cigar, Edward. The human race has developed
many more ways to communicate ideas than verbally.
>>> Obviously, you can't read very well today, Mark. You must be
>>> "limer[e]nt."
>> Not currently.
> I did not say "limerent," Mark, I said "limerant." ...
> "Limerant" is a word I've just made up to describe people who are
> obsessed with boring other people with the concept of "limerence."
Allright! Allright! Allright!
Enough already!
In <way too many posts> both (Mark Israel) and (Edward V. Wright)
chastise each other, much to the chagrin of all, on the use of
"limerence", "limerents", and even "limerants". May I suggest that both
of you, and virtually everyone else who tunes into a.r read an
exceptional book by Dr. M. Scott Peck, M.D. called "The Road Less
Travelled - A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual
Growth". I particularly suggest chapter 2 - appropriately entitled "Love".
Dr. Peck goes to great pains to attempt to define both what love is
and is not. He also makes the distinction between love and what Mark
is so fond of calling "limerence". Dr. Peck, however, uses a term
readily available in the English language - cathexis. His ideas are
remarkable, and I'm surprised that I've never seen him mentioned in
a.r. before.
Dr. Peck's definition of love is thus: "The will to extend one's self
for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spritual growth".
I won't bother to quote the entire chapter :-) but believe me, it's
worth reading for anyone considering a long term relationship. The
important point is that true love can only begin after a couple
"falls out of love" (or out of cathexis). I know that doesn't sound
too romatic for y'all, and maybe even a little depressing, but I'd be
depriving the author of his royalties by elaborating more. Let me just
say that I respect the guy's opinions.
Anyway, PLEASE let's stop all the bickering and flaming on a.r. about
something so silly. Mark, start using the English language. Edward,
stop being so damned cynical. Now kiss and make up :-)
> From what I've seen, many people here would love to talk about romance,
> but every time they open their mouths someone starts talking about
> "limerence."
OK Edward, let's just talk about love and/or cathexis instead.
Let's all just try to enjoy love wherever it can be found.
Regards,
Brian
bria...@skvax1.dseg.ti.com
PS to Edward: I'm in your area and am interested in the schedule of
your plays. Contact me by email if they are continuing.
Thanx.
DISCLAIMER: Any opinions expressed are my own and may be fatal if swallowed.
Use only under adult supervision.
John R. Grout
(stuff deleted)
>Dr. Peck goes to great pains to attempt to define both what love is
>and is not. He also makes the distinction between love and what Mark
>is so fond of calling "limerence". Dr. Peck, however, uses a term
>readily available in the English language - cathexis. His ideas are
>remarkable, and I'm surprised that I've never seen him mentioned in
>a.r. before.
>Dr. Peck's definition of love is thus: "The will to extend one's self
>for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spritual growth".
>I won't bother to quote the entire chapter :-) but believe me, it's
>worth reading for anyone considering a long term relationship. The
>important point is that true love can only begin after a couple
>"falls out of love" (or out of cathexis). I know that doesn't sound
>too romatic for y'all, and maybe even a little depressing, but I'd be
>depriving the author of his royalties by elaborating more. Let me just
>say that I respect the guy's opinions.
I have read several of Dr. Peck's works and an interview of him, and, although
I respect _many_ of his opinions, I think he, like many other psychiatrists,
too easily dismisses the meaning and significance of healthy subjective
experiences (such as romantic passion): in dysfunctional persons, perhaps
subjective experiences (e.g., "romantic love") tend to be relatively
undesirable, temporary or immature and objective experiences (e.g.,
"companionate love") tend to be relatively desirable, permanent and mature, but
(IMHO) this argument breaks down when extended to recovered (or healthy)
people.
I believe that Dr. Ethel S. Person, a psychiatrist at Columbia, has a more
balanced and realistic perception of romantic passion than Dr. Peck: her book,
"Dreams of Love and Fateful Encounters: The Power of Romantic Passion"
discusses the objections of those who, like Dr. Peck, believe that the
subjective experience of romantic passion should be temporary or is innately
immature or unhealthy.
--
John R. Grout | INTERNET: j-g...@uiuc.edu
|
University of Illinois | If you don't knock,
Urbana (and Champaign), IL USA | no one can answer!
Kiran Wagle
>Point is - it may not be lack of willingness to be honest - it
>may just be that the person DOES NOT KNOW why there is no 'spark'.
Perhaps this means that a higher level of self-knowledge is necessary.
(Perhaps further, more self-knowledge would prevent many of the bad
relationships we read of on the net.)
_Kiran (ki...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu)
--
From the corrections column in a July Fresno, CA _Bee_:
"An item in Thursday's [issue] about the Massachusetts budget crisis made
reference to new taxes that will help put Massachusetts 'back in the
African-American.' The item should have said 'back in the black.'"
Sharon Casteel
In article <glorp> m...@cisco.com (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
>I'm glad someone else brought this up :-). This is the main, and overriding
>reason that I will not go into an in depth discussion with someone why I
>don't want to date them...because they won't just listen and accept it, they
>have to *argue* with it. As if arguing will change my mind, or make me more
>attracted to the person...if anything, it is the one thing that will seal the
>doomed fate of a potential relationship.
Yes, I've run into this myself. The "I can refute all your reasons for
breaking up with me, so you have no reason to do so", the "If you can't tell
me exactly why you want to break up with me, then we should stay together".
Grf.
One person broke up with me using the phrase "You're just not the
right person for me." I didn't ask for further explanation, I just
accepted it. (Well, accepted isn't the precise word--I went home,
cried myself to sleep, was depressed the next day until a friend took
me to a movie to get me away from things for a while. But after all
that, I accepted it :-).) Months later, when I could look at things
more clearly, I agreed that I wasn't right for him, and also realized
that he wasn't right for me either. Not a matter of "sparks" or such,
though; it was rather some deeply-rooted differences.
Which brings me to a question I have--what do you do if, in explaining
why you don't want to date someone, you tell them that you don't like
characteristic X and they say that they'll change? (This happened in
one of my earlier relationships.) More on my opinion later--I'd like
to hear what you all think.
slc
--
sl...@cs.rice.edu
"The Voice that calls through space and time speaks my name again...."
