Poll...
Jade
How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
Jade...just wondering what people think about this one...
Alexandria
It never is as long as you think it should be in reltion to other times a
break-up happens.
I dated, lived with my bf for two years, loved him and adored him for
1-1/2 years. Then he really started annoying the &#*$^ out of me. When
we broke up, it was like a weight oof of my shoulders.
My best friend stopped talking to me because he wanted to start dating me.
We couldn't rationally talk to each other for over 4 years. (We still
aren't anywhere near as close as we used to be).
Does anyone ever make it through this? I mean when 1/2 of a
best-friendship wants to "go to the next level" is it possible to stay
really good friends? I don't think I've ever seen that happen.
Another really close friend, she slept with an ex of mine (my soul-buddy).
OUCH!!!! I really don't care if I ever get over it.
I think it all depends on who endangered/ cut-off the relationship, how
you felt at the time, if your friends still associate with the person,...I
think you're starting to see me point. (as pointless as I may seem for
time to time.)
Shazzam,
-L.
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Jade wrote:
^How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
^platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
________________________________
The Oracle.
SiGiL Occido Bautista
Jade (s2an...@titan.vcu.edu) wrote:
> How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
3 days. No more no less.
Seriously, there can never be a time limit. It just happens. The more you
love someone, the longer it takes. For one, it took me 2 years to get
over her, for others a few weeks, months, etc..
<mushy story>
There's one currently whom I never really got over, if getting over means
losing the feeling. It is more like I've accepted how our realtionship
can only exist. I truly adore her, but I realize I do not need to be in
the center of the sun to feel her warmth and I would surely rather feel
some of her sunlight than have her leave me cold, b/c I wanted much more
than she could give.
</mushy story>
jv
S. N. Wetherbee
>How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
>platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
>
>Jade...just wondering what people think about this one...
The general formula is two months (of recovery) per year of the
relationship.
I have also discovered that it takes about 8-9 months to work through
the denial of the especially complex, painful break-ups.
web
refusing to go into detail
Yosa
Jade <s2an...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
>platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
>Jade...just wondering what people think about this one...
I have heard that it is like two months out of every year or something
like that, but I disagree.
I think it is more like one month for every two months, for the
shorter term. I have not been in a long term as in years plural
thing... But I can tell you that it has taken me six months to get
over a six month relationship. At the same time it has taken me very
little in other relationships becasue it had died before it was
officially over, and just taken longer to finally give up.
Heartbreak hurts, long term, and theres no happy way to explain that
away.
Yosa, not generally the morose.
"Dance me to your beauty with a burning violin,
Dance me through the panic, till I'm gathered safely in,
Touch me with your naked hand, touch me with your glove,
Dance me till the end of love." --L. Cohen.
oddlystrange
In article <Pine.A32.3.95.971205...@titan.vcu.edu>, Jade
<s2an...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
>platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
depends on the emotional investment you made. "getting over it" tends to
be directly proportional to how much you have invested in the relationship
at the time the relationship ends.
For example, it can take a matter of minutes to get over a romantic
relationship that ended after a week, or a romantic relationship of
convienence. Likewise it can take years to get over a platonic friendship
that you hold dear when this person betrays your trust.
IOW, there is no set amount of time...
oddlystrange
(who's longest one was a year, shortest, none at all)
--
oddlystrange*perkygoff fairy godmother*pe...@obscure.org
perkygoff east coast branch office now located at:
http://www.obscure.org/~perky
-<Microsoft&VHS: proof that Americans revel in mediocrity>-
DrellaK
>Does anyone ever make it through this? I mean when 1/2 of a
>best-friendship wants to "go to the next level" is it possible to stay
>really good friends? I don't think I've ever seen that happen.
Actually, I've been there twice. Both were good friends and I'm still
incredibly close to both pf them. The two went about it in totally different
ways though. One was very direct and tried pursuing it quite persistantly.
The other simply told me one day that he'd always felt that way twoard me but
had been afraid of admiting it. With the first, I simply suggested we take
some time apart. We did and he still says he feels the same but I've made it
clear that I value his friendship way too much to ever cross the line. (Plus
kising him felt like kissing my brother..gross!) The other one knew already
that I didn't feel the same and never brought it up again. I am still very
close to both though.
Drella "Dudes Dig Me" Kozlawski
Dre...@aol.com
http://members.tripod.com/~Drella_K
Doc G*thzo
jver...@indiana.edu (SiGiL Occido Bautista) wrote:
> Jade (s2an...@titan.vcu.edu) wrote:
> > How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
> > platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
>
> 3 days. No more no less.
Indeed. A relationship I had this spring ended, and I started another one
exactly three days later. Eventually she left ... and _she_ was in
another one after ... you guessed it ... exactly three days!
It varies with me. I've been over some before they ended. Usually it
takes me about three days for the mood derangements to even out. But
there's one who I couldn't say I'm completely over, and _I_ left _her_ six
years ago, and we haven't spoken for four. I've also found that the
length of the relationship is quite independent of the bitterness level
afterwards. Has much more to do with what sort of thing it was, why and
how it ended (or didn't start), and how soon I find another.
--
+ Kevin J. Bonham (Doc G*thzo) + GothCode 3.1A GoPh6Bi7$Au5$ TJtYzz9 PScPr!
B6/11Bk"1 cBk(Br)-w7 V6S M2 ZGo!!FopExtIpMez C5 a25- n4DF b53 H186 g8!0892A
m@Z4? w7T v3Mh r2ebIs p74855Zz D56*! h6(PSaL) sN9N *SsYy k4TmW N1096EWN RfsS
LauTas8 --- The trouble with cute is if you sit on it, it breaks. ---
Mr.Eff
SiGiL Occido Bautista wrote:
> There's one currently whom I never really got over, if getting over means
> losing the feeling. It is more like I've accepted how our realtionship
> can only exist. I truly adore her, but I realize I do not need to be in
> the center of the sun to feel her warmth and I would surely rather feel
> some of her sunlight than have her leave me cold, b/c I wanted much more
> than she could give.
Know the feeling. I only wish she had left me some light...The last girl
I was with(prior to my current, who is just peachy) was my best friend
ever. We had ludicrous amounts ov things in common, and even though the
sex was awful (we were both submissives by nature..) we were very in
love with each other. Then she decided she had to move away and be on
her own. Being a true Thelemite, I said "fine" and told her I hoped we
could stay friends, cos I didn't want to lose that. She said great, then
stopped returning my calls/keeping dates..Last time I saw her I asked
her what she had been up to and she said "I don't have to tell
YOU."..That sucked. Shortly after that she got married out ov the blue
and ran off to Seattle. Oh well..I still love that girl, and
unfortunately for me, I always will.....Just wish we could've stayed
friends..
-Mr.Eff, going to go mope for a while..
<e...@mer-ka-ba.com>
Uriel
3 months plus the leangth of the relationship. No particular examples,
just that whenever I break up with someone, I still have some sort of
feeling towards them - be it hostile, longing etc. - until 3 months plus
the leangth of the relationship. That seems to be true for most of my
friends too.
Uriel
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Jade wrote:
> How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
> platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
>
virginia
> Jade wrote:
>
>How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
>platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
a friend of mine and i have a theory that it takes half the length of
the relationship to get over it, unless some sort of abuse was involved,
in which case it takes twice as long as the length of the relationship.
i ended a slightly- over-four-years relationship in 1990, and have just
recently been able to think of it without being almost incapacitated by
anger.
virginia
Scott
On Sat, 06 Dec 1997 06:16:38 GMT, yo...@cjnetworks.com (Yosa
) wrote:
>Jade <s2an...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>
>>How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
>>platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
>
>>Jade...just wondering what people think about this one...
>little in other relationships becasue it had died before it was
>officially over, and just taken longer to finally give up.
>
>Heartbreak hurts, long term, and theres no happy way to explain that
>away.
My experience is that the recovery time is in proporiton to
the emotional investment. Never is a good answer. The pain
just decreases with time. At around thirty years it becomes
bearable and can be thought about.
On good days.
-=WOF=-
--
Please remove NO SPAM (If its there, of course) to reply.....
Xian Lucifuge
Jade wrote:
> How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
> platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
i guess that depends on how long it takes you to either attain closure
or at least come to accept that there is no closure to be had. i don't
think any hard and fast rule should apply to how long it takes, but if
it gets to a point where it's interfering with getting on with your
life, no matter how long it's been.
personally, i find it depends more on the degree to which you let that
person into your heart more than the length of the relationship. on one
hand, i've had short relationships that left unresolved feelings for
years. on the other, there was the girl i was with for nearly 5 years.
by the time i got myself out of that nightmare of a relationship, i was
thankful it was over with and never looked back. mind you, during those
5 years, there were more break-ups and get-togethers than you could
shake a stick at, so in all reality, maybe it was just a short
relationship with a 5 year long dysfunctional break-up, heheh.
xian
Individuation
> How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
> platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
>
depends on the situation.
