Fear
Andreas Tovornik
Recently, I have come to the realization that I'm not amused
or amusing, not entertained or entertaining, and I wouldn't
be very surprised if I've been killfiled by many people...
I think I'm going through some difficult kind of transformation
where it's emerging that my greatest fear is one of growing old
by myself. I have interacted here for nearly five years, made
some wonderful friends and acquaintances, but every one of them
is out of reach for anything resembling healthy social interactions
at any kind of frequency. OK, I've almost always been a loner in
my life except for one or two very close friends, and it's exactly
that closeness that I've been missing for a few years now...
The couple of LDR's have been great, but the distances made all
kinds of anxieties come out with time. I always did my best to be
patient and caring, but that was never enough to make the distance
go away. It ended up breaking my heart. LDR's didn't seem to be the
answer, yet they gave me a bit of comfort when I needed it the most.
I feel now that I need it even more...
Yes, only now in the second half of my thirty-third year I'm
beginning to learn that I have needs. Up to now, I've just ignored
them like some stoic martyr thinking that everything will be fine
even if it looks rather dismal. This isn't depression talking. It's
more like a reaching out. I'm probably not making any more sense
than Graydon...
So I found out about a local voice personals deal where you get to
hear people's ads and answer them if you're interested. I listened
and narrowed it down to two or three people I'd like to meet. I hung
up without answering. The next day, I tried again. Every time I was
about to leave somebody I didn't know a message, I froze. I could
not bring myself to leave a message. I hate answering machines, and
this is even worse. Although I guess I sound alright and confident
on them, there's a fear happening. I don't have this problem in
public. I meet several people every day^H^H^Hnight without it
bothering me at all, make friends for five or ten minutes, and
never see them again, or see them again eventually but there's no
ongoing social interaction carried over from the last time unless
I get the same customer almost every day...
And then there's a professional distance that I must maintain. The
worst thing would be to hit on a customer, get complained about to
the customer's friends, developing a very ugly reputation not only
for myself but for the rest of the guys in the fleet, and then the
business goes down the drain for all of us. I suppose it would be
just a bit different in a real city, but it's still a small town
here in many ways, and lots of stuff travels by word of mouth.
Besides, hitting on attractive customers is not a very classy thing
to do. I joke around with them a bit, and if I get flirted with, I
flirt back so lightly that it can't be mistaken for anything but a
bit of fun. It's never taken seriously. But still, under all of
that surface veneer stuff, I am beginning to recognize that I have
needs too...
I'm going to try within the framework of my awkward for most people
hours to do more things socially. Just last night, another driver
suggested a lounge that he frequents. He met his wife there. I'll
probably end up going to have a drink or two, but I don't expect
anything. It's been so long since I expected anything that when
something looks promising it's usually too good to be true. Maybe
my fears of being involved in some kind of relationship are stronger
than my fears of growing old by myself. Growing old by myself is
predictable. I'll become more of a loner as time goes on, getting
more set in my ways with the ongoing years, developing habits of
talking to myself waiting for replies that never come, becoming
increasingly bitter about the ugly world's encroachment on my
peace, quiet, and solitude. I don't want to turn out that way...
I know I'm not exactly the easiest type to live with. I'm selfish
and prone to get moody. I don't always pay attention to what those
around me are trying to tell me, but I'm going to need some kind
of loyal companionship soon. It's not about sex. I've been known
to go for years without it, and I survived. It's about sharing a
life with another individual, making us both ideally stronger and
able to build our own world exclusive of the ugly one out there...
Ghu, I hate Springtime.
--
'dreas...tbtw#5 |If you want something bad enough, you will get it.|
VictoriaTaxi#15 |When you get it, you may wonder why you wanted it.|
It's not my fault! |There are things, though, that you never wanted or|
Sniggling since 1992|needed but they end up as very pleasant surprises.|
Nancy VonStein
In article <5ild9t$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andreas Tovornik) writes:
>
> Yes, only now in the second half of my thirty-third year I'm
> beginning to learn that I have needs. Up to now, I've just ignored
> them like some stoic martyr thinking that everything will be fine
> even if it looks rather dismal. This isn't depression talking. It's
> more like a reaching out. I'm probably not making any more sense
> than Graydon...
>
Hello...it's me (kill the Todd Rundgren music : )
Yeah, me, imagine that.
Anyhoo you summed it all up in one word "fear." How real is it if you realize
that it ain't real? Fear: An emotion that causes us either to stand (fight)
or flea. Obviously you feel that there are needs not being met. No need to go
off the deep end, we all seem to get our needs taken care of, one way or
another. You seem to have more fear of growing old alone than fear of
abandonment, which IMO is the greater of the two. There are no guarantees.
And if you don't mind my saying so in public, get rid of some of that foolish
pride of yours and you'd stand a better chance of getting your needs met.
I heard Dixie Carter the other day talking about how fortunate she is to have
such a good man in her life (Hal Holbrook.) She said that it's take one hell
of a good man to replace no man at all. Amen, hallelujah, can I get a witness.
I don't mind having no one in my life, I wouldn't mind having someone in my
life too, but one way requires a commitment that I don't have in me. It's not
selfish to be alone, it's also not a sign that one is not whole. I feel more
whole when I'm alone than when I have someone. Cause I'm the kind of person
who puts my life on the back burner for others. Talking about growing old and
having nothing to show for it.
Springtime. Take an antihistamine, get a nap, and it'll all be better in a
couple of months.
Nancy (who missed two days of work this week because of allergies)
=============================================================================
"The wolf is at the door--but boy is he beautiful! Feed that wolf till he's
more than full. Throw sumptuously prepared steaks and cakes out the window
for his dining pleasure. Behold his exquisite grace and lonely grandeur from
a safe distance. But whatever you do, don't open the damn door!" _Rob Brezsny
Andreas Tovornik
Nancy VonStein (nvon...@msuvx2.memphis.edu) writes:
> In article <5ild9t$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andreas Tovornik) writes:
>> predictable. I'll become more of a loner as time goes on, getting
>> more set in my ways with the ongoing years, developing habits of
>> talking to myself waiting for replies that never come, becoming
>> increasingly bitter about the ugly world's encroachment on my
>> peace, quiet, and solitude. I don't want to turn out that way...
>
> Hello...it's me (kill the Todd Rundgren music : )
Dammit, now I can't get that song out of my head. Gee, thanks...
> Yeah, me, imagine that.
It is a great pleasure after all this time...
> Anyhoo you summed it all up in one word "fear." How real is it if you realize
> that it ain't real? Fear: An emotion that causes us either to stand (fight)
> or flea. Obviously you feel that there are needs not being met. No need to go
> off the deep end, we all seem to get our needs taken care of, one way or
> another. You seem to have more fear of growing old alone than fear of
> abandonment, which IMO is the greater of the two.
Oh no, the fear of abandonment is there too. I'm just lousy at expressing
myself after twelve hours on the road. Maybe I'm searching for some Disney
kind of image that I'd like things to be like, brought on maybe mostly by
MediaHype[TM] preying on the fragile things that are my emotions. *Pa-yuke*
I'm not altogether sure which fear is the greatest for me, but I know that
those and possibly a few others are mixed up in there...
> There are no guarantees.
> And if you don't mind my saying so in public, get rid of some of that foolish
> pride of yours and you'd stand a better chance of getting your needs met.
Say anything you want in public. That way, nobody gets hurt. *smooch*
I don't see what you mean by pride. Maybe my ego's in the way... ;-]
But seriously, believe this or not, take it worth a grain of salt, and
so on, I'm a hell of a lot more shy about opening up, showing personal
stuff, and even being myself in my day-to-day routine than I am right
here and now in this newsgroup. Even though I know and have met quite a
few people here, there is still that shadow of anonymity where I can
spread out my most vulnerable side...
> I heard Dixie Carter the other day talking about how fortunate she is to have
> such a good man in her life (Hal Holbrook.) She said that it's take one hell
> of a good man to replace no man at all. Amen, hallelujah, can I get a witness.
I can't agree with you more. My standards have kept getting higher
all the time, and maybe that's why I'm getting more hesitant at jumping
into anything. The elusive rareness of finding anyone who I'd even
think of considering increases all the time, and that's just WRT the
personality side of things. I'm very special [take that any way you
like to] and only someone equally special could be compatible. If that's
what you mean by pride, damn right I'm proud...
> I don't mind having no one in my life, I wouldn't mind having someone in my
> life too, but one way requires a commitment that I don't have in me. It's not
> selfish to be alone, it's also not a sign that one is not whole. I feel more
> whole when I'm alone than when I have someone. Cause I'm the kind of person
> who puts my life on the back burner for others. Talking about growing old and
> having nothing to show for it.
I think you touched on another fear of mine. I don't want to have to
change very much in my life because I am very whole as I am. I too,
would feel some of that wholeness slipping away with any deep kind
of involvement. I'm at my most secure when I'm not with somebody, but
at the same time the insecurity is a rush, and in it's own fucked-up
way it's addictive and I'm missing it. For me, security has become
a bit dull...
The big problem is that I'm at a fork in the road, see one kind of
comfort down either way, and I'm having trouble deciding which way
to turn right now. I like things the way the are, but I need things
to be different. Maybe I don't know what I want right now...
> Springtime. Take an antihistamine, get a nap, and it'll all be better in a
> couple of months.
Yess'm, Dr. Nainzee...
Andreas Tovornik
In a previous article, blck...@clark.net (Robert Blackshaw) says:
>ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andreas Tovornik) wrote:
>
>>It's about sharing a
>>life with another individual, making us both ideally stronger and
>>able to build our own world exclusive of the ugly one out there...
>
>>Ghu, I hate Springtime.
>
>Then us shall pray that the last sentence of your .sig comes true.
That last sentence came about at a time when it all was coming true
and happening in a big way. I have the feeling that I need to bring
some of that magic back into my life. It was a very great happiness
and I rode the wave of it until I realized that there was no water
below me, allowing me through nobody's fault to crash-land on a
plane of hot, dry sand. I don't hold any grudges about what happened.
I only realize that I was camping much more happily then than I am
now. [Folks, that poetry thread has _GOT_ to go...]
The sentence in question is miraculously reproduced here:
>> It's not my fault! |There are things, though, that you never wanted or|
>>Sniggling since 1992|needed but they end up as very pleasant surprises.|
I'm using another account right now...
--
'dreas..... Climb in the back with your head in the clouds and
you're gone --John Lennon...........VictoriaTaxi15
*sunbird*
In article <E8J4u...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
ua...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Andreas Tovornik) typed:
> Of course there is. Nancy is right on several things. It's easy to
> rationalize the whole thing and say intellectually what makes the
> most sense, but emotions are tricky. What I think I can do about
> all this and what I feel to be right for me are not always the
> same thing. I'm not very good at following my brain on stuff like
> this because the experience of being 'dreas is done almost totally
> on a feeling level. Problems crop up when I feel one way and also
> another way about the same damn thing...
well i'll be damned. i do have a long lost brother.
i just re-evaluated my kiersey score (or however you spell it)
and suddenly i'm an ENFJ. although the F is almost an X.
six years ago when i took it i scored an INTP, pretty polar on
all of it.
i think spending time with the people on this group helped
shove the balance on the I thing over to E, although it was
only a 65. i'm not sure what to think about the F, but then
again that makes sense if it is an F. i do know that suddenly
it _feels_ right. P --> J, well you be the judge :-D
(for those of you who don't know about this, a real nutshell
analysis is that you can score Extrovert/Introvert Sensate/iNtuitive,
Feeling/Thinking Perceiving/Judging, with X standing for a toss-up)
> It's more like a need to be vulnerable and be able to trust someone
> with that vulnerability while being trustworthy of someone else's
> vulnerability. OK, I've done a piss-poor job of that so far and there's
> often a reluctance to open up and go beyond the superficial because
> I'm terribly scared of being hurt.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sometimes this can pass for sanity. i get scared of being hurt
sometimes. but i'd much rather be hurt than passive. i find it
much more scary to be the party that hurts. that is normally
what will keep me from interacting with people.
> I know I'm protecting myself too
> much, but the experience of being me has shown that being as trusting
> as I need to be nearly always backfires...
so, don't trust right away. wait it out. sometimes getting
what you need is a matter of waiting until someone is ready
to be that for you. other times they won't ever get there,
and so you move on.
>>It sounds perfectly sensible and understandable, but then, I've been
>>understanding Graydon lately too... hmmmm...
> Now I'm really afraid...
heh. yea.
> I'm trying not to sabotage myself, or better yet, I'm trying to stop
> sabotaging myself if that's what I've been doing. I think I'm searching
> to discover what it is that I really need. Up to now, I've just fallen
> into what I thought I needed, and maybe what I fell into was what I
> needed, but it didn't last with the intensity and permanence that I
> needed. I have this bad tendency of getting superficial when I need
> to be more serious, and serious when superficiality would be a good
> thing to have. In the whole mess of self-protection, I trip over
> myself by not being able to communicate my needs or forgetting what
> it is that I need...
sounds like you're figuring it out already.
> True. The other thing about personals, and the reason that I can't
> come up with a good one for myself is that I can't do myself justice,
> I can't convey who I am effectively in one,
i'd have to agree with that. words fail a description of what is
you. by far. *grin*
> and I doubt that anyone
> is conveying a very just image of zyrself in one. Doesn't it take
> years to really get to know someone to the point of making any kind
> of commitment?
hmm. a lot of people seem to think so. maybe they are right.
sometimes i'd rather take the opportunity to try rather than
let it go entirely if i don't have years. the really important
thing is that neither (of n) person(s) feel rushed.
> Maybe I should get brave and answer a couple of pers-
> onals. What could happen? Maybe I'd get laughed at. :-]
and i say, go ahead, laugh at me. i'm not any more pathetic
than the laugher. except that i haven't done personals. i
couldn't really tell you why. i suppose it is because
> I must admit that getting responses like these reinforces the very
> powerful feeling that SSM is my kinda people. If only I knew more
> folks like all of youse who lived real close-like, my troubles
> wouldn't be there much. Thanks again...
you know, i have to say that there are most likely "our kinda people"
where you live. the trick is finding them. the only thing that
is consistantly working for me here is networking. going to bars
and all that, well, i'll have to say that Southern Comfort has
been a good source of meeting people, this is mainly because i
already know a handful of people that go there. if i walk into a
club cold, it's likely to be a rather quiet night.
i know it's been said before, but make friends first. people
that you can hang with. they'll introduce you to their friends,
and so on, and before you know it, you'll go places and you'll
realise that people know you there and it goes upward from there.
i have to say that other things prolly work for other people, but
for me, this is the only thing that is working.
sunbird
your past has its vengeance on your future
your soul leaks past the suture
i see the love in your peril eyes
but manipulation fills your silky sighs
what you need is a little clueture
about human love and getting wise
(me)
Warren Cheney
Robert Blackshaw wrote:
> ua...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Andreas Tovornik) wrote:
> >In a previous article, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu (TheCauldron) says:
> <snip>
[warning: tangential comments abound, and are mostly directed to 'dreas]
> >>Dread reluctance of feeling vulnerable have we?
>
> >It's more like a need to be vulnerable and be able to trust someone
> >with that vulnerability while being trustworthy of someone else's
> >vulnerability. OK, I've done a piss-poor job of that so far and there's
> >often a reluctance to open up and go beyond the superficial because
> >I'm terribly scared of being hurt. I know I'm protecting myself too
> >much, but the experience of being me has shown that being as trusting
> >as I need to be nearly always backfires...
>
> 'dreas if it is any help, I've been there and I know how much it can
> hurt, but you MUST stop with the protection - no guts, no glory - a
> rough way of putting it, but it seems to be the only way.
Afraid so. You gotta realize that the cost of reaching out
more often than not involves accepting the possibility of being
hurt. It's a dual-edged sword: with the joy of reaching out comes
the eventuality of having your hand whacked. It takes awhile to see
that if you can accept the reality of both pleasure and pain with
another person, the pleasure becomes all the more sweeter to experience.
Hell, why not? After all, you're going to feel like shit either way.
Might as well put some pleasure between the pain when you can. 'Course,
you could find that it might actually work out, and then, well...
> People
> here are amused at the story of how Florence and I got together. What
> they don't realize is that I came here 14 years ago with my clothes,
> my stero, my record and tape collection, and my tools. Later I got
> some part of what the house sold for and the '87 crash sucked up
> some of that. Am I crying? Shit no! I'm sitting here in a beautiful
> home on lotsa ground, and we own more than the bank. Was I scared?
> You bet your ass! But was life going anywhere before? Sure, straight
> down the terlet!
True. If the status quo sucks, *boogie.* Sounds like you're
already working on that anyways from your previous comments. Cool.
Like Bob says below, gofrit.
> Look old son, for what it's worth you are in our prayers, and you
> always have a sounding board with me, but just go for it.
>
> >>> Yes, only now in the second half of my thirty-third year I'm
> >>> beginning to learn that I have needs. Up to now, I've just ignored
> >>> them like some stoic martyr thinking that everything will be fine
> >>> even if it looks rather dismal.
And they popped back up demanding recognition, right? So welcome to
midlife. Kinda early, but the swamp accepts everyone.
> >>> This isn't depression talking. It's
> >>> more like a reaching out. I'm probably not making any more sense
> >>> than Graydon...
> >>
> I remember 33, in fact I recently celebrated my 33rd birthday - for
> the second time around.
>
> >>It sounds perfectly sensible and understandable, but then, I've been
> >>understanding Graydon lately too... hmmmm...
>
> >Now I'm really afraid...
>
> Scared the hell outta me when I began to understand him. :-)
> I've *always* understood him.
(And I expect a beeeeg bonus in his next check for writing the
above...)
> >>Perhaps you want to have that glosalalia feeling and claim that you
> >>don't remember any of this later, but I'm really impressed that you're
> >>saying these things. There certainly can be a long distance between
> >>saying something like this and finding what you need. Nancy says we get
> >>our needs met one way or another. I want to believe that too. But I
> >>also see LOTS of people sabotaging themselves. I hope you don't do that.
>
> >I'm trying not to sabotage myself, or better yet, I'm trying to stop
> >sabotaging myself if that's what I've been doing. I think I'm searching
> >to discover what it is that I really need.
With the added condition that it be what fills and sustains you
whether or not there's anyone else around to share it with.
And there's the bitch...
> >Up to now, I've just fallen
> >into what I thought I needed, and maybe what I fell into was what I
> >needed, but it didn't last with the intensity and permanence that I
> >needed. I have this bad tendency of getting superficial when I need
> >to be more serious, and serious when superficiality would be a good
> >thing to have. In the whole mess of self-protection, I trip over
> >myself by not being able to communicate my needs or forgetting what
> >it is that I need...
Or hiding what you really need for fear that it would get in the
way? Yeah. Remember that one way back when. Problem being that if
your needs aren't met no matter what, you're going to be hurt bigtime
*anyways.*
> BTDT. Used to wonder why women sometimes paid attention to me. She
> convinced me that I'm really not a square peg. |-)
I'm wondering if the square peg thing isn't really a Guy Thing
in disguise. Kinda like the "I never was able to fit in with anyone
and I'm worthless as a result" lament. Individualism and all that.
The good ones come along, see the defense, whack you upside the head,
and reel you in after you've seen the light. Not that I'd accuse
Florence of doing so, oh no sirree... *chuckle* (rilly starting to
like that woman...)
> >>> [couldn't do voice personals] I don't have this problem in
> >>> public. I meet several people every day^H^H^Hnight without it
> >>> bothering me at all, make friends for five or ten minutes, and
> >>> never see them again, or see them again eventually but there's no
> >>> ongoing social interaction carried over from the last time unless
> >>> I get the same customer almost every day...
Personal trick: enjoy the moments you do have with a person
without expecting anything else to happen in the future.
The most recent example of this occurred Thursday night down in
Falconer. Just finished a call way up in Niagara Falls, and about
4:15, the beeper goes off with a call downstate. So, around 7:30 pm,
there I am doing scanner checks and as I'm about to do the last
machine, I find myself talking with a woman about them, and we were
just having a really nice conversation about quite a few things.
I knew it was going nowhere, but it was a Good Thing in that I actually
had that momentary interaction, that small outreach to another person,
with nothing going down the tubes as a result. It was fun, it felt
good, and it was reassuring to know that some women will not run
screaming in terror should I open my mouth.
> >True. The other thing about personals, and the reason that I can't
> >come up with a good one for myself is that I can't do myself justice,
> >I can't convey who I am effectively in one, and I doubt that anyone
> >is conveying a very just image of zyrself in one. Doesn't it take
> >years to really get to know someone to the point of making any kind
> >of commitment? Maybe I should get brave and answer a couple of pers-
> >onals. What could happen? Maybe I'd get laughed at. :-]
Their loss. Seriously. I've been wrestling with the same
general question of putting oneself Out There for the supposed
approval of the faceless masses myself. I've never been able to
construst a valid personal either, and as far as answering one,
I'll be damned if I'll spend the $2.99/min required to do so around
here.
(ObDammitAnotherOnCallWeekendEvent: There's something going on next
weekend here in Buffalo: a Singles Convention. Even though the Buffalo
News is co-sponsoring the thing, it smells of scam to me. Although I'd
give anything to spend the $25 for a good laugh. Just to have the Agway
trucks backed up to the rear for manure removal after everyone finishes
with the pickup lines would be enough compensation for me...)
> Why? You have a neat sensahumer, you make intelligent responses to
> other posts, Geez have we been remiss in acknowleding what you write?
> Surely you must see that value in what you send us?
Mebbe not. Sometimes I've done things that were pulled from
within at great personal cost that got zippededodah as a response.
(But recently, I've also had some personal revelations concerning
Why I Do Things The Way I Do that make me much more comfy with not
having a response when such occurs. Maybe It's The Ego...)
But as far as 'dreas goes, his road posts really don't get the
recognition they deserve. It's probably because of the format: there's
not much to comment upon, because he's said it all.
> >>> And then there's a professional distance that I must maintain. [...]
> >>
> >>Yes, and it's very possible that it's become so habitual that it may be
> >>affecting your ability to think about getting intimate with someone,
> >>even when you're not acting as a professional.
>
> >There's a good possibility of that, and I also feel like I've
> >always had trouble with getting intimate. I know that it takes
> >someone very special to make me feel like getting close to zyr.
> >Professionalism has probably made opening up even more difficult...
But as you said, You Can't Hit On The Customers...
> Son, all of have this problem - real scared of getting rebuffed, until
> we realize that there is no way on God's green eart that you or I can
> turn on every woman in this old world. Some of them are going to be
> so pre-occupied with some personal problem that they will not see our
> simple brilliance and charm - them's the breaks.
Someone (*smooch!*) finally got it through my thick skull that it
takes two people to begin *and* end a relationship, and that there's no
way in hell you can even begin to take the life history of the other
person into account when starting to get to know them. They're seeing
you through their own eyes, and you may never get to correct their view
of you, inaccurate as it may be. (And you may never realize how badly
their view of you was skewed from the gitgo...so even though there may
be enough apparent reason to feel hurt, you may never really know why
things never worked out. This make sense at all?)
> >>> [...] I'll become more of a loner as time goes on, getting
> >>> more set in my ways with the ongoing years, developing habits of
> >>> talking to myself waiting for replies that never come, becoming
> >>> increasingly bitter about the ugly world's encroachment on my
> >>> peace, quiet, and solitude. I don't want to turn out that way...
Then don't. Seeing you already have a handle on this makes it
pretty damn sure you'll fight that little nightmare.
> >>Then you will do well to truly take care that your actions result in
> >>something different than this scenario. That may take a lot of thought,
> >>'dreas, but I believe that you have the wherewithal to make a good life
> >>for yourself. You have that underlying enjoyment that so few possess.
> >>It's always a miracle to watch you struggle with the sardonic overtones.
Agreed. And as far as your road posts go, following up to them
would be somewhat blasphemous. They're not meant to be analyzed, just
enjoyed. And they are.
> >I must admit that getting responses like these reinforces the very
> >powerful feeling that SSM is my kinda people. If only I knew more
> >folks like all of youse who lived real close-like, my troubles
> >wouldn't be there much. Thanks again...
As sunbird put it, they're out there, it's just a bitch to find
them. The real catch is keeping the hope alive (am I repeating this
enough?) while out there existing.
> Well we ain''t physically close, which is a bitch fer huggers, but
> we ARE close.
Sometimes the mental proximity is closer here than many RL
relationships ever get.
-----Warren ( still lost in the wonder of that reality )
--
"I see it! O'Brien's belt! ----Corinne, constellation spotting
"You know, Playplace really sucks."---Melanie, upon finding out the
McDonald's play complex was closed due to another child's nosebleed
Warren Cheney offc...@worldnet.att.net
Thoroughly Modern Piglet
Warren Cheney <offc...@worldnet.att.net>, in article <335089...@worldnet.att.net>, dixit:
[some great advice, including...]
> Hell, why not? After all, you're going to feel like shit either way.
>Might as well put some pleasure between the pain when you can. 'Course,
>you could find that it might actually work out, and then, well...
> But as far as 'dreas goes, his road posts really don't get the
>recognition they deserve. It's probably because of the format: there's
>not much to comment upon, because he's said it all.
Tsk, tsk. Recognition <> comment. And, as you say further along:
> Agreed. And as far as your road posts go, following up to them
>would be somewhat blasphemous. They're not meant to be analyzed, just
>enjoyed. And they are.
Precisely.
--
____
Piglet \bi/ http://www.evolution.com/ Now hiring!
pig...@piglet.org \/ Please don't feed or tease the kooks.
Robert Blackshaw
pig...@panix.com (Thoroughly Modern Piglet) wrote:
>Warren Cheney <offc...@worldnet.att.net>, in article <335089...@worldnet.att.net>, dixit:
>[some great advice, including...]
>> Hell, why not? After all, you're going to feel like shit either way.
>>Might as well put some pleasure between the pain when you can. 'Course,
>>you could find that it might actually work out, and then, well...
>> But as far as 'dreas goes, his road posts really don't get the
>>recognition they deserve. It's probably because of the format: there's
>>not much to comment upon, because he's said it all.
>Tsk, tsk. Recognition <> comment. And, as you say further along:
>> Agreed. And as far as your road posts go, following up to them
>>would be somewhat blasphemous. They're not meant to be analyzed, just
>>enjoyed. And they are.
>Precisely.
>--
I'll drink to that!
Bob
"A little sunburnt by the glare of life."
E. B. Browning
Warren Cheney
Warren Cheney wrote:
>
> Robert Blackshaw wrote:
> > Son, all of have this problem - real scared of getting rebuffed, until
> > we realize that there is no way on God's green eart that you or I can
> > turn on every woman in this old world. Some of them are going to be
> > so pre-occupied with some personal problem that they will not see our
> > simple brilliance and charm - them's the breaks.
>
> Someone (*smooch!*) finally got it through my thick skull that it
> takes two people to begin *and* end a relationship, and that there's no
> way in hell you can even begin to take the life history of the other
> person into account when starting to get to know them. They're seeing
> you through their own eyes, and you may never get to correct their view
> of you, inaccurate as it may be. (And you may never realize how badly
> their view of you was skewed from the gitgo...so even though there may
> be enough apparent reason to feel hurt, you may never really know why
> things never worked out. This make sense at all?)
ObDisclaimerUponRereadingTheAbove:
Since I've made a personal point of working from personal experience
rather than from, say, abstractions (and most people seem to recognize it),
I must state that the above was written with someone in mind who was a factor
in my life long *before* I even thought of ever owning a modem.
The someone in mind who was a factor in my life long *after* I even
thought of ever owning a modem knows me better than *I* do sometimes.
(And I may never get to correct their view of me, accurate as it may
be... *chortle* *nostalgic smooch* :) )
-----Warren (but now I can sleep tonight)
--
"I see it! O'Brien's belt! ----Corinne, constellation spotting
"You ain't nothing but a groundhog, rockin' all the time."
----also Corinne, who has never met Ginko
Warren Cheney offc...@worldnet.att.net
Graydon
Richard (tibe...@calweb.com) wrote:
: Graydon <saun...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote in article
: > In default of all the specific points being discussed, 'Dreas, I will not
: > that whenever someone posts something positive about interpersonal
: > interactions, if you follow up that post, you do some variant on <glyph
: > of puking coyote> in the followup.
: >
: Hmm... other hand Graydon, the puking coyote syndrome seems indicative of
: an unhealed/haunting trauma reaction, almost involuntary, apparently
: triggered by positive input. If so, the consequence will likely be a
: chronic repulsion of exactly those whose natural response-sets are what he
: most craves (in my impression). In this light the frame of your input above
: should be effective, but perhaps a constructive addendum to promote an
: awareness of unresolved issues and the self-defeating nature of such
: reactionary behaviors should be made even more explicit?
I doubt it, Dreas is nothing like as stupid as he is most comfortable
acting. Which appears to be one of the things he's trying to get over.
--
Uton we hycgan hwaer we ham agen, | saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
ond thonne gethencan hu we thider cumen.
Nancy VonStein
In article <335089...@worldnet.att.net>, Warren Cheney <offc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> And there's the bitch...
>
Watch who you're callin' names, Sidewinder!
Nancy
Richard
> Andreas Tovornik (ua...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca) wrote:
> : In a previous article, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu (TheCauldron) says:
> : >understanding Graydon lately too... hmmmm...
> :
> : Now I'm really afraid...
>
> point. Sniggles is good for that in all directions.
>
> In default of all the specific points being discussed, 'Dreas, I will not
> that whenever someone posts something positive about interpersonal
> interactions, if you follow up that post, you do some variant on <glyph
of
> puking coyote> in the followup.
>
Hmm... other hand Graydon, the puking coyote syndrome seems indicative of
an unhealed/haunting trauma reaction, almost involuntary, apparently
triggered by positive input. If so, the consequence will likely be a
chronic repulsion of exactly those whose natural response-sets are what he
most craves (in my impression). In this light the frame of your input above
should be effective, but perhaps a constructive addendum to promote an
awareness of unresolved issues and the self-defeating nature of such
reactionary behaviors should be made even more explicit?
> you're going to proceed on the assumption that you're a valuable use of
> volume and oxygen.
>
> --
> Uton we hycgan hwaer we ham agen, | saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
> ond thonne gethencan hu we thider cumen.
>
>
--
Richard Romero
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Silent Angel of the RFA
http://www.calweb.com/~tiberius
Andreas Tovornik
Graydon (saun...@qlink.queensu.ca) writes:
> Andreas Tovornik (ua...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca) wrote:
> : In a previous article, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu (TheCauldron) says:
> : >It sounds perfectly sensible and understandable, but then, I've been
> : >understanding Graydon lately too... hmmmm...
> :
> : Now I'm really afraid...
>
> I've had a couple of years to infect most folk's language memes by this
> point. Sniggles is good for that in all directions.
>
> In default of all the specific points being discussed, 'Dreas, I will not
> that whenever someone posts something positive about interpersonal
> interactions, if you follow up that post, you do some variant on <glyph of
> puking coyote> in the followup.
Now I'm really confused...
> Comes a day when you have to decide to live, and be damned that it hurts,
> you're going to proceed on the assumption that you're a valuable use of
> volume and oxygen.
And nicotine, don't forget the nicotine!
[stuff costs me more than volume or oxygen ever did...]
--
'dreas...tbtw#5 |If you want something bad enough, you will get it.|
VictoriaTaxi#15 |When you get it, you may wonder why you wanted it.|
kmd
TheCauldron wrote:
> Jo Walton wrote:
> > Really? There really are people who think friendship is a waste of
> > time? Real people? I don't get it. I mean, what is the _rest_ of
> > their life like?
>
> I've seen several young bachelors explain how they really are _not_
> interested in friends. I'm sure if you hang around long enough you'll
> see them as well.
>
Heh. Time for a LJBF thread on ssm, I see.
--
Kri...@or.maybe.we.could.just.go.troll.one.over.from.ssc
Matthew Daly
In article <861089...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>Really? There really are people who think friendship is a waste of time?
>Real people? I don't get it. I mean, what is the _rest_ of their life
>like?
I know that there are times when I have heard the advice that if you
make enough friends in your life, that one of them will turn into
that _special_someone_. One only has to devote so many years to
such a strategy before decrying "I HAVE ENOUGH FRIENDS ALREADY,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!"
The same thing applies to someone who has just been LJBFed.
>I can see wanting to have someone to be your special person, and I can
>see skin hunger in its several varieties, but if friendship is a waste
>of time what is the rest of their relationship with their SO going to
>be like - and what do they do when their SO is busy and who do they
>talk to about things and... basically, I can't suspend my disbelief.
I think that friendships are cool, and am glad that my relative
lack of SO's in my history has led me to develop Platonic relationships
that are no less deep than many marriages. But when you have such
relationships, a new "garden variety" friendship gets ... well ...
boring. I mean, I like chicken a lot, and there are a ton of things
you can do to cook chicken, but if you had to eat it every night for
a year, you'd go nuts.
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly I feel that if a person has problems communicating
mwd...@kodak.com the very least he can do is to shut up - Tom Lehrer
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
*sunbird*
In article <1997Apr1...@latte.memphis.edu>
nvon...@msuvx2.memphis.edu (Nancy VonStein) wrote:
> In article <335089...@worldnet.att.net>, Warren Cheney
<offc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>> And there's the bitch...
>>
>
> Watch who you're callin' names, Sidewinder!
didja meet warren yet?
i think you two might hit it off.
sunbird, or tell me to MMOB.
Jo Walton
In article <3352B6...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "TheCauldron" writes:
>
> The love that occurs in friendship is fairly amazing in itself, so I
> never consider it a waste of time. I know, however, that there are many
> people who think friendship _is_ a waste of time, because they want/need
> the sexuality of a romantic relationship so badly. To each his own.
Really? There really are people who think friendship is a waste of time?
Real people? I don't get it. I mean, what is the _rest_ of their life
like?
I can see wanting to have someone to be your special person, and I can
see skin hunger in its several varieties, but if friendship is a waste
of time what is the rest of their relationship with their SO going to
be like - and what do they do when their SO is busy and who do they
talk to about things and... basically, I can't suspend my disbelief.
I could believe in _one_ person like that. But _many_?
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Blood of Kings Poems at http://www.kenjo.demon.co.uk/
8 of Graydon's, 1 of Browning's, 17 of mine
...and a cheerful song about the end of the world
Timothy H Jackson
In article <861125...@kenjo.demon.co.uk>,
Jo Walton <J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3353C3...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
> ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "TheCauldron" writes:
>>
>> I'm having a hard time believing that you haven't heard the old saw
>> about how you can't _be_ friends with a MOTAS in which you might be
>> romantically interested. In that world, apparently friendship
>> automatically kills romance.
>>
>> Go figure.
>
>I have heard a variant of that, which is being as they _are_ my friends
>they cannot be romantically interested in me. I heard that a _lot_ when
>I was 15-22, pretty much every time I accidentally fell in love (or lust,
>or both) with one of my friends. (I've just never been able to do romantic
>and mysterious and fall in love with strangers.)
Huh... I always thought it was "I'm afraid of getting romantically
involved with my friends because if it didn't work out, I would
lose their friendship." -or- "If I ask them out and they say
no, then we won't be able to be friends like we were before
because now they know I'm interested in them and that will
always loom over the conversation."
Or something like that...
Tim.
Andreas Tovornik
*sunbird* (sun...@cyberramp.net) writes:
> In article <E8J4u...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
> ua...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Andreas Tovornik) typed:
>
>> Of course there is. Nancy is right on several things. It's easy to
>> rationalize the whole thing and say intellectually what makes the
>> most sense, but emotions are tricky. What I think I can do about
>> all this and what I feel to be right for me are not always the
>> same thing. I'm not very good at following my brain on stuff like
>> this because the experience of being 'dreas is done almost totally
>> on a feeling level. Problems crop up when I feel one way and also
>> another way about the same damn thing...
>
> well i'll be damned. i do have a long lost brother.
*hug*
> i just re-evaluated my kiersey score (or however you spell it)
> and suddenly i'm an ENFJ. although the F is almost an X.
>
> six years ago when i took it i scored an INTP, pretty polar on
> all of it.
I can't stand surveys like that. If I take one, I'll score one
way one time, and the next time I'll score another way. My moods
and feelings are always changing, and as a result so does the
score. Those things assume people to be static, which we're not.
There's another problem I've found with these tests, and it's that
I have had tendencies to answer according to who I want to be and
who I'm working on myself to become rather than who I am at the
moment. Mostly, I ignore those things but keep trying to know
myself better. There are days when I don't know myself at all...
> i think spending time with the people on this group helped
> shove the balance on the I thing over to E,
Spending time with these people is giving me lots of confidence
that only a few days ago I thought I'd lost for good. A collection
of friends like this is priceless, better than any friends I've
ever had in RL...
>> I'm terribly scared of being hurt.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> sometimes this can pass for sanity. i get scared of being hurt
> sometimes. but i'd much rather be hurt than passive. i find it
> much more scary to be the party that hurts. that is normally
> what will keep me from interacting with people.
>
>> I know I'm protecting myself too
>> much, but the experience of being me has shown that being as trusting
>> as I need to be nearly always backfires...
>
> so, don't trust right away. wait it out. sometimes getting
> what you need is a matter of waiting until someone is ready
> to be that for you. other times they won't ever get there,
> and so you move on.
It's the moving on that I find difficult most of the time. I keep
asking myself if I'm moving away from or towards something. For
most of the time, I've been finding myself moving away, getting
out of things that don't suit me more often than purposely moving
towards, or getting into situations that I'd like. I feel like I'm
starting with a clean slate these days...
[No, I still haven't brought myself to answer a personal ad, but
I may be getting closer now that the confidence is building...]
>> I'm trying not to sabotage myself, or better yet, I'm trying to stop
>> sabotaging myself if that's what I've been doing. I think I'm searching
>> to discover what it is that I really need. Up to now, I've just fallen
>> into what I thought I needed, and maybe what I fell into was what I
>> needed, but it didn't last with the intensity and permanence that I
>> needed. I have this bad tendency of getting superficial when I need
>> to be more serious, and serious when superficiality would be a good
>> thing to have. In the whole mess of self-protection, I trip over
>> myself by not being able to communicate my needs or forgetting what
>> it is that I need...
>
> sounds like you're figuring it out already.
I've known a lot of this about myself for quite a long time. Questions
are; is it sabotage? Is it a defense mechanism? Does it matter?
>> True. The other thing about personals, and the reason that I can't
>> come up with a good one for myself is that I can't do myself justice,
>> I can't convey who I am effectively in one,
>
> i'd have to agree with that. words fail a description of what is
> you. by far. *grin*
*snork*
>> and I doubt that anyone
>> is conveying a very just image of zyrself in one. Doesn't it take
>> years to really get to know someone to the point of making any kind
>> of commitment?
>
> hmm. a lot of people seem to think so. maybe they are right.
I would have argued the opposite some time ago, but I'm getting
increasingly convinced that they not wrong...
> sometimes i'd rather take the opportunity to try rather than
> let it go entirely if i don't have years. the really important
> thing is that neither (of n) person(s) feel rushed.
>
>> Maybe I should get brave and answer a couple of pers-
>> onals. What could happen? Maybe I'd get laughed at. :-]
>
> and i say, go ahead, laugh at me. i'm not any more pathetic
> than the laugher. except that i haven't done personals. i
> couldn't really tell you why. i suppose it is because
>
>> I must admit that getting responses like these reinforces the very
>> powerful feeling that SSM is my kinda people. If only I knew more
>> folks like all of youse who lived real close-like, my troubles
>> wouldn't be there much. Thanks again...
>
> you know, i have to say that there are most likely "our kinda people"
> where you live. the trick is finding them. the only thing that
> is consistantly working for me here is networking. going to bars
> and all that, well, i'll have to say that Southern Comfort has
> been a good source of meeting people, this is mainly because i
> already know a handful of people that go there. if i walk into a
> club cold, it's likely to be a rather quiet night.
I think it depends whether or not the establishment is "your kinda
place." I did go to that lounge last night. It was alright, and it
was quiet. It could be more "my kinda place" than I thought. Most
of the customers are regulars, and the atmosphere was very inviting.
Part of what I'm doing is trying to get more active socially. I think
I made a first step....
Jo Walton
In article <3353C3...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "TheCauldron" writes:
>
> I'm having a hard time believing that you haven't heard the old saw
> about how you can't _be_ friends with a MOTAS in which you might be
> romantically interested. In that world, apparently friendship
> automatically kills romance.
>
> Go figure.
I have heard a variant of that, which is being as they _are_ my friends
they cannot be romantically interested in me. I heard that a _lot_ when
I was 15-22, pretty much every time I accidentally fell in love (or lust,
or both) with one of my friends. (I've just never been able to do romantic
and mysterious and fall in love with strangers.)
I thought you were talking about grown-ups.
Andreas Tovornik
This thread is getting big. I'll try to stay on top of answering
all of it. Many of you have given me the "Thumbs up" in email, and
I'll eventually get to answering it. Have patience with me, I'm
slow in answering even short stuff...
Robert Blackshaw (blck...@clark.net) writes:
> ua...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Andreas Tovornik) wrote:
>
>>In a previous article, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu (TheCauldron) says:
>
> <snip>
>>>
>>>Dread reluctance of feeling vulnerable have we?
>
>>It's more like a need to be vulnerable and be able to trust someone
>>with that vulnerability while being trustworthy of someone else's
>>vulnerability. OK, I've done a piss-poor job of that so far and there's
>>often a reluctance to open up and go beyond the superficial because
>>I'm terribly scared of being hurt. I know I'm protecting myself too
>>much, but the experience of being me has shown that being as trusting
>>as I need to be nearly always backfires...
>
> 'dreas if it is any help, I've been there and I know how much it can
> hurt, but you MUST stop with the protection - no guts, no glory - a
> rough way of putting it, but it seems to be the only way. People
> here are amused at the story of how Florence and I got together. What
> they don't realize is that I came here 14 years ago with my clothes,
> my stero, my record and tape collection, and my tools. Later I got
> some part of what the house sold for and the '87 crash sucked up
> some of that. Am I crying? Shit no! I'm sitting here in a beautiful
> home on lotsa ground, and we own more than the bank. Was I scared?
> You bet your ass! But was life going anywhere before? Sure, straight
> down the terlet!
Heh... Sounds a lot like the way things were only five years ago
when I got here with nothing but two suitcases full of old clothes,
one lamp, and a car that I still owed a year of payments on. There
were times when I was scared, but most of the time I was working
my ass off. I'm not crying. I'm trying to add another dimension
to my life, but more on that later...
> Look old son, for what it's worth you are in our prayers, and you
> always have a sounding board with me, but just go for it.
Thanks for your support. It means more than you may think...
>>>> Yes, only now in the second half of my thirty-third year I'm
>>>> beginning to learn that I have needs. Up to now, I've just ignored
>>>> them like some stoic martyr thinking that everything will be fine
>>>> even if it looks rather dismal. This isn't depression talking. It's
>>>> more like a reaching out. I'm probably not making any more sense
>>>> than Graydon...
>>>
> I remember 33, in fact I recently celebrated my 33rd birthday - for
> the second time around.
Good on you. I don't know if I'll be making it that far. Longevity
seems to run in the family but so do things like heart disease. I
must admit that I'm not the best at taking care of myself, and there
are times when I smoke heavily. One thing I can say is that stress
is not a problem in my life, so who knows?
>>>Perhaps you want to have that glosalalia feeling and claim that you
>>>don't remember any of this later, but I'm really impressed that you're
>>>saying these things. There certainly can be a long distance between
>>>saying something like this and finding what you need. Nancy says we get
>>>our needs met one way or another. I want to believe that too. But I
>>>also see LOTS of people sabotaging themselves. I hope you don't do that.
>
>>I'm trying not to sabotage myself, or better yet, I'm trying to stop
>>sabotaging myself if that's what I've been doing. I think I'm searching
>>to discover what it is that I really need. Up to now, I've just fallen
>>into what I thought I needed, and maybe what I fell into was what I
>>needed, but it didn't last with the intensity and permanence that I
>>needed. I have this bad tendency of getting superficial when I need
>>to be more serious, and serious when superficiality would be a good
>>thing to have. In the whole mess of self-protection, I trip over
>>myself by not being able to communicate my needs or forgetting what
>>it is that I need...
>
> BTDT. Used to wonder why women sometimes paid attention to me. She
> convinced me that I'm really not a square peg. |-)
If I really am such a square peg, I'll need to find that square hole,
so to speak. From everything I've seen and heard, she's very special...
>>>> [couldn't do voice personals] I don't have this problem in
>>>> public. I meet several people every day^H^H^Hnight without it
>>>> bothering me at all, make friends for five or ten minutes, and
>>>> never see them again, or see them again eventually but there's no
>>>> ongoing social interaction carried over from the last time unless
>>>> I get the same customer almost every day...
>>>
>>>You have a structured role to play. The personals have no structure.
>
> Then write yourself a script. Do you honestly believe those others
> who are on that line were any more comfortable? In fact, listen again
> with an ear to some slight touch of nervousness in the voice - thems
> the ones I'd go for.
Yeah. I took your advice and tried answering a couple of ads. I got
one reply to one response, and I left her another message where I
can be reached. She called this evening. Immediately, I told her
how much more comfortable I feel with somebody real at the other
end of the line. We talked for about 45 minutes. There were pauses
in the conversation, but there were times when I had her laughing.
It set me at ease...
>>True. The other thing about personals, and the reason that I can't
>>come up with a good one for myself is that I can't do myself justice,
>>I can't convey who I am effectively in one, and I doubt that anyone
>>is conveying a very just image of zyrself in one. Doesn't it take
>>years to really get to know someone to the point of making any kind
>>of commitment? Maybe I should get brave and answer a couple of pers-
>>onals. What could happen? Maybe I'd get laughed at. :-]
>
> Why? You have a neat sensahumer, you make intelligent responses to
> other posts, Geez have we been remiss in acknowleding what you write?
> Surely you must see that value in what you send us?
Sometimes I feel like I'm not saying much regardless of what others
are thinking. I have this bad habit of downplaying my contributions
and achievements very often. It's part of being modest...
> Son, all of have this problem - real scared of getting rebuffed, until
> we realize that there is no way on God's green eart that you or I can
> turn on every woman in this old world. Some of them are going to be
> so pre-occupied with some personal problem that they will not see our
> simple brilliance and charm - them's the breaks.
Yeah, I know. Believe me...
[...]
>>I must admit that getting responses like these reinforces the very
>>powerful feeling that SSM is my kinda people. If only I knew more
>>folks like all of youse who lived real close-like, my troubles
>>wouldn't be there much. Thanks again...
>
> Well we ain''t physically close, which is a bitch fer huggers, but
> we ARE close.
That's probably why I still hang out here after all this time...
Bezel
In article <5j1ig6$6...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
Timothy H Jackson <tjac...@shay.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>In article <861125...@kenjo.demon.co.uk>,
>Jo Walton <J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "TheCauldron" writes:
>>>
>>> I'm having a hard time believing that you haven't heard the old saw
>>> about how you can't _be_ friends with a MOTAS in which you might be
>>> romantically interested. In that world, apparently friendship
>>> automatically kills romance.
>>>
>>> Go figure.
>>
>>I have heard a variant of that, which is being as they _are_ my friends
>>they cannot be romantically interested in me. I heard that a _lot_ when
>>I was 15-22, pretty much every time I accidentally fell in love (or lust,
>>or both) with one of my friends. (I've just never been able to do romantic
>>and mysterious and fall in love with strangers.)
>
>involved with my friends because if it didn't work out, I would
>lose their friendship." -or- "If I ask them out and they say
>no, then we won't be able to be friends like we were before
>because now they know I'm interested in them and that will
>always loom over the conversation."
Am there, doing that.
My social landscape has changed a lot over the past year. For the
first time in *ages*, I've got a group of friends who really are a group
(in other words, they all knew each other before I met them). It's
great spending time with them, in all sorts of combinations.
Recently, I've gotten somewhat interested in knowing one of them better,
but the group dynamics are making me wonder how to go about doing that.
My natural approach, of course, is to say, "Hey, I'm interested in knowing
you better. Wanna go to dinner?" but I'm having too much fun not to be
wary of anything that might wreck what's going on now. I don't mind
rejection (well, of course I mind rejection, but not all that much) but
I'll feel like an idiot if something I do injects tension into our
pleasantly relaxed atmosphere. Especially since I don't even know if
I'm interested in anything more than knowing the person better, at this
point.
At the very least, I need to get to know the person well enough to do
a check for the viewpoints described above. If this person holds the
(not uncommon, IMHO) opinion that it's always a mistake to get involved
with friends, or that one is usually only friendly with members of
the opposite sex in whom one could never be interested, or that once
one has had a friend for a long time it's impossible to be attracted
to that friend, I'll just forget the whole thing.
Spring. I'm not sure if I hate it, but it certainly is more interesting
on some fronts than Winter is.
--Bezel
isobel
In article <E8J4u...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
Andreas Tovornik <ua...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote:
>In a previous article, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu (TheCauldron) says:
>>Dread reluctance of feeling vulnerable have we?
>
>It's more like a need to be vulnerable and be able to trust someone
>with that vulnerability while being trustworthy of someone else's
>vulnerability. OK, I've done a piss-poor job of that so far and there's
>often a reluctance to open up and go beyond the superficial because
>I'm terribly scared of being hurt. I know I'm protecting myself too
>much, but the experience of being me has shown that being as trusting
>as I need to be nearly always backfires...
*ouch* ever since i read the original post, i've been trying
to figure out how to respond, or even if i should... this is
the part that i keep coming back to. (please bear with me; i
always feel like i'm rambling when i try to post something serious,
and this is no exception. <sheesh>)
i mean, what 'dreas says above about vulnerability/protection could
very well have come from me... those words just reverberate in my
very soul, and they are particularly resonant since that whole
vulnerability thing is something i've sort of been dealing with re-
cently.
that need to be vulnerable and trusting and worthy of another's
trust is kind of, well, frightening. i'm always amazed at people
who seem able to do this without hesitation because i spend so
much energy on deliberation...
anyway, i don't really have any words of wisdom, 'dreas. you're
getting heaps of that from everybody anyway! *grin* but from my
personal experience, i can see that i *might* be getting better
at this whole business of displaying vulnerability - and i'd hope
that'd be a bit of encouragement for you, too.
for example, in the 'recently' that i alluded to earlier, i found
myself going out on a limb (for me - ymmv) and explaining some
vulnerable-type stuff to someone, fully expecting zir to think i'm
too batty, too self-conscious, too needy and therefore shut down
and walk away. instead, zie tried to understand where i'm coming
from. imagine that. really, it's been a novel experience.
i think some of what *i* have to do, which may or may not apply to
you, is re-defining terms like 'vulnerable' and 'fragile' because
i think of them as negative traits too quickly, and i sell short
these parts of myself that are like that - and expect, perhaps have
even caused, other people to see those parts of me negatively and
form an opinion about me based on that perception.
good grief! someone just please let me know if i'm making any sense!
--
\\as much as i definitely enjoy solitude i wouldn't mind perhaps spending//
// a little time with you sometimes: possibly maybe probably love -bjork \\
*Lara Gose SWIIBTF Comparative Literature Indiana University*
SCIO Fund: $12.63 US+2 coffee cans Canadian pennies*Send your donation now!
Graydon
isobel (lg...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: that need to be vulnerable and trusting and worthy of another's
: trust is kind of, well, frightening. i'm always amazed at people
: who seem able to do this without hesitation because i spend so
: much energy on deliberation...
Vulnerability isn't single valued.
If you take emotional risks in the expectation that any hurt that results
from them is _meant_, or _deserved_, or something like that, the feedback
loop makes being emotionally present almost impossible after awhile.
If you take emotional risks in the expectation that any hurt that results
is an indication that the interaction isn't working, the feedback that
results will take just about any relationship apart.
It's very difficult to treat pain as _information_ and not as _meaning_,
and it's taken me a long time to learn how to do that, particularly
about some things, but it really doesn't appear to be optional, at least
not for the kind of romantic relationship I want. (And have been lucky
enough to find.)
John Pieper
In article <5j1ig6$6...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
Timothy H Jackson <tjac...@shay.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>In article <861125...@kenjo.demon.co.uk>,
>Jo Walton <J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <3353C3...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
>> ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "TheCauldron" writes:
>>>
>>> I'm having a hard time believing that you haven't heard the old saw
>>> about how you can't _be_ friends with a MOTAS in which you might be
>>> romantically interested. In that world, apparently friendship
>>> automatically kills romance.
>>I have heard a variant of that, which is being as they _are_ my friends
>>they cannot be romantically interested in me. I heard that a _lot_ when
>Huh... I always thought it was "I'm afraid of getting romantically
>involved with my friends because if it didn't work out, I would
>lose their friendship." -or- "If I ask them out and they say
>no, then we won't be able to be friends like we were before
>because now they know I'm interested in them and that will
>always loom over the conversation."
Lots of variations on this theme. One thing they have in common is
that they are phrased in such a way that one suspects strongly that
the speaker has never actually _tried_ it.
--
John Pieper (Tried it, didn't work out but the world didn't end)
j...@datatamers.com
Rufus
mwd...@kodak.com (Matthew Daly) wrote:
>J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk writes:
>>Really? There really are people who think friendship is a waste of time?
>>Real people? I don't get it. I mean, what is the _rest_ of their life
>>like?
Before I climb the steps of the SelfRighteousSoapboxFromHell[tm] I
should say that Jo and I are of a mind on this, and I don't mean this as
a negative at Matt personally 'cause he'n'I have clashed on topics afore
and I don't wanna appear like I'm stalking (so to speak..).
>I know that there are times when I have heard the advice that if you
>make enough friends in your life, that one of them will turn into
>that _special_someone_.
Thats one possible solution. One of them may introduce you to his or
her seester or friend(s) too. On another perhaps slightly more obscure
tangent, interactions between old and new friends may also have an
effect on their feelings about you. Just a couple of asides from the
spontaneous combustion method; I'm sure there are others but my
imagination is offline for upgrades at the moment.
>One only has to devote so many years to
>such a strategy before decrying "I HAVE ENOUGH FRIENDS ALREADY,
>THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!"
Speaking as someone with thirty(something) years of applying the
strategy of "I CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH FRIENDS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!"
(applied with at least a *little* discretion of course..) I hafta say I
just can't imagine saying "I have enough friends". I mayn't see all my
friends as often as they or I would prefer but they're still friends
nonetheless.
Perhaps a question is in order: pending the assumption that you're
exclusively heterosexual, do you have some sort of upper limit to the
number of same-sex friends you employ?
>The same thing applies to someone who has just been LJBFed.
(..<puff>..<pant>..<wheeze>...damn, its just getting to be hell
climbing up on this here soapbox these days...and lookee Kristen, you
get your wish(?) - the dreaded LJBF thread has indeed "arrived"..)
I've prolly said this afore (and likely will again) but I still think
that LJBF has a wide variety of meanings and to pigeonhole the semantics
into a single meaning is, IMHO, an unmitigated mistake.
I have, on a fair number of cases, received and LJBF that means "get
lost, I aint interested", others that meant "you don't make my loins
burn with desire, but you'd be rilly cool to hang out with", at least a
few that meant "sheesh, lets take the time to get a blood test so's we
can do this thing right", and even one I can recall that that meant
"well, I'm not interested in a permanent relationship but I hope you
have a condom handy". If ya ain't experienced at least 3 of them 4
options then (again, JMHO..) you aint got enough friends.
I *will* say that I myself rarely use the phrase LJBF or its roughly
equal derivatives 'cause I lack a certain vocal (facial..?) tact that
usually means I'm best off saying what I mean straight out albeit
politely as possible in most cases.
[..snip - no friends other than the SO? (sorta)..]
>>...basically, I can't suspend my disbelief.
I don't disbelieve, but the BoggleMeter pings a '10' every now'n'then.
>I think that friendships are cool, and am glad that my relative
>lack of SO's in my history has led me to develop Platonic relationships
>that are no less deep than many marriages.
I'm kinda curious about what sorta numbers a "relative lack of SO's"
represents. Working out a (very) rough head count, I'd say my ratio of
female friends:lovers is probably around 14:1, which is to say in my
"l'il black book" of phone#'s/addresses in various combinations I can
count 6 wimmens I've had at least some portion of what'd be considered
"romantic liason" with out of 84 solely female entries (201 total
accumulated over roughly 7 years) and yes, I'm a pack-rat about those
sorta things and yes, I'd bet at least 25% of those are sadly
out-of-date. Of those 6, I'm still in contact with 4 who're friends,
and 0 SO's at this moment. Are you very much more disproportionate to
that?
>But when you have such
>relationships, a new "garden variety" friendship gets ... well ...
>boring.
This is confusing. To me friendship works on the basis of individual
merits and calling any of them "garden variety", well, I guess I tend to
differentiate those kinda people as "acquaintences".
>I mean, I like chicken a lot, and there are a ton of things
>you can do to cook chicken, but if you had to eat it every night for
>a year, you'd go nuts.
Just a thought, but I've oft heard a similar plaint from men who
*prefer* to remain bachelors for roughly obvious reasons.
And now for something completely different, I got a kewl .sig-quality
quote o' the day attributed to one Robert Wilensky at UofCA:
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
Internet, we know this is not true."
Mikey ("..KathyJo, KathyJo, wherefore art thou, KathyJo?")
Jim Dutton
In article <5j27vt$f...@news.ysu.edu>, Janet Kegg <bi...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andreas Tovornik) says:
>>
>>Yeah. I took your advice and tried answering a couple of ads. I got
>>one reply to one response, and I left her another message where I
>>can be reached. She called this evening. Immediately, I told her
>>how much more comfortable I feel with somebody real at the other
>>end of the line. We talked for about 45 minutes. There were pauses
>>in the conversation, but there were times when I had her laughing.
>>It set me at ease...
>
> -- Janet
Yea.
-Jeem, seesters?
Robert Blackshaw
wowb...@onix.com (Rufus) wrote:
<snipped 'cause I've nothing to add>
> And now for something completely different, I got a kewl .sig-quality
>quote o' the day attributed to one Robert Wilensky at UofCA:
>"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
>will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
>Internet, we know this is not true."
ROTFL, Wilensky must still be subscribed to s.s.c.
Andreas Tovornik
Warren Cheney (offc...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
> Robert Blackshaw wrote:
>
> [warning: tangential comments abound, and are mostly directed to 'dreas]
>
>> hurt, but you MUST stop with the protection - no guts, no glory - a
>> rough way of putting it, but it seems to be the only way.
>
> Afraid so. You gotta realize that the cost of reaching out
> more often than not involves accepting the possibility of being
> hurt. It's a dual-edged sword: with the joy of reaching out comes
> the eventuality of having your hand whacked. It takes awhile to see
> that if you can accept the reality of both pleasure and pain with
> another person, the pleasure becomes all the more sweeter to experience.
> Hell, why not? After all, you're going to feel like shit either way.
> Might as well put some pleasure between the pain when you can. 'Course,
> you could find that it might actually work out, and then, well...
Well... That kind of stuff has been my fantasy for quite some time.
I'll try to find some pleasure in the brief hours surrounded by
everything else for now...
>> People
>> here are amused at the story of how Florence and I got together. What
>> they don't realize is that I came here 14 years ago with my clothes,
>> my stero, my record and tape collection, and my tools. Later I got
>> some part of what the house sold for and the '87 crash sucked up
>> some of that. Am I crying? Shit no! I'm sitting here in a beautiful
>> home on lotsa ground, and we own more than the bank. Was I scared?
>> You bet your ass! But was life going anywhere before? Sure, straight
>> down the terlet!
>
> True. If the status quo sucks, *boogie.* Sounds like you're
> already working on that anyways from your previous comments. Cool.
> Like Bob says below, gofrit.
I don't see anything stopping me. I just feel like I need to hold back a
little and go at it gradually. Life is already quite full of obligations,
so any shift of lifestyle can't be sudden and comfortable at the same
time...
>> >>> Yes, only now in the second half of my thirty-third year I'm
>> >>> beginning to learn that I have needs. Up to now, I've just ignored
>> >>> them like some stoic martyr thinking that everything will be fine
>> >>> even if it looks rather dismal.
>
> And they popped back up demanding recognition, right? So welcome to
> midlife. Kinda early, but the swamp accepts everyone.
*blub* *blub* I wouldn't mind it so much except for all the blackflies...
[Graydon]
>> Scared the hell outta me when I began to understand him. :-)
>> I've *always* understood him.
>
> (And I expect a beeeeg bonus in his next check for writing the
> above...)
Just forward it to me for Alaska gas money, please...
>> >I'm trying not to sabotage myself, or better yet, I'm trying to stop
>> >sabotaging myself if that's what I've been doing. I think I'm searching
>> >to discover what it is that I really need.
>
> With the added condition that it be what fills and sustains you
> whether or not there's anyone else around to share it with.
BTDT. It gets old and dull after a while unless it's cold pizza...
> And there's the bitch...
>
>> >Up to now, I've just fallen
>> >into what I thought I needed, and maybe what I fell into was what I
>> >needed, but it didn't last with the intensity and permanence that I
>> >needed. I have this bad tendency of getting superficial when I need
>> >to be more serious, and serious when superficiality would be a good
>> >thing to have. In the whole mess of self-protection, I trip over
>> >myself by not being able to communicate my needs or forgetting what
>> >it is that I need...
>
> Or hiding what you really need for fear that it would get in the
> way? Yeah. Remember that one way back when. Problem being that if
> your needs aren't met no matter what, you're going to be hurt bigtime
> *anyways.*
There are times when only the hope of having needs met is enough to
keep me going, like something to look forward to. These days, I've
become more serious and I find that I don't laugh so easily lately.
I'm sure it's because things have become predictable and in a rut.
I would really like to get into a state of mind that isn't as full
of angst as the one I'm in now. I am working on it a bit, but geez,
I thought all that shit was already behind me...
>> BTDT. Used to wonder why women sometimes paid attention to me. She
>> convinced me that I'm really not a square peg. |-)
>
> I'm wondering if the square peg thing isn't really a Guy Thing
> in disguise. Kinda like the "I never was able to fit in with anyone
> and I'm worthless as a result" lament. Individualism and all that.
> The good ones come along, see the defense, whack you upside the head,
> and reel you in after you've seen the light. Not that I'd accuse
> Florence of doing so, oh no sirree... *chuckle* (rilly starting to
> like that woman...)
Some of the fear is of losing some of that individualism. It's a
thing that I've lived with so long that I've accepted it, embraced
it and become very attatched to it. I'd find it very difficult to
let it go...
> Personal trick: enjoy the moments you do have with a person
> without expecting anything else to happen in the future.
I have found this trick a hard one to learn. I get very attatched
to people as well as my individuality, so much so that I often find
them running for the hills because they can't take the intensity of
it. Maybe I learned it so well that it's become hard to open up to
people, often to the point of not deriving the enjoyment I could
out of their company. Alright, that's something else to work on
and find a point of balance where it works better than it has in
the past...
> The most recent example of this occurred Thursday night down in
> Falconer. Just finished a call way up in Niagara Falls, and about
> 4:15, the beeper goes off with a call downstate. So, around 7:30 pm,
> there I am doing scanner checks and as I'm about to do the last
> machine, I find myself talking with a woman about them, and we were
> just having a really nice conversation about quite a few things.
> I knew it was going nowhere, but it was a Good Thing in that I actually
> had that momentary interaction, that small outreach to another person,
> with nothing going down the tubes as a result. It was fun, it felt
> good, and it was reassuring to know that some women will not run
> screaming in terror should I open my mouth.
Well, that kind of thing happens nearly every night. Maybe I'm looking
for the good interactions to last longer than they do...
> Their loss. Seriously. I've been wrestling with the same
> general question of putting oneself Out There for the supposed
> approval of the faceless masses myself. I've never been able to
> construst a valid personal either, and as far as answering one,
> I'll be damned if I'll spend the $2.99/min required to do so around
> here.
Wish me luck. I've made contact with a unit of the masses, and who
knows? We'll most likely be meeting f2f early next week. I would
like for something to work out, but I must keep in mind that this
isn't necessarily it...
> (ObDammitAnotherOnCallWeekendEvent: There's something going on next
> weekend here in Buffalo: a Singles Convention. Even though the Buffalo
> News is co-sponsoring the thing, it smells of scam to me. Although I'd
> give anything to spend the $25 for a good laugh. Just to have the Agway
> trucks backed up to the rear for manure removal after everyone finishes
> with the pickup lines would be enough compensation for me...)
I've always been reluctant to get into these "singles" events. Anyway,
they always happen when I'm working so I'm safe in that respect. The
trouble is that I pick up a lot of the after-impressions of such
events from ISObabes that get in my cab and discuss what a terrible
time they had, and that they didn't meet anyone. I might as well be
invisible. Just the other night, these two girls got in my cab and
complained that they didn't meet anyone. I said, "Well, meeting people
is easy. I meet more than thirty people every night. You just met me."
To which they laughed a little nervously, I mean, who cares about
meeting some scummy cab driver even if he's wearing a nice suit...
>> Why? You have a neat sensahumer, you make intelligent responses to
>> other posts, Geez have we been remiss in acknowleding what you write?
>> Surely you must see that value in what you send us?
>
> Mebbe not. Sometimes I've done things that were pulled from
> within at great personal cost that got zippededodah as a response.
> (But recently, I've also had some personal revelations concerning
> Why I Do Things The Way I Do that make me much more comfy with not
> having a response when such occurs. Maybe It's The Ego...)
>
> But as far as 'dreas goes, his road posts really don't get the
> recognition they deserve. It's probably because of the format: there's
> not much to comment upon, because he's said it all.
I really don't mind if those stories don't get followups. It's
something I've learned to expect. Lately, all the usual stuff has
been going on, and I suppose I could write about it, but somehow
this extrospective quest has become more important now. I could
go on about how the night did nothing until I connected at tenPM,
got a couple of huge tips, saved some very drunk ISObabe with a
beautiful belly (short shirts are all the rage this year) from
cracking her head on the pavement by not letting her fall off
her second storey stoop, and getting her friend home safely even
though she complained that her friends called her anal, but I
won't...
> But as you said, You Can't Hit On The Customers...
I could, but it wouldn't do anyone any good, and it would harm
all of us because word gets around real quick...
>> Son, all of have this problem - real scared of getting rebuffed, until
>> we realize that there is no way on God's green eart that you or I can
>> turn on every woman in this old world. Some of them are going to be
>> so pre-occupied with some personal problem that they will not see our
>> simple brilliance and charm - them's the breaks.
>
> Someone (*smooch!*) finally got it through my thick skull that it
> takes two people to begin *and* end a relationship, and that there's no
> way in hell you can even begin to take the life history of the other
> person into account when starting to get to know them. They're seeing
> you through their own eyes, and you may never get to correct their view
> of you, inaccurate as it may be. (And you may never realize how badly
> their view of you was skewed from the gitgo...so even though there may
> be enough apparent reason to feel hurt, you may never really know why
> things never worked out. This make sense at all?)
Very much. First impressions on tho thirty-sixth impressions are in
the eyes of th beholder, not the beheld. This adds another dimension
to the fear, like, "what kind of impression am I making?"
>> >>'dreas, but I believe that you have the wherewithal to make a good life
>> >>for yourself. You have that underlying enjoyment that so few possess.
>> >>It's always a miracle to watch you struggle with the sardonic overtones.
>
> Agreed. And as far as your road posts go, following up to them
> would be somewhat blasphemous. They're not meant to be analyzed, just
> enjoyed. And they are.
Maybe it's as good as being famous for ten light-nanoseconds ;-]
>> >I must admit that getting responses like these reinforces the very
>> >powerful feeling that SSM is my kinda people. If only I knew more
>> >folks like all of youse who lived real close-like, my troubles
>> >wouldn't be there much. Thanks again...
>
> As sunbird put it, they're out there, it's just a bitch to find
> them. The real catch is keeping the hope alive (am I repeating this
> enough?) while out there existing.
That hope is alive and struggling not to expire...
>> Well we ain''t physically close, which is a bitch fer huggers, but
>> we ARE close.
>
> Sometimes the mental proximity is closer here than many RL
> relationships ever get.
>
> -----Warren ( still lost in the wonder of that reality )
It's definitely addictive...
Nancy VonStein
In article <861266...@kenjo.demon.co.uk>, J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) writes:
>
> Related to this but slightly different, I have seen friends retreat into
> their coupledom and stop being interested in the things their SO is not
> interested in, sometimes taking up their SO's interests, or appearing to
> stop having interests altogether, in the extreme example. My ex-parents-
> in-law truly believe that interests are for young people, they genuinely
> expected me to give up doing all social things entirely when Sasha was
> born. They did this themselves, they have no friends, no interests beyond
> caring for their house and no social life apart from church.
>
I spotted a book in our library this morning titled _Do I Have to Give Up Me To
Be Loved by You?_ I think I'm going to drop it in my briefcase to read over
the weekend.
My mother did pretty much the same as your parents when my children were small.
Now that my children are grown, she shuffled over one day and handed me some
leaflet put out by Together (Rip-off huge dating service here in the US) and
suggested that maybe I should give them a call. I nearly choked. Did
anybody see the bit about Together on Dateline the other night? Made me
shutter and glad that I threw that piece of garbage in the can where it
belongs.
piranha
In article <5j5f2n$5sf$1...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>,
Matthew Daly <mwd...@kodak.com> wrote:
[friends first, romance later]
>Problem is, it has never worked (for me). I enjoy friendships for
>what they are, but when I try to shoehorn it into a technique for
>meeting dating material, it never pans out and I get upset at
>friendships.
hm. maybe the problem lies in part with the "trying to shoe-
horn"? it sounds all wrong to me (_for_ me). i enjoy friend-
ships for what they are too, and i've never tried to shoehorn
one yet into something else. it sometimes "just happens". i
can't imagine making friends for the purpose of having a pool
from which to cull romantic partners.
the quotes are there because i no longer really think that it
just happens completely without any doing; it just appears
that way. i think something needs to happen before a friend-
ship can ever become a romance, something needs to be clear,
and that something has got to do with presenting oneself as
a romantic and possibly sexual being.
i say "possibly sexual" because i am not sure i do that very
much. i am fairly asexual in my behaviour and my attitudes,
and sex isn't very important to me. but romance is a great
deal of fun, and i am not limiting romance to interactions
with other people, but i mean it in its adventurous sense --
and i _know_ that is attractive to quite a few people.
>Not that I know what any of that means. Like I say, I don't regret
>my friendships, and just see myself as someone who is to some
>degree romantically unappealing and to some degree unskilled at
>initiating romance. I make the most of the talents that I do have,
>and only occasionally have the desire to abstractly long for more.
this sounds pretty familiar to me. i used to be precisely in
what i perceive your niche to be -- i was the reliable pal, i
was a great friend to hang out with, on whose shoulder to cry,
but none of my friends would ever be interested in me roman-
tically.
i don't know what changed exactly. it wasn't conscious; it
had to do a lot with internal processing of who i was and who
i wanted to be. i've never been very sexual, so it wasn't
that i turned into an obvious flirt. i still can't flirt
worth a damn. but i can somehow get across that i am not a
totally unromantic and asexual person. it isn't something i
practiced; it grew out of greater self-confidence. i am still
about as sexy as your average utility trailer, i think, but
i no longer emanate an aura of "would be in a nunnery if no
god was involved".
not having met you yet, i don't know whether you somehow do
exude "i don't have a romantic bone in my body". there's a
good chance that what sounds mostly like resignation comes
thru, in combination with possibly not picking up on signals
at crucial times. i used to totally stink at figuring when
somebody was making covert overtures -- i remember a thread
a few years ago when sheba wrote something that made me cast
her in a arabian-nights fantasy, with lots of smoldering eyes
and lustful looks across a crowded room, *grin*. i could not
in a million years see myself in such a role.
which is fine. but there's got to be a role between that and
blending in completely with the wallpaper, or no romance will
happen.
>-Matthew, unsure if this will be read as a whine or not
not likely. you haven't gone out and blamed all those damn
bitches for your bad luck.
-piranha
Timothy H Jackson
In article <5j2ito$g...@katie.vnet.net>, Bezel <be...@vnet.net> wrote:
>In article <5j1ig6$6...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
>Timothy H Jackson <tjac...@shay.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>In article <861125...@kenjo.demon.co.uk>,
>>Jo Walton <J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <3353C3...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
>>> ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "TheCauldron" writes:
>>>>
>>>> I'm having a hard time believing that you haven't heard the old saw
>>>> about how you can't _be_ friends with a MOTAS in which you might be
>>>> romantically interested. In that world, apparently friendship
>>>> automatically kills romance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have heard a variant of that, which is being as they _are_ my friends
>>>they cannot be romantically interested in me. I heard that a _lot_ when
>>>or both) with one of my friends. (I've just never been able to do romantic
>>>and mysterious and fall in love with strangers.)
>>
>>involved with my friends because if it didn't work out, I would
>>lose their friendship." -or- "If I ask them out and they say
>>no, then we won't be able to be friends like we were before
>>because now they know I'm interested in them and that will
>>always loom over the conversation."
>
>
>My social landscape has changed a lot over the past year. For the
>first time in *ages*, I've got a group of friends who really are a group
>(in other words, they all knew each other before I met them). It's
>great spending time with them, in all sorts of combinations.
I can't say I've every really been in that situation, except,
of course, with my introduction into ssm boinks. But, then,
the social structure of ssm is so much different than "real"
life....
>Recently, I've gotten somewhat interested in knowing one of them better,
>but the group dynamics are making me wonder how to go about doing that.
>My natural approach, of course, is to say, "Hey, I'm interested in knowing
>you better. Wanna go to dinner?" but I'm having too much fun not to be
>wary of anything that might wreck what's going on now. I don't mind
>rejection (well, of course I mind rejection, but not all that much) but
*heh* I've always thought that rejection is a lot easier to
get over... I mean, once you're rejected, that's pretty much
it... End of story, but if you are ACCEPTED, well, then all
sorts of problems start... I mean, you have to plan a date,
and all of a sudden you become responsible for another person's
enjoyment for an evening... *shudder* (All should be taken
with tongue in cheek, of course)
>I'll feel like an idiot if something I do injects tension into our
>pleasantly relaxed atmosphere. Especially since I don't even know if
>I'm interested in anything more than knowing the person better, at this
>point.
Well, I would think that it would be possible to get to know this
person at least somewhat better inside of the group atmosphere,
at least enough to gauge what you thought their reaction would be.
But, I am not really familiar with the social dynamics of this
group, and I think you say something similar to what I just
said.
>At the very least, I need to get to know the person well enough to do
>a check for the viewpoints described above. If this person holds the
>(not uncommon, IMHO) opinion that it's always a mistake to get involved
>with friends, or that one is usually only friendly with members of
>the opposite sex in whom one could never be interested, or that once
>one has had a friend for a long time it's impossible to be attracted
>to that friend, I'll just forget the whole thing.
Yeah, not uncommon, but certainly unfortunate.... I often wonder
how a person manages to think that a relationship could be successful
with anyone who ISN'T a friend... I mean, while all relationships
don't need to start with friendship, I would certainly think that
anyone whom you are involved with should be your friend, so it
doesn't seem contradictory that they could start out that way
rather than vice versa.... In fact, it would seem to get one
big stumbling block out of the way if you already knew that
they were your friend... But maybe that's just me. :)
>Spring. I'm not sure if I hate it, but it certainly is more interesting
>on some fronts than Winter is.
Well, I certainly wish Spring would hurry up and get HERE so I
could get down to hating it :)
Tim.
Matthew Daly
In article <3354f31d....@207.44.0.14> wowb...@onix.com writes:
>mwd...@kodak.com (Matthew Daly) wrote:
>>J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk writes:
>>>Really? There really are people who think friendship is a waste of time?
>>>Real people? I don't get it. I mean, what is the _rest_ of their life
>>>like?
>
> Before I climb the steps of the SelfRighteousSoapboxFromHell[tm] I
>should say that Jo and I are of a mind on this, and I don't mean this as
>a negative at Matt personally 'cause he'n'I have clashed on topics afore
>and I don't wanna appear like I'm stalking (so to speak..).
News to me. Does the ssm Clique inform each other when they change
handles without letting the rest of us in on it? (Yes, yes, I know
TINC. *grin*)
Taking the soapbox is fine. I don't really want to be making the
first NiceGuy rant in this pristine newsgroup, and I don't recall
if it has happened before.
(And, for the record, I prefer "Matthew" by leaps and bounds over
"Matt". Long story -- ask me about it sometime.)
>>I know that there are times when I have heard the advice that if you
>>make enough friends in your life, that one of them will turn into
>>that _special_someone_.
>
> Thats one possible solution. One of them may introduce you to his or
>her seester or friend(s) too. On another perhaps slightly more obscure
>tangent, interactions between old and new friends may also have an
>effect on their feelings about you. Just a couple of asides from the
>spontaneous combustion method; I'm sure there are others but my
>imagination is offline for upgrades at the moment.
Yes. Trust me, this is the strategy that I have leaned on for twelve
years now, so I am aware of all the manifold advantages that I have.
Problem is, it has never worked (for me). I enjoy friendships for
what they are, but when I try to shoehorn it into a technique for
meeting dating material, it never pans out and I get upset at
friendships. As a result, when people start talking like this, I
tend to plug my ears and grind my teeth, and hope that they stop
talking. (Curiously enough, I've had the same experience at
the several churches that I have belonged to. Lots of social
interactions, but never the source of romantic possibilities that
I read about in the brochures....)
>>One only has to devote so many years to
>>such a strategy before decrying "I HAVE ENOUGH FRIENDS ALREADY,
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!"
>
> Speaking as someone with thirty(something) years of applying the
>strategy of "I CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH FRIENDS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!"
>(applied with at least a *little* discretion of course..) I hafta say I
>just can't imagine saying "I have enough friends". I mayn't see all my
>friends as often as they or I would prefer but they're still friends
>nonetheless.
Oh yeah. If I gave the impression that I would trade any two of my
friends for an SO, it was unintentional. See the fuller explanation
further to the end of this post, which may or may not placate you.
> Perhaps a question is in order: pending the assumption that you're
>exclusively heterosexual, do you have some sort of upper limit to the
>number of same-sex friends you employ?
It's not that I have carrying load of X women and an infinite number
of men, if that's what you're asking. I'm saying "Developing
a friendship with you would cause me to neglect the people that I
currently spend time with to some degree."
>>The same thing applies to someone who has just been LJBFed.
>
> (..<puff>..<pant>..<wheeze>...damn, its just getting to be hell
>climbing up on this here soapbox these days...and lookee Kristen, you
>get your wish(?) - the dreaded LJBF thread has indeed "arrived"..)
D'oh! I didn't mean it! How do you cancel articles from moderated
newsgroups???? (And I think I did the first plonk too. *grin*)
> I've prolly said this afore (and likely will again) but I still think
>that LJBF has a wide variety of meanings and to pigeonhole the semantics
>into a single meaning is, IMHO, an unmitigated mistake.
Agreed. (Does this get me off the hook with Kristen?)
> I have, on a fair number of cases, received and LJBF that means "get
>lost, I aint interested", others that meant "you don't make my loins
>burn with desire, but you'd be rilly cool to hang out with", at least a
>few that meant "sheesh, lets take the time to get a blood test so's we
>can do this thing right", and even one I can recall that that meant
>"well, I'm not interested in a permanent relationship but I hope you
>have a condom handy". If ya ain't experienced at least 3 of them 4
>options then (again, JMHO..) you aint got enough friends.
I'm not a prizewinner at figuring out the meanings of most of them,
but let's call it about a dozen 2's, a few 1's and one that turned
out to be a 4.
> I *will* say that I myself rarely use the phrase LJBF or its roughly
>equal derivatives 'cause I lack a certain vocal (facial..?) tact that
>usually means I'm best off saying what I mean straight out albeit
>politely as possible in most cases.
I would need to hear an example of this to know what you're saying.
All of the LJBF's I've had (or given) have sounded like #2. Saying
#1 honestly is being dumped and saying #3 or #4 honestly is a muted
come-on, non?
>[..snip - no friends other than the SO? (sorta)..]
>>>...basically, I can't suspend my disbelief.
>
> I don't disbelieve, but the BoggleMeter pings a '10' every now'n'then.
>
>>I think that friendships are cool, and am glad that my relative
>>lack of SO's in my history has led me to develop Platonic relationships
>>that are no less deep than many marriages.
>
> I'm kinda curious about what sorta numbers a "relative lack of SO's"
>represents. Working out a (very) rough head count, I'd say my ratio of
>female friends:lovers is probably around 14:1, which is to say in my
>"l'il black book" of phone#'s/addresses in various combinations I can
>count 6 wimmens I've had at least some portion of what'd be considered
>"romantic liason" with out of 84 solely female entries (201 total
>accumulated over roughly 7 years) and yes, I'm a pack-rat about those
>sorta things and yes, I'd bet at least 25% of those are sadly
>out-of-date. Of those 6, I'm still in contact with 4 who're friends,
>and 0 SO's at this moment. Are you very much more disproportionate to
>that?
I'm afraid so. I don't have the precise stats that you do, but I've
been to "second base" with two women, and went to first base with
one more (which was more a walk than a hit -- doncha love these
analogies?). Between college and now, let's say that I could dredge
up a list of 100 female friends in that time if I took the time,
ignoring people I know exclusively through Usenet.
Not that I know what any of that means. Like I say, I don't regret
my friendships, and just see myself as someone who is to some
degree romantically unappealing and to some degree unskilled at
initiating romance. I make the most of the talents that I do have,
and only occasionally have the desire to abstractly long for more.
>>But when you have such
>>relationships, a new "garden variety" friendship gets ... well ...
>>boring.
>
> This is confusing. To me friendship works on the basis of individual
>merits and calling any of them "garden variety", well, I guess I tend to
>differentiate those kinda people as "acquaintences".
What I mean is this: I have the friends that I talk about deep
spiritual issues, the friends for political and philosophical
discourse, the friends I used to play bridge with, my fraternity
brothers, people I goof off and see movies with, and so on. It's
a full plate. They all take energy and provide me with rewards.
If someone new comes into the mix, and wishes to be my friend only
because we dated a few times and things didn't go ideally, well...
perhaps I am as picky about my friends as she is about her lovers.
I'd rather she were an acquaintaince, to use your parlance, which
is probably exactly what I meant in the times of my life that I
ranted that I had enough friends.
>>I mean, I like chicken a lot, and there are a ton of things
>>you can do to cook chicken, but if you had to eat it every night for
>>a year, you'd go nuts.
>
> Just a thought, but I've oft heard a similar plaint from men who
>*prefer* to remain bachelors for roughly obvious reasons.
Heh.
-Matthew, unsure if this will be read as a whine or not
Jo Walton
In article <5j1rve$15l6$1...@news.goodnet.com>
j...@dt1.datatamers.com "John Pieper" writes:
> In article <5j1ig6$6...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
> Timothy H Jackson <tjac...@shay.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
> >Huh... I always thought it was "I'm afraid of getting romantically
> >involved with my friends because if it didn't work out, I would
> >lose their friendship." -or- "If I ask them out and they say
> >no, then we won't be able to be friends like we were before
> >because now they know I'm interested in them and that will
> >always loom over the conversation."
>
> Lots of variations on this theme. One thing they have in common is
> that they are phrased in such a way that one suspects strongly that
> the speaker has never actually _tried_ it.
> --
> John Pieper (Tried it, didn't work out but the world didn't end)
> j...@datatamers.com
Me too. Though I have tried it and lost friends, there are some idiotic
people about. But I don't understand romance. I've never been able to
see friendship and romance as completely different categories. Everyone
I've ever fallen in love with and/or been romantically involved with has
been my good friend as well, and first - except for one very exceptional
holiday romance when I was very young and silly and trying to prove I was
normal.
I find it hard to imagine how people have relationships with people who
would _not_ be their friend if they were not romantically involved, where
they don't seem to have enough in common to be friends apart from the
romantic aspect. It boggles me. This is where I don't get it about meeting
strangers from advertisements either. There is clearly something about
romance as people do it and I don't that I am entirely missing, something
that makes it qualitatively different from other forms of relationship.
Related to this but slightly different, I have seen friends retreat into
their coupledom and stop being interested in the things their SO is not
interested in, sometimes taking up their SO's interests, or appearing to
stop having interests altogether, in the extreme example. My ex-parents-
in-law truly believe that interests are for young people, they genuinely
expected me to give up doing all social things entirely when Sasha was
born. They did this themselves, they have no friends, no interests beyond
caring for their house and no social life apart from church.
--
kmd
Wow, look. A friends/lovers/connections thread ... and nobuddy's said
"lying bitches" yet. *smooch* to the bot-people.
