When your wife loves to be at the center...!
Metal Fem
First comment - your subject line looks like a sex ad so people may not
read your question. OK, on with the show.
In article <2000080608001...@nym.alias.net>, Alexandre Duclos
<duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> Although this may sound funny, and we joked about it too, there was
> sincerity lurking behind the easy banter. She says: I would feel
> threathened by the addition of another woman in our intimacy, I would fear
> not being the "unique and favorite" anymore, fear of watching your sexual
> interest wane because another might be more beautiful, more attractive,
> more young... fear... but I would like to be loved by two, three men (!)
>
> It's hard for me to understand, because I never experienced love and
> affection as finite quantities of goods. There is always more to give,
> there is always more room to receive; and loving a second person does not
> diminish the love for the first one - I think (?).
In theory this is a nice idea, in practise the wildly carbonating
hormones at the start of a new r/ship can cloud things up rather a lot.
But if you know that, you can watch for it and deal with it. For me
it's more a case of "the r/ships I have chosen are fundamentally
important and I will make an active choice to nuture all my r/ships
when my hormones are telling me to run off and make wild promises and
babies with the new person". It's a subtle combination of honesty and
shutting the fuck up when you're madly in lust with someone - and it's
very dependant on the particular circumstances of your r/ships.
I used to feel similarly to your wife, within my own gender paradigm.
Once upon a time I would never have considered being one of "many" a
partner might have had and had big emotional issues about being "the
only one" = "being special".
In my case, I wasn't bothered at all by my sweetie's non-femme partner
but the idea of zir having another femme partner, particularly a
sub/bottom femme partner *did* ring bells for me exactly along the
lines of the stuff your wife describes. And one of my partners has
expressed similar sentiments wrt to me being with someone who closely
fits zir gender/sex ID.
But having 2 partners of the "same" gender in my life (well they're not
the same, that's going to be my point) demonstrated to me that they are
both different, and special in their own way, and I know them well
enough to say that I think that's how they'd view the femmes in their
life too, even if both femmes were closely aligned sex/kink wise with
me.
These days, I'd hope if either of my partners found another femme
partner she'd want to be friends with me, and we could all hang out
together, just as my two sweeties hang out and get along fabulously
together. For me it was a shift from, "I need to be No1 to be happy",
to "I need all of us to be happy to be happy", it was an emotional
rather than an intellectual shift, & it took time.
It may well come back and back-hand me next time either of my partners
get a new partner - but, now I've been in this new emotional place, I'm
feeling confident about eventually getting back to it if I face the "I
need to be the most special" demon again.
Some folks don't make these shifts, and construct their r/ships
accordingly (ie wife can veto a r/ship of yours if she wants). That's
not my style, but I'd thought I'd put it out there as an option.
I can't read what's going on in your wife's mind, nor am I suggesting
that you both decide to go forward with her with another man first in
the hope that she might follow the same path I have. But I thought I'd
let you know where one other person has been with it. Your wife being
able to articulate her fears and issues about this is a really good
sign imo.
Cheerio
Mf
Lisa Geoffrion
in >Message-id: <060820002006428294%meta...@webone.com.au> wrote:
>In article <2000080608001...@nym.alias.net>, Alexandre Duclos
><duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>> Although this may sound funny, and we joked about it too, there was
>> sincerity lurking behind the easy banter. She says: I would feel
>> threathened by the addition of another woman in our intimacy,
>In theory this is a nice idea, in practise the wildly carbonating
>hormones at the start of a new r/ship can cloud things up rather a lot.
I would like to second this comment. When my hubby and I had another woman
move in with us, it was a _much_ bigger adjustment than I had anticipated. And
I have been in love with the _idea_ of polyamory since I was a pre-teen.
_________
"...Never had to, knock on wood! But I know someone who has; makes me wonder
if I could...." Mighty Mighty Boss Tones
Aahz Maruch
>talk, let's play with our imagination".
>
>A good thing we can tackle these topics and have fun too, but at the same
>time, she was "serious" and candid enough to realize the a polyfamily is
>fine for her... provided there is only one woman: her!
I actually know a lot of women who have what *they* call "queen bee
syndrome" (for some reason, I seem to be attracted to alpha bitches).
So I guess my first question to you is whether you specifically need a
"polyfamily" or whether other kinds of polyamory might work better for
you.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
NOTE: end of September, Earthlink kills Netcom. My new permanent address is
aa...@pobox.com. I have not decided where to set my primary shell account.
Please do not send me e-mail condolences; my mailbox is already too big.
serene -- Sandra Vannoy
Maruch) writes:
>I actually know a lot of women who have what *they* call "queen bee
>syndrome" (for some reason, I seem to be attracted to alpha bitches).
It's one thing to quote women who call themselves "queen bees,"
and quite another to call a group of women "alpha bitches." You
wanna rephrase that?
serene
--
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need
to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." John Kenneth Galbraith
piranha
hi, and welcome to alt.polyamory! looks like you jumped
into the pool with both feet. :-)
[...]
>I invited my wife to explore the idea, kind of a "just for fun, it's all
>talk, let's play with our imagination".
we have a lot of people come through here who're afraid to
even bring the topic up with their spouse. that's really
good that you can just talk about such things, without drea-
ding the talking itself.
but beware that theory and practice, as usual, can be quite
far apart.
>A good thing we can tackle these topics and have fun too, but at the same
>time, she was "serious" and candid enough to realize the a polyfamily is
>fine for her... provided there is only one woman: her!
yeah, that's not an uncommon position, for either men or
women.
>Although this may sound funny, and we joked about it too, there was
>sincerity lurking behind the easy banter. She says: I would feel
>threathened by the addition of another woman in our intimacy, I would fear
>not being the "unique and favorite" anymore, fear of watching your sexual
>interest wane because another might be more beautiful, more attractive,
>more young... fear... but I would like to be loved by two, three men (!)
since there is nobody like her, she'll always be unique.
you might want to ask her whether _you_ would become less
special if she had several other men.
i don't rank my loves; which means i don't have "favourites".
but everyone is most definitely unique, nobody can replace
any of my beloveds, if they leave or die there is a huge ga-
ping hole in my life and only time can make that less pain-
ful.
i've never known how to get this across to people who do a
lot of ranking, however. "more attractive" -- what does
that mean? it would mean that i'd have to be able to mea-
sure attractiveness. how does one do that? i have such
idiosyncratic perceptions of "attractive" -- the way some-
body moves, the way their hair curls up on zir neck, that
specific, slightly obnoxious smile, and a zillion more small
things like that. how does one measure that package? ano-
ther person's hair might not curl up like that, but flow
smoothly behind zir; or be really buzzy and cool to touch
-- which is more attractive? neither, to me. they all are.
i guess "younger" could be measured; sort of, if one were
just to look at chronological age. but "young" per se is
not attractive to me; if there isn't an attractive persona-
lity, i might glance at the pleasant aesthetics, but move
right on. i am not interested in trophy partners to show
off to others to prove that i am ever so virile. somebody
can be young at heart, or childish at any age, so i don't
go picking my partners by chronological age. i like 'em
ripe. :-)
>It's hard for me to understand, because I never experienced love and
>affection as finite quantities of goods. There is always more to give,
>there is always more room to receive;
not for me. i don't experience love and affection as finite
quantities either, but time, on the other hand... so there
isn't always more room to give. i am indeed quite limited
by energy levels as well. there might be a will to give more,
but no practical way.
>and loving a second person does not
>diminish the love for the first one - I think (?).
not for me, no. the loves are separate. it strikes me as
odd that people seem to understand that one can love more
than one child or more than one parent, but not more than
one romantic partner. but then, i do think lots of people
have favourites there too, it's just not seen as politic,
or even acceptable, to feel that way and to say it out loud.
sometimes the expression of a new love can diminish the ex-
pression of a prior one. we talk a fair bit here about what
we call NRE (new relationship energy), that which sweeps you
away with enthusiasm in a new relationship, and might make
you neglect existing partners.
but, like jealousy, that can be managed.
>I'm wondering if these
>reactions of jealousy are just ancillary to the monogamy standard - of
>course, if "2" is the number to go, you *must* protect the relationship,
>thwart rivals, and so on... But is this necessary in a polyfamily?!
to some degree these are probably part and parcel of the mo-
nogamy standard, yes. the idea of ranking everything, that
stems from somewhere else though, and i think it might actu-
ally be partly a _cause_ for monogamy. which means there
will be people who can't get rid of it, for whom this is how
they see the world; on a scale, keeping track.
that isn't, however, necessarily prohibitive to polyamory, as
much as i find it alien. there are people who have one pri-
mary partner, and others, whom they love, but not love quite
to that same degree, and if forced to choose, they'd choose
their primary, and the primary has veto rights, and the pri-
mary has general primacy when it comes to making choices. if
all partners are ok with that -- well, why not. it's not for
me, however.
>I would like to think not! But at the same time, I'm sure that a lot of
>polyfamily members did start out a bit like my wife, with apprehensions and
>all...
apprehensions are quite normal. makes sense, too. it isn't
as if we were all taught about good polyamory in school.
>..what made you change your mind, enough to be willing to give it a
>genuine try - by "genuine", I mean, not only to please your partner? :-))
i didn't really have those apprehensions, but i had others.
what convinced me? for one, that polyamory made instant sense
to me -- it made a lot of things fall into place that i had
suppressed before, thinking myself abnormal. i realized that
i was polyamorous myself, because i never actually stopped
loving anybody, and had had the wish not to leave one for the
other, or forsake one for the other, and i had actually once
tried, ineptly and without the right words, to turn what was
looking like a sad break-up into a polyamorous relationship.
for another, i wanted my partner to be happy, this isn't an
"only" thing. i didn't want to sacrifice myself, no, but i
did genuinely not want to reduce my partner's potential for
happiness, if i could somehow manage to work on myself to not
be bothered by something zie wanted to do. it is part of my
definition of a good relationship that there not be serious
sacrifice for either my partner(s) or myself.
i did have some fears, but they were mostly fears of the over-
whelming paradigm of monogamy; that it would win out over the
"weird" one of polyamory; that the other person would not be
content with being an equal partner, but that zie would want
to be more. i'd be afraid of people like your wife, who want
to not just be unique, but the favourite. i wouldn't want to
be in a relationship with somebody who's always playing one-
upmanship games, for whom it isn't enough to be special, but
who wants to be more special, the most special.
as it turned out, i needn't have worried. my partner's other-
love had, if anything, a phobia for being "the one". :-) too
much responsibility for zir; zie didn't want it.
but this is a fear i'd have about any new partner's otherlove.
-piranha
RJ
}> Metal Fem meta...@webone.com.au
}in >Message-id: <060820002006428294%meta...@webone.com.au> wrote:
}
}>In article <2000080608001...@nym.alias.net>, Alexandre Duclos
}><duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
}
}>> Although this may sound funny, and we joked about it too, there was
}>> sincerity lurking behind the easy banter. She says: I would feel
}>> threathened by the addition of another woman in our intimacy,
}
}>In theory this is a nice idea, in practise the wildly carbonating
}>hormones at the start of a new r/ship can cloud things up rather a lot.
}
}I would like to second this comment. When my hubby and I had another woman
}move in with us, it was a _much_ bigger adjustment than I had anticipated. And
}I have been in love with the _idea_ of polyamory since I was a pre-teen.
T-shirt drawer!
When I moved in with Ruth Anne a lot of what we had to discuss
wasn't related to emotion/romantic things, but simply roommate
issues. Times we each like to get up or go to bed. Morning rituals
that CANNOT be interfered with. That sort of thing.
It seems to be working fine.
--
RJ Johnson \\ I don't write .sig files...
Meme Wrangler \\
r...@xocolatl.com \\ I write the things that make .sig files _better_.
Heather Anne Nicoll
> Metal Fem , wrote:
> >But if you know that, you can watch for it and deal with it. For me
> >it's more a case of "the r/ships I have chosen are fundamentally
> >when my hormones are telling me to run off and make wild promises and
> >babies with the new person". It's a subtle combination of honesty and
> >shutting the fuck up when you're madly in lust with someone - and it's
> >very dependant on the particular circumstances of your r/ships.
> stick with her (or him) through this lust period...? I guess that it would
> help tremendously if your first partner is also physically (and otherwise)
> attracted to the new polyfamily member...? (I think there's a definite
> string of bisexualism in both of us)
It hasn't been my experience that it helps tremendously, but then again,
I'm het and the partner's het, as far as we've been able to determine.
(I cracked up the mistress-elect over dinner yesterday by pointing out
that she's how I'm fairly certain I'm not bi; she's gorgeous and she's a
female who doesn't on some level twig my 'this is an alien' reaction.
Evidently, she's the lesbian meter for a lot of women.)
The partner knows I do the *poing* thing with a new relationship. I
think he thinks it's cute and infuriating. (And most of the time I
realize I'm being ridiculous, and manage to turn the conversation from
how wonderful <newperson> is to how wonderful the thing I've been
talking over with <newperson> is, and he and I start in on -that-. We
had some wonderful conversations about language usage about two months
ago, and styles of communication.)
He also knows that I still adore him utterly. And that when I calm
down, I'll pay him more mind again. He's told me more than once that my
capability to love people is part of what he loves about me, and that
it'd be silly to bitch about the side-effects.
And I'm feeling particularly entertained by his reactions to this
particular NRE phase, as it has to do with book purchases. . . .
(I just turned to the partner and said, "By the time I'm as old as
you'll be next week (24), we'll have been together a third of my life."
Counting only in whole numbers, mind. And poly the whole time, whee!)
> >Some folks don't make these shifts, and construct their r/ships
> >accordingly (ie wife can veto a r/ship of yours if she wants). That's
> >not my style, but I'd thought I'd put it out there as an option.
> I thought that regardless of how one envisions polyfamilies, one of the
> fundamental tenets was that a new polyfamily member has to be accepted by
> all existing polyfamily members? You seem (I may be mistaken) to imply that
> it is possible otherwise... but how can that be? *curious*
I imagine that's far more common among people who want certain types of
poly family -- especially those who want to be all mutually involved. I
don't know, though, so I'll merely throw out the speculation.
