From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: A (new?) twist on LJBF
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 19:27:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.023732.1524756@zeus.calpoly.edu> jemenake@zeus.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
>
>Now, I don't know if I'm speaking for the rest of the males here, but it
>seems to me that the problem arises from the fact that only one party seems
>to have to adjust. For example, Brad wants to be romanticly involved with
>Janet. So, Janet conter-attacks with a LJBF. :-) Now, assuming that she
>DOES want to be friends, she's basically asking that he do his part to make
>the relationship be what SHE wants it to be... regardless of any other
>feelings HE has to contend with. She intends to go right on drawing
>happiness from this "friendship" while Brad will be constantly torn by the
>fact that he's supressing the feelings that make him want more. Brad's the
>only one left with any real burden here, it seems to me. So, to me, the
>problem with LJBF is that it's kind of an unreasonable, if not selfish,
>thing to ask: that the OTHER person alter THEIR desires to conform to
>yours.
>
>This is nothing really new. The thing my sister brought up reverses the
>roles, though. "What about these 'guys who won't commit' to their
>girlfriends who want marriage?", she pointed out. Damn good point, I think.
>In that case, it's usually the woman who wants to make the relationship
>something more and it's the GUY who is pleased as punch just to leave it as
>it is... expecting the woman just to be done with these silly thoughts of
>marriage.
>
>It really opened my eyes. I guess it is just as crappy of a thing to do;
>for a man to spurn his SO's desires for commitment. Anyway, I thought it
>might help some of the netters see the other side of the coin.

The problem I have with calling either of these situations "crappy,
selfish, unreasonable" and all that is that, implicit in this moral
judgment is that one person's feelings impose an obligation on another
person.  I reject this assumption entirely--your feelings are your own
responsibility and not the responsibility of those around you:  if you
have a crush on someone, this does not confer an obligation on him or
her to date you or sleep with you any more than your disliking someone
would obligate that person to flagelate him- or herself or leap off a
cliff.

In general, interactions between two humans are limited to the range 
of things that both parties want and are comfortable with--if one
person is comfortable with more things than the other, the other is
the one who is going to seem to be setting the terms.  Suppose you
walk into a store, wanting to buy a squeegee sharpener--the storekeeper
would like to sell you the squeegee sharpener, but he'd also like to
sell you a dozen left-handed allen wrench sets and just over twelve
thousand back issues of "National Geographic" (Braille edition).  You,
however, don't want anything but the squeegee sharpener and, no matter
how much the shopkeeper wants to sell you the other fine items, you
buy only the sharpener.  Nothing immoral or terrible has taken place,
just two people interacting in the ways both are comfortable with.

Trygve