Matthew Daly wrote:
>
> In article <861089...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk
> writes:
> >
> >Really? There really are people who think friendship is a waste of
> >time? Real people? I don't get it. I mean, what is the _rest_ of their
> >life like?
>
> I know that there are times when I have heard the advice that if you
> make enough friends in your life, that one of them will turn into
> that _special_someone_.
>
I've never liked this version of that advice either. It strikes me as
mercenary, and denigrating to friendships and connections to folks other
than prospective special someones. I make connections to people because
something in me sparks with something in them, period. For all values of
spark, and all values of connection. Making friends in order to increase
your pool of potential SOs -- *shudder*.
OTOH, separating out "friend" from "someone who makes my hormones hop"
has never worked for me -- in fact, I'm certain I'm not capable of it.
So ... I guess I also understand why "make friends" could be good advice.
(Am *not* schizophrenic | yes you are | No I'm not | shut up.)
What the heck are you gonna talk about over Wheaties (or cold baked
oats or leftover pizza or cheesecake or hot honeyed grapefruit) if you're
not friends?
> One only has to devote so many years to
> such a strategy before decrying "I HAVE ENOUGH FRIENDS ALREADY,
> THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!"
>
Most of the time, I seek and make new connections to renew or generate
something in myself. Old ones sometimes fade, sometimes resurface after
a long time with new gifts ... and all of this feels very much like my
favorite thing about my life. Sorry, Matthew, I jest don't get this
concept at all.
>
> The same thing applies to someone who has just been LJBFed.
>
(Wheee! I _knew_ the dreaded acronym was comin'.) In my ever, ever,
ever so humble opinion, LJBF usually distorts the meanings of
romance/love/friendship because of its unfortunate use by some as a
(*cough*) polite means of rejection rather than as an offer of ongoing
friendship.
I can't imagine ever saying any variety of LJBF. Mostly, fer cryin' out
loud, because of the inclusion of "just" in that statement.
> But when you have such
> relationships, a new "garden variety" friendship gets ... well ...
> boring.
Waitaminit. I think you're saying "garden variety" friendship where I
would say "casual acquaintance." Still, I get sparked by little things
from casual acquaintances, too.
>
> I mean, I like chicken a lot, and there are a ton of things
> you can do to cook chicken, but if you had to eat it every night for
> a year, you'd go nuts.
>
Bwaawwwkk bwawkbwawkbwawkbwawk BWAAAWWK!
(Can I be your freend??) ;-)
--
Kristen
Michael Sullivan
>If someone new comes into the mix, and wishes to be my friend only
>because we dated a few times and things didn't go ideally, well...
>perhaps I am as picky about my friends as she is about her lovers.
>I'd rather she were an acquaintaince, to use your parlance, which
>is probably exactly what I meant in the times of my life that I
>ranted that I had enough friends.
I'm not sure I get this, because lover is a subset of friend for me. If
I'm interested in someone as a lover, I'm automatically also interested in
them as a friend. Now just as a few outings may determine that we aren't
meant to be lovers, a few more might show that we aren't meant to be
friends either.
But if I already knew I wasn't interested in zir as a friend, well --
*I'd* be doing the dumping, because I wouldn't want to be lovers either.
That's the part I don't understand about what you say here. The
implication is that even though you don't want her as a friend, you'd be
happy continuing on a path to being lovers if she didn't "LJBF" you. That
just doesn't make any sense to me.
Michael
Andreas Tovornik
TheCauldron (ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu) writes:
> Andreas Tovornik wrote:
>>
>> In a previous article, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu (TheCauldron) says:
>>
>> >Andreas Tovornik wrote:
>> >>[...wants to have a serious relationship]
>
>> >Dread reluctance of feeling vulnerable have we?
>>
>> It's more like a need to be vulnerable and be able to trust someone
>> with that vulnerability while being trustworthy of someone else's
>> vulnerability. OK, I've done a piss-poor job of that so far and there's
>> often a reluctance to open up and go beyond the superficial because
>> I'm terribly scared of being hurt. I know I'm protecting myself too
>> much, but the experience of being me has shown that being as trusting
>> as I need to be nearly always backfires...
>
> similar to it in s.s. and s.s.m. postings. It seems to be a terrible
> difficulty for people.
The damnedest thing is it's only bothering me now and it hasn't
done so for several years. I can't figure it out...
> I don't know if there's a magic cookie that will help you by-pass it, so
> you're probably going to have to come up with something practical. If
> someone else in the group knows of the magic cookie, they'd be awful
> nice to come forward at this time...
The trouble, I think, is that in our present society we are being
spoiled. Anything we want can be had by a simple walk to the corner
or a quick phone call. What frustrates us is that we want relationships
but don't want to work for them because of our being so spoiled. If
these things don't come about quickly and conveniently, we are at a
loss and don't know how to change things easily. My own problem has
been one of time. I'm busy working sixty hours a week, and my time off
doesn't coincide with the socializing time of everyone else. Still, this
is a bad excuse because when I did have the convenience of time before
I started doing the work that I do, I was relationshipless most of the
time as well. I see others in my line of work who work similar hours.
They have relationships, and even raise families. Now I'm saying, "Shit!
That's what I'd like to do..."
> The only thing I can think of is progressive risks, starting with low
> risks and going higher as you gain tolerance. Sounds simple, but
> imposing that structure on relationships as they happen is fairly
> complex. I do it in friendship-type relationships and that has given me
> the practice and confidence to try things in romantic relationships.
> That's why I keep recommending for people to be friends and make
> friends, and to try stuff that is simply not as threatening as
> approaching the person you think might be "the one" and risking your
> whole heart and soul and everything with no practice and no buffer zone.
Friendships are not really a problem. If I think about it, I have lots
of friends and "friendlies" in my community. My challenge will be to
break down some of the barriers between me and intimacy...
> The love that occurs in friendship is fairly amazing in itself, so I
> never consider it a waste of time. I know, however, that there are many
> people who think friendship _is_ a waste of time, because they want/need
> the sexuality of a romantic relationship so badly. To each his own.
Myself, I've never seen friendship as a waste of time. OK, that want/need
thing is there, but not at the expense of friendship. I can't see myself
becoming involved with someone who isn't a friend...
> Maybe you can think of something that suits your own personality and
> tastes.
Maybe I'm still trying to figure that out...
>> I'm trying not to sabotage myself, or better yet, I'm trying to stop
>> sabotaging myself if that's what I've been doing. I think I'm searching
>> to discover what it is that I really need. Up to now, I've just fallen
>> into what I thought I needed, and maybe what I fell into was what I
>> needed, but it didn't last with the intensity and permanence that I
>> needed.
>
> So would it be helpful to do a sort of analysis that goes something
> like: when I was 20 I thought I needed x, but that wasnt' it... when I
> was 22 I thought I needed x and that wasn't it... and to just look at
> that and see how it makes you feel, or see if there is a sort of
> pattern.
It seems to be a pattern that has gone full circle, actually. Up until
about the age of twenty-four, there was a deep need to be involved with
someone. After that, I was relieved to find that the need had been
merciful and it left me alone. I'd say that about two years ago it
started to come back. I didn't worry about it because it came on about
as gradually as a depression. I got a very healthy taste of what I had
been missing last year, and now that it's gone I miss it more than I
ever did before. I may have been overly desperate for it to progress,
perhaps shattering the possibility. That's self-blame, I know, and
probably just my imagination going wild...
> And not that you need to discuss it on the group, but do you know why?
It's actually a fascinating topic. Does it have something to do with
biorhythms maybe? Is it a manifestation of the body renewing itself
every seven years? Could it be Hale-Bopp or something tied to the
life-cycle of Coho Salmon? Damned if I know for sure...
>> I have this bad tendency of getting superficial when I need
>> to be more serious, and serious when superficiality would be a good
>> thing to have. In the whole mess of self-protection, I trip over
>> myself by not being able to communicate my needs or forgetting what
>> it is that I need...
>
> I big bundle of possible pitfalls, to be sure. So how to untie the
> bundle and make a relationship possible that doesn't start you in the
> tailspin? Call me calculating, but I don't think a bit of steering is a
> bad thing when it comes to my love life. Would you take any other kind
> of joyride and not want to have a conscious person at the wheel?
I will call you calculating. Some things are out of our control.
I can't make someone love me, and I can't turn off anyone's love for
me if it's there. I can't make chemistry happen, but if you know a
way, then c'mon, spill...
> Maybe you could try the absolute honesty that allows you to say to this
> other person: "When I get to this spot, all of a sudden something
> happens and I pull back and get superficial as a defense mechanism.
> Help me not do that. I need to talk about how we can trust each other.
> I need support." If nothing else, it would be a hell of a screen.
Maybe my mistake was expecting lovers to figure me out and implicitly
understand my needs. Like I said, I operate on a very feeling level...
>> True. The other thing about personals, and the reason that I can't
>> come up with a good one for myself is that I can't do myself justice,
>> I can't convey who I am effectively in one, and I doubt that anyone
>> is conveying a very just image of zyrself in one. Doesn't it take
>> years to really get to know someone to the point of making any kind
>> of commitment? Maybe I should get brave and answer a couple of pers-
>> onals. What could happen? Maybe I'd get laughed at. :-]
>
> A horrible fear, I know. |-) And besides that: why do you need the
> personal to tell everything about you? Isn't the point just to meet
> someone and do all the hard work of getting to know xie **after**
> meeting through the personals? You throw out your hook, you get a fish,
> but you have to look it over to see if it's a keeper. Not all of them
> are keepers. Some days none of them are. (But you have plenty to eat on
> the good days, yuk, yuk!)
>
> The first date is really low risk.
Thanks for reminding me. I had a first phone conversation just the other
evening. I know it's low-risk, but I kept getting the feeling that it
was very important, and that my nervousness on the phone was making the
girl feel as nervous as I was. It's so much easier if you write email
to each other for awhile and then move to the phone. This was straight
phone. It's amazing how my style of communication has changed since I
started using this funny TV...
> [professional hazard of keeping one's distance]
>> There's a good possibility of that, and I also feel like I've
>> always had trouble with getting intimate. I know that it takes
>> someone very special to make me feel like getting close to zyr.
>> Professionalism has probably made opening up even more difficult...
>
> So is it just impossible for you to think over what it is you're doing?
> Do things have to be completely spontaneous and intuitive, so that while
> you're in the moment, you can't do a little assessment, or grab a
> "natural" or "conditioned" impluse and use a little restraint, or try a
> new pattern (eliminate and old, unsuccessful pattern)?
We'll see how things go while I work on all this...
Andreas Tovornik
Jo Walton (J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk) writes:
> In article <3352B6...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
> ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "TheCauldron" writes:
>>
>> never consider it a waste of time. I know, however, that there are many
>> people who think friendship _is_ a waste of time, because they want/need
>> the sexuality of a romantic relationship so badly. To each his own.
>
> Real people? I don't get it. I mean, what is the _rest_ of their life
> like?
>
> see skin hunger in its several varieties, but if friendship is a waste
> of time what is the rest of their relationship with their SO going to
> be like - and what do they do when their SO is busy and who do they
Some see relationships as adversarial campaigns in the well-
publicized (by MediaHype) "battle of the sexes." There are
lots of people around here who see people as conquests. That
whole way of being turns me right off...
Andreas Tovornik
Jim Dutton (j...@MCS.COM) writes:
> In article <5j27vt$f...@news.ysu.edu>, Janet Kegg <bi...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>In a previous article, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andreas Tovornik) says:
>>>
>>>Yeah. I took your advice and tried answering a couple of ads. I got
>>>one reply to one response, and I left her another message where I
>>>can be reached. She called this evening. Immediately, I told her
>>>how much more comfortable I feel with somebody real at the other
>>>end of the line. We talked for about 45 minutes. There were pauses
>>>in the conversation, but there were times when I had her laughing.
>>>It set me at ease...
>>
>> -- Janet
>
> Yea.
> -Jeem, seesters?
From what she's told me, she leeves weeth her seester...
Al
mwd...@kodak.com (Matthew Daly) spewed all over my screen:
>In article <3354f31d....@207.44.0.14> wowb...@onix.com writes:
>>mwd...@kodak.com (Matthew Daly) wrote:
>>>J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk writes:
[context ripped out in many places]
>>>One only has to devote so many years to
>>>such a strategy before decrying "I HAVE ENOUGH FRIENDS ALREADY,
>>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!"
>>
>> Speaking as someone with thirty(something) years of applying the
>>strategy of "I CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH FRIENDS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!"
>>(applied with at least a *little* discretion of course..) I hafta say I
>>just can't imagine saying "I have enough friends". I mayn't see all my
>>friends as often as they or I would prefer but they're still friends
>>nonetheless.
I don't have a good understanding of how anyone could "never have enough
friends." I "know" a lot of people, and I enjoy the company of
"some" people. But I'll say that I have a limited number of
people I call friends, and I'm sure its the different context that I
use the word, but it is the word I use. I'll not take up space
by explaining the long story of what I consider friends, but
lets say that I belive it to be a give & take relationship
where I know that my friends will do almost anything I need
for them to do. I've driven across state lines in the middle
of the night to help a friend who needed me then. The time it
takes to keep a friendship going and to be there when you
are needed limits the number of people that can be called friends.
There are of course different levels of people that I hang out
with, some I'll devote more time and energy for than others but
they are not as close as friends.
>Oh yeah. If I gave the impression that I would trade any two of my
>friends for an SO, it was unintentional. See the fuller explanation
>further to the end of this post, which may or may not placate you.
>
>> Perhaps a question is in order: pending the assumption that you're
>>exclusively heterosexual, do you have some sort of upper limit to the
>>number of same-sex friends you employ?
>
>It's not that I have carrying load of X women and an infinite number
>of men, if that's what you're asking. I'm saying "Developing
>a friendship with you would cause me to neglect the people that I
>currently spend time with to some degree."
Over the long history that could be called my life, I've had more
female friends then male. Sorry for the generalization, but in
my experience, the women friends I've had have all been able to discuss
broader ranges of topics and I like discussion. I know, y'all didn't
know that. Most of the guys who have been my friends have been better
at opening up then others I've know. I've even been invited out
for a girls night out and considered "one of the girls" many
times. But this doesn't mean anything to my standing as the only
strait guy in s.s.
-al "Don't even go there Anmar" DeVere
--
#1 Statistic: 93.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Matthew Daly
In article <5j6qh9$q...@panix2.panix.com> m...@panix.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
>In article <5j5f2n$5sf$1...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>,
>Matthew Daly <mwd...@kodak.com> wrote:
>
>>because we dated a few times and things didn't go ideally, well...
>>perhaps I am as picky about my friends as she is about her lovers.
>>I'd rather she were an acquaintaince, to use your parlance, which
>>is probably exactly what I meant in the times of my life that I
>>ranted that I had enough friends.
>
>implication is that even though you don't want her as a friend, you'd be
>happy continuing on a path to being lovers if she didn't "LJBF" you. That
>just doesn't make any sense to me.
Oh, that.
I observed about two years ago that, while getting to know women
enough to decide if they were lover material, I'd wind up in
the Friend Zone before deciding that she was worth making the move.
So, I got to thinking that I should experiment with sizing up a
woman in the first minute that I meet her and try to relate to her
only on a pseudo-flirting manner to sort of keep it in her mind that
I might be interested in a romantic relationship. That actually
didn't go too well either, although I don't know if it's the
foundation that was flawed or just my execution. :-)
Since then, I've gone to my current "Que sera, sera" belief that
having a 90% satisfying social life should lead me to being happy
about the 90% instead of remorseful about the 10% that isn't there
yet. Also, having moved back East almost two years ago, I definitely
don't have too many friends in my life at this moment, so I don't
know if the rant is something that I would repeat today if the
situation arose.
-Matthew
Andreas Tovornik
Nancy VonStein (nvon...@msuvx2.memphis.edu) writes:
> In article <5io46q$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andreas Tovornik) writes:
>>
>> Say anything you want in public. That way, nobody gets hurt. *smooch*
>> I don't see what you mean by pride. Maybe my ego's in the way... ;-]
>
> What I'm talking about is that "once upon a time" some unnice things were said
> to apparently prove that blame was with me, when in reality there
> was no blame to be laid at all, in fact it had been agreed that there was no
> blame. That's what I mean by pride. Down South we call it false pride. I
> guess it's one of those religious thangs.
Hare Krsna...
```
>> But seriously, believe this or not, take it worth a grain of salt, and
>> so on, I'm a hell of a lot more shy about opening up, showing personal
>> stuff, and even being myself in my day-to-day routine than I am right
>> here and now in this newsgroup. Even though I know and have met quite a
>> few people here, there is still that shadow of anonymity where I can
>> spread out my most vulnerable side...
>
> As Popeye sez, "I yams what I yams and that's all that I yams."
Even Popeye may have been more complicated than that...
>>> I heard Dixie Carter the other day talking about how fortunate she is to have
>>> such a good man in her life (Hal Holbrook.) She said that it's take one hell
>>> of a good man to replace no man at all. Amen, hallelujah, can I get a witness.
>>
>> I can't agree with you more. My standards have kept getting higher
>> all the time, and maybe that's why I'm getting more hesitant at jumping
>> into anything. The elusive rareness of finding anyone who I'd even
>> think of considering increases all the time, and that's just WRT the
>> personality side of things. I'm very special [take that any way you
>> like to] and only someone equally special could be compatible. If that's
>> what you mean by pride, damn right I'm proud...
>
> No, that's discernment and very wise. Nothing wrong with pride, everybody
> should have some, that is wellplaced anyway. But ya can't put it before your
> friends and lovers. Some things just happen (no blame) but many
> things don't (where would one like to place the blame?). What's the point in
> placing blame? Just pass it off as one of those things that "just happen."
> I mean, you once loved that person, right? Who deserves an explanation as to
> why the relationship changed? IMO nobody but the two involved.
If there were some way to make it up to you, I would. But seriously,
I forgot long ago what I may have said or who I may have said it to.
We both had different expectations at the time, and none of them came
out the way either of us expected. We were both disappointed and hurt.
Now, I don't know about you, but when I get disappointed and hurt, I
sometimes say and do things that are not a part of my best behavior
in reaching out for some consolation. I am far from perfect, you
understand, and I do make mistakes. I made one, so can you do me a
beeg favor and finally forgive me?
>>> I don't mind having no one in my life, I wouldn't mind having someone in my
>>> life too, but one way requires a commitment that I don't have in me. It's not
>>> selfish to be alone, it's also not a sign that one is not whole. I feel more
>>> whole when I'm alone than when I have someone. Cause I'm the kind of person
>>> who puts my life on the back burner for others. Talking about growing old and
>>> having nothing to show for it.
>>
>> I think you touched on another fear of mine. I don't want to have to
>> change very much in my life because I am very whole as I am. I too,
>> would feel some of that wholeness slipping away with any deep kind
>> of involvement. I'm at my most secure when I'm not with somebody, but
>> at the same time the insecurity is a rush, and in it's own fucked-up
>> way it's addictive and I'm missing it. For me, security has become
>> a bit dull...
>
> I'm reading that you feel insecure in a relationship. Is that what you are
> saying? Maybe you mean vulnerable. And yes, vulnerability is a rush and is
> two-sided, ie it is attractive. Like one has a healthy concept of one's self.
> People like that. Making oneself vulnerable is a risk and that's where the rush
> for you comes in. N'est pas?
Exactement, Ma Chere...
> I used to date a coke freak and I got hooked on the adrenaline rushes between
> his ecstatic episodes (which were a blast) and then trying to kill me (not a
> blast but still an adrenaline rush.) It took years to get over that
> one. It didn't just happen either.
>
> Shooting straight from the hip, take control of your life.
>
>> The big problem is that I'm at a fork in the road, see one kind of
>> comfort down either way, and I'm having trouble deciding which way
>> to turn right now. I like things the way the are, but I need things
>> to be different. Maybe I don't know what I want right now...
>
> That probably is the RILL problem.
One of them ;-]
>>> Springtime. Take an antihistamine, get a nap, and it'll all be better in a
>>> couple of months.
>>
>> Yess'm, Dr. Nainzee...
>
> I've got some wicked cough syrup. I slept all day yesterday. I needed it too.
>
> Nancy (...bet you didn't mean to get into all this, didja?)
I hope it's finally over. Can we now accept each other's friendship?
kmd
[following-up to two posts at once, wacky news feed, yaddayaddayadda]
Matthew Daly wrote:
>
> In article <3354f31d....@207.44.0.14> wowb...@onix.com writes:
<snip>
> >
> > (..<puff>..<pant>..<wheeze>...damn, its just getting to be hell
> >climbing up on this here soapbox these days...and lookee Kristen, you
> >get your wish(?) - the dreaded LJBF thread has indeed "arrived"..)
>
Yeah, and I'm lovin' it. Tis a fascinating thing to me, our connections
to others, what we do with 'em, why I choose, why others choose ... my
love of the topic(s) this encompasses seems to be in direct proportion to
my disgust at the way I've seen other net.chats about this go. YMMV.
<snip M&M's exchange -- go read it>
>(Does this get me off the hook with Kristen?)
Heh. Not a chance.
--
Kri...@reel.reel.reel
Graydon
TheCauldron (ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu) wrote:
: Matthew Daly wrote:
[lots of careful, thoughtful stuff about relationship categories, snipped]
It is my contention that the categorization of relationship types is
approaching the whole endevour standing on your head.
The person is themselves, only and particularly themselves, and how you
are moved to react to them in that moment is its own and particular thing
as well. I find I have rather more success attaching
things-we-do-together names to the particular interaction than I ever did
trying to figure out if someone was a friend or a lover.
Paul Goldschmidt
>>> The love that occurs in friendship is fairly amazing in itself, so I
>>> never consider it a waste of time.
Hear, hear!
>>>I know, however, that there are many
>>> people who think friendship _is_ a waste of time, because they want/need
>>> the sexuality of a romantic relationship so badly.
Damn shame, 'cos as far as I can see, it's friendship which leads to a
sexual friendship, romantic relationship, etc.
>> Really? There really are people who think friendship is a waste of time?
>> Real people? I don't get it. I mean, what is the _rest_ of their life
>> like?
Pretty lonesome and narrow-gauge from where I sit. Unless they've come
to think of friendship strictly in terms of the "let's just be
friends" brush-off, in which case they need to be hipped to the
standard definition of the word "friendship".
>>
>> I can see wanting to have someone to be your special person, and I can
>> see skin hunger in its several varieties
Yeah, so can I. And as Tom Petty once sang, the waiting is the hardest
part. I say hugs definitely need to be a lot more freely available,
and not simply to the so-called "winners", that is people in romantic
relationships. Because frankly, it's not even reasonable to expect
that anyone will have a romantic relationship whenever one wants one.
It just doesn't happen in the real world. There's got to be a more
reasonable way of getting our basic (i.e. non-sexual) needs for
closeness met. I once corresponded with someone in California who
belonged to a (now unfortunately defunct) singles club where one of
the things members did was to give each other back rubs. Beats the
living daylights out of personals, bars, etc. IMNSHO.
>>but if friendship is a waste
>> of time what is the rest of their relationship with their SO going to
>> be like - and what do they do when their SO is busy and who do they
>> talk to about things and... basically, I can't suspend my disbelief.
Neither can I.
>Some see relationships as adversarial campaigns in the well-
>publicized (by MediaHype) "battle of the sexes."
If I didn't know better, I'd say that somebody or other wanted all of
us to think and act this way toward one another to keep us isolated,
alienated and therefore easier to manage.
>There are
>lots of people around here who see people as conquests. That
>whole way of being turns me right off...
Me too. Who needs that crapola?
--
"...Don't be fooled by the high-fallutin' talk about saving the
children. No, the government hasn't suddenly decided that kids have
value other than as tax deductions and burger-flippers. The fear of a
wired planet is really a well-founded terror that information flows
more freely online than it does in print."
- columnist and editorial cartoonist Ted Rall on the Communications Decency Act.
Visit the Bartlepage: <http://www.spectra.net/~bartle>
WARNING: Unsolicited commercial e-mail (i.e. "spam") will be deleted
without being read.
Robert Blackshaw
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andreas Tovornik) wrote:
I'm very much afraid that there is no other way than to risk the hurt.
We get everything else we want at the corner store in exchange for
money. Relationships are paid for in emotional coin. Sure you can
'buy' a relationship, but that was another thread.
I guess, that, like one becomes adept at finding bargains (value for
money), one might also become adept at finding relationships with
very little hurt to be paid. But as they say, TANSTAAFL.
Jo Walton
In article <3357BE...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "TheCauldron" writes:
> This is where the part about eros and conceptualizations of sexuality
> come in. Someone recently mentioned here the highly accurate adage that
> goes something like: "sex is bad, awful, dirty and terrible, and you
> should save it for the one you love". (Was that you, Jo?) That so
> wonderfully expresses the contradictory emotional load of meaning that
> sexuality carries in our times.
It was Graydon. If I said it, and I may have, I was quoting.
> One has the basic concern of a very relentless sexual desire, which may
> contain all the darker, murkier elements of our beings within our erotic
> fantasies. One also has developed concepts of the beloved as a cherished
> being for whom we would perform the most wholesome and noble deeds.
> Where do these two meet? I think that folks who have somehow not
> acknowledged or resolved these two worlds may have the most difficulty
> between friendship and "romance" or sexual involvement (I see the two as
> having fundamental differences, but I know lotsa people don't).
I don't have that problem organised like that. I am quite fond of sex,
I like it, I'm quite relaxed about myself as a sexual person and I'm
really not confusing it with dark murky stuff very much. And I am also
quite happy to have relationships that don't contain any of it at all -
I will hug my friends without any sexual intent, and I am well aware
whether I lust after specific people or not. (Whether I do anything
about it or not, which is generally not.) Where I have this tangled is
about romance - the things that make romantic relationships special,
and so on and so forth... 'so, we talk about books a lot and now we have
had a good sexual workout, why are you suddenly addressing email "Dearest
Jo"? Are you sure you mean me? Eeep.' Luckily the person this happened
with could cope and talk about his idea of romance and my idea of romance
and we have worked something out. But in my experience one isn't often
fortunate enough to find someone who will hold still for stopping
whispering in your ear to _define_ what exactly they mean by "always".
Sex and friendship and romance and possession (_exclusivity_) are all
tangled up culturally and in different people in different ways. One of
the reasons why I shudder at the thought of people getting involved with
people who are _not_ their friends is that I put a lot of importance on
having good lines of communication to get this sort of stuff clear. What
stage you start talking about it at is another question.
> This brings me to the virgin/whore thing (I don't care why). I ran into
> the virgin/whore dichotomy early on, in my teens, and I was totally
> wacked by it for several years, until one of my friends finally
> explained it to me. I used to get into "relationships" (ha!) with guys
> who seemed to really like me, but would never touch me. Then there were
> guys who couldn't see anything but my body, it seemed, but didn't want
> anything to do with me, the person (above the neck). The former wanted
> me to be virgin, the latter wanted me to be whore, and never the twain
> could meet. This is very commom in Catholic society, BTW. Everyone gets
> put into those categories, so that it's difficult to be a "good" whore
> and "sexy" virgin at the same time.
This was utterly common in Britain when I was growing up. I was terrified
for years that people would be able to _tell_ I wasn't a virgin. This
mixes very badly with the 60s counter-culture stuff - a friend of mine
says that she was once in a position where if she had sex with her
boyfriend she was called a slut and if she didn't she was called frigid.
All of this really encourages a mind/body dichotomy that just isn't real.
"I" includes the ambit of both body and mind - I'd just like a really
clear explanation of where the soppy stuff fits onto this and why. That's
the bit I missed when I was fifteen and terribly ugly and terribly strange
and have never managed to work out since.
J...@or.maybe.I'm.an.alien
Graydon
Jo Walton (J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <3357BE...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
: ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "TheCauldron" writes:
: > This is where the part about eros and conceptualizations of sexuality
: > come in. Someone recently mentioned here the highly accurate adage that
: > goes something like: "sex is bad, awful, dirty and terrible, and you
: > should save it for the one you love". (Was that you, Jo?) That so
: > wonderfully expresses the contradictory emotional load of meaning that
: > sexuality carries in our times.
:
: It was Graydon. If I said it, and I may have, I was quoting.
And Graydon is quoting - he thinks - Melissa Ethridge, explaining why the
folks from her particular background and generation is plenty odd on the
subject.
(What do you call 1000 well drilled lesbians with guns?
Militia Ethridge.)