Christopher Jon Petit
not. But, I'd say that it would take a real miracle to change, so don't expect it
or count on it---don't do it until the change has taken place and has "held" for
a long time (it might be just to win you back).
--
True happiness lies in dreams.
I thought I felt the sunlight/Caressing my brow/For the longest time,/I didn't
know about it/But, as soon as I looked up/It went away.
Mark Israel
> Which brings me to a question I have--what do you do if, in explaining
> why you don't want to date someone, you tell them that you don't like
> characteristic X and they say that they'll change? (This happened in
> one of my earlier relationships.) More on my opinion later--I'd like
> to hear what you all think.
I only date non-smokers. A *former* smoker would be fine -- even if
she had quit smoking on my advice! But I would only date her if she
*had* quit, not if she said she was going to.
If X is a more abstract characteristic, then how can you even tell
that someone *has* changed, and is not just putting on an act? Unless
the evidence of change were *very* convincing, I would expect a re-run
of the old movie.
Every relationship involves compromises. But if one makes concessions
that go fundamentally against the grain, there is likely to be a
backlash eventually. The more against the grain, the bigger the
backlash.
Andy Gallo
Somebody said:
> Yes, I've run into this myself. The "I can refute all your reasons for
> breaking up with me, so you have no reason to do so", the "If you can't tell
> me exactly why you want to break up with me, then we should stay together".
> One person broke up with me using the phrase "You're just not the
> right person for me." I didn't ask for further explanation...
Sometimes knowing the reason to breaking up can really HELP.
ie. the reason is so rediculous that you have to laugh, thus easing
the proverbial pain.
My all-time favorite from my experience was the girl who told me
she had to stop seeing me because I was a gentile... She knew up front
when we started going out that I was not Jewish, but somehow she thought
that would make the perfect excuse for backing out. After all, who
can argue with God? 8-)
Mark Israel
Hi, Bill! Thanks for trying to be a peacemaker. We need more peace
in the world.
>> Because language, Mark, is the only tool we have to communicate ideas,
>
> BZZZZZZT! Close but no cigar, Edward. The human race has developed
> many more ways to communicate ideas than verbally.
You're right, of course. But while we're being peacemakers, perhaps
we could abandon "BZZZZZZT!"? Does not "Not so." say the same thing less
offensively?
> May I suggest that both of you, and virtually everyone else who tunes
> into a.r read an exceptional book by Dr. M. Scott Peck, M.D. called
> "The Road Less Travelled - A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values
> and Spiritual Growth".
I *have* read it. But I found Dorothy Tennov's _Love and Limerence_
to be much more enlightening. Your mileage will, of course, vary.
I doubt that Edward will read _The Road Less Traveled_. Dr. Peck
is a psychiatrist, and Edward thinks that all psychology/psychiatry is
nonsense.
> Dr. Peck [...] makes the distinction between love and what Mark
> is so fond of calling "limerence". Dr. Peck, however, uses a term
> readily available in the English language - cathexis.
Dr. Peck is talking about limerence, all right, at least some of the
time. But I don't think he's got it quite right. For example, he says
(p. 117 of the paperback): "Since we may have many such relationships
going on at the same time, we speak of our cathexes." On the contrary!
A fundamental characteristic of limerence is that (except when it's at
low ebb) one can only react limerently to ONE PERSON AT A TIME!
Limerents have a passionate desire for exclusivity -- a fact that Peck
recognises but that his theory fails to explain.
> Mark, start using the English language.
I have citations of the word "limerence" in 5 books and many
periodicals. It's not in the general dictionaries yet, but hey!
I'm working on it. :-)
> OK Edward, let's just talk about love and/or cathexis instead.
Edward may use what words he wishes.
*I* will not call limerence "love" (except sometimes :-) ), because
(as Peck says, p. 107) "our use of the word 'love' is so generalized and
unspecific as to severely interfere with our understanding of love".
Just look at what's happening in the "Would you rather marry someone you
love, or someone who loves you" discussion! People are talking right
past one another, because they mean different things by "love".
I considered your request to call limerence "cathexis". But I will
not do so, primarily because I'm already heavily committed to Tennov's
theory, but also because:
(2) "Cathexis" is not specific to romance. I would have to speak of
"romantic cathexis".
(3) "Cathexis" was coined to translate a word of Sigmund Freud's, so
Edward (who threw mud at "id" and "ego") wouldn't like it any better
than "limerence". I doubt that many other readers would prefer it
either.
(4) One dictionary defines "cathexis" as "investment of libidinal energy".
What (if anything) the "libido" is, is a can of worms I don't want
to open.
(5) I don't like the sound of the adjective "cathectic". It reminds me
of "cataleptic", "carcinogenic", "pathetic", etc.
(6) "Cathectic" is not recorded as a noun, so the shortest replacement
for the noun "nonlimerent" would be "person not prone to romantic
cathexis". (If I used "cathectic" as a noun, I would be making a
coinage, and I wouldn't even have an established author like Tennov
on my side!)
> Now kiss and make up :-)
I will continue to use the word "limerence", but I'm not asking anyone
else to use it. If other people stop attacking my use of it, I'll gladly
stop defending myself!
> Let's all just try to enjoy love wherever it can be found.
Amen to that!
> Regards,
Likewise,
John Grohol
>>
>> Which brings me to a question I have--what do you do if, in explaining
>> why you don't want to date someone, you tell them that you don't like
>> characteristic X and they say that they'll change? (This happened in
>> one of my earlier relationships.) More on my opinion later--I'd like
>> to hear what you all think.
I think that's just grasping at straws... "I'll change that, just
give me the chance." Why should they change after just being with you
for a short time? People don't "change" because someone else wants
them to, and it happens rarely enough in relationships. They have
to want to change for themselves, and even then, it's not just
a matter of will-power or something, it's hard work!
--
"Questions are a burden :: "Nothing's :: John M. Grohol
to others; answers are :: forgotten; :: Cntr for Psychological Studies
a prison for oneself." :: nothing's ever :: Nova Univ, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
-- The Prisoner :: forgotten." -RH :: gro...@novavax.nova.edu
Bill Buse
> For me, a first date is usually a short, informal sort of thing -- lunch,
> perhaps. The type of date you're talking about is more likely to be a
> "second-date activity" for me. These usually take place in the evening
> or on a weekend afternoon.