I had a one week relationship last year, that was very intense, and ended
in him cheating on me. Due to his friendship with my roomie...he lived
with us for 3 more weeks bringing home 15-17 year old girls the whole
time). Normally I would have gotten over this in about two days (well
msot of it)..but because of his sticking around...and then threatening to
kill me when I finally kicked him out for good....it took about a year.
The relationship I'm in now...will never end *fingers crossed*...if it
did...I know I would completely wrecked for a very long time.
Eileen (doesn't want to think about it)
-----
"There are no happy endings...because nothing ever ends"-Schmendrick
the Magician _The Last Unicorn_
orz...@students.uiuc.edu //www.students.uiuc.edu/~orzoff
ren
It would be nice to have both a platonic and a romantic relationship with the
same persons. Please tell me if that is possible and how is that possible.
zoe
ren wrote:
>
> It would be nice to have both a platonic and a romantic relationship with the
> same persons. Please tell me if that is possible and how is that >possible.
That's how all my relationships have been (all 2 of 'em!). We were
friends and just moved up a step. We weren't madly in love but it was
still good. Eventually we went back to just friends in one case (and
he's still asking me for help in all his relationships) and the other
moved away.
I wouldn't have it any other way, at least not now. Being with someone
you know and mutually care for each other...there's no awkward moments,
no horrible surprises like realizing that lab in the garage is not part
of their chemistry class and you both understand exactly where you
stand.
Zoe - damn, this is hard to explain
ren
You are a submissive Thelemite? *oh my brain.*
Xian Lucifuge
ren wrote:
> It would be nice to have both a platonic and a romantic relationship
> with the
> same persons. Please tell me if that is possible and how is that
> possible.
simple, fall madly in love, but refrain from physical intimacy. i can
actually imagine many situations where this might occur, such as the
very beginning of my relationship with my wife. i fell for her madly,
but had no choice regarding intimacy as she was 9000 miles away. we met
in irc. since then, she's been here to new orleans, we married, she
stayed for almost a year, then had to return to new zealand on personal
business. now it won't be until june of 98 before she can return, so
we're plunged back into a platonic relationship. i'm not quite sure if
that counts tho, as we don't *choose* to have a platonic relationship
specifically...it's more a by-product, if you will.
however, i imagine the same scenario might exist with a twist
elsewhere. for instance, two professionals who fall for each other
either over distance, such as via the internet, or perhaps meet in
person at a convention, yet though madly in love neither feels the
desire to sacrifice their careers where they currently live.
on a more morbid angle, perhaps a couple could be together, and be in
love, but have good reason for not having intimacy... such as AIDS
(perhaps there's a paranoia about "safe sex" not being safe enuf) or
dysmenorrhea.
or maybe a priest refuses to give up his vows of celibacy but falls in
love with a parishioner
honestly though, i can't imagine why someone would choose not to have
physical intimacy with someone they have romantic feelings for,
especially if it's mutual, unless there are something tragic
circumstances involved
xian
Uriel
> ren wrote:
>
> > It would be nice to have both a platonic and a romantic relationship
> with the
> same persons. Please tell me if that is possible and how is that
>possible.
My best friend and I are lovers, and it is still a platonic relationship,
at least the way *I* look at it. We Share a unique friendship where we
are completly open with each other and feel with each other. I'm speaking
emotions here. Yet, it is not in a romantic sort of way. The romance
comes when we express our friendship in a physical way. Sort of
paradoxical, I know. And it's not for everyone. It just works out really
nicely for us. It was like the perfect extension of our friendship. It
allowed us to take it to a level where most people haven't been and that
has only made our friendship stronger.
Uriel
David Gerard
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 19:44:49 -0500,
Jade <s2an...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
:How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
:platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
Somewhere between an hour and a lifetime. Depending.
(no examples ;-)
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/ http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
Boycott amazon.com until they stop sending junk email.
"Study hard and do your homework/That's the way to fill your phonebook" - NW
David Gerard
On 6 Dec 1997 01:32:31 GMT,
S. N. Wetherbee <revd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:>How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
:>platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
:>Jade...just wondering what people think about this one...
:The general formula is two months (of recovery) per year of the
:relationship.
I wish.
:I have also discovered that it takes about 8-9 months to work through
:the denial of the especially complex, painful break-ups.
Mmmmm.
David Gerard
On 6 Dec 1997 16:11:27 GMT,
Doc G*thzo <k_bo...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
: I've also found that the
:length of the relationship is quite independent of the bitterness level
:afterwards. Has much more to do with what sort of thing it was, why and
:how it ended (or didn't start), and how soon I find another.
None of those factors either.
jf...@students.uiuc.edu
ren <r...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> It would be nice to have both a platonic and a romantic relationship with the
> same persons. Please tell me if that is possible and how is that possible.
i don't know. i didn't think other people had those same thoughts.
if i weren't het and taken...
Doc G*thzo
> It would be nice to have both a platonic and a romantic relationship with the
> same persons. Please tell me if that is possible and how is that possible.
No it wouldn't be nice. Avoid it like the plague. If you're talking about
a non-physical love affair that is. The distance-seperated ones don't
work because you don't get to know the full person anyway. The ones where
only one person finds the other attractive don't work because of
frustration. The ones where neither person finds the other attractive
(this includes the Carrington/Strachey variety where you fall in love with
someone of the wrong sexuality) don't work because sexual affairs with
other people keep getting in the way.
And then there's the ultimate. You both find each other attractive but
you think your friendship is too special to risk the sex thing. These are
the worst of all. It's amazing how much denial, emotional damage and
tension bottles itself up in these situations, waiting to explode all over
the place at some unsuitable time. Been there, done that, nearly fatal to
all concerned.
If I catch myself falling in love or anything like it with anyone who is
remotely single, the first thing I will do is try to seduce them. And if
it doesn't work or it doesn't last, I often get the most beautiful,
honest, open world-weary friendships afterwards.
This instalment of
alt.gothic.cynicism.bedsitter-angst.too-much-leonard-cohen was brought to
you by the magic drug Endorphin ... the true culprit.
Endymion
> ren wrote:
>
> > It would be nice to have both a platonic and a romantic relationship
> > with the
> > same persons. Please tell me if that is possible and how is that
> > possible.
One big step towards this goal: try to direct your amorous feelings towards
people you already know you can be great friends with, instead of falling
for some utterly gorgeous stranger and hoping maybe they'll be compatible.
Beautiful faces are a dime a dozen, while close friends are rare for
everyone. Obvious as this is, it amazes me that so many of my friends and
acquaintances haven't learned it yet.
And note that "friends first" does not mean meeting a pretty face in a bar
and going home with him/her but then trying to put off some level of
physical intimacy. Any relationship that starts out based purely on lust
has a limited basis and low chance of success, no matter how much you try
and push it to a different level.
Xian Lucifuge <xia...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> simple, fall madly in love, but refrain from physical intimacy.
Again, I think refraining from intimacy is a symptom of a platonic
relationship, not a cause, and you can't turn a fling into a real
friendship by putting clothes on. The friendship, or at least the basis for
it, has to be there first, or all you'll have is a fling minus the fun.
(Not that this sounds like the case in the example you gave... but I think
the distinction needs to be made clear.)
> on a more morbid angle, perhaps a couple could be together, and be in
> love, but have good reason for not having intimacy... such as AIDS
> (perhaps there's a paranoia about "safe sex" not being safe enuf)
It's not. This is one of my biggest pet peeves regarding the media. "Safe
sex" is a very bad misnomer. "Very slightly less dangerous sex" is much
more accurate, or maybe "Russian roulette with one bullet instead of two."
People should be very clear on this: condoms are better than nothing at
all, but only barely so. Statistically you are better off sleeping with 5
or 10 or possibly even 20 randomly selected partners (leaving out
prostitutes and people with obvious needle tracks anyway) with no
protection than with one partner known to be HIV + using a condom. But the
condom-happy PC media insist on spreading a stereotype of "safe sex" which
has probably caused as many HIV infections as any government policy
maligned by the same media.
--
Endymion
utuckbx@ SPAMTRAP michie.com
"Let us drink - who would not? - Since, through life's varied round,
In the goblet alone no deception is found."
Endymion
Off the subject, I know, but...
