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: Sun, 16 Aug 92 15:56:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.210021.20388@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>Well, it says that my priorities are a little different than most--
>namely that I valued my personal freedom enough to put in several
>years of 14-hour days starting in my teens to create my current
>situation [wealth].

But you were also fortunate enough to have a market (or create one)
for whatever you were doing to enable you to become wealthy.  In this
lousy economy, there are people who work 14 hour days (even in their
teens) to scrape up enough money to live on.  That makes you
exceptional.

>I have more freedom and more
>security than most people have, but otherwise there's little that's
>extraordinary.

Note I said in my last message that your being wealthy doesn't mean
you don't do ordinary things, etc.  It makes you extraordinary from
the standpoint of being able to choose how you will live.  I think
many people would like the choices you have available to you, and only
a few of them will be able to accomplish this.  That's extraordinary.

>Which is probably good, because most people might well be uncomfortable
>or disapproving of the type of behavior I'm describing; however, for
>those who are looking for that sort of atmosphere, it's easy to find. 

It may (even though I tend to disagree) be easy to find places where
this sort of behavior goes on, but that doesn't mean when one gets
there they're going to be allowed to participate in the activity.

>(I still find it hard to believe that "subtle" offers like that are so
>unusual--as far as I can tell, people have been doing things like that
>since puberty; I remember things like that as far back as junior high.)

I think the problem here is your use of "subtle".  As Allison said in
a previous message (paraphrased), this sort of thing is considered
"subtle" in the crowd you run with.  (I'd be curious to see what
something "direct" was.)  In other groups, it might be considered
explicit, or ambiguous.

>Well, I've never done a formal study, but it's seemed so close to 
>universal wherever I've gone, I just find it hard to believe that
>they're uncommon.

That's because you tend towards groups and events at which "subtle"
offers are likely to occur.

>Offhand, it seems more likely that people on
>soc.singles are just more likely than most not to spend time with
>such groups (indeed, many of them seem to avoid all groups that
>include MOTOS). 

You're probably right about the first comment (and I would say that is
generally true for the entire populace).  As for the second, I
couldn't say, not knowing the social activities of many of the
netters.  Since a fair amount of them have expressed interest in, and
actually attended boinks, I'd say there is a rather large contingent
of people who are attending parties with men and women present.

>Well, your approach is probably wiser than mine--I tend to go with my
>feelings at any given point, giving my emotional reactions more weight
>than a logical appraisal of the circumstances.

It is my emotional reactions that are telling me not to get involved
with people who have just gotten out of an abusive relationship.

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.singles