I also like the idea of the first date being informal where its easier to
remain relaxed and less stressful. Something like going out for pizza or
other informal style of lunch or dinner works well on a first date.
> If it's an evening date, I prefer to attend some entertainment such as
> a play, concert, ballet, circus, movie, etc. before dinner -- something
> you can talk about later. I don't really care much for the traditional
> idea of a movie after dinner -- sitting in the dark next to someone who
> you can't see or talk to doesn't seem like much fun (unless you intend
> to "make out").
I've never given this much thought before, but attending some entertainment
before dinner is a great way to get some conversation going during dinner.
Even if you can't find much in common to talk about, you still have the
entertainment to talk about.
> If it's an afternoon date, I usually plan something outdoors, such as
> a picnic, horseback riding, or nature hike in pleasant surroundings.
> (And have a backup plan in case of bad weather.) Here, the activity
> and surroundings can serve as a subject for conversation.
This is my idea of first date activities. Other activities that can be
good ones are ice skating or roller skating. All of these are the kinds of
activities that present many opportunities to talk and interact with each
other.
Bill
Robbie Felix
>
>In article <glorp> m...@cisco.com (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
>>I'm glad someone else brought this up :-). This is the main, and overriding
>>reason that I will not go into an in depth discussion with someone why I
>>don't want to date them...because they won't just listen and accept it, they
>>have to *argue* with it. As if arguing will change my mind, or make me more
>>attracted to the person...if anything, it is the one thing that will seal the
>>doomed fate of a potential relationship.
>
>
>why you don't want to date someone, you tell them that you don't like
>characteristic X and they say that they'll change? (This happened in
>one of my earlier relationships.) More on my opinion later--I'd like
>to hear what you all think.
I am not sure if this is will help, but I have an idea worth
considering here. Let me give an illustration:
A few years ago I had a close male friend. I mean I really liked this
guy. We went out together a lot, we had a lot in common, he was kind,
considerate, thoughtful,attractive etc. He had all the attributes on
my list of desired traits. I wa involved with someone else when I met
him, but was broke up with my boyfriend and was mostly single for
several years. I never got involved with this guy and told him it was
the age difference ( he was about 6-7 years younger than me) that
prevented it. We joked about the fact we had never become lovers all
the time.
Today I am quite happily involved with someone 12 years younger than I
am.
I think sometimes the reasons we give people for our lack of interest
are just nice excuses. A lot of times they would not be important if
there were a stronger attraction. A spark, if you will.
I have found myself in situations where I am dating someone who has
a characteristic I once used as a reason not to date someone else.
It really boils down to something that is not quantifiable, a spark...
That is another reason I don't give anyone reasons anymore for my lack
of interest. " I just don't think we are right for each other" is
the best, most honest response.
rf
Robert Ashcroft
>breaking up with me, so you have no reason to do so", the "If you can't tell
>me exactly why you want to break up with me, then we should stay together".
>Grf.
>
All you are obligated to say is "I'd rather not", or "I don't want to."
If you are feeling especially generous you might say
"I don't want to continue this relationship. Among the things that you
might want to work on for your next relationship are the following: X,Y,Z."
The amount of syntactic sugar is up to you---it needn't be as blunt as I've
put it, and it might help if it wasn't.
RNA
Edward V. Wright
>In article <ewright....@convex.convex.com>, ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>> It's the same way when a person is repeatedly told that he (or she)
>> cannot be loved because he has no spark. Sure it hurts. But
>> if this woman he adores tells him how he falls short, perhaps he
>> can address those shortcomings. And maybe, some day, when he meets
>> another woman he adores, she will not think he falls short.
> Are you sure that she means something different by "feel a spark
>for" than you mean by "adore"? Or do you "adore" people on a purely
>volitional basis?
I didn't mean anything by "adore," Mark. I used that word because
someone else did and I was quoting her.
> You seem here to be saying that the "true romantic" sees only *not*
>with his eyes, etc. Many of the great romantic poets saw with their
>eyes and praised the beauty of their beloveds. Were they not "true
>romantics" according to you?
What makes you so sure they were describing the outer beauty and not
the inner beauty that they saw with their minds' eyes? Would it surprise
you to find out that one of the ladies who inspired one of these great
poems was not a great physical beauty? What about the many women, subjects
of poems, who never lived at all, except in the poet's imagination?
> You said (quoted on top) that you wanted to know what a "spark" was so
>that you could "address those shortcomings" of yours. But I am now led
>to believe that your real motive is to allow you to accuse your
>*rejector* of shortcomings.
Oh? Where did I say that? I have kept the passage you quoted just
to show everyone how severe your limerance-induced dyslexia is. I
spoke of a hypothetical person who [like many people who have posted
to this newsgroup] is commonly rejected for no other reason than "lack
of spark." I never said I was one of these people. I would not say that
because, with one single exception, I have never heard a woman tell me I
had "no spark." Generally, the women who have rejected me have been quite
explicit and forthcoming in pointing out my shortcomings (in their eyes).
I have stated these reasons several times in postings that you have responded
to (and therefore, presumeably, read), so there is no reason why you should
have assumed that the person I was talking about represented me.
Edward V. Wright
>Yes, I've run into this myself. The "I can refute all your reasons for
>breaking up with me, so you have no reason to do so", the "If you can't tell
>me exactly why you want to break up with me, then we should stay together".
>Grf.
But sometimes you really can refute the reasons. I was dating one woman
who dropped me unexpectedly without giving me any reason. Some time later,
I finally found out why: She was quite hurt because she had wanted to sleep
with me and I had turned her down. Except, I *hadn't* turned her down: at
the time, I was just to dense to understand that I was being propositioned!
If she had told me why was she was dumping me at the time, we could have
cleared up a simple misunderstanding pretty easily, but as it was, by the
time I found out, it was too late.