: "I" includes the ambit of both body and mind - I'd just like a really
: clear explanation of where the soppy stuff fits onto this and why. That's
: the bit I missed when I was fifteen and terribly ugly and terribly strange
: and have never managed to work out since.
It doesn't.
The soppy bits started as memes quite independent of sex, to encourage
seeing the Other as a whole and entire person, rather than as a means to
an end. Bend those memes back on themselves to see the Other as a means
to an immaterial end - fullfillment, for some value of fulfillment - and
the third order mutations are actively insane.
Do the old fashioned version, and _don't_ use a well and tangibly grounded
version of 'person' for mortal values of person, and her cloak is random
and wild on those rare occasions something sordid doesn't result.
If it's your default to consider the Other as a whole and entire person,
the soppy stuff is more or less superfluous other than as it might delight
them.
It's _not_ superfluous for me, not for 'equals' values of 'whole and
entire', and so I find those memes very valuable, to remind me that it has
been my good fortune to find me a woman of my own people who has herself
chosen to love me. That it delights her is something of a benefical side
effect in this case. :]
*sunbird*
In article <5j2ito$g...@katie.vnet.net>
be...@vnet.net (Bezel) typed:
> Spring. I'm not sure if I hate it, but it certainly is more interesting
> on some fronts than Winter is.
especially yours, i'd wager.
Andreas Tovornik
In a previous article, J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) says:
>In article <3353C3...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
> ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "TheCauldron" writes:
>>
>> I'm having a hard time believing that you haven't heard the old saw
>> about how you can't _be_ friends with a MOTAS in which you might be
>> romantically interested. In that world, apparently friendship
>> automatically kills romance.
>>
>> Go figure.
>
>I have heard a variant of that, which is being as they _are_ my friends
>they cannot be romantically interested in me. I heard that a _lot_ when
>I was 15-22, pretty much every time I accidentally fell in love (or lust,
>or both) with one of my friends. (I've just never been able to do romantic
>and mysterious and fall in love with strangers.)
>
>I thought you were talking about grown-ups.
The term "grown-up" is relative...
--
'dreas..... Climb in the back with your head in the clouds and
you're gone --John Lennon...........VictoriaTaxi15
kmd
TheCauldron wrote:
> kmd wrote:
> >
> > Wow, look. A friends/lovers/connections thread ... and nobuddy's
> > said "lying bitches" yet. *smooch* to the bot-people.
>
> It could be coming up - you never know!!
And ya know ... it didn't occur to me until after sending it that *I* now
have the glorious distinction of being the one to say it in this thread.
("Iiiiii'm startin' with the man in the mirr- " oops. Horrifically bad
pop music. <smack>)
> I guess what happens when I make friends is that I learn a little bit
> more about love and how people love each other.
Ayup. Definitely.
> That's part of why I recommend going out and making friends to
> people who are making it very clear that they are very lonely. The acts
> of making friends, and being friends with someone exercises a lot of
> the same stuff for me that making lovers and being a lover does. I
> seem to have different wiring than a lot of folks out there.
>
Hrm. Much of the time I have to smack my hand away from the keyboard to
avoid writing "metoometoometoo" to your posts. <grin -- sorry about those
suck-up meters, folks>. So I'd have a hard time saying I think I'm wired
differently than you.
But. Going forth with the conscious intention of making a new connection
hasn't ever worked for me. Especially when I'm feeling lonely, as these
are more vulnerable times and times when my judgment and honesty with
myself about what I need or want is likely to be impaired.
> > OTOH, separating out "friend" from "someone who makes my hormones
> > hop" has never worked for me -- in fact, I'm certain I'm not capable
> > of it. So ... I guess I also understand why "make friends" could be
> > good advice.
> > (Am *not* schizophrenic | yes you are | No I'm not | shut up.)
>
> yuk yuk!
Yeah, I know it's old, but I couldn't resist.
> My hormones hop pretty good over people that I merely see. I
> used to take it so seriously.
Someone recently pointed out to me that we may "see" more than we are
conscious of at the moment of seeing. So now I'm pondering whether such
attractions include more than the visuals, or if the visuals projected
and received include more than I consciously understand.
> Now, I can hang back and see if I really want to get to know the
> person. Most times I just let those hormones hop hop hop and don't do
> a thing. I have a tragic attraction to some types that spell
> t-r-o-u-b-l-e.
>
Do you perceive that as a problem needing fixing, or just something to
understand and compensate for? I ask because my own reflex would be to
try to "fix" this kind of attraction (read: eliminate it), but I'm also
starting to become more aware of the pitfalls of trying to "fix" my
reactions rather than understand them.
> > What the heck are you gonna talk about over Wheaties (or cold baked
> > oats or leftover pizza or cheesecake or hot honeyed grapefruit) if
> > you're not friends?
>
> Yeah, that's what I mean too. The way some people have written around
> here and the old soc.singles gives me the impression that they
> basically don't care what happens once they get off the mattress. All
> that makes the romance is the sex, thinking about the sex, and what the
> LO looks like. To me it's as if they're thinking: "talk? whatever
> _for_?"
>
<nodding> I've usually seen this approach/attitude quickly followed by
screaming vitriol about LJBF.
Keeping in the schizophrenia theme, I also have to reconcile this with
questions about the import of what the LO looks like *to me*. There may
be no great mystery or contradiction here at all -- it may be just a
matter of becoming more conscious of what triggers my attraction and why.
[re Matthew saying that he has sometimes felt "I HAVE ENOUGH FRIENDS
ALREADY THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!"]
> > Most of the time, I seek and make new connections to renew or
> > generate something in myself. Old ones sometimes fade, sometimes
> > resurface after a long time with new gifts ... and all of this feels
> > very much like my favorite thing about my life. Sorry, Matthew, I
> > jest don't get this concept at all.
>
> I think he's making a chink in my armor on this one.
I can understand what both he and Al said about time commitments and
availability limiting the amount of real, close friendships maintainable
at any given time. OTOH, this also feels to me like a hierarchical
classification of the level of connection, and parcelling out one's time
and energy according to a scale of closeness. "You're not a real friend
unless you are willing and available to do [x] for me."
It makes a pragmatic kind of sense, and in some ways I do this, but I
also think it contributes to stagnation and loneliness.
--
Kristen
Jim Dutton
In article <5j84ca$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Andreas Tovornik <ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Jim Dutton (j...@MCS.COM) writes:
>> In article <5j27vt$f...@news.ysu.edu>, Janet Kegg <bi...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>In a previous article, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andreas Tovornik) says:
>>>>
>>>>Yeah. I took your advice and tried answering a couple of ads. I got
>>>>one reply to one response, and I left her another message where I
>>>>can be reached. She called this evening. Immediately, I told her
>>>>how much more comfortable I feel with somebody real at the other
>>>>end of the line. We talked for about 45 minutes. There were pauses
>>>>in the conversation, but there were times when I had her laughing.
>>>>It set me at ease...
>>>
>>> That's great. Good for you, 'dreas. Keep us posted.
>>> -- Janet
>>
>> Yea.
>> -Jeem, seesters?
>
>From what she's told me, she leeves weeth her seester...
-Jeem, Mom always liked me best!
========================================================================
http://www.mcs.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
Steve Chaney (gun...@crl.com) wrote as best he could:
"Goo goo gaa gaa,"
========================================================================
Jo Walton
In article <335ACF...@dsmo.com> du...@dsmo.com "kmd" writes:
> But. Going forth with the conscious intention of making a new connection
> hasn't ever worked for me. Especially when I'm feeling lonely, as these
> are more vulnerable times and times when my judgment and honesty with
> myself about what I need or want is likely to be impaired.
Me too. There's a saying "You choose your friends but you're stuck with
your family". It's true about being stuck with your family, but I'm not
at all sure that I did choose my friends. They mostly just sort of
happened to me while I was busy getting on with things and at some point
I wasn't quite tracking they moved out of the ambit of people with
whom it is pleasant to spend time sometimes and into the ambit of
people I care about.
But Lorre's right too, going out and doing things and being friendly
and getting to know people is a good idea for lonely people. Especially
if one is doing things with them for whatever value of them and things.
And especially if one is doing something real and interesting whereupon
one might get distracted by that and stop worrying about making friends
and having relationships and find friends and relationships happening to
one. It's one of these zen things.
Nancy VonStein
In article <5j8398$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andreas Tovornik) writes:
>
> I hope it's finally over. Can we now accept each other's friendship?
>
Let me sleep on it
babee babee let me sleep on it
let me sleep on it
i'll give you an answer
in the mornin'
Nancy (I like that song)
Ginko
> Over the long history that could be called my life, I've had more
> female friends then male. Sorry for the generalization, but in
> my experience, the women friends I've had have all been able to discuss
> broader ranges of topics and I like discussion. I know, y'all didn't
> know that. Most of the guys who have been my friends have been better
> at opening up then others I've know. I've even been invited out
> for a girls night out and considered "one of the girls" many
> times.
What Al Learned on Girl'sNightOut:
AlHint#1: If you grow your hair longer before the next slumber party,
those curlers won't be such a bitch to put in.
AlHint#2: Fingernail polish looks best when applied to the nails.
AlHint#3: Eyelash curlers will curl things other than lashes.
AlHint#4: Mudpacks wash out easier if you don't have a beard.
AlHint#5: Armpits itch during the regrowth stage.
AlHint#6: "" Legs do too.
AlHint#7: There really is a trick to putting on panty hose.
AlHint#8: Some guys really will get drunk enough to ask anyone out.
AlHint#9: Some girls will get drunk enough to ask out.
AlHint#10: No, that highlight rinse does _not_ wash out after 6
shampoos.
-d"he looks real cute in fuzzy slipper and jammies"
--
-debbi http://www.wwn.net/ginko
Matthew Daly
In article <5j8et9$r5$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> st...@MCS.COM (Al) writes:
>
>Over the long history that could be called my life, I've had more
>female friends then male. Sorry for the generalization, but in
>my experience, the women friends I've had have all been able to discuss
>broader ranges of topics and I like discussion. I know, y'all didn't
>know that. Most of the guys who have been my friends have been better
>at opening up then others I've know. I've even been invited out
>for a girls night out and considered "one of the girls" many
>strait guy in s.s.
Yeah, I didn't say that because I didn't want to be accused of
gross generalizations, but that's been my experience as well. :-)
Seems to me that the men that I've been friends with over the years
have also been the sorts who have more women friends than men too.
Guess I'm just not a "man's man", whatever that means.
-Matthew, named an honorary girl in high school for extraordinary
badminton skill
Al
Ginko <gi...@wwn.net> spewed all over my screen:
>Al wrote:
>>
>> mwd...@kodak.com (Matthew Daly) spewed all over my screen:
>> >In article <3354f31d....@207.44.0.14> wowb...@onix.com writes:
>> >>mwd...@kodak.com (Matthew Daly) wrote:
>> >>>J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk writes:
>>
>> [context ripped out in many places]Context? what context?
>
>What Al Learned on Girl'sNightOut:
[hints deleted, go read for yourself]
>
>-d"he looks real cute in fuzzy slipper and jammies"
>--
>-debbi http://www.wwn.net/ginko
GOODBYE, I WILL NOT CONTACT YOU AGAIN.
-al "Debbi is my friend" DeVere
Ginko
> >What Al Learned on Girl'sNightOut:
>
> [hints deleted, go read for yourself]
> >
> >-d"he looks real cute in fuzzy slipper and jammies"
> GOODBYE, I WILL NOT CONTACT YOU AGAIN.
*huff!*
Some people just can't take compliments.
> -al "Debbi is my friend" DeVere
Oh lucky me. Do I get a certificate? My own copy of the club manual?
Or maybe nifty decoder ring?
-d"I bet he thinks this will get him into the RHFH"
--
-debbi http://www.wwn.net/ginko
Jo Walton
In article <5jjifh$hdk$3...@news.en.com> rod...@en.com "Rodney E." writes:
>
> In soc.singles.moderated TheCauldron <ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I never have quite understood where some folks expect intimacy
> > _or_ understanding is going to come from if one never makes some of
> > one's more complex thoughts explicitly verbal. What I can guess is that
> > in their lives a psychic mystery occurs and all understanding takes
> > place without the need for language.
>
> Depeche Mode says "Words are very unnecessary/They can only do harm."
> (Which makes me wonder why they said it.) Isn't there room for a little
> mystery in your life, a little intrigue?
>
> And yet, some women I know of dread the explicitness of the words "I love
> you." It's the last thing they want to hear.
You might be right, but it might not be for the reasons you think it
is. It's a very simple little statement, but with a lot of possible
meanings.
How would you react if you said that and the woman in question said "I
hate to spoil a beautiful moment but could you define exactly what you
mean by that?" Because that really can cover a lot of things.
I have heard that said to me with a feeling like chains were being
fastened on, I have heard it said and said "Yes" or "Um" because I
really didn't know what it meant and I didn't know how I felt and
I wanted to think about it. I've heard it and felt thrilled and
excited and comforted and trapped and all sorts of different things.
I've said it to mean that I intend to spend the rest of my life with
someone. (It was a mistake.) I've said it to mean that I was serious
about the relationship. I've said it to mean that the criticism I've
made shouldn't be taken too harshly. I've said it to mean - and this
is what I mean by it now, generally, that I really feel deeply
affectionate and care a lot about the person in question. It doesn't
have to be romantic. I say "I love you" to my very good friends who
I do love, and I say it to my son, and to my aunt.
If you are using it to mean "I am deeply committed" - which is how I
would read your intention in what you wrote above, that isn't enough.
You need to be _more_ explicit and use more words. Or you would for
me. Er - do you dread the explicitness of it being said to you?
> > What I don't understand is how romance has come to be the one thing that
> > they need and they can't get it. In my mind, there must be other things
> > happening in the whole person that set up this dissatisfaction.
>
> Romance is like playing in the Masters. Friendship w/o romance can be like
> playing Putt-Putt: the ball can't go very far, even if it is fun. If you
> aspire to be the best at what you are, being told you're only good enough
> to putt into a childish castle is disappointing and disenchanting.
OK, I come out with my hands up, there really are real adults who say
this sort of thing and mean it. You really do see friendship as very
much second best and only romance as real. OK. I tend to see every
relationship as itself and observe taboos as required.
piranha
In article <5jksdr$p0i$1...@news.en.com>, Rodney E. <rod...@en.com> wrote:
>
>Depeche Mode says "Words are very unnecessary/They can only do harm."
>(Which makes me wonder why they said it.)
are situations where it is true, but most of those would seem
to me to fall into the category of "the wrong word, or the wrong
time", rather than communication being wrong. the times i can
recall where i thought "shut up" were mostly related to a mis-
match in requirements for silence to enjoy something -- i can't
stand people babbling on how beautiful the sunset is; that de-
tracts from it for me. but i'm all for communication at other
times; the more the better.
i am quite observant, but i am not psychic.
>Isn't there room for a little
>mystery in your life, a little intrigue?
a little? most of life is a mystery to me. it's absolutely
surprising. and that includes people. even ordinary folks
are full of surprises if one but looks and listens.
there's a difference between the mystery that encourages dis-
covery, and the mystery that wants to stay unknown. i am not
terribly interested in the latter. romance to me includes much
of the former (and i use romance in a broader sense than just
between people).
>And yet, some women I know of dread the explicitness of the words "I love
>you." It's the last thing they want to hear.
yup. some. if those are not what you're looking for, don't
waste your time. they're not in the right place or state of
mind for you; move on.
>So forgive me if I treat potential friends with a little scrutiny.
i think doing so is quite healthy. it takes me quite some time
usually to know whether we'll be friends; only occasionally do
i meet somebody with whom i click so well that there is no ques-
tion about it.
>I want
>to know why there's an interest in monopolizing my time for something of
>potentially little significance.
that sounds more mercenary than i act, but it's not too far off.
i have, for example, over time eliminated investing any time in
what i call "emotional vampires". my desire to want to help and
fix people has become restrained by my learning that some people
can't be fixed (by me, or at all), and i no longer try. people
who try to monopolize my time will usually not get any of it.
on a less dramatic level, because i am rather solitary in my pur-
suits, i don't have much room for friendships that are not close,
and so i seriously only pursue friendships which have a reaso-
nable chance at becoming close. that's always a fine line to
walk, and i am not always sure i am walking it well. but reality
is harsh; i don't have enough energy for all the interesting
people i meet to become friends. i regret that. i wish my life
was much longer than it's likely going to be.
>There's also an emotional "budget" to
>consider: only so many feelings can be expressed in the boundaries of
>"friendship." Romantic longings can't go there.
the people with whom i become friends tend to not have neatly
separate cubicles for "friendship", "romance", "love", "sex".
i don't either, and it makes no sense to me emotionally to
separate those strongly, because i simply do not _feel_ any
such separation; they flow together for me. i love all my
close friends. i'd love to live with some of them, on a big
plot of land with separate houses. i'd like to build a future
with them. and who falls into that category isn't dependent
on whether we have sex; often we don't, or only do for a while.
romance seems more enduring to me than sex, and i do not at
all equate the two.
>If you have a full plate
>of food but no drink and you're thirsty, piling up more hors d'ouevres
>isn't going to make it easier to swallow. Got milk?
the analogy makes no emotional sense to me, maybe because of
what i feel about friendship/romance/love/sex as described
above. each person i meet is a distinct individual. i can't
say "oh, i have enough friends of type dean in my life, but i
could use a few more of type miranda". my friends are not
typeable. neither are my needs. they change all the time.
>Romance is like playing in the Masters. Friendship w/o romance can be like
>playing Putt-Putt: the ball can't go very far, even if it is fun. If you
>aspire to be the best at what you are, being told you're only good enough
>to putt into a childish castle is disappointing and disenchanting.
another analogy i don't get. sometimes playing putt-putt is
great fun. i don't play golf at all, but i might enjoy it --
but it is just another game, no better, no worse. i like to
hike, but i don't want to climb mount everest every time. i
don't live my life in constant competition, not with others,
and not with myself. not being good enough doesn't come into
it in relationships -- not being right for somebody at this
time in their life isn't at all the same as not being good
enough. sometimes timing is everything. sometimes prefer-
ences differ. sometimes commitments have been made elsewhere
that exclude making one with me. sometimes goals differ too
much to walk on the same path.
the trick is to find the people whose preferences match what
you have to offer.
the only way i've found to reliably do so is to be present as
myself as much as possible, and let people see what i have to
offer. if they decline, that's their choice, but i don't see
that as a terrible rejection. i decline often enough myself,
and it has almost never been because i thought the person was
chopped liver.
-piranha
*sunbird*
In article <5jksdr$p0i$1...@news.en.com>
rod...@en.com (Rodney E.) wrote:
> Depeche Mode says "Words are very unnecessary/They can only do harm."
> (Which makes me wonder why they said it.)
that's rather blatant irony, don't you think?
> And yet, some women I know of dread the explicitness of the words "I love
> you." It's the last thing they want to hear.
heh. don't get me started.
but it does warrant consideration if you are about to say this
to somebody to figure out what it really means to you and also
to figure out if they will, or if even they are capable of,
understanding it in the way that you mean it. even then, you
might get a bad reaction because it may indeed be the wrong
time.
in other words, i think it seems like people dread that because
there are lots of things that can go wrong with delivering that
message for the first time.
> Like, say, not being able to have a significant romantic relationship if
> you're over thirty? :P <duck>
horsefeathers.
> So forgive me if I treat potential friends with a little scrutiny. I want
> to know why there's an interest in monopolizing my time for something of
> potentially little significance. There's also an emotional "budget" to
> consider: only so many feelings can be expressed in the boundaries of
> "friendship." Romantic longings can't go there.
i would have jumped all over this 6 months ago. now i'm not so
quick to consider it unreasonable, unpalatable though it still
is.
> If you have a full plate
> of food but no drink and you're thirsty, piling up more hors d'ouevres
> isn't going to make it easier to swallow. Got milk?
the left one is orange juice.
> Romance is like playing in the Masters. Friendship w/o romance can be like
> playing Putt-Putt: the ball can't go very far, even if it is fun. If you
> aspire to be the best at what you are, being told you're only good enough
> to putt into a childish castle is disappointing and disenchanting.
ok, i have a real problem with characterising friendships this way.
they are NOT INHERENTLY LESS important than other relationships, in
fact, they are more. i would hazard to speculate that if you feel
that way about friendships you will have real trouble dating.
sunbird
Matthew Daly
In article <1997Apr2...@latte.memphis.edu> nvon...@msuvx2.memphis.edu (Nancy VonStein) writes:
>
>Let me sleep on it
>babee babee let me sleep on it
>let me sleep on it
>i'll give you an answer
>in the mornin'
>
>Nancy (I like that song)
Oh yes. The baseball commentary in the middle made it a timeless classic.
-Matthew, praying for the end of time
piranha
In article <5jgd9n$pn4$1...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>,
Matthew Daly <mwd...@kodak.com> wrote:
>In article <5j8et9$r5$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> st...@MCS.COM (Al) writes:
>>
>>Over the long history that could be called my life, I've had more
>>female friends then male. Sorry for the generalization, but in
>>my experience, the women friends I've had have all been able to discuss
>
>Yeah, I didn't say that because I didn't want to be accused of
>gross generalizations, but that's been my experience as well. :-)
you'd hardly be accused of gross generalization if you report
this as your personal life experience. if you said "women
make better friends", that would be one of those generaliza-
tions that get lambasted. :-)
>Seems to me that the men that I've been friends with over the years
>have also been the sorts who have more women friends than men too.
>Guess I'm just not a "man's man", whatever that means.
does this not strike you as extremely odd? let me add my
life experience -- most men who are my friends are men who
have more close friendships with women than with other men.
i don't get it -- why don't you talk to each other? you're
all obviously interested in a wide range of subjects, and
can converse sensibly on them; why not with other guys, why
just with women?
al, meet matthew. matthew, al.
i don't mean to put you on the spot, but you might want to
look at what happens when you begin a friendship with a
woman, and why this doesn't appear to happen when you meet
another interesting man. there _are_ lots of interesting
men out there. heck, this group is full of them.
i know why i am in the opposite position (i am more likely
to make good friendships with men than with women) -- my
interests overlap much more easily with men, so i meet a
lot more men, and i have a male-oriented approach to things,
so initial communication with certain types of men happens
very easily, while i've got to work on it with most women.
do you know what drives the beginnings of your friendships?
-piranha
Nancy VonStein
In article <5jito1$k...@hiway1.exit109.com>, sta...@hiway1.exit109.com (Bill Kolstad) writes:
> nvon...@msuvx2.memphis.edu (Nancy VonStein) wrote:
>>Let me sleep on it
>>babee babee let me sleep on it
>>let me sleep on it
>>i'll give you an answer
>>in the mornin'
>
>
>>
>>Nancy (I like that song)
>
>
"So now we're praying
for the end of time
To hurry up and arrive..."
Nancy
Allison Turner
In article <5jme9o$1st$1...@news.en.com>, rod...@en.com (Rodney E.) wrote:
(I'm going to bounce off your post to rant, Rodney. Hope you don't mind.)
(I sure am in a ranting mood these days. Lucky for y'all at least one of
them seems to have been swallowed by the alternate usenet universe.)
> One-on-one rejection is one thing -- you can always play another course.
> The group put-down -- "You don't need this to be happy!" -- is what's
> pissing me off.
It's pissed me off before, too.
I don't think that it's intentional.
For that matter, I don't think there's really a group mentality here
that's saying you and I don't need a Relationship (capital R) in order to
be happy. (There are a few clueless gits that are saying that; never mind
them ;)
Personally, I could use some more good friends. But even when I have lots
of them (and I have sometimes been quite surrounded with terrific friends)
that does _not_ mean the same thing to me as a Relationship. _You_ know.
One of those things where you have sex, share intimate moments, maybe read
books to eachother or feed eachother breakfast or play a game where you
plan what you'll both do together on your sixty-third anniversary.
And perhaps one of the points is (for me) that in a Relationship you
intend to be together for a damned long time. I don't see that with
friendships. I mean, I'd _like_ most of my friendships to last for the
rest of my life. But most of them don't, and no one (except perhaps me)
seems phased by that.
I'd _like_ to be in a relationship where I shared living space, shared a
few dreams and goals, shared meals, and shared the idea that we'd spend
the rest of our lives together (assuming we were both lucky as hell ;). I
don't see this sort of thing in what most people call friendships.
But I've gotten off the track.
I said this some time ago in s.s.c.
At the age of 37, I've had quite a large number of friends, all along the
spectrum in terms of intimacy. Some people I still count as friends who I
met 25 years ago or more. I've also had several good Relationships (which
unfortunately didn't last, tho one lasted for seven years). They _aren't_
the same thing. One does _not_ substitute for the other, in any meanful
way, for me. I am _not_ happy to go on in life for a decade or more with
lots of good friends. I know enough about myself to know that I do not do
well without a Relationship.
Some of us are like that; we're not deficient, we don't need to be
'retrained' to be single and happy as clams. We're the type that do much
better when in close proximity to at least one other person. Sharing our
lives is important to us.
I get the point that if I don't know how to have friends, learning would
be really important. I don't think that's the case, here. I also get the
point that if I'm lonely, filling my time with good people will really
help. True. But still not hitting the core.
Telling us we'll be happy if we'd just go out and make more friends is
missing the boat entirely.
Got milk?
-Allison. (good line, Rodney :)
Dave Brown
sun...@cyberramp.net (*sunbird*) wrote:
>In article <5jksdr$p0i$1...@news.en.com>
>rod...@en.com (Rodney E.) wrote:
>> Depeche Mode says "Words are very unnecessary/They can only do harm."
>> (Which makes me wonder why they said it.)
>that's rather blatant irony, don't you think?
Not only that, they are talking about a certain time and place, and
that time is not when they can make millions off a song enthralling
designer-angst teens with them.
--
-Dave
(email: deb...@mindspring.com)
Ewen McNeill
[None of the other articles in the References: line have turned up here yet,
but I'm not about to let that stop me... :-) ]
In article <5jl95e$b...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <5jgd9n$pn4$1...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>,
>Matthew Daly <mwd...@kodak.com> wrote:
>>In article <5j8et9$r5$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> st...@MCS.COM (Al) writes:
>>>Over the long history that could be called my life, I've had more
>>>female friends then male. [with women friends can discuss more stuff]
>>
>>Yeah, I didn't say that because I didn't want to be accused of
>>gross generalizations, but that's been my experience as well. :-)
I know piranha said this, but "that's been my experience" == "data item";
"gross generalisation" == generalising from this one data item to the
whole world. Data items are good; (over)generalisations from them not
so much so.
>>Seems to me that the men that I've been friends with over the years
>>have also been the sorts who have more women friends than men too.
>>Guess I'm just not a "man's man", whatever that means.
>
> does this not strike you as extremely odd?
It strikes me as normal. But then that's largely been my experience
too; and "normal" appears to me to largely be a function of what one is
used to.
It's not entirely true -- I've noticed I've pretty much gone a full
cycle over the last 10 years or so, from almost exclusively male
friends, to almost exclusively female friends, and now back to primarily
male friends. I can pick a couple of reasons for the first part of the
shift (which I don't want to get into here); but the latter part just
seems to be a function of who moved where/did what. That said, the male
friends that I do have aren't of the stereotypical "man's man" style
that Matthew mentioned.
> i don't get it -- why don't you talk to each other? you're
> all obviously interested in a wide range of subjects, and
> can converse sensibly on them; why not with other guys, why
> just with women?
I think it would be overstating at least what Matthew said (I haven't
seen enough of what Al said to be sure), and certainly what I'm saying,
to say that it's "not with other guys". It seems to me that with me,
and from what I've seen of what both Matthew and Al said, that it's
people willing to talk/discuss things that are more likely to become
friends. IME there are more women who are willing to talk/discuss
things than there are men; this could easily be a biased sample of
course.
> another interesting man. there _are_ lots of interesting
> men out there. heck, this group is full of them.
Indeed -- the number of interesting, literate, intelligent people here
is the primary reason I'm still reading (and, more so, that I'm back to
posting at present). It does seem to me that the proportion of
interesting men, interested in discussing things, is higher in this
group than Real Life (tm); at least in discussing things beyond the
"man's man" sorts of discussion topics.
Ewen
Andreas Tovornik
In a previous article, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu (TheCauldron) says:
>Andreas Tovornik wrote:
>>
>> The damnedest thing is it's only bothering me now and it hasn't
>> done so for several years. I can't figure it out...
>
>You're shedding a skin, bursting through a shell, experiencing the
>re-birth of spring - you know, like that.
