From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: too funky
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 00:47:55 GMT

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'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.
>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.)

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

--gregbo