Christopher Jon Petit
|> >>>to have absolutely no imagination whatsoever!
|> >>
|> >>Really? Thanks. I'll keep that in mind when I play Merlin tomorrow
|> >>night. Wouldn't want the audience to think I had an imagination.
|>
|> >Ed, I'm sure we're all very proud of you getting to play Merlin -- but
|> >I've known plenty of actors without imagination. It's *handy* mind
|> >you, but not necessary. A good director and a knack for mimicry can
|> >get you through.
|>
|>
|> >Now now now ....don't get snippy! We weren't talking about romance,
|> >remember?
|>
|> We weren't? This is alt.romance, isn't it?
|>
|> >Or what I felt about love or deeper feelings or anything
|> >like that. We were talking about the terms "spark" and "chemistry".
|> >These *are* mostly physical things. Of course, personality comes
|> >into it and I have had these physical attractions for many types.
|>
|> But that's *exactly* the question I am interested in: Why so many people
|> consider things like physical attraction, chemistry, spark, etc.
|> to be necessary prerequisites for romance. Why a man (or woman)
|> who lacks one of these is lucky to make it past the initial screening
|> (first date), let alone get into a romantic relationship.
|>
|>
|> >That's all find and good, Ed. I'm aware of the workings of a love
|> >relationship. But don't you think that it's even BETTER when you
|> >and your love can't keep your hands off each other?
|>
|> I've known artists who couldn't keep their hands off a paintbrush.
|> It wasn't because they found the paintbrush physically attractive,
|> but because of the things they could do with it.
|>
|> >Isn't it
|> >better when you catch your gaze across a room and feel like you're
|> >falling? Isn't it better when you kiss and feel like you are
|> >soaring through outer space? It's better!
|>
|> How do you know that you couldn't feel the same way about someone
|> who is not physically beautiful, but is sensitive, intelligent, witty,
|> compassionate, wise, understanding, honest, loyal, etc? If it has never
|> happened because you won't go ou with a man you don't find physically
|> attractive doesn't prove it couldn't happen; it only proves it hasn't
|> happened.
|>
|> >See the smiley? Anyway, I still maintain that the physical side of
|> >a relationshp is IMPORTANT! I don't care how much I love somebody
|> >for all their other wonderful qualities - if it doesn't click it
|> >doesn't click. It's better when it does. Period. If that is being
|> >shallow, then so be it.
|>
|> You certainly have the right to feel that way. If that's the type
|> of relationship you want, it's probably also the type of relationship
|> you deserve. But I do still hope there are a few women left who are
|> interested in us guys who aren't shallow but aren't "physically
|> attractive", either.
Unfortunately, Ed, as much as we would like to say otherwise, "physical
attractiveness" is going to remain very important in a romantic relationship,
since we all SEE someone first (usually), and THEN, on that basis, decide whether
or not to meet the person.
It sounds superficial, but I merely state that it is important in "getting your
foot in the door," so to speak. Also, it can mean the difference between being
"just friends" or "something more." Think about it. When was the last time you
said to your friends "Hey. There's a nice, warm, sincere woman over there. I
think I'll go talk to her." (genders may be reversed if desired)? I don't think
ever.
Let's just say that if you're not attractive that you have a lot harder time
finding that certain someone.
Mark Israel
> I once went out with a woman who told me after the first date that she
> had had a great time and I was "a wonderful guy" and "some woman would
> be really lucky to have me," but she didn't want to go out again
> because she "didn't feel any spark." I find people like this really
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> frustrating because they put the burden of proof on you -- it isn't
> enough that there's no reason not to date you again, you must find a
> reason why they should -- but they won't tell you precisely what
> they're looking for, hiding behind vague terms like "spark" and
> "chemistry" instead, and then impose a stringent limit on the time you
> have figure it out.
"I find people like this" implies that you've encountered more than
one person "like this", even if the others didn't use the particular
word "spark".
BTW, if I've misinterpreted you (or anybody else), I apologize.
Like everyone else, I am fallible, and I misinterpret people sometimes.
I don't think I do any worse than average in that regard, though.
Edward V. Wright
> "I find people like this" implies that you've encountered more than
>one person "like this", even if the others didn't use the particular
>word "spark".
It could also imply:
1) that I've encountered more than one person who used the word "spark"
in this manner, but not in reference to me
or
2) that I've only encountered one person who spoke of sparks in reference
to me, but am sure tht I would find it just as frustrating if I encountered
another one in the future.
In fact, both of these are true.
Hey, I have an idea. In the future, instead of assuming things that I
haven't said in my postings, why don't you just ask?
Edward V. Wright
>>>That's quite probably what the problem is. That and the fact that you seem
>>>to have absolutely no imagination whatsoever!
>>
>>Really? Thanks. I'll keep that in mind when I play Merlin tomorrow
>>night. Wouldn't want the audience to think I had an imagination.
>Ed, I'm sure we're all very proud of you getting to play Merlin -- but
>I've known plenty of actors without imagination. It's *handy* mind
>you, but not necessary. A good director and a knack for mimicry can
>get you through.
Er... I was the director.
Angelwing
>[Angelwing and Ed are wrangling over the definition of "spark" and
"chemistry" and it's getting a little boring but I'm game for one
more round.]
>>Now now now ....don't get snippy! We weren't talking about romance,
>>remember?
>
>We weren't? This is alt.romance, isn't it?
Actually, from where I stand, it's soc.singles. I don't subscribe to
alt.romance.
>>Or what I felt about love or deeper feelings or anything
>>like that. We were talking about the terms "spark" and "chemistry".
>>These *are* mostly physical things. Of course, personality comes
>>into it and I have had these physical attractions for many types.
>
>But that's *exactly* the question I am interested in: Why so many people
>consider things like physical attraction, chemistry, spark, etc.
>to be necessary prerequisites for romance.
You have *got* to be kidding!! What planet are you from? Hey, I know
all about idealism and true love and all that. But the reality of it is
that nobody is going to fall in love with someone that doesn't turn them
on physically. It's a *personal* thing, however. What might turn you
on -- a certain way a woman smiles, for example -- would leave someone else
cold. In that smile of hers, *you* can see beauty that nobody else can
*BECAUSE* you know all of her other wonderful qualities -- loyalty and
tenderness and all else come through to you in that smile. That's
YOUR spark. Just because nobody else can see it doesn't make it any less
real and because YOU see it doesn't make it shallow. Her smile is going
to make your stomach flip and make you smile that goofy smile. That's
the physical attraction and chemistry between you two. That *IS*
romance, silly! When the touch of her hand makes you quiver ... no matter
how her physical body compares to the babes in the swimsuit edition.