Just thought of the perfect analogy for the safe sex thing. Using a condom
while sleeping with someone you know, or have reason to suspect, is HIV +
is like wearing your seat belt while roaring down Main Street dead drunk at
150 m.p.h. It's better to wear a seat belt than not to wear one, but it
won't help but so much if you wreck going fast enough, so it's much better
still to wear a seat belt *and* drive carefully - assuming you decide, like
most people, it's worth the risk to drive in the first place. Then again
some people I know like to drive with no seat belt, or the headlights off,
or whatever, just for the thrill.
There is no safe sex, and there never has been (people who think AIDS is
unique are displaying absurd historical ignorance, as one only has to go
back 55 years to find an even more widepread and virulent potentially fatal
STD). Silence doesn't = death, sex = death. Sex = life too. The
combination is what makes it so thrilling. Welcome to goth.
SiGiL Occido Bautista
Uriel (lak...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> My best friend and I are lovers, and it is still a platonic relationship,
> at least the way *I* look at it. We Share a unique friendship where we
> are completly open with each other and feel with each other. I'm speaking
> emotions here. Yet, it is not in a romantic sort of way. The romance
> comes when we express our friendship in a physical way.
As my old nightcrew chief termed it "FTF" <friends that fuck>
Crude, but that's how he looked at it.
You can have these types of relationships, but it difficult to maintian,
due to the expectations of each other. I have been in them. They are very
fragile and you can lose a lifelong friend over them.
The way I look at it is that it is just a different type of friendship.
The sex is not necessary, but there are times when you just feel a little
closer to that person. No, not when both of you are drunk and horny.
Though this happens too.
These types of relationships are extremely fragile, b/c one person may
find their feelings for the other growing as a result of the romantic
encounters. There is also the risk of "taking it for granted". That the
sex is a sure thing. Often the person "cut off" views this as "You don't
like me anymore" or feels a sort of resentment towards that person for
saying "not anymore"
You really need to know yourself and your friend well if you are to
experiment with this. You also have to set certain guidleines for
yourself. That is, the sex can end at anytime and that it does not
necesarily mean your friendship has lessened.
jv
Individuation
jv wrote:
> As my old nightcrew chief termed it "FTF" <friends that fuck>
> Crude, but that's how he looked at it.
>
> You can have these types of relationships, but it difficult to maintian,
> due to the expectations of each other. I have been in them. They are very
> fragile and you can lose a lifelong friend over them.
Actually that's how me and my boyfriend began. We had been very close
friends, best friends, for two years...and then wound up in each others
arms one night...and in my bed. We were very pleased with our
relationship the way it was...good friends that enjoyed each other's
minds...and then bodies... But due to our closeness, I very very attached
to him, and the physical addition only made that more so. We had lived
apart for most of our friendship (he moved to alaska to live with his aunt
and uncle for a while...and before that was at school in indiana)...so
when I finally had him with me...and could hold him...I realized that I
didn't ever want to let him go.
It took kissing another man for me to realize how in love with ben I was.
It just felt wrong...
and happily...he felt the same way...
and now going into month number two...we're still happy sappy in love.
So...that's my story of friends that fuck moving into the realm of friends
in love.
Eileen
Ivan Roseland
Mr.Eff (e...@spamtrap.com) wrote:
: SiGiL Occido Bautista wrote:
Hmmm
Well I can only say one thing on the subject,
It is better to have loved and simply lost,
than to have loved and fucked up and have to know that from the
rest of ones god forsaken life.
Becouse that would suck.
q
Axel
Doc G*thzo wrote in message ...
>No it wouldn't be nice. Avoid it like the plague. If you're talking about
>a non-physical love affair that is. The distance-seperated ones don't
>work because you don't get to know the full person anyway
I have to disagree with you on this one. My wife & I met when I was spending
two weeks in Canada, & then went back to the U.K. We maintained &
strengthened our relationship over the following year, until I got my
immigration papers & having been living together for a year now.
Axel...
...Callisti
Hail Eris...
...All Hail Discordia
<axelmaya@SPAM_IS_NOT_NICEglobalserve.net>
(Due to the unreliability of my news feed please e-mail me a copy of any
reply you wish me to read/respond to)
ren
> And then there's the ultimate. You both find each other attractive but
> you think your friendship is too special to risk the sex thing. These are
> the worst of all. It's amazing how much denial, emotional damage and
> tension bottles itself up in these situations, waiting to explode all over
> the place at some unsuitable time. Been there, done that, nearly fatal to
> all concerned.
Jesus H. Christ.
ren
> One big step towards this goal: try to direct your amorous feelings towards
> people you already know you can be great friends with, instead of falling
> for some utterly gorgeous stranger and hoping maybe they'll be compatible.
> Beautiful faces are a dime a dozen, while close friends are rare for
> everyone. Obvious as this is, it amazes me that so many of my friends and
> acquaintances haven't learned it yet.
Basically you're telling me to fuck my friends. >:)
SiGiL Occido Bautista
Individuation (orz...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
<snip story *sob*>
> So...that's my story of friends that fuck moving into the realm of friends
> in love.
This is what I mean about expectations of each other. In your case the
expectations between you & Ben were similar <obviously>. In this case
there is a great chance at a great relationship. Even if the expectations
aren't quite so high <both just like fucking each other & don't want a
relationship> if they are still similar its good for everyone.
It's only when the expectations of one doesn't equal the expectations of
the other is when things can go bad. This is more-or-so what I meant.
It's when you are friends have sex and one wants more than the other or
one wants sex to continue and the other doesn't is when things can go
wrong.
In my relationships, I do need to befriend the woman of my interests
before anything physical happens. I just prefer it that way.
jv
David Gerard
On 8 Dec 1997 21:11:20 GMT,
SiGiL Occido Bautista <jver...@indiana.edu> wrote:
:Uriel (lak...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
:> My best friend and I are lovers, and it is still a platonic relationship,
:> at least the way *I* look at it. We Share a unique friendship where we
:> are completly open with each other and feel with each other. I'm speaking
:> emotions here. Yet, it is not in a romantic sort of way. The romance
:> comes when we express our friendship in a physical way.
:As my old nightcrew chief termed it "FTF" <friends that fuck>
:Crude, but that's how he looked at it.
"Fuckbuddy, fuckboddy/It's the right thing at the right time ..."
- Pansy Division
:You can have these types of relationships, but it difficult to maintian,
:due to the expectations of each other. I have been in them. They are very
:fragile and you can lose a lifelong friend over them.
:The way I look at it is that it is just a different type of friendship.
:The sex is not necessary, but there are times when you just feel a little
:closer to that person. No, not when both of you are drunk and horny.
:Though this happens too.
The hard part is knowing it for what it is and 'letting go' when it's
right to.
:These types of relationships are extremely fragile, b/c one person may
:find their feelings for the other growing as a result of the romantic
:encounters. There is also the risk of "taking it for granted". That the
:sex is a sure thing. Often the person "cut off" views this as "You don't
:like me anymore" or feels a sort of resentment towards that person for
:saying "not anymore"
Yes.
It does also help to be very clear on what the 'real thing' emotionally
is and isn't.
:You really need to know yourself and your friend well if you are to
:experiment with this. You also have to set certain guidleines for
:yourself. That is, the sex can end at anytime and that it does not
:necesarily mean your friendship has lessened.
You can *say* that, but the reality will be different.
It's like a pre-nuptial agreement: if it's necessary, the relationship
somewhat loses its point.
Summary: People Are A Problem :-)
David Gerard
On 8 Dec 1997 15:33:06 GMT,
Endymion <utu...@SPAMTRAPmichie.com> wrote:
:It's not. This is one of my biggest pet peeves regarding the media. "Safe
:sex" is a very bad misnomer. "Very slightly less dangerous sex" is much
:more accurate, or maybe "Russian roulette with one bullet instead of two."
:People should be very clear on this: condoms are better than nothing at
:all, but only barely so. Statistically you are better off sleeping with 5
:or 10 or possibly even 20 randomly selected partners (leaving out
:prostitutes and people with obvious needle tracks anyway) with no
:protection than with one partner known to be HIV + using a condom. But the
:condom-happy PC media insist on spreading a stereotype of "safe sex" which
:has probably caused as many HIV infections as any government policy
:maligned by the same media.
'Probably'?
You just KNOW that I'm gonna *demand* numbers to support such a statement.
Numbers, not handwaving.
And BTW, the most common sexually-transmitted condition remains pregnancy.
Which condoms strongly help against. Even when she 'knows' it'll be OK.
(Condom effectiveness rate. a few % of couples using condoms get a
pregnancy over the course of a year. Other good birth-control has a
similar failure rate; multiple methods and care will work very well.)
