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: Wed, 12 Aug 92 21:05:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.070509.18027@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>Basically, I go [to cons] for the people, rather than the events--and
>I suspect a lot of other people are there for the people more than
>the events as well.

OK

>See, you've got a built-in conversation starter already.  You just need
>to go to the con and whisper a few words about "Lord of the Rings" into
>the ear of the woman dressed as a nubile young elf-maiden and see what
>happens.

Hmmm, well, I'd just want to discuss it with whoever else wanted to,
either male or female.  It wouldn't be a come-on, or anything like
that.

I don't really identify with a Tolkien character any more, so I
probably wouldn't go costumed as one.  I'm not really into costumes
in general.

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

>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.)

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?

>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?

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"?

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?
Why do you suppose these people leave you, rather than build upon the
relationship that you've developed?

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.singles