> Why a man (or woman)
>who lacks one of these is lucky to make it past the initial screening
>(first date), let alone get into a romantic relationship.
Because it's an indication. If I can't stand to look at a guy, how am
I ever going to be able to find out his finer qualities, for example? :-)
>>That's all find and good, Ed. I'm aware of the workings of a love
>>relationship. But don't you think that it's even BETTER when you
>>and your love can't keep your hands off each other?
>
>I've known artists who couldn't keep their hands off a paintbrush.
>It wasn't because they found the paintbrush physically attractive,
>but because of the things they could do with it.
:-) Right -- I couldn't have said it better myself.
>>Isn't it
>>better when you catch your gaze across a room and feel like you're
>>falling? Isn't it better when you kiss and feel like you are
>>soaring through outer space? It's better!
>
>How do you know that you couldn't feel the same way about someone
>who is not physically beautiful, but is sensitive, intelligent, witty,
>compassionate, wise, understanding, honest, loyal, etc?
But I *have* I tell you! Sexual chemistry has nothing to do with
physical beauty.
>>See the smiley? Anyway, I still maintain that the physical side of
>>a relationshp is IMPORTANT! I don't care how much I love somebody
>>for all their other wonderful qualities - if it doesn't click it
>>doesn't click. It's better when it does. Period. If that is being
>>shallow, then so be it.
>
>You certainly have the right to feel that way. If that's the type
>of relationship you want, it's probably also the type of relationship
>you deserve. But I do still hope there are a few women left who are
>interested in us guys who aren't shallow but aren't "physically
>attractive", either.
Ed, when the time's right for you some woman is going to find you
*absolutely* irresistable! I remember .. I was dating this lawyer guy and
he was so nice, and fun to be with, etc. ad naseum BUT as much as I
tried I just couldn't work up any feelings for him physically. I wanted
to but there was nothing there. And he, poor man, complained to me several
times about wanting a woman who thought he was [in his words] "the nuts".
Well I didn't. No fault of his. After we called it quits he found a
woman - very pretty lady - and SHE thought he was the nuts and they got
married in about six months. It can't be explained. But one thing for
sure is that it has nothing to do with physical attractiveness.
Angelwing - Your Honor, if it please the court .....
--
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most *
* | dangerous toy." Friedrich Nietzsche *
Stephen Dennison
>
> Somebody said:
>
>> Yes, I've run into this myself. The "I can refute all your reasons for
>> breaking up with me, so you have no reason to do so", the "If you can't tell
>> me exactly why you want to break up with me, then we should stay together".
>> One person broke up with me using the phrase "You're just not the
>> right person for me." I didn't ask for further explanation...
>
> Sometimes knowing the reason to breaking up can really HELP.
>ie. the reason is so rediculous that you have to laugh, thus easing
>the proverbial pain.
>
I tried to stay out of this thread ... *honest* ! :-)
One of the things every human has to develop in their life is the ability to
accept the inevitable. I'm still working on it, but in the spirit of this
thread, if the reason you are given is *viable*, then it is helpful in the
healing process to know it. If, however, it is open-ended or open to
multiple interpretations, it can tend to drag the healing process on. Of
course, if you have already developed the above-mentioned ability to
recognize and accept inevitability, the reasons are moot.
Oh, yeah... IMHO. :-)
Stephen
Everybody's crazy by *somebody's* definition.
Greg Skinner
>consider things like physical attraction, chemistry, spark, etc.
>to be necessary prerequisites for romance. Why a man (or woman)
>who lacks one of these is lucky to make it past the initial screening
>(first date), let alone get into a romantic relationship.
Leaving aside the question of physical attraction for a sec, it seems
you feel sparks and chemistry for women who you find intellectually
stimulating. Are there grounds under which you won't ask someone out?
If so, you are practicing the same "screening" you complain about
above. The only difference is you are "screening" based on
intellectual qualities instead of physical ones.
>[in response to Angelwing]
>How do you know that you couldn't feel the same way about someone
>who is not physically beautiful, but is sensitive, intelligent, witty,
>compassionate, wise, understanding, honest, loyal, etc?
Good question. Possibly, she (or anyone else) could, given enough
time with the person. Unfortunately, there isn't enough time to find
out all the wonderful things about a person. I think most people base
their decisions to try (or continue to participate in) a relationship
based on gut instinct, which can be wrong.
Also, in my limited experience, I've found that I could not sustain a
relationship with someone who *I* did not find attractive (despite how
attractive they might have been to others). I've felt badly about
this, partially because I know what it feels like to be rejected for
not being attractive enough, but I couldn't make myself feel feelings
for a person I had no attraction to.
>You certainly have the right to feel that way. If that's the type
>of relationship you want, it's probably also the type of relationship
>you deserve. But I do still hope there are a few women left who are
>interested in us guys who aren't shallow but aren't "physically
>attractive", either.
I think it's a little unfair for you to say these things. Unless you
are willing to date *anyone*, those who you are not willing to date
might very well say the same things about you, and you wouldn't
appreciate it very much, I think.
--gregbo
David B Roy
(Bob Ashley) writes:
> In article <1992Jan10....@udel.edu>, ga...@fred.cis.udel.edu (Andy
Gallo) writes:
> |> In article <1992Jan10....@milton.u.washington.edu>
intr...@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
> |> >
> |> >Angelwing - #1, make me laugh; #2, make me swoon; #3, make me breakfast
> |> >
> |>
> |> #2. Making someone laugh is not a problem - on dates I ususally try to
> |> be entertaining. Either my dates are being very polite and laugh out of
> |> courtesy or I really can make them bubble. I'd like to believe the
> |> latter. Making them breakfast (ahem, lets just say, cooking them a
> |> meal) is no problem. I pride myself on being rather handy in the
> |> kitchen. (Of course I generally look like I'm not starving.)
> |> Its #2 that makes me cautious. I can't ever remember making
> |> someone swoon. I'm not sure I could make someone swoon. I just don't
> |> think I have that raw animal magnetism that (ahem) body chemistry,
> |> that body shape. I've been likened to a teddy bear. How many times
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> have you ladies swooned over your teddy bear?
> |> So what are we to do. No spark, no swoon, no oportunity to make
> |> them breakfast...
