From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Wannabees (was Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 04:15:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.153911.269@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>In article <JULIE.92Dec10175618@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>>
>>  You're
>>describing situations where the woman is treating him as a confidante
>>and a friend, and he's feeling like she owes it to him to go out with
>>him because he thinks she should.  That's manipulative and immature, in 
>>my opinion, and not the way a friend acts.  Sure, I've had friends I
>>wanted more from, but I've thought of it as _my_ problem, not theirs,
>>and would never describe it in the resentful tones you do.  They don't
>>owe me love or sex.  If I can't deal with it, I'm not really a friend.
>
>A person can get damn pissed when he repeatedly hears the "my man treats
>me so bad" blues, alternating with the "I ain't got me no man" blues,
>from somebody who is well aware of your interest in her, and how much
>you care about her as a person, yet cannot look at you as a prospect.
>A body can also get quite pissed when he is the one who is always getting
>the call to do those things that"Romeo" should be doing for her.  I do not
>intend to play "second fiddle" ever again in this lifetime.  I do not
>intend to "pick up the slack" for the shortcomings of another man ever
>again in this life.  If that sounds resentful, then so be it.  Just so we
>are clear on this, I never said that I could not be friends with someone
>who did not have the same attraction for me as I for her.....I just said
>that I would not be spending loads of time with her.  If she wants to cry
>the "I ain't got me no man" blues, she can take that action to her
>girlfriends.  If her man is treating her badly, then she has to work that
>out with him.  If she wants to call somebody at 2am because she is in some
>sort of jam, then she has parents, girlfriends and/or an SO that she can call
>first.  If that sounds manipulative, or immature, then so be it.  A person
>has to look out for his own interests in a relationship, short of
>"stickin' it" to the other person(s) involved.  I have my own life, thank you!
>I also believe that there are some subjects that a woman should best discuss
>with her girlfriends, or maybe with a man who definately _does not_ have
>eyes for her, rather than with a man who plainly _does_ have eyes for her.
>These subjects include, but are not restricted to the ones that I have
>listed above, including this next one (my personal favorite, BTW), the
>"my man really whups it on me in bed" jazz, or the "I'm so horny, I could
>scream" jazz.  It has been my experience (mind you, it could just be that
>I have been "just friends" with the "wrong" women) is that when a man has
>been around a given woman long enough as a "just friend", then she just 
>sort of "adopts" him as a "surrogate girlfriend", and will discuss with
>him any subject that she might discuss with her girlfriends.  It is as
>if she "forgets" that you are a man. As for me, I ain't "down" with that.

Personally, I'm with Julie on this one--I've been in many friendships
with women whom I've been attracted to and as long as they were willing
to be honest with me about their lack of interest it's never been a
problem.  What I look for in a romantic partner includes what I look for
in a friend, so why should I be willing to give up so many potential
close friendships simply because I happen to find them physically
attractive?  (Actually, the attraction is a small but enjoyable bonus.)

Most people are capable of having lots more friends than lovers--indeed,
there are enough attractive MOTAS out there that few would have time to
be romantically involved with all of them--so why deplete your pool of
potential friends more than you need to?

Trygve 
Newsgroups: soc.singles