(This is just in case someone takes your paragraph to mean that condoms
aren't worth the bother :-)
zoe
Endymion wrote:
snip
> It's not. This is one of my biggest pet peeves regarding the media. "Safe
> sex" is a very bad misnomer. "Very slightly less dangerous sex" is much
> more accurate, or maybe "Russian roulette with one bullet instead of two."
> People should be very clear on this: condoms are better than nothing at
> all, but only barely so. Statistically you are better off sleeping with 5
> or 10 or possibly even 20 randomly selected partners (leaving out
> prostitutes and people with obvious needle tracks anyway) with no
> protection than with one partner known to be HIV + using a condom. But the
> condom-happy PC media insist on spreading a stereotype of "safe sex" which
> has probably caused as many HIV infections as any government policy
> maligned by the same media.
Scuse me? Just where are you getting this information from? Condoms can
be very effective against the spread of AIDS. I remember a study done
over couples where one partner was HIV+ and they continued having sex
using condoms. None of the negative partners were infected.
Zoe
Doc G*thzo
"Axel" <axelmaya@SPAM_is_not_very_NICEglobalserve.net> wrote:
> Doc G*thzo wrote in message ...
> >No it wouldn't be nice. Avoid it like the plague. If you're talking about
> >a non-physical love affair that is. The distance-seperated ones don't
> >work because you don't get to know the full person anyway
>
> I have to disagree with you on this one. My wife & I met when I was spending
> two weeks in Canada, & then went back to the U.K. We maintained &
> strengthened our relationship over the following year, until I got my
> immigration papers & having been living together for a year now.
If you get to meet them eventually and the non-physical stage is just at
the start, that's quite different. Those can work _very_ well.
Hemlock
So this David Gerard character tells us...
>
> "Fuckbuddy, fuckboddy/It's the right thing at the right time ..."
> - Pansy Division
I never thought I'd see Pansy Division quoted in alt.gothic... Wow :)
Hemlock, impressed.
From the ashes of liars
grow the flowers of hope...
hem...@deathsdoor.com
ICQ # 2629119 goth.code available if you ask really nicely.
Uriel
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Hemlock wrote:
> I never thought I'd see Pansy Division quoted in alt.gothic... Wow :)
>
Oh, but they are so *good* when your in that perky/homosexual sort of
mood.
Uriel
(who, surprisingly, consideres "vanilla" to be one of her more favourite
songs :)
JeanCroix
"Endymion" <utuckbx@ SPAMTRAP michie.com> writes:
>Just thought of the perfect analogy for the safe sex thing. Using a condom
>while sleeping with someone you know, or have reason to suspect, is HIV +
>is like wearing your seat belt while roaring down Main Street dead drunk at
>150 m.p.h. It's better to wear a seat belt than not to wear one, but it
>won't help but so much if you wreck going fast enough, so it's much better
>still to wear a seat belt *and* drive carefully - assuming you decide, like
>most people, it's worth the risk to drive in the first place. Then again
>some people I know like to drive with no seat belt, or the headlights off,
>or whatever, just for the thrill.
What exactly makes this the perfect analogy? Granted, your comparison
is very vivid and indeed frightening, but you provide no backing facts,
studies, nor statistics, nor even sources of these, to give it any
validity. Without the proof to back this up, your assertions come
off as scare tactics, not useful health information. If there is
evidence, post it. Otherwise, you are just relaying your personal
opinion.
-JeanCroix
--
"Oh my god! Nny killed Kenny! You bast--" ### Keine Mitleid Fur Die Mehrheit
gothcode 3.1A: GoEn7$ TInPM4 PShSaSl *B/34Bk!]2"2 cDbr-f2ML V8s M3p1gD
ZTeiGoPuo!! C9omec a25= n5 b74 H188 g6!??9?A m@S4# w6! v4R r3b p435Z5Zz
D67]~[! h6 sM10n SsYy k7Z! N0689PCNW RfsSp1 LusOH5
ante\pathy
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Individuation wrote:
> and happily...he felt the same way...
> and now going into month number two...we're still happy sappy in love.
>
> So...that's my story of friends that fuck moving into the realm of friends
> in love.
i would have to agree with eileen here. I get amazed over and
over agian when my male friends get teh "friends" bit from girls they're
interested in. It bothers me that a lot of women, especially (Boy am i
down on gender this week or what?), seem to not want to date friends.
No, really , they'd rather date some absolute stranger who is gonna turn
out to be an asshole and never really get to know or value them as people
instead of dating some great guy who knows and respects them....grrrr.
the bunny and i started that way--we used to eat breakfast together in
the shcool dining hall....and now......we're <hangs head> pretty wrapped
up in each other......> >
ante||pathy
today i stole the sun from the sky, the color from the heart of a
rose.......today i took food from the hand of a starving child........
Tanya Smith
> So...that's my story of friends that fuck moving into the realm of friends in love.
AWWH! That was so sweet!
Now, where's my hankerchief...
Tanya
...who cried till she sobbed at Jerry McGuire
Endymion
ren <r...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> Basically you're telling me to fuck my friends. >:)
Bingo!
Actually it's more make sure whoever you fuck is a friend. As opposed to
fucking someone who isn't your friend, which if nothing else makes for very
awkward conversations (or lack thereof) over breakfast.
(And please no one suggest that I am saying you have to fuck *all* your
friends, or if someone's your friend and wants to fuck you have to do it.)
Endymion
zoe <z...@azstarnet.com> wrote
> Scuse me? Just where are you getting this information from? Condoms can
> be very effective against the spread of AIDS. I remember a study done
> over couples where one partner was HIV+ and they continued having sex
> using condoms. None of the negative partners were infected.
*Bzzzzt* wrong answer.
Condoms are, again better than no protection at all, but that's not saying
a lot. Screening your partners is much more effective. Abstaining unless
you're in a trusting, monogamous relationship with someone who either is a
virgin or has been tested for HIV is better yet. I'm not telling anyone how
to live, and I am in no position to preach myself, but I am sick of media
lies and PC bullshit making people think they're being safe when they're
not.
So let me say it one more time. CONDOMS ARE NOT SAFE! If you are having
risky sex, using a condom makes it significantly less risky, but NOT safe.
So please, use condoms, but realize you are still being reckless and
putting your life in the hands of fate.
Now sitting at work I cannot pull up a source for this proposition. However
I have read a great deal about AIDS and other STD's, most of it, I'll
grant, from major media sources. I have never heard of a study saying that
having sex with someone in a high risk group, much less someone known to
carry HIV, is entirely safe if one uses a condom. Quite the opposite.
But since I cannot quote a source, I will reproduce below the thinking,
bolstered by what I've read, that leads me to my conclusion. If anyone can
point out flaws, incorrect assumptions, or incorrect facts, please feel
free to do so (just cc me as my newsreader sucks), as I admit this is a bit
speculative on my part.
For starters, compare AIDS prevention to birth control usage. Many people
have unprotected sex numerous times without causing pregnancy; that doesn't
mean it won't happen, just that plenty of people beat the odds. Condoms
range greatly in effectiveness depending on how they are used; at least 99%
*if* used properly *every* time, but more like 90-95% for an average
couple. Now keep in mind that latex is porous, and the HIV virus is not
only several thousand times smaller than the human sperm, it is well
smaller than the pores in the latex. So it seems obvious that the virus is
at least as likely, if not more so, to slip through as sperm cells. And
while spermicides such as Nonoxynol-9 can kill HIV, they are even more
effective at killing sperm (it's what they were designed for). So I would
be greatly surprised if condoms were significantly better at preventing HIV
transmission than pregnancy.
From the reading I've done on this subject no one is sure exactly how
effective condoms are at HIV prevention but estimates here also generally
range somewhere between 90% and 95%. So assume 92% for a moment. (Measured,
as I understand it, like pregnancy prevention, in that the 8% doesn't mean
8% chance every time you have sex, but 8% over a year, and I'm not even
sure that's how the statistics are measured for disease prevention, but
hey, let's be generous and say it is.)
Also assume that going unprotected is 20% effective, that is, an 80% chance
of infection over the course of repeated exposures for a year (again, I
have no real figure for this, but I have read that HIV is relatively
difficult to trasmit compared to other STD's, so 80% seems as high as is
likely).
So you have a risk 10 times higher for unprotected sex, right? But then
factor in the chance of having unprotected sex with an infected person,
versus the certainty in the other case. Assuming that approximately 1 in
100 college students (a reasonable sample group since many people here are
in college) carry HIV, that means the average student's risk, having
unprotected sex, is 1% times 80% or .8% of contracting HIV, sleeping with
one partner continuously for a year. Compare this to the 8% chance using
condoms with a known infected person, and you see that the risk is 10 times
higher. Ergo, the chance of transmission is in the same ballpark for having
sex with one infected person using a condom, or ten random people
unprotected.