> |>
> |>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
> |> > Andy Gallo | ga...@cis.udel.edu | U. of Delaware Computer Science
<
> |>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
> |> > Let my inspiration flow in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...
<
> |>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
> |>
>
> colleague that I was like a big Teddy Bear, et al. She meant well ...)
>
> BA
Yes! Us teddy bears need to stick together. I've been called that myself once
and she also meant well. Unfortunately, for some reason, women don't seem to
want to date teddy bears. Must be holding on to something from their childhood,
I guess. :-)
Anyway, I hope this doesn't mean that us teddy bears are doomed to a life of
solitude.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Ashley
> GTE - Contel Federal Systems
>
> Internet: ash...@mailhost.lab.oasis.contel.com
> Telephone: (703)-818-4656
> Fax: (703)-818-5484
>
> "I'm looking for someone to change my life,
> I'm looking for a miracle in my life,
> And if you could see, what's it done to me,
> To lose the love I knew could safely lead me through."
>
> - Moody Blues, "Question"
>
> GO SKINS
Dave Roy
****************************************************************************
* Disclaimer: All opinions expressed above are mine and do not represent *
* the opinions of Iowa State University. However, they are *
* for sale. Write or post for a free catalog. *
****************************************************************************
* Dave Roy "We're all just monkeys with car keys." *
* Grandma Woody, Northern Exposure 10/14/91 *
****************************************************************************
Walter Lego
to live in a society that will not cater to your way of thinking. Not that
physical attractiveness is ignored in other societies but the reliance on
it is not as strong in many societies as it is here.
To be realistic, physical attractiveness, by definition, is something that
people enjoy. It doesn't take much effort to do so! On the other hand,
achieving the same level of enjoyment from the inner beauty requires a lot
of work from both ends. A geneticaly induced attractive person just has to
exist for someone to appreciate him/her. On the other hand, a witty person
would have to work him/herself into a position where the wit would be
noticed. Besides it is not possible to be witty all the time. One has to
be intelligent to fully appreciate the intelligence of another.
You must also realize that there are many physically attractive people that
are sensitive, intelligent, witty, compassionate, etc. And the society
(aided by the media) promotes the view that one hasn't looked enough if
they can't find that ideal. The entertainment media, by necessity, must cater
to the fantasies of its audience. Hence the over-emphasis on "spark" and
"chemistry" during the mating rituals at the cost of every other criterion
that might be important to sustain a relationship. Which makes for a more
popular movie? One in which two fully compatible people find each other
through common interests and get married to live a wonderful stable life or
one in which two people discover a "spark" and "chemistry" between them and
despite great social, financial and mental differences, get into a
relationship (the future is usually left to the imagination of the audience).
Some people may buy into this fantasy rather strongly.
A preference for physical attractiveness is not any more shallow than a
preference for honesty. It is only when it is considered an end in itself
that it becomes shallow. But most people aren't that way. They want other
things too but physical attractiveness is an easy start. As long as there
are physically attractive potential partners around to choose from, why
blame them for not noticing a physically unattractive person? Are you somehow
guaranteeing that you would provide them something that most physically
attractive people can't? If you can do that (as some people have managed to
do because of fame, money, power, talent, etc) then you wouldn't have a
problem.
Besides it is not just the person you want to be involved with that has to
look beyond the outer shell. As much as one would like to be considered
individualistic, the effect a mate causes in the social circles in which
one moves is a very important criterion. How many people can truly say that
they have never mused about possible reactions from their friends if they were
to be involved with a certain person or never been influenced by such
musings?
The only solution is to channel those strong feelings into creative
activities as you seem to be doing rather than waste them through anger or
despair. Perhaps you might achieve something one day that will "get your foot
in the door" of someone special. It may not seem fair that you have to do a
lot more to be noticed, but there isn't much of a choice, is there?
There are a lot of people out there that have to bear with this for
factors beyond their control (short, fat, handicap, colored skin, etc.)
Walter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am posting under a pseudonym for personal reasons. There is
enough info in the headers to determine my posting site and possibly even
determine my login name which is all the information you get from other
postings except that in this case you KNOW for sure that the name in the
headers is a pseudonym. If you don't like the idea put me in your kill file.
Kevin W. Smith
|From: rfe...@netcom.COM (Robbie Felix)
|Newsgroups: alt.romance
|Subject: Re: "I don't feel a spark"
|Message-ID: <1992Jan12.2044...@netcom.COM>
|Date: 12 Jan 92 20:44:15 GMT
|
|I think sometimes the reasons we give people for our lack of interest
|are just nice excuses. A lot of times they would not be important if
|there were a stronger attraction. A spark, if you will.
|
|I have found myself in situations where I am dating someone who has
|a characteristic I once used as a reason not to date someone else.
|
|It really boils down to something that is not quantifiable, a spark...
|That is another reason I don't give anyone reasons anymore for my lack
|of interest. " I just don't think we are right for each other" is
|the best, most honest response.
Could it be that you don't know what you want? I see no logical
cause for postulating the existence of what you refer to as a "spark."
What made you assume the existence of something outside yourself
when the situation IMHO seems to be explained best by looking
within yourself? Logically, there is no basis for your argument,
unless there's something you're not telling me.
Please, I don't wish to offend you; however, it seems to me that
you should be saying "I'm sorry, I'm not mature/introspective/wise
enough to be able to know why I don't feel comfortable with dating you."
From this, you should be working to solve the problem rather than
explaining it away with some sort of magic "spark." There's nothing
wrong with admitting your lack of wisdom; however, if this is the
real problem, then ignoring it is another matter.
---
Kevin W. Smith "I cried because I would not cry
kws...@descartes.waterloo.edu as much any more." -- Henry & June
Walter Lego
>In article <ewright....@convex.convex.com> ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>
>>But that's *exactly* the question I am interested in: Why so many people
>>consider things like physical attraction, chemistry, spark, etc.
>>to be necessary prerequisites for romance.
>
>all about idealism and true love and all that. But the reality of it is
>that nobody is going to fall in love with someone that doesn't turn them
>on physically. It's a *personal* thing, however. What might turn you
You are right, except that I understood Edward as asking why those things
were necessary pre-requisites for the initiation of a relationship where
people don't yet know much about each other.