My poly network. . . let's see. I've been with the partner for a hella
long time. He knows that I have a tendency to build strong emotional
bonds. Sometimes I fall for someone; when I do, I go tell him, and he
makes muffled and bemused noises. He, on the other hand, more directly
negotiates interactions with possible partners, which means that I get
to watch the agonizingly, incomprehensibly slow process and boggle at
it, and don't need to be told about it. ;)
When the partner and I got involved, I was in an LDR with someone in
California who was fundamentally wired to fail to comprehend monogamy,
as far as I can tell -- which reminds me I oughta write to him and see
if he's still at Berzerkeley. He was happy that I was fond enough of
him to carry on writing him letters, mostly. :}
The partner doesn't veto my emotions any more than he vetoes my
friendships. I do consider my network to be family, but it's nowhere
near as interconnected as it might be, and that doesn't matter to me in
the slightest. Maybe someone will get involved with someone who I don't
have the family-feeling about -- that's /their/ family, not mine. It
doesn't have to be congruent. :}
--
Heather Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
I believe that we'll conceive to make in hell for us a heaven:
A brave new world, a promised land, a fortitude of hearts and minds.
- VNV Nation, "Kingdom"
Gwynyth
> We discussed this "theory v. practice" aspect... in theory (!). We only
> have only experienced monogamous relationships, from the "few weeks thing"
> to many years deep relationship, always... one person at a time. So we
> don't really know for sure how *we* would react if placed in the situation.
> Only one way to know... ;-)
A piece of advice, if I may - even the stuff you *do* know you want, is
probably going to be very new, and there are probably going to be some
aspects that are a bit scary/new/take some getting used to. Going slow
is, in my experience, a very good thing.
(I say this having spent a lot of time during the discussion of my first
poly relationship saying "I don't know how I'll feel about it until I'm
in that situation" and then saying a lot of "I'm comfortable with that,
but this thing here is really really new, and give me a bit, please?")
Incidentally, it worked very well, and there was pretty much nothing I
felt pressured about.
<snip>
> So, your (first) partner must somewhow trust you that you will be able to
> stick with her (or him) through this lust period...? I guess that it would
> help tremendously if your first partner is also physically (and otherwise)
> attracted to the new polyfamily member...? (I think there's a definite
> string of bisexualism in both of us)
Like Darkhawk (whose response to you I've just read), I'm not bisexual.
Neither is my fiance. It's perfectly possible to create emotional
connections with people one is not also sexually directly involved with,
and I'm very glad of that.
(You're new here, so I'm going to take a minute to explain. People who
remember my relationship history can skip the next paragraph or two.)
<history>
My first poly relationship was a quad with Darkhawk and her partner and
Darkhawk's and my mutual ex (he was my ex-fiance, as we were engaged
during that relationship, but her relationship with him actually
predated mine by either a little under a week or by a month or two,
depending on where one starts counting from.) Three of the four of us
are not bi. Those are also the three of the four of us who are still
talking/emotionally involved at varied levels. (Darkhawk is a very good
friend, and sometimes a large part of helping keep me sane and balanced.
Her partner is a very cool person I tend to regret not talking with more
often.)
Our mutual ex turned into a person who didn't care who he hurt, or what
happened, other than his personal whims and desires. Darkhawk still
occaisionally hears from him, I haven't heard from him since sometime
before January, if I remember correctly. And that's just fine. He's not
the guy I fell in love with, and in fact has very little in common with
the person I fell in love with other than sharing a body.
</history>
More usefully, I'm of the opinion that New Relationship Energy (NRE)
<snip use of zir which the following is a response>
> I would like to understand this and not sound stupid by asking (!), blame
> it on my English, but what do you mean by "zir" and same gender but they're
> not the same? I'm not sure that I follow... And I would like to. :-))
The zir is a gender neutral pronoun - they're used for a variety of
reasons, but might be used, say, because the gender of the person being
referred to isn't important, or because the person writing is trying
deliberately to make sure that a specific situation isn't more detailed
than it needs to be, or because one or more of the people being talked
about doesn't fit conventional genders well. Or combinations of the
above. Or other reasons.
The gender neutral FAQ is linked off the main page at
http://www.polyamory.org . It explains some of the other varients, and
some other reasoning behind it.
> I thought that regardless of how one envisions polyfamilies, one of the
> fundamental tenets was that a new polyfamily member has to be accepted by
> all existing polyfamily members? You seem (I may be mistaken) to imply that
> it is possible otherwise... but how can that be? *curious*
Nope. That's one style of polyamory, certainly, but it's not by any
means the only style. There are kinds of relationships where some
partners don't want to know any details (sometimes called Don't Ask,
Don't Tell (DADT) and some relationships where the level of 'acceptance'
varies.
For myself, I want to at least know the people the people I'm involved
with are involved with. I want to know them well enough that we can
talk, maybe go out to dinner or the movies together and have a good
time. Well enough that I can get some kind of read on whether they're
trustworthy. But I don't need to trust them, per se. I need to trust my
direct partners (not to break safe-sex agreements, not to do hurtful
things, stuff like that).
Let me quote something I wrote about a year and a half ago (to the
po...@polyamory.org list, the posting date is 1/1/99) which talks about
different options. I've done some slight editing to make it appropriate
to post here (and because I'm more aware of some word choices than I was
then), but it's all my words, just more articulate than I think I will
otherwise manage tonight.
<begin quote>
There is no one true way to be poly. There are lots of options on how
poly people structure their relationships. There are lots of ways people
*think* about being poly. Lots of these different options seem to make
people quite happy and produce relationships which people describe as
'successful'.
Most people on here probably agree that polyamory involves relationships
(or an interest in relationships) with multiple people, in some form
that involves emotional or physical intimacy and reasonably open and
honest discussion about the interrelationships involved.
Most people on here probably also agree that cheating - breaking
established promises or commitments or being involved with someone
without letting your current relationships have input and discussion to
whatever level they're comfortable - isn't loving behavior, and
therefore doesn't really fit into the concept of "many loves"
... <snipping a paragraph> ...
There are people on here for whom the physical ties define the fact that
they're poly. There are people for whom the emotional commitments are
far more important, and that promises for shared lives and decisions
define their relationships, rather than particular specific actions.
There are people who are poly and bisexual both - and there are people
who aren't. There are people who read (and post) here who aren't poly at
all.
There are people who live with all their partners. There are people who
live a long way away from any of their partners, and see them only
intermittently. There are people who consider themselves poly but don't
have any partners right now.
There are people who have 'all-primary' relationships. There are people
who have a variety of levels of commitments to those they're involved
with. There are people for whom the line between 'really good friend'
and 'poly relationship' is really hard to define.
There are people for whom being poly is partly political, people who see
the idea of multiple partners or relationships as a significant aspect
of their spirtuality, and people for whom it just seems to work and make
them happy for less defininable reasons.
There are any other number of options and spectra for this subject.
<end quote>
The end summary is this: If having everyone involved with every one else
is important to you, then that's certainly one way people do poly
relationships. It's not the *only* way, and it's got complications of
its own. There are plenty of other ways.
Something to consider is that having relationships between everyone in a
grouping is likely to be harder to manage than allowing each individual
relationship to settle at its own level - it's not *impossible*, but
it's probably going to be harder to find someone interested in both you
and your wife than someone who's interested in just one of you. (Then
again, you might get really lucky... who am I to tell?)
And, after all, it may not solve the NRE issues. Picking a relationship
style in the hopes it may solve some issues may just create more - or it
may not solve those direct issues anyway. I'm far more inclined,
personally, to choose relationship styles (or in my case, a basic style)
which works for me, and sort out the issues on a case by case basis.
Good luck, and feel free to keep asking questions and all that other
good stuff :)
--
Gwynyth
gwy...@polyamory.org
http://www.polyamory.org/~gwynyth
Gwynyth
Following up on my own post, as Darkhawk just pointed out to me that I'd
left a sentence fragment.
> Alexandre Duclos <duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > So, your (first) partner must somewhow trust you that you will be able to
> > stick with her (or him) through this lust period...? I guess that it would
> > help tremendously if your first partner is also physically (and otherwise)
> > attracted to the new polyfamily member...? (I think there's a definite
> > string of bisexualism in both of us)
<snip of intervening response from me>
>
> More usefully, I'm of the opinion that New Relationship Energy (NRE)
More usefully, I'm of the opinion that New Relationship Energy (NRE)
isn't necessarily going to be helped by both of you being interested in
the same person - after all, you may not both be interested in the same
way, to the same degree, or you may not experience NRE the same way.
I think what's a lot more important is reassuring your existing partner
or partners that they are still important to you (and still spending
private and public time with them, paying attention to their desires,
and so on) than anything else.
piranha
Alexandre Duclos <duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>bonjour!
>
>thanks for letting me know about the subject, English is my second language=
>and I sometimes miss these "interpretations". What I write in English is
>often just slightly off what I really mean... en fran=E7ais! ;-)
don't worry. we can always ask for clarification. and you
can use a word in french now and then; there are actually
some french speakers here who might be able to help trans-
late.
>But one interesting story from my wife is about a 40 something couple, very
>"love free", more in a "=E9changiste" sort of way than polyamory - sex flings
>with other people from time to time are ok, as long as you don't get in
>love with them.
they're called "swingers" in english, and "swinging" is the
verb.
>What was interesting about the (real) story is how the
>woman, "in theory", felt it was all ok, but realized after a while that she=
>only did this to please her husband... She had a tough time to adjust, and
>they almost broke up three times...
that happens, yes. it's a good example of showing how theory
and practice can be quite far apart.
>So, your (first) partner must somewhow trust you that you will be able to
>stick with her (or him) through this lust period...?
yes. just like your partner has got to trust you that you'll
get through other intense experiences in your life without
damaging your relationship. people often experience tremen-
dous changes when they have a child, for example.
>I guess that it would
>help tremendously if your first partner is also physically (and otherwise)
>attracted to the new polyfamily member...?
whether that helps or not depends on the people involved. it
isn't important to me at all that my partner be physically
involved with my beloveds. being as we're both heterosexual,
that would be sort of difficult anyway. :-) it does matter
to me that my beloveds all get along pretty well, and the bet-
ter friends they can be, the nicer it feels for me. but we
needn't all sleep together or even live together.
>I would like to understand this and not sound stupid by asking (!), blame
>it on my English, but what do you mean by "zir" and same gender but they're
>not the same? I'm not sure that I follow... And I would like to. :-))
some of us use gender-neutral pronouns, and you have just come
across one set of them. i use zie (instead of he or she) and
zir (instead of his or her) when i don't know the gender of a
person i am referring to, when i don't think the gender is re-
levant to the discussion, when i am hiding the gender for pri-
vacy reasons, or when i am referring to a person who doesn't
fit into the binary gender scheme and likes that to be acknow-
leged (i am one of those).
the rest of it i leave to the original poster, because that's
zir story to talk about.
>I thought that regardless of how one envisions polyfamilies, one of the
>fundamental tenets was that a new polyfamily member has to be accepted by
>all existing polyfamily members? You seem (I may be mistaken) to imply that
>it is possible otherwise... but how can that be? *curious*
some polyfolk don't really think of all their relationships as
"family", for one. and the acceptance that's fundamentally ex-
pected might only reach as far as everyone being ok with poly
relationships in general, without having a say in any specific
one. there are people here whose partners do not know all their
other partners in person, for example, and who're not actually
close. there are people who don't grant veto rights to partners;
each has zir own relationships and they don't intersect much.
what you're thinking of sounds much closer than that. yes, it
exists; at its extreme end it's called "polyfidelity"; members
of the relationship are sexually exclusive to each other, and
some families have decided not to grow beyond 3, or 4. others
might be open in so far as new partners might be able to join
the family, if all existing members agree.
polyamory covers a lot of different relationship arrangements.
-piranha
Teal
wrote:
>a yearning to feel strong colors of love...
What a beautiful turn of phrase. That's really lovely!
Teal
PapaBear
>On 6 Aug 2000, Lisa Geoffrion wrote:
>When I moved in with Ruth Anne a lot of what we had to discuss
>wasn't related to emotion/romantic things, but simply roommate
>issues. Times we each like to get up or go to bed. Morning rituals
>that CANNOT be interfered with. That sort of thing.
>
>It seems to be working fine.
Cool - now you've got it all worked out... a bear from NZ comes along
to "cry Havoc and let loose the gods of war" and completely muddle
things again for a month :)
*grin*
PapaBear
--
"The race belongs not only to the Swift and the Strong...
But also to those who keep on running!" (Author unknown)
RJ
}On Sun, 6 Aug 2000 11:37:03 -0500, RJ <r...@enteract.com> wrote:
}
}>On 6 Aug 2000, Lisa Geoffrion wrote:
}>When I moved in with Ruth Anne a lot of what we had to discuss
}>wasn't related to emotion/romantic things, but simply roommate
}>issues. Times we each like to get up or go to bed. Morning rituals
}>that CANNOT be interfered with. That sort of thing.
}>
}>It seems to be working fine.
}
}Cool - now you've got it all worked out... a bear from NZ comes along
}to "cry Havoc and let loose the gods of war" and completely muddle
}things again for a month :)
}
}*grin*
We can always tie you to the bed and not release you until after we
have completed our morning rituals, you know.
Oops... wrong damn newsgroup again!
;-)
Aahz Maruch
serene -- Sandra Vannoy <serene...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <8mju7k$6ou$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, aa...@netcom.com (Aahz
>Maruch) writes:
>>
>>I actually know a lot of women who have what *they* call "queen bee
>>syndrome" (for some reason, I seem to be attracted to alpha bitches).
>
>It's one thing to quote women who call themselves "queen bees," and
>quite another to call a group of women "alpha bitches." You wanna
>rephrase that?
Not unless one of them complains, no. (And all three of my current
partners do read this newsgroup.)
Aahz Maruch
Alexandre Duclos <duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>
>I never really thought of my wife as a queen bee, and even less as an alpha
>bitch...! She's just a sweet, never mad, thoughtful, beautiful loving
>mother and mate ;-))
The phrase "alpha bitch" actually doesn't have that much relationship to
"bitch" in its derogatory connotation; "bitch" is a common word used to
describe a female dog or wolf. "Alpha bitch" is mostly referring to the
dominance found in wolfpacks.
>But aside from this, what do you mean by "other kinds of polyamory"? I'm
>not sure what would be an "androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het"...
>
> The only polyfamily I can imagine is one where its members feel and
>emotional commitment to all each other, a desire to grow together, have
>projects (vacations, etc.), and the will to fulfill sexual needs within the
>polyfamily...?