And this ignore the fact that even a casual screening reduces one's chances
of having an infected partner significantly, given that well over 80% of
*new* HIV infections still occur within a very few high risk groups (the
predicted "breakout" of AIDS/HIV into the hetero population did occur, but
for the most part still limited to prostitutes, IV drug users, and a few of
their partners). So assuming you will be able to tell, not every time but
more often than not, if your potential partner is bisexual, a prostitute,
or a heroin addict, you can eliminate more than half the risk, making it
roughly as safe to have unprotected sex with 20 casually screened random
partners as to have "safe" sex with one person known to be infected.
Now I am *not* saying that one can screen partners by how "wholesome" they
look (I am assuming that one knows one's partners a bit before going to
bed, not always true I know...) or that such casual screening means one is
being safe or wouldn't benefit from the additional protection of a condom.
I am simply trying to make a rough statistical assessment of relative risk
of different sexual behaviors. It seems evident to me that the order of
increasing risk is as follows:
Total abstinence (no risk)
Unprotected sex only in a trustworthy monogamous relationship after
being tested 3 months or more into the period of monogamy (very safe)
Protected sex with a randomly chosen, but casually screened, partner (safe)
Protected sex with someone who is apparently in a high risk group (risky)
Unprotected sex with random, casually screened partner (about as risky)
Unprotected sex with someone in a high risk group (getting very dangerous)
Protected sex with someone known to be HIV+ (roughly dangerous)
Unprotected sex with someone known to be HIV+ (suicidal)
I am sure I will take a lot of flames for expressing such a heretical view,
but, as it *used* to be AIDS activists (but no longer is) who pointed out,
HIV recognizes no social distinctions among humans, and all the politically
correct, feel-good, inclusive, activist, progressive, condom-happy, warm
fuzzy logic in the world won't help anyone if they have sex with an
infected person with or without protection and the virus enters their body.
Ian Sturrock
In article <348B7959...@goodnet.com>, ren <r...@goodnet.com> writes
>You are a submissive Thelemite?
It's quite possible y'know. "The slaves shall serve" (_Liber AL_) after
all...
And if it's his *Will* to be a submissive, who are you to say nay?
--
Deadly Ernest
"I am a free prince, and I have as much authority to make war on the whole world
as he who has a hundred sail of ships at sea, and an army of 100,000 men in the
field, and thus my conscience tells me." (Capt. Bellamy. A Pirate. From Defoe)
*** You must see, and remove, the fnords, to reply ***
Doc G*thzo
"Endymion" <utuckbx@ SPAMTRAP michie.com> wrote:
> Actually it's more make sure whoever you fuck is a friend. As opposed to
> fucking someone who isn't your friend, which if nothing else makes for very
> awkward conversations (or lack thereof) over breakfast.
I'm not sure about that one. Ideally, I'd like to have a long sexual
relationship with someone I totally respected, but people I totally
respect are so incredibly scarce that's not a realistic prospect. I'm not
too impressed with what sometimes happens when you partially respect the
person you're with and have to every now and then humour their stupidities
- they catch on sooner or later and find someone else who, as my last ex
puts it, will listen to everything they have to say. I'm increasingly
getting interested sexually in people I have no respect for at all.
People who I couldn't care less if they left me. People whose feelings I
could shred at will (my close company tends to have this merciless,
corrosive effect on people) and not feel the slightest pity, or maybe even
enjoy it. Yeah, cold heartless twisted little Siouxsie clones. Gimme.
Plus a lot of women here seem to _like_ being screwed by men who despise
them. No, I don't understand it either.
Jen
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, ante\pathy wrote:
> i would have to agree with eileen here. I get amazed over and
> over agian when my male friends get teh "friends" bit from girls they're
> interested in. It bothers me that a lot of women, especially (Boy am i
> down on gender this week or what?), seem to not want to date friends.
*raises hand* That'd be like me! :) I have been guilty of that
friend line more often than not. BUT---I mean it. My dating record
is LOUSY. I tend to have evil breakups where I don't even talk to the
person afterwards. It sucks. I can't IMAGINE any of my friends wanting
to date me knowing my track record.
I truly value my friends. They're gonna be there LONG after the current
(or in reality of this time, lack thereof) boyfriend is gone. They mean
more to me in the long run.
I'm afraid of dating GOOD friends---why? Well, I've dated two good
friends---and those were two of the worst ending relationships. I
was cheated on and lied to. *sigh* Not only did I have the fun of
losing the person I loved (whee! 2 for 2 in the bad choice of who
to love) but I lost my best friend at the same time. Double whammy.
Now, I'm not going to date a total stranger either---and realistically,
I'm going to become really good friends with a person I date too. But
I'd rather not fuck with existing long term friendships on the chance
of it being right. If I haven't chased the guy by now, it's prolly not
going to happen.
> No, really , they'd rather date some absolute stranger who is gonna turn
> out to be an asshole and never really get to know or value them as people
> instead of dating some great guy who knows and respects them....grrrr.
Not in my case---just not willing to burn good friendships for a
frivolous relationship.
> the bunny and i started that way--we used to eat breakfast together in
> the shcool dining hall....and now......we're <hangs head> pretty wrapped
> up in each other......> >
Congrats! :) Hope it continues to be, well, sorta disgustingly sappy
for ya! ;)
jen---single, not for lack of want, but lack of time. *grin* work
work work-yes I AM dull right now! ;)
NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter
5,Subchapter II, p.227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent
to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount
of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
bruce h. nagel
On 9 Dec 1997 16:34:22 GMT, "Endymion" <utuckbx@ SPAMTRAP michie.com>
wrote:
{snip}
>Now keep in mind that latex is porous, and the HIV virus is not
>only several thousand times smaller than the human sperm, it is well
>smaller than the pores in the latex.
Yes, but iirc, the HIV virus is only transmitted within infected human
cells, not by itself, and so there would be no difference in
effectiveness on the basis of size. Though the rest of your reasoning
seems pretty sound.
losthalo
lost...@innocent.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@Z3w6Lv5Rr6Ep55555ZzD4
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NRfmSLusOH1Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome
zoe
> So let me say it one more time. CONDOMS ARE NOT SAFE! If you are snip
Nope. THey are SAFER.
snip> grant, from major media sources. I have never heard of a study
saying that
> having sex with someone in a high risk group, much less someone known to
> carry HIV, is entirely safe if one uses a condom. Quite the opposite.
Is that what I said? Of course it isn't safe. But you automatically get
HIV if you have protected sex with a positoid.
> well over 80% of
> *new* HIV infections still occur within a very few high risk groups (the
> predicted "breakout" of AIDS/HIV into the hetero population did occur, but
> for the most part still limited to prostitutes, IV drug users, and a few of
> their partners).
Bullshit. Hetero's are the largest rising group of infected people. THIS
sounds even more like propaganda than the rest of your post.
> Total abstinence (no risk)
> Unprotected sex only in a trustworthy monogamous relationship after
> being tested 3 months or more into the period of monogamy (very safe)
Bzzt. wrong again. HIV can take months or years to show up.
> I am sure I will take a lot of flames for expressing such a heretical view,
> but, as it *used* to be AIDS activists (but no longer is) who pointed out,
> HIV recognizes no social distinctions among humans,
That's true so why do you feel the need to point out bisexuals and
prostitutes and people who engage in sex without a long-term monogamous
relationship?
I gotta agree with David Gerard about you.
Zoe
David Gerard
On 9 Dec 1997 16:34:22 GMT,
:zoe <z...@azstarnet.com> wrote
:> Scuse me? Just where are you getting this information from? Condoms can
:> be very effective against the spread of AIDS. I remember a study done
:> over couples where one partner was HIV+ and they continued having sex
:> using condoms. None of the negative partners were infected.
:*Bzzzzt* wrong answer.
:Condoms are, again better than no protection at all, but that's not saying
:So let me say it one more time. CONDOMS ARE NOT SAFE! If you are having
:risky sex, using a condom makes it significantly less risky, but NOT safe.
:So please, use condoms, but realize you are still being reckless and
:putting your life in the hands of fate.
:Now sitting at work I cannot pull up a source for this proposition. However
:I have read a great deal about AIDS and other STD's, most of it, I'll
[hand waving snipped]
You are still spewing assertions without backup. 116 lines of unsupported
assertions are still unsupported. Hop to it, will you. Thank you.
ps: I think we're dealing with some variety of Christian propagandist
here. Check the 'Praying Students' thread.
:mean it won't happen, just that plenty of people beat the odds. Condoms
:range greatly in effectiveness depending on how they are used; at least 99%
:*if* used properly *every* time, but more like 90-95% for an average
:couple.
You're talking rubbish I'm afraid. The 99% means a 1% pregnancy rate for
couples using condoms for birth control over the course of a year. It does
not mean that if you have sex 100 times, then a condom will on average be
expected to fail once.
:I am sure I will take a lot of flames for
.... posting unsupported assertion on an important matter, then refusing
to support it when called out but instead spewing more tripe.
Edvamp
>Basically you're telling me to fuck my friends. >:)
>
Well, not all of them. (If you do, you're a luckier man than I). However I
do believe that a personal group of friends is a better place to find
prospective sexual partners than random strangers at a club.
Ever and Always
Edvamp
Sheila Marie
Individuation wrote:
>
> > How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
> > platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
> >
> > Jade...just wondering what people think about this one...
>
I had only one other "serious" relationship. It lasted about 7 months, I
grieved for about 2 weeks, lost about 20 pounds, then felt so good about
loosing the weight that I got me a new outfit, went out, and flirted
with every guy who let me. I have a sister that tends to have her next
husband lined up before the last one is out the door. I think the time
has something to do with how you are towards relationships. My mom got
very dependent on my dad, so when he died, she fell to pieces, so me and
my sis tend to not allow ourselves to rely on men for too much, so when
one leaves (weather by force or not), we kinda jump right back into our
lives. Myself, I took a "get to know me" break between relationships. I
wasn't sad, just took time to figure out a few things, then waited till
I met some one who met my criteria (I refuse to settle). Headstrong?
Hell yeah, but the guy who I waited for still wants to get married after
living together for 4 years :) Either I got a good one, or he is nuts,
and hides it well.
--
Sheila Marie
You need to add an i to my first name in order to reply directly to me.
http://www.lowlife.com
http://www.lowlife.com/sheila_marie
Axel
Doc G*thzo wrote in message ...
>"Axel" <axelmaya@SPAM_is_not_very_NICEglobalserve.net> wrote:
>
>> Doc G*thzo wrote in message ...
>> >No it wouldn't be nice. Avoid it like the plague. If you're talking
about
>> >a non-physical love affair that is...
>> I have to disagree with you on this one
>If you get to meet them eventually and the non-physical stage is just at
>the start, that's quite different. Those can work _very_ well.
I didn't realise that you were talking about completely non-physical 'love
affairs' - they sound like an incredibly bad idea.
Marco Anglesio
In article <Pine.A32.3.95.971205...@titan.vcu.edu>,
s2an...@titan.vcu.edu says...
> How long should it take to get over a relationship of any kind be it
> platonic or romantic?? Examples please if possible...
Well. I figure that half of the length of the relationship is a good rule
of thumb. It depends on the intensity though, and what you mean by
"getting over".
I still dream about my most recent ex, occasionally, when I dream (which,
truth be told, is not often - a few times a month, at most). It's been
eight months, and we dated for fourteen. On the other hand, I don't think
about her, I don't consider her - really, she's out of my life, totally,
and the only time I do resurrect my bitterness is when she shows up on
alt.gothic to troll the group about pornography and scream at me for
existing.
I suppose it's because we broke up on bad terms and all that (no, I will
not rehash the grotty details - let's just say that they are grotty).
Still, I've taken the good and left the bad and I'm only a tiny bit sad
about the whole thing - perhaps you could say that I'm over her.
m.
--
marco anglesio Scorpio (Oct 23 - Nov 22)
anglesio You are the worst of the lot. You are shrewd in business and
at democracy cannot be trusted. You shall achieve the pinnacle of success
dot queensu because of your total lack of ethics. You are the perfect
dot ca son-of-a-bitch. Most Scorpios are murdered.
http://cauchy.home.ml.org
Doc G*thzo
f...@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard) wrote:
> On 9 Dec 1997 16:34:22 GMT,
> Endymion <utu...@SPAMTRAPmichie.com> wrote:
[..]
> You are still spewing assertions without backup. 116 lines of unsupported
> assertions are still unsupported. Hop to it, will you. Thank you.
> ps: I think we're dealing with some variety of Christian propagandist
> here. Check the 'Praying Students' thread.
Endymion (Bruce) does occassionally post vaguely clued-in goth-ish
non-religious material. About 3% of his output recently, but still, it's
there. And his version of Xianity, such as it is, seems to be a
combination of different bits and pieces rather than a single clear
propaganda doctrine. Extreme but genuine, I suspect.
As for Thomas <ww...@pixie.za>, I have yet to see him post on any subject
other than Xianity and strongly suspect he's a troll. And a soft target
to boot.
Doc G*thzo
In article <MPG.ef7f7ab9...@news.zippo.com>,
angl...@democracyDOTqueensu.ca (Marco Anglesio) wrote:
> I still dream about my most recent ex, occasionally, when I dream (which,
> truth be told, is not often - a few times a month, at most). It's been
> eight months, and we dated for fourteen.
I still fantasise vividly about one of mine from six years ago. The fact
that she's now a married fundie with two kids and yet still quite
attractive, only seems to encourage me.
But I rarely if ever dream about an ex, even a very recent one. I always
dream about people who I am just starting to get involved with. These
dreams are almost invariably highly prophetic. And I, silly fool, ignore
them.
> On the other hand, I don't think
> about her, I don't consider her - really, she's out of my life, totally,
> and the only time I do resurrect my bitterness is when she shows up on
> alt.gothic to troll the group about pornography and scream at me for
> existing.
You have my sympathy. I am the only net.goth in this city, and there is
no risk of this problem. Far as I know, only a few dozen people at this
Uni even know how to use Usenet. Advice to Young Social Climbers #223:
Always go out with technophobes.
Marco Anglesio
In article <k_bonham-101...@lab511.tuu.utas.edu.au>,
k_bo...@postoffice.utas.edu.au says...
> In article <MPG.ef7f7ab9...@news.zippo.com>,
> angl...@democracyDOTqueensu.ca (Marco Anglesio) wrote:
> > On the other hand, I don't think
> > about her, I don't consider her - really, she's out of my life, totally,
> > and the only time I do resurrect my bitterness is when she shows up on
> > alt.gothic to troll the group about pornography and scream at me for
> > existing.
>
> You have my sympathy. I am the only net.goth in this city, and there is
> no risk of this problem. Far as I know, only a few dozen people at this
> Uni even know how to use Usenet. Advice to Young Social Climbers #223:
> Always go out with technophobes.
*cackle*
I've tried that. People around here just seem to _learn_ ... it's
horrible, but it happens (part of my job happens to be teaching them, so
I guess I have only myself to blame).
Then again - my most recent totally insane crush was on a statistics
lecturer (god, I hope she's not reading this, since I could barely talk
to her because of extreme tongue-tiedness during the term), and one could
hardly describe her as technophobic, since she was teaching a graduate
course on computational data analysis. Come to think of it, I find a
greater than passing familiarity with technology combined with literacy
incredibly attractive - it's that bright light of impending success that
draws so many moths.
Oh, and she was *way* cute, too. Honest.
m., moth.
--
marco anglesio anglesio at democracy dot queensu dot ca
http://cauchy.home.ml.org
loneliness has a faint but pervasive odour like that of eau de cologne,
while desperation has a definite reek, like that of those cheap vials of
stale liquid you can buy from washroom dispensers, labeled "Compare our
fragrance to Calvin Klein's Obsession!" -- Anthony Majanlahti
Endymion
zoe <z...@azstarnet.com> wrote
> > So let me say it one more time. CONDOMS ARE NOT SAFE!
>
> Nope. They are SAFER.
Isn't that what I was saying?
> Is that what I said? Of course it isn't safe. But you automatically get
> HIV if you have protected sex with a positoid.
I assume you mean "unprotected sex." That isn't true, though, HIV is
actually tougher to transmit than most other STD's, and from what I've read
statistically most sexually transmitted cases are from repeated exposure,
though that doesn't mean a single exposure is by any means risk-free.
> > well over 80% of
> > *new* HIV infections still occur within a very few high risk groups
(the
> > predicted "breakout" of AIDS/HIV into the hetero population did occur,
but
> > for the most part still limited to prostitutes, IV drug users, and a
few of
> > their partners).
>
> Bullshit. Hetero's are the largest rising group of infected people. THIS
> sounds even more like propaganda than the rest of your post.
"Propaganda" seems to be defined in this context as expressing any view
contrary to the PC canon. I am not claiming to reveal a sacred truth here;
I am simply questioning what I see as a propagandistic cult of
condom-fetishism. My point is simply that condoms are fine and useful
things but they are not some sort of magical 100% sure protection; using
condoms is simply one among many behaviors that can reduce, but not
eliminate, one's chance of exposure to HIV.
