Nominally single????
Andy Cohill
"...we have some people who are nominally single, while others are
really single..."
^^^^^^
Okay, I give up. What's the difference? Seems like a binary kind of
thing to me. You are, or you aren't. (I might also add, "Who cares?")
As for the content of net.singles, and who should post/not post,
this sounds like the travesty that just took place over on
net.women. Some individuals were claiming that other individuals, by
reason of their sex, gender, male/femaleness, testosterone level,
etc., should be allowed to post/not post to net.women.
What gives???? The net is much like life; sometimes it is
good/interesting/stimulating/etc., and sometimes it ain't. Trying to
control the content or who posts may only discourage the good
discussions that float along every so often.
There does seem to be a dichotomy among posters, though, as evidenced
by the recent discussion on normal/abnormal "aloneness." Some
netters seem to wear their singleness like a badge (I'm single and
alone, and proud of it!), while others have had their singleness
thrust upon them, and bear it quietly/painfully/joyfully on the way
to somewhere else.
Is the real issue here that the first group sees the second group as
not as qualified to be proclaiming singleness? Are we going to have to
take a test before we are allowed to post?
Her: Why, Andy, what's wrong? You look very upset!
Andy: I need a hug. (sniff, sniff, tear rolling down a cheek). I'm
so ashamed. I failed my singleness test. I'm only "nominally"
single....
(just in case it's needed.....:-) :-) :-) )
Best regards,
Andy Cohill
{allegra!ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc
Hunter Scales
>J. Eric Roskos writes: (paraphrase)
>
>"...we have some people who are nominally single, while others are
>really single..."
>^^^^^^
>
>Okay, I give up. What's the difference? Seems like a binary kind of
>thing to me. You are, or you aren't. (I might also add, "Who cares?")
>
Single: unmarried (currently unmarried, I suppose, as the term
divorcee is now archaic)
nominally Single: unmarried but enjoying a close relationship with
an SO (possibly living together but with at least two abodes)
POSSLQ: Census Bureau acronym for Person of Opposite Sex Sharing
Living Quarters
Isnt this complicated?
--
Motorola Semiconductor Inc. Hunter Scales
Austin, Texas {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!hunter
(I am responsible for me and my dog and no-one else)
Vicious Oyster
>
>"...we have some people who are nominally single, while others are
>really single..."
>^^^^^^
>
>Okay, I give up. What's the difference? Seems like a binary kind of
>thing to me. You are, or you aren't. (I might also add, "Who cares?")
>
(i.e. single on tax forms), but who are definitely not "available." There
have also been a few contributors who *are* married, or living in what amounts
to married relationships.
>As for the content of net.singles, and who should post/not post,
>this sounds like the travesty that just took place over on
>net.women. Some individuals were claiming that other individuals, by
>reason of their sex, gender, male/femaleness, testosterone level,
>etc., should be allowed to post/not post to net.women.
>
>What gives???? The net is much like life; sometimes it is
>good/interesting/stimulating/etc., and sometimes it ain't. Trying to
>control the content or who posts may only discourage the good
>discussions that float along every so often.
>
If I had had no previous contact with the original poster, I would have
thought it was the sour-grapes complaining of a lonely person who resents
the fact that those in stable relationships are flaunting said
relationships. This doesn't, to me, seem like something that would come
from the person in question. Perhaps he would care to elucidate?
I view net.singles as neither a personals column nor a place where those
currently "alone" can commiserate, but as a forum to discuss relationships
between adults of the opposite sex (cf. net.motss), and related activities
(just to keep it general ;-). I would hate to think that one's thoughts are
neither appreciated nor wanted just because of "nominal singleness." The
parallel to net.women is a good one, especially considering that there is
(was?) a net.women.only in existence for those who want discussion limited to
only women. (As an aside, I monitored net.women.only for 3 or 4 months, and
there was only *one* posting to it. Draw your own conclusions.)
Any other opinions?
- joel "vo" plutchak
{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
P.S. The above description of my view of net.singles is not intended to in any
way suggest that people of any particular sexual preference be barred from
posting to it.
Lady Godiva
>There does seem to be a dichotomy among posters, though, as evidenced
>by the recent discussion on normal/abnormal "aloneness." Some
>netters seem to wear their singleness like a badge (I'm single and
>alone, and proud of it!), while others have had their singleness
>thrust upon them, and bear it quietly/painfully/joyfully on the way
>to somewhere else.
>
>Is the real issue here that the first group sees the second group as
>not as qualified to be proclaiming singleness? Are we going to have to
>take a test before we are allowed to post?
I really liked this whole article, but for a lead-in to what I want
to say, only the above seemed necessary. If I remember correctly, I
began this whole discussion, which has led to many little
sub-discussions. I think that it is fairly safe to assume that most
people would put me in the first of the above two groups, and that is in
fact where I would place myself. It's the second paragraph above that
really caught my eye because I was thinking recently that it did seem to
me that people in the first group were only saying, "See how great it is
to be single!" and people in the second group were saying "Yeah, there
are good things, but here are the bad ones." And we in the first group
seemed to get the impression that people in the second group were saying
"It's really terrible to live alone, and it's ok if you *have* to do it,
but you'll be a better person if you don't live alone for too long, and
if you do live alone for a long time, there is something wrong with
you."
It seems to me that there are good and bad things to living alone.
There are good and bad things to living with someone, whether it be
roommate, SO or spouse. And people are all different. They have
different needs. For some, the positives of living alone outweigh the
negatives, and for others the opposite is true. And I'm afraid that I,
at least, if not others on the net in "group one", have been rather
unbalanced in my postings. So I now present, for your consideration, the
other side of the coin to living alone, or at least, the other side of
my coin of living alone.
There is no one whom you can share your joy with immediately when
something exciting happens.
There is often no shoulder to cry on.
There is no one to bitch to about your tough day at the office.
There is no one to surprise with a special meal that took you five
hours to cook, not to mention the fact that you screwed up on the eggs
in the chocolate mousse and had to do it over again, but that was ok
because you knew how happy they'd be when they saw it.
There's no one who will wake you up in the middle of the night
because they had a nightmare and are afraid to go back to sleep.
There's no one with whom you don't always have to be doing
something. No one whom you can just be with, without any pressure to do
anything, even gaze into each other's eyes.
There is often no one to talk to when you need to most, because
there is often a busy signal.
There is no one to share the comics with in the morning.
There is no one who will see you crawl to the bathroom in the
morning, hear you swear a blue streak at the corner of the coffee table,
listen to you rant and rave about your incompetant boss, be kept awake
half the night by your snoring, have to pay $780.00 in plumbing bills
because you tried to fix a leaky faucet in the bathroom ("Really - I can
do it! - What do you think you married, a schmuck?"), and who will still
look at you everyday and say "I love you".
I realise that most of the above deals only with marriage or a
live-in SO, but that's basically what I was referring to in my original
posting anyway.
Oh, and of course, there's no one to kill spiders for you. :-)
cheers -
elizabeth g. purtell
(Lady Godiva)
Greg Woods
> this sounds like the travesty that just took place over on
> net.women. Some individuals were claiming that other individuals, by
> reason of their sex, gender, male/femaleness, testosterone level,
> etc., should be allowed to post/not post to net.women.
This is not only a "travesty" that just took place, it is a CONTINUING
thing. The problem is that people are focusing on an ideal net instead of
the real thing. The real issue is not whether some people should or shouldn't
post to a given group; the FACT is that you CAN'T KEEP THEM OUT. So, it's
pointless to argue whether men should post to net.women, or married persons
should post to net.singles; we couldn't stop them even if we wanted to.
I fail to see why people in net.women complain; because the reality of the net
caused the group (and the subsequent net.women.only) to fail in its *original*
purpose (which was a non-hostile forum to discuss feminist issues), the
feminist mailing list was created. This list has been HIGHLY successful in
providing such a forum. Those people who really want to keep out "hostile"
points of view should consider joining or starting a mailing list or creating
a moderated newsgroup.
--Greg
Andy Cohill
> >"...we have some people who are nominally single, while others are
> >really single..."
> >^^^^^^
And get told...
>
> Single: unmarried (currently unmarried, I suppose, as the term
> divorcee is now archaic)
>
> nominally Single: unmarried but enjoying a close relationship with
> an SO (possibly living together but with at least two abodes)
>
etc., etc., etc....
>
> Isnt this complicated?
> --
> Hunter Scales
Yes, it is complicated, and I might add, ridiculous.
There is nothing quite like hair-splitting to keep us from the
really important topics, like color analysis and dressing for
failure. While we're at it, let's discuss how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin, and how many chucks a woodchuck would chuck if
a woodchuck could chuck wood.
*************** Disclaimer*************
The opinions expressed above are those of the author. He would not
possibly try to suggest that they apply to other men, women, cats,
dogs, slugs, former SOs, extraterrestial beings, God, his backyard,
his tablesaw, his stuffed penguin (Opus), or any other animate or
inanimate object here, there, or anywhere, including other galaxies,
alternate universes, and different time dimensions.
**************************************
Best regards,
Andy Cohill {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc
Lady Godiva
> divorcee is now archaic)
>
> nominally Single: unmarried but enjoying a close relationship with
> an SO (possibly living together but with at least two abodes)
>
> --
> Hunter Scales
Oh my - well, I'm enjoying a close relationship with an SO, but we
only see each other about twice a week, spend only about one night a
week together, and we are free to date other people although we very
rarely do. So where does that place me? Does having an SO make me
nominally Single? And if so - wouldn't it be a disgrace for the person
who started this whole issue about living alone to only be "nominally
Single" and not *truely* single? Or do I not spend enough time with my
SO to qualify for "nominally Single"? If not, but if I can't be truely
Single (having an SO and all) then maybe there could be a whole new
type of Single for me. Pseudo-Single (sp?) maybe?
;-)
Pooh @ Communist Martyrs High
>But it does seem to me that there is a division on the net between
>people who are currently single but looking for a long-term relationship
>and others who are single and not looking. The first group is single
>mostly by circumstance (broke up, moved away, term ended, not ready yet,
>etc.) but intend to marry or settle down with someone as part of their
>life-plan. The second group is single by choice and their life-plan doesn't
>include a permanent live-in spouse or SO.
How about those of us in the middle who like having SOs and
are open to meeting potential ones, but in the meantime are
trying to live happily and contentedly as singles?
I refuse to have a Life Plan either way. I just like
to see what comes along.
Cheers,
Pooh
topaz!unipress!pooh unipress!po...@topaz.ARPA
(unipress!po...@topaz.rutgers.edu)
William Ingogly
>... The second group is single by choice and their life-plan doesn't
>include a permanent live-in spouse or SO. ...
>The second group is interested in meeting people to share activities
>and interests with, including long-term friendships/love relationships,
>but really do not want to live with or be entirely accountable to
>... as they become older and more experienced
>in relationships and more acquainted with their wants and needs,
>move toward the seccond group. At this point, they would marry or SO
>with the right person but they are no longer devoting a significant
>portion of their time and energy in looking. ...
Thanks for a detailed and (I think) mostly accurate description of
both groups. Describes my current situation and attitudes fairly
closely. Boy, now that you lay it out in black & white I can see what
a real SICKO I am! Quick, where's the nearest singles bar? ;-)
>... I know there are lots of
>people out there in netland in the first group ...
>but I wonder
>how many there are in the second group and if they are as intolerant
>and self-indulgent as they have been made out to be. Comments?
I'm in the second group. I'll be 39 in January and have lived alone
for about five years now. You should know that we're far MORE
intolerant and self-indulgent than you could ever imagine; why, I just
HATE people who accuse me of being intolerant and self-indulgent!
That's why I never, never talk to other people or let them into my
life! And as for self-indulgence, why, I'll show you self-indulgence,
buddih: I'm going to go out and buy a lobster dinner and eat it ALL BY
MYSELF and not even invite anyone to share it with me! So THERE!
(Oh, and by the way, :-)
No one is ready for a sustained and giving relationship with another
person until he is happy with his own life and likes and respects
himself as a person. Many people spend their youth frantically
searching for a One True Love; a few find a relationship that lasts
for a substantial period of time; many live dissatisfied after the
initial sexual glow wears off; many more flit from relationship to
relationship searching for a One True Love that is a grand lie foisted
on us by a thousand-year-old European romantic tradition and mass
media that are as obsessed with selling True Love as with selling Sex
(The long sad history of the True Love myth will have to await another
posting). The relationships that last are the result of plain old hard
work and dedication, folks, with a small element of luck thrown in.
There's nothing magical about sex OR love.
There's also nothing about living by myself that changes me magically
into a different person if I don't 'share my life' with someone else
by having them in constant proximity to my person. Like, wow, you've
been living by yourself for five years now; you'd better find a
housemate or SO soon, or you'll become too INTOLERANT and SELF-INDULGENT
to ever do it again! A-and all those close friendships with other
people don't count: you've got to have them under your roof to stave
off these twin menaces!
Someone very close to me is on his third marriage. It's precisely his
intolerance and self-indulgence that doomed his first two marriages,
and I'm terribly afraid it's going to happen again. He was married the
first time at 18, and has been unattached for only a few months
between marriages. So don't give me any crap about how having an SO
makes one tolerant and generous. Life doesn't fit into pigeonholes,
my friends.
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
Heather Emanuel
> > > divorcee is now archaic)
> > >
> > > nominally Single: unmarried but enjoying a close relationship with
> > > an SO (possibly living together but with at least two abodes)
> >
> > Oh my - well, I'm enjoying a close relationship with an SO, but we
> > only see each other about twice a week, spend only about one night a
> > week together, and we are free to date other people although we very
> > rarely do. So where does that place me? Does having an SO make me
> > nominally Single?
Oh, please. Are we all *looking* for an argument? It seems obvious
to me, and I think perhaps to the rest of the people who didn't post
because it was obvious to them also, that the terms are practically
self explanatory.
Single: Really single; i.e., 'available' if you were to ask them out
on a date. Perhaps dating one or more people, but not involved
in an exclusive relationship.
Nominally Single: Look in the dictionary and then figure it out.
"Single In Name Only."
In this society, the term "single" means unmarried. That obviously
does not include the myriad kinds of exclusive relationships enjoyed
by members of said society. Thus someone on this net (lost now in the
confusion) mentioned in the context of a rather interesting article
that some people are single and some people are "nominally single,"
i.e., single in name only. If someone is truly single, they are
available for dates (although possibly not with [the general] you)
without offending anyone else or breaking some sort of commitment.
If they are nominally single, they are unmarried, but involved in
a relationship that involves some sort of commitment not to be
'available' for dates with others.
Now, was that so hard?
No smileys here,
--
--Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, raybed2} rayssd!hxe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this
article are obviously my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ain't life a brook...
Sometimes I feel just like a polished stone" -Ferron
Pooh @ Communist Martyrs High
>That's why I never, never talk to other people or let them into my
>life! And as for self-indulgence, why, I'll show you self-indulgence,
>buddih: I'm going to go out and buy a lobster dinner and eat it ALL BY
>MYSELF and not even invite anyone to share it with me! So THERE!
>(Oh, and by the way, :-)
Wow. I guess you showed us, boy howdy! Just for that,
I'm going to go home and eat my McDonald's hamburger all
by myself too.
(Some of us aren't very good at being bachelorettes yet. :-)
>No one is ready for a sustained and giving relationship with another
>person until he is happy with his own life and likes and respects
>himself as a person.
Or in other words, you're not ready to live with anyone
else until you've lived alone enough.
Wait a minute. . .that doesn't sound right. How do you
learn to live with someone except by doing it? Once you
learn not to need anyone else, how do you learn to let them in
again? It seems to me that there's more required than just being
able to get along with yourself--I know LOTS of people who
can do that just fine; it's learning to give and take that they
fail at. And THAT can only be learned with practice.
>many live dissatisfied after the
>initial sexual glow wears off; many more flit from relationship to
>relationship searching for a One True Love that is a grand lie foisted
>on us by a thousand-year-old European romantic tradition and mass
>media that are as obsessed with selling True Love as with selling Sex
>(The long sad history of the True Love myth will have to await another
>posting). The relationships that last are the result of plain old hard
>work and dedication, folks, with a small element of luck thrown in.
>There's nothing magical about sex OR love.
Yow! can you say "cynicism"?
I'm sorry if you are as disillusioned as you appear,
Bill, because I can still find some magic out there
in places. It's not something that you can depend on;
it's fleeting, like a butterfly. But you can still
find it.
>Like, wow, you've
>been living by yourself for five years now; you'd better find a
>housemate or SO soon, or you'll become too INTOLERANT and SELF-INDULGENT
>to ever do it again!
Naaah--you just have to start feeling like you'd like
to have someone share the mortgage. . .:-)
Pooh
topaz!unipress!pooh unipress!po...@topaz.ARPA
Thank you, my gallant little prince of baloney.
Snoopy
>> [ descriptions of various types of singleness ]
>
>Oh, please. Are we all *looking* for an argument?
No, some of us are looking for an argument, some of us are looking
for an SO, and some of us enjoy reading all the interesting stuff
posted by the first two groups.
Snoopy (member of groups 2 & 3)
tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
tektronix!hammer!seifert
"Fire the boxing glove!"
William Ingogly
>>No one is ready for a sustained and giving relationship with another
>>person until he is happy with his own life and likes and respects
>>himself as a person.
>
>Or in other words, you're not ready to live with anyone
>else until you've lived alone enough.
>
>Wait a minute. . .that doesn't sound right. How do you
>learn to live with someone except by doing it? ...
Nope. You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Many people feel they
can't live by themselves because they're insecure or immature. Or
because they feel that life without an SO is less than satisfying.
These people approach potential relationships with a lot of fantasies
built up in their heads that a new relationship will somehow make
their life better. A relationship based on fantasy will sooner or
later come to a bad end. My claim is that a person who is happy with
his own life is secure and mature, and will approach relationships
with realistic expectations.
>>many live dissatisfied after the
>>initial sexual glow wears off; many more flit from relationship to
>>relationship searching for a One True Love that is a grand lie foisted
>>on us by a thousand-year-old European romantic tradition and mass
>>media ...The relationships that last are the result of plain old hard
>>work and dedication, folks, with a small element of luck thrown in.
>>There's nothing magical about sex OR love.
>
>Yow! can you say "cynicism"?
>I'm sorry if you are as disillusioned as you appear,
>Bill, because I can still find some magic out there
>in places. It's not something that you can depend on;
>it's fleeting, like a butterfly. But you can still
>find it.
Cynicism? I don't think so. What seems like cynicism to you seems like
realism from my side of the fence.
Note that 'disillusioned' literally means free from illusion or false
ideas. It's precisely our American illusions about the nature of love
that I believe have led to the brief lifespan of so many relationships
in our society. I wasn't denying that falling in love can be an
overwhelming experience, and one of the most delightful sensations in
life. But True Love has become a fetish in our society, and the
'magic' I was criticising is the false magic of the fetish. Hasn't anyone
ever said to you when you've come off a failed relationship that it
wasn't really TRUE Love, and that you'd KNOW True Love when it came
along?
The myth is this: There is a small number of people out there for each
of us (and perhaps only one) whose natures are so sympatico with ours
that meeting one of them is like having an electric shock of recognition
run through your frame as you realize: This Is The One I will spend all
my days with. Many people, doomed never to meet their Perfect Mates,
settle for less. The implication is that marriage to a Perfect Mate is
based on True Love and is likely to last Forever since the initial
'magic' is bound to remain at its original intensity for an indefinite
period of time.
The True Love myth may have had its origins in the courtly love
tradition 'way back in the early middle ages. The relationship of a
knight for his lady was supposed to be a mirror on earth of the
relationship of a Christian to the mother of God. You might call it
the ultimate pedestalization of woman. Books were written advising
people on the proper approach to love; The Art Of Courtly Love by
Cavalcanti is one famous book of the time, and Dante Alighieri's love
for Beatrice as he described it in La Vita Nuova is also a model of
this type of love. The idea is that these people were talking about
a mystical and idealized form of love that was a lower-order form of
the love a Christian was supposed to have for Mary, the mother of God.
Now, this love was at the same time sexual, so you had a mixture of
the sacred and the profane that the Church found quite threatening.
It soundly condemned the courtly love 'fad,' and the medieval Trobadour
was an almost Dylanesque figure operating at the fringes of what was
respectable.
Needless to say, our current True Love myth retains a shadow of the
notion that lovers are striving for some idealized and quasi-mystical
state. Is this coincidence, or have we inherited a modified courtly
love tradition from medieval Europe through tradition and/or the arts?
I don't know. What's interesting in this context, however, is the
stylized nature of our OWN 'courtly love' myth and its similarity to
the medieval myth. If nothing else, it's a striking example of
convergent evolution (I suspect a more direct connection, however; I
just can't prove it yet).
Our attitudes toward love are also culture-bound. If you doubt this,
go take a good course or two in anthropology. Some languages (Japanese,
for example, which uses a borrowed word) don't even HAVE a word that
corresponds to our notion of romantic love. Some cultures view love as
a form of mental illness whose sufferers are to be pitied until they
get better. Other cultures view it as a phenomenon of adolescence that
people outgrow. The belief in the 'magic' of love is hardly a cultural
universal. Many societies view the marital bond as a conjoining of
families; love has little or nothing to do with it.
If you doubt the reality and power of the True Love myth, spend a day
listening to top-40 songs, reading romance novels, and watching 'romantic'
stories on the television. As a society, we're positively inundated by
pro-True Love propaganda.
The result is that it's easy to look at rough spots in a relationship
or at a less-than-perfect SO after the initial sexual glow has worn
off and convince yourself that it wasn't True Love after all and
merrily go out to continue your search for the Real Thing. This may be
one of the reasons why so many people seem reluctant to WORK at a
relationship with problems these days: it's much easier to convince
yourself it wasn't 'real' and go on to something else.
Will I fall in love again? Without a doubt. Will I get involved in
another long-term relationship? I won't rule it out. But I certainly
won't delude myself into thinking that our feelings for each other
will forever stay the same, or that the relationship won't involve
hard work and constant communication if it's to last. I'm not a cynic;
I simply don't have any illusions about what love is or how it works
its alleged 'magic.'
>>Like, wow, you've
>>been living by yourself for five years now; you'd better find a
>>housemate or SO soon, or you'll become too INTOLERANT and SELF-INDULGENT
>>to ever do it again!
>
>Naaah--you just have to start feeling like you'd like
>to have someone share the mortgage. . .:-)
And that's probably as valid a reason for having a housemate as any
I've seen. It's certainly PRACTICAL, and many young people I've seen
setting up households could use a few lessons in practicality. ;-)
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
Tim Bessie
>to me, and I think perhaps to the rest of the people who didn't post
>because it was obvious to them also, that the terms are practically
>self explanatory.
>
>Single: Really single; i.e., 'available' if you were to ask them out
> on a date. Perhaps dating one or more people, but not involved
> in an exclusive relationship.
>
>Nominally Single: Look in the dictionary and then figure it out.
> "Single In Name Only."
>
this awhile ago, but decided to keep out of it. It seemed so simple,
but people kept bring marriage into it, or complicating the issue.
All they had to see was that it was "I am open to new (sexual)
relationships," vs. "I am not open to new (sexual) relationships."
I think the problem was caused by people who were not so sure WHAT
their situation was... i.e. life can be very complicated. Just because
you are seeing someone, it doesn't necessarily mean that you BOTH want
a commitment. Nor does it mean that, even if you DO have some sort
of commitment, that you wouldn't mind slipping out of it when something
good comes along. And you might feel guilty about it. But you might
feel you want to preserve you INDEPENDENCE! But, but, but... you can't
clasify people. I might meet someone, and they might say to me "I'm
not interested in a relationship at this time." Then, the next day,
they'll meet someone else and fall in love, and want a long-term
relationship. It might be they didn't know until it happened. It might
be they DID want one, but were hiding it from me so as not to hurt my
feelings, or hiding it from themselves so they wouldn't feel guilty
about not liking me (people, I find, generally WANT to like people).
Anyway, I'm glad you posted this!
- Tim
---
"Time is for dragonflies and angels. The former live
too little and the latter live too long."
---------------------------------------------------------------
---> Tim Bessie ----- {ucbvax,dual}!unisoft!tim
---> Unisoft Systems; 739 Allston Way; Berkeley, CA 94710
---> (415) 644-1230 TWX II 910 366-2145
Snoopy
>In article <4...@rti-sel.UUCP> w...@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes:
>
>>No one is ready for a sustained and giving relationship with another
>>person until he is happy with his own life and likes and respects
>>himself as a person.
>
>Or in other words, you're not ready to live with anyone
>else until you've lived alone enough.
>
>Wait a minute. . .that doesn't sound right. How do you
>learn not to need anyone else, how do you learn to let them in
>again?
Let's turn that around: Once you learn *to* need someone else,
how do you learn to be happy alone?
In article <1...@cylixd.UUCP> be...@cylixd.UUCP (Becky Bates) writes:
> I always believe that you can never be happy with someone else until
> you are happy with yourself first of all.
This is worded slightly, but significantly than it usually is.
The version I usually hear is that you are supposed to be happy
BY yourself. (e.g. alone) Bullmodems! People are social critters,
we need friends, affection, love, etc. Most people can handle being
alone for short periods of time, some can handle long periods.
(short and long being intentionally undefined) But to claim that
everyone should be happy alone for long periods of time is totally
bogus. Becky's version, however, I agree with. You do need to be
happy with yourself to be truely happy with anything. Which isn't
to say that one should avoid relationships until you are happy with
yourself. The relationship may be exactly what you need to become
happy with yourself, avoiding it could be a catch-22 situation.
>>There's nothing magical about sex OR love. { William }
>
>Yow! can you say "cynicism"? { Pooh }
"cynicism"
Can you say "William isn't doing it right"?
Oh yes, I brought a Lobster home for dinner, but she wasn't
much of a conversationalist, the only thing she said all
evening was that the linguini was undercooked. Bloody lot
she knows about pasta.
If God had meant you to be single, you would have been born
that way! Wait...that's not right...
Snoopy
tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
tektronix!hammer!seifert
Beware the insidious blue meanies, for their followers are everywhere.
ben...@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu
In article <4...@rti-sel.UUCP> w...@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes:
>>No one is ready for a sustained and giving relationship with another
>>person until he is happy with his own life and likes and respects
>>himself as a person.
>Or in other words, you're not ready to live with anyone
>else until you've lived alone enough.
>
>Wait a minute. . .that doesn't sound right. How do you
>learn to live with someone except by doing it? Once you
>learn not to need anyone else, how do you learn to let them in
>able to get along with yourself--I know LOTS of people who
>can do that just fine; it's learning to give and take that they
>fail at. And THAT can only be learned with practice.
I agree that people can be quite happy with themselves and fail
miserably at giving (and some people I knew would never be able
to give/share regardless of the practice). However *I* didn't
read Bill's statement as being one that "you're not ready to live
with anyone else until you've lived alone enough". I think living
with someone or alone is immaterial here. For a relationship to
succeed and grow both partners must be 'whole'. If a person is
missing something in their own life, I don't think that they're
going to be able to find it in someone else's life. The solution
must come from within. So until the person has their own self
respect, Bill is right a 'sustained and giving relationship' is
not possible.
John.
>many live dissatisfied after the
>initial sexual glow wears off; many more flit from relationship to
>relationship searching for a One True Love that is a grand lie foisted
>on us by a thousand-year-old European romantic tradition and mass
>media that are as obsessed with selling True Love as with selling Sex
>(The long sad history of the True Love myth will have to await another
>posting). The relationships that last are the result of plain old hard
>work and dedication, folks, with a small element of luck thrown in.
>There's nothing magical about sex OR love.
Yow! can you say "cynicism"?
I'm sorry if you are as disillusioned as you appear,
Bill, because I can still find some magic out there
in places. It's not something that you can depend on;
it's fleeting, like a butterfly. But you can still
find it.
>Like, wow, you've
>been living by yourself for five years now; you'd better find a
>housemate or SO soon, or you'll become too INTOLERANT and SELF-INDULGENT
>to ever do it again!
Naaah--you just have to start feeling like you'd like
to have someone share the mortgage. . .:-)
Pooh
topaz!unipress!pooh unipress!po...@topaz.ARPA
Thank you, my gallant little prince of baloney.
/* End of text from uiucdcs:net.singles */
ben...@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu
**do i really need this line here? **
/* Written 6:59 pm Oct 4, 1985 by ben...@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU in uiucdcs:net.singles */
John.
(oops! practice practice practice!! Now one more time! )
Isaac Dimitrovsky
William Ingogly writes:
>>> ... The relationships that last are the result of plain old hard
>>> There's nothing magical about sex OR love.
>>
>> Yow! can you say "cynicism"?
>> I'm sorry if you are as disillusioned as you appear,
>> Bill, because I can still find some magic out there
>> in places. It's not something that you can depend on;
>> it's fleeting, like a butterfly. But you can still
>> find it.
>
> realism from my side of the fence.
Thanks, William, for a really good note. Your response to pooh was
roughly what I was thinking when reading her note, but you expressed
yourself a lot better than I could have.
I seem to remember a Charlie Chaplin movie in which there was a song
which went, in its entirety, "Love Love Love Love Love Love Love Love
Love Love [repeated about forty times]" (If anybody can remember
which movie it was, I'd appreciate the name). I think it summed up
our culture about as well as anything. Maybe the reason that Madonna's
song "Material Girl" became so popular is that its message, while
somewhat despicable, still provides a refreshing contrast to the
unrelieved insipidness of the fifty thousand other "Love Love Love ..."
songs around.
To me, the funniest thing about the way this True Love myth has been
sold in US society is the way the private lives of some of the most
prominent people used to sell it have differed so wildly from the myth.
In many cases, you have the feeling that if these people had
deliberately tried to live a life as different from the myth they sold
as possible, they could not have done any better. Check out the life
of Rock Hudson. Or Doris Day. Or Elvis Presley. Or John Lennon. Or
go to a bookstore and sneak a look at Hollywood Babylon II. Before the
flames start arriving, I should say that I'm not criticizing any of
these people. They chose to live their life their way, and that's fine
with me. What I'm saying is that when you compare the reality of these
people's lives with the myth they were used to sell, this should raise
a question in your mind about the myth. Or give you a laugh, if you
like irony.
My feelings are that it's a bit much to expect my SO to give me a
regular dose of magic. I'll settle for someone who'll be a good
friend to me, and who is also willing to settle for someone who'll
be a good friend to her. We can then try to make each other happy
for whatever time we have on this earth until we kick the bucket.
(I imagine this all sounds pretty dull to y'all).
Isaac Dimitrovsky
allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1)
251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012 (212) 674-8652
... Hernandez steps in to face ... Orl ... HERchiiiser ... and it's a liiine
driive, deeeeep to the gap in left center ... - Bob Murphy, Voice of the Mets
Andy Cohill
> built up in their heads that a new relationship will somehow make
> their life better. A relationship based on fantasy will sooner or
> later come to a bad end. My claim is that a person who is happy with
> his own life is secure and mature, and will approach relationships
> with realistic expectations.
> The result is that it's easy to look at rough spots in a relationship
> or at a less-than-perfect SO after the initial sexual glow has worn
> off and convince yourself that it wasn't True Love after all and
> merrily go out to continue your search for the Real Thing. This may be
> one of the reasons why so many people seem reluctant to WORK at a
> relationship with problems these days: it's much easier to convince
> yourself it wasn't 'real' and go on to something else.
> -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
I know that this will shake up the net, but I agree with Bill's
posting one hundred percent. A relationship is a lot of work, and
has little to do with that strange chemical imbalance called 'love'
that occurs in the intial stages of some relationships.
J. Eric Roskos
that one of my fellow-workers here was debating what the proper word for a
"female-type person" was. This led to a discussion of net.singles, in
which it was pointed out to me that people were debating what I had meant
when I said "[only] nominally single" in my last posting here (before I
quit reading net.singles). So I figured I'd explain, in case you were
really interested, eventhough the original "Nominally single???" posting
has long since disappeared from our system.
By "only nominally single" I meant something very specific; I meant people
who have relationships that by their existence exclude other single people
in some sense from their lives, who would not be otherwise excluded. These
are relationships that make them "not single," such that they are single in
name only (="nominally"), in the sense that, from a legal standpoint, they
are "not married".
I include in this category people who, if you innocently say "hi" to them,
and they happen to be of the opposite sex, say "Hi. Meet my SO." I also
include people whose every posting contains the phrase "X and I", where X
is the poster's SO, as I feel such postings are particularly pernicious.
I guess I don't include the "single parents" posting here among the
"only nominally single," since I have yet to encounter one who is either
antisocial towards single people, or dogmatic in terms of how their
relationship is the ideal to which all other single people should aspire.
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
Steve Hammond
> William Ingogly writes:
> >>> ... The relationships that last are the result of plain old hard
> >>> work and dedication, folks, with a small element of luck thrown in.
> >>> There's nothing magical about sex OR love.
> >>
> >> [pooh replies]
> >> Yow! can you say "cynicism"?
> >> I'm sorry if you are as disillusioned as you appear,
> >> Bill, because I can still find some magic out there
> >> in places. It's not something that you can depend on;
> >> it's fleeting, like a butterfly. But you can still
> >> find it.
> >
> > Cynicism? I don't think so. What seems like cynicism to you seems like
> > realism from my side of the fence.
> > ...
>
> To me, the funniest thing about the way this True Love myth has been
> sold in US society is the way the private lives of some of the most
> prominent people used to sell it have differed so wildly from the myth.
> In many cases, you have the feeling that if these people had
> deliberately tried to live a life as different from the myth they sold
> as possible, they could not have done any better. Check out the life
> of Rock Hudson. Or Doris Day. Or Elvis Presley. Or John Lennon. Or
> go to a bookstore and sneak a look at Hollywood Babylon II. Before the
> flames start arriving, I should say that I'm not criticizing any of
> these people. They chose to live their life their way, and that's fine
> with me. What I'm saying is that when you compare the reality of these
> people's lives with the myth they were used to sell, this should raise
> a question in your mind about the myth. Or give you a laugh, if you
> like irony.
>
> My feelings are that it's a bit much to expect my SO to give me a
> regular dose of magic. I'll settle for someone who'll be a good
> friend to me, and who is also willing to settle for someone who'll
> be a good friend to her. We can then try to make each other happy
> for whatever time we have on this earth until we kick the bucket.
> (I imagine this all sounds pretty dull to y'all).
>
Bravo Pooh, keep these two in line. They both have their sights set
at their own feet. Granted, any relationship (anything for that matter)
worth having is worth working for. When is the last time that you
had something *real special* just given to you? To go as far as to
say that there is nothing magical about sex OR love is absolutely
ludicrous. Isaac and Bill, if all you want your SO to be is a good
friend then you probably won't find *any* magic at all, in anything.
Any sapient being should be able to distinguish between lovers and
friends.
I think that there is a real return to romance in the 80's. I have
read some interesting articles about this. I will quote one in
a followup posting, it's good but looong. The example of John
Lennon and Rock Hudson are really obscure Isaac. What do you know
about their love lives? How do you know that they didn't find
magic with their chosen partners? Their lives ended tragically
but I don't know that their pursuit of love was in vain as you try
to make us believe.
--
Steve Hammond
arpa: hammond@ge-crd
uucp: {...edison!}steinmetz!hammond
the deepest personal defeat suffered by human beings is
constitued by the difference between what one was capable
of becoming and what one has in fact become.
(a. montagu)
John Allred
>
>life has lost its savor without that special person are not signs of a
>healthy mental state, folks. After a mourning period one gets on with
>one's life. You might ask yourself WHY you fear the single state and
>are unhappy spending time with yourself. Because that's what the verb
>'need' implies in this context: a feeling that you MUST have a
>relationship for life to be meaningful.
>
> -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
I think you're going too far here, Bill. Right now, I am single, unattached,
having a good time, and feel that my life is meaningful. However, I also
realize from experience that life goes better with someone special.
--
John Allred
General Computer Company
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
Lord Frith
>>
>> how do you learn to be happy alone?
>
> Obsessive longing for a shattered relationship and the feeling that
> life has lost its savor without that special person are not signs of a
> healthy mental state, folks. After a mourning period one gets on with
> one's life. You might ask yourself WHY you fear the single state and
> are unhappy spending time with yourself.
Now WAIT a minute! Loss of one's love is NOT the same as fearing the single
state! Also, this recognition that "life has lost its savor" is a perfectly
healthy thing. Better to recognize it and come to grips with these feelings
than to supress them. You might say, "well yes but OBSESSIVE depression or
longing for a shattered relationship is unhealthy." I would agree only
if these feelings led to self-destructive behavior. A melancholic state,
CAN be a healthy and meaningful thing.
> Because that's what the verb 'need' implies in this context: a feeling
> that you MUST have a relationship for life to be meaningful.
Wrong wrong wrong. This feeling of loss indicates the need for this one
person and NOT the absence of a relationship in general. Your viewpoint
sounds much like the style of pysch that says "You need X because you
fear Y."
> 1. You find the process of attending to your own mental processes
> is unpleasant. This is alleviated by carrying on a constant
> dialogue with your lover when you're together. This may indicate
> a fear that you're really not a very interesting or nice person.
>
> 2. You've come to depend totally on your lover for support in
> some area of your life. This is an abdication of responsibility.
>
> 3. You use your relationship to gain respectability or acceptance
> in your social circle. This is insecurity, plain and simple.
>
> 4. You're so used to having a good time with another person that
> you've forgotten how to enjoy experiences for their own sake.
> This is a form of addiction.
>
> I can't come up with a single indication that the feeling of necessity
> you're talking about is either healthy or desirable. Can you?
All negativsms. Item 4 is quite valid though. After all..... love IS
a dangerous drug.
--
seismo!trwrdc!root - Lord Frith
"And I want you"
"And I want you"
"And I want you so"
"It's an obsession"
Andy Cohill
> regular dose of magic. I'll settle for someone who'll be a good
> friend to me, and who is also willing to settle for someone who'll
> be a good friend to her. We can then try to make each other happy
> for whatever time we have on this earth until we kick the bucket.
> (I imagine this all sounds pretty dull to y'all).
>
> Isaac Dimitrovsky
Hey! There is at least two of us on the same wavelength! Now if we
can just find a couple of women who are also in tune we will be set.
I don't know why, but women seem to go in more heavily for the idea
that every day should include a romantic, candle-lit dinner, and
that everyone lives happily ever after. The reality is that we both
come home from work, more often than not, grumpy as hell,
tired, and worn out. Ain't much left for huggly-snuggly and
dreamy-eyes.
Next thing you know, one person or the other is claiming things are
not right with the relationship. In fact, it is nothing that having
one of you stay home and take care of the house would not cure. One
of my theories about the divorce rate is that you both just can't
have the high-tech, high-pressure jobs, the family, and the
relationship all at one time. This is the first time in human
history when both people in a relationship generally are holding
full-time jobs.
Note that this is not a plea for women to return to the household,
so hold the flames. And save the flames about my wine-and-candles
remark about women--DISCLAIMER!!!!! It applies only to the limited
sample that I have met in my life; no generalizations intended. That
out of the way, are there any comments?
Andy Cohill
> and they happen to be of the opposite sex, say "Hi. Meet my SO." I also
> include people whose every posting contains the phrase "X and I", where X
> is the poster's SO, as I feel such postings are particularly pernicious.
> Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
I agree with that definition entirely. But that also applies nicely
to many married people, who seem incapable of identifying themselves
separately from their spouses. It is as if neither one trusts the
other enough to make friends independently. I have found it very
difficult to become friends with married women because of this. Most
of them just keep their distance. I dunno. Seems like a lonely kind
of life, just you and the old man, forever and ever....
Best regards,
Andy Cohill {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whts!amc
William Ingogly
>Bravo Pooh, keep these two in line. They both have their sights set
>at their own feet. Granted, any relationship (anything for that matter)
>worth having is worth working for. When is the last time that you
>had something *real special* just given to you? To go as far as to
>say that there is nothing magical about sex OR love is absolutely
>ludicrous.
I fail to see where sex and love are more than glandular responses and
bonding behavior, physical sensations that evolved to guarantee the
preservation of genetic material and mutual cooperation in the raising
of young. All the other stuff ('magic') is myth-making, something we
humans are all too good at. I don't deny that sex and love can lead to
some of the most pleasant physical and mental states the organism can
attain, and I don't think you see the point of what Isaac and I were
saying. I suggest you might want to reread our postings.
Do I think I will personally fall in love again? Yes. Do I think it
will be an overwhelming experience? Yes. Do I think those feelings
will last forever at their initial intensity? Probably not. Do I think
True Love has a magical property outside its obvious origins in
glandular secretions and chemical/electrical phenomena in the brain?
Definitely not.
>Isaac and Bill, if all you want your SO to be is a good
>friend then you probably won't find *any* magic at all, in anything.
>Any sapient being should be able to distinguish between lovers and
>friends.
Over the long haul, one's behavior toward an SO almost invariably changes.
The physical attraction may lessen or there may be other problems in
the relationship. What gets a couple through these rough spots? It
ain't the evanescent magic, it's FRIENDSHIP and mutual respect for the
value of the relationship.
As to the difference between lovers and friends, it's a quantitative
thing based on the importance of sexual attraction in the
relationship. If two people describe themselves as lovers, they either
have sex regularly in their relationship or they think about having
sex regularly in their relationship. If they describe themselves as
friends, they probably don't have sex regularly in their relationship.
These are just relative labels we use to tell other people something
about our relationships and about our availability for new
relationships, not labels that describe cut-and-dried phenomena.
>I think that there is a real return to romance in the 80's.
I think you probably realize by now that at least some of us in this
group think this is unfortunate, especially if by 'romance' you mean
the reification of the True Love Myth.
=====================================
Language is a virus from outer space
And hearing your name is better than
Seeing your face (L. Anderson)
=====================================
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
William Ingogly
>I think you're going too far here, Bill. Right now, I am single, unattached,
>having a good time, and feel that my life is meaningful. However, I also
>realize from experience that life goes better with someone special.
Sure. But if you go back the statement I was responding to was a
question to the effect "how do I enjoy being alone after I've learned
to NEED someone?" which is quite different than the realization that
relationships are enjoyable (i.e., "life goes better with someone
special.").
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
William Ingogly
>> Obsessive longing for a shattered relationship and the feeling that
>> life has lost its savor without that special person are not signs of a
>> healthy mental state, folks. After a mourning period one gets on with
>> one's life. You might ask yourself WHY you fear the single state and
>> are unhappy spending time with yourself.
>
>Now WAIT a minute! Loss of one's love is NOT the same as fearing the single
>state! Also, this recognition that "life has lost its savor" is a perfectly
>healthy thing. Better to recognize it and come to grips with these feelings
>than to supress them.
