From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:57:02 GMT

 
in <1992Aug12.210524.15098@cs.ucla.edu>
    gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes
 
] In article <1992Aug12.070509.18027@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
]             tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
]
] >I'm not sure I understand you there--what is so strange about being a
] >"sensitive, 90's-type guy" and being able to live the way I do?  (Not
] >that I'm admitting to being a "sensitive 90's-type guy," mind you.
] >Besides, I've been the way I am since well before the 90's.)
]
] Nothing at all, actually.  I was just pointing out that the way you've
] decided to live is both pleasing to you, and has given you
] satisfactory results.  I know other guys who started out as sensitive,
] 90's-type guys, who never seemed to be able to attract women.  They
] got fed up and became jerks.  Next thing you know, they were
] attracting women.  However, they were unhappy because they realized
] they had to become jerks to attract women, instead of just being
] themselves.
 
Well, that's probably just because I'm much more stubborn than most--
I'm certainly not about to start backing off from my determination to
live life on my own terms just because it might not seem to be working
at first.  (After all, sooner or later the world will come around.)
 
] >In any case, it's very easy to idealize someone over the net--for
] >example, while I'm typing this, you can't see the dishes from breakfast
] >next to my desk that I still haven't returned to the kitchen or how long
] >it's been since I last dusted the lego block sculptures.
]
] Would you be bothered if you were idolized -- if people were building
] up fantasies about you that were not reality?  Several people in
] alt.romance.chat built up incredible fantasies about their net.lovers,
] until they actually got together, and the fantasy, along with the
] relationship, crumbled.
 
I'd probably worry about it just a bit, but on the whole, that's not too
serious a concern.  I certainly don't post anything about myself that
isn't true, but sometimes other people on soc.singles seem to react like
I've posted something extraordinary when, really, I'm a fairly ordinary
sort doing fairly ordinary things.  I do admit that it's crossed my mind
before that I'll meet someone off the net who will be expecting me to be
really incredible and will be disappointed to discover that I'm a pretty
regular guy, but so far this hasn't been a problem with the people I've
met off the net, so I suspect that soc.singlers are less prone to
letting their imaginations stray too far from reality than the ARCers.
 
Personally, I think it's a more realistic concern that, when two
net.lovers get together, there just won't be any "spark" or "magic"
between them, which really has little or nothing to do with how much
they idolize each other.
 
] >It's a start--but as I've said before, there really is no worldwide
] >shortage of sex; lots of people on soc.singles probably just don't
] >put themselves in situations where they would be likely to arise or,
] >when they do, they don't notice them (I get the impression that many
] >people here hardly ever even go to parties, for example).
]
] Well, it's possible that most people on soc.singles don't put
] themselves in positions where they can benefit from the great supply
] of sex, because their interests do not bring them into contact with
] the people who are willing to "supply" some of that sex.  The SF
] con/faire community is the only one I've ever heard of where this sort
] of thing goes on on a regular, or even semi-regular basis.  Most of
] the time, when one is in a social gathering, one might strike up a
] conversation with a MOTAS and get, at most, a phone number, and maybe
] arrange to get together at some later date.  I've just not heard of or
] experienced the level of instant intimacy you claim to get at the
] events you attend on a regular, or even semi-regular basis.
 
Well, actually, there are plenty of other groups like this--SCA events,
Rocky Horror midnight shows, bulletin board parties, coffee houses,
theater groups, bands and people who hang around with them, and lots of
social groups in which this sort of thing is pretty standard. Basically,
you just have to look for a group of people who are open and not
especially bound by social convention.  Now, I'm sure this sort of
social situation isn't something everyone is comfortable with, but
they're definitely out there.
 
] To repeat an earlier point, you can just be yourself, and have
] interactions with MOTAS that you enjoy.  Someone like Kevin wants to
] be himself, but hasn't been able to make the kinds of connections you
] have.  So, he posts articles to the net, asking what he needs to do to
] make the kinds of connections you (and others) do.
 
Yep--and, judging from his reactions, it sounds like several of the
suggestions happened to fit his interests rather well.
 
] >I'm pretty used to it [being left by people who are "healed"] by
] >now--and it's not like any sort of duplicity or insincerity is
] >involved.  I'm often told how safe I make people feel and how easy it
] >is to relax and feel that everything is all right with the world when
] >with me; that's an impression that is quite appealing to someone in
] >pain, someone feeling unsure and shaky emotionally.
]
] Do you feel that they see you as more of a healer and caretaker than a
] SO in your own right?  How does that make you feel?  (Like I said
] before, I'd feel hurt.)
 
Not at all, not at all--you see, none of this is in any way planned or
insincere; people feel the way they do and those feelings are every bit
as real whether or not their emotional needs change over time in a way
that changes those feelings.  In these situations, nobody has ever
approached me because she felt she wanted someone to help her heal;
instead it's a case of her having emotional needs predicated by her need
for healing and, in the context of her emotional state at the time, I
appeared very attractive.
 
Imagine that you'd just gotten out of a psychologically abusive
relationship and that you met someone who had a wonderful talent for
making you feel good about yourself.  That quality alone might be nearly
all you need to fall in love with her or at least find her really
appealing--yet, after you got back on your feet emotionally again,
perhaps discrepancies in your world views or ways that she just wasn't
"your type" might become more apparent and your interest in her would
decline, perhaps to the point where several other people start to look
much more appealing.  The fact that your needs can change and your
feelings with them doesn't mean that they were ever insincere or
dishonest.
 
] When you got involved with these MOTAS', were you aware of the fact
] that they were hurting?  If so, why'd you get involved with them,
] instead of just being their friend, and supporting them emotionally?
 
Lots of reasons--sometimes I started out being just their friend and,
after being pursued for quite some time, decided that she was really
nifty and appealing, and decided to get involved (keep in mind that it's
not like I've gotten involved with every woman I've met who happens to
be hurting--indeed, more often than not, I do stay "just friends").
Also, I'm not very likely to reject someone solely because she had been
through a series of bad relationships.
 
] >Yet, after a time of healing, the excitement and danger of someone
] >who isn't always dependable and reliable, who doesn't make one feel
] >"safe and relaxed" may suddenly look much more appealing.  It's not a
] >conscious or planned thing and it's not as if they didn't want the
] >relationship to be an ongoing one; it's just that people's needs
] >change with time and perhaps I can flatter myself and say that it's a
] >tribute to my ability to put people back together that they do leave
] >so soon.
]
] Have you ever been involved with someone who wasn't involved with you
] just because you made them feel "safe and relaxed"; who wasn't trying
] to get over a hurt and looking for support?  If so, how did those
] relationships differ from the ones you've described?
 
Yep, though those relationships are a lot more varied and don't share
many common patterns.  Even those, however, share the trait that they
end almost immediately after "I love you" is uttered, again regardless
of who says it.
 
] It's nice to be able to "put people back together", but what about
] your needs?  When you're hurting, do these MOTAS help you get "back
] together"?
 
Actually, yes--they stay on as friends who are there for me when I need
something (plus I have lots of good and supportive friends that I've
never been romantically involved with).
 
] Is it important to you when you first get involved with these people
] that you know if they are in a "wanting/needing to be healed" stage or
] in a "healed and ready to be in a more permanent relationship" stage?
 
I can't say that that's ever been my primary concern--I usually go with
how I feel about the person in question without a great deal of regard
for questions like that.  This may not be the wisest way, but if I
didn't, I think I'd have a lot more regrets about people I didn't give a
chance to.
 
] Why do you suppose these people leave you, rather than build upon the
] relationship that you've developed?
 
Lots of reasons, I'm sure, including plenty that I haven't thought of
yet.  Primarilly, they just find someone else who happens to provide a
better "fit" to their current needs and desires.  Secondarilly, perhaps
they reach a point where they want to begin "a new life" and it's
important to sweep away reminders of their old lives, including our
relationship.
 
Trygve

Newsgroups: soc.singles