Well, let's take my relationship network for example: I do what's called
"primary/secondary" polyamory. I currently have one primary partner,
two secondary partners, and a new relationship that I don't yet have a
label for. My primary partner has veto power over new relationships,
but other than that, there's no requirement that people be especially
close. On the gripping hand, things work much better when there's a
real friendship between my primary and my secondary partners.
So far, my primary and I have had only one case where we were both
involved with the same person. However, it was not a menage a trois; we
each had a separate relationship with this person. I broke up with this
person a year ago, and my primary still has a strong relationship with
this person.
Aahz Maruch
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> that isn't, however, necessarily prohibitive to polyamory, as
> much as i find it alien. there are people who have one pri-
> mary partner, and others, whom they love, but not love quite
> to that same degree, and if forced to choose, they'd choose
> their primary, and the primary has veto rights, and the pri-
> mary has general primacy when it comes to making choices. if
> all partners are ok with that -- well, why not. it's not for
> me, however.
piranha, I know you know this, but I want to make sure Alexandre does:
doing primary/secondary polyamory does not necessarily mean that one
loves the secondary partners less. Nor does it necessarily mean that
commitments to the secondary partners fail to get honored.
In my case, what it mostly means is that, no matter how much I love my
secondary partners, I just don't see us having the kind of compatible
personalities that allows me to spend nearly endless hours with my
primary. My primary just doesn't *irritate* me the way other people do.
bearpaw
>
>piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> that isn't, however, necessarily prohibitive to polyamory, as
>> much as i find it alien. there are people who have one pri-
>> mary partner, and others, whom they love, but not love quite
>> to that same degree, and if forced to choose, they'd choose
>> their primary, and the primary has veto rights, and the pri-
>> mary has general primacy when it comes to making choices. if
>> all partners are ok with that -- well, why not. it's not for
>> me, however.
>
>doing primary/secondary polyamory does not necessarily mean that one
>loves the secondary partners less. Nor does it necessarily mean that
>commitments to the secondary partners fail to get honored.
Yup.
Also, primary/secondary doesn't necessarily mean *one* primary -- one
could have more than one primary, and one or more secondaries. Now
that I think on it, one could in some sense practice primary/secondary
poly with *no* primary, just one or more secondaries.
>In my case, what it mostly means is that, no matter how much I love my
>secondary partners, I just don't see us having the kind of compatible
>personalities that allows me to spend nearly endless hours with my
>primary. My primary just doesn't *irritate* me the way other people do.
That's sounds way familiar. And vice versa, I'm sure.
Bearpaw
--
~~~~~~~~~~~ bea...@aq.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Identity magic is the oldest and easiest kind there is.
It's what language is for." - from Emma Bull's _Bone Dance_
Heather Anne Nicoll
> In my case, what it mostly means is that, no matter how much I love my
> secondary partners, I just don't see us having the kind of compatible
> personalities that allows me to spend nearly endless hours with my
> primary. My primary just doesn't *irritate* me the way other people do.
Heh. This describes my interactions with the TOCOTOX beautifully (which
relationship I have pegged as 'secondary' or 'romantic friendship' -- I
dislike primary/secondary terminology because of the ranking fallacy,
but am furry about getting better words on still, though I'm working on
it). I love him dearly. If I lived with him, I'd strangle him.
As it is, I only feel inclined to strangle him occasionally, when he's
being particularly noncommunicative.
- Darkhawk, blessing the fact that she can ramble on endlessly
with both the partner and the beloved without
generating talking-to-wall feelings
(Or, if not endlessly, at least until the batteries
in the fucking phone die. At least I know how long
they last now. . . .)
Stef Maruch
>She says: I would feel
>threathened by the addition of another woman in our intimacy, I would fear
>not being the "unique and favorite" anymore, fear of watching your sexual
>interest wane because another might be more beautiful, more attractive,
>more young... fear... but I would like to be loved by two, three men (!)
[...]
>I'm wondering if these
>reactions of jealousy are just ancillary to the monogamy standard
I tend to think that people like feeling special.
>- of
>course, if "2" is the number to go, you *must* protect the relationship,
>thwart rivals, and so on... But is this necessary in a polyfamily?!
It's hard to imagine feeling safe in a polyfamily if you haven't
experienced it before.
>I would like to think not! But at the same time, I'm sure that a lot of
>polyfamily members did start out a bit like my wife, with apprehensions and
>all...
>
>..what made you change your mind, enough to be willing to give it a
>genuine try - by "genuine", I mean, not only to please your partner? :-))
OK, I consider myself poly but not "in a polyfamily" -- that is, my
partner and I have other partners, but we don't live with them, and our
relationship is more entangled than our relationships with our partners
are.
I was threatened by my partner's being poly at first. Part of what made
me change my mind was finding things other than sexual exclusivity that
made me feel "unique and favorite." Another part was getting concrete
evidence that zie wasn't going to abandon me physically or emotionally
for someone "more beautiful, more attractive, more young" and that zie
would curtail certain behavior to help me feel more comfortable.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Every time you fall in love, it's the first time. -- David Gerrold (?)
Stef Maruch
>In article <20000806121322...@nso-fu.aol.com>,
>serene -- Sandra Vannoy <serene...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <8mju7k$6ou$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, aa...@netcom.com (Aahz
>>Maruch) writes:
>>>
>>>I actually know a lot of women who have what *they* call "queen bee
>>>syndrome" (for some reason, I seem to be attracted to alpha bitches).
>>
>>It's one thing to quote women who call themselves "queen bees," and
>>quite another to call a group of women "alpha bitches." You wanna
>>rephrase that?
>
>Not unless one of them complains, no. (And all three of my current
>partners do read this newsgroup.)
Just remember, that's *MS.* Alpha Bitch to you...
Note: I read "alpha bitch" as connoting "similar to the dominant female
in a wolf pack," not "a bossy obnoxious woman." However, I generally
think that "bitch" is a word that one should apply only to oneself and
to female dogs, not to other humans.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
People are much more willing to lend you books than bookcases. --Mark Twain
JennieD-O'C
> - Darkhawk, blessing the fact that she can ramble on endlessly
> with both the partner and the beloved without
> generating talking-to-wall feelings
>
> (Or, if not endlessly, at least until the batteries
> in the fucking phone die. At least I know how long
> they last now. . . .)
Wow. What's a fucking phone? And where can I buy one? ;-)
Jennie, punchy this morning
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
Heather Anne Nicoll
> Wow. What's a fucking phone? And where can I buy one? ;-)
I don't think I want to think about that one. ;)
- Darkhawk, finding it too early for that mental image
Liz W
>Alexandre Duclos <duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>>I'm wondering if these
>>reactions of jealousy are just ancillary to the monogamy
standard
>
>I tend to think that people like feeling special.
It's quite possible to make someone feel special without
offering them any kind of exclusivity or uniqueness, though.
Liz, who has buttons in this vicinity and doesn't do
hierarchies, although life entanglement certainly varies
--
To reply, remove "NOehSPAM" and ".invalid".
Any ad below this sig was added without my permission.
Please do not patronise the advertiser.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Romanadvoratrelundar
>> Wow. What's a fucking phone? And where can I buy one? ;-)
>
> I don't think I want to think about that one. ;)
>
> - Darkhawk, finding it too early for that mental image
But is it rude to have it ring in a restaurant?
Or is it okay as long as it's set to vibrate?
Kylee,
thinking it's always
time for ribaldry
--
Copyright 2000 Kylee Peterson.
Permission to reproduce this post through normal Usenet quoting or to
archive in full, including sig, is granted. Permission to add hyperlinks
is expressly denied. Current known offenders in that regard: deja.com
Heather Anne Nicoll
> st...@baygate.bayarea.net (Stef Maruch) wrote:
> >Alexandre Duclos <duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> >>I'm wondering if these
> >>reactions of jealousy are just ancillary to the monogamy
> >>standard
> >I tend to think that people like feeling special.
> It's quite possible to make someone feel special without
> offering them any kind of exclusivity or uniqueness, though.
The beloved and I were discussing relationships as Venn Diagrams at one
point. There -are- kinds of exclusivity and uniqueness that I find
self-obvious in relationships.
Yes, the set that associates to the partner and the set that associates
to the beloved both contain the element of long-term life-entanglement,
the nesting impulse: I am certain of that in the case of the partner,
and hope for it in the case of the beloved. Both sets include a shared
joy of finding the way the world works, but these are different
elements: one more analytical, one more poetic. The partner helps me to
understand other people; the beloved and I share what was named
elsewhere as literary consonance.
Plenty of shared elements, or shared similarities; the elements are not
guaranteed to be unique to a set. But the -set- is unique, and has a
unique. . . heh. It's mode (apologies to the rasfc crossover
contingent) in the sense that it's a unique something-or-other that
determines which elements fit in the set and which ones don't.
(*files that away as a possible method of explaining 'mode' next time it
comes up*)
And it's the uniqueness of the set that matters -- that people aren't
interchangable. For all that there are elements that are common to a
number of my exes' Venn sets, they aren't the same set. (Though certain
aspects of common element use bother me a bit. I didn't do it on
purpose. Grrrrrrf.)
I know that my interactions with both the partner and the beloved are
life-entangling, even despite the three thousand mile technicality in
the beloved's case. I know that my interactions with the TOCOTOX are
-not-, even though he's within easy travel and thus local for some
functions of local.
- Darkhawk, who was rather proud of herself when she realized
that moralistic monogamy seems to be based on the
assertion that . . .
. . . I wanted to start that with a backwards E.
. . . the assertion that there exists a set of
elements, such as romantic and sexual desire, that
'should' only attach to one such set.
And if elements from that set are assigned non-
uniquely, there's something 'broken'.
Stef Maruch
>st...@baygate.bayarea.net (Stef Maruch) wrote:
>>Alexandre Duclos <duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>
>>>I'm wondering if these
>>>reactions of jealousy are just ancillary to the monogamy
>standard
>>
>>I tend to think that people like feeling special.
>
>It's quite possible to make someone feel special without
>offering them any kind of exclusivity or uniqueness, though.
Some someones.
The exclusivity or uniqueness can be small, non-hierarchical things such
as "you are the only person I go to this restaurant with."
>Liz, who has buttons in this vicinity and doesn't do
>hierarchies, although life entanglement certainly varies
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "If it was so, it
might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it
isn't, it ain't. That's logic." -- Lewis Carroll
piranha
Liz W <ehwNO...@gouldens.com.invalid> wrote:
>st...@baygate.bayarea.net (Stef Maruch) wrote:
>>Alexandre Duclos <duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>
>>>I'm wondering if these
>>>reactions of jealousy are just ancillary to the monogamy
>standard
>>
>>I tend to think that people like feeling special.
>
>It's quite possible to make someone feel special without
>offering them any kind of exclusivity
for me it is, yes. i do know people who have very
fixed ideas about how they want to be special, and
i cannot necessarily provide that.
>or uniqueness, though.
huh? i do offer everyone i know something unique
-- the dynamics between us are not repeatable with
anyone else.
i always laugh when somebody (usually somebody clue-
less in soc.singles, which i no longer read) says:
"but all other things considered equal, wouldn't
_you_ date the prettier/richer person?".
all other things are never, ever equal for me. i do
not "date" cardboard cutouts. i do not view people
as categorizable when it comes to love.
>Liz, who has buttons in this vicinity and doesn't do
>hierarchies, although life entanglement certainly varies
i don't do hierarchies either, but everyone i know
is unique, and i can express that without using the
words "best", "favourite", or similar ranking terms.
that isn't always enough for some people. those peo-
ple and i cannot have successful relationships.
-piranha
John Clark
Heather Anne Nicoll wrote:
> JennieD-O'C <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
> > Wow. What's a fucking phone? And where can I buy one? ;-)
>
> I don't think I want to think about that one. ;)
>
> - Darkhawk, finding it too early for that mental image
One with a built in vibrator... On the early morning radio station
that I listen to while commuting they had a couple of tapes of
people who apparently called the station, then accidentally hit re-dial
as they put their phone away (ok that's how it was billed...)
A fucking phone would perhaps be more entertaining, although
I'm more of a sight hound than a sound hound...
David Matthewman
> Liz W <ehwNO...@gouldens.com.invalid> wrote:
> >st...@baygate.bayarea.net (Stef Maruch) wrote:
> >>Alexandre Duclos <duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>I'm wondering if these
> >>>reactions of jealousy are just ancillary to the monogamy
> >standard
> >>
> >>I tend to think that people like feeling special.
> >
> >It's quite possible to make someone feel special without
> >offering them any kind of exclusivity or uniqueness, though.
>
> Some someones.
>
> The exclusivity or uniqueness can be small, non-hierarchical things such
> as "you are the only person I go to this restaurant with."
That would worry me a little. It would seem artificial. If I went to
the restaurant in question with Liz, and she had a good time, I'd
wouldn't want her to feel that she couldn't go back there with one of
my metamours.
There *are* things that Liz and I do that I don't think she does with
any of her other partners, but they don't in themselves make me feel
special. Liz does that simply by being herself and spending time with
me.
--
David Matthewman
Lynn Dobbs
st...@baygate.bayarea.net says...
> Liz W <ehwNO...@gouldens.com.invalid> wrote:
> >st...@baygate.bayarea.net (Stef Maruch) wrote:
> >>Alexandre Duclos <duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>I'm wondering if these
> >>>reactions of jealousy are just ancillary to the monogamy
> >standard
> >>
> >>I tend to think that people like feeling special.
> >
> >It's quite possible to make someone feel special without
> >offering them any kind of exclusivity or uniqueness, though.
>
> Some someones.
>
> The exclusivity or uniqueness can be small, non-hierarchical things such
> as "you are the only person I go to this restaurant with."
I have, off an on, given the notion of "feeling special" a
lot of thought as it might apply to me. The conclusion is:
it doesn't.
The problem with that is that people I have been in a close
relationship with want something that is theirs alone. It is
a struggle for me to remember that that obligation exists
and what it is.
Also, I spent a lot of my life feeling unique in ways that
didn't suit me at all. I really want to be part of a crowd.
I think that is one reason poly relationship models appeal
to me so much. I want to live with folks as a family.
Romantic love doesn't really play a big part for me in that
image.
Of course, I do want some attention from people, but it
doesn't have to something special that the individuals don't
give to others as well. The only thing I really want is
praise. :) And it doesn't seem to matter to much where it
comes from as long as it is sincere _and_ is something I
think praiseworthy. People have to know me pretty well or it
has to be a specialized setting, such as an activist
meeting, to be effective. I want to feel respected for what
I know and what I do.