A quick lesson in statistics and the disinformation spread about AIDS. What
you are saying is true, and has been for almost 10 years: heteros are the
fastest growing group of HIV infected people, and lately also the fastest
growing group with AIDS (there's a lag of a few years for the symptoms to
show up). But that is entirely irrelevant to the question of their
percentage among total cases, which is what we are interested in. That
growth was from an initially tiny percentage of cases. So if heteros go
from 2% to 10%, they've had a 500% increase, which is by far the fastest
growth, but are still only 10% of the cases.
And the real way in which this statistic is skewed: when you read about
"cases among heterosexuals" it is likely that this does not refer to cases
of sexual transmission between heteros, it refers to cases among people who
also happen to be hetero. Meaning the 90% of drug addicts and prostitutes
who are hetero get lumped in too. The last figures I remember seeing for
this are from about 1993 or 94; transmissions by heterosexual sex other
than with a prostitute or IV drug user made up less than 2% of estimated
new infections (and even fewer old cases), transmissions by hetero sex with
someone in a high risk group were still under 10%. Of the people carrying
HIV in the US population today, the majority are still males who received
the virus through homosexual sex, followed in numbers by people who
received it through sharing needles, followed by prostitutes, followed by
people who received the virus through heterosexual sex with any of the
above. I include the last category among "hetero cases" of course, but I
point it out to show which behaviors lead to more infections.
And finally, when assessing risk, one has to look at not only absolute
numbers of cases, but percentage of the group infected. There are at most
between 10 and 15 million sexually active homosexual males in the US
population (assuming 10% of the population, which is a high end figure) of
whom well over a million and possibly 2 million, or somewhere in the
ballpark of 10-15%, carry HIV. Estimates of prostitutes and drug users are
much more difficult, but from what I've read the infection *rates* in these
groups (though not the absolute numbers) are much higher. Which leaves
something like 220 million of everyone else with maybe one half to one
million (and the latter is a *very* high estimate) of them infected, along
the order of .25% to .5%.
> > Total abstinence (no risk)
> > Unprotected sex only in a trustworthy monogamous relationship after
> > being tested 3 months or more into the period of monogamy (very
safe)
>
> Bzzt. wrong again. HIV can take months or years to show up.
AIDS takes years to show up. HIV can almost always be detected after 3
months. If you're really worried another test at 6 months might be useful
but after that the chances of it developing are infinitesmal. This info,
btw, came from the sister of a very close friend, a doctor at a major
hospital who was accidentally exposed and, understandably, looked into the
subject of testing and transmission very thoroughly.
> > I am sure I will take a lot of flames for expressing such a heretical
view,
> > but, as it *used* to be AIDS activists (but no longer is) who pointed
out,
> > HIV recognizes no social distinctions among humans,
>
> That's true so why do you feel the need to point out bisexuals and
> prostitutes and people who engage in sex without a long-term monogamous
> relationship?
Because these are behaviors that can significantly increase or decrease
your chances of exposure, just like condom use. (To be fair the "bisexual"
part is a simplification; it's not having a certain preference that is
risky but the behaviors one engages in based on that preference.) The
simple fact is that prostitutes, IV drug users, and men who engage in
homosexual sex with multiple partners are statistically much more likely
(on the order of dozens of times more likely for prostitutes) to carry the
virus than people who do not engage in any of these behaviors.
There is an enormous difference between the two attitudes I am discussing.
The error lies in thinking "I'm not a (fill in the blank) so I don't have
to worry about AIDS because that only happens to those people." This error
is *equally* *true* whether your (fill in the blank) refers to
homosexuality or unprotected sex. That does not mean, however, that it is
wrong to say "I can significantly reduce my chances of contracting the
virus by avoiding (blank)" where (blank) can be any number of behaviors,
including unprotected sex, sex with an active multi-partnered homosexual
or bisexual male, or sex with a needle-user.
> I gotta agree with David Gerard about you.
I will address that in another post.
Endymion
David Gerard wrote:
>You are still spewing assertions without backup. 116 lines of unsupported
>assertions are still unsupported. Hop to it, will you. Thank you.
Supported by what? I showed my thought process and stated why I felt my
conclusions to be, to some degree, founded in fact. This is a.g., not the
New England Journal of Medicine, and I'm not publishing a thesis; I spend
long enough on these posts and I'm not going to leave my job so I can spend
a day at the library looking up sources to quote specific statistics. My
information comes from wide reading in a variety of media, from newspapers
to newsmagazines to some of the more popular scientific and medical
journals. I never claimed to be an expert. Neither can any of the numerous
others on this newsgroup who preach the condom gospel.
My basic point doesn't involve specific numbers. You can tweak the numbers
a lot (meaning doubling or tripling risks or reducing them equivalently)
and move the relative order of risk factors around and still come up with
the same conclusion: using condoms is safer than not, but it is not
absolutely safe; and the protection rate over repeated exposures would have
to approach 100% (which no source I have ever seen says it does, and I feel
it's up to *you* to refute that by quoting me a source that does) to
compare to monogamy and careful screening of partners, and the protection
of condoms is somewhere in the ballpark of that of casual screening of
partners.
At the start of all this was an assertion that condoms are virtually 100%
effective at preventing transmission of HIV by a person known to carry it,
and that reluctance to engage in protected sex with such a person is
"paranoid". I find this notion absurd, foolish, and dangerous. The only
evidence I have seen to back it was zoe's statement that she remembered a
study from somewhere, but strangely, no one seems to have challenged that
statement as unsupported. Makes sense only if you realize that faith in
condoms and "safe sex" have been brought to the level of a religious belief
among the PC faithful.
At least I am using a reasoned approach, logical argument if only backed by
general statements. I haven't seen even this level of reason or backup
among my detractors' posts, just insulting and condescending language like
"propaganda", "spewing tripe", and "rubbish". I don't recall sinking to
that level in addressing anyone on this thread.
>ps: I think we're dealing with some variety of Christian propagandist
>here. Check the 'Praying Students' thread.
So you're saying my unrelated beliefs on another subject render anything I
say on this one dubious. Typical PC tactics: an ad hominem argument; next I
guess we'll see arguments from authority, deliberate obscurement and
sidetracking from the issue.
And try to actually read my posts on that topic before bringing them up. As
here, I have not been preaching a particular point of view to anyone. I
have never said anyone should be a Christian, or that I was one, or that my
beliefs or practices are superior to anyone's. I hardly think it's
propaganda to question the notion that Christians are morons or scum who
deserve to die, or that condoms are so safe that one can freely engage in
"protected" sex with someone who is HIV+ at no risk (which was the
assertion I responded to at the start of all this).
>:mean it won't happen, just that plenty of people beat the odds. Condoms
>:range greatly in effectiveness depending on how they are used; at least
99%
>:*if* used properly *every* time, but more like 90-95% for an average
>:couple.
>
>You're talking rubbish I'm afraid. The 99% means a 1% pregnancy rate for
>couples using condoms for birth control over the course of a year. It does
>not mean that if you have sex 100 times, then a condom will on average be
>expected to fail once.
Read my post again. That is exactly what I said. The "every time" means
that the 1% is only true if you have repeated intercourse over a year and
never use the condom incorrectly; the 90-95% means a year's use with the
ordinary person's occasional carelessness, drunkenness, clumsiness, etc. I
am assuming continued sex for a year in all my speculations regarding virus
transmission as well. Comparing effectiveness measured that way then allows
one to extrapolate back to a comparison of likely effectiveness for single
encounters, unless there is any reason to suspect that a method that is
more effective than a given alternative over a year is less effective than
the same alternative for single encounters.
>:I am sure I will take a lot of flames for
>
>.... posting unsupported assertion on an important matter, then refusing
>to support it when called out but instead spewing more tripe.
No, apparently I am now taking flames on unrelated subjects for defending
Christianity, which only shows I am correct: the criticism is directed more
at the idea that I might challenge the PC counterculture orthodoxy than at
any specific argument I make.
And the sad thing is I agree with pretty much agree with the gist of your
first response, which to say condoms *are* worth the bother, pregnancy is a
much more likely and even significant risk than AIDS for most heterosexual
couples, and my comparison of transmissions due to the myth of the
foolproof condom is strictly guesswork which I can't support - but then so
is the criticism leveled at government policies in the 80's.
Endymion
JeanCroix wrote:
>>Just thought of the perfect analogy for the safe sex thing. Using a
condom
>>while sleeping with someone you know, or have reason to suspect, is HIV +
>>is like wearing your seat belt while roaring down Main Street dead drunk
at
>>150 m.p.h.
(snipping the rest of the analogy)
>What exactly makes this the perfect analogy? Granted, your comparison
>is very vivid and indeed frightening, but you provide no backing facts,
>studies, nor statistics, nor even sources of these, to give it any
>validity.
It doesn't need any of these, beyond common knowledge on the subject (i.e.
the roughest idea of the % of the population infected and the % of one's
peer group) plus the fact that condoms are not 100% or even 99% effective.
It's a pretty simple principle. Using a protective device which greatly
reduces your risk is always helpful, but it doesn't mean that reckless
behavior becomes safe. Whether your device reduces the risk by 99% or 50%,
and whether the behavior you're engaging in is twice as risky or 100 times
as risky, you're still significantly worse off than if you used the
protective device *and* avoided the dangerous behavior.
>Without the proof to back this up, your assertions come
>off as scare tactics, not useful health information.
Umm, that would be as opposed to the statistically backed useful health
information provided by, say, red ribbons, or silence=death stickers, or
ads showing condoms being put on a banana?
We're talking about a field where the activists have been saying for years
that scare tactics, "awareness", and consciousness-raising are much more
important than factual information - an attitude that has led to a
systematic campaign of propaganda and disinformation.
A perfect example of this occurred during Joycelyn Elder's (sp?) tenure in
Arkansas. When informed that a large batch of condoms slated for the
state's giveaway program were defective, she had the information suppressed
and did not recall the defective condoms. Her rationale: the possible
damage to peoples' faith in condoms as a preventive measure outweighed the
risk of infection to those using the defective prophylactics. So there you
have it: faith in the PC secular religion is more important than actual
risk. (And this story, btw, is well-documented and was carried in major
papers across the country including the Post, Times, and Journal.)
As for myself, I prefer a pragmatic approach. I support needle exchange
programs, distribution of free condoms to all takers, and education
campaigns; however, I feel it is reckless and downright immoral for the
latter to misinform by insinuating that one can do whatever one wants and
have little or no risk as long as condoms are used, which seems to be the
general attitude on this newsgroup.
---
ren
> Well, not all of them. (If you do, you're a luckier man than I).
Come to think of it. There are a few friends I'd like to fuck. O.k. most of them.
:P
zoe
zoe accidentally wrote
> Is that what I said? Of course it isn't safe. But you automatically get
> HIV if you have protected sex with a positoid.
Typo. Insert DON'T before the automatically.
Zoe
Hemlock
So this Uriel character tells us...
What was that line about the goth boy in "Wish I'd Taken Pictures"?
I about died laughing when I heard it...
Hemlock
Groove-E
zoe wrote:
>
> > So let me say it one more time. CONDOMS ARE NOT SAFE! If you are snip
>
> Nope. THey are SAFER.
>
> saying that
> > having sex with someone in a high risk group, much less someone known to
> > carry HIV, is entirely safe if one uses a condom. Quite the opposite.
>
> HIV if you have protected sex with a positoid.
>
> > *new* HIV infections still occur within a very few high risk groups (the
> > predicted "breakout" of AIDS/HIV into the hetero population did occur, but
> > for the most part still limited to prostitutes, IV drug users, and a few of
> > their partners).
>
> sounds even more like propaganda than the rest of your post.
>
> > Unprotected sex only in a trustworthy monogamous relationship after
> > being tested 3 months or more into the period of monogamy (very safe)
>
>
> > but, as it *used* to be AIDS activists (but no longer is) who pointed out,
> > HIV recognizes no social distinctions among humans,
>
> prostitutes and people who engage in sex without a long-term monogamous
> relationship?
>
>
YAAAAAYYYYYYY ZOE!! ZOE! ZOE! ZOE! ZOE! *APPLAUSE*
Have you ever noticed that everyone who has ever had sex in any
way has died? Hmm? Think about it won't you? Thank you.
SEX=DEATH
...Groove-E (Hi Zoe)
Uriel
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Hemlock wrote:
> So this Uriel character tells us...
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Hemlock wrote:
> > >
> > > I never thought I'd see Pansy Division quoted in alt.gothic... Wow :)
> >
> > Oh, but they are so *good* when your in that perky/homosexual sort of
> > mood.
> >
> > Uriel
> > (who, surprisingly, consideres "vanilla" to be one of her more favourite
> > songs :)
>
> What was that line about the goth boy in "Wish I'd Taken Pictures"?
> I about died laughing when I heard it...
Ahh! I didn't hear one...I'm going to listen to it right now...
report back later...
Uriel
:)
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Endymion (utu...@SPAMTRAPmichie.com) wrote:
(Snip)
: latter to misinform by insinuating that one can do whatever one wants and
: have little or no risk as long as condoms are used, which seems to be the
: general attitude on this newsgroup.
You, sir, are a blind fool.
I need no proof of that; common knowledge backs me up.
--
Randomness is not hypocrisy, if done with honesty.
In chaos, all is possible.
Endymion
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> You, sir, are a blind fool.
> I need no proof of that; common knowledge backs me up.
*sigh* more juvenile personal attacks. It's called an ad hominem argument,
you can't think of anything to refute the ideas the other person presents,
so you result to petty insults and mudslinging. It reflects only on your
lack of intelligence, education, and originality.
And tell me in what sense do you feel I am blind? What argument, idea, or
fact has anyone presented which I have failed to consider or accept? So
far, as I expected, I have seen nothing but petty personal attacks and not
a whit of refutation. But this sort of groundless character assassination
is just what one expects when attacking the fragile edifice of PC
psychobabble; it is intellectually indefensible and falls apart at the
merest whiff of objective critique, so its defenders try desperately to
avoid reasoned discussion and instead sink to a pre-school level of
name-calling.
And are you saying that there is nothing that is established by common
knowledge, that *any* assertion made in the context of a casual newsgroup
discussion must be backed up by a citation?
Surely you don't expect me to cite a source for concepts such as the
following arcane and controversial assertions:
AIDS is caused by a virus, known as HIV, which is usually transmitted
sexually
or through shared hypodermic needles.
Some behaviors are statistically more likely to place one at risk for
transmission
of the AIDS virus than others
There is some finite chance that a condom, like any human agency, will fail
in its intended purpose.
Pray tell, which of these assertions are you challenging, and can *you*
quote me a source to back you up?
Then again, I could express myself in terms your dim and limited intellect
can comprehend and say that you, sir, are a useless fuckwit and can kiss my
fat hairy ass.
Alexandria
Anyone have a good way to get sloshy after a 12 hour work day? and on your
b-day to top it off? I have to do it within 3 hours and not be too sick in
the morn. (So I can deal with another day of year end accounting hell.)
muchos besos,
-Lexy.
________________________________
The Oracle.
Metamorph
Alexandria wrote:
> Anyone have a good way to get sloshy after a 12 hour work day? and on your
> b-day to top it off? I have to do it within 3 hours and not be too sick in
> the morn. (So I can deal with another day of year end accounting hell.)
A couple of Long-Island Ice Teas on an empty stomach should do the
trick!
Fast and Tasty!
Metamorph
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
zoe (z...@azstarnet.com) wrote:
: zoe accidentally wrote
: > Is that what I said? Of course it isn't safe. But you automatically get
: > HIV if you have protected sex with a positoid.
: Typo. Insert DON'T before the automatically.
Wish I'd read this sooner. I may have made comments based on a different
typo (*un*protected, instead of protected.)
Hemlock
Well?
I've had that damn thing going round in my head all day... And I don't
actually own a bit of it although I do have one of their pink and black
stickers on the cardboard box I keep tapes in...
Jen
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Groove-E wrote:
> zoe wrote:
> > Bzzt. wrong again. HIV can take months or years to show up.
Okay .. I'm gonna jump in here with a little knowledge. Just had a
week of lectures in my immunology class on HIV. HIV is the virus,
AIDS is the effect.
HIV shows up the blood as VIRUS for a short period after initial
infection, after that IT is hard to detect, but after I believe 6
months there are antibodies against the virus that can be detected.
AIDS is what happens when the virus has destroyed most of one type
of immune cell (CD4+ T helper cell) and then the immune system
CANNOT effectively respond to disease---and you end up dying.
Clinical AIDS can take 3-15 years to be diagnosed ... there's
an alleged latent stage in the infection where the virus cannot
be detected in the blood, but instead is in the lymph nodes
destroying your immune cells.
Somewhere else someone said that HIV can ONLY be transferred by
cells. This is wrong. It CAN be transferred by infected cells,
but the virus can also be transferred by body fluids -- like breast
milk or semen.
jen---your friendly local source of semi-useful info. ;)