From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:15:36 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>   You should admit that your feelings do not generalize into "the" theory that
>   *everyone must accept*. The first step is to ask why you are uncomfortable
>   *in yourself* about having your desirability reflected to you. Everyone is
>   a sexual creature. Can we admit this and get to the 1st verbal exchange of
>   our interaction, on the idea that *maybe* just because the sexual currents
>   are there does *not* mean that is all that is in the *man's* mind?

>Yeah, Eric, we've heard it all before.  You think that any woman you are
>interested in should be grateful for the privilege and you can't
>understand why they aren't.

Have I said this to you? No. These are your images formed from your reading
other of my posts through your own lenses. I don't mind your attacking the
image that you attack; I just mind your saying that it's my image, since
it isn't.

>I am not at all uncomfortable about being desirable; in fact, I enjoy it
>quite a lot...when it is *me* that the person desires.  When it is
>someone like yourself, who will take the first female that holds still
>long enough, I find it extremely repellent, and I do not feel that they
>are making any statement about my desirability, but only about their
>desperation.

She only has to stand still long enough to begin to engage with me as a
person. If she is desirable to look at, if that's what attracted me to
her to begin with, then once I arrive in her vicinity, it's kind of stupid
for her to turn tail and run because she *figured out* that her physical
attractiveness had anything to do with my being *attracted* to her. You like
to smear men as regards their reflexes here, at the same time as you prize
your attractiveness.
I believe Eric Berne coined the term "Rapo Game" for this attitude:
"Come get me, and fuck yourself when you arrive." Hey - thanks a lot. Makes
me feel good to be a sexual human being. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.

>My feelings generalize a heck of a lot better than yours; I actually pay
>attention to how other people feel.  Try it sometime - you might
>suddenly have more success getting people to like you.

You don't know anything about my feelings, as I've said.
You don't *want* to know anything about my feelings, and I don't mind;
but you keep wanting to say what *my* feelings are, then attacking them on
that basis. Sorry, that's not honest. You have no basis to make a "better
than yours" statement. I pay a great deal of attention to other people's
feelings - *when* they begin to acknowledge my existence as other than their
appendage. Enough people like me, thank God, that I don't have to look to
you for acceptance. Your condition for that acceptance, so far as I can
tell, would be to flatter you endlessly, while annihilating myself.

-------

To people here who wonder why I hold Muffy in a certain special regard -
here is a person who says to me, in essence - "I don't need to know anything
about you, yet I feel free to pass judgement upon you." I find it irksome
for a person to pass themselves off as wise, who can't see themselves in
a roomful of mirrors. I'm open to being EXTENSIVELY questioned about my
values and my experience, and am open to admitting whatever may have
contributed to false perceptions that I might carry. I have yet to see
Muffy *once* inquire as to *my* beliefs before attacking them for what she
says they are, or to *once* question any of her own beliefs - e.g., "I might
be wrong, and I will think about." - or "I don't know." - or even "maybe".
When someone deviates from her philosophy, she makes them wrong - "you *could*
hold so-and-so view [but that would make you shallow.]" People are much too
complex to be treated this way.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men