I believe the need people are talking about originates in fear: the
fear that one can't make it on one's own, the fear that one will never
have another relationship like the one that's missing, etc. I wasn't
denying that the feeling that life has lost its savor is normal;
what's NOT normal is that feeling continuing beyond a finite period of
mourning. And I think the belief that such continued obsession is
normal is dangerous.
>You might say, "well yes but OBSESSIVE depression or
>longing for a shattered relationship is unhealthy." I would agree only
>if these feelings led to self-destructive behavior. A melancholic state,
>CAN be a healthy and meaningful thing.
If obsession isn't self-destructive behavior, what is?
>> Because that's what the verb 'need' implies in this context: a feeling
>> that you MUST have a relationship for life to be meaningful.
>
>Wrong wrong wrong. This feeling of loss indicates the need for this one
>person and NOT the absence of a relationship in general. Your viewpoint
>sounds much like the style of pysch that says "You need X because you
>fear Y."
I wasn't talking about the feeling of loss, I was talking about the
feeling that one MUST HAVE (i.e., 'needs') a relationship and trying
to analyze the reasons why some people have this feeling.
>All negativsms. Item 4 is quite valid though. After all..... love IS
>a dangerous drug.
Of course they're all negativisms; that was the point of my listing
them. I repeat my challenge: can you come up with some POSITIVE
interpretations of the belief that one MUST HAVE a relationship?
====================================
Language is a virus from outer space
And hearing your name is better than
Seeing your face (L. Anderson)
====================================
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
b...@bridge2.uucp
> I know that this will shake up the net, but I agree with Bill's
> posting one hundred percent. A relationship is a lot of work, and
> has little to do with that strange chemical imbalance called 'love'
> that occurs in the intial stages of some relationships.
>
> Andy Cohill
> {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc
However, being in love and loving, and friendship all provide
motivation to have the relationship and working one. And
committment to having the relationship. Without the
commitment nothing works.
--
shanti,
bobbie
(dewrl, sun) bridge2!bjl
Bridge Communications
Mt. View, CA
(415) 969-4000 x267
"Only the person who risks is free"
Lord Frith
> which went, in its entirety, "Love Love Love Love Love Love Love Love
> Love Love [repeated about forty times]" (If anybody can remember
> which movie it was, I'd appreciate the name). I think it summed up
> our culture about as well as anything. Maybe the reason that Madonna's
> song "Material Girl" became so popular is that its message, while
> somewhat despicable, still provides a refreshing contrast to the
> unrelieved insipidness of the fifty thousand other "Love Love Love ..."
> songs around.
A refreshing contrast, but it hardly invalidates the concept of True
Love. Love is not as insipid as portrayed in the movies or other
popular media. Is your concept of love coming from experience or from
the movies?
The most accurate and refreshing descriptions of love that I've seen
lately is the first cut of Eurythmic's "Sweet Dreams (are made of
these)" album entitled "Love is a Stranger." Not at all a sacharine
sweet portrayal and in my opinion a very accurate description of what
love can be like.
> To me, the funniest thing about the way this True Love myth has been
> sold in US society is the way the private lives of some of the most
> prominent people used to sell it have differed so wildly from the myth.
> In many cases, you have the feeling that if these people had
> deliberately tried to live a life as different from the myth they sold
> as possible, they could not have done any better. Check out the life
> of Rock Hudson. Or Doris Day. Or Elvis Presley. Or John Lennon...
> ... What I'm saying is that when you compare the reality of these
> people's lives with the myth they were used to sell, this should raise
> a question in your mind about the myth. Or give you a laugh, if you
> like irony.
Oh come now. This is true for any actor. Rarely do their lives match the
ideals of the character lives that they portray. Hollywood is hardly an
accurate spokesperson on ANY subject...science, religion or love...
> My feelings are that it's a bit much to expect my SO to give me a
> regular dose of magic. I'll settle for someone who'll be a good
> friend to me, and who is also willing to settle for someone who'll
> be a good friend to her. We can then try to make each other happy
> for whatever time we have on this earth until we kick the bucket.
This IS cynical. It denies any magic other than what can be
appreciated rationally. It accepts the pedistrian and not only does
it fail to strive for anything better... it denies that there CAN be
anything better.
hedge
Don't take me wrong - but can you say the word "negative"? I knew you could!
Alan Hedge
ihnp4!hpfcla!hpspkla!hedge
Jonathan Corbet
>I can't come up with a single indication that the feeling of necessity
>you're talking about is either healthy or desirable. Can you?
I continue to find this an interesting question. Let's take the notion
that life is entirely enjoyable on its own, that one does not need an SO to
enjoy life to its fullest. The question then arises....
Why *bother* with other people?
If, on the other hand, one admits the notion that the presence of
another person can bring an additional joy to one's life, that said person
can smooth out the low points in life, then it seems to me that one admits in
some form the idea that another person is needed, if life is to be fully
enjoyed.
>Obsessive longing for a shattered relationship and the feeling that
>life has lost its savor without that special person are not signs of a
>healthy mental state, folks.
To me, this implies a certain degree of detachment from the person
with whom one is supposed to be in love. One who is reasonably secure in
one's self can maintain a certain emotional distance from one's lovers; then
one does not feel so devastated if the relationship fails. This is
something I am having to do now (despite lingering doubts about how secure
I really am...). Maybe you have learned something I haven't; I know of no
way to do this and still love as deeply.
My experience has been that there is a height of joy in life that I
have only felt through the love of another. I live for that sort of joy.
I don't *need* another to be happy with life, but, so far, I do to feel
*that* happy. The sudden departure of the source of that kind of happiness
can make life look very bleak, for a while.
>After a mourning period one gets on with one's life.
No disagreement here.
jon
--
Jonathan Corbet
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Field Observing Facility
{seismo|hplabs}!hao!boulder!jon (Thanks to CU CS department)
Snoopy
>Obsessive longing for a shattered relationship and the feeling that
>life has lost its savor without that special person are not signs of a
>healthy mental state, folks.
Whoa! Who said anything about obsessive longing...?
> You might ask yourself WHY you fear the single state and
>are unhappy spending time with yourself.
Later in my previous article I attempted to explain that there's a
difference between "I don't want to be alone 100% of the time." and
"I don't ever want to be alone, even for 10 minutes."
> Because that's what the verb 'need' implies in this context: a
> feeling that you MUST have a relationship for life to be meaningful.
The original used the word 'need', I left it in when turning it around.
It's a stronger word than I really intended at the time, but
after thinking about it I think I'll stick with it.
> I can't come up with a single indication that the feeling of necessity
> you're talking about is either healthy or desirable. Can you?
There's a lot of things we're stuck with that aren't healthy or
desirable, ICBMs, for example. I'm not going to try to defend
the necessity of relationships. Like many things, it's rather
inconvienant. Just pointing out an observation. Some people
have relationships with an SO, some have them with friends,
or with themselves, or God, or nature, or their pet, or whoever.
The point is that relationships *are* necessary. Anyone who
thinks they aren't is invited to go live on a deserted island
for five years and then report back.
Even if we limit the discussion to relationships with SOs, I
still feel that they can be necessary, but won't claim taht they
are necessary for everyone.
Perhaps a big part of it is knowing that there is something better.
Being alone just isn't as satisfying after having an SO.
Like having to drive one of Detroit's rolling disaster areas after
taking a German wonderwagen out on the racetrack. Or dealing
with some braindamaged OS after using UNIX. "How ya gonna keep
'em down on the farm after they've seen Parie?"
Snoopy (the occasionally blabby beagle)
tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
"Life's too short to be driving Chevys."
Phillip Arellano
define "the magic", that others may be looking for/have?
megatest!phil
Ray Frank
>
>
> > You might ask yourself WHY you fear the single state and
> >are unhappy spending time with yourself.
>
Some single people do not suffer from lonliness because they either
are very much into dating and or into activities such as bowling, volunteer
work, etc. But what about the single who isn't into dating or joining clubs?
This single person would literally be alone most of the time. This doesn't
mean this single does not want to date, but perhaps is not into dating as
a way of life. In this case an SO would be a necessity and most likely more
desirible than playing the field.
>
> > Because that's what the verb 'need' implies in this context: a
> > feeling that you MUST have a relationship for life to be meaningful.
>
It is true, some people MUST have a meaningful relationship for their life
to take on a sense of completeness. There is absolutely nothing wrong with
this type of person, we, by nature are social beings, some people are masters
at the art of meeting new people, and some people either are not as good at
meeting new people, or simply have no desire to make meeting new people a way
of life. They just want to go about their business with one special person at
their side.
I don't believe being alone, that is, living alone and not being socially
active, is actually the natural state with which to be in, generally speaking.
I know of too many people who don't like living this type of life style, but
as the song goes: pity the shy one the unsure one.
William Ingogly
>>Obsessive longing for a shattered relationship ...
>
>Whoa! Who said anything about obsessive longing...?
This was a reaction to your use of the word 'need' in your posting.
>> You might ask yourself WHY you fear the single state and
>>are unhappy spending time with yourself.
>
>Later in my previous article I attempted to explain that there's a
>difference between "I don't want to be alone 100% of the time." and
>"I don't ever want to be alone, even for 10 minutes."
This again was my reaction to the word 'need' as you were using it,
and the 'you' here wasn't really meant to refer specifically to you,
Snoopy (God, am I REALLY talking like this to a cartoon character? :-),
but to the general class of people who feel they 'need' a relationship.
As to your previous article, I sometimes have a hard time keeping up
with who has said what in these exchanges and don't really have a
clear understanding of the Life Philosophies of all the participants.
So if I've misinterpreted your stance I apologize.
>The original used the word 'need', I left it in when turning it around.
>It's a stronger word than I really intended at the time, but
>after thinking about it I think I'll stick with it.
That's one of the hazards of posting to the net: unless you're precise
about what you say (whoops, unless ONE is precise about what ONE says)
you're liable to misinterpretation. I believe you personally are not
obsessive about relationships, but don't assume the class of
net.singles readers in general are not. When a strong word like 'need'
is joined to 'relationship' it causes a lot of associations to spring
up in a net reader's mind. For me, it brings back painful and immature
postadolescent longings and fantasies I've long since grown out of, and
my immediate reaction is to assume you're talking about the same thing.
The standard meaning of the word 'need' implies the needed something
is a prerequisite for happiness or health or well-being. As applied to
relationships, 'need' implies that a SO-less person is unhappy, unhealthy,
and/or incomplete in some way. This was the sense of the word I was
strongly reacting to.
>> I can't come up with a single indication that the feeling of necessity
>> you're talking about is either healthy or desirable. Can you?
>
>There's a lot of things we're stuck with that aren't healthy or
>desirable, ICBMs, for example. I'm not going to try to defend
>the necessity of relationships. Like many things, it's rather
>inconvienant. Just pointing out an observation. Some people
>have relationships with an SO, some have them with friends,
>or with themselves, or God, or nature, or their pet, or whoever.
>The point is that relationships *are* necessary. ...
Ah, it seems you're evading the issue by redefining what we're talking
about. Most people do not have the kind of relationship we were talking
about (at least that I THOUGHT we were talking about) with their God
or with nature or with their pets (unless they're kinky in the extreme,
that is :-). I assumed we were talking about SEXUAL relationships, not
general interactions with other living beings and inanimate objects.
Apparently I was wrong. If this is the case, we've been talking about
two different things entirely.
But you'll also notice that I was addressing a particular ATTITUDE
toward relationships, the feeling that one MUST HAVE a relationship
with its associated insecurities (I'm not going to catalog them
again). It ain't the necessity of social intercourse I was talking
about but a longing and obsession that becomes a driving force in
one's life. A person whose entire life revolves around an obsession
with a house or a pet or a political cause is in just as much trouble
as a person who is obsessed with romantic relationships.
>Even if we limit the discussion to relationships with SOs, I
>still feel that they can be necessary, but won't claim taht they
>are necessary for everyone.
Of course they can be necessary. My postings on this topic have
questioned whether this kind of need is an entirely healthy state. I
say no, you apparently say yes.
>Perhaps a big part of it is knowing that there is something better.
>Being alone just isn't as satisfying after having an SO.
>Like having to drive one of Detroit's rolling disaster areas after
>taking a German wonderwagen out on the racetrack. ...
I've eaten at some fine restaurants, and had meals there that make all
other meals pale in comparison: food cooked to perfection, artfully
balanced and presented. Now, there were a few possible reactions
to these intense sensations of culinary pleasure: I could decide that
no other eating experience could match them and devote my life to the
pursuit of the most sublime and refined cuisine on the face of the
earth, bankrupting myself in the process and alienating my family and
friends as I pursued my obsession; I could decide that this experience
comes only a few times in a lifetime, and resign myself to comparing
my ordinary meals to the absolute perfection I've known once or twice
in life, knowing that nothing I ever eat will ever match the bliss I
know is possible; lastly, I could realize that I very well may eat a
meal that will match the perfection of the two or three I've known,
decide that this will be very nice if it happens but that I won't get
crazy about it, and decide to appreciate the simple joys of a bowl of
oatmeal and a cup of tea out on the porch as the sun's coming up.
In short, I strongly disagree that being alone isn't as satisfying
once you've had an SO.
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
Lord Frith
>> These people approach potential relationships with a lot of fantasies
>> built up in their heads that a new relationship will somehow make
>> their life better. A relationship based on fantasy will sooner or
>> later come to a bad end. My claim is that a person who is happy with
>> his own life is secure and mature, and will approach relationships
>> with realistic expectations.
>
> posting one hundred percent. A relationship is a lot of work, and
> has little to do with that strange chemical imbalance called 'love'
> that occurs in the intial stages of some relationships.
Chemical imbalance in who? The reason I ask this is because I believe
(and have very good reason to believe) that love is more than a chemical
reaction between people.
I guess you mean chemical as in "chemical imbalance in the person who
is in love." This may be true, however this sort of chemical imbalance
is CAUSED by and is the direct result of being in love and not the
other way around. It also lasts far longer than the initial stages.
So the use of the phrase "chemical imbalance" implies something not
meaningful.
I'm very tired.
--
seismo!trwrdc!root - Lord Frith
"And I want you"
Lord Frith
>> regular dose of magic. I'll settle for someone who'll be a good
>> friend to me, and who is also willing to settle for someone who'll
>> be a good friend to her. We can then try to make each other happy
>> for whatever time we have on this earth until we kick the bucket.