So special things like "remembering my birthday" just
doesn't make the list. Hell, I forget my birthday. :) I
suspect the "something special" perspective played a minor
role in the end of my last relationship. I'm a function over
form person and the other two were mildly to wildly form
over function.
Peace, Love and Justice,
Lynn Dobbs
www.bethechange.net | "You must be the change
www.lambdaletters.org | you wish to see in the
www.hai.org | world." M.K. Gandhi
Cochon of Delight
>In article <8mju7k$6ou$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, aa...@netcom.com (Aahz
>Maruch) writes:
>>I actually know a lot of women who have what *they* call "queen bee
>>syndrome" (for some reason, I seem to be attracted to alpha bitches).
>It's one thing to quote women who call themselves "queen bees,"
>and quite another to call a group of women "alpha bitches." You
>wanna rephrase that?
Um, it's a dog pack thing. I _am_ the alpha bitch.
--
Piglet "Sober assessment of the contemporary scene makes it
pig...@piglet.org crystal-clear that a carnival atmosphere is in order."
-Bruce Sterling
Piglet Needs A (NYC) Sysadmin!! http://www.evolution.com/jobs
Elise Matthesen
Cochon of Delight wrote:
>
> serene...@aol.com (serene -- Sandra Vannoy), in article <20000806121322...@nso-fu.aol.com>, dixit:
> >In article <8mju7k$6ou$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, aa...@netcom.com (Aahz
> >Maruch) writes:
> >>I actually know a lot of women who have what *they* call "queen bee
> >>syndrome" (for some reason, I seem to be attracted to alpha bitches).
>
> >It's one thing to quote women who call themselves "queen bees,"
> >and quite another to call a group of women "alpha bitches." You
> >wanna rephrase that?
>
> Um, it's a dog pack thing. I _am_ the alpha bitch.
(chiming in)
It made perfect sense to me when I read it.
Elise,
big gold lion alpha bitch cat ;-)
Stef Maruch
>Quoth Stef Maruch on 8 Aug 2000 18:23:33 GMT:
>> Liz W <ehwNO...@gouldens.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >offering them any kind of exclusivity or uniqueness, though.
>>
>> Some someones.
>>
>> The exclusivity or uniqueness can be small, non-hierarchical things such
>> as "you are the only person I go to this restaurant with."
>That would worry me a little. It would seem artificial. If I went to
>the restaurant in question with Liz, and she had a good time, I'd
>wouldn't want her to feel that she couldn't go back there with one of
>my metamours.
So you wouldn't ask for that particular "special thing." You would want
one that felt like it grew organically out of the relationship. Am I
getting it right?
>There *are* things that Liz and I do that I don't think she does with
>any of her other partners, but they don't in themselves make me feel
>special. Liz does that simply by being herself and spending time with
>me.
That's how most relationships end up, I think. Designating certain
things as special is sometimes useful at some stages of relationships.
Or for some people, at many/all stages.
Do you find that worrisome in and of itself?
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tabi ni yande On a journey, ailing -
Yume wa kareno o My dreams roam about
Kakemeguru Over a withered moor.
-- Basho's last poem
Noel Lynne Figart
wrote:
>bonjour Lynn!
>
>Have you experienced a polyfamily "all under the same roof", going on
>vacation together, and what of children, etc...?
Yes. We drove 500 miles in a minivan and wound up sleeping in a
camper. We had a lot of fun, swam in rivers, danced in drum circles,
had a lobster feast and met lots of neat people.
>
>Just curious to read about polyfamily experiences - those who actually live
>together...
http://www.geocities.com/polyfamilies
The site is loaded with the experiences of at least one poly family
with kids.
Noel, Axe of the BABs, Mum to They Who Wake the
Giants Early, and She Who Truly Groks Coffee
Liz W
>Plenty of shared elements, or shared similarities; the elements
are not
>guaranteed to be unique to a set. But the -set- is unique, and
has a
>unique. . . heh. It's mode (apologies to the rasfc crossover
>contingent) in the sense that it's a unique something-or-other
that
>determines which elements fit in the set and which ones don't.
Thank you, Darkhawk. I think that's probably exactly how I feel
about this issue, although I need to process the metaphor a
little more before I'll be sure :-)
Liz
Liz W
>Liz W <ehwNO...@gouldens.com.invalid> wrote:
>>It's quite possible to make someone feel special without
>>offering them any kind of exclusivity or uniqueness, though.
>
>Some someones.
Yes. But someones who can't be made to feel special without
being told that "I will not do [X] with anyone but you" are
someones I find it difficult to have a relationship with. It
takes unusual circumstances before I will try to work around
that kind of attitude. At the moment I don't think I would
consider starting a new relationship with anyone who felt that
way.
>The exclusivity or uniqueness can be small, non-hierarchical
things such
>as "you are the only person I go to this restaurant with."
Someone asking for that punches those buttons in a big way, with
me. To me, it should be the quality of our interaction when
*we're* there, and whether or not being in that place is
conducive to *our* relationship, that matters, not what I do
with someone else in the same place two weeks later.
Liz, still with buttons firmly installed
>>Liz, who has buttons in this vicinity and doesn't do
>>hierarchies, although life entanglement certainly varies
Liz W
>In article <142ae5c0...@usw-ex0105-035.remarq.com>,
>Liz W <ehwNO...@gouldens.com.invalid> wrote:
>>It's quite possible to make someone feel special without
>>offering them any kind of exclusivity
>
> for me it is, yes. i do know people who have very
> fixed ideas about how they want to be special, and
> i cannot necessarily provide that.
Same here. I've never yet had to break up with someone over
this, but I have a friend who has.
>>or uniqueness, though.
>
> huh? i do offer everyone i know something unique
> -- the dynamics between us are not repeatable with
> anyone else.
Actually I agree. To borrow from Darkhawk's analogy, I meant
that it's possible to make someone feel special without
offering to have a unique element in the set. The set itself
is certainly going to be unique.
> i always laugh when somebody (usually somebody clue-
> less in soc.singles, which i no longer read) says:
> "but all other things considered equal, wouldn't
> _you_ date the prettier/richer person?".
>
> all other things are never, ever equal for me. i do
> not "date" cardboard cutouts. i do not view people
> as categorizable when it comes to love.
{applause}
>>Liz, who has buttons in this vicinity and doesn't do
>>hierarchies, although life entanglement certainly varies
>
> i don't do hierarchies either, but everyone i know
> is unique, and i can express that without using the
> words "best", "favourite", or similar ranking terms.
I do my best to express that, maybe not always successfully. I
do tell all new partners that I'll do my best not to let any new
relationships interfere with my commitments to them, and in turn
I expect them to honour my commitments to my existing partners.
When David and I were discussing this, he said that I do
chronologies instead of hierarchies, which is close enough for
me and isn't intended to imply any difference of quality either
in the relationships, or in my feelings about them.
Liz
Liz W
>There *are* things that Liz and I do that I don't think she
does with
>any of her other partners,
There are indeed, mostly because they're things I didn't know I
had it in me to do until I met you, and that self-discovery is
one of the things I appreciate about our relationship.
But just to explain to other people reading, there's no
agreement that I *won't* do them with anyone else, ever. I may
well, if I feel sufficiently comfortable. If I do, I'll still
have David to thank for helping me get to that point, and I hope
he'll feel frubbly rather than upset.
>but they don't in themselves make me feel
>special. Liz does that simply by being herself and spending
time with
>me.
{blush}
You make that very easy for me, dear.
Liz W
>David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
>>Quoth Stef Maruch on 8 Aug 2000 18:23:33 GMT:
>>> The exclusivity or uniqueness can be small, non-hierarchical
things such
>>> as "you are the only person I go to this restaurant with."
>
>>That would worry me a little. It would seem artificial. If I
went to
>>the restaurant in question with Liz, and she had a good time,
I'd
>>wouldn't want her to feel that she couldn't go back there with
one of
>>my metamours.
>
>So you wouldn't ask for that particular "special thing." You
would want
>one that felt like it grew organically out of the relationship.
Am I
>getting it right?
Not answering for David, but if you're using "special" in a way
that still has overtones of "exclusive", that's not quite the
point for me, though it's much closer :-)
The things that I do with David, but not with anyone else, did
grow organically out of our relationship, and currently they're
a unique element in that relationship, but as I just posted in
response to his post a moment or so ago, there's no commitment
to keep them unique. If I start doing them with someone else,
doing them with David won't be any less special to me, and more
importantly *David* won't be any less special to me.
>Designating certain
>things as special is sometimes useful at some stages of
relationships.
>Or for some people, at many/all stages.
>
>Do you find that worrisome in and of itself?
That it's useful for some people at many or all stages of their
relationships? Not at all. Their kink is okay.
If someone thinks that they have a right to expect *me* to
designate a particular activity as special, in the exclusive
sense, or that there's something wrong with me for not wanting
to, or that having something special in that sense is
intrinsically better than the way I do things, then yes.
I think the root of my worry is that I see the desire for that
kind of exclusivity as only a very tiny step away from the sort
of jealousy that would make poly very difficult for me in
practice, so I tend to quash any request for it quite firmly.
Maybe too firmly, sometimes.
Liz, waving apologetically at the partner she's had this
argument with
Lynn Dobbs
Alexandre Duclos at duc...@nym.alias.net says...
> Have you experienced a polyfamily "all under the same roof", going on
> vacation together, and what of children, etc...?
Yeah, well. I had high hopes, but they were dashed pretty
quickly. My primary was playing serial monogamy with
overlap. The "poly family" lasted about four months.
Heather Anne Nicoll
> dark...@mindspring.com (Heather Anne Nicoll) wrote:
> >Plenty of shared elements, or shared similarities; the elements are not
> >guaranteed to be unique to a set. But the -set- is unique, and has a
> >unique. . . heh. It's mode (apologies to the rasfc crossover
> >contingent) in the sense that it's a unique something-or-other that
> >determines which elements fit in the set and which ones don't.
>
> Thank you, Darkhawk. I think that's probably exactly how I feel
> about this issue, although I need to process the metaphor a
> little more before I'll be sure :-)
*bows*
Glad to be of service!
I don't know how much of the metaphor is mine and how much of it is the
beloved's, mind; these things sort of munge together strangely if I
don't have the email in question open in front of me, and even then I
have to count quote-in indentations carefully. ;) So credit where
credit's due -- even if I've no idea where that is.
- Darkhawk, warmly and very fuzzily
serene -- Sandra Vannoy
writes:
Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on the matter)
see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves "alpha bitch" and being
called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm
the only
one who sees it as a bit problematic.
serene
--
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need
to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." John Kenneth Galbraith
piranha
Liz W <ehwNO...@gouldens.com.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>When David and I were discussing this, he said that I do
>chronologies instead of hierarchies, which is close enough for
>me and isn't intended to imply any difference of quality either
>in the relationships, or in my feelings about them.
interesting way to express it. yes, i probably do that
too, if i understand it correctly -- i will have a lot
more "special moments" with somebody with whom i've lived
for the last 5 years than with somebody i met 3 months
ago; there will be a lot more we have had happen, and we
will, in general, be closer for that because we know each
other better.
that might be a difference in quality, i don't know. i
don't feel it like that, because closeness-through-know-
ledge isn't the only thing denoting quality in my rela-
tionships.
i don't think about quality unless something is wrong,
and then quality overall becomes very important.
so i do have "special" things with people, but they're
usually memories, not "things we do that we don't do with
anyone else". that trip to galiano island, that was spe-
cial, and i will always remember it. it can't _be_ re-
peated, not even with the same person. so there is no
point in me not going to galiano island with anybody else;
it won't ever be the same again, and that new trip might
not be special at all, or it might be special in its own
way.
"things we do that we don't do with anybody else" exist,
but like for you, that's a matter of circumstance, and i
have made no promises that i shan't do them with anybody
else in the future, and i would feel very uncomfortable
if i were asked about that. i don't mind offering, tem-
porarily (i mean, i have a sexual monogamy agreement, af-
ter all :-), if i think it will enhance the relationship,
and if it's a No Big Deal item for me. but looking back,
i can think of any number of people with whom i wouldn't
have made that agreement, because i would have suspected
it might send the wrong message. i am very careful about
promises that might imply some sort of ranking of love.
-piranha
LK
Piggybacking:
>In article <2000080608001...@nym.alias.net>,
>Alexandre Duclos <duc...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>A good thing we can tackle these topics and have fun too, but at the same
>>time, she was "serious" and candid enough to realize the a polyfamily is
>>fine for her... provided there is only one woman: her!
>
> yeah, that's not an uncommon position, for either men or
> women.
>
>>Although this may sound funny, and we joked about it too, there was
>>sincerity lurking behind the easy banter. She says: I would feel
>>threathened by the addition of another woman in our intimacy, I would fear
>>not being the "unique and favorite" anymore, fear of watching your sexual
>>interest wane because another might be more beautiful, more attractive,
>>more young... fear... but I would like to be loved by two, three men (!)
>
> since there is nobody like her, she'll always be unique.
>
> you might want to ask her whether _you_ would become less
> special if she had several other men.
What if he already is "less special" in her eyes? Or she already
eels less special.
I sometimes feel that way about spouse. It'd be nice to sleep with
someone who doesn't kick or play Clever Hans, a horse who counted with
his foot (like Trigger) at night and someone who doesn't go into long
geek/computer explanations--full sentences, paragraphs--in his sleep.
(I slept on the floor in the living room last (we don't have a
couch).)
It'd be nice to have someone who takes sexual requests seriously,
instead of making a joke of a technique or time and time again
refusing to even try something--especially if it's something other men
willingly and eagerly do.
Someone who was more social and enjoyed simply being with me instead
of "hiding" in his home office. We've talked about this. Yet again
he's discovered that his desire to be undisturb/alone makes him feel
isolated from his family. So we'll be rearranging the furniture so
his "cubicle" is more open to the living room.
(Frequently, complaints he has about his work environment seem to be
acted out at home: the isolation, the "don't bother me," the don't
distract me with TV. He's got more control here so we accomedate him
and it works to distance _us_. And I become the guardian of his
quiet. --It's not all that easy lving with someone who's still
struggling to find out who he is.)
The other side of this is my desire to be alone because that is how I
guard things; if my writing, singing, my artwork is private and
unwitness it can't be taken away from me. When I was growing up, I
used to hear --and this is almost word for word--"When the girl gets
older, it'll be her turn. The's girls need to finish college and get
settled. Then it'll be the girl's turn. I'll spend the money on what
she wants and take her to dances so she can socialize..." ("The
girl" is me around 8 and "the girls" were very older sisters.) The
oldest one was the artist, the second was the smartest and I was "the
girl" who was too much like her father, the widow's imperfect second
husband who made his own promises but lacked the willpower to carry
them out.