>on -- a certain way a woman smiles, for example -- would leave someone else
>cold. In that smile of hers, *you* can see beauty that nobody else can
>*BECAUSE* you know all of her other wonderful qualities -- loyalty and
>tenderness and all else come through to you in that smile. That's
>YOUR spark. Just because nobody else can see it doesn't make it any less
Maybe I am missing something but you seem to be agreeing with Edward.
How did one feel about that smile *before* one knew about all her
other wonderful qualities, like on a first date or before. If there was a
spark from the start then what did those wonderful qualities do anyway?
If you are saying that a spark can be induced later as you get to know
the wonderful qualities in a person then you are disagreeing with many women
that look for a spark or chemistry from the start. I think Edward's point is
that why look for them as a pre-requisite to dating?
>Ed, when the time's right for you some woman is going to find you
>*absolutely* irresistable! I remember .. I was dating this lawyer guy and
What does it mean for the time to become right for someone? What is wrong
with the present time? How is that woman going to know when the time is
right for Edward? :-)
>he was so nice, and fun to be with, etc. ad naseum BUT as much as I
>tried I just couldn't work up any feelings for him physically. I wanted
>to but there was nothing there. And he, poor man, complained to me several
That can happen to anybody. You just can't take two nice people with common
interests and guarantee that they will start feeling romantically for each
other although in societies where there are arranged marriages, the
environment is such that mutual trust, understanding, respect and in many
cases love grows after they are married.
The point is you dated him enough to learn about his nice qualities. Some
women may not even have given him a chance because they didn't feel anything
when they first met him.
Edward V. Wright
>Actually, from where I stand, it's soc.singles. I don't subscribe to
>alt.romance.
Guess that will teach me to read message headers thoroughly. I didn't
even realize discussion was cross-posted.
>You have *got* to be kidding!! What planet are you from?
Same planet as you are. Different century, maybe. ;-(
>Hey, I know
>all about idealism and true love and all that. But the reality of it is
>that nobody is going to fall in love with someone that doesn't turn them
>on physically.
You may be right. But those of us who nobody thinks attractive find that
difficult to accept. I certainly don't believe it has to be like that.
Have you seen Walt Disney's "Beauty and the Beast?" Or last year's "Cyrano?"
The fact that there are still people who can make and enjoy movies like that
gives me some bit of hope.
>Because it's an indication. If I can't stand to look at a guy, how am
>I ever going to be able to find out his finer qualities, for example? :-)
That's exactly my point. If you judge a man's "dateability" based on
his physical appearance, you won't.
And then you contradict yourself...
>But I *have* I tell you! Sexual chemistry has nothing to do with
>physical beauty.
leaving me totally confused.
>Ed, when the time's right for you some woman is going to find you
>*absolutely* irresistable!
Not if she refuses to have anything to do with me because I don't
conform to her ideal of physical beauty. When will this "right
time" be? Obviously, not by the time I'm 32 years old. Maybe
when I'm 42? or 82?
Edward V. Wright
>Leaving aside the question of physical attraction for a sec, it seems
>you feel sparks and chemistry for women who you find intellectually
>stimulating.
If you think that you obviously missed the definitions of "chemistry"
and "spark" that Angelwing provided for us.
>Are there grounds under which you won't ask someone out?
>If so, you are practicing the same "screening" you complain about
>above. The only difference is you are "screening" based on
>intellectual qualities instead of physical ones.
I have never denied that. But the things I am looking for take quite
a bit longer to discover. I won't turn anyone down unless I see a good
reason why I should not date her; this is a far cry from turning someone
down because you do not (yet) see any good reason why you should date her.
If you reject someone after (or before) the first date, you have only
the most superficial knowledge of the person to go on. Now, sometimes,
rejecting a person for such superficial reasons is necessary and justifiable.
(i.e., "I'm very sorry, Patricia, but since your religion says you must
always wear the rotting carcasses of six dead skunks hanging from your
belt at all times and I'm allergic to dead skunks....) But someone who
*regularly* rejects people for superficial reasons is leading a superficial
lifestyle. And I think that, despite your protests, you do realize what's
wrong with that: why else would you consider words like "shallow" and
"superficial" to be insulting?"
>Good question. Possibly, she (or anyone else) could, given enough
>time with the person. Unfortunately, there isn't enough time to find
>out all the wonderful things about a person.
There's as much time as a person chooses to make.
>Also, in my limited experience, I've found that I could not sustain a
>relationship with someone who *I* did not find attractive (despite how
>attractive they might have been to others). I've felt badly about
>this, partially because I know what it feels like to be rejected for
>not being attractive enough,
Now, assume that *every* woman you met rejected you that way: imagine
those feelings magnified a hundred times over. Would you still feel that
this was right? Or do you now feel it is right only because you are lucky
enough to have been born physically attractive?
Teri Miller
> I once went out with a woman who told me after the first date that she
> had had a great time and I was "a wonderful guy" and "some woman would
> be really lucky to have me," but she didn't want to go out again
> because she "didn't feel any spark." I find people like this really
> frustrating because they put the burden of proof on you -- it isn't
> enough that there's no reason not to date you again, you must find a
> reason why they should -- but they won't tell you precisely what
> they're looking for, hiding behind vague terms like "spark" and
> "chemistry" instead, and then impose a stringent limit on the time you
> have figure it out.
Ed, while I'm somewhat sympathetic to your predicament, look at it the
other way around: if you had gone on a date with someone that didn't
really have any obnoxious habits or anything, but you realized that you
wouldn't be happy with them in any way, would you continue to date them
until you could give concrete reasons?
I wouldn't.
I got myself thoroughly roasted the last time I posted on this subject,
but that's really the bottom line. Once I realize that I have no desire
to date someone further, I don't date them further, whether or not I have
met some sort of "time invested" limit of theirs. Sometimes I cannot
begin to describe why I'm not interested. These things are incredibly
difficult to quantify, even under the best of circumstances.
Further, I don't feel that I owe someone an explanation for my lack of
interest. As long as I treat them with reasonable politeness and
respect, I really don't owe them an explanation and/or defense for my
choice. Frankly, many times I've tried to explain, only to have the
person in question argue with me. I have no desire to have someone
argue me into continuing to date them. What's the point?
