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: Sat, 15 Aug 92 21:00:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.004755.18955@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.185702.28361@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>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.
>
>Well, I guess that you consider these things ordinary, because you do
>them all the time.  However, I would disagree that you are an ordinary
>sort.  For one thing, you are independently wealthy, which makes you
>extraordinary, if only in the sense that you are better equipped to
>create the environment in which you live than others.  (This is not to
>say that you aren't a down-to-earth person, or anything like that.)

Well, it says that my priorities are a little different than most--
namely that I valued my personal freedom enough to put in several
years of 14-hour days starting in my teens to create my current
situation.  Now I have more freedom to decide how to spend my time
and a greater range of options than some people have, but the things
I decide to do are still fairly modest--I still wear t-shirts and
sweats, I still do my own cooking (and buy things on sale and in
bulk), and I still clip coupons.  I have more freedom and more
security than most people have, but otherwise there's little that's
extraordinary.

>>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.
>
>These only represent a small fraction of the set of groups and
>activities that people socialize in.  (As an aside, I've never been to
>a coffee house where people were giving "subtle" offers like you get.)

Which is probably good, because most people might well be uncomfortable
or disapproving of the type of behavior I'm describing; however, for
those who are looking for that sort of atmosphere, it's easy to find. 
(I still find it hard to believe that "subtle" offers like that are so
unusual--as far as I can tell, people have been doing things like that
since puberty; I remember things like that as far back as junior high.)

>>Basically, you just have to look for a group of people who are open
>>and not especially bound by social convention.
>
>I'd modify that to looking for a group of people who are openly
>physically affectionate and not inhibited in expressing their sexual
>feelings.

Fair enough.

>>Now, I'm sure this sort of social situation isn't something everyone
>>is comfortable with, but they're definitely out there.
>
>Oh, I never claimed they don't exist.  I just don't believe there are
>as many of those situations out there as you do.

Well, I've never done a formal study, but it's seemed so close to 
universal wherever I've gone, I just find it hard to believe that
they're uncommon.  Offhand, it seems more likely that people on
soc.singles are just more likely than most not to spend time with
such groups (indeed, many of them seem to avoid all groups that
include MOTOS). 

>Well, if I had just gotten out of a psychologically abusive
>relationship, I would be highly unlikely to get into another
>relationship until I felt like I was emotionally stable.  That would
>enable me to avoid the situation you describe above, because I
>wouldn't fall in love with the person in question.  Instead, I would
>appreciate their emotional support.  Once I got back on my feet again,
>if she was still around, and I felt like there was a bond between us,
>and we were meeting each other's needs, maybe I'd fall in love (or at
>least like).
>
>I also tend to avoid getting involved with people who've just gotten
>out of psychologically abusive relationships, for exactly the reason
>you've described.  Too many times, they leave when they're back on
>their feet.  Instead, I offer them emotional support if they want it.
>Once they've gotten themselves together, we explore a romantic
>relationship if it seems right.

Well, your approach is probably wiser than mine--I tend to go with my
feelings at any given point, giving my emotional reactions more weight
than a logical appraisal of the circumstances.  I probably get hurt 
more often this way, but I'm pretty sturdy and willing to risk getting
hurt.

Trygve

Newsgroups: soc.singles