But my turn never came. The world changed. Local dance halls closed.
Inflation grew. Dance lessons were postponed into never, but
untalented fingers pressed into unappreciated lessons. Grandparents
died off without wills or too general wills sparking family feuding
over current or future inheiritences and my breadwinning mother's
behavior became more schiophrenic-like (which I now suspect partially
was the result of her own childhood physical and, possibily, sexual
abuse) and I was emotionally abandoned while she obessively (if only
SRI were available back then <sigh>) and sexually abused by her
paranoia of constantly checking for "proof" of viginity. And threats
to defecate on the front lawns of the neighbors who.... No need to go
into more detail or examples.
And the world seemed to become more dangerous as Reader's Digest and
other magazines panicked parents about "drug use" being the only cause
of problems between teens and parents. So rather educate to make
smart decisions, some parents when for over control of kid's behavior
and friends. Being accused of shooting up powered drink mixes because
RD mag said kids do that when they can't get electric kool-aid....
So I have a _strong_ need to be special, to be the favorite, to be the
one who comes out on top. I'd like to _feel_ more benevolent and
generous, but so many promises from childhood and the current
commitment keep being postponed--frequently from my own generoisty
because _I'm_ used to dealing without and being lower class. He
isn't.
I'm thankful we work well together and we love and appreciate each
other. But I've also been "good" at not demanding or requesting
things in expectation of better times in the future.
But I'm running out future (as a general statement). And some things
can't wait because the body and energy does wane and grows listless
from lack of use.
So there is and always will be competition for time and attention.
(I'm already in competition with non-work time and his blow-it-up
computer time. And I'm incredibly good at being small and staying out
of the way. --Sadly Usenet is infinate in what it can "hold"
and "experience" while people are not, which is part of how I can be
so boisterious--or what feels like boisterous--and expressive without
tiring the individual(s).)
My reasons are probably not the same as Andre's spouse's for wanting
to be "the favorite." There's also a cultural thing of woman being
responsible for the male not to stray from e.g., if she's a good wife,
a good loving partner in and out of bed... And I remember hearing
from older women gossiping, when I was a child and teen, that women
were easily replaced in men's affections and it's hard to be patient
while the outside affairs wind down. Lies of tolerance, lies of being
the spouse who'll inheirit, lies of cultural norm of having the right
to complain and sometimes the only power women felt they had (i.e.,
his secret affair was another means of her having power in the
marriage: she keeps the secret and has something to use for herself),
back when divorce laws often took away the woman's children or left
her with little financial support and...men will be boys and cheating
was part of the marriage expectations. It always got you sympathy.
And still does these days.
>
>>It's hard for me to understand, because I never experienced love and
>>affection as finite quantities of goods. There is always more to give,
>>there is always more room to receive;
>
> not for me. i don't experience love and affection as finite
> quantities either, but time, on the other hand... so there
> isn't always more room to give. i am indeed quite limited
> by energy levels as well. there might be a will to give more,
> but no practical way.
>
>>and loving a second person does not
>>diminish the love for the first one - I think (?).
No but it does place more constraints upon time and energy.
Even with the "loving one's children" analogy, parents sometimes have
favorites. Sometimes the personalities of parent and child are quite
at odds and parents don't always love their children, especially if
they weren't wanted or parenthood is too much of a burden. And within
a family, a child can be abandoned even while living with the parents.
--That's no promise of love and support anymore than being married and
being assured of staying married means one can't be abandoned.
Talking about the whys and ways and how one can feel loved and
supported, I think, would work far better than wondering about
quatifiying and heirarchy. And to hear one's partner say they don't
get how anyone could quantify could make the worried partner feel very
unheard and not understood and not known. And the worried partner
could close down to discussion of polyamory interests.
LK
Noel Lynne Figart
Vannoy) wrote:
>
>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on the matter)
>see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves "alpha bitch" and being
>called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm
>the only one who sees it as a bit problematic.
Bitch is one of those words that can be a fighting term. Frankly,
whenever called that, I took it to mean that I had bested whomever had
to resort to the term, if used as an epithet.
Being called an alpha bitch, however, I doubt I could take as other
than a compliment.
Noel, Axe of the BABs, Mum to They Who Wake the
Giants Early, and She Who Truly Groks Coffee
RJ
}Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on the matter)
}see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves "alpha bitch" and being
}called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm
}the only
}one who sees it as a bit problematic.
<gentle>
Can we open this up to a discussion of "privileged language" in general or
should those of us who aren't female sit respectfully on the sidelines?
</gentle>
--
RJ Johnson \\ I don't write .sig files...
Meme Wrangler \\
r...@xocolatl.com \\ I write the things that make .sig files _better_.
Kit
(serene -- Sandra Vannoy) writes:
>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on the matter)
>see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves "alpha bitch" and
>being
>called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm
>the only
>one who sees it as a bit problematic.
>
>serene
I consider myself to be an Alpha Bitch as well, and I have no problem with
being called such- either by men in my life who mean it humorously w/dose of
'yes, you!', or from men who might toss it at me as an insult. If I know
someone is being insulting, I find it funny- because insulting me with a name I
call myself just doesn't make much sense.
~~> Kit <~~
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it."
Beatrice Hall
David Matthewman
> David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
> >Quoth Stef Maruch on 8 Aug 2000 18:23:33 GMT:
> >> Liz W <ehwNO...@gouldens.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >It's quite possible to make someone feel special without
> >> >offering them any kind of exclusivity or uniqueness, though.
> >>
> >> Some someones.
> >>
> >> The exclusivity or uniqueness can be small, non-hierarchical things such
> >> as "you are the only person I go to this restaurant with."
>
> >That would worry me a little. It would seem artificial. If I went to
> >the restaurant in question with Liz, and she had a good time, I'd
> >wouldn't want her to feel that she couldn't go back there with one of
> >my metamours.
>
> So you wouldn't ask for that particular "special thing." You would want
> one that felt like it grew organically out of the relationship. Am I
> getting it right?
Personally - and I'm not suggesting this for anyone else, I only know
that it's the way that I feel - I don't have any real need to have
something specific to point to and say 'that's special'. And if I *do*
have something like that, I also don't have a need it to be exclusive
to my relationship to the other person.
> >There *are* things that Liz and I do that I don't think she does with
> >any of her other partners, but they don't in themselves make me feel
> >special. Liz does that simply by being herself and spending time with
> >me.
>
> That's how most relationships end up, I think. Designating certain
> things as special is sometimes useful at some stages of relationships.
> Or for some people, at many/all stages.
>
> Do you find that worrisome in and of itself?
Not really. I just don't work that way, and I especially don't work
that way with Liz. I think it would probably be a very bad idea for me
to be in a relationship with someone who *did* work that way, because
I find it hard to understand, and so I probably wouldn't do it very
well. If it mattered to the other person I would try, although if
'special' had a strong correlation with 'exclusive' in the other
person's mind, it would set off significant 'this person is probably
*not* going to be happy with polyamory' alarm bells.
--
David Matthewman
David Matthewman
> If I do, I'll still
> have David to thank for helping me get to that point, and I hope
> he'll feel frubbly rather than upset.
Oh, I think there's every chance of that. ;-)
--
David Matthewman
Aahz Maruch
serene -- Sandra Vannoy <serene...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on
>the matter) see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves
>"alpha bitch" and being called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking
>a fight; I just wonder if I'm the only one who sees it as a bit
>problematic.
Speaking as the "man" in question, I'll note that I would only be likely
to use that phrase (or a similar one) in a place like this, where I'm
fairly well-known and where I have a reasonable expectation that people
aren't likely to take offense.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Gun-toting Naderite / socialized medicine libertarian
Cochon of Delight
>On 09 Aug 2000 17:15:07 GMT, serene...@aol.com (serene -- Sandra
>Vannoy) wrote:
>>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on
>>the matter) see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves
>>"alpha bitch" and being called that by a man? I swear I'm not
>>picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm the only one who sees it as a
>>bit problematic.
For me, "alpha bitch" is a purely descriptive noun phrase having
nothing to do with the pejorative noun "bitch". Except for the
pleasant resonance [see below].
>Bitch is one of those words that can be a fighting term. Frankly,
>whenever called that, I took it to mean that I had bested whomever had
>to resort to the term, if used as an epithet.
Yup. A compliment, in the end, no matter how it's intended.
>Being called an alpha bitch, however, I doubt I could take as other
>than a compliment.
What she said.
--
Piglet "Sober assessment of the contemporary scene makes it
pig...@piglet.org crystal-clear that a carnival atmosphere is in order."
-Bruce Sterling
Barbara C Brugger
>
>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on the matter)
>see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves "alpha bitch" and
>being
>called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm
>the only
>one who sees it as a bit problematic.
Well, basically my position is, "*If* we are going to be bitches, I am
going to be alpha." Which I think unpacks to I don't do a lot of
hierarchal stuff, but, if you insist on it I will do it as well as I can.
Another layer of this, for me, lies in my fondness for re-claiming
words that have become derogatory. One can be an ethical slut, frex.
In another group I rather happily claim to be a wench, which we end
up having to 'splain to someone every few weeks.
I do agree it can be problematical, and can depend on the tone or
intent of the person who calls me that, rather than my claiming it for myself.
I have a shirt sitting here to mail to my daughter, reading
"If you think *I'm* a bitch, you should meet my mother". For some
reason we both find this terribly funny.
ObSillyness: I once spent an evening in a bar convincing several
folx 'bitch' was an Old Norse word meaning honest woman. "No,
really! And it still means that today. Tell a man something he knows
is true and doesn't want to hear and what does he say?"
And the whole table chorused, "Bitch!"
Which leads to conversations with M when I say gently, "Sweetie,
have you taken <fact he is ignoring> into account?" and he informs
me in measured tones that I am an honest woman.
Barbara
Wedding acomplished, pictures coming soon!!!
Elise Matthesen
Cochon of Delight wrote:
>
> no...@pentide.com, in article <399193a8...@news.va.prestige.net>, dixit:
> >On 09 Aug 2000 17:15:07 GMT, serene...@aol.com (serene -- Sandra
> >Vannoy) wrote:
> >>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on
> >>the matter) see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves
> >>"alpha bitch" and being called that by a man? I swear I'm not
> >>picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm the only one who sees it as a
> >>bit problematic.
>
> For me, "alpha bitch" is a purely descriptive noun phrase having
> nothing to do with the pejorative noun "bitch". Except for the
> pleasant resonance [see below].
Yep. Also, I recall how a friend of mine told me that BITCH, which she
found spraypainted on her garage door one day, actually means Being In
Total Charge of Herself, and she liked that a lot; so did I when she
told me.
>
> >Bitch is one of those words that can be a fighting term. Frankly,
> >whenever called that, I took it to mean that I had bested whomever had
> >to resort to the term, if used as an epithet.
>
> Yup. A compliment, in the end, no matter how it's intended.
Yeah, there is that.
> >Being called an alpha bitch, however, I doubt I could take as other
> >than a compliment.
>
> What she said.
That goes for me too.
Elise,
wondering if there is an AlphaBitch cereal....
Magn0lia
> What if he already is "less special" in her eyes? Or she already
> eels less special.
>
Your descriptions sound to me like you feel that S (spouse) does not
have you as a priority in zir life. That's really hard to accept. I know
I give that impression to my primary sometimes, and I've felt that way
myself too. I hope talking about it here makes it feel a bit more
manageable. And I also hope you talk more about it, if you can.
> Talking about the whys and ways and how one can feel loved and
> supported, I think, would work far better than wondering about
> quatifiying and heirarchy. And to hear one's partner say they don't
> get how anyone could quantify could make the worried partner feel very
> unheard and not understood and not known. And the worried partner
> could close down to discussion of polyamory interests.
Beautiful paragraph.
Magn0lia
--
Magn0lia
Mary
It makes me squirm, and not in a good way.
Mary
Do not patronize any business advertised below this sig.
It was added to my post without my permission.
Elise Matthesen
Alexandre Duclos wrote:
>
> bonjour!
Bonjour! Je ne parle qu'un peu de Francais, mais je suis heureuse a dit
"bienvenue!"
(And I apologize for how I probably mangled the language there; it has
been a very long time since I tried to write a coherent sentence en
francais. Plus I had better find that whole set of instructions on how
to type proper letters with accents, too. Anyhow, hello, welcome to alt.polyamory!)
> thanks for letting me know about the subject, English is my second language
> and I sometimes miss these "interpretations". What I write in English is
> often just slightly off what I really mean... en français! ;-)
Thank you for mentioning that. Your English seems pretty good to me, but
knowing a little bit about the language in which you really mean things
helps me read and enjoy your posts.
>
> Metal Fem , wrote:
[Alexandre -- some of the following quoted post has been "snipped" out
to save space; I left in the bits I'm responding to. -- Elise]
> >But if you know that, you can watch for it and deal with it. For me
> >it's more a case of "the r/ships I have chosen are fundamentally
> >important and I will make an active choice to nurture all my r/ships
> >when my hormones are telling me to run off and make wild promises and
> >babies with the new person". It's a subtle combination of honesty and
> >shutting the fuck up when you're madly in lust with someone - and it's
> >very dependant on the particular circumstances of your r/ships.
>
> So, your (first) partner must somewhow trust you that you will be able to
> stick with her (or him) through this lust period...? I guess that it would
> help tremendously if your first partner is also physically (and otherwise)
> attracted to the new polyfamily member...? (I think there's a definite
> string of bisexualism in both of us)
It might help, or it might not. Whether it would help would depend on
the people involved, and on a lot of things about how they do
relationships and attraction and beginnings, and all of that. Some
people might find it does "help tremendously if your first partner is
also physically (and otherwise) attracted" to the new person; others
might find it makes things very much harder to have so many directions
that "New Relationship Energy" is flowing at once.
Me, I've been through a breakup where the person I broke up with
remained involved with another partner of mine for, oh, about a year I
guess. It was a very, very difficult experience, and it made me much
less inclined to consider three-cornered mutual involvements after that.
I won't say never, but it's not a big wish of mine. People vary.
I might be more cautious than some folks, but it seems to me that
dealing with polyamory for the first time *and* bisexuality for the
first time *and* the dynamics of three-person relationships *and*
whatever particular things this particular relationship will ask of all
of its participants is a lot to deal with all at once. (I wouldn't say
don't do it; I would say that thinking about how much "first time" stuff
you want to handle all at once might be useful. Maybe. Then again, a
person might not know yet, right? What we guess and what we find out....
can be so very different sometimes. <sigh>)
Anyhow, I wish you much luck and many happy times and a lot of good
communication and all the rest of the useful things. Are you and your
beloved(s) reading these responses together, and/or discussing them, by
the way?
Elise,
who is currently wondering where her French/English dictionary has
gotten to, and wondering why the only books findable at the moment are a
Danish/English dictionary and a book of Old English Grammar, which won't
be much help at all.....
Elise Matthesen
Alexandre Duclos wrote:
>
> I will definitely take the advice of going slow, I would never want to go
> faster than my wife anyway... Just knowing that it is a real possibility,
> rather than a privileged fantasy, and being able to explore the issues with
> my partner - it all makes me quite happy.
I like what you say there, and I like how you say it. If I were the
partner, and I read or heard that, I'd probably feel appreciated and
cherished. (How are things working, so far?) Exploring and going slow:
those sound like very considerate and gentle ways of learning and
growing into whatever you-and-your-partner(s) will become. (And allow me
to further say that your posts are refreshingly unlike the occasional
poster we get who asks "how can I make my partner become poly?" Thank
you for brightening my day!)
Elise,
amiable and asynchronous as usual
Brooks Moses
> Liz W <ehwNO...@gouldens.com.invalid> wrote:
> > dark...@mindspring.com (Heather Anne Nicoll) wrote:
> > >Plenty of shared elements, or shared similarities; the elements are not
> > >guaranteed to be unique to a set. But the -set- is unique, and has a
> > >unique. . . heh. It's mode (apologies to the rasfc crossover
> > >contingent) in the sense that it's a unique something-or-other that
> > >determines which elements fit in the set and which ones don't.
> >
> > Thank you, Darkhawk. I think that's probably exactly how I feel
> > about this issue, although I need to process the metaphor a
> > little more before I'll be sure :-)
>
> *bows*
>
> Glad to be of service!
>
> I don't know how much of the metaphor is mine and how much of it is the
> beloved's, mind; these things sort of munge together strangely if I
> don't have the email in question open in front of me, and even then I
> have to count quote-in indentations carefully. ;) So credit where
> credit's due -- even if I've no idea where that is.
I doubt the credit can really be properly split ... most certainly a lot
of that stuff comes out of our conversations but would never have come
from either of us individually....
The particular sorts of things that come out of such conversations are
an especially important part of the unique things in that set,
incidentally.
- Brooks
Karen Dougherty
>
>>serene said
>
>
>>
>>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on the
>matter)
>>see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves "alpha bitch" and
>>being
>>called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm
>>the only
>>one who sees it as a bit problematic.
> Well, basically my position is, "*If* we are going to be bitches, I am
>going to be alpha." Which I think unpacks to I don't do a lot of
>hierarchal stuff, but, if you insist on it I will do it as well as I can.
I usually think of my self as a Beta Bitch,which works just fine,since I'm
not a leader by nature.
> I do agree it can be problematical, and can depend on the tone or
>intent of the person who calls me that, rather than my claiming it for
>myself.
>I have a shirt sitting here to mail to my daughter, reading
>"If you think *I'm* a bitch, you should meet my mother". For some
>reason we both find this terribly funny.
>
My shirt says "You say I'm a Bitch. Like it's a bad thing." I got a lot of
verbal abuse as a kid from classmates.There are still words that will hurt me.
"Bitch" just isn't one of them.
Karen
Karen
Janma
"serene -- Sandra Vannoy" <serene...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000809131507...@nso-fh.aol.com...
> In article <3990CBA2...@lioness.net>, Elise Matthesen
<el...@lioness.net>
> writes:
>
> >Cochon of Delight wrote:
> >>
> >> serene...@aol.com (serene -- Sandra Vannoy), in article
> ><20000806121322...@nso-fu.aol.com>, dixit:
> >> >In article <8mju7k$6ou$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, aa...@netcom.com
(Aahz
> >> >Maruch) writes:
> >> >>I actually know a lot of women who have what *they* call "queen bee
> >> >>syndrome" (for some reason, I seem to be attracted to alpha bitches).
> >>
> >> >It's one thing to quote women who call themselves "queen bees,"
> >> >and quite another to call a group of women "alpha bitches." You
> >> >wanna rephrase that?
> >>
> >> Um, it's a dog pack thing. I _am_ the alpha bitch.
> >
> >(chiming in)
> >
> >It made perfect sense to me when I read it.
> >
> >Elise,
> >big gold lion alpha bitch cat ;-)
I must say, that I am an alpha bitch....there isn't the least bit of doubt
in my mind about that. That said though, I do find that the term rubs a
bit.....and I can understand the way Serene reacted, because it makes me
feel......how I feel when.....(intense RAM malfunction....) like I feel the
same way (sort of) as I do ...no wait, let me re-phrase that.....let's
phrase it as a question....Do you think that many people would comment on a
man's propensity to be 'alpha' ? So to me it's almost like saying that a
woman actively staking out her personal territory in life, could be seen, by
others, her mate included, and even fondly - as an alpha bitch, hell she may
even revel in the term....I do too when I'm feeling like protecting my
personal space. But a man doing the same thing is not seen as being
alpha....that's just normal.
You see, it's not the bitch part of the phrase that gets me per se....it's
rather the combination. Like, whether this is a term used to describe
canines or not, there is definitely also a play on words when using this
phrase for a human being.
Janma,
*more confused now than when she started....*
> Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on the
matter)
> see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves "alpha bitch" and
being
> called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking a fight; I just wonder if
I'm
> the only
> one who sees it as a bit problematic.
>
Aahz Maruch
>
>I must say, that I am an alpha bitch....there isn't the least bit of doubt
>in my mind about that. That said though, I do find that the term rubs a
>bit.....and I can understand the way Serene reacted, because it makes me
>feel......how I feel when.....(intense RAM malfunction....) like I feel the
>same way (sort of) as I do ...no wait, let me re-phrase that.....let's
>phrase it as a question....Do you think that many people would comment on a
>man's propensity to be 'alpha' ? So to me it's almost like saying that a
>woman actively staking out her personal territory in life, could be seen, by
>others, her mate included, and even fondly - as an alpha bitch, hell she may
>even revel in the term....I do too when I'm feeling like protecting my
>personal space. But a man doing the same thing is not seen as being
>alpha....that's just normal.
Actually, I do use "alpha male" about as often as I use "alpha bitch".
I probably should find out the appropriate substitution for "male",
though.
Teal
wrote:
>sa...@aol.com (Barbara C Brugger) writes:
>> Well, basically my position is, "*If* we are going to be bitches, I am
>>going to be alpha." Which I think unpacks to I don't do a lot of
>>hierarchal stuff, but, if you insist on it I will do it as well as I can.
>
> I usually think of my self as a Beta Bitch,which works just fine,since I'm
>not a leader by nature.
Whereas I don't really relate to any of that at all, since I don't
really do "hierarchical" real well. I don't want to be dominant, I
don't want to be subordinate. I want to have control over my stuff,
but leave others to their stuff.
I think I'd probably make a reasonable leader of the voluntary sort,
where folk choose to go along with me coz they like what I'm
doing/saying - I'm good at organising, logistics and inspiring others
to get motivated - but I've spent my adulthood trying to avoid
situations where I'm in formal positions of authority over others
because I feel wildly uncomfortable in that sort of position.
Hmmm. I'm not really a lone wolf, either, since I do enjoy working
with other folk and doing stuff collaboratively. I just don't see why
one of us has to be the boss.
Guess I'm not a dog of any sort. Perhaps I'm a cat. Mmmm. That makes
more sense...cat hierarchies tend to be very flexible and changeable,
depending on the situation, and (at least among my cats) no one cat
ever stays at the top of the heap for very long.
Or perhaps I'm an otter. I like that one...furry, aquatic, with sharp
teeth and an evil sense of humour. 'Cept I don't know anything about
otter social structures. Oh well, there goes another fine analogy...
Teal, rambling pointlessly.
Elise Matthesen
Aahz Maruch wrote:
>
> Actually, I do use "alpha male" about as often as I use "alpha bitch".
> I probably should find out the appropriate substitution for "male",
> though.
Is there a reason you don't just use "dog"? In the interest of
symmetry, if nothing else?
Elise,
querying
ElissaAnn
>Actually, I do use "alpha male" about as often as I use "alpha bitch".
>I probably should find out the appropriate substitution for "male",
>though.
Is there always one of each? Of the two, who gets to be
"alpha person"? What if there's a TS in the group? What
do you call that one?
Obviously, families have mommies and daddies (in some
number and combination), but except in corporations
and animal behavior, I don't like talking about who's
alpha. (Unless it's me, of course <g>)
Elissa
--
http://members.aol.com/salomone3
Lee Ann
serene -- Sandra Vannoy <serene...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on
>the matter) see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves
>"alpha bitch" and being called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking
>a fight; I just wonder if I'm the only one who sees it as a bit
>problematic.
Related question for the women on this list who consider themselves
alpha bitches:
Do you find you have problems making close friends with other women?
Just curious - I'm a self- and other-described alpha, and most of my
friends - and all of my close friends - are male. I'm wondering if it
has something to do with the alpha thing, or if it's something else
all together. My experience has shown me that many women do not like
to see hierarchical behavior from other women - they expect and accept
it from men, though.
Thoughts? Experiences?
Lee Ann
Lisa Geoffrion
<20000810080613...@ng-ft1.aol.com> wrote:
(about "alpha bitch")
>Obviously, families have mommies and daddies (in some
>number and combination), but except in corporations
>and animal behavior, I don't like talking about who's
>alpha. (Unless it's me, of course <g>)
>
Just had to comment that, whenever I see the term "alpha male" and "alpha
bitch", I think "part of a breeding pair".
Lisa
Janma
"Lee Ann" <mor...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3992aaf3.1581357@news-server...
> In article <20000809131507...@nso-fh.aol.com>,
> serene -- Sandra Vannoy <serene...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on
> >the matter) see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves
> >"alpha bitch" and being called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking
> >a fight; I just wonder if I'm the only one who sees it as a bit
> >problematic.
>
> Related question for the women on this list who consider themselves
> alpha bitches:
>
> Do you find you have problems making close friends with other women?
I was probably just big-noting myself actually....I've actually been a
doormat for years.... ;-)
Well, in a way....it's really hard for me to write about somethings it
seems....*Big Ponder* Anyway, I get on extremely well with my friends who
are women. We connect on a deep instinctual level. I have amazing
friendships with men too, but the connection and the dynamics are very
different...this could be exaberated by the culture that I live in
though...(.I'm coming to that conclusion from being in this newsgroup...)
Men are more of a mystery to me, I find more unchartered territory when in a
deep connection with a man. This leaves out vast varieties of human beings I
know. Not everyone is simply male or simply female. Though in Indonesia
distinctions in that area are much more black and white (or even black on
black) so bear with me if I seem to specialize, because my world experience
is, I imagine, immensely different to most people who live in ummm? Western
society? Liberal countries? First world?. You know what I mean.
I treasure my friendships individually, everyone is unique and has their own
set of traits, spectacular to themselves....and I love that, be they male or
female....so i don't know what I'm going on about really....just exploring
the theme...and wondering about what sort of beliefs I actually have about
sexuality.....
> Just curious - I'm a self- and other-described alpha, and most of my
> friends - and all of my close friends - are male. I'm wondering if it
> has something to do with the alpha thing, or if it's something else
> all together. My experience has shown me that many women do not like
> to see hierarchical behavior from other women - they expect and accept
> it from men, though.
>
> Thoughts? Experiences?
>
> Lee Ann
Some thoughts that have come up for me while writing this post.....
* I am definitely in an alpha position in my family, I know this because I
feel so in the centre of everything. My family just ceases to be a unit when
I'm not there. But I don't know exactly how it works.....I'm
just....well.....-central-! All the animals are 'mine' too. (Except one of
the cats who is my daughters cat without doubt.) My friends kids (of which
their are many...) are always at our house and traipse around everywhere
with me as well.
Once during a fire, my friend who lived in a house nearby with a thatched
roof had to evacuate her home in the middle of the night. She related
afterwards how her 12 year old son had been shouting, "Just ring Janma!
She'll know what to do"!....I was amused at the time, wondering what
prompted him to think that I could handle a fire better than his mother. Now
I'm thinking it maybe part of the 'Alpha profile'? It's not that you order
everyone around or demand things be a certain way...(Your way) it's just
that everyone naturally looks to you for unity, leadership, direction or
support in some way....
Janma....
*who has trouble posting about this sort of stuff....*
Lynn Dobbs
at el...@lioness.net says...
>
>
> Cochon of Delight wrote:
> >
> > no...@pentide.com, in article <399193a8...@news.va.prestige.net>, dixit:
> > >On 09 Aug 2000 17:15:07 GMT, serene...@aol.com (serene -- Sandra
> > >>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on
> > >>the matter) see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves
> > >>"alpha bitch" and being called that by a man? I swear I'm not
> > >>picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm the only one who sees it as a
> > >>bit problematic.
> >
> > nothing to do with the pejorative noun "bitch". Except for the
> > pleasant resonance [see below].
>
> Yep. Also, I recall how a friend of mine told me that BITCH, which she
> found spraypainted on her garage door one day, actually means Being In
> Total Charge of Herself, and she liked that a lot; so did I when she
> told me.
B-I-T-C-Z ?
Nah, just doesn't have the same flair. Oh well.
Peace, Love and Justice,
Lynn Dobbs
www.bethechange.net | "You must be the change
www.lambdaletters.org | you wish to see in the
www.hai.org | world." M.K. Gandhi
JennieD-O'C
>Just had to comment that, whenever I see the term "alpha male" and
>"alpha bitch", I think "part of a breeding pair".
That's it -- no alpha bitch role for me! :-)
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
Kit
writes:
>In article <20000809131507...@nso-fh.aol.com>,
>serene -- Sandra Vannoy <serene...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on
>>the matter) see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves
>>"alpha bitch" and being called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking
>>a fight; I just wonder if I'm the only one who sees it as a bit
>>problematic.
>
>Related question for the women on this list who consider themselves
>alpha bitches:
>
>Do you find you have problems making close friends with other women?
>
:::stare in shock:: Um, Yes..
>Just curious - I'm a self- and other-described alpha, and most of my
>friends - and all of my close friends - are male. I'm wondering if it
>has something to do with the alpha thing, or if it's something else
>all together. My experience has shown me that many women do not like
>to see hierarchical behavior from other women - they expect and accept
>it from men, though.
>
>Thoughts? Experiences?
>
>Lee Ann
>
>
Ditto- I have always gotten along well with men in general, but women seem to
see me as a, well, to borrow from Angie- a non-person, not really there.
When we do talk, I notice that my opinions and attitudes are so different that
I sound, even to me, like I stepped in from a different universe.
Warning: Completely unfair perception based soley in biased personal experience
follows:
I think that many women operate in a backstabbing type fashion when they gather
in groups. There seems to be a tendency to center the discussion about what
creeps the men they claim to love, really are. I refuse to say nasty things
about people I love simply because their gender differs from mine, even when
it's done in humorous ( with bite) tones.
I do find that I am better one on one with other women.Then, the convo seems
different. So ,I think that hierarchy is at least part of the problem. It's
just that said hierarchy is so foreign to me that I just can't seem to figure
it out, or even notice when it's operating.
I rarely have that trouble with guys, one on one or in groups. I seem to have
no trouble figuring out how things 'fit', and so that's where the majority of
my close relationships are. My few fem friendships have always been with women
who don't closely follow gender stereotypes.
the rogue bitch.
> Related question for the women on this list who consider themselves
> alpha bitches:
>
> Do you find you have problems making close friends with other
women?<<
Huh! I thought I was alone in this, but I also thought I was badly
socialized, which is why I could never have one of those
snuggly-coffee-tawk-call-and-talk-for-hours friendships with other
women. I never considered the alpha bitch option.
> Just curious - I'm a self- and other-described alpha, and most of my
> friends - and all of my close friends - are male. I'm wondering if
it
> has something to do with the alpha thing, or if it's something else
> all together. My experience has shown me that many women do not like
> to see hierarchical behavior from other women - they expect and
accept
> it from men, though.<<
Dunno about the hierarchical behavior, I've never paid attention to it.
But I have noticed that I'm better friends with men (at least the ones
who don't mind that I'm a bitch ;->) than I have ever been with women.
cassandra
--
Either/or questions for both/and times. - Mark Dery
mail to: pho...@roguebitch.org
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ali
wrote:
>Just curious - I'm a self- and other-described alpha, and most of my
>friends - and all of my close friends - are male. I'm wondering if it
>has something to do with the alpha thing, or if it's something else
>all together. My experience has shown me that many women do not like
>to see hierarchical behavior from other women - they expect and accept
>it from men, though.
>
>Thoughts? Experiences?
Now you've got me wondering, as well. I'm alpha, always have been,
which has led to some interesting relationships with men who feel they
have to be alpha <g>. My good friends have almost always (with two
exceptions) been male, and I tend to get along with men much better
than I do with women.
Ali ;-) (off to go ponder this...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jell-O to a tree.
Aahz Maruch
Elise Matthesen <el...@lioness.net> wrote:
>Aahz Maruch wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I do use "alpha male" about as often as I use "alpha bitch".
>> I probably should find out the appropriate substitution for "male",
>> though.
>
>symmetry, if nothing else?
I dunno. I guess I don't think of "dog" as being "male". Also, the
"standard" phrase for that is "top dog", which I *don't* think is
symmetrical. Finally, for me at least, the phrase "alpha bitch" calls
to mind "wolf" much more than "dog", so it *really* isn't symmetrical
that way.
Lynn Dobbs
Karen Dougherty at cait...@aol.com says...
> I usually think of my self as a Beta Bitch...
A million lines pertaining to prerelease software testing
came flooding into my brain.
I just want to know if _all_ the bells and whistles were
tested!
Karen Dougherty
>Karen Dougherty at cait...@aol.com says...
>
>> I usually think of my self as a Beta Bitch...
>
>A million lines pertaining to prerelease software testing
>came flooding into my brain.
>
>I just want to know if _all_ the bells and whistles were
>tested!
Well,my ex-gf is a programmer,but since we've broken up,I'm afraid that
project is likely to be on hold indefinitely.
Karen
Aahz Maruch
ElissaAnn <elis...@aol.com> wrote:
>aa...@netcom.com (Aahz Maruch) wrote:
>>
>>Actually, I do use "alpha male" about as often as I use "alpha bitch".
>>I probably should find out the appropriate substitution for "male",
>>though.
>
>"alpha person"?
Not in human terms. Your second question doesn't make much sense; in
wolf packs, at least, both male and female are "alpha", and they have
different responsibilities.
>What if there's a TS in the group? What do you call that one?
Huh. I dunno. ;-)
d...@badplace.net
: On 09 Aug 2000 17:15:07 GMT, serene...@aol.com (serene -- Sandra
: Vannoy) wrote:
:>
:>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on the matter)
:>see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves "alpha bitch" and being
:>called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm
:>the only one who sees it as a bit problematic.
: Bitch is one of those words that can be a fighting term. Frankly,
: whenever called that, I took it to mean that I had bested whomever had
: to resort to the term, if used as an epithet.
I am only guessing, but if a man was to say, "get me a cup of coffee
bitch", you would not feel you had bested him.
: Being called an alpha bitch, however, I doubt I could take as other
: than a compliment.
A complement in my book, but I can think of better, ;-)
-DogWolf
d...@badplace.net
: Aahz Maruch wrote:
:>
:> Actually, I do use "alpha male" about as often as I use "alpha bitch".
:> I probably should find out the appropriate substitution for "male",
:> though.
: Is there a reason you don't just use "dog"? In the interest of
: symmetry, if nothing else?
: Elise,
: querying
Dog is fine with me.....
-DogWolf
Noel Lynne Figart
>Noel Lynne Figart <no...@pentide.com> wrote:
>: On 09 Aug 2000 17:15:07 GMT, serene...@aol.com (serene -- Sandra
>: Vannoy) wrote:
>:>
>:>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on the matter)
>:>see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves "alpha bitch" and being
>:>called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking a fight; I just wonder if I'm
>:>the only one who sees it as a bit problematic.
>
>: Bitch is one of those words that can be a fighting term. Frankly,
>: whenever called that, I took it to mean that I had bested whomever had
>: to resort to the term, if used as an epithet.
>
>I am only guessing, but if a man was to say, "get me a cup of coffee
>bitch", you would not feel you had bested him.
No, but three seconds later, while he's spitting out his teeth, I
would.
>
>: Being called an alpha bitch, however, I doubt I could take as other
>: than a compliment.
>
>A complement in my book, but I can think of better, ;-)
Well, I prefer "Darling, love of my life," myself....
Noel, Axe of the BABs, Mum to They Who Wake the
Giants Early, and She Who Truly Groks Coffee
Cochon of Delight
>In article <20000809131507...@nso-fh.aol.com>,
>serene -- Sandra Vannoy <serene...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Do you (Elise, Piglet, Stef, and other women who have opinions on
>>the matter) see a qualitative difference between calling yourselves
>>"alpha bitch" and being called that by a man? I swear I'm not picking
>>a fight; I just wonder if I'm the only one who sees it as a bit
>>problematic.
>Related question for the women on this list who consider themselves
>alpha bitches:
>Do you find you have problems making close friends with other women?
Please forgive a certain incoherency in the following -- I'm having
trouble typing this without bursting into fits of helples giggles.
Not very alpha bitch, eh.
There is nothing intrinsically silly about your question, and nothing
wrong with you having asked it, it's just that when I try to seriously
ask myself, "Self, do you find you have problems making close friends
with other women?", self falls on the floor and bursts out laughing.
So, that would be a no.
>Just curious - I'm a self- and other-described alpha, and most of my
>friends - and all of my close friends - are male. I'm wondering if it
>has something to do with the alpha thing, or if it's something else
>all together. My experience has shown me that many women do not like
>to see hierarchical behavior from other women - they expect and accept
>it from men, though.
[This is not a snarky remark.] Perhaps you are the alpha, rather than
the alpha bitch? Two distinct roles in the dogpack.
I've always had close friends of both of the primary sexes. When I
was younger, I had a larger circle of male friends---we played lots of
D&D, and studied CS, and the like. As I've gotten older, less
patient, more outspoken, and in a different environment (work rather
than school, politically more liberal than conservative, etc.), the
proportions have changed, and I now have more female friends.
Er, no causation asserted, merely thinking about some of the
correlations I've noted.
--
Piglet "Sober assessment of the contemporary scene makes it
pig...@piglet.org crystal-clear that a carnival atmosphere is in order."
-Bruce Sterling
Piglet Needs A (NYC) Sysadmin!! http://www.evolution.com/jobs
Heather Anne Nicoll
> In article <3992aaf3.1581357@news-server>, mor...@columbus.rr.com (Lee
> Ann) writes:
Yup.
I can think of two women that I've liked more or less right off the bat
-- the mistress-elect, and the beloved's wife.
I know a bare handful of other women with whom I've been able to hash
out a decent communication protocol, of which group Gwynyth is a member.
(I'm going to put people I met due to usenet interactions, like Papersky
and Liz, out of this consideration, because when dealing with people in
online, public fora I barely register sex of the person typing, if at
all, so the interactions develop differently than when meeting FTF or in
personal online conversations. I'm not certain how it skews things, but
I can recognize that it does -- probably because the public/private
communications difference shift the traits that I react to strangely
about.)
Most women set off my, "Hello, I'm talking to an alien again!" reactions
at some level -- there's a sense in which I Just Don't Think Like That,
and it throws me. (I'm not sure I can define what 'like that' is at the
moment, though I've considered it heirarchical thought, at least in
part, ever since I read Tannen.)
> I think that many women operate in a backstabbing type fashion when they
> gather in groups. There seems to be a tendency to center the discussion
> about what creeps the men they claim to love, really are. I refuse to say
> nasty things about people I love simply because their gender differs from
> mine, even when it's done in humorous ( with bite) tones.
Or because the person who they have chosen to despise isn't actually
present in the group at the moment. . . .
I like dealing with men. Generally, if they hate me, they'll tell me
rather than be 'nice' to me and try to cut me down behind my back. I
cannot abide faux politeness.
- Darkhawk, an alpha/beta bitch switch
--
Heather Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
I believe that we'll conceive to make in hell for us a heaven:
A brave new world, a promised land, a fortitude of hearts and minds.
- VNV Nation, "Kingdom"
Papersky
dark...@mindspring.com "Heather Anne Nicoll" writes:
> I can think of two women that I've liked more or less right off the bat
> -- the mistress-elect, and the beloved's wife.
>
> I know a bare handful of other women with whom I've been able to hash
> out a decent communication protocol, of which group Gwynyth is a member.
>
> (I'm going to put people I met due to usenet interactions, like Papersky
> and Liz, out of this consideration, because when dealing with people in
> online, public fora I barely register sex of the person typing, if at
> all, so the interactions develop differently than when meeting FTF or in
> personal online conversations. I'm not certain how it skews things, but
> I can recognize that it does -- probably because the public/private
> communications difference shift the traits that I react to strangely
> about.)
>
> Most women set off my, "Hello, I'm talking to an alien again!" reactions
> at some level -- there's a sense in which I Just Don't Think Like That,
> and it throws me.
I got online in May 1994. I noticed within a few months, definitely before
Christmas of that year, that the women I met online were more civilized,
more intelligent, communicated better, and were much less alien than the
women I met face to face. Suddenly, for the first time since puberty (when
all the girls I knew turned into Susans and didn't want to be friends of
Narnia any more) I had good female friends again.
I'm still trying to work out if this is because usenet attracts women
I can get on with (more geeky, more intellectually aligned, more verbally
aligned???) or if it is because there's something I am doing wrong in face
to face protocols with women so I never get to the point of actual
communication.
I haven't had any communication problems with the women I've met and
liked online when I've met them face to face, and what with fandom and
boinks, that's quite a few of them by now.
There's a Tony Hancock sketch called "The Radio Ham" where the obsessed
radio ham guy says at one point "I've got friends all over the world.
None in this country, but all over the world!" I'm kind of like that with
female friends.
It's weird.
--
Papersky http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk pape...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
and Gwrddywal son of Efrei, and Morgant the Generous, and Gwystyl son of
Nwython, and Rhun son of Nwython, and Llwydeu son of Nwython, and Gwdre
son of Llwydeu by Gwenabwy daughter of Caw, stabbed by Hueil his uncle...
Lee Ann
wrote:
>[This is not a snarky remark.] Perhaps you are the alpha, rather than
>the alpha bitch? Two distinct roles in the dogpack.
Understood (both that it was not a snarky remark and the two different
roles). But, no, I think I tend to be more the alpha bitch, though I
will need to give this more thought.
>I've always had close friends of both of the primary sexes. When I
>was younger, I had a larger circle of male friends---we played lots of
>D&D, and studied CS, and the like. As I've gotten older, less
>patient, more outspoken, and in a different environment (work rather
>than school, politically more liberal than conservative, etc.), the
>proportions have changed, and I now have more female friends.
Hmm. When I was young (i.e. in elementary school), my friends were
mostly female. In high school, there was a pretty fair mix. And from
college onward, they've been mostly male.
And I've noticed the direct opposite - as I've gotten older, less
patient, more outspoken, into the working world and more politically
liberal, I've had more and more male friends. Hmm.
Lee Ann
Kit
dark...@mindspring.com (Heather Anne Nicoll) writes:
>Kit <brkncog...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In article <3992aaf3.1581357@news-server>, mor...@columbus.rr.com (Lee
>> Ann) writes:
>> >Do you find you have problems making close friends with other women?
>
>Yup.
>
>I can think of two women that I've liked more or less right off the bat
>-- the mistress-elect, and the beloved's wife.
>
>I know a bare handful of other women with whom I've been able to hash
>out a decent communication protocol, of which group Gwynyth is a member.
>
>(I'm going to put people I met due to usenet interactions, like Papersky
>and Liz, out of this consideration, because when dealing with people in
>online, public fora I barely register sex of the person typing, if at
>all, so the interactions develop differently than when meeting FTF or in
>personal online conversations. I'm not certain how it skews things, but
>I can recognize that it does -- probably because the public/private
>communications difference shift the traits that I react to strangely
>about.)
>
>Most women set off my, "Hello, I'm talking to an alien again!" reactions
>at some level -- there's a sense in which I Just Don't Think Like That,
>and it throws me. (I'm not sure I can define what 'like that' is at the
>moment, though I've considered it heirarchical thought, at least in
>part, ever since I read Tannen.)
>
This may be my problem- and , yeah, I have no clue how to define " like that'
either.
>> I think that many women operate in a backstabbing type fashion when they
>> gather in groups. There seems to be a tendency to center the discussion
>> about what creeps the men they claim to love, really are. I refuse to say
>> nasty things about people I love simply because their gender differs from
>> mine, even when it's done in humorous ( with bite) tones.
>
>Or because the person who they have chosen to despise isn't actually
>present in the group at the moment. . . .
Hadn't thought of it that way. But why the need for others around them to also
critisize spice, etc ?
>
>I like dealing with men. Generally, if they hate me, they'll tell me
>rather than be 'nice' to me and try to cut me down behind my back. I
>cannot abide faux politeness.
>
> - Darkhawk, an alpha/beta bitch switch
>
Yes- I prefer to know where I stand, and with men, I do.
Lee Ann
(Papersky) wrote:
>I got online in May 1994. I noticed within a few months, definitely before
>Christmas of that year, that the women I met online were more civilized,
>more intelligent, communicated better, and were much less alien than the
>women I met face to face. Suddenly, for the first time since puberty (when
>all the girls I knew turned into Susans and didn't want to be friends of
>Narnia any more) I had good female friends again.
>
>I'm still trying to work out if this is because usenet attracts women
>I can get on with (more geeky, more intellectually aligned, more verbally
>aligned???) or if it is because there's something I am doing wrong in face
>to face protocols with women so I never get to the point of actual
>communication.
I don't know what it is, either... I've not developed too many
"Internet friends", but that's largely because my time online varies
widely from time to time, making such things difficult.
I don't know what it is about (most) women that I meet f2f. I even
occasionally get along with them for a short period of time. But
eventually we run out of things to talk about, and drift apart. And
very few of them were anything resembling close friends to start with.
I know at least *part* of the reason (esp. in college) was that I
didn't (and don't) like or put up with some "typical" female
behaviors. (I'm thinking of things like acting the ditz just because
there were men around, to being hopelessly unable to fix even simple
things, to valuing appearance-clothes-makeup more than
learning-books-experiences, etc.) I lost more than one fledgling
friendship with other women in college by refusing to play their
reindeer games. :-)
Just thoughts...
Lee Ann
Heather Anne Nicoll
> In article <1ef5l9j.bvgn3uiuxdocN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
> dark...@mindspring.com (Heather Anne Nicoll) writes:
> >Or because the person who they have chosen to despise isn't actually
> >present in the group at the moment. . . .
> Hadn't thought of it that way. But why the need for others around them to
> also critisize spice, etc ?
As far as I can tell, it's a bonding/solidarity thing.
- Darkhawk, not an anthropologist. ;)
White Wolf
wrote:
[regarding use of phrase "alpha bitch"]
>I must say, that I am an alpha bitch....there isn't the least bit of doubt
>in my mind about that. That said though, I do find that the term rubs a
>bit.....and I can understand the way Serene reacted, because it makes me
>feel......how I feel when.....(intense RAM malfunction....) like I feel the
>same way (sort of) as I do ...no wait, let me re-phrase that.....let's
>phrase it as a question....Do you think that many people would comment on a
>man's propensity to be 'alpha' ?
Absolutely: "He's top dog around here." "Dog" is the correct term for
a male, domestic canine and in this usage, "top" is equivalent to
"alpha".
Is this idiom not commonly used among English speakers on Bali?
[snip rest]
--
White Wolf
White Wolf
>aa...@netcom.com (Aahz Maruch) wrote:
>
>>Actually, I do use "alpha male" about as often as I use "alpha bitch".
>>I probably should find out the appropriate substitution for "male",
>>though.
>
>Is there always one of each?
In canine packs, yes. They are the breeding pair[1]. Human packs
tend to be more varied, IME.
>Of the two, who gets to be "alpha person"?
Why does there have to be an alpha person?
>What if there's a TS in the group? What
>do you call that one?
If zie is alpha, whatever zie wants! <grin>
[snip]
[1] Yes, some exceptions exist but this is true generally.
--
White Wolf
piranha
Papersky <Pape...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <1ef5l9j.bvgn3uiuxdocN%dark...@mindspring.com>
> dark...@mindspring.com "Heather Anne Nicoll" writes:
>>
>> at some level -- there's a sense in which I Just Don't Think Like That,
>> and it throws me.
>
>Christmas of that year, that the women I met online were more civilized,
>more intelligent, communicated better, and were much less alien than the
>women I met face to face.
hear, hear.
>Suddenly, for the first time since puberty (when
>all the girls I knew turned into Susans and didn't want to be friends of
>Narnia any more) I had good female friends again.
i had some women friends off the net too, but really a lot
fewer than men. and the ones with whom i hit it off were
usually "misfits" as well, women who didn't make friends
with other women easily. there's really only one exception,
and she was just so bloody good; she was everyone's ersatz
mom, men and women alike.
>I'm still trying to work out if this is because usenet attracts women
>I can get on with (more geeky, more intellectually aligned, more verbally
>aligned???)
that used to be true, but is no longer, for me. now it is
very much more dependent on the newsgroups i am reading --
you read geeky newsgroups. i read some that are very much
more mainstream, and i have the same problem with the women
there as i have in meatspace.
>or if it is because there's something I am doing wrong in face
>to face protocols with women so I never get to the point of actual
>communication.
i find it in general easier to establish meaningful contact
with people i meet over the net, any gender, than with peo-
ple i meet first in meatspace. i know what part of that is
me -- i am just not out there as myself unless there is an
obvious way to break the ice. i just sit and watch. and i
am most likely to talk about things i am competent in -- as
that happen to be mostly things that have a huge male bias,
yeah, well, talking with women about them doesn't get very
far. there was _one_ woman in my early CS classes, there
are still not very many female system administrators and pro-
grammer analysts and bofhs among the women i meet in daily
life, nor pilots, and even in canoeing and sailing there are
a lot more men who are really into it (instead of going along
because the spouse does it).
it used to be easier when i worked in academia.
>I haven't had any communication problems with the women I've met and
>liked online when I've met them face to face, and what with fandom and
>boinks, that's quite a few of them by now.
i haven't had problems with those i've liked online either,
right -- but i certainly don't like all the women i meet.
met some two-faced (if not 15-faced) women assholes alright.
the net has set me straight about some of my own gender bia-
ses though -- i was always pretty much used to that a man
could be terse and snarky and almost hostile on the net, but
be a puppydog in person. well, i met some women like that
too, which was kinda cool. i like getting disappointed by
actually liking somebody a lot in person after i don't take
to zir net.persona much at all.
>There's a Tony Hancock sketch called "The Radio Ham" where the obsessed
>radio ham guy says at one point "I've got friends all over the world.
>None in this country, but all over the world!" I'm kind of like that with
>female friends.
*heh*. that's actually now true for me for the first time in
a long while, but things are looking up a little.
though even the new potential-woman-friend-to-be presents a
certain amount of difficulty. she's a very decent person,
smart, interesting, but our senses of humour do _so_ not
match, *sigh*. and that is very common with me and women
potential-friends, and it's a major barrier.
i do think it sucks that some of the women i like the best
live in wales. :-)
-piranha
Elise Matthesen
Janma wrote:
>
> Come to think of it why don't you say Alpha Female, instead of trying to
> find a male equivalent for 'bitch'...????
>
> Janma...
> *subconscious things come through in language....*
I know this was addressed to Aahz, but....
It occurs to me that I am *much* more comfortable identifying as a bitch
than as female.
*snrch*
Fancy that.
Elise,
deeply amused again
Debbie The Gruesome
I work in an area called Eastgate. For a while
two coworkers and myself (all together we were
a brunette, blonde and redhead) called ourselves
the Bitches of Eastgate.
--
Debbie the Gruesome d...@drizzle.com
"Sometimes you just need to look reality in the eye,
and deny it." - Garrison Keillor
http://www.drizzle.com/~das
Janma
"Aahz Maruch" <aa...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8mtf3d$5t3$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <piDk5.4924$K6.32625@news>, Janma <janm...@indo.net.id> wrote:
> >
> >I must say, that I am an alpha bitch....there isn't the least bit of
doubt
> >in my mind about that. That said though, I do find that the term rubs a
> >bit.....and I can understand the way Serene reacted, because it makes me
> >feel......how I feel when.....(intense RAM malfunction....) like I feel
the
> >same way (sort of) as I do ...no wait, let me re-phrase that.....let's
> >phrase it as a question....Do you think that many people would comment on
a
> >woman actively staking out her personal territory in life, could be seen,
by
> >others, her mate included, and even fondly - as an alpha bitch, hell she
may
> >even revel in the term....I do too when I'm feeling like protecting my
> >personal space. But a man doing the same thing is not seen as being
> >alpha....that's just normal.
>
> Actually, I do use "alpha male" about as often as I use "alpha bitch".
> I probably should find out the appropriate substitution for "male",
> though.
Come to think of it why don't you say Alpha Female, instead of trying to
find a male equivalent for 'bitch'...????
Janma...
*subconscious things come through in language....*
> --
Aahz Maruch
>
>Come to think of it why don't you say Alpha Female, instead of trying to
>find a male equivalent for 'bitch'...????
I've thought of that, but the phrase I learned was "alpha bitch".
<shrug>
Blanche Nonken
> In article <39924B40...@lioness.net>,
> Elise Matthesen <el...@lioness.net> wrote:
> >Aahz Maruch wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, I do use "alpha male" about as often as I use "alpha bitch".
> >> I probably should find out the appropriate substitution for "male",
> >> though.
> >
> >Is there a reason you don't just use "dog"? In the interest of
> >symmetry, if nothing else?
>
> I dunno. I guess I don't think of "dog" as being "male". Also, the
> "standard" phrase for that is "top dog", which I *don't* think is
> symmetrical. Finally, for me at least, the phrase "alpha bitch" calls
> to mind "wolf" much more than "dog", so it *really* isn't symmetrical
> that way.
I'm thinking of a couple of descriptive phrases a dog breeder explained
to me:
"Bitchy Dog" - a male with the physical stature of a female. Points
taken off.
"Doggy Bitch" - a female with the physical stature of a male. Points
taken off.
They used to raise Bernese Mountain Dogs, where the sexual dimorphism is
fairly pronounced.
Louise
(Aahz Maruch) wrote:
>In article <d2Tk5.4976$K6.32966@news>, Janma <janm...@indo.net.id> wrote:
>>
>>Come to think of it why don't you say Alpha Female, instead of trying to
>>find a male equivalent for 'bitch'...????
>
>I've thought of that, but the phrase I learned was "alpha bitch".
><shrug>
In our family, the metaphor came from referring to gorillas and other
primates, not from canids.
Louise,
thinking fondly of a certain silverback ...
Rivka
"Janma" <janm...@indo.net.id> wrote in message
news:piDk5.4924$K6.32625@news...
>
> I must say, that I am an alpha bitch....there isn't the least bit
> of doubt in my mind about that. That said though, I do find that
> the term rubs a bit.....and I can understand the way Serene
> reacted, because it makes me feel......how I feel when.....
> (intense RAM malfunction....) like I feel the same way (sort of)
> as I do ...no wait, let me re-phrase that.....let's phrase it as a
> question....Do you think that many people would comment on a
> man's propensity to be 'alpha' ?
I think I see what you're saying, here. Why do we have a
gender-specific term for a strong female personality, and not for a
strong male personality?
I seem to have a slightly different take on this terminology than
other people do. It seems as though a lot of women here use "alpha
bitch" to mean a woman with strong leadership qualities - someone who
takes charge, speaks out, and naturally takes the lead.
I probably fit that description. I often find myself taking the role
of Voice Of The Group or Lead Cat Herder, and I think that I do it
well. But to me, "alpha bitch" isn't the name for that description. I
see "alpha bitch" as having two additional connotations: (1) being
unwilling to cede the center of attention (always Best Actress, never
Best Supporting Actress); and (2) being concerned with maintaining a
hierarchy with one's own place at the top.
I wouldn't want to be the Queen - I'd want to be the Chief Minister,
or something. I don't mind defering to other people, or fading into
the background and letting other people be the center of attention. I
*am,* however, highly aware of my own leadership competencies, and
disinclined to let them go unused when they seem to be necessary.
Rivka
--
Rivka is riv...@home.com and a resident in clinical health psychology.
"I don't long for a gender-free society, but I would dearly love one
that wasn't gender-*stupid*." - Elise Matthesen
Aahz Maruch
Elise Matthesen <el...@lioness.net> wrote:
>
>It occurs to me that I am *much* more comfortable identifying as a bitch
>than as female.
<grin>
"Dear bitch..."
Janma
"Elise Matthesen" <el...@lioness.net> wrote in message
news:39937862...@lioness.net...
>
>
> Janma wrote:
> >
> > Come to think of it why don't you say Alpha Female, instead of trying to
> > find a male equivalent for 'bitch'...????
> >
> > *subconscious things come through in language....*
>
>
> than as female.
>
>
> Fancy that.
>
> Elise,
> deeply amused again
But what is it that makes you comfortable with bitch and not comfortable
with female?
Janma...
*who has no problem changing her mind about things*
Elise Matthesen
Aahz Maruch wrote:
>
> In article <39937862...@lioness.net>,
> Elise Matthesen <el...@lioness.net> wrote:
> >
> >It occurs to me that I am *much* more comfortable identifying as a bitch
> >than as female.
>
> <grin>
>
> "Dear bitch..."
Well, you'd probably get a better response with that than you would with
"Dear female..."
Elise,
;-)
Elise Matthesen
Janma wrote:
>
> "Elise Matthesen" <el...@lioness.net> wrote in message
> news:39937862...@lioness.net...
> > It occurs to me that I am *much* more comfortable identifying as a bitch
> > than as female.
> >
> > *snrch*
> >
> > Fancy that.
> >
> > Elise,
> > deeply amused again
>
> But what is it that makes you comfortable with bitch and not comfortable
> with female?
I'm not sure I can explain it well at the moment. And the story... um,
it's something I have told bits of here before, but it has the
equivalent of a dead baby in it, if I may refer for a moment to another
post, so I think for the moment I'll hold off on answering it, if you
don't mind.
Elise,
suddenly serious