>> (I imagine this all sounds pretty dull to y'all).
>
> Bravo Pooh, keep these two in line. They both have their sights set
> at their own feet. Granted, any relationship (anything for that matter)
> worth having is worth working for. When is the last time that you
> had something *real special* just given to you?
EVERYTHING (almost) that I really cherish was just given to me. You
can't MAKE magic or love. It's not a technology. Yet you should
certainly work towards what you want. Just don't expect perfection
when you live in an imperfect world.
> To go as far as to say that there is nothing magical about sex OR love
> is absolutely ludicrous. Isaac and Bill, if all you want your SO to be
> is a good friend then you probably won't find *any* magic at all, in
> anything. Any sapient being should be able to distinguish between
> lovers and friends.
Yup.
Estelle Mabry
> not right with the relationship. In fact, it is nothing that having
> one of you stay home and take care of the house would not cure. One
> of my theories about the divorce rate is that you both just can't
> have the high-tech, high-pressure jobs, the family, and the
> relationship all at one time. This is the first time in human
> history when both people in a relationship generally are holding
> full-time jobs.
So, you think this is the first time in HISTORY that both spouses are holding
down full-time jobs. Wait a minute! Women have also held down more than
full-time jobs--they just didn't get paid for it. I'm not just talking about
that myth of the ``perfect 1950's family'' where the husband was the wage
earner and the wife the nurturer ( you know, the one who raised the kids, kept
house, provided all the warmth, volunteered in the community, and generally
worked from sun-up until midnight). I'm talking about the women and men who
settled this country by working as partners to make home, immigrant families
where both spouses worked in sweat shops as did many of the children in order
to have enough to eat, how about slaves where both ``spouses'' (in quotes
because many slave marriages were not legally recognized) worked the fields,
the pioneers who settled the west where the women not only did the ``wifely''
chores but also were major participants in farming.
Sharing a relationship these days isn't easy, but it never was, so don't kid
yourself. Whichever partner works at home instead of the marketplace will
meet the frustrations and confusions just as the other will. There is no
panacea. I should know, I've been there--on both sides of the fence. Making
sure your mate is your best friend and being flexible are the only two truths
out there. Sorry.
Estelle Mabry
a good friend of Bill's, as if you couldn't tell!
(at least before his recent posting in response
to Frank Silbermann on North Carolina women)
Heather Emanuel
> Best regards,
> Andy Cohill {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whts!amc
It seems to me that you're talking about two different things here.
One is the seeming incapability of *some* married or involved people
to make friendships outside their primary relationships. This could
be for many reasons. The two most common are: 1) believing that it
is somehow improper to share anything with anyone else now that you
have an SO, and 2) simple reluctance to have more than one friend at
a time. The second reason, although I disagree with it as it
applies to *my* life, is a choice some people have made. The first
(and probably most common) is a twisting of social traditions and
should be gently challenged wherever appropriate.
But there seems to be something else that's being suggested in these
postings that I have some questions about. Based on these postings
and other postings, I can see that people get offended when they
meet someone and that person mentions that they have an SO, as if to
warn the new acquaintance off or something. Now I've been in that
situation and felt offended; I thought that my interest was purely
friendly and it was presumptuous of the person to think I was in any
way 'coming on' to him. However, when there's no obvious outward
signs of your being "taken" (e.g., a wedding ring) and it looks as
though this friendship could go in either direction, at what point
is it appropriate to let someone know you're not available?
I'm not talking about meeting someone at work or in a professional
context; then, you should be nothing but professional. But we often
meet people in social situations - situations in which it is common
to meet MOTAS and assume that they might be open to starting a
relationship. My basic reason for going to a party is to enjoy
talking to people, maybe meet a few more, the usual. But if I'm
also uninvolved at that time, I won't pretend that I might not be
seeking a potential SO. So if I meet someone, I want to know as
soon as is reasonable what his 'status' is, so I won't get any false
hopes up. (This may sound crass, but it's honest.) I also assume,
perhaps incorrectly, that if a new acquaintanceship seems to be
heading in a potentially romantic direction, it is polite of me to
inform someone if *I'm* not available.
The way I try to do this is to somehow, as naturally as possible,
work in a mention of my SO, in a context that doesn't seem like I'm
saying, "Look, bub, I'm taken, so back off." I think it's only
fair. Maybe this appears to people as if I can't think of myself
except in terms of "him and me," when, in fact, I'm only mentioning
it for their sake.
Let me put some caveats is here: I don't assume that every man I
meet is 'after' me; it's pretty easy to read the subtext of a
conversation and tell what's what, so I only do it then. If I miss
a few times, I'd rather err on the side of honesty than be accused
of leading someone on.
Most of the time it's a relief to get all the sexual stuff out of
the way right from the start, so we can simply enjoy really getting
to know one another. It's a shame that it can't be that way from
the beginning, and anyone who's read my stuff in mail.feminist knows
that I don't subscribe to feminine/masculine roles, but that's the
way it is now so I try to deal with it as best I can.
So I guess my question, after all this long-winded nonsense, is
this: at what point would *you* like to be told that a new
acquaintance is 'unavailable'?
Nominally Single,
--
--Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, raybed2} rayssd!hxe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this
article are obviously my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ain't life a brook...
Sometimes I feel just like a polished stone" -Ferron
Marsha Fanshier
>> My feelings are that it's a bit much to expect my SO to give me a
>> regular dose of magic. I'll settle for someone who'll be a good
>> friend to me, and who is also willing to settle for someone who'll
>> be a good friend to her. We can then try to make each other happy
>> for whatever time we have on this earth until we kick the bucket.
>> (I imagine this all sounds pretty dull to y'all).
>>
>> Isaac Dimitrovsky
>Hey! There is at least two of us on the same wavelength! Now if we
>can just find a couple of women who are also in tune we will be set.
>I don't know why, but women seem to go in more heavily for the idea
>that every day should include a romantic, candle-lit dinner, and
>that everyone lives happily ever after. The reality is that we both
>come home from work, more often than not, grumpy as hell,
>tired, and worn out. Ain't much left for huggly-snuggly and
>dreamy-eyes.
>
>Andy Cohill {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc
Obviously, I'm not the woman either of you have in mind since I
disagree with you both. Although I agree that friendship is an important
factor in a relationship, I wouldn't underestimate the value of "magic".
Most of us have more friends than SOs. I like to think that there are
several people in this world who are friends of mine and many of those people
are men. I'm the old-fashioned type and have had one and only one SO for
many years now. If he had the same status as my other friends I really
doubt that we would have been together for as long as we have. Sure,
we both work, we both come home tired and grumpy and many days we're
lucky if we eat dinner at all, let alone a candle-lit one. But every
now and then a candle-lit dinner is a great way to get passed feeling
tired and grumpy and to remember that there is something more to life than
work and hard realities. In other words, a little romance can go a
long way.
There must be 50 ways to find a little romance. A candle-lit dinner,
a walk together on the beach, snuggling up in a sleeping-bag under the
stars... I think that a case could even be made that the pursuit of
romance is more important that how you seek it. We are all of us different
and we all have different ideas of what is romantic but the pursuit of
romance and magic can be very enjoyable and rewarding in itself. I find
keeping "magic" alive to be one of the biggest challenges in a long-
term relationship, but as challenges go it can be a lot of fun.
Let me ask the two of you -- what is wrong with a little romance? Is
it so hard? Don't you find it pleasing to go beyond friendship to find
something special and unique with someone you care about? Do you ever
do something for your SO that has no other purpose than to make him/her
happy? And when you do find "magic" with that someone special, don't
you think it brings you a little closer?
I think you make a mistake to take not wanting to have a candle-lit
dinner every night and magnifying that to say that "magic" has no place
in a long-term relationship. As a matter-of-fact this sounds like a
bit of a cop-out to me. The pursuit of "magic" means you have to put
a little more effort into a relationship but I know of few women who
exaggerate that into a "candle-lit dinner every night". As to the
rewards of romance, they apply to men as well as to women but perhaps,
due to the way we are conditioned, women are more open to the work involved.
Marsha Fanshier
Dept. of Chemistry
UCSD
{decvax ucbvax}!sdcsvax!sdchema!mmf
sdcsvax!m...@sdchema.chem.ucsd.arpa
William Ingogly
> If, on the other hand, one admits the notion that the presence of
>another person can bring an additional joy to one's life, that said person
>can smooth out the low points in life, then it seems to me that one admits in
>some form the idea that another person is needed, if life is to be fully
>enjoyed.
Consider a person like Mother Theresa, or anyone else who has
dedicated his/her life to helping the unfortunate. There are other
ways to achieve full enjoyment and fulfillment in life than through
a relationship with an SO, I believe. Since we're social beings, we
NEED other people; I'm not denying that. But I do deny that one needs
a sexual/love relationship to be fully happy in life.
> To me, this implies a certain degree of detachment from the person
>with whom one is supposed to be in love. One who is reasonably secure in
>one's self can maintain a certain emotional distance from one's lovers; then
>one does not feel so devastated if the relationship fails. This is
>something I am having to do now (despite lingering doubts about how secure
>I really am...). Maybe you have learned something I haven't; I know of no
>way to do this and still love as deeply.
I don't really think it's a matter of keeping one's "cool" in a
relationship; one can fully experience passion in a love relationship
without abandoning one's good sense. And a shattered relationship
always hurts; it's how constructively one DEALS with the hurt that's
important, I think.
Anyone who decides to sign a marriage certificate without considering
the potential breakup of the relationship and its allied legal and
financial ramifications is a fool, for example. Being in love is no
excuse for abandoning one's ability to reason.
> My experience has been that there is a height of joy in life that I
>have only felt through the love of another. I live for that sort of joy.
>I don't *need* another to be happy with life, but, so far, I do to feel
>*that* happy. The sudden departure of the source of that kind of happiness
>can make life look very bleak, for a while.
Apologies if I offend anyone's sensibilities with this, but the
sensation of orgasm is one of the most intensely pleasurable physical
sensations the organism is capable of. Evolution/God (pick your
favorite) has come up with an extraordinarily effective mechanism for
getting nervous systems to engage in reproductive behavior, n'est-ce
pas? Now imagine that it would be possible to experience this height
of pleasure continually, 24 hours a day. Would you choose to do so? I
certainly wouldn't: the intensity of orgasm for most humans is, I
think, enhanced by the experiences that precede and follow it. It
ain't as much fun without the dating, getting to know someone, the
pleasant evening and the foreplay, and waking up the next morning to
watch the sun rise together. Human experiences are, I think,
pleasurable in context, butted up against contrasting experiences (not
all of them as intense or pleasurable). Love would not be nearly as
enjoyable if its intensity never lagged and picked up again, I think.
You fall in love with someone, then the intensity of the experience
decreases. But all of a sudden you see your partner turn in the light
a certain way, or s/he says something that reveals a new strength or
vulnerability, and Bingo: the feelings intensify back to where they
were when you first met. After a relationship like this breaks up,
everyday experiences can acquire a poignancy they don't ordinarily
have. For me, this can focus my attention on experiences I'd otherwise
ignore, and is an important part of getting through the mourning
process. It's a matter of learning to appreciate the little things
again for their own worth and stop measuring them against the
overwhelming intensity of the sensations that accompany what we call
love.
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
William Ingogly
>...I believe
>(and have very good reason to believe) that love is more than a chemical
>reaction between people.
>I guess you mean chemical as in "chemical imbalance in the person who
>is in love." This may be true, however this sort of chemical imbalance
>is CAUSED by and is the direct result of being in love and not the
>other way around. ...
Think about the mood changes you've experienced under the influence of
various chemical substances: coffee, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc.
Now think about the physical, emotional, and mental changes you've
gone through when you've been in love. What exactly is the qualitative
difference? Love is a combination of hormonal changes in the body,
learned responses, and (perhaps) certain inherited bonding behaviors
that good old Mother Nature has given us to make sure we reproduce and
raise our kids properly. Our moods and emotions are the product of a
highly complex set of chemical interactions in the blood stream and
nervous system. I suggest you check out some books on neurophysiology
from the library, or perhaps watch the series on the brain on PBS. If
you have solid evidence that love is more than this I'm sure there are
a few researchers out there who would like to hear it.
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
William Ingogly
>Some single people do not suffer from lonliness because they either
>are very much into dating and or into activities ...
>But what about the single who isn't into dating or joining clubs?
>This single person would literally be alone most of the time. ...
>In this case an SO would be a necessity and most likely more
>desirible than playing the field.
Well, I'd say a single person like this is placing him/herself in a
highly vulnerable position. This person should be aware that it's in
his power to change his behavior and get out more. I was painfully shy
in grade school and high school, realized about sophomore year in high
school that I had a problem getting to know people, and deliberately
set out to socialize myself by joining in school activities, joining
clubs, etc. It wasn't easy, but I changed myself into an outgoing and
unlonely person.
A lonely person who chooses NOT to change his behavior should be aware
that he's made a decision to do so, and realize that he is more
vulnerable than most to hurt and disappointment. If you've put all
your eggs in one basket by limiting yourself to a single relationship
and know that if it breaks up you'll have a hard time finding another,
it seems to me you're asking for trouble.
And how can you know what you need in an SO unless you play the
field? Succeeding at a relationship is like succeeding at anything
else in life, I think: it takes PRACTICE and you're going to make
mistakes before you get it right. So pick yourself up off the ground,
dust off your clothes, and go out and meet some new and interesting
people, Tiger. :-)
>I don't believe being alone, that is, living alone and not being socially
>active, is actually the natural state with which to be in, generally speaking.
>I know of too many people who don't like living this type of life style, but
>as the song goes: pity the shy one the unsure one.
Pity only goes so far. If a shy and unsure person doesn't like being
that way, he needs to take action to change himself. You need to set
goals for yourself, maybe only small ones, then meet those goals:
today I'll compliment that woman in the supermarket on her smile,
tomorrow I'll go to that club meeting or night class even though I
think it's silly. It's a matter of teaching yourself, I think, that
you have nothing to lose by trying and everything to gain.
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
Andy Cohill
> > I have found it very
> > difficult to become friends with married women because of this. Most
> > of them just keep their distance. I dunno. Seems like a lonely kind
> > of life, just you and the old man, forever and ever....
>
> It seems to me that you're talking about two different things here.