I know... Now I'm curious why springtime has never bothered me quite
so badly as it's doing now. On a very positive note, nothing came out
of that phone conversation over a week ago. The conversation wasn't
quite as smooth and comfortable as I thought it was, now that I think
back...
I did, however, suck in my gut and actually record a voice personal.
On purpose, I said nothing about my height, weight, hair color, eye
color, or anything about my appearance. I'm not interested in people
who care overly about that stuff. I'm interested in people I can get
along compatibly with, and that's exactly what I said...
The next day, there were two responses in my mailbox. One wasn't all
that compatible, but I left another message anyway. The second message
was much more interesting, and I had a phone number from it. I called
up the message sender, and we talked for two hours, both of us enjoying
all of it. I *shudder* have a date next week...
>[practical response to growing need of having a relationship]
>
>> The trouble, I think, is that in our present society we are being
>> spoiled. Anything we want can be had by a simple walk to the corner
>> or a quick phone call. What frustrates us is that we want relationships
>> but don't want to work for them because of our being so spoiled. If
>> these things don't come about quickly and conveniently, we are at a
>> loss and don't know how to change things easily. My own problem has
>> been one of time. I'm busy working sixty hours a week, and my time off
>> doesn't coincide with the socializing time of everyone else. Still, this
>> is a bad excuse because when I did have the convenience of time before
>> I started doing the work that I do, I was relationshipless most of the
>> time as well. I see others in my line of work who work similar hours.
>> They have relationships, and even raise families. Now I'm saying, "Shit!
>> That's what I'd like to do..."
>
>Yeah, and how much energy to put into a time of uncertain changes, new
>needs and strange urges is a big question. So is it time to give up the
>night life and change your lifestyle to accommodate dating and meeting
>daytime people? Or is it a time to hang onto what stability you have in
>your current lifestyle and try to find someone to fit that? I think
>these are very difficult things to decide.
I think I'm more into leaving things as they are right now, but should
a new friendship develop to the point that we want to spend more time
together than is currently possible, I'll be prepared to make some slow
and gradual changes to make things work better...
>I remember a few years ago Sandra Loosemore was talking about how she
>didn't know how to fit a SO into her life, because she had her own
>routines, and there simply wasn't time. Lotsa people said "you make
>time for what you really want".
I agree with this. I am somewhat set in my ways as they are right now,
but if changing them will ultimately result in me being happier, I'm
all for it...
>[...]
>>
>> Friendships are not really a problem. If I think about it, I have lots
>> of friends and "friendlies" in my community. My challenge will be to
>> break down some of the barriers between me and intimacy...
>
>I think there's a danger of feeling trapped for you too, but that's sort
>of a guess, extrapolated from the writing and the times I've met you.
Well, I don't consider myself trapped exactly. There's always a way
out. Sometimes finding it can be a challenge...
>[...]
>> Myself, I've never seen friendship as a waste of time. OK, that want/need
>> thing is there, but not at the expense of friendship. I can't see myself
>> becoming involved with someone who isn't a friend...
>
>So, wouldn't a friend help you sort out some of these new, complex and
>contradictory feelings?
You're doing a great job already... *HUG*
>> > Maybe you can think of something that suits your own personality and
>> > tastes.
>>
>> Maybe I'm still trying to figure that out...
>
>I can't imagine trying to figure it out without having relationships
>that test the various guesses.
I don't prefer to use relationships as experiments. Maybe we're talking
about different things here...
>[patterns of behavior vs. needs]
>> It seems to be a pattern that has gone full circle, actually. Up until
>> about the age of twenty-four, there was a deep need to be involved with
>> someone. After that, I was relieved to find that the need had been
>> merciful and it left me alone. I'd say that about two years ago it
>> started to come back. I didn't worry about it because it came on about
>> as gradually as a depression. I got a very healthy taste of what I had
>> been missing last year, and now that it's gone I miss it more than I
>> ever did before. I may have been overly desperate for it to progress,
>> perhaps shattering the possibility. That's self-blame, I know, and
>> probably just my imagination going wild...
>
>So it seems like you need something that'll nurture the need, but not an
>overwhelming overdose of growth hormone. I'd love to see a movie that
>you'd make about what your ideal relationship would be.
Why do I get the image of '50's monster movies when you say that?
>> > And not that you need to discuss it on the group, but do you know why?
>>
>> It's actually a fascinating topic. Does it have something to do with
>> biorhythms maybe? Is it a manifestation of the body renewing itself
>> every seven years? Could it be Hale-Bopp or something tied to the
>> life-cycle of Coho Salmon? Damned if I know for sure...
>
>So, does that mean if nothing happens you go into a dormant cycle? If
>you find a lover will you experience New Relationship Energy for a few
>months and then go back into a dormant cycle? This has me almost up to
>nail-biting suspense!!!
NRE is definitely addictive, and I must admit that I have not had many
relationships where things didn't go into a dormant cycle after a few
months. I have faith [don't be asking me why] that the right kind of
relationship gets several shots of that NRE as it grows and evolves.
Don't most relationships go through waxings and wanings of energy? I
seriously think that some people are fooled into believing that the
NRE should be there all the time...
To be honest, though, I have not had all that many relationships in
the first place, so what do I know?
I can't save this. I must go off now. I'll finish in another post...
>[superficiality vs. serious intimacy]
>> > A big bundle of possible pitfalls, to be sure. So how to untie the
>> > bundle and make a relationship possible that doesn't start you in the
>> > tailspin? Call me calculating, but I don't think a bit of steering is a
>> > bad thing when it comes to my love life. Would you take any other kind
>> > of joyride and not want to have a conscious person at the wheel?
>>
>> I will call you calculating. Some things are out of our control.
>> I can't make someone love me, and I can't turn off anyone's love for
>> me if it's there. I can't make chemistry happen, but if you know a
>> way, then c'mon, spill...
>
>I don't seem to have made myself clear. When I say "steering", I mean
>that one makes conscious decisions about what is tolerable and what
>isn't, what's desirable and what isn't. For instance, you get the
>hormone rush when you see a potential beloved - that person responds and
>you're excited about all the possibilities, and then what ever that
>"something" is takes over and you jerk back into a superficial,
>silly-ass behavior pattern that fends off the intimacy. Isn't
>consciousness called for in order to get a serious relationship started
>instead of continuing the old behavior pattern which leaves you out in
>the cold?
>
>Are you saying a person shouldn't grab xyrself by the collar and say
>"don't do the same old bullshit; it's time to get serious about this
>relationship stuff."? I agree that you can't make someone love you.
>But if it's a definite possibility, and your reaction is to do something
>that fends it off, it seems to me that you want to do some very serious
>investigation of that reaction, find out why you're doing it and make a
>very conscious decision either to let it continue or to stop it, based
>on what you feel is better for your welfare.
>
>It could very well be that you have built your entire lifestyle in order
>to fend off relationships because deep down inside you feel that
>relationships aren't good for you. If that's the case, it may be the
>best thing for you to let this current mood pass (realizing that it'll
>probably crop up now and then), and continue with a good thing.
>
>> > Maybe you could try the absolute honesty that allows you to say to this
>> > other person: "When I get to this spot, all of a sudden something
>> > happens and I pull back and get superficial as a defense mechanism.
>> > Help me not do that. I need to talk about how we can trust each other.
>> > I need support." If nothing else, it would be a hell of a screen.
>>
>> Maybe my mistake was expecting lovers to figure me out and implicitly
>> understand my needs. Like I said, I operate on a very feeling level...
>
>Oh, I see. They get to take responsiblity for meeting every need
>without getting intimate. Quite the little challenge there. *chuckle*
>You are needing divine being for parental-lover relationship needs. I am
>not wishing to have your difficulty.
>
>
>>[...]
>
>L
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>***********LS...@cnsvax.albany.edu*************
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Tovornik
In a previous article, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu (TheCauldron) says:
>Andreas Tovornik wrote:
>
>[superficiality vs. serious intimacy]
>>
>> I will call you calculating. Some things are out of our control.
>> I can't make someone love me, and I can't turn off anyone's love for
>> me if it's there. I can't make chemistry happen, but if you know a
>> way, then c'mon, spill...
>
>I don't seem to have made myself clear. When I say "steering", I mean
>that one makes conscious decisions about what is tolerable and what
>isn't, what's desirable and what isn't. For instance, you get the
>hormone rush when you see a potential beloved - that person responds and
>you're excited about all the possibilities, and then what ever that
>"something" is takes over and you jerk back into a superficial,
>silly-ass behavior pattern that fends off the intimacy. Isn't
>consciousness called for in order to get a serious relationship started
>instead of continuing the old behavior pattern which leaves you out in
>the cold?
Well, I'm pretty sure that if I revert to silly-assed behavior at
any time, it's because I'm feeling insecure or uncomfortable with
the way things are going. It's then that I have trouble communicating,
but often the communication problem is going both ways if there is
one. It takes both partners in a relationship to steer it. The goal
is for both to have common objectives...
>Are you saying a person shouldn't grab xyrself by the collar and say
>"don't do the same old bullshit; it's time to get serious about this
>relationship stuff."? I agree that you can't make someone love you.
>But if it's a definite possibility, and your reaction is to do something
>that fends it off, it seems to me that you want to do some very serious
>investigation of that reaction, find out why you're doing it and make a
>very conscious decision either to let it continue or to stop it, based
>on what you feel is better for your welfare.
It depends on the person, naturally. I'm quite convinced that this
is exactly what I'm doing with myself right now! Grabbing one's SO
by the collar and saying, "don't do the same old bullshit," has crossed
into my fantasies about some previous relationships, but I've always
been more tactful and diplomatic in my approaches, almost always to
find that my best attempts at communication didn't always get the
messages through...
Can. Open. Worms...
>It could very well be that you have built your entire lifestyle in order
>to fend off relationships because deep down inside you feel that
>relationships aren't good for you. If that's the case, it may be the
>best thing for you to let this current mood pass (realizing that it'll
>probably crop up now and then), and continue with a good thing.
You touched on a nerve here, ISObabe. My entire lifestyle happened
as a solution to a series of problems, namely; no money, rising debts,
escalating bills, drinking myself into alcohol problems, not wanting
to have a 9 to 5 job with a boss and other unpleasant things. What has
kept me happy in it for so long has been the rationalization that I
don't need a lot of the things that complicate other people's lives
like deep relationships. I started out this thread by calling it "fear,"
and it's still apropos. I was scared of the negative complications
that close relationships bring into so many people's lives. That fear
has grown and become a huge monstrous inhibition that I'm working on
shedding right now, and replacing it with confidence and courage. I
can't do this overnight, and I'm taking my first steps by being
positive and open to new experiences and friendships. Maybe within
the growing trust and encouragement of a new budding relationship,
I'll be able to console myself that the fear was unfounded. So far
in my life, experiences have not been that positive. It is time for
some changes now, as it has been this last couple of years, only this
time, I'm doing something about it instead of idly waiting for it to
just somehow kinda happen...
[I hope I'm not creating another monster within myself]
>> Maybe my mistake was expecting lovers to figure me out and implicitly
>> understand my needs. Like I said, I operate on a very feeling level...
>
>Oh, I see. They get to take responsiblity for meeting every need
>without getting intimate. Quite the little challenge there. *chuckle*
>You are needing divine being for parental-lover relationship needs. I am
>not wishing to have your difficulty.
Hey, you can't say I don't have high standards. :=]
Matthew Daly
In article <5jmb5k$f...@camel7.mindspring.com> deb...@mindspring.com writes:
>
>Not only that, they are talking about a certain time and place, and
>that time is not when they can make millions off a song enthralling
>designer-angst teens with them.
Calvin: Commerical mainstream nihlism can't be trusted?
Mom: 'fraid not, kiddo.
Calvin: Childhood is so disillusioning.
-Matthew, sorry about the spelling -- the woman in the office with the
dictionary just moved to another building. =(
Matthew Daly
In article <5jl95e$b...@excalibur.gooroos.com> pir...@pobox.com writes:
>In article <5jgd9n$pn4$1...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>,
>Matthew Daly <mwd...@kodak.com> wrote:
>
>>Seems to me that the men that I've been friends with over the years
>>have also been the sorts who have more women friends than men too.
>>Guess I'm just not a "man's man", whatever that means.
>
> life experience -- most men who are my friends are men who
> have more close friendships with women than with other men.
> all obviously interested in a wide range of subjects, and
> can converse sensibly on them; why not with other guys, why
> just with women?
Having dutifully read "You Just Don't Understand", I would put forward
that masculine-style friendships are typically a constant battle of
oneupsmanship to set heirarchical rankings. I neither need to dominate
or desire to be regarded as submissive in friendships, so I tend not
to bond socially with people who play these "games".
On the other hand, feminine-style relationships are based on a lateral
model and stress forming connections and reaching consensus. This is
very nurturing to me, and so I strive for relationships of this sort.
I vary from Tannen in that she calls these "what men do" and "what
women do", and I don't think it's quite that simple. But I will
grant that many men are competitive in their frienships and many
women are nurturing. I guess that's why it turns out that I have
more women friends than men and why the men that I am friends with
(who also tend to prefer the lateral dynamic) have more women
friends than men.
> al, meet matthew. matthew, al.
Hey al (or should I call you Al?)
Of course, this only fulfills my stated premise that the men that
I make friendships with have more women friends than men. I would
be curious to know if any men in this group don't consider themselves
to fall into this category.
> i don't mean to put you on the spot, but you might want to
> look at what happens when you begin a friendship with a
> woman, and why this doesn't appear to happen when you meet
> another interesting man. there _are_ lots of interesting
> men out there. heck, this group is full of them.
This group is special because I simply don't know the genders of
many of the residents, or at least I didn't when I first wandered
in. Piglet was outed (as it were) at the BBB planning mini-boink:
I guess "xie" is easier to type than it is to pronounce. :-)
I knew which The_Doge at some point, enough to know that my original
guess was wrong -- but now I'm back to guessing and I really can't
decide.
Long story short, I don't care about whether the people around here
are men or women. People who are open to discussion, willing to
bare their opinions to some degree and willing to change them without
a morbid fear of being "wrong", they're the sorts of people that I
want to be around. Having a vagina is neither a requirement nor a
free pass.
In RL, I suppose I gravitate more toward women socially, just because
I make the assumption that they're more likely to be lateral (plus
the obvious bonus that there is the potential for different sorts
of relationships), whereas it would take some time for a man to
announce his dynamics. Sexist? Yeah, I suppose so. Haven't heard
many complaints though. Perhaps my friendship just isn't as much of
a prize as I think. :-)
-Matthew
isobel
In article <5jmuqm$5...@mosque.naos.co.nz>,
Ewen McNeill <ew...@naos.co.nz> wrote:
>I've noticed I've pretty much gone a full
>cycle over the last 10 years or so, from almost exclusively male
>friends, to almost exclusively female friends, and now back to primarily
>male friends.
hm. yeah, that cyclical thing would be normal for my life and
from my point-of-view. almost right down to the ten-year age of
the cycle. things do seem to be a little more even right now as
i've been consciously trying to cultivate more friendships with
men after realizing a couple years ago that most of my friends
were women and i missed having men friends.
not sure what that does to the data points since i'm a woman and
the discussion thus far seems to have been about men having or
not having men friends.
--
\\as much as i definitely enjoy solitude i wouldn't mind perhaps spending//
// a little time with you sometimes: possibly maybe probably love -bjork \\
*Lara Gose SWIIBTF Comparative Literature Indiana University*
SCIO Fund: $12.63 US+2 coffee cans Canadian pennies*Send your donation now!
isobel
In article <5jme9o$1st$1...@news.en.com>, Rodney E. <rod...@en.com> wrote:
>In soc.singles.moderated TheCauldron <ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu> wrote:
>: Well, of course getting rejected when you're pursuing romance with
>: someone who doesn't want it is disappointing and disenchanting, painful,
>: frustrating, and so on!!
>
>One-on-one rejection is one thing -- you can always play another course.
>The group put-down -- "You don't need this to be happy!" -- is what's
>pissing me off.
ok. i've been following this thread rather haphazardly, so maybe i
missed what Rodney's referring to... but, um, what the heck are
you talking about? what is this attitude?
Nancy VonStein
In article <pdiamond-230...@news.tiac.net>, pdia...@tiac.net (Pyrite) writes:
> In article <1997Apr2...@latte.memphis.edu>,
> nvon...@msuvx2.memphis.edu (Nancy VonStein) wrote:
> !>"So now we're praying
> !>for the end of time
> !>To hurry up and arrive..."
> !>
> !>Nancy
>
> But Nainzee, would you bare your throat to the wolf with the red rose?
> !>=============================================================================
> !> "The wolf is at the door--but boy is he beautiful! Feed that wolf till he's
> !>more than full. Throw sumptuously prepared steaks and cakes out the window
> !>for his dining pleasure. Behold his exquisite grace and lonely grandeur from
> !>a safe distance. But whatever you do, don't open the damn door!" _Rob Brezsny
>
I guess the above answers that question. : )
I've seen Meatloaf on TV quite a bit lately, personal interviews, stuff like
that. But what about the girl who sang with him? What's her name? She made
him look good...and sound better too.
Nancy (probly showin my ignance)
Matthew Daly
In article <5jq2oq$a...@mosque.naos.co.nz> ew...@naos.co.nz (Ewen McNeill) writes:
>
>What I think is being missed is the distinction between what is said,
>and what is meant. There can be (typically male-male) friendships where
>there is quite a level of "fighting" going on, for what appears to be
>dominance, but in fact it's just play fighting and it'll end up with one
>"winning" as often as the other. It's competitive; but not about
>dominance per se. And there's an undertone of respect/trust about it.
>Without that respect/trust (built from a fairly long friendship
>generally), the whole thing has a quite different character.
The bulk of my defense is that I don't grok these relationships for
the most part. Not that I don't totally get them -- my relationship
with my brother is like you describe. However, it's taken 28 years
to develop that trust, and it wouldn't have happened if we weren't
forced to spend 16 years of it under the same roof.
So, in order to start another relationship of that caliber, I would
need to start this play-fighting with someone and somehow build up
this level of trust and respect. Or, I could start a friendship with
a woman (or a man who plays by the women's rules), where it is easier
for me to find my way (either because the rules are easier, or just that
I'm more in tune with the rules).
>The other thing to remember which gets glossed over a lot in Tannen's
>earlier books is that there's a _lot_ of overlap between men's and
>women's styles (to generalise individuals to styles-by-gender), and as
>other people have said in these parts about other things, the variation
>between individuals can be much greater than that between the groups.
>So this means it's something more like:
>
> |----------------------------------------|
> |----------------------------------------|
>
>(with my sympathy to those reading in a proportional font :-) ), than
>two hardly overlapping spheres of communication.
First, people who read news with a proportional font get what they
deserve. :-P
Second, I agree with this fully, although my experience tends to make
me think that you exaggerated the overlap. I wish that Tannen hadn't
waited until literally the last page of "You Just Don't Understand"
to make that point -- I think it would have made the book more
palatable to have that fact be more clearly stated. (Without it, I
think that the whole thing could easily be read as a stinging
indictment against men and the way they communicate.)
>Where I do think there is a communication difference is in the depth to
>which topics will generally be discussed, and the amounts of "personal"
>stuff that will be discussed: IME male-male friendships typically don't
>get far beyond talking about what one is doing in general terms, whereas
>male-female friendships are _more_likely_ to go into more detail about
>what's happened, feelings/thoughts, etc. Having watched myself closely
>for a while I think that men are more inclined to filter this detail out
>as not relevant -- I suspect as a result of breeding/"society's
>messages" as much as anything else. Female-female relationships tend,
>from what I've seen, to spend more time discussing the personal-trivial
>than male-male friendships would; male-male friendships IME are more
>likely to discuss the impersonal-trivial (politics, sport, recent world
>happenings, whatever).
Doesn't help that I'd rather program computer games than follow
sports in my free time. And, while I'm not a huge fan of talking
about trivial matters, I think that they are more insteresting on
the personal level than the impersonal, and what about personal
relationships is really trivial anyway?
piranha
In article <5jq7v9$ibm$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
Troy Beukema <t...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <335F8E...@cnsvax.albany.edu>,
>TheCauldron <ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu> wrote:
>>If you have decided that it is _lack of romance_ that is going to make
>>you unhappy, then that is what you, and you alone, have decided.
>
>That decision may not be a conscious one; it may be rooted in
>instinct beyond the control of concious reasoning. Happiness,
>sadness, and emotional state in general is not independently
>controllable through conscious reasoning process.
i disagree, quite strongly. i know that is the prevailing
idea, but i've seen it be not true for too many people who
refused to languish in their emotional state to believe it
anymore. now, it's not something you can probably change
in an instant, and it might well be a lot of work for any
specific person and specific circumstance, but emotions are
not out of our control.
not everyone will be able to do it like trygve, who once
said he could talk himself out of an infatuation in 15 mins,
but i have talked myself out of infatuations with people who
i knew would be terrible for me in days. if i wake up and
i feel miserable i've learned which things i can do to stop
feeling that way. a lot of it is behaviour modification,
which might at first feel counter-intuitive. but behaviour
can affect motivation, maybe not as strongly as the other
way around. some of it is reasoning with myself and push-
ing myself towards an attitude i'd rather sport.
no, it's not always worth it, and no, it doesn't work very
well if one is clinically depressed, but i do believe that
lots of people could learn to be less of a slave to their
emotions. that said, i think there are people who will not
want to dicker with their emotions. and while it may be
painful, sometimes it's much more comfortable to stick with
what you have grown familiar over the years. we are pretty
big creatures of habit.
>>You
>>have made that choice for yourself, so you also have the power to make
>>the choice to be happy, even if you don't have a lover.
>
>You may have that power; some other random individual may not.
remotely possible, but i don't consider the people i've met
who can do this a new step in human evolution; it's a much
simpler explanation that the people who say emotions are out
of their control haven't ever tried to change them, or have
no found a way yet that works for them, or think it's too
much damn work, or are actually, deep down, comfortable with
their state and afraid what changing it might bring.
>>If you try to tell me that they way the world works is that if a person
>>doesn't have a lover that person's going to be unhappy, I'll say you're
>>vastly naive.
>
>How nice that you take the time to point out the naivete' of all the
>lonely/sad people in the world who don't have a lover.
she didn't say that. she said it's not an automatic causation
-- got no lover, unhappiness follows inevitably. not everyone
feels doomed because there's no romance in zir life at any par-
ticular time.
-piranha
*sunbird*
In article <betonica-230...@pm3a4.bratt.sover.net>
beto...@sover.net (Allison Turner) wrote:
> Personally, I could use some more good friends. But even when I have lots
> of them (and I have sometimes been quite surrounded with terrific friends)
> that does _not_ mean the same thing to me as a Relationship. _You_ know.
> One of those things where you have sex, share intimate moments, maybe read
> books to eachother or feed eachother breakfast or play a game where you
> plan what you'll both do together on your sixty-third anniversary.
i guess i've never had a Relationship. that last one cuts it right
out.
of course, my 63rd anniversary with my ex would have put me at 91...
> And perhaps one of the points is (for me) that in a Relationship you
> intend to be together for a damned long time. I don't see that with
> friendships. I mean, I'd _like_ most of my friendships to last for the
> rest of my life. But most of them don't, and no one (except perhaps me)
> seems phased by that.
odd, it seems to work out the other way round for me. well, i don't
ever start something with the intention that it will end, but
i accept that it might early on. and the friends stick around longer
than the lovers, more often than not.
> I'd _like_ to be in a relationship where I shared living space, shared a
> few dreams and goals, shared meals, and shared the idea that we'd spend
> the rest of our lives together (assuming we were both lucky as hell ;). I
> don't see this sort of thing in what most people call friendships.
no, not most.
> I said this some time ago in s.s.c.
> At the age of 37, I've had quite a large number of friends, all along the
> spectrum in terms of intimacy. Some people I still count as friends who I
> met 25 years ago or more. I've also had several good Relationships (which
> unfortunately didn't last, tho one lasted for seven years). They _aren't_
> the same thing. One does _not_ substitute for the other, in any meanful
> way, for me. I am _not_ happy to go on in life for a decade or more with
> lots of good friends. I know enough about myself to know that I do not do
> well without a Relationship.
i can understand that.
> Some of us are like that; we're not deficient, we don't need to be
> 'retrained' to be single and happy as clams. We're the type that do much
> better when in close proximity to at least one other person. Sharing our
> lives is important to us.
i think it is important to everyone, but the kind and degree of sharing
are different. some people get enough sharing just walking down
a crowded street. others will bury themselves deep in a forest
only to pine (heck (wave())) for a single mate to share it with.
> I get the point that if I don't know how to have friends, learning would
> be really important. I don't think that's the case, here. I also get the
> point that if I'm lonely, filling my time with good people will really
> help. True. But still not hitting the core.
it fills a need, but a different need.
> Telling us we'll be happy if we'd just go out and make more friends is
> missing the boat entirely.
i thought you were landlocked??
sunbird
== Strider ==
ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu writes:
] Troy Beukema wrote:
] > TheCauldron <ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu> wrote:
] > >
] > >If you try to tell me that they way the world works is that if a person
] > >doesn't have a lover that person's going to be unhappy, I'll say you're
] > >vastly naive.
] >
] > How nice that you take the time to point out the naivete' of all the
] > lonely/sad people in the world who don't have a lover.
]
] I was pointing out that there are plenty of people in the world who
] don't have lovers who are as happy as they want to be. There have been
] people throughout the ages who have drawn happiness from other aspects
] of life than romantic love, and who have chosen to remain celibate.
]
] I believe their lifestyles are as valid as those people who chose to be
] unhappy because they're lacking in romantic love, and who don't seem to
] be able to find happiness within any other aspect of their lives.
I've seen you repeat this several times, and I don't think you are quite
getting what other people are saying (at least, you aren't getting the
message I'm getting; maybe it's the comet ;). I don't think that people
are disagreeing with the fact that *some* people can and do _choose_ to
be happy, whether or not they have a relationship. I think they are
objecting to your assertion that because some can and do, that everyone
else necessarily can too. I also disagree with that assertion. There
are ways to be happy about other things, but I think that for some people
there is a fundamental lack in their lives without a relationship.
Strider
--
S T R I D E R
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. -- seen on a t-shirt
---
I charge $200/hour to proofread unsolicited commercial email; don't send it.
*sunbird*
In article <5jo2gt$meb$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
lg...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (isobel) wrote:
> ok. i've been following this thread rather haphazardly, so maybe i
> missed what Rodney's referring to... but, um, what the heck are
> you talking about? what is this attitude?
he's upset because people are telling him that he doesn't need
a relationship to be happy.
sunbird
== Strider ==
ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu writes:
] == Strider == wrote:
] >
] > ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu writes:
] [people can choose to feel unhappy or happy without romantic
] relationships]
]
] > I've seen you repeat this several times, and I don't think you are quite
] > getting what other people are saying (at least, you aren't getting the
] > message I'm getting; maybe it's the comet ;). I don't think that people
] > are disagreeing with the fact that *some* people can and do _choose_ to
] > be happy, whether or not they have a relationship. I think they are
] > objecting to your assertion that because some can and do, that everyone
] > else necessarily can too. I also disagree with that assertion. There
] > are ways to be happy about other things, but I think that for some people
] > there is a fundamental lack in their lives without a relationship.
] Far be it from me to try to force them to be happy, of course. I don't
] deny them their unhappiness. Certainly if they have formed the opinion
] that it is definitely not possible for them to find happiness without
] romance, I believe that it is the case they won't find happiness without
] romance.
I don't think it is a case of being totally unhappy without a relationship/
romance necessarily, more along the lines of an incompleteness to one's
life, for some, when that relationship/romance is not present. Certainly
it seems possible to be happy about some things, unhappy about others, in
a good mood at times and down at other times. But the message I've been
getting from your posts is that *anybody* has the ability to change their
wants/desires/needs to just about anything they want, hence they can change
their wants/desires/needs to reflect their current situations so that they
can be exactly happy with their lives as they are. I don't think that is
true for everyone, though I have no doubts that some people can do just
that. I can't. It sounds like Allison can't either. Maybe at some
theoretical level it *ought* to be possible, but in a practical or
realistic sense it isn't, for some of us.
Perhaps it is cultural conditioning, perhaps it really is a true need for
some of us (since goodness knows we all have different needs to an extent,
beyond the basics for mere physical survival). Can you point to any
reliable method for anyone to be able to change this situation? I know
that when I was an undergrad, I very much wanted a relationship with
someone special; I was often able to ignore or minimize the pain from
that lack by spending time with friends and doing things I enjoyed. That
didn't change the need, and it didn't make it go away. When I moved to go
to grad school, I found myself in a vastly different environment (from a
small, close-knit, vibrant university to a huge, rather impassive and
faceless commuter school) that set my social life completely on its ear.
I made a few friends, but I was much more consistently depressed. It got
a little better when I started to get some roommates, but that need was
still there.
Once I finally found a relationship, and a wonderful, fulfilling one at
that, my entire outlook improved dramatically. I've been far happier
ever since, in that respect, though other parts of my life feel
somewhat incomplete now (don't get to see too many close friends very
often anymore,though that's not due to the relationship but to other
circumstances). I don't think I can abruptly change my mind and stop
feeling _that_ incompleteness, either.
I guess most of this doesn't sound too coherent, but maybe someone can
gain something from it.
] I don't deny that it's socially "normal" to believe that romance is
] necessary for a complete life, and according to this norm adults
] _should_ form romantic liasons. So in that sense, people who do not wish
] to or cannot have romantic liasons are considered "abnormal" by
] society. I don't believe, however, that those who realize that they can
] take responsibility for making choices about how they feel even if it
] goes against social norms are "abnormal". I don't think everyone
] especially wants to be responsible for making those choices, either.
]
] Do you?
Have I said anything to indicate that I do? All I'm saying is that I
don't agree that every single person has the ability to *choose* to be
completely happy about their lives, no matter how those lives might go.
I'm curious, if all your friends moved away, and your job was taken
away (hypothetically, just for the sake of discussion; I'm trying to
imagine a situation where many of the things you value were suddenly
removed), could you simply decide that you were going to be happy
about that situation, and live with it without trying to change it?
I couldn't; I *wouldn't* be happy, and I'd have to try and find
another job that made me happy, and make some more friends, because
I wouldn't be happy (to a certain degree) without them.
Is any of that even remotely understandable? I'm having trouble
telling if I'm communicating my thoughts clearly.
Troy Beukema
In article <335F8E...@cnsvax.albany.edu>,
TheCauldron <ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu> wrote:
>
>If you have decided that it is _lack of romance_ that is going to make
>you unhappy, then that is what you, and you alone, have decided.
That decision may not be a conscious one; it may be rooted in
instinct beyond the control of concious reasoning. Happiness,
sadness, and emotional state in general is not independently
controllable through conscious reasoning process.
>You
>have made that choice for yourself, so you also have the power to make
>the choice to be happy, even if you don't have a lover.
You may have that power; some other random individual may not.
>If you try to tell me that they way the world works is that if a person
>doesn't have a lover that person's going to be unhappy, I'll say you're
>vastly naive.
How nice that you take the time to point out the naivete' of all the
lonely/sad people in the world who don't have a lover.
Troy
Robert Blackshaw
lg...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (isobel) wrote:
>In article <5jmuqm$5...@mosque.naos.co.nz>,
>Ewen McNeill <ew...@naos.co.nz> wrote:
>>I've noticed I've pretty much gone a full
>>cycle over the last 10 years or so, from almost exclusively male
>>friends, to almost exclusively female friends, and now back to primarily
>>male friends.
>hm. yeah, that cyclical thing would be normal for my life and
>from my point-of-view. almost right down to the ten-year age of
>the cycle. things do seem to be a little more even right now as
>i've been consciously trying to cultivate more friendships with
>men after realizing a couple years ago that most of my friends
>were women and i missed having men friends.
>not sure what that does to the data points since i'm a woman and
>the discussion thus far seems to have been about men having or
>not having men friends.
>
Perhaps we need a definition of 'man's man'. IME the term has been
used for that group of men who derive the most pleasure out of
what are considered mainly male pastimes. They hunt together, they
fish together (as in long distance fishing and hunting trips) but
often are really rather uncomfortable around women. Yet none of
these types are gay, it is just (IMHO) that they have so much of
the male in their makeup that they really are afraid of breaking
the fine china in a male-female encounter.
BTW, I to seem to lean toward woman and all her infinite mysteries
when it comes to encounters.
Bob
"A little sunburnt by the glare of life."
E. B. Browning
Allison Turner
In article <3360D3...@cnsvax.albany.edu>, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu wrote:
> I was pointing out that there are plenty of people in the world who
> don't have lovers who are as happy as they want to be. There have been
> people throughout the ages who have drawn happiness from other aspects
> of life than romantic love, and who have chosen to remain celibate.
>
> I believe their lifestyles are as valid as those people who chose to be
> unhappy because they're lacking in romantic love, and who don't seem to
> be able to find happiness within any other aspect of their lives.
>
> You don't, I take it?
Um.
I think that we're not arguing with exactly the same statement. "_Every_
person who doesn't have a lover is going to be unhappy" is obviously
false; But I'd argue also that "_Every_ person who doesn't have a lover is
capable of being perfectly happy" is also probably false.
I _really_ don't think that Troy was saying anything about the people who
are happy being single. He was talking about the people who _aren't_. I
don't think they're the same type of person at all.
Here's my take. There are many different kinds of people in the world.
For example:
Person A: Happy as anything, with or without a relationship.
Person B: Not happy without a relationship, unless zie works at it &
recognizes that there are other things that will make zir
happy.
Person C: Miserable as anything with or without a relationship;
generally a basket case, and in need of major councelling.
Person D: Naturally happy in a relationship, and not very happy when
not in a relationship. Zie can learn ways to cope with the
loneliness and sadness, but can't change zir wiring to
just 'be happy' in the single state.
Person E: Happy as anything on zir own; doesn't really like being in
deep committed relationships. Zie has other things to do
with zir time.
Person F: Not happy with a relationship, unless zie works to recognize
that there are ways of making it work so zie's happy.
(I could go on...)
B and D are the people we're arguing about. Am I right that for you,
Lorre, D doesn't exist; everyone I've put in D is just really a clueless
B?
I don't think you can categorically state that everyone who's unhappy
because they're X (single, in this case) can change their feelings about
being X. Some cases, certainly. Most cases, probably. Everyone, all the
time? I doubt it. Sometimes it's much easier (though it may still seem
damn near impossible) to change the state of X, rather than change one's
feelings about it.
And for that matter, it's not particularly validating to someone who is
lonely to tell them that they shouldn't be; that the problem is their
attitude and _not_ their single status, when their core inner self is
telling them it is.
I'm not saying this is always wrong. For all I know, that kind of advice
may good 90% of the time. (Certainly, if you can get to a much happier
state, you'll not only be happier, but also be more attractive, so the
single state is less likely to last... then there's getting there...) I
don't, however, buy the "change your attitude" as a universal solution.
Side note: It's interesting to me that this single-and-liking-it appears
to be a sensitive spot for some people; I didn't see any need to defend
that state; no one had attacked it. But then, no one had really attacked
the 'single-and-not-liking-it' state until I got defensive a few posts
back ;)
Then, too, there's the issue of what you can share in a friendship, and
what you consider to be only shared in a 'relationship.' The classic one
is, of course, sex, but I don't think anyone's really arguing that, per
se, here.
My personal experience tells me that there's a certain degree and quantity
and quality of closeness that is found in a 'relationship' and not found
in a friendship (and there likely are some other closenesses found in
friendship but not visa versa).
I love my friends, but it isn't reasonable to expect this certain type of
deep feelings with them -- I _know_ it isn't reasonable, because every
time I've done it, either the friendship fell apart, or we got involved in
what is clearly, to me, a 'relationship.' I spent _years_ looking for
what I termed a 'close friend' only to find that everyone I interacted
with saw my 'close friend' concept as so intimate as to be
indistinguishable from lover. Excepting that I insisted sex wasn't part
of my concept. (They couldn't grasp that part.) I finally gave up, added
the sex in, and redefined it as a 'relationship.' It's even more fun that
way, after all ;)
-Allison.
kmd
First off, apologies for taking so long to respond. I actually had
written this, then just up and forgot to actually post it.
Rodney E. wrote:
>
> In soc.singles.moderated Recovering Cynic kmd <du...@dsmo.com> said:
>
> > But. Going forth with the conscious intention of making a new
> > connection hasn't ever worked for me. Especially when I'm feeling
> > lonely, as these are more vulnerable times and times when my judgment
> > and honesty with myself about what I need or want is likely to be
> > impaired.
>
> It hasn't really worked for me either -- but the friend I feel closest
> to now made the first move. It's easier for me to react.
Heh. Ayup. But "easy" really is a very bad long-term filter for things
that matter to me. Has kicked me in the butt many a time, especially in
personal relationships.
> When I try to initiate I come off as needy, or at least I criticize my
> performance so much that I think it comes off badly.
>
This would be where I'd say that Lorre's advice about seeking and making
new friends -- though I would emphasize actively being "friendly," rather
than being goal-oriented about the type(s) of connections being sought --
_has_ worked in my life. Practice, practice, practice.
> > Someone recently pointed out to me that we may "see" more than we are
> > conscious of at the moment of seeing. So now I'm pondering whether
> > such attractions include more than the visuals, or if the visuals
> > projected and received include more than I consciously understand. >
>
> IMO yes. There are a lot of variables... what's T(L)C's word for this?
> Valences. What interests me is what kind of visual credentials you
> require for initiating contact. I can say what I avoid, but not
> necessarily what I go for.
>
I can't say that I have an identifiable or predictable set of visual cues
that always attract me or always turn me off. I like being impulsive and
spontaneous in this regard -- I'm not especially interested in developing
any kind of list.
I suck at grocery shopping, too.
> [hoppity hormone, or Hoppity Hooper, I forget which]
> > Do you perceive that as a problem needing fixing, or just something
> > to understand and compensate for? I ask because my own reflex would
> > be to try to "fix" this kind of attraction (read: eliminate it), but
> > I'm also starting to become more aware of the pitfalls of trying to
> > "fix" my reactions rather than understand them.
>
> Do you think that the objects of your attraction consist only of
> absolutes? I tend to think of people I'm attracted to as having more
> than one quality. The "bad girl" might have a heart of gold; the "nice
> girl" might not be as "nice" one-on-one. I don't encounter that many
> single-faceted attractive people.
>
> Or am I misreading you?
>
Not misreading so much, just (*gasp*, not on Usenet, say it ain't so)
taking slightly out of context. Those comments were in response to Lorre
saying that she has "a tragic attraction for some types that spell
t-r-o-u-b-l-e" (quoting from memory, Lorre's article gone here, hope I
got it right.)
So if I'm receiving more information than just hair and eye color and
height and weight, and I find myself consistently attracted to a "type"
that ends up being not-good for me, my first reflex would be to try to
figure out why I was attracted to that type and stop seeking out problems
for myself if I could.
I think you're calling into question the workability of the idea of
identifiable and categorizable "types." I stand with you on that one,
and would say that your question is part of the reason that trying to
"fix" such attractions by eliminating them may not be a good idea.
> > OTOH, this also feels to me like a hierarchical
> > classification of the level of connection, and parcelling out one's
> > time and energy according to a scale of closeness. "You're not a
> > real friend unless you are willing and available to do [x] for me."
>
> > It makes a pragmatic kind of sense, and in some ways I do this, but I
> > also think it contributes to stagnation and loneliness.
>
> I think of it as more a necessity to houseclean hangers-on and
> fair-weather friends
Others have said this here, too. In this context I can understand a
little better. For myself I'd qualify it by saying that when my
connections to others change enough that I'd characterize them this way
then the relationship is breaking down and I'm content to turn away from
that person because we're no longer sharing something worthwhile. This
doesn't mean that we never had a valid or valuable connection, or that
I'd never again be open to a connection with that person.
[snip K&L saying what good is sex without friendship?] >
> And yet, my observation of women on and offline is that some of them
> ^^^^
> tend to compartmentalize their relationships *just* like this! >
Keeping this impossible-to-underemphasize word in mind, I'll play along:
> Just Friends: Intimate conversations, lots of hugging, emotional
> contact, absolutely no sex.
>
Sure, ok. I have lots of friends like this. But the "absolutely no sex"
part is triggered by things like sexual orientation and exclusive
commitments to others -- *not* the existence of a close friendship.
> Lovers: Sex. No romance. No love letters, pet names, or flowers,
> just vacuous pleasure.
>
No friendship either, I'm guessing. So I'd have to say no way Jose.
Don't want none.
> Romantic partners: Romance, watered-down sex,
Wha? Why would romance be associated with watered-down sex?
> varying degrees of friendship -- but not necessarily "best" friendship,
> a category usually reserved for people (usually MOTSS) outside the
> relationship.
>
And you say all of this is because the relationship is characterized as
"romantic?" I'm guessing that Jo and Lorre's discussion of "sex is
dirty" memes is at work here.
> So what kind of message does that send?
To me? A person who categorized relations that way would be sending me a
very audible "you and I have fundamentally different values" message.
> The Just-Friend tends to say things like "sex really isn't important,"
> which she convinces herself to be true by the lack of importance *she*
> places on it by having it with people she doesn't really care about.
Sounds like you're talking about one person in particular here. I only
have one friend who's ever behaved like this, and I pointed out the same
problem with it that you identify here. Didn't help; she had to grow
beyond it on her own.
> I can't say that "men" consistently combine all of these needed
> elements
And you'd probably get really hacked off if I assumed that you weren't
capable of it because I knew a lot of men who weren't ...
>(friendship+attraction+roses and perfume and Astaire-like
>grace+commitment) but *I* do, yet most of the "available" women I come
>across insist that the three elements have to be separate in their lives
>(which is exasperatingly immature).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amen, can I get a witness.
The three elements = romance, sex and friendship, right? The obvious
questions pop to mind here. How many women have you actually had a RL
conversation with about this? Where did you meet them? How old were
you/they?
I won't deny that I've also met plenty of people who have (what I
consider to be) screwed up notions of sex/love/connections/friendship.
Jo and Lorre put forth some interesting and useful ideas to chew on as to
why this might be so.
>As for me... I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed,
>debriefed, or numbered.
Kewl. I promise not to do this to boys if you promise not to do this to
girls. We'll change the world.
--
Kri...@ready.set.go
*sunbird*
In article <335F8E...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
TheCauldron <ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu> wrote:
> I think (and say much too frequently, these days, I'm afraid) if you're
> determined to be unhappy, that you shall indeed be that. If you're
> determined to be happy, you'll be that as well. It's simply not within
> the power of someone else whether you shall or shall not be so. You're
> the one who gets to decide.
i don't believe it's all that black and white. other people *can*
ruin your day.
there is a lot of personal choice involved in how to respond to that
and how to carry on your life in general, but if someone is really
intent on screwing with you it's not so simple to just decide not
to care about it.
on the other side, one should do all one can to ensure one's own
happiness, and no one owes me that.
if i'm determined absolutely to be happy, i will be happier than if
i am determined to suffer. but i will not always be happy no matter
how strong my resolve, and often it will be related to someone
else's gig.
> If you have decided that it is _lack of romance_ that is going to make
> you unhappy, then that is what you, and you alone, have decided. You
> have made that choice for yourself, so you also have the power to make
> the choice to be happy, even if you don't have a lover.
i don't see that as very realistic. people need what they need. you
cannot effectively decide away what you need. what you can do
is act to get what you need, or change your needs over time with
counselling if they appear to be pathological.
> If you try to tell me that they way the world works is that if a person
> doesn't have a lover that person's going to be unhappy, I'll say you're
> vastly naive.
uh, lorre, it seemed to me like she was making a very personal statement.
sunbird
Insect God
ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu:
>== Strider == wrote:
>> But the message I've been
>> getting from your posts is that *anybody* has the ability to change their
>> wants/desires/needs to just about anything they want, hence they can change
>> their wants/desires/needs to reflect their current situations so that they
>> can be exactly happy with their lives as they are.
>
Yes, I knew that. What annoys me, Lorre, is your further message that
anyone who disagrees with this proposition is simply wrong: nobody's mileage
is allowed to vary, nobody else's experience or perception is valid.
>So we have two views. I believe people can shape their lives and how
>they feel, and you and others don't.
Why are you talking as though that were necessarily a complete binary
opposition? I am disgusted that you would raise the straw man this
statement implies.
>> Perhaps it is cultural conditioning, perhaps it really is a true need for
>> some of us (since goodness knows we all have different needs to an extent,
>> beyond the basics for mere physical survival). Can you point to any
>> reliable method for anyone to be able to change this situation?
>
>To change their beliefs? I think that's a thing that happens only if
>you reeeeally want to, or you have a signficant emotional event that
>makes you shift your paradigm. Some people tend to have tremendous
>shifts in values and paradigms after a suicide attempt, for instance.
>Others after a spouse leaves them or a loved one dies.
I see. So people who don't believe they can change or remove certain
undesirable incongruencies between their personalities and their current
lives just don't "reeeeally" want to enough. It's possible for everybody,
and the experiences of those who don't observe that result are not to be
brooked as evidence: we must assume that they are the result of agentic
failures.
Exactly how is that less crankish than, say, the belief that anyone who dies
of an illness did so because their faith was weak?
>> ] society. I don't believe, however, that those who realize that they can
>> ] take responsibility for making choices about how they feel even if it
>> ] goes against social norms are "abnormal". I don't think everyone
>> ] especially wants to be responsible for making those choices, either.
Ah so, we see the etiology, their faith is weak because they decline to take
responsibility for their own lives. You will be applying the final solution
to these malingerers very soon, I trust?
-Sheba http://www.qmail.com/~sheba/
Allison Turner
In article <336118...@cnsvax.albany.edu>, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu wrote:
> I think it also has something to do with duration. I can feel a blow of
> grief or unhappiness, and feel it deeply. But allowing it to continue
> and ruin everything else that's possible over long periods of time? I'm
> quite reluctant to accept that it's not possible for on to shape one's
> own reactions to the original blow from external sources.
Perhaps we're talking different degrees here.
I can feel a blow of grief or unhappiness, and feel it deeply. I can
allow it to continue and ruin everything else, or... I can struggle to not
allow it to continue. But it seems to me that you're saying I can choose
to stop the grief, like turning off a faucet, and if I 'allow' it to
continue, I'm at fault for the pain. (I use the word 'fault' very
intentionally. I don't mean 'responsible.')
I don't think that duration is really the key here, but rather the
particular source/kind of grief.
Some things just don't fit that easily under one's control, regardless of
whether they're short-lived or long. I could, I suppose, choose not to be
unhappy and grieve over the fact that my father is dead. (It has, after
all, been more than three decades since he died.) But he was a
particularly important person in my life. Perhaps as important as any
other person has ever been. The only way I see of not being sad and
grieving over the fact that I don't have him, would be by blocking him out
of my life. Forget him. Deny that he is important to me.
Ha. Fat chance.
I suppose you could argue that I have a choice and I've made a decision;
In some sense, I did. I also might have a choice about whether to brace
myself into the cold wind, or jump off the cliff. Don't generally end up
doing the latter. I don't _really_ see that as a choice.
Or is my example at all related to what you're talking about? It seems we
were discussing whether people were happy or sad, and how much control
they have over that. I'd say there are certainly circumstances where
choosing to be 'happy' (for some general, generic value of happy) is not
worth the price that's paid for it.
In other situations, which I assume you're refering to, it would be
perfectly reasonable to pay the price, if one could just find the store
where such purchases are made (and in still other cases, one thinks one
can't find the store and one is already in it). Some blissfully lucky
folk have perfect 20/20 vision, and never have any problem finding their
happiness again and again, regardless of the number of negative impacts
hitting all around them.
I see all of the above possibilities. I can't tell if you're arguing that
everyone should "shape one's own reactions to the original blow from
external sources" so that each person doesn't feel longer-duration grief.
It sounds like that. If you're just arguing that one _could_, if one
wanted to _and_ if the circumstances were appropriate, then I'd agree.
-Allison. (I sure seem to be long winded today. Must be that research
I'm supposed to be doing. What was that about oxidative damage again?
Them free radicals must be having a go at my brain tissue.)
Robert Blackshaw
pro...@uts.cc.utexas.edu (== Strider ==) wrote:
<snipped debate about who needs what - we all differ, that's
what makes people interesting>
>Once I finally found a relationship, and a wonderful, fulfilling one at
>that, my entire outlook improved dramatically. I've been far happier
>ever since, in that respect, though other parts of my life feel
>somewhat incomplete now (don't get to see too many close friends very
>often anymore,though that's not due to the relationship but to other
>circumstances). I don't think I can abruptly change my mind and stop
>feeling _that_ incompleteness, either.
Well having done the same thing, now some 14 years ago I would
be at a great loss should anything happen to Florence, and I
would grieve long and hard.
But, when we met I had just come off a divorce and the thought
of marrying again was about the furthest thing from my mind.
I had no intention and no desire to re-marry and was planning
a life of happy batchelor-hood (Ah Robbie was right).
So I kinda lean toward Lorre's side in this - though do recall
that she wrote 'plenty' not 'all' - that seems to have slid
by.
Robert Blackshaw
beto...@sover.net (Allison Turner) wrote:
>In article <3360D3...@cnsvax.albany.edu>, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu wrote:
>> Troy Beukema wrote:
>>
>> > TheCauldron <ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >If you try to tell me that they way the world works is that if a person
>> > >doesn't have a lover that person's going to be unhappy, I'll say you're
>> > >vastly naive.
>> >
>> > How nice that you take the time to point out the naivete' of all the
>> > lonely/sad people in the world who don't have a lover.
>>
>> I was pointing out that there are plenty of people in the world who
>> don't have lovers who are as happy as they want to be. There have been
>> people throughout the ages who have drawn happiness from other aspects
>> of life than romantic love, and who have chosen to remain celibate.
>>
>> I believe their lifestyles are as valid as those people who chose to be
>> unhappy because they're lacking in romantic love, and who don't seem to
>> be able to find happiness within any other aspect of their lives.
>>
>> You don't, I take it?
>Um.
>I think that we're not arguing with exactly the same statement. "_Every_
>person who doesn't have a lover is going to be unhappy" is obviously
>false; But I'd argue also that "_Every_ person who doesn't have a lover is
>capable of being perfectly happy" is also probably false.
Hm? Guess I missed some earlier posts - or they have yet to arrive (which
is not unusual these days) since I did not take that interpretation.
>I _really_ don't think that Troy was saying anything about the people who
>are happy being single. He was talking about the people who _aren't_. I
>don't think they're the same type of person at all.
>Here's my take. There are many different kinds of people in the world.
>For example:
>Person A: Happy as anything, with or without a relationship.
>Person B: Not happy without a relationship, unless zie works at it &
> recognizes that there are other things that will make zir
> happy.
>Person C: Miserable as anything with or without a relationship;
> generally a basket case, and in need of major councelling.
>Person D: Naturally happy in a relationship, and not very happy when
> not in a relationship. Zie can learn ways to cope with the
> loneliness and sadness, but can't change zir wiring to
> just 'be happy' in the single state.
>Person E: Happy as anything on zir own; doesn't really like being in
> deep committed relationships. Zie has other things to do
> with zir time.
>Person F: Not happy with a relationship, unless zie works to recognize
> that there are ways of making it work so zie's happy.
>(I could go on...)
>B and D are the people we're arguing about. Am I right that for you,
>Lorre, D doesn't exist; everyone I've put in D is just really a clueless
>B?
I'll let Lorre respond (I could stop her?) but just to stick my nose
and two cents in here, I got the feeling she was noting that the
world/society seems to regard the B type as 'odd' and disagreed with
that assessment.
>I don't think you can categorically state that everyone who's unhappy
>because they're X (single, in this case) can change their feelings about
>being X. Some cases, certainly. Most cases, probably. Everyone, all the
>time? I doubt it. Sometimes it's much easier (though it may still seem
>damn near impossible) to change the state of X, rather than change one's
>feelings about it.
What man by taking thought can add one cubit ...? Problem is that all
around us are adverts, people, companies, etc. all telling us that
the single state is bad, undesirable, immoral, you name it. Sure, we
were probably programed to mate to ensure survival of the species,
but that is hardly a problem any more.
>And for that matter, it's not particularly validating to someone who is
>lonely to tell them that they shouldn't be; that the problem is their
>attitude and _not_ their single status, when their core inner self is
>telling them it is.
>I'm not saying this is always wrong. For all I know, that kind of advice
>may good 90% of the time. (Certainly, if you can get to a much happier
>state, you'll not only be happier, but also be more attractive, so the
>single state is less likely to last... then there's getting there...) I
>don't, however, buy the "change your attitude" as a universal solution.
>Side note: It's interesting to me that this single-and-liking-it appears
>to be a sensitive spot for some people; I didn't see any need to defend
>that state; no one had attacked it. But then, no one had really attacked
>the 'single-and-not-liking-it' state until I got defensive a few posts
>back ;)
Ah, didn't see that one yet.
>Then, too, there's the issue of what you can share in a friendship, and
>what you consider to be only shared in a 'relationship.' The classic one
>is, of course, sex, but I don't think anyone's really arguing that, per
>se, here.
>My personal experience tells me that there's a certain degree and quantity
>and quality of closeness that is found in a 'relationship' and not found
>in a friendship (and there likely are some other closenesses found in
>friendship but not visa versa).
>I love my friends, but it isn't reasonable to expect this certain type of
>deep feelings with them -- I _know_ it isn't reasonable, because every
>time I've done it, either the friendship fell apart, or we got involved in
>what is clearly, to me, a 'relationship.' I spent _years_ looking for
>what I termed a 'close friend' only to find that everyone I interacted
>with saw my 'close friend' concept as so intimate as to be
>indistinguishable from lover. Excepting that I insisted sex wasn't part
>of my concept. (They couldn't grasp that part.) I finally gave up, added
>the sex in, and redefined it as a 'relationship.' It's even more fun that
>way, after all ;)
>-Allison.
Bob
Allison Turner
> In article <betonica-230...@pm3a4.bratt.sover.net>
> beto...@sover.net (Allison Turner) wrote:
>
> > .... a Relationship. _You_ know.
> > One of those things where you have sex, share intimate moments, maybe read
> > books to eachother or feed eachother breakfast or play a game where you
> > plan what you'll both do together on your sixty-third anniversary.
>
> i guess i've never had a Relationship. that last one cuts it right
> out.
ahem. I was just using my personal definition; YMMV, widely.
Somehow, sunbird, I get the distinct impression that you and I are wired
very differently. ;)
> of course, my 63rd anniversary with my ex would have put me at 91...
Well, I will admit that if I started now, that would put my 63rd
anniversary at 100. And since I suspect I won't live too much beyond my
97th birthday, I should perhaps revise that line a bit.
> > And perhaps one of the points is (for me) that in a Relationship you
> > intend to be together for a damned long time. I don't see that with
> > friendships. I mean, I'd _like_ most of my friendships to last for the
> > rest of my life. But most of them don't, and no one (except perhaps me)
> > seems phased by that.
>
> odd, it seems to work out the other way round for me. well, i don't
> ever start something with the intention that it will end, but
> i accept that it might early on. and the friends stick around longer
> than the lovers, more often than not.
I can certainly point to friendships which have lasted longer than any of
my relationships. (Longest relationship - 7 years; longest friendship,
discounting family members who have no choice;) - 27 years. Of course, I
only see the 27 year friend once every two years or so...)
But then, I can point to plenty of friendships that have been much
briefer, too. Probably most of them. Got more friendships, and
therefore more variety within them. The _ideal_, to me, is to have a
relationship that lasts for a very long time. Having some friendships
that do as well is a great idea, but there's room for a variety there;
there's no such thing as an _ideal_ friendship to me. (Though there
certainly are less-than-ideal ones..)
> > Some of us are like that; we're not deficient, we don't need to be
> > 'retrained' to be single and happy as clams. We're the type that do much
> > better when in close proximity to at least one other person. Sharing our
> > lives is important to us.
>
> i think it is important to everyone, but the kind and degree of sharing
> are different.
Check.
> some people get enough sharing just walking down
> a crowded street.
That's sharing???
(Can't imagine how I missed that those 20 years I lived in a city...)
> others will bury themselves deep in a forest
> only to pine (heck (wave())) for a single mate to share it with.
Who would do that?
But I was much lonelier in the midst of a few million people than I am
now, with sunshine and trees and the wind and my cat. Now I'm pretty much
content; just gotta add someone to share the scrambled eggs with in the
morning.
> > Telling us we'll be happy if we'd just go out and make more friends is
> > missing the boat entirely.
>
> i thought you were landlocked??
Not if the bathtub-sized watering hole which has opened up by my front
door keeps expanding at the rate it has been... Can't imagine why the guy
who built this cabin thought the best spot for it was in the swampiest
section of the field.
-Allison.
(going back out to muck around in the mud and sunshine...)
Jo Walton
In article <5jlhgu$d...@excalibur.gooroos.com> pir...@pobox.com "piranha" writes:
> the people with whom i become friends tend to not have neatly
> separate cubicles for "friendship", "romance", "love", "sex".
> i don't either, and it makes no sense to me emotionally to
> separate those strongly, because i simply do not _feel_ any
> such separation; they flow together for me. i love all my
> close friends. i'd love to live with some of them, on a big
> plot of land with separate houses. i'd like to build a future
> with them. and who falls into that category isn't dependent
> on whether we have sex; often we don't, or only do for a while.
> romance seems more enduring to me than sex, and i do not at
> all equate the two.
One of my better daydreams is of founding a Very Small City somewhere
(village size but with a cathedral and university) and invite all the
people I'd really like to live close to. Or Sasha has a wonderful plan
to build a castle where everyone gets their own tower but all eat
together in the banqueting hall. At last count that castle had 14 towers,
but I'm flexible about these things. :] I think there's a definite
distinction between thinking of people as _family_, as in one's life and
always going to be in one's life whether one lives with them or sees them
or not, and romance.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Blood of Kings Poems at http://www.kenjo.demon.co.uk/
8 of Graydon's, 1 of Browning's, 17 of mine
...and a cheerful song about the end of the world
Matthew Daly
In article <3357BE...@cnsvax.albany.edu> ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu writes:
>Matthew Daly wrote:
>
>Because I've now met you, I trust completely what you're saying here,
>and I can only imagine that you truly _have_ tried. But what I'm about
>to say is not being said solely to you, because I want to make it more
>abstract and generalized. I'm not into making you squirm, ok?
Ooh baby. <giggle> I don't mind talking about some of this stuff,
but I guess there are places that I'm not going to go in a public
forum like this.
>This is where the part about eros and conceptualizations of sexuality
>come in. Someone recently mentioned here the highly accurate adage that
>goes something like: "sex is bad, awful, dirty and terrible, and you
>should save it for the one you love". (Was that you, Jo?) That so
>wonderfully expresses the contradictory emotional load of meaning that
>sexuality carries in our times.
That is a good quote. From my perspective (ha!), it seems to me that
sex is more of a beautiful sharing of one's self and learning about
one's other if used properly, and bad, awful, dirty, and terrible
if not. I don't think that I would think less of myself as a moral
being if I were not chaste, though.
>One has the basic concern of a very relentless sexual desire, which may
>contain all the darker, murkier elements of our beings within our erotic
>fantasies. One also has developed concepts of the beloved as a cherished
>being for whom we would perform the most wholesome and noble deeds.
>Where do these two meet? I think that folks who have somehow not
>acknowledged or resolved these two worlds may have the most difficulty
>between friendship and "romance" or sexual involvement (I see the two as
>having fundamental differences, but I know lotsa people don't).
Yeah, I guess I would fulfill your belief here. If love is about
uncontrolled giving and sex is about ravenous taking, then that is
a hard gulf for me to bridge. I tend to think about sex more like
I mentioned above, just because it seems to me that that is the Better
Way, but I freely acknowledge that I'm hopelessly naive in these
matters.
>This brings me to the virgin/whore thing (I don't care why). I ran into
>the virgin/whore dichotomy early on, in my teens, and I was totally
>wacked by it for several years, until one of my friends finally
>explained it to me. I used to get into "relationships" (ha!) with guys
>who seemed to really like me, but would never touch me. Then there were
>guys who couldn't see anything but my body, it seemed, but didn't want
>anything to do with me, the person (above the neck). The former wanted
>me to be virgin, the latter wanted me to be whore, and never the twain
>could meet. This is very commom in Catholic society, BTW. Everyone gets
>put into those categories, so that it's difficult to be a "good" whore
>and "sexy" virgin at the same time.
That seems resonant to me. If it were true, it would explain why so
many women wouldn't want to risk the relationship that I have with
them for a more physical relationship -- if their needs included being
loved by some men for their mind instead of their bodies.
>Ok, so not all your valences are petrified, but maybe the erotic ones
>could use a little exercise to make your life complete?
Agreed. Of course, that is a simple solution but not an easy one.
If exploring erotic boundaries were entirely a solitaire sport, I'd
have done it by now.
>> Not that I know what any of that means. Like I say, I don't regret
>> my friendships, and just see myself as someone who is to some
>> degree romantically unappealing and to some degree unskilled at
>> initiating romance. I make the most of the talents that I do have,
>> and only occasionally have the desire to abstractly long for more.
>
>Maybe your "type" of woman has a lot of difficulty with her own
>erotic/romantic being? I said before that I'm not into making your
>squirm, but also...your second sentence there says volumes to me, and so
>I'll use it as a springboard for more generalizations. My questions, put
>to any other person who would say that about themselves, would be to
>start thinking about: is it because you're afraid of putting your
>romantic side out there (too much risk of looking ridiculous)? Do you
>think it's "wrong" somehow (sex is SIN!!)? When did you build this
>self-concept of "I'm not romantic" and why? Is it because you're good at
>math, and so it natually follows that you're rotten at romance? Laugh
>if you want to, but conceptualizations like that happen to us.
No, it isn't that. I guess that I went through high school and the
first years of college thinking that if I was alone with a girl, something
would happen, and it didn't. From that point forward, it's just easier
to believe that it's something that was intended for other folks, plus
there is something mildly positive to be said of being able to be in
the close company of beautiful women because they consider you to be
"safe".
Afraid to look ridiculous? Perhaps -- I'm almost 30 years old and
many (if not most) males half my age have more of an erotic life than
I do. I don't have a ton of pride, but if I think that something is
important, then I don't like doing it poorly, and I feel that way about
being a giving partner in relationships.
Is sex SIN?? For me, the first time? Yeah -- it would be a completely
selfish act intended exclusively to get me over a personally-inflicted
psychological hump. (I'd call that "sin".) The second time, I'd like
to think that I'll be compassionate to my partner's needs and eager
to learn how to meet them, but it seems like the first time would be
saying nothing less than "I want you to be a whore to me", and it
looks from your post that such a request wouldn't be well received.
>Hey, I'm smart, so I'm not supposed to be pretty or sexy.
Hmmmm. (Does everyone grow up thinking that they're some sort of
mythical exception to the rules?)
>More springboard for generalizations: Do you talk to any of them about
>your erotic life? Obviously you don't need to answer here. But
>sometimes admitting that one _has_ an erotic life opens some doors.
This is certainly an interesting avenue. The one time in my life that
I confessed to a quasi-professional that I feared that I was asexual,
he seemed to indicate that the thought was laughable. Perhaps I was
using the word in the wrong way.
I don't know if I have an erotic life or not. If I do, then it
seems to be as useful to me as a deaf man's ears. Finding the
erotic life in me would be a very fulfilling step.
>piranha knows that her erotic/sexual self has a certain role, but it
>doesn't seem to be a big one.
Yeah, I read xir post about that once, and was intrigued.
>Maybe it seems like a monster, but if you
>sort of get it out and parade it around, maybe you'll find that it's
>cuddly and not so bad after all. Maybe it's a purple dinosaur. Maybe
>it's a little dog that does you-know-what now and then in order to keep
>smiling. It's maybe not so bad. Maybe it roars like a lion and opens up
>some really interesting identiy crisis. Anything could happen. But I
>ramble.
Dunno. I'm sure a professional could help me with some of this, but
that's illegal and now we're starting to get into the squirming
zone. :-)
Robert Blackshaw
beto...@sover.net (Allison Turner) wrote:
>Ha. Fat chance.
Some things in common, Dad died in '63, Mom in '83 - in fact it was
about two weeks before Florence and I met.
Miss them? Damn right. Couple of things that were regretful was that
Dad never knew his grandson nor did either of them know their new
daughter-in-law (though we have our suspicions as to who planned our
meeting - and I know they are up there).
The ache is still there but it has certainly subsided over the years,
had it remained at the initial level survival would have been impossible.
Now it is not so much the grief at not having them here (we grieve as
much for ourselves as the departed one) as it is remembering all the
good things and good times.
In another 30 or 40 years my own son will be facing the same thing,
hope it isn't too hard on him, I'll have run my race.
piranha
In article <betonica-250...@pm1a25.bratt.sover.net>,
Allison Turner <beto...@sover.net> wrote:
>In article <336118...@cnsvax.albany.edu>, ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu wrote:
>> I think it also has something to do with duration. I can feel a blow of
>> grief or unhappiness, and feel it deeply. But allowing it to continue
>> and ruin everything else that's possible over long periods of time? I'm
>> quite reluctant to accept that it's not possible for on to shape one's
>> own reactions to the original blow from external sources.
>
>Perhaps we're talking different degrees here.
we're possibly also talking different definitions of "happy".
>I can feel a blow of grief or unhappiness, and feel it deeply. I can
>allow it to continue and ruin everything else, or... I can struggle to not
>allow it to continue. But it seems to me that you're saying I can choose
>to stop the grief, like turning off a faucet, and if I 'allow' it to
>continue, I'm at fault for the pain.
well, i wouldn't say "turn it off like a faucet". but i _can_
choose whether i let it ruin everything else. i have actually
never tried to completely turn it off, because in a strange way
i appreciate grief.
>Some things just don't fit that easily under one's control, regardless of
>whether they're short-lived or long. I could, I suppose, choose not to be
>unhappy and grieve over the fact that my father is dead. (It has, after
>all, been more than three decades since he died.) But he was a
>particularly important person in my life. Perhaps as important as any
>other person has ever been. The only way I see of not being sad and
>grieving over the fact that I don't have him, would be by blocking him out
>of my life. Forget him. Deny that he is important to me.
i have somebody like that, and i grieve over the loss still,
after 15 years. but the grief isn't ruining everything else
in life for me. i think that was an important part of lorre's
statement. nothing wrong with feeling all the emotions that
come your way, but if any of them are ruining your life, then
it's time to learn something about faucet repair.
that doesn't just go for grief and loneliness and sadness; i
believe that goes for emotions we usually consider to be posi-
tive as well. i know people for whom love is ruining their
life because the emotion gets them consistently into hot water
and keeps them in bad relationships.
>I suppose you could argue that I have a choice and I've made a decision;
>In some sense, I did. I also might have a choice about whether to brace
>myself into the cold wind, or jump off the cliff. Don't generally end up
>doing the latter. I don't _really_ see that as a choice.
why not? enough people jump off the cliff.
but where we differ is that i think there are more than two
choices in nearly every situation in life. if neither end of
the spectrum appears palatable, i look for the compromise so-
lution, something in between, that may not have occurred to
me at first glance. i no longer see emotions as a higher
force against which i am helpless. i used to, but i had a
lot more incentive to change this view than is normal --
growing up with a mentally ill parent left me with a lot of
inappropriate emotions. had i just accepted that i can't
do anything about that, i would have quite likely jumped
off that cliff. what's interesting is that your descrip-
tion above sounds very familiar; i did feel a strong wind
blowing me every which way, and often right close to a pre-
cipice. funny you'd use those words.
>Or is my example at all related to what you're talking about? It seems we
>were discussing whether people were happy or sad, and how much control
>they have over that. I'd say there are certainly circumstances where
>choosing to be 'happy' (for some general, generic value of happy) is not
>worth the price that's paid for it.
right. as i said, i appreciate the grief. but that's not
what the general discussion was about, or was it? maybe it
actually was. maybe rodney appreciates longing for that
once-in-a-lifetime magical romance (i won't insult him by
adding "disney" to that :-), even if he was never to get it,
and was going to always be grieving because his life isn't
the life he'd ideally have it. i've been approaching this
from the point of view that the unhappy person isn't set on
feeling that way, and doesn't want it to ruin zir life.
yes, indeed, the price may be too high. but i think one
often doesn't know that before comparison shopping. isn't
the one-of-a-kind magical romance a cultural meme? don't
most of us grow up sucking that in with the mothermilk? i
think i was certainly way too accepting of it and didn't
examine it much at the onset.
>In other situations, which I assume you're refering to, it would be
>perfectly reasonable to pay the price, if one could just find the store
>where such purchases are made (and in still other cases, one thinks one
>can't find the store and one is already in it).
yes, we get those folks here perpetually, don't we? can't
find a woman in bars, women prefer to date jerks, men just
want sex, men only care about goodlooking babes. wouldn't
you say those people aren't looking for the right store, or
are in fact right smack in it and can't read the labels on
the goods?
wouldn't you say that a change in attitude might be benefi-
cial, even if their emotions are telling them they're not
the one with the problem, it's the world that's fucked up?
>Some blissfully lucky
>folk have perfect 20/20 vision, and never have any problem finding their
>happiness again and again, regardless of the number of negative impacts
>hitting all around them.
i don't know many people like that. the ones i know seemed
to have had exceptionally supportive childhoods. the rest
of us work pretty damn hard on not letting negative exper-
iences rule our lives. the choice i see isn't about being
perfectly happy (can you even imagine? i can't, not lasting
for more than a blissful moment), but about not letting any
one thing rule and possibly ruin your life.
i saw lorre refer to holocaust survivors as people to look
at who overcame terrible events. that's pretty much who i
think about when i feel sorry for myself, because nothing
that has happened to me in my grown-up life has even come
close to that sort of experience, and if they could come thru
it, then so can i.
>I see all of the above possibilities. I can't tell if you're arguing that
>everyone should "shape one's own reactions to the original blow from
>external sources" so that each person doesn't feel longer-duration grief.
>It sounds like that. If you're just arguing that one _could_, if one
>wanted to _and_ if the circumstances were appropriate, then I'd agree.
that's pretty much what i'd argue.
-piranha
Thoroughly Modern Piglet
mwd...@kodak.com (Matthew Daly), in article <5jggt3$r7u$1...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>, dixit:
>In article <3357BE...@cnsvax.albany.edu> ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu writes:
>If exploring erotic boundaries were entirely a solitaire sport, I'd
>have done it by now.
It is, ya know. Oh, sure, not entirely; there are some things for
which you need to find a willing partner. But many (most?) of the
interesting boundaries can be explored alone.
>>More springboard for generalizations: Do you talk to any of them about
>>your erotic life? Obviously you don't need to answer here. But
>>sometimes admitting that one _has_ an erotic life opens some doors.
>This is certainly an interesting avenue. The one time in my life that
>I confessed to a quasi-professional that I feared that I was asexual,
>he seemed to indicate that the thought was laughable. Perhaps I was
>using the word in the wrong way.
Perhaps you shoulda smacked him. (Verbally, of course. Wouldn't
want any exotic fruit getting the wrong idea about violent tendencies
in American cultuh, or anything like that.)
>I don't know if I have an erotic life or not. If I do, then it
>seems to be as useful to me as a deaf man's ears. Finding the
>erotic life in me would be a very fulfilling step.
A very necessary one, if you do actually want to have sex. Keep
in mind, celibacy is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. (Just
ask Stephen Fry.) Asexuality is a legitimate orientation, too.
--
____
Piglet \bi/ http://www.evolution.com/ Now hiring!
pig...@piglet.org \/ Please don't feed or tease the kooks.
Paul Goldschmidt
pig...@panix.com (Thoroughly Modern Piglet) wrote:
>>If exploring erotic boundaries were entirely a solitaire sport, I'd
>>have done it by now.
>It is, ya know. Oh, sure, not entirely; there are some things for
>which you need to find a willing partner. But many (most?) of the
>interesting boundaries can be explored alone.
Particularly if one has very simple tastes...or unique physical
abilities.
>>>More springboard for generalizations: Do you talk to any of them about
>>>your erotic life? Obviously you don't need to answer here. But
>>>sometimes admitting that one _has_ an erotic life opens some doors.
Isn't that difficult to do without courting some kind of negative
outcome (like a harassment claim)? Obviously one can only broach this
subject very discreetly with someone one knows reasonably well.
> Keep
>in mind, celibacy is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. (Just
>ask Stephen Fry.)
It certainly is (I keep telling myself). Who is Mr. Fry and why did he
choose to be celibate?
> Asexuality is a legitimate orientation, too.
There was an article about asexuality in a winter 1971 issue of either
the long-defunct Berkeley Barb or L.A. Free Press (forgot which issue)
by a (non-) practicing asexual. I've seen no other articles on that
subject before or since. (University Microfilms has a lot of
underground papers from the 60's and 70's on microfilm. The local
university's library has the collection). The author commented about
the time when his father bought him a bicycle, and the clerk asked if
he needed a boy's or girl's bike, the father said "I'm not sure". He
also went on to catalog the other kinds of indignities visited upon
him by straight society, not the least of which was the inability to
brag about one's sexual conquests (I hate that word) and the insults
that he had to take as a result.
--
"Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without Hell".
- bumper sticker seen in upstate NY
Visit the Bartlepage <http://www.spectra.net/~bartle>
Warning: All unsolicited commercial e-mail ("spam") will be deleted
without being read.
Troy Beukema
In article <5jqe76$8...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <5jq7v9$ibm$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
>Troy Beukema <t...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>>In article <335F8E...@cnsvax.albany.edu>,
>>>If you have decided that it is _lack of romance_ that is going to make
>>>you unhappy, then that is what you, and you alone, have decided.
>>
>>instinct beyond the control of concious reasoning. Happiness,
>>sadness, and emotional state in general is not independently
>>controllable through conscious reasoning process.
>
> i disagree, quite strongly. i know that is the prevailing
> idea, but i've seen it be not true for too many people who
> refused to languish in their emotional state to believe it
> anymore.
My key points are instinctive reactions of the mind/body and
independent control. I would counter, for instance, with the
observation that a person who is starving to death (foodwise) will
have a difficult time maintaining a cheery emotional outlook on life.
Some may be able to. Many won't be able to, I'll bet.
"Emotionally" starving to death (i.e., a "malnourished" mind/spirit)
is just as poignant and dangerous to many psyches that can't adapt to
a life situation which may not fulfill instinctive needs of social
acceptance/intimacy/interaction/"connectedness". Quite literally,
many of these individuals may die of broken hearts (kind of like the
inverse concept to psychoneuroimmunology : psychoneuropathology,
maybe).
> now, it's not something you can probably change
> in an instant, and it might well be a lot of work for any
> specific person and specific circumstance, but emotions are
> not out of our control.
I am not proferring the claim that emotions are completely out of our
control. I am saying that the partial derivative of emotive state
with respect to external circumstance is not zero. I am also saying
that the emotive state locus may be constrained such that a state of
happiness (or any other arbitrary emotive state) is not attainable,
given an arbitrary external circumstantial state. No one can simply
_choose_ to be happy/unhappy/etc. One can certainly _try_, but
success is neither guaranteed nor even implied, independent of the
degree to which one may exert effort.
> not everyone will be able to do it like trygve, who once
> said he could talk himself out of an infatuation in 15 mins,
Bully for him. Everyone is different.
> but i have talked myself out of infatuations with people who
> i knew would be terrible for me in days.
Likewise. Another one lasted 6-7 years. All bets are off with this
"infatuation" stuff, with me. Very unpredictable.
> if i wake up and
> i feel miserable i've learned which things i can do to stop
> feeling that way.
No argument. There is certainly a lot that one can do to help
influence one's own emotive state using simple bio-feedback
signals. Emotive gradient searchers R us. As an otherwise like-
minded control freak, I'm always experimenting on my psyche and
trying different things in search of cheering myself up when I'm
down, etc. I'm almost always there when I need me. :). [stole that
line].
> a lot of it is behaviour modification,
> which might at first feel counter-intuitive. but behaviour
> can affect motivation, maybe not as strongly as the other
> way around. some of it is reasoning with myself and push-
> ing myself towards an attitude i'd rather sport.
Nicely put. (as the piranha suck-up machine "overload" indicator
needle slowly creeps toward the danger zone).
> no, it's not always worth it, and no, it doesn't work very
> well if one is clinically depressed, but i do believe that
> lots of people could learn to be less of a slave to their
> emotions.
Maybe that is part of the maturing/growing up process. At certain
times in a person's life, however, particularly when the hormones are
flowing in raging torrents, it seems that there is very little that
one can do to stop being a slave to some instinctive/biological
drives which are conspiring to get you to reproduce, etc. This is
independent of psychological societal/peer pressures, which only
helps to burden the slave with even stronger "coupling" incentive.
> that said, i think there are people who will not
> want to dicker with their emotions.
Takes an independent, do-it-yourselfer attitude, maybe. Lots of
people are very passive in this respect and seem to want to go
to the doctor to help blow their noses. Others (like me) probably
push the independence/self-heal concept too far.
> and while it may be
> painful, sometimes it's much more comfortable to stick with
> what you have grown familiar over the years. we are pretty
> big creatures of habit.
I think this is more reflective of a mental retreat into a "safety"
zone wherein one minimizes the risk of getting hurt emotionally by
going ouside of the well known, protective "emotional home" that one
has built up for oneself over one's lifetime. It may be cold in that
home, but it may be even more uncomfortable and dangerous outside;
who knows. That is the trap that I believe "freezes" a lot of people
into virtual social rigor-mortis who could have otherwise led far
more "interactive" lives.
Troy
--
It would be illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable
-- Spock, "The Enterprise" Incident", stardate 5027.3
Tony Quirke
Matthew Daly <mwd...@kodak.com> wrote:
> Having dutifully read "You Just Don't Understand", I would put forward
> that masculine-style friendships are typically a constant battle of
> oneupsmanship to set heirarchical rankings.
You misread it, you illiterate baboon. As any even *half* intelligent
reader can plainly tell, she states that *all* male communication is for
the purposes of setting hierarchical rankings. If you weren't such a
dweeb, you'd be able to remember that.
- Tony Q. (No, wait a minute. I'm thinking of some other book. I've never
*read* _YJDU_)
--
"A healthy society should be a community of persons: the members of
the society are responsible and autonomous individual persons, but feel
committed in solidarity to the whole of society, respect and serve the
common good ("commonwealth") and are connected [to each other]" - L Lukacs
Ogre
In article <5k0r0l$b...@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>,
Tony Quirke <qui...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>Matthew Daly <mwd...@kodak.com> wrote:
>
>> Having dutifully read "You Just Don't Understand", I would put forward
>> that masculine-style friendships are typically a constant battle of
>> oneupsmanship to set heirarchical rankings.
>
> You misread it, you illiterate baboon. As any even *half* intelligent
>reader can plainly tell, she states that *all* male communication is for
>the purposes of setting hierarchical rankings. If you weren't such a
>dweeb, you'd be able to remember that.
>
>- Tony Q. (No, wait a minute. I'm thinking of some other book. I've never
>*read* _YJDU_)
You must have been thinking about "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense".
--
"Most people learn from their past mistakes and in future
lives go on to grow into better people. Others, who don't,
become ogres." - E. A. Scarborough, _The Godmother_
kmd
Rodney E. wrote:
>
> In soc.singles.moderated kmd <du...@dsmo.com> wrote:
>
> : Rodney E. wrote:
> : >
> : > In soc.singles.moderated Recovering Cynic kmd <du...@dsmo.com>
> : > said:
[years ago and far away]
> I wrote: "Shouldn't someone 26 years of age have a better class of
> problems by now?" I think that's a great line.
>
Heh. As do I. Reminds me strongly of the "bullshit teenage angst" line
from Heathe-- oops. Sorry. Couldn't resist. ;-)
> : I suck at grocery shopping, too.
>
> I think my love of grocery shopping stems from it being quality time
> with Mom in the early 1970s... it was exciting.
>
Cool. I'm jealous. I am beginning to realize the silliness of my
earlier tendency to run screaming from anything remotely resembling
traditional woman-type duties.
> OTOH I have to wonder how drawn I am to the "fight" aspect of
> attraction... a perhaps deliberate attraction to someone with a
> characteristic you can't stand... a challenge to break that person's
> will?
>
I definitely think I seek out challenges in sweeties -- and in all of my
close friendships, come to think of it. I don't think it has to be as
negatively characterized as "breaking someone's will," though. Depends
upon the nature of the challenge. From past experience, I hope I now
know better than to seek a challenge that involves a clash of
fundamentals.
This can also be turned completely on its head. Seeking a challenging
mate or friend can also be a way of challenging something in yourself
that you're not particularly comfortable with or fond of.
> : > Just Friends: Intimate conversations, lots of hugging, emotional
> : > contact, absolutely no sex.
>
> : Sure, ok. I have lots of friends like this. But the "absolutely no
> : sex" part is triggered by things like sexual orientation and
> : exclusive commitments to others -- *not* the existence of a close
> : friendship.
>
> I would have to go back in and specify that the just-friends are MOTAS,
> usually available, for the sake of this argument -- the "rejection"
> (and I use the term inadviseably) element has to be in play as well.
I think my first answer stands regardless of these qualifiers. The
existence of a close friendship is not a trigger for ruling someone out
as a potential sweetie.
(Tro^H^H^HCalling Mr. Quirke, calling Mr. Quirke ...) "Infinite lovers
have no 'private parts.' They do not regard their bodies as having
secret zones that can be exposed or made accessible to others for special
favors. It is not their bodies but their persons they make accessible to
others." (from :Finite and Infinite Games:, by James P. Carse).
> : > Lovers: Sex. No romance. No love letters, pet names, or flowers,
> : > just vacuous pleasure.
>
> : No friendship either, I'm guessing. So I'd have to say no way Jose.
> : Don't want none.
>
> I've run across more women who prefer my description than men, though.
> (YMMV.)
>
Mine definitely does vary. This is, in fact, at screaming odds with
standard gender stereotyping. I remember a quip quoted not too long ago
on this very ng in the Prostitution thread that men aren't paying
prostitutes for the sex they're paying them to go away afterward.
Not offering this as my own viewpoint, just a counterpoint.
> : > Romantic partners: Romance, watered-down sex,
>
> : Wha? Why would romance be associated with watered-down sex?
>
> Some of the women I'm thinking of associate the relationships they have
> with mediocrity and one-night-stands with excitement, and profess an
> envy for their friends who sleep around with disposable lovers.
>
Grass. Greener.
Doncha think?
> I'm saying that the true friendships are being reserved for people who
> they're not physically intimate with (when they are physically intimate
> with someone). It's that "Men are from Mars" mentality. (Check my
> passport, honey: I'm from Earth.)
>
A-hem. You ain't exactly showing a complete lack of gender-based
pigeonholing either, darlin'.
Which is not to say that tit-for-tat pigeonholing is somehow justified,
but ... a very wise and unflinchingly honest person in my life recently
gave me a whole load of glass houses & pot-kettle-black realizations wrt
my own baggage about What Men/Women Are Like. Aside from the relief of
getting rid of some major hypocrisies, I also like the practical results
of assuming and being open to a more realistic range of possibilities.
> : The three elements = romance, sex and friendship, right? The obvious
> : questions pop to mind here. How many women have you actually had a
> : RL conversation with about this? Where did you meet them? How old
> : were you/they?
>
> I've had conversations in the workplace with people in the 25-35 age
> group I'm in and I've had to truncate what I'd otherwise want to say
> out of diplomacy. In other words, not people in the Dating Pool, just
> acquaintances.
Ah. So not college-age, as I was assuming when I first read your
description. I could offer all kinds of elaborate speculation from my
own experience as to why people say idiotic things ... but I'll just
concede that it can be exceedingly frustrating to hear lots of idiotic
things.
[a not-so-close friend]
> (Yesterday she called me a 'typical male' because of my pro-nylon view,
> a lifetime first for me, boys and girls!)
>
While chuckling and wondering what the practical application is of a
"pro-nylon view," I also gotta admit that I'm amazed that this is the
first time that anyone's ever lobbed "typical male" at you in response to
something zie didn't like in what you said. My experience with these
types of accusations is that they often are a quick way out of a
disagreement, and a way to trivialize what the other person has said
without having to do any actual thinking.
> : Kewl. I promise not to do this to boys if you promise not to do this
> : to girls. We'll change the world.
>
> Why would I want to keep the three elements apart? I sometimes regret
> not having slept around in my twenties, but I don't regret passing up
> people who didn't qualify for all three.
Do you not see a connection between keeping the three elements apart and
your own statements about the impossibility of a friendship developing
into a love relationship? Or, for that matter, see the fundamental
problem in a characterization of the three elements as identifiably
separate?
--
Kristen