The part I usually get a lot of grief for is when I point out that there
are so many great guys out there that spending a lot of time dating one
that I don't think things are going to work out with is futile. I have
spent a lot of time at net.parties trying to talk with several men at
once, and very interesting men at that. Why go out again with someone
that just doesn't "turn me on" when I could be spending that same evening
with someone that does? Just for the record, I am married now, but I
am married to someone who didn't have to argue me into being interested.
There was just a "spark" there that grew into something wonderful.
Had I spent a lot of time continuing to date some of the men with whom
I just didn't hit it off, I might never have gotten the chance to spend
time with him, and would have missed the chance of a lifetime.
As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with the ones that just
didn't "turn me on". That's actually a large part of the problem:
if there is nothing wrong with the person, what do I tell them? I can't
point to a particular flaw or difference of opinion in many cases.
But I'm still not interested.
Anita Hsiung
>In <1992Jan9.0...@eddie.mit.edu> ma...@eddie.mit.edu (Anita Hsiung) writes:
>
>>First of all, by definition, first dates are when you are
>>excited, interested in getting to know the other person, your hormones
>>are working overtime, your adrenalin is pumping. It's almost, but not
>>quite, like opening night of your show, but that's another matter.
>
>It most certainly is not like the opening night of a show! I know --
>I'm directing my first Shakespearean play Saturday night, and I just found
>it this week we're expected to do two shows that night instead of one, and
>I'm hoping no more actors get sick between now and then, and I hope all the
>props show up on time....
Break a leg!! That's so exciting! Don't worry. Half the cast ALWAYS
gets a cold before opening and dress rehearsal and tech week always
ends up with lots of Vick's and Nyquil's, but people ALWAYS pull
through. I'm so excited for you. I remember when one of my spot
operators told me he LOST POWER 30 seconds before the tragic scene
when the lovers say farewell in "Brigadoon". Not a moment I want to
relive again!
-- Anita --
Anita Hsiung
>In article ma...@eddie.mit.edu (Anita Hsiung) writes:
>>
>>Anyway, first dates, I "test" my date on body language (I love reading
>>on that stuff and trying things out on people),
>>
> As far as body language goes... are you looking for an "OUCH"
> or a "AHH" when you pinch him? *smile*
Actually, to tell the truth, SHOULDERS. Y'know, when you're walking
along and you're not at the hand-holding stage, you kind of bump
shoulders and see how he reacts. Or if you're sitting down together
at a comedy club or a movie, again, you touch shoulders. There's a
whole world of language with them body parts! You can do a touch-n-go
with the shoulder, a longer caress, a friendly contact when he's
explaining a joke that went over your head, almost snuggling into his
shoulder when you lean over to ask him a question...
-- Anita --
Todd R. Eigenschink
|> > |> Its #2 that makes me cautious. I can't ever remember making
|> > |> someone swoon. I'm not sure I could make someone swoon. I just don't
|> > |> think I have that raw animal magnetism that (ahem) body chemistry,
|> > |> that body shape. I've been likened to a teddy bear. How many times
|> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> > |> have you ladies swooned over your teddy bear?
|> > |> So what are we to do. No spark, no swoon, no oportunity to make
|> > |> them breakfast...
|> > |>
|> > |>
|> > colleague that I was like a big Teddy Bear, et al. She meant well ...)
|> >
|>
|> and she also meant well. Unfortunately, for some reason, women don't seem to
|> want to date teddy bears. Must be holding on to something from their
|> childhood, I guess. :-)
|> Anyway, I hope this doesn't mean that us teddy bears are doomed to a life of
|> solitude.
Heh heh. Teddy bears unite, indeed! I've had the same thing happen to
me, as well. Three times. (After the first, you pick up and move on. After
the second, you start to wonder. After the third, you're paranoid. [Note that
just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you! :) ])
So, all you women teddy bear-dislikers...just what is it about us? The only
theory I've every had/heard was that some women just like to have to work
for something, and the teddy-bear types are too "easy" (Ahem).
'Course, at the moment, it doesn't help things that I'm going to an all-guys'
school...
If there are any women out there that really _do_ like teddy bears, somebody
puh-leeeze email me and let me know what it is you like. I'll post anything
I get that's interesting enough.
Todd
/* A class. A computer. A book. He says, "What the heck. Let's
* write a compiler." "Yay!" the class replies. "For Ada," he continues.
* Bend over...here it comes....gonna rip you a new one...
*
*/
Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
>difficult to accept. I certainly don't believe it has to be like that.
>Have you seen Walt Disney's "Beauty and the Beast?" Or last year's "Cyrano?"
>The fact that there are still people who can make and enjoy movies like that
>gives me some bit of hope.
Unfortunately even Hollywood has these things pretty one-sided.
Those are both movies about women falling in love with the wonderful
nice guy underneath the exterior, which is great and romantic and
I loved the movies.
But I have yet to see a movie about the reverse, where the man falls
in love with the physically unattractive woman. Usually the women
ends up *becoming* physically attractive (she gets the braces off
her teeth and loses the glasses, for example). I'd like to see someone
find out that Medeusa is really a sweetie deep down ...
However, Ed, I believe you *can* get a head start on appealing
to MOTOS with your personality on the net. There's no better chance
if you feel your physical exterior weeds out people you might
otherwise be able to charm. Of course, once you meet in person,
you're on your own. Don't feel too discouraged: I've considered
sending a stunt double to meetings like that myself. ;-)
Cheers,
Pooh
po...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Jeff Forbes
>But I have yet to see a movie about the reverse, where the man falls
>in love with the physically unattractive woman. Usually the women
>ends up *becoming* physically attractive (she gets the braces off
>her teeth and loses the glasses, for example). I'd like to see someone
>find out that Medeusa is really a sweetie deep down ...
I think you would be taking too much for granite.
Jeff Forbes
"....I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Edison
Robert Ashcroft
>in love with the physically unattractive woman. Usually the women
>ends up *becoming* physically attractive (she gets the braces off
>her teeth and loses the glasses, for example). I'd like to see someone
>find out that Medeusa is really a sweetie deep down ...
>
River Phoenix (I think) as a marine who attends a dance where you have
to take the ugliest woman you can find. He ends up falling for her.
Can someone fill in the details?
RNA