> this: at what point would *you* like to be told that a new
> acquaintance is 'unavailable'?
Right away, I guess. As Heather mentioned, it *is* better to get the
sexual stuff out of the way immediately. Of course, once that
happens, it takes some of the excitement out of the potential
relationship. 'Course, I have to admit it was more like nervous
tension and acid stomach than excitement.
Actually, what would appeal to me most is being slammed up against a
wall by a new acquaintance and being told, "Look, bub, I'm taken, so
back off." There is just no chance of mis-understanding or
mis-interpretation by either party in that case...
Best regards,
Peter Barbee
>So I guess my question, after all this long-winded nonsense, is
>this: at what point would *you* like to be told that a new
>acquaintance is 'unavailable'?
I expect the presence of an SO would become known through normal conversation
at a fairly early time. One of the things that I normally talk about with a
new acquaintance is what we spend our leisure time doing. It seems normal to
me to mention some of the people I do these things with. At some point a
phrase such as "my girlfriend and I" or "my lover and I" is bound to come very
naturally. If I "ask a woman out" (on a "date" rather than a shared activity)
I would expect her to tell me if she is involved in a SOship, but I can't
remember the last time I didn't know.
Sometimes if we have mutual friends I will ask the friends if they know.
Peter B
hac...@uiucuxc.cso.uiuc.edu
>I think you're going too far here, Bill. Right now, I am single, unattached,
>having a good time, and feel that my life is meaningful. However, I also
>realize from experience that life goes better with someone special.
>John Allred
Thank you for saying that. I agree with you completely!
Donna Hachiya
Kenn Barry
>when there's no obvious outward
>signs of your being "taken" (e.g., a wedding ring) and it looks as
>though this friendship could go in either direction, at what point
>is it appropriate to let someone know you're not available?
>I'm not talking about meeting someone at work or in a professional
>context; then, you should be nothing but professional. But we often
>meet people in social situations - situations in which it is common
>to meet MOTAS and assume that they might be open to starting a
>relationship. My basic reason for going to a party is to enjoy
>talking to people, maybe meet a few more, the usual. But if I'm
>also uninvolved at that time, I won't pretend that I might not be
>seeking a potential SO. So if I meet someone, I want to know as
>soon as is reasonable what his 'status' is, so I won't get any false
>hopes up. (This may sound crass, but it's honest.) I also assume,
>perhaps incorrectly, that if a new acquaintanceship seems to be
>heading in a potentially romantic direction, it is polite of me to
>inform someone if *I'm* not available.
>So I guess my question, after all this long-winded nonsense, is
>this: at what point would *you* like to be told that a new
>acquaintance is 'unavailable'?
The sooner, the better. I'm so completely in agreement with you
on this that I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would disagree.
Unless the intent to be impolite were clear (eg, I walk up to a strange
woman at a party and say "hi"; if she responds "bug off, I'm married",
then, yes, I'd feel insulted), why would anyone be offended to have a
new acquaintance mention that they're married, or otherwise exclusively
involved? This happens to touch on one of my personal hangups. I would
say that my single greatest fear when I'm getting to know a new woman,
and hoping there are romantic possibilities, is that it will turn out
she's already involved (to the exclusion of other romance) with someone
else. I can't recall *ever* asking a woman out on a date, or anything
with equivalent connotations, until I was *sure* that she was at least
theoretically available. Intellectually I know that asking a married
woman out would be an understandable and forgivable error, if she had
never made her status clear, but, emotionally, I'd be hideously embarrassed,
and she might be embarrassed, as well. So, doesn't it just make more
sense to be up-front about one's lack of availability? When I'm "available"
(like now; where are all you women hiding? :-)) I'm open to both the
possibility of romance, or just a new friendship or acquaintance, but
when I'm not "available", it is I who wish to circumscribe the possible
directions a new friendship may take, and it is therefore my responsibility
to let others know the rules under which I'm operating. Doesn't this
seem a reasonable system?
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
A Beaver
home feeling grumpy. As a matter of face, it is helpful to me to snuggle and
talk with my friend a little, before we go to sleep. I usually wake up in a
better mood in the morning. Some people don't have the good sence to realize
that the person which they come home to, is not the ones which they have to
deal with at work. One of the biggest reasons that friends decide to live
together is because they like each other. It is wrong to treat those friends
as if they are someone who doesn't like you.
As a rule, candle-light dinners are pretty rare even when one of the members
of a domestic partnership is at home most of the time. Most of the time, you
may feel that it would be better if someone else took the responsability of
your meals and chores away from you. That would leave more time to do all of
those other things that are so important.
The fact of the matter is, life just isn't that way. When all is said and done,
the one that you can always rely on to do things just the way that you like
them, is yourself. It seems that so often, that people forget this fact.
If you want to enjoy life, it really takes two people bringing money into the
household to be able to live in a comfortable fashion. When children are
involved, there is no question about it. To eat correctly and dress comfortably
it takes a bit of cash these days. Besides, which of you would opt to stay
home?
I have tried it and I would rather work outside of the home, thank you.
Working a shorter week might be okay, then I could get some personal hacking
done.
The only thing that I have found that works as far as the housework goes, is if
you each pick up after yourselves and do your own wash, and hire a maid once a
month. Having children to support, I can't afford the maid so we share the
chores. At the point that they are supporting themselves, I will start hiring
someone.
So much for my $.02 and change....
Annadiana Beaver
A Beaver@Tektronix
Snoopy
>Snoopy (God, am I REALLY talking like this to a cartoon character? :-),
Hey, cartoon characters need love too! (Whoops! There's that word again! :-) )
>That's one of the hazards of posting to the net: unless you're precise
>about what you say (whoops, unless ONE is precise about what ONE says)
>you're liable to misinterpretation.
Doesn't matter. I get misinterpreted no matter how careful and precise I am.
And misinterpret others no matter how careful *they* are. And many
others have the same problem.
> As applied to relationships, 'need' implies that a SO-less person
> is unhappy, unhealthy, and/or incomplete in some way. This was the
> sense of the word I was strongly reacting to.
Not 'is' as in *all* SO-less persons are condemed to be unhappy, etc.
Rather that the SO-less person *might be* unhappy, etc.
>Ah, it seems you're evading the issue by redefining what we're talking
>about.
Not evading, just shooting off on a tangent. Sorry for the confusion.
> I assumed we were talking about SEXUAL relationships, not
>general interactions with other living beings and inanimate objects.
>Apparently I was wrong. If this is the case, we've been talking about
>two different things entirely.
Sigh. I was mainly talking about "romantic" relationships, which
may or may not include sex. (or bowling with Mike Royko :-) )
Then I shoot off on a tangent, saying that (almost) everyone
needs "generic" relationships, and some need "romantic" relationships.
>>Even if we limit the discussion to relationships with SOs, I
>>still feel that they can be necessary, but won't claim that they
>>are necessary for everyone.
>
>Of course they can be necessary. My postings on this topic have
>questioned whether this kind of need is an entirely healthy state. I
>say no, you apparently say yes.
Well...if you have a relationship, you can be healthy, if you don't...
>In short, I strongly disagree that being alone isn't as satisfying
>once you've had an SO.
It *can* be, but it isn't *necessarily* as satisfying. (Why do I feel
like a broken record?)
OK, Bill, question for you: what if you were a victim of the
"no-SO blues"? How would you get back into the healthy state
of self-sufficiency?
Snoopy
tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
All together now:
A winter's day, in a deep and dark December,
I am alone, gazing from my window, to the streets below
on a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock. I am an island.
I build walls, a fortress deep and mighty.
That none may penetrate.
I have no need of friendship,
friendship causes pain.
It's laughter and it's nothing I distain. (?)
I am a rock, I am an island.
Don't talk of love, well I've heard the word before.
It's sleeping in my memory.
I won't disturb the slumber, of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock, I am an island.
I have my books, and my poetry to protect me,
I am shielded in my armor.
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch noone, and noone touches me.
I am a rock, I am an island.
And a rock feels no pain, and an island never cries.
Simon and Garfunkel
George Lewak
>So I guess my question, after all this long-winded nonsense, is
>this: at what point would *you* like to be told that a new
>acquaintance is 'unavailable'?
>
>
>--
>--Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, raybed2} rayssd!hxe
I never want my new acquaintance to tell me bluntly. If
were interested in her as a potential SO, I would somehow
find out for myself. That is, if the reason is that she
already has an SO. If so, she would usually at some time
mention it in passing, and I would commit it to memory.
If she is just "unavailable", all she really has to do
is not lead me on. Being a shy person, I rarely ever make
any moves, and never proceed onward if I don't get a positive
response.
In other words, I don't see a point to being blunt unless the
other person is obnoxiously too persistent. Personally,
I find that when a female is blunt to me, it destroys
a chance for any friendship at all between us because she
begins feeling uncomfortable around me (and thus I feel
uncomfortable, and the cycle continues...)
Single in all respects
(I don't know what "nominally" means)
Victor Romano
-------------------------------
Hey, get your filthy hands off my desert!
(what did he say?)
-The Screaming Abdabs
Chuck Ferrara
>>
>>So I guess my question, after all this long-winded nonsense, is
>>this: at what point would *you* like to be told that a new
>>acquaintance is 'unavailable'?
>
>at a fairly early time. One of the things that I normally talk about with a
>new acquaintance is what we spend our leisure time doing. It seems normal to
>me to mention some of the people I do these things with. At some point a
>phrase such as "my girlfriend and I" or "my lover and I" is bound to come very
>naturally.
Sometimes such phrases do come out naturally, but sometimes they don't.
I have found about prospective SO's being attached the hard way more than
once and it can be painful. What I have learned is that I can't count on
being told and it's a very akward thing to ask somebody, directly.
I ask mutual friends when that option exists, but sometimes it doesn't.
I like to find out early and the passive approach isn't always reliable.
Does anyone have suggestions?
Chuck F.
George Lewak
Heather says:
>> ... So I guess my question, after all this long-winded nonsense, is
>> this: at what point would *you* like to be told that a new
>> acquaintance is 'unavailable'?
>
Andy says:
>Right away, I guess. As Heather mentioned, it *is* better to get the
>sexual stuff out of the way immediately. Of course, once that
>happens, it takes some of the excitement out of the potential
>relationship. 'Course, I have to admit it was more like nervous
>tension and acid stomach than excitement.
>
>Actually, what would appeal to me most is being slammed up against a
>wall by a new acquaintance and being told, "Look, bub, I'm taken, so
>back off." There is just no chance of mis-understanding or
>mis-interpretation by either party in that case...
I said:
>I never want my new acquaintance to tell me bluntly. If
>were interested in her as a potential SO, I would somehow
>find out for myself.
I say now:
Obviously, some people have a different opinion of what
is appropriate. Well, I guess you can't please
everybody. But, I *absolutely do not* like it when
a woman is cruel to me when she lets me know she is unavailable.
Being cruel can gaurantee that we will never be friends.
Victor
mcc...@ucla-cs.uucp
occasions, people wore flowers to indicate whether they were "available"
or not. Women wore flowers over one ear if they were single and looking
for a relationship, and men wore corsages on their lapels to indicate the
same thing. This bit of social trivia has been lost, thrown out with the
truly offensive stuff that was also common at the time. But it was a
convenient way to signal your intentions to everyone, and was at one time
nearly universally understood. (At least in rural areas and certain cities.)
I've often wished for the return of some form of this custom, due to my
incredible knack for singling out the one engaged/married/nominally single
woman in a crowd. As long as the other customs didn't come with it. But
it would be nice to walk into a social occasion and signal all those who
were interested that I'm looking for MOTAS, in some socially acceptable way.
By the way, I once ran into a cute definition of "nominally single." I struck
up a conversation with an attractive woman who was refinishing some furniture
outside an apartment. Her SO, a six-and-a-half foot tall fist with eyes
walked up behind me and loudly demanded to know just what I thought I was
doing. Of course being single is hazardous to your health. I could have
told you that.
But, back to the question at hand: When should you tell someone you are
"Not Available"? Assuming there's no way to tell from a distance, and no
matchmakers, it should come out in conversation whenever it starts to seem
relevant, but hopefully before the other person puts their foot in it by
asking you out. The cue: the average person pauses briefly, collecting
nerve to plunge into the subject of SO-hood. By this time, it's too late.
Somewhere in the first two to five minutes is fine. The problem is, the
women who in my experience seem very energetic, relaxed, attractive, together,
and so on, don't pay attention to this because they're still hyper on account
of their SO proposing to them just recently. Understandable, but still...
--fini--
A Singularity is the center of a black hole. A Single is described below.
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: mcc...@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
"To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare)
"I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes
"<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)
Snoopy
George:
>At this point, it became apparent that Snoopy is defending his position
>for his use of the word "need", because of the general belief that
>"needing" a relationship is immature, or not machismo, or whatever.
>So, by claiming lack of a better word, he redeems himself. Of course,
>his true opinion is still apparent when he decides not to find
>one, anyway.
He whose breath reeks of Mo Shu Alpo:
Need for a relationship has little to do with maturity, immaturity,
machismo, or shoe size. (In this beagle's opinion, anyway) Bill is
claiming that the need for a relationship is unhealthy. Whether it
is unhealthy or not, many people (and beagles!) do need a relationship,
and we have to deal with that need somehow. Being told that you
don't need what you know good and well that you *do* need is less than
helpful.
You can say that what we "need" consists of oxygen, water, food,
and in most climates, clothing and shelter. This is what we require
to survive, not to live. What we require to live is not as easily
defined. It varies from person to person, and from time to time
throughout our lives. It is also difficult to detirmine what we
need verses what we merely want.
I've been attempting to write about people in general, not about
my specific case. (I'm a little strange, and things that are
true for me are often not true for people in general.) Perhaps
there's a better word than "need", perhaps there isn't. I'm
not a writer, ok?
To satisify George's curiosity, yes, I feel that I need a relationship.
Perhaps this need wouldn't be so strong if society wasn't so strongly
couple oriented. But with most people coupled and only interested
in doing things with their SO (and kids) there's really noone else
to do anything with. And many people who are single don't want to
"waste" time with someone who "isn't going to work out". And to add
insult to injury, the VAXen are usually down for backups on Friday
nights, so I can't even read usenet! :-\
The answer changes if we use George and Bill's definition of
relationship. (relationship = sex) I *think* that for me, sex is
on the top of the "want" list, rather than on the "need" list.
But I'm not sure at this point. Coming up with a more definite
answer will require extensive research. :-)
Snoopy
tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
"But you're so brave to expose ... all those ... popsicle toes."
Michael Franks
David Brake c/o Reid Ellis
I must disagree with Bill's analysis. His attitude has
an unfortunate similarity to that of my father's. The
idea that if you have trouble meeting people that it
is your own fault, and you should deliberately seek
out things to do to overcome your shyness can become
downright irritating. If you aren't happy at parties,
singles bars, dances and other gatherings, it is likely
you will make yourself miserable going to them, and lose
your sense of self-respect. Better to wait for the unlikely
to come out of the blue than to torture yourself by
prostituting your dignity. Caveats:
My life experience is rather limited (19 yrs.), and after
many long years of painful waiting, the Long Awaited One
seems to have slidd into my life without the unpleasant
need to do anything except attend classes.
David Russell Brake I, Esq.
Scholar And A Gentleman
--
--
Reid Ellis "Roads? Where we're going, who needs _roads_?"
{{allegra,decvax,duke,floyd,linus}!utzoo,{ihnp4,utzoo}!utcsri}!dciem!reid
This message brought to you courtesy of the Poslfit Committee
Laura Creighton
I think that if you have had to put up with 19 years of your father saying
that ``if you aren't X then it it YOUR fault'' then it is about time that
you got to do things your way. It might even be fun to tell your folks
to go for a hike...
However, later on, when you reach the exalted age of 27 or so you may find
that there are some real problems in your life. Being lonely and shy might be
one of them. At this point, when there is nobody leaning on you, it would be
nice if you *could* discover that your problems in life are problems with
*you*. These days I love to find problems with me, because I have a fairly
good idea that I can work at my problems and fix them.
One of my problems is Revenue Canada. However, the number of things that I
can do about it is rather limited. Not so if my problem was shyness...
I am glad things are going well for you. Remember, if it *ain't broke*,
*don't try to fix it*!! If at some point you decide that it *is* broken,
then is the time to do something about it...
--
Help beutify the world. I am writing a book called *How To Write Portable C
Programs*. Send me anything that you would like to find in such a book when
it appears in your bookstores. Get your name mentioned in the credits.
Laura Creighton
sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!la...@lll-crg.arpa
William Ingogly
>I must disagree with Bill's analysis. His attitude has
>an unfortunate similarity to that of my father's.
Probably because I'm old enough to BE your father (39 in January).
>idea that if you have trouble meeting people that it
>is your own fault, and you should deliberately seek
>out things to do to overcome your shyness can become
>downright irritating.
It's not a matter of fault, but no one's going to change your life for
you. Ask yourself this: if your relationship falls apart with your
current Long Awaited One, what will you do? Wait for 'long years' again
until Fate happens to throw you together with someone compatible? It's
a matter of taking charge of your life, realizing that shyness CAN be
overcome (I did it about 20 years ago: just about your age, as a matter
of fact) and deciding to change your environment so circumstance will
help you overcome your shyness. It's work, but it's well worth the
effort. Now, I'm outgoing, love people, and have no difficulty asking
out total strangers I'm attracted to. And if I'm turned down there's
no hurt involved: some people simply aren't attracted to me, that's
all.
>If you aren't happy at parties,
>singles bars, dances and other gatherings, it is likely
>you will make yourself miserable going to them, and lose
>your sense of self-respect. Better to wait for the unlikely
>to come out of the blue than to torture yourself by
>prostituting your dignity.
You mention making yourself 'miserable,' losing 'self-respect,' and
prostituting your 'dignity.' Here's some advice from my own
experience. Your problem, my young friend, may be that you're
approaching every interaction with an attractive female at social
events as the beginning of a potential serious relationship. You need
to examine your expectations in situations like this; next time you
meet a female and start talking to her, ask yourself what you're
FEELING about this woman, and why. You may find you're projecting an
intensity and longing in the initial encounter that's frightening
women off (even women who may be in the market for a relationship of
some sort). You need to learn that friendship comes first in a
relationship, love later. Learn how to appreciate young women the same
way you appreciate new male friends for shared interests or for their
sense of humor and put your lust and loneliness behind you. Your loss
of self-respect is in your own head; people at a party aren't going
around saying, "look at David over there; why, he's just lost his
self-respect!" and you might be surprised to know that a few of the
young ladies who rebuffed you later told their friends something like
"he's a real nice guy, but he's too INTENSE for me, following me
around the floor like a chick after a mamma hen!" Guess what: women
are human beings just like us men, with the same wants, needs, longings
and shortcomings we have.
As to prostituting your dignity, you'll come to realize some day that
life is way too short to worry about things like dignity. You need to
loosen up and stop taking yourself so SERIOUSLY (a not uncommon thing
for 19 year old people to do). I know your father has probably told
you this, but it can't hurt to repeat it: I've been there, I know what
you're going through, and I know that some day you'll look back on
these longings and feelings of hurt and realize that it was all
wasted energy.
-- Good luck, Bill Ingogly
Dana S. Nau
>
>I must disagree with Bill's analysis. His attitude has
>an unfortunate similarity to that of my father's. The
>idea that if you have trouble meeting people that it
>is your own fault, and you should deliberately seek
>out things to do to overcome your shyness can become
>downright irritating.
It sounds like you have a very different interpretation of Bill's analysis
than I do. I didn't get the impression that he said--or implyed in any
other way, either--that it's your fault if you're shy.
--
Dana S. Nau (dsn@rochester)
from U. of Maryland, on sabbatical at U. of Rochester
Dana S. Nau
writes:
>
>is your own fault, and you should deliberately seek
>out things to do to overcome your shyness can become
>downright irritating.
Well, sure! It's never good to believe "something must be wrong with me
because I am <whatever>". That only makes one feel miserable. A much more
helpful attitude is "I would be happier in the long run if I changed
<whatever> about myself, and I think it's worth working on."
When I was your age I was very shy, and I didn't have close friends because
I was scared of opening up to others. But after a while, that began to feel
pretty lonely, and I made a major effort to become more comfortable with
people. At this point, I'm very glad I did so--my life is much fuller
because of it.
>If you aren't happy at parties,
>singles bars, dances and other gatherings, it is likely
>you will make yourself miserable going to them, and lose
>your sense of self-respect. Better to wait for the unlikely
>to come out of the blue than to torture yourself by
>prostituting your dignity.
Overcoming shyness ain't the same as making yourself like parties and
singles bars. I do like parties, but only if I have friends there. And I
know very few people (if any) who like singles bars. But at the age of 33,
I am a LOT better at making friends than I was when I was 19, and I'm really
glad of that.
> Caveats:
>My life experience is rather limited (19 yrs.), and after
>many long years of painful waiting, the Long Awaited One
>seems to have slidd into my life without the unpleasant
>need to do anything except attend classes.
I hope you don't interpret this as cynical--but I felt the same way about my
first love. We broke up less than a year later--and although that was quite
painful, I think in retrospect that it was best that way.
Laura Creighton
>
>Sometimes such phrases do come out naturally, but sometimes they don't.
>I have found about prospective SO's being attached the hard way more than
>once and it can be painful.
You have a problem here. Finding out that someone is attatched (assuming
that you haven't been having an affair with someone for a year before
finding out that they were married, something which happened to a friend
of mine, or something of that nature) should not be painful. Mildly
disappointing, okay -- pain - no.
Pain means *big disappointment*. You will get enough big disappointments
in your life without going out of your way to get more. If you make a
big emotional investment in ``being able to be the SO of person X'' then
you are asking to get hurt when person X isn't interested. You are
asking to get crushed when person X agrees to go out and then decides after
a few dates that you aren't really all that compatible. Stop setting
yourself up so much. You will end up believing that the world is horrid
and painful and rotten; you may end up stuck between believing that the
world owes you a {living date} and full of resentment because you aren't
getting it. it is a real sad and painful trap.
The way out of it is to not care so much whether any particular person you
are interested in is interested in you. There are lots of ways to
organise this to accomplish this effect. ALready having a SO is the
easiest, but we have a bit of a bootstrapping problem here. Asking lots
of people out is another good solution. Or finding something you like
more than dating. (( zillion people will tell you that you are crazy to
like anything more than meeting attractive members of the appropriate
sex, but ask yourself this -- how happy are they?))
Good luck!
--
Help beautify the world. I am writing a book called *How To Write Portable C
Earle A .Sugar
> Pain means *big disappointment*. You will get enough big disappointments
> in your life without going out of your way to get more. If you make a
> big emotional investment in ``being able to be the SO of person X'' then
> you are asking to get hurt when person X isn't interested. You are
> asking to get crushed when person X agrees to go out and then decides after
> a few dates that you aren't really all that compatible. Stop setting
Maybe so, but if I don't try to make an emotional (and slightly financial)
investment in a person I'm trying to charm, then its more likely than
not that the decision that I'm not the one for her will not be made in my
favor.
> yourself up so much. You will end up believing that the world is horrid
> and painful and rotten; you may end up stuck between believing that the
> world owes you a {living date} and full of resentment because you aren't
> getting it. it is a real sad and painful trap.
I agree that the world ain't so hot, but it's the only one there is (
religious and extra-terrestrial life arguments aside). Most people I know
mope for a few days after a letdown, but I have seen few others who actually
add cumulative resentment towards the rest of the universe.
> The way out of it is to not care so much whether any particular person you
> are interested in is interested in you. There are lots of ways to
> organise this to accomplish this effect. ALready having a SO is the
> easiest, but we have a bit of a bootstrapping problem here. Asking lots
> of people out is another good solution.
That may work in the world as a whole, but most netters are parts of small,
closed societies such as universities or companies. If I were to ask out
a large number of women, even at different times(:-)), word would soon be
spread around that I had been rejected by these various women. Who would
want to take the time to get to know me if they heard that I was a frequent
reject? A better solution is to be pickier about who I ask out so the odds
of a specific person getting attached to me is greater. This is also quite
a bit less time consuming than dating hoards of other women and depending
on statistical probability to find me someone that I can have a long-term
relationship with.
> Or finding something you like more than dating.
But that takes two, too. :-)
> Good luck!
> --
> Help beautify the world. I am writing a book called *How To Write Portable C
> Programs*. Send me anything that you would like to find in such a book when
> it appears in your bookstores. Get your name mentioned in the credits.
>
> Laura Creighton
> sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)
sun!l5!laura
> l5!la...@lll-crg.arpa
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Earle A. Sugar
Disclaimer:"I doubt anyone else here agrees with me."
Send all worthwhile comments, followups, etc. to:
USENET: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_aeas
CSNET:ins_...@jhunix.csnet
ARPA:ins_aeas%jhunix...@csnet-relay.arpa
BITNET: INS_BEAS@JHUVMS (as a last resort)
or call 301-889-0815 after 6 P.M. EST
Send all flames to: /dev/null
Laura Creighton
>> Pain means *big disappointment*. You will get enough big disappointments
>> in your life without going out of your way to get more. If you make a
>> big emotional investment in ``being able to be the SO of person X'' then
>> you are asking to get hurt when person X isn't interested. You are
>> asking to get crushed when person X agrees to go out and then decides after
>> a few dates that you aren't really all that compatible. Stop setting
>
>Maybe so, but if I don't try to make an emotional (and slightly financial)
>investment in a person I'm trying to charm, then its more likely than
>not that the decision that I'm not the one for her will not be made in my
>favor.
No! No! This is a big misconception!! One of the great media-lies is that
people in love are kept together by their deep love (read emotional
dependence) upon each other. This is simply not the case. A sense of
humour is much more useful in keeping a relationship together.
Speaking personally, and for the ``already had several relationships''
crowd, that emotional investment is a big turn off. When I meet
someone who is obviously infatuated with me I want to be as nasty as
possible to that person so as to stop this disease as soon as possible.
After all, if we just met, they can not have much of an idea as to what
I am really like (yea, even if they have been readin me for 5 years on
usenet!). What they are doing is trying to stuff me into their image of
``the ideal lover'' and they are seriously in love with that ideal.
Rather than being impressing, this is a real drag. Even if I wanted to
live for the sake of someone who has all that investment in me (which
I assuredly do not!) I couldn't.
This is really sad. What I am looking for in new people is that they
are interesting as people. If I get an evening of good conversation
out of any new people, then I am pleased. if I get someone whom I can
respect I get someone that I am likely to look up again and again.
It is difficult for me to work up respect for anyone who is desparate
for a relationship. I feel that I am getting railroaded. What I want
is dinner, conversation and good times. If you turn out to be a lot
of fun to be with then I am goign to want to spend more time with you.
But if you are desparate for a relationship, then you are going to be
not very much fun to be with and I am going to spend my time elsewhere.
Rememeber the adage where the girl ``plays hard to get''? This is
deceitful little con whereby girls (all who are presumed to be
desparate for a relationship) decieve the guys who don't want to be
clung to that they are not clingining until the poor guy gets so
intrigued that he ends up marrying someone for the difficulty involved.
This business of viewing someone as a trophy to be won turns my stomach,
but there is a point here. This scam worked! How come? Because for any
reasonable (read not-love-desparate in addition to whatever else you call
reasonable) person a big display of need is a turn off.
As you go on in life, you want someone who can help share the load of
life's trials and aspirations. You don't want someone who is so
desparate that in addition to holding your own shit together you have
to be the emotional support for them as well. (As a temporary thing,
supporting a loved one is a great and reasonable thing. As a day in and
day out vocation it is hell on earth.)
The only thing to be said for this approach is that it is likely to
work on very young and inexperienced women/girls. There is something
very wrong about how women are raised. All of them in this society
get some of a very bad brainwashing trip which says ``the function of
woman is to nurture the emotionally wounded''. It is not the case that
most women enjoy this nurturing -- mostly they resent it like crazy but
feel that they ``have'' to do it. if you go out projecting ``I'm
emotionally wounded -- I need a relationship'' you will probably catch
someone who will start the nuturing end of this trip without thinking.
If this is what you want....
>
>> yourself up so much. You will end up believing that the world is horrid
>> and painful and rotten; you may end up stuck between believing that the
>> world owes you a {living date} and full of resentment because you aren't
>> getting it. it is a real sad and painful trap.
> I agree that the world ain't so hot, but it's the only one there is (
>religious and extra-terrestrial life arguments aside). Most people I know
>mope for a few days after a letdown, but I have seen few others who actually
>add cumulative resentment towards the rest of the universe.
You missed it. I *don't* think that the world ain't so hot. However, I
was only able to reach this enlightened position *after* deciding that
I was going to stop being so desparate for a relationship and so resentful
that I was only getting lousy ones (or none at all). You can't help but
get resentful if you are getting rejected all the time. But if the rejection
is in your mind (because you set yourself up) then it is also easy to fix.
>> The way out of it is to not care so much whether any particular person you
>> are interested in is interested in you. There are lots of ways to
>> organise this to accomplish this effect. ALready having a SO is the
>> easiest, but we have a bit of a bootstrapping problem here. Asking lots
>> of people out is another good solution.
>That may work in the world as a whole, but most netters are parts of small,
>closed societies such as universities or companies. If I were to ask out
>a large number of women, even at different times(:-)), word would soon be
>spread around that I had been rejected by these various women. Who would
>want to take the time to get to know me if they heard that I was a frequent
>reject? A better solution is to be pickier about who I ask out so the odds
>of a specific person getting attached to me is greater. This is also quite
>a bit less time consuming than dating hoards of other women and depending
>on statistical probability to find me someone that I can have a long-term
>relationship with.
I think not. Look, I'vve done this before. Everybody eats. Whether you
go to McDonalds or eat at home or eat fancy, all you have to do is ask
a different person out to dinner every night for a month and I am sure
that you will have a much wider selection of interesting people to think
about then you have now. I did this once. I ended up with a lot of good
eats and 3 good friends. it works, given that you are going to eat
anyway it is relatively cheap, and it gives you something to do while you
consider how intersting this person you have gone out with is.
By the way this ``go out with one person at a time'' is a big high school
thing that needs dropping as soon as possible. In the old high school
days (or at least my old high school days -- maybe people have changed
since then) you measured your status by whom you were going out with.
And *anybody* was better than *nobody*. So if you started going out
with someone you had to ``break up'' with them before you could go out
with someone else since it was the status of the relationship that was
important, not the people. Now that you have survived high school you can
get all teh status you want by being a damn good programmer/designer/
whatever it is that you do or by being a good dancer or any number of
things which are all better than ``who is your steady''. So you can
start going out with people for the sake of the people rather than the
sake of a relationship. If you know 3 neat people who happen to be
of the opposite sex, you can go out with all of them and enjoy them as
people. I know that this is a big high-school no-no and is to some
extent perpetuated by the great American Love Myth, but in the real
world this stuff is *ok*.
If you go out with a lot of people, the only person who will think that
you are a reject is *you*. There is no big social stigmata about this.
There are circles where it will be assumed that for some reason you
want to get laid by lots of different woemn, but even those aren't all
that common. Most people are really not all that preoccupied with you
to notice that you are going out with a lot of people (outside of
high school, where everybody is bored, people find more interesting
things to do than keeping statistics on each other). it will be assumed
that you want a lot of variety in your life, and a great many people
(including me) will find you intriguing. If you know lots of people
then you are probably broad enough as a person to be very interesting
and if you keep going out with lots of different ones then you must
have high standards (or you would have clung to the first one that was
reasonable to you). There are 2 points in your favour. If I end up
not liking you all that much I know you must be able to take it (since
you have had a lot of practice in gracefully ending dinners at this point).
If I knew this about you I would go out to dinner in a minute. I may be a
bad example, since I go out to dinner with almost anybody who asks me since
I am confident that I can handle any sort of situation that can arise
(because, sigh, I *have* already...) but for people with less gusto than
I do you would still be a good bet.
You will loose out on the most clinging people (who will be afraid of your
presumed independence) and on the people who are terrified that anybody
who asks them out to dinner is going to rape them, but I wouldn't call that
much of a loss.
It is fairly ironic that the people who are most deparate for love are
also the hardest to love. If you tone down the desparation then you become
much more attractive. This is a difficult lesson to learn.
--
Help beautify the world. I am writing a book called *How To Write Portable C
Programs*. Send me anything that you would like to find in such a book when
it appears in your bookstores. Get your name mentioned in the credits.
Laura Creighton
sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!la...@lll-crg.arpa
bithead
are the personification of the "easy come, easy go" mentality.
Please, say it aint so! I've taken the liberty of cutting out
segments which don't pertain to my responses.
LC:
>Speaking personally, and for the ``already had several relationships''
>crowd, that emotional investment is a big turn off. When I meet
>someone who is obviously infatuated with me I want to be as nasty as
>possible to that person so as to stop this disease as soon as possible.
What a sophisticated way to handle the situation! Where can I meet
understanding women like you?
>After all, if we just met, they can not have much of an idea as to what
>I am really like (yea, even if they have been readin me for 5 years on
>usenet!). What they are doing is trying to stuff me into their image of
>``the ideal lover'' and they are seriously in love with that ideal.
>Rather than being impressing, this is a real drag. Even if I wanted to
>live for the sake of someone who has all that investment in me (which
>I assuredly do not!) I couldn't.
>
>This is really sad. What I am looking for in new people is that they
>are interesting as people. If I get an evening of good conversation
>out of any new people, then I am pleased. if I get someone whom I can
>respect I get someone that I am likely to look up again and again.
>
>It is difficult for me to work up respect for anyone who is desparate
>for a relationship. I feel that I am getting railroaded. What I want
>is dinner, conversation and good times. If you turn out to be a lot
>of fun to be with then I am goign to want to spend more time with you.
Of course everyone wants a partner that's fun to be with. But I hope
the purpose of my existence is more than being a woman's entertainment.
I don't like having those instances where I'm not "fun to be with"
held against me. Relationships are give and take.
>But if you are desparate for a relationship, then you are going to be
>not very much fun to be with and I am going to spend my time elsewhere.
>
>Rememeber the adage where the girl ``plays hard to get''? This is
>deceitful little con whereby girls (all who are presumed to be
>desparate for a relationship) decieve the guys who don't want to be
>clung to that they are not clingining until the poor guy gets so
>intrigued that he ends up marrying someone for the difficulty involved.
>This business of viewing someone as a trophy to be won turns my stomach,
>but there is a point here. This scam worked! How come? Because for any
>reasonable (read not-love-desparate in addition to whatever else you call
>reasonable) person a big display of need is a turn off.
Maybe so, but a reasonable and mature person can deal with it. Me
thinks that our society puts too much emphasis on first impressions.
We quickly reach conclusions about a person by what lies on the
surface. A "display of need" maybe a temporary phase brought on by
a variety of factors. If you take a little time and effort (inconvenient
as it may be) you might discover that the person's plusses far
outweigh the minuses (such as a "display of need"). You may also
discover that as the person senses your interest, the disease "display
of need" will wane and probably disappear altogether. It is very
much in your interest to understand the "display of need". If you
don't even try you could be screwing yourself out of one hell of a
find.
LC:
>There is something
>very wrong about how women are raised. All of them in this society
>get some of a very bad brainwashing trip which says ``the function of
>woman is to nurture the emotionally wounded''. It is not the case that
Of course you have the proper perspective:
I. Men exist to entertain us.
II. The moment a man fails to entertain - dump him !
There's always more where that came from.
>most women enjoy this nurturing -- mostly they resent it like crazy but
>feel that they ``have'' to do it. if you go out projecting ``I'm
>emotionally wounded -- I need a relationship'' you will probably catch
>someone who will start the nuturing end of this trip without thinking.
>If this is what you want....
LC responding to another:
>If you go out with a lot of people, the only person who will think that
>you are a reject is *you*. There is no big social stigmata about this.
>There are circles where it will be assumed that for some reason you
>want to get laid by lots of different woemn, but even those aren't all
>that common. Most people are really not all that preoccupied with you
>to notice that you are going out with a lot of people (outside of
>high school, where everybody is bored, people find more interesting
>things to do than keeping statistics on each other). it will be assumed
>that you want a lot of variety in your life, and a great many people
>(including me) will find you intriguing. If you know lots of people
>then you are probably broad enough as a person to be very interesting
>and if you keep going out with lots of different ones then you must
>have high standards (or you would have clung to the first one that was
>reasonable to you).
This last sentence is almost the most absurd thing I've ever read on
the net. Knowing a lot of people means one thing: you have a lifestyle
that fosters social contacts. How you conclude that a person is
interesting from the number of acquaintances is beyond me. I find
nothing enviable in being "broad". Being "broad" typifies the absence
of character traits such as drive, dedication and perseverance, all
required to be good in any one thing. Of course people who are "broad"
pose no threat and never really force us to think, hence their
popularity.
"keep going out with lots of different ones" clearly shows that
anyone will do and the most likely reached conclusion is an
absence of standards. It could also mean you lack the maturity
to enter any kind of relationship which requires a commitment, and
the worthwhile always do.
LC responding to another:
>There are 2 points in your favour. If I end up
>not liking you all that much I know you must be able to take it (since
>you have had a lot of practice in gracefully ending dinners at this point).
>
>If I knew this about you I would go out to dinner in a minute. I may be a
>bad example, since I go out to dinner with almost anybody who asks me since
>I am confident that I can handle any sort of situation that can arise
>(because, sigh, I *have* already...) but for people with less gusto than
>I do you would still be a good bet.
Dinner dates are a real acid test aren't they?
I hope your book is a big success. I'll keep my eyes open for it.
Take care.
the bithead (ihnp4!ihlpf!bithead)
"I've seen the dogs of war enjoying their feast
I've seen the western world go down in the east
The fools of love became the creed of our time
And now we're living on the profits of crime"
Ozzy - circa 1975
William Ingogly
>...
>It is fairly ironic that the people who are most deparate for love are
>also the hardest to love. If you tone down the desparation then you become
>much more attractive. This is a difficult lesson to learn.
Thank you, Laura, for a mature and well-thought-out article. It's
always nice knowing at least some people on the net are coming at life
from a similar viewpoint. Stay happy!
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
Merlin
> many long years of painful waiting, the Long Awaited One
> seems to have slidd into my life without the unpleasant
> need to do anything except attend classes.
Agreed in all shapes and forms.
Merlin
aka Dave Fox
Kirk> Bones, you're suffering from a Vulcan mind-meld.
McCoy> That green-blooded son-of-bitch.
It's his revenge for all those arguments he lost
D J Spalding
> Rememeber the adage where the girl ``plays hard to get''? This is
> deceitful little con whereby girls (all who are presumed to be
> desparate for a relationship) decieve the guys who don't want to be
> clung to that they are not clinging
This behavior, although sad, is at least forgivable at that age. It's
if the girl grows up to be a woman and is still doing these things
that it's really scary.
On a related topic, one thing I've noticed that a lot of women do is to
try so hard to be the person that they think the man they're with wants
them to be, that they never really *are* what he wants them to be, which
is (if he's reasonable) just themselves. Anyone else ever notice this?
Diana Spalding
{allegra, ucbvax, ut-sally, hao}!nbires!djs
"In the mountains, in the cities, you can see the dream
Look around you, has it found you, is it what it seems?"
Laura Creighton
>On a related topic, one thing I've noticed that a lot of women do is to
>try so hard to be the person that they think the man they're with wants
>them to be, that they never really *are* what he wants them to be, which
>is (if he's reasonable) just themselves. Anyone else ever notice this?
This disease is not confined to women.
--
The Polymath
>>On a related topic, one thing I've noticed that a lot of women do is to
>>try so hard to be the person that they think the man they're with wants
>>them to be, that they never really *are* what he wants them to be, which
>>is (if he's reasonable) just themselves. Anyone else ever notice this?
>
>This disease is not confined to women.
It certainly isn't. Fortunately, it's neither fatal nor incurable (but it
can be damn painful).
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp(+)TTI The more I work with C, the more I
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. appreciate the simple elegance of
Santa Monica, CA 90405 FORTRAN.
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
D J Spalding
> >In article <5...@nbires.UUCP> d...@nbires.UUCP (D J Spalding) writes:
> >>On a related topic, one thing I've noticed that a lot of women do is to
> >>try so hard to be the person that they think the man they're with wants
> >>them to be, that they never really *are* what he wants them to be, which
> >>is (if he's reasonable) just themselves. Anyone else ever notice this?
> >
> >This disease is not confined to women.
>
> It certainly isn't. Fortunately, it's neither fatal nor incurable (but it
> can be damn painful).
Okay, folks, I've gotten a few replies on my last message, so let me
set the record straight. First I never said that this phenomenon was
limited only to women. One of my net friends asked me why feminists
always assume that their insecurities are unique to women. Well the
answer, as far as I can tell, is that they don't assume that at all.
I do need to add, however, that the so-called insecurities that lead
a person into this behavior often (but not always) manifest themselves
differently in men and women. You'll rarely see a man say "Anything
you say dear" and MEAN it. I have seen and heard of many women who
openly admit to becoming whatever they think their SO wants them to
be. Men do it too, but they (generally) don't admit that that's
what they're doing. This behavior is therefore more noticeable in
women because they're more open about it.
There, now I'm in *really* deep. :-)
> -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
> Citicorp(+)TTI The more I work with C, the more I
> 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. appreciate the simple elegance of
> Santa Monica, CA 90405 FORTRAN.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
gasp, choke, wheeze!!!!
Diana
{allegra, ut-sally, ucbvax, hao}!nbires!djs
Greg Woods
> always assume that their insecurities are unique to women. Well the
> answer, as far as I can tell, is that they don't assume that at all.
No, but they often only seem concerned about how the particular insecurity
in question affects *women*, which can often cause others to think that's
all they notice, instead of being concerned with how it affects *people*.
This "exclusive" attitude tends to drive men and women further apart, which
as far as I understand it is *not* one of the goals of the feminist
movement. :-) This attitude also tends to discourage men from participating
in the feminist movement, even those who may be in line with most of the
goals of that movement.
> I do need to add, however, that the so-called insecurities that lead
> a person into this behavior often (but not always) manifest themselves
> differently in men and women.
I suspect that this is in *general* true due to differences in society's
expectations of men and women, but of course there are always individual
variations.
> You'll rarely see a man say "Anything you say dear" and MEAN it.
That depends on what "MEAN it" means. Often people willingly sacrifice their
own "self-interest" on a specific issue because it is more important to someone
they care about than it is to them. I really don't think this is sex-specific.
My experience is that *all* people do this to a greater or lesser extent
dependent on the individual. I have seen nothing to indicate more of a tendency
for one sex to do this than the other.
--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo}
!hao!woods
CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY