From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Attraction & traits (was Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend)
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:24:07 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>I'm saying that I
>>do not find it appealing when a single quality (or even a pair of
>>qualities, such as poly and bi) are *sufficient* for this person to want
>>me, without knowing anything more about me.  In that case, they don't
>>want *me* they would take ANY person with those qualities. ...
>
>	Take you?  Perhaps being 'bi and poly' are sufficient to generate
>interest, though you can't ignore the fact that you are also 
>reasonably attractive.  So lets take 'bi, poly and attractive'.  This
>should not be sufficient for someone to be interested in you?

   I think there's an issue of *undirected* interest - I don't like feeling
like I am merely being fitted into a slot of "someone who posseses the right
set of characteristics".

   I *am* more than the sum of my parts. Any interest that seems to be
looking at these parts, even if it's a large proportion of the parts that
make me, is not interest in *me*. It feels like someone studying my genetic
chart at a distance and saying "Wow! I've got to meet this person!".


>The fact is, there is going to be some set of features that will draw
>people initially.  

   Suppose someone's list wanted a potential partner to be Bi, Poly,
attractive, 20-something, tall, a Cog. Sci. wannabe, a musical composer, etc...
in fact, having a list of characteristics that happened to describe me
*exactly*. Still I would feel quite uncomfy, for I would feel that my
attraction lay merely in fitting the list. I would have the suspicion that,
as Muffy says, *anyone* who fits the bill would do.

   *Undirected* interest is one thing. I can quite truthfully say that
I'm interested in people based on very little info about them. But this
interest in not an interest in *them* - it is an interest in finding out
more about them, in getting to know them well enough that I *can* decide
if I am interested in *them*.

   People who seem not to make this distinction make me very uncomfy.

   Women who are Bi & Poly have an additional context that's relevant
here. It is so common a male fantasy, the idea of "having two women",
that were I female, Bi & Poly I would be *extra* suspicious of attention
that has any plausible connection to these attributes. I am not saying
that this is limited to ignorant harassment from clueless male hetboys...
but I imagine that it's probably very easy to feel that way. (But I'm
wary of *proscriptive* descriptions...).


>	Now I can understand your dissatisfaction if all they were ever
>interested in was the fact that you were bi, poly and attractive, since
>that isn't alot to base much of any relationship on.  But having those
>items as initial attracters I don't see as being wrong or horrible.

   I'm struggling to find the words. I think the issue for me is about
just seeing me in terms of attributes *at all*. I tend to see people as
indivisible gestalts - every "part" is a crucial component of the whole,
but nevertheless I am simply unable to narrow my focus to just notice that
someone is, say, "Bi", or "Poly".

   This is not to say that I don't make value judgements about these and
many other "parts" that it's possible to possess...but these are more
judgements of a "sanity-preserving" nature - I (sometimes incorrectly)
judge that the presence or absence of various characteristics makes for
trouble ahead. For example, if someone is vigorously Poly-unfriendly,
well, I shan't bother pursuing them as more than a friend (and if they're
*really* Poly-unfriendly, well, not *even* as a friend).

   Hmmm. I suspect I haven't put all this very well...


>the question remains -- what
>makes up 'you'?  I would gather that anything you can come up with will
>be a list of traits, likes and dislikes that you have -- that someone
>else *could* have.

   William - that hits it *precisely* on the head for me. That's why I
*don't* work with descriptions in terms of traits, likes & dislikes -
because somewhere along the way, I lose what was *them*. And I'm left with
a list that really doesn't capture just *who* they are to me.

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory