4803 lines
158 KiB
Plaintext
4803 lines
158 KiB
Plaintext
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 21:56:32
|
||
Message Number 16302
|
||
|
||
SA>I wouldn't trade my kids for all the Ferraris in Florida
|
||
TS>No? How about just one or two? Hell, I would.
|
||
|
||
This, coming from a man who HAS no children.......
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 21:58:07
|
||
Message Number 16303
|
||
|
||
Perhaps what Turtle is trying to say is that a relationship does NOT
|
||
have to be a monagomous one to be sucessful.... that may well work for
|
||
some people but I believe that most people desire a one on one
|
||
relationship.... a non monogamous relationship could only work if BOTH
|
||
parties agreed to it and were very secure with themselves... I mean, if
|
||
you truly love someone.... you tend to want to keep them to yourself...
|
||
it's hard to think of them being intimate with anyone else... at least,
|
||
it is for me.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: names
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:01:54
|
||
Message Number 16304
|
||
|
||
T>Actually, that's "ploymorphonuclearlucocyte"
|
||
|
||
Picky picky picky
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Names?
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:03:01
|
||
Message Number 16305
|
||
|
||
Goldenrod is also the nickname that Han Solo tagged onto C-3-P-O on
|
||
Star Wars.... I don't know how that's at all relevant.... I just felt
|
||
like saying it...... 4 days in bed has made me strange......
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:04:55
|
||
Message Number 16306
|
||
|
||
Turtle, how can we hope to save our Rainforests in this lifetime....
|
||
hopefully, my children and my childrens children will continue to fight
|
||
for the precious things worth saving on this earth... the new generation
|
||
is much more alert to the ecology than the past generations have been...
|
||
you can't make me believe that I have done anything wrong by bringing
|
||
life into this world.... My children WILL NOT be destructive, overblown
|
||
simians..... and there is nothing pale or shallow about bearing and
|
||
raising children......
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Flicker noise
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:09:45
|
||
Message Number 16307
|
||
|
||
Yes I see why Flicker Noise was a good comparison...
|
||
It's funny you should make that statement about couples who seem
|
||
perfectly happy then WHAMMY.... I just found out another couple I know
|
||
are getting a divorce... they were like... very very lovey dovey all
|
||
the time.. did everything together, been married 2 years..... I mean
|
||
real Thirtysomething type couple.... I asked "her" why, she said they
|
||
are breaking up because she wants children and he doesn't.... "He" told
|
||
me that "all she ever talks about are kids, kids, kids. and he wants
|
||
to wait until they pay off their car (2 years).... I dunno. They were
|
||
like all over each other week before last.... and now, the papers are
|
||
already filed....... beats me..... so much for compromise and trying to
|
||
work things out......
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Say what?
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:14:47
|
||
Message Number 16308
|
||
|
||
No one should have to tolerate jealousy and dishonesty, Turtle...
|
||
Trust is a very valuable thing in a relationship that must be earned...
|
||
if there is a great deal of jealousy and dishonesty, then trust isn't
|
||
going to be there..... it doesn't grow well in that environment.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: <continuing>
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:19:36
|
||
Message Number 16309
|
||
|
||
I love it when you rant and rave.... you brought up some very good
|
||
points and educated me on a few things..... I never stopped to think
|
||
about the car vs sex death issue.... yeah, I drive everyday and I'm sure
|
||
that I have a much better chance of dying in a car accident than by
|
||
a sexually transmitted illness even if I slept around...
|
||
It's like back in the late 70's when Jaws came out.... no one wanted to
|
||
go swimming.... they were certain that there was this big shark lurking
|
||
under the water waiting to grab them.... they built shark towers and thi
|
||
guy with a whistle would yell and blow his whistle whenever a shark was
|
||
sighted... well, there are sharks all over the beaches and always have
|
||
been.... and exactly how many people ever really get attacked by a
|
||
shark? Not many....... but I guess the difference is.... when you are
|
||
driving, you are in control... even if an accident happens.... you are
|
||
in control of that vehicle.... you can't control a shark.... you can't
|
||
control a sexually transmitted illness. Does that make any sense....?
|
||
Probably not.... I think it's the painkillers.....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: ODEN
|
||
Subject: Kiwi Fruits
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:30:41
|
||
Message Number 16310
|
||
|
||
OD>(on Kiwi Fruit)next time you are at the supermarket, pick one up and
|
||
fondle it. bet you will make a weird face and put it down promptly
|
||
(unless you like ape balls)
|
||
|
||
God, I'll never be able to handle the produce department again.... I'll
|
||
break into uncontrollable laughter everytime I walk into Publix....
|
||
they'll think I'm nuts......
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: fruits
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:33:13
|
||
Message Number 16311
|
||
|
||
Drf>what about parts of speech?
|
||
|
||
Dangling participle? (I don't even know if I spelled that right)
|
||
verb (hmmm Hi, my name is Verb).
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Kiddies
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:35:35
|
||
Message Number 16312
|
||
|
||
Drf>...another friend of mine was also in the hospital, getting a cyst
|
||
removed....
|
||
|
||
She has My Sympathy!!! Ug! this /hasn't/ been fun.. but it's the closest
|
||
thing to a vacation I've had in over a year!!!!!!
|
||
|
||
Drf>Hope die Kinder don't drive mommy crazy.
|
||
|
||
Actually, my mother (bless her heart) has taken one of the kids off my
|
||
hands since the surgery so I only have to deal with one during the day.
|
||
She took Val (the 4 yr old) the first couple of days then Marshall went
|
||
with Daddy fishing yestarday and Mom had him today... so it's really
|
||
been rather relaxing.... like only having one child and no job!!!!!
|
||
Tomarrow, the fantasy is over.... I have to go back to work! Blah!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: You're Preggers
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:42:56
|
||
Message Number 16313
|
||
|
||
(Saavik wobbles up, fork sticking out of her stomach) Here! (pulls fork
|
||
out and hands it to Scott Steel) Don't jinx me.... I am not allowed to
|
||
get pregnant..... I'd have a hell of a time explaining it to Glenn since
|
||
he had a vasectomy last year!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:46:39
|
||
Message Number 16314
|
||
|
||
SS>To make a more obvious point, if one of your lovers in an open
|
||
relationship decides to remain faithful to one of her other lovers,
|
||
then she has just changed something in your relationship.
|
||
|
||
Very good point.... Open relationships between two people seem to
|
||
constantly change... I mean, how long can it go on that way without
|
||
one of the partners finding someone whom they are very attracted to
|
||
who wants a monogamous relationship? It's bound to happen.... sooner
|
||
or later.........
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Seriously now
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:53:24
|
||
Message Number 16315
|
||
|
||
You are too busy making spelling errors to correct them.......
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: HACMAN
|
||
Subject: SERIOUS PROBLEM
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:58:32
|
||
Message Number 16316
|
||
|
||
Burney is right..... as long as two people are willing to sacrifice and
|
||
make it last...... it can and will.... but most people get tired and
|
||
selfish, they just don't stick it out through the lumps and bumps of
|
||
ANY relationship... not just marriage... any relationship brother/sister
|
||
mother/child, best friends, ANY relationship is going to have it's share
|
||
of ups and downs.....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: HACMAN
|
||
Subject: Birth
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 23:01:01
|
||
Message Number 16317
|
||
|
||
I don't knock someone for not wanting children of their own... it kinda
|
||
irks me when someone says they "personally hate kids," though... how
|
||
can anyone HATE children.... I mean yeah, maybe they can make someone
|
||
uncomfortable, or maybe, as you, they don't have the desire to have any
|
||
of their own.....
|
||
But to Hate children.... just seems like there is
|
||
something evil and twisted about that.... I dunno.......
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: HACMAN
|
||
Subject: doby
|
||
Date & Time: 04/29/91 23:03:35
|
||
Message Number 16318
|
||
|
||
If he's swallowing plastic, erg!, don't give him anymore, that's for
|
||
sure.... I buy bones (real bones) really cheap from publix...(ask the
|
||
guy behind the counter, some will, some won't)... the dogs love them
|
||
and they are really good for them too. Keeps them busy for hours...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: ODEN
|
||
Subject: Kiwi Fruits
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 00:06:16
|
||
Message Number 16319
|
||
|
||
You're gross... You wouldn't catch me dead fondling kiwi fruit!
|
||
|
||
- Or cocoanuts either -
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: 1=1
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 00:22:46
|
||
Message Number 16320
|
||
|
||
DF>We learned very quickly in our relationship that we CAN'T b
|
||
everything to each other... but that it didn't matter.
|
||
|
||
No 2 people are everything for each other, whether they be friends or
|
||
spouses.Think about your friends, do you share the same interests or
|
||
likes/ dislikes with all of them? No, I very much doubt it.
|
||
|
||
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 00:35:31
|
||
Message Number 16321
|
||
|
||
TS> What ythe hell's a "physically intimate, close, non-sexual relation-
|
||
ship?
|
||
|
||
It is a relationship where body contact exists, whether it be a hug or a
|
||
kiss. It can exist between 2 people that are close friends. The above
|
||
mentioned 'acts' are usually given for assurance, condolance, or other
|
||
reasons as they arise.
|
||
|
||
Anyone care to elaborate further?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: dating
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 01:27:35
|
||
Message Number 16322
|
||
|
||
PW> I didn't start dating until I was 16...
|
||
T> Hell, I didn't start 'til I was 18. I did take two girls to the
|
||
senior prom, though.
|
||
|
||
And now he is like the energizer bunny . . . . . ......
|
||
I guess I should not say things like this with the discussion going on
|
||
the board.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: cars
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 01:50:24
|
||
Message Number 16323
|
||
|
||
>As for cars in general, I don't like any of the cars that have been
|
||
>produced in the past several years.
|
||
|
||
I do. The Acura NSX, the Infinity Q45, the Lamborghini Diablo, the
|
||
Acura Legend, the Mazda Miata, the Porsche Carrera 2 and Carrera 4,
|
||
the Porsche PanAmericana, the Ferrari Testarossa...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 01:54:04
|
||
Message Number 16324
|
||
|
||
>If the relationship is set up with sexual fidelity in the mind of
|
||
>both partners, that's a part of the trust.
|
||
|
||
No shit. If I were involved in such a relationship, I would be
|
||
absolutely faithful to my partner--and I would have /no/ tolerance for
|
||
lack of faith on my partner's end. The point I am trying to make is
|
||
simply that an open relationship can work, and if your prospective
|
||
partner would like such a relationship that is not immediate grounds
|
||
for terminating all contact with that person. The attitude that a
|
||
relationship must, or even "should," be founded on sexual fidelity is
|
||
Manifest Bullshit--especially when the people involved will /claim/
|
||
that their relationship isn't based on sex while still behaving as
|
||
though it were.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: fruits
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 01:58:17
|
||
Message Number 16325
|
||
|
||
Yeah, parents with odd last names can be rather cruel to their hapless
|
||
offspring, as the rather famous twins Ima and Ura Hogg can testify.
|
||
(Yep, these are real people...) Man, some people's parents should just
|
||
be shot.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 01:59:53
|
||
Message Number 16326
|
||
|
||
>It is pure foolishness to allow yourself to get very close to someone
|
||
>who has other lovers, you are virtually guaranteed to get hurt.
|
||
|
||
I can say with absolute conviction, based on years of personal
|
||
experience, that that statement is patently, iredeemably false. I am
|
||
quite proud of the fact that Kelly and I have not only outlasted most
|
||
marriages as a couple, but we also share more intimacy than anyone else
|
||
I have ever met, and we still behave like a couple of newbies--very
|
||
affectionate, you know? Well, guess what...we've both had other lovers.
|
||
Surprise! It's done a lot of good for us, too; I can honestly say we're
|
||
both more intimate with one another and more solidly together because of
|
||
it. Your statement sounds nice in theory, kind of like "you can only
|
||
love one person at a time" or "if s/he wants other lovers it must mean
|
||
I'm not adequate/not good enough/whatever"...all those statements that
|
||
sound so good because they reinforce preconceived ideas that have been
|
||
hammered into us since day one...but in the real world, it just ain't
|
||
so. Yes, you CAN get hurt in an open relationship. So what? You can get
|
||
hurt in a closed relationship. Yes, an open relationship can be abused.
|
||
So? So can any other type of relationship. But when it comes right down
|
||
to it, an open relationship is not "virtually guaranteed" not to work
|
||
by any stretch of the imagination, as long as it's put together in such
|
||
a way that no violation of trust occurs on either side. Is it really
|
||
that difficult to conceive of a situation where your partner can take
|
||
another lover without any violation of trust?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:07:36
|
||
Message Number 16327
|
||
|
||
>Hypothetically speaking, how would you feel if I was interested in
|
||
>Kelly. Would you not feel threatened by me?
|
||
|
||
I would not feel threatened by you. Hypothetically speaking my ass...
|
||
while I was living in Fort Myers my best friend was also Kelly's lover.
|
||
Your point, please?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:10:15
|
||
Message Number 16328
|
||
|
||
>And what have you done for this planet's ecosystem?
|
||
|
||
Not reproduced! (Heh, heh, heh.) Seriously, though, that's not my point.
|
||
My point was simply that a love of life should be just that, a love of
|
||
/life/, not a desire to see your genetic heritage propogated regardless
|
||
of the cost...so I was feeling a little cynical. Sue me.
|
||
|
||
>You're awfully self-righteous lately.
|
||
|
||
Naah; I'm awfully /opinionated/ lately. Hey, if I weren't, I wouldn't
|
||
be Turtle, would I? I'd hardly call it /self-righteous/; if you want to
|
||
continue to disagree with me about anything we're discussing that's
|
||
fine. I'm having a good time arguing about it, though, and I do reserve
|
||
the right to poke holes in your logic any time I see a hole that needs
|
||
poking...so nyyah! Thpth. :P
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:13:47
|
||
Message Number 16329
|
||
|
||
>If, on the other hand, no commitment is made, and therefore, you can
|
||
>sleep with whoever you choose, ...
|
||
|
||
Whoa there! I see a serious error in your line of reasoning...although
|
||
given that sentence suddenly a whole lot of your argument is a lot
|
||
clearer to me. First off, having a commitment and having other lovers
|
||
are not mutually exclusive; you can do both. If you've never actually
|
||
/done/ it you will have to take my word on it, but having multiple
|
||
lovers does not preclude a deep emotional commitment. Secondly, and
|
||
most importantly, having an open relationship does NOT mean your
|
||
partner can "sleep with whomever" s/he chooses. In fact, lemme say that
|
||
a little more emphatically:
|
||
|
||
HAVING AN OPEN RELATIONSHIP DOES *****!!!>>> NOT <<<!!!***** MEAN YOU
|
||
CAN SLEEP WITH WHOMEVER YOU CHOOSE!!
|
||
|
||
If you try to work it that way, you're right, you're just asking to get
|
||
hurt. Such an arrangement is sheer foolishness. It ain't a matter of one
|
||
or the other, though; you don't get either 100% fidelity or the town
|
||
slut.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:18:36
|
||
Message Number 16330
|
||
|
||
T>I know for a fact that if my partner takes another lover it has no
|
||
T>bearing on our relationship.
|
||
|
||
SS>Bullshit!
|
||
|
||
Beg pardon?
|
||
|
||
SS>That's bullshit and you know it.
|
||
|
||
On the contrary. My partner /has/ taken other lovers, with my knowledge
|
||
and consent. It had no bearing on our relationship.
|
||
|
||
I know /for a FACT/ that if my partner takes another lover it has no
|
||
bearing on our relationship.
|
||
|
||
Now, any questions?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:21:18
|
||
Message Number 16331
|
||
|
||
>Physical intimacy implies sexual relationships!
|
||
|
||
That, my friend, is a myth I dearly wish our society would not hang onto
|
||
with such dogged tenaciousness. You know what? Not only do I hear that
|
||
line all the time, I've even met far too many people who actually
|
||
believe, for some absurd reason that's totally beyond me, that any
|
||
affectionate touching between a man and a woman mush be sexual in
|
||
nature. What bullshit. You can be physically intimate with another
|
||
person, and spend a great deal of time touching, kissing, etc, etc,
|
||
without fucking her. Of course, a lot of people might assume you're
|
||
sleeping with her, but what can you expect in a society that looks upon
|
||
physical affection as "implying sexual relationships"?
|
||
|
||
>If she wants to have other lovers, fine...without me.
|
||
|
||
That's your right. I'm not trying to argue that your postion is /wrong/;
|
||
i'm simply trying to argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Not 15000 atall
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:28:07
|
||
Message Number 16332
|
||
|
||
Y'know, I really don't see why you assume that if your lover wants to
|
||
sleep with someone else, that must be a reflection on you...sexual
|
||
attraction is not something that you have control over. It seems kind
|
||
of like assuming that if your lover says she wants to stop at
|
||
McDonald's one day it mush be because the nine-course meals you so
|
||
elaborately prepare for her every night aren't adequate somehow.
|
||
I won't even get into your "she has two lovers, and they have two
|
||
lovers, and so on, and so on" preconception...if you actually sit down
|
||
and think about it, I'm sure you're capable of spotting the flaw in
|
||
that reasoning yourself.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: HACMAN
|
||
Subject: Marriage & stuf
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:32:07
|
||
Message Number 16333
|
||
|
||
I am afraid you missed my point. Yes, I believe that a "good" marriage,
|
||
one that involves two people who are truly committed to one another,
|
||
and are trusting, and so on can exist. I also believe that such a
|
||
relationship can exist without marriage.
|
||
|
||
My point had nothing to do with an inability to conceive of a good
|
||
marriage. My point is just the opposite, in fact: Marriage is primarily
|
||
a social convention. In a society where that convention holds little
|
||
or no meaning, there is simply no reason to get married. Why, pray
|
||
tell, should I get married? To demonstrate my commitment? Marriage is
|
||
no longer functionally a demonstration of commitment. To ensure that
|
||
my children, should I have them, grow up in a stable environment? There
|
||
are enough people out there, and even enough people ON THIS BULLETIN
|
||
BOARD, who have grown up in the splinters of a fragmented marriage to
|
||
demonstrate that marriage is no such thing. So what does that leave?
|
||
As a tax break? No; I have too much respect for what a marriage /should/
|
||
be to get married for economic reasons. Why, then, should I marry?
|
||
Marriage is a social artifact that has, functionally, lost its meaning.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:37:40
|
||
Message Number 16334
|
||
|
||
>I mean, if you truly love someone.... you tend to want to keep them
|
||
>to yourself....
|
||
|
||
Uh-huh. And with any other form of selfishness, it's hard for me to
|
||
think of that desire to keep your lover to yourself as anything other
|
||
than twisted and evil. And, as the Greeks discovered, the tighter you
|
||
try to latch onto something you find valuable the more likely it is to
|
||
slip through your fingers...the best idea if you want to make it last
|
||
is to hang on loosely.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:40:12
|
||
Message Number 16335
|
||
|
||
>You can't make me believe I have done anything wrong by bringing life
|
||
>into this world...
|
||
|
||
Naah; you're taking my cynicism too personally. I was simply pointing
|
||
out that "passing on the torch of life" is not by itself a good
|
||
argument in favor of having kids. It can be argued that indescriminate
|
||
child bearing is actually, in the long run, counter-productive if your
|
||
sole interest is to pass on the torch of life, but I'm tired and I don't
|
||
really feel like defending my point anyway...I was being cynical...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: <continuing>
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:45:06
|
||
Message Number 16336
|
||
|
||
>I love it when you rant and rave...
|
||
|
||
Really? I do believe you're the first person who's ever said that. :)
|
||
|
||
>But I guess the difference is.... when you are driving, you are in
|
||
>control...you can't control a sexually transmitted illness.
|
||
|
||
You know, to tell you the truth I simply never thought of that. It does
|
||
make perfect sense to say that you tend to exaggerate the fears you
|
||
can't control, though. Damn, I don't believe I missed that point.
|
||
/Of course/ people distort the risk of contracting AIDS...you can't see
|
||
it coming and you can't control it except by not taking outside lovers.
|
||
Bleah. I'm slipping. (Score one for Saavik...)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:49:12
|
||
Message Number 16337
|
||
|
||
>I mean, how long can it go on that way without one of the partners
|
||
>finding someone whom [sic] they are very attracted to who wants a
|
||
>monogamous relationship?
|
||
|
||
That, in a nutshell, is why one of the parameters of an open relation-
|
||
ship is that you are up-front with a prospective lover and make sure
|
||
that person understands the nature of the arrangement from the outset.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Birth
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:51:28
|
||
Message Number 16338
|
||
|
||
>But to Hate children.... just seems like there is something evil
|
||
>and twisted about that....
|
||
|
||
Touche. I deserved that.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:52:42
|
||
Message Number 16339
|
||
|
||
>The above mentioned 'acts' [of physical intimacy] are usually given
|
||
>for assurance, condolance, or other reasons as they arise.
|
||
|
||
Naah. In my experience, the above mentioned 'acts' are 'given'
|
||
because the people involved enjoy being physically affectionate, not
|
||
for any 'reasons'.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: dating
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:54:26
|
||
Message Number 16340
|
||
|
||
>And now he is like the energizer bunny . . . . . .....
|
||
|
||
Heh, heh. Ten'll get you one nobody really figures out how to interpret
|
||
/that/...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Energizer bunny
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 10:00:54
|
||
Message Number 16341
|
||
|
||
T> heh, heh, Ten'll get you one nobody really figures out how to inter-
|
||
pret /that/...
|
||
|
||
He keeps going.... and going... and going... and going... and going.....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: N-S 'acts'
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 10:05:20
|
||
Message Number 16342
|
||
|
||
T> Naah, in my experience, the above mentioned 'acts' are 'given'
|
||
because the people involved enjoy being physically affectionate, not for
|
||
any 'reasons'.
|
||
|
||
I was referring to those 'acts' on an either-sex basis.
|
||
|
||
Ours is a very strange society, where physical contact is automatically
|
||
assumed to be a part of sex.
|
||
|
||
I talked to a friend last night about this very thing. If you look to
|
||
other cultures of the world, same-sex physical contact is not taboo.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: S-S contact
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 10:16:32
|
||
Message Number 16343
|
||
|
||
Uh oh... I think I just got in over my head on this subject...
|
||
(referring to last message)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Not 15000 atall
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:25:46
|
||
Message Number 16344
|
||
|
||
>In that kind of relationship [an open one], I don't even bother trying
|
||
>to get close to that person, basically, we would spend some time
|
||
>together, but we were just a fuck-buddy for the other. Nothing more.
|
||
|
||
It sounds like sex overshadows everything else in your relationships.
|
||
Would you agree with the statement: If she's not going to be monogamous
|
||
to me, she's not worth being close to?
|
||
|
||
>If I want a meaningful relationship with someone, then I stipulate that
|
||
>neither her and myself will be involved with anyone. If she finds this
|
||
>not to her liking, she knows where the door is.
|
||
|
||
Another question: Can you be close to someone without having sex?
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:31:33
|
||
Message Number 16345
|
||
|
||
> Because I feel that if two people are intimate with one another then
|
||
> that relationship can be allowed to run deep emotionally.
|
||
|
||
*Ding!*
|
||
|
||
> If, on the other had, no commitment is made, and therefore, you can
|
||
> sleep with whoever you choose, then I question your depth of feeling
|
||
> for your lover.
|
||
|
||
*Clank!* There are two faults to your argument:
|
||
One: Is sex the only commitment that two people can share? Is sex
|
||
the only way you can express the depth of your love? (pun
|
||
unintentional.)
|
||
|
||
Two: Why do you assume that a person can only feel deeply toward one
|
||
other person?
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Whoops...
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:39:23
|
||
Message Number 16346
|
||
|
||
>...She is not completely happy with the sex aspect of our relationshipm
|
||
>so in a fit of pique, she decides to try someone else. Rather than h
|
||
>have this happen, I would rather she broke up with me *before* she
|
||
>took someone else, becuase until she found out if she was *clean* after
|
||
>that, I wouldn't want to sleep with her.
|
||
|
||
*Ding!* As I said before, fear of diseases seems for me to be one of the
|
||
best reasons to keep a relationship mutually monogamous.
|
||
|
||
>Absolutely, no exceptions.
|
||
|
||
*Klank!* I don't (and didn't!) go that far.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:43:43
|
||
Message Number 16347
|
||
|
||
>If you truly love someone... you tend to want to keep them to
|
||
>yourself...
|
||
|
||
Why? If you truly love someone, the BEST way of finding out about
|
||
your partner's love is to set them free.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Work...
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:47:38
|
||
Message Number 16348
|
||
|
||
Hope your first day back at work went smoothly!
|
||
|
||
/ / /
|
||
@---------------
|
||
\ \ \ \ //Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:52:20
|
||
Message Number 16349
|
||
|
||
> An open relationship can work, and if your prospective partner would
|
||
> like such a relationship that is not immediate grounds for terminating
|
||
> all contact with that person.
|
||
|
||
Ye Ghods in Heaven... are we agreeing, then? (And on the "unpopular"
|
||
side of the issue, too.)
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:57:36
|
||
Message Number 16350
|
||
|
||
T> You can be physically intimate with another person, and spend a
|
||
T> great deal of the time touching, kissing, etc, etc, without fucking
|
||
T> her.
|
||
|
||
*Ding!* *Ding!*
|
||
|
||
A person who I wanted (note: past tense!) as a girlfriend was only
|
||
interested in being touched (even on her hands) by me when she thought
|
||
a sexual relationship leading to marriage was possible. When I told her
|
||
I didn't want to get married (yet), she dropped most of the touching.
|
||
And when it looked like we wouldn't be having sex, she quit allowing me
|
||
to even hug her, or hold her hand. Sheesh!
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: dating
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 12:04:32
|
||
Message Number 16351
|
||
|
||
The "Energizer bunny" goes on... and on... and on... and on...
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: N-S 'acts'
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 12:05:35
|
||
Message Number 16352
|
||
|
||
KO> If you look to other cultures of the world, same-sex physical
|
||
KO> contact is not taboo.
|
||
|
||
*Ding!* In Mexico, there's the abrazo (hug) between two men as a way of
|
||
greeting. French men, of course, kiss. Heck -- MOST other cultures of
|
||
the world (and even among women of this culture) OK same-sex physical
|
||
contact.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: ALL
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 12:09:02
|
||
Message Number 16353
|
||
|
||
Most of y'all seem to think that closed relationships work better
|
||
than open ones. Fine.
|
||
If you were in a closed relationship, and you have sex with someone
|
||
else, would you tell your partner? And, if so, how long would it take
|
||
you to tell her/him?
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: P.WHIPPED
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: oxymorons
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 12:24:41
|
||
Message Number 16354
|
||
|
||
Speaking of oxymorons...rap music.....just doesn't work
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: P.WHIPPED
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: hallucinations
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 14:16:03
|
||
Message Number 16355
|
||
|
||
When it comes to hallucinations, it is good to pass.
|
||
This one guy i know had one once when i was around. It was kinda
|
||
cute for a while, but when he started yelling at me to put my head
|
||
back on i decided that it wouldn't be so neato keen after all.
|
||
He never took a hallucinogen again, but said that he was glad he did
|
||
at least once.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: P.WHIPPED
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: oK
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 14:18:58
|
||
Message Number 16356
|
||
|
||
WE GOT A CAR!!!!!!
|
||
Actually it's a moo car...(a bovine mini-van).
|
||
We also have a nice liitle group to trip with too...Turtle, Nadia, my
|
||
friend & me! Philadelphia here we come......
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: RUFUS
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: fruits
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 19:23:13
|
||
Message Number 16357
|
||
|
||
Then there was Brooke Lynn Bridge. Sigh.....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: OPUS
|
||
To: ALL
|
||
Subject: My Move..
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 20:20:02
|
||
Message Number 16358
|
||
|
||
Kheblan straigtens up and glares at Robert as he exits the room, "Yo
|
||
u know", he tells Shandra, "I've had a little experiance with guns and
|
||
other arments, I beleive I'll go to town and see what I can find in a
|
||
local Trog Surplus Shop, hmm, as for money, I shant be needing any, I
|
||
beleive I remember wher I placed my belongings now, a quick trip to
|
||
my house, it's right across the street from the Ifel tower", he beams,
|
||
then continues, "I shall return soon."
|
||
|
||
With that Kheblan exits, turns and smiles at the bears, then
|
||
starts walking on down the road.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:19:49
|
||
Message Number 16359
|
||
|
||
I think an non sexual intimate relationship is /any/ relationship where
|
||
you are very close with a person, (mentally linked, so to speak) but you
|
||
do not share sex with them... I have a few male friends whom I hug
|
||
freely, kiss (I mean, we are talking pecks, here), share secrets with,
|
||
we can talk about /anything/, but we are not nor have we ever been
|
||
sexually involved.... but I'd say that we are as close if not closer
|
||
than men that I /have/ been sexually involved with in the past... (yeah,
|
||
the very distant past).
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: dating
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:23:43
|
||
Message Number 16360
|
||
|
||
Heheheh. Now everytime I see that energiser bunny walk across the screen
|
||
I think of Turtle........
|
||
|
||
......so reach out and touch someone....
|
||
*BAM BAM BAM BAM*
|
||
Turtle keeps going and going and going.....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:31:39
|
||
Message Number 16361
|
||
|
||
Well, I didn't mean to take your cynicism personally.... I've had this
|
||
argument before with someone who insisted that by having children, I was
|
||
merely contributing to the worlds problems.... (like my kids are evil,
|
||
they must be destroyed).... bearing children is just all part of the
|
||
cycle of life....... not everyone has to, not everyone wants to, not
|
||
everyone can..... I understand your point and it is well taken.
|
||
I am not Mother Earth just because I put another couple of lifeforms on
|
||
this planet... there is much more to be done... much more life already
|
||
here that needs to be saved.....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: <continuing>
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:35:05
|
||
Message Number 16362
|
||
|
||
T>(Score on for Saavik)
|
||
|
||
And the crowd goes wild!!!!!!!
|
||
|
||
Turtle, you ain't slippin'... I understood your original point about
|
||
open relationships and you made a damned good point about AIDS....
|
||
Most people don't realize the actual statistics (chances of actually
|
||
contracting it), and we DO listen to all the propaganda of how to avoid
|
||
it.......
|
||
I know open relationships can work, at one point in my marriage, my
|
||
husband and I went through that "phase".... I merely call it a phase
|
||
because we eventually decided to go back to monogomy because we were
|
||
both starting to feel the twinges of jealousy....(yeah, I know, I know).
|
||
|
||
If I were to become single again.... I believe that I would prefer an
|
||
open relationship.... at least for a while.... I like the feeling of
|
||
having my lover as my good friend as well, so I prefer to have a intimat
|
||
lover (not a bunch of one nighters) but variety does keep things
|
||
interesting..... I dunno..... I just see your point.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:41:17
|
||
Message Number 16363
|
||
|
||
T>...one of the parameters of an open relationship is that
|
||
you are up-front with a prospective lover and make sure that person
|
||
undersands the nature of the agreement from the outset.
|
||
|
||
True. But people being people, things can change very fast in a relation
|
||
ship....... "Nothing looks the same in the light...."
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:47:22
|
||
Message Number 16364
|
||
|
||
Drf>If you tryly love someone, the BEST way of finding out about your
|
||
partner's love is to set them free.
|
||
|
||
Er, um.... I ain't exactly got a collar and lead on him. He is free to
|
||
go and do as he pleases.... and it pleases me that he doesn't want to
|
||
go and "do" anyone but me.... we have a monogamous relationship... if
|
||
tomarrow he came to me and said...." Amy, I want to have other lovers.."
|
||
I would take an evening and really think whether or not I could handle
|
||
that then give him my feelings... I wouldn't stop him if that was what
|
||
he wanted.... but I would discuss my feelings with him after careful
|
||
consideration.... for one: I would want to know why he wants other
|
||
lovers, if it's something that I am not fulfilling or what.... for two:
|
||
I would want to make damned sure that there is not someone else he wants
|
||
in his life, but just doesn't want to hurt me or lose me....
|
||
We have tried to be very honest in our relationship, at one time, we did
|
||
have an open relationship and we went back to being monogamous when we
|
||
both started to feel a little jealous.... we've been together for 11
|
||
years this summer...... I would be a little afraid of losing him ....
|
||
do you know what I mean?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Work...
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:54:10
|
||
Message Number 16365
|
||
|
||
Drf>Hope your first day back at work went smoothly!
|
||
|
||
ug! I spent all morning in conference with the Pres of the Co and
|
||
the Southwest Manager and the Service Manager...... blah, blah, blah,
|
||
and I kept wanting to nod off.... no, I was not my usual alert self....
|
||
but it went ok, thank you for asking....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:57:20
|
||
Message Number 16366
|
||
|
||
Drf>If you were in a closed relationship, and you have sex with someone
|
||
else, sould you tell your partner?
|
||
|
||
I dont think so...... I don't think I have the courage....
|
||
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: P.WHIPPED
|
||
Subject: hallucinations
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:59:08
|
||
Message Number 16367
|
||
|
||
Noooooo thanks..... I've done acid before... n.n.n.n.nasty stuff... Oh,
|
||
maybe two outa three times it's great,,, but the third time aint worth
|
||
it.... I've never been so scared in all my life... so outa control and
|
||
helpless.... I hate that feeling .....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: P.WHIPPED
|
||
Subject: oK
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 22:00:55
|
||
Message Number 16368
|
||
|
||
PW>WE GOT A CAR!!!!!!!
|
||
|
||
Yayyyyy! PA or Bust!!!!!!!
|
||
|
||
PW>Turtle, Nadia, my friend & me!
|
||
|
||
Well, you ARE in good company... have fun!!~!!!!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 23:09:30
|
||
Message Number 16369
|
||
|
||
SA to TS> This, coming from a man who HAS no children.......
|
||
|
||
....consider the source.....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 23:10:59
|
||
Message Number 16370
|
||
|
||
SA> ..I mean, if you truly love someone...you tend to want to keep them
|
||
SA> to yourself...it's hard to think of them intimate with anyone else..
|
||
SA> at least, it is for me.
|
||
|
||
Ding.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 23:20:41
|
||
Message Number 16371
|
||
|
||
T> If I were involved in such a relationship, I would be absolutely
|
||
T> fathful to my partner--and I would have /no/ tolerance for
|
||
T> lack of faith on my partner's end. The point I am trying to make is
|
||
T> simply that an open relationship that is not immediate grounds for
|
||
T> terminating all contact with that person. The attitude that a
|
||
T> relationship must, or even "should," be founded on sexual fidelity is
|
||
T> Manifest Bullshit--especially when the people involved will /claim/
|
||
T> that their relationship isn't based on sex while still behaving as
|
||
T> though it were.
|
||
|
||
Ok, enough bullshit...an open relationship can /ONLY/, /ONLY/ work
|
||
if and only if both people want that kind of relationship. Period.
|
||
If I want a committed relationship with someone and they want an
|
||
open relationship, then I will not date them. Period.
|
||
You said, "I would have no tolerance for lack of faith on my
|
||
partner's end," then you said, "The attitude that a relationship must,
|
||
or even "should," be founded on sexual fidelity is Manifest Bullshit.
|
||
especially when the people involved will /claim/ that their relationship
|
||
isn't based on sex while still behaving as though it were." That seems
|
||
like a non-sequitor to me, first you say you would insist upon faithful-
|
||
ness, then you claim it's bullshit for someone to believe in a
|
||
relationship founded on sexual fidelity.
|
||
That doesn't make sense.
|
||
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 23:50:09
|
||
Message Number 16372
|
||
|
||
S>......so reach out and touch someone.....
|
||
S> *BAM BAM BAM BAM*
|
||
S>Turtle keeps going and going and going......
|
||
|
||
My heavens, I do believe you know what I am saying. heheheh snicker :)
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 04/30/91 23:55:41
|
||
Message Number 16373
|
||
|
||
So you do understand. Except for the slight tinge of jealously you
|
||
are correct. You do have an honest relationship. That is important.
|
||
Also the fact that he would come and talk to you about it first is a
|
||
plus and that is even more important. Comunication, honesty, trust,
|
||
love, respect, friendship are all very important they all rank number
|
||
one, none is more important than the other. A couple must have all of
|
||
those 100% before the relationship is opened. You can not begin a
|
||
relationship open, then try to build the other stuff.
|
||
It took Turtle and I two years before we began talking about
|
||
opening our relationship. It was easier for him because the only way I
|
||
knew was monogomy. To be honest, I did not believe it could work, and
|
||
I just knew that would not work, then I saw it happen. First I was with
|
||
a friend of his. I learned from this experience that Turtle did not see
|
||
me as a slut, (feel free to inject any other word of your choice) and
|
||
the incident not only improved communication but now I could tell him
|
||
anything. But I was not sure I could do the same for him. But I did
|
||
anyway. My problem was not with him, but with the girl he chose. I
|
||
was not sure she could handle it. And well I was correct. And when she
|
||
got out of hand and hard to deal with, I just asked Turtle to stop and
|
||
that was fine with him. That told me I was important to him. And
|
||
although he did want her phisicely he would not do anything to jepordize
|
||
us. That is, I found out that with out a doubt I am the women he wants
|
||
to spend the rest of his life with, and no one is going to come between
|
||
us. Thats the way we are. We don't do anything the other one does not
|
||
agree with. And If one day, for some reason we choose to close our
|
||
relationship again, then It will be something we both decide. But now it
|
||
is working for us so it will stay open.
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 02:50:18
|
||
Message Number 16374
|
||
|
||
*
|
||
D
|
||
I
|
||
N
|
||
G
|
||
!
|
||
*
|
||
|
||
I too, have friends to whom I emotionally linked. One of them is male,
|
||
and its absolutely non-sexual.
|
||
|
||
Today's society treats sex as acommodity, taking it for granted. More
|
||
often than not, it tends to seperate peop.
|
||
|
||
It would be interesting to learn the 'touch' custom, and their origins
|
||
from other countries.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 14:01:51
|
||
Message Number 16375
|
||
|
||
SS>...consider the source....
|
||
|
||
I did. "The I-don't-like-children-fags-or-anyone-who-doesn't-think-the-
|
||
way-I-do Specialist".
|
||
|
||
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 14:04:37
|
||
Message Number 16376
|
||
|
||
SA>....it's hard to think of them intimate with anyone else...
|
||
SS>Ding.
|
||
|
||
But that doesn't mean that I don't believe that an open relationship
|
||
can't work..... there's just a different attitude involved there.
|
||
I mean, if you had a friend, whom you really cared about and shared your
|
||
life with, you wouldn't mind them having other close friends, right?
|
||
Well, if you had the same attitude about sharing sex with them and them
|
||
sharing sex with others...... that would be ok..... but if the attitude
|
||
isn't right.... It isn't going to work.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 14:09:26
|
||
Message Number 16377
|
||
|
||
Cy>My heavens, I do believe you know what I am saying.
|
||
|
||
I have a vivid imagination......I know he has to channel of that hyper-
|
||
active energy into "something"....... what better way to do it?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 14:12:51
|
||
Message Number 16378
|
||
|
||
It was the same way when my husband and I opened our relationship....
|
||
the problems started with "other" partners (they became jealous first)
|
||
and that bled over into our relationship, when we saw that happening,
|
||
we decided to call a halt..... As I said, we have been monogamous for
|
||
many years now, and I'm not certain that I could return to an open
|
||
marriage.... but I do know that if my husband wanted that.... he would
|
||
talk to me about it....
|
||
Usually we communicate very well.... but he is a moody person and some-
|
||
times he builds these walls around him that I can't penetrate.... this
|
||
I can not learn to deal with no matter how I try... I always take it
|
||
personally. I think that this is one of the flaws in our marriage.
|
||
Whenever he puts that wall up, I start harping on him trying to get
|
||
through, this agravates him further and I get my feelings hurt.... when
|
||
my feelings are hurt, I cry.... and when I cry, it makes him even more
|
||
shut off and angry...... so a small situation becomes a major stress
|
||
bath until we finally talk...... which is sometimes a day or two later.
|
||
Meanwhile we both go around moping and feeling miserable...stupid eh?
|
||
Except for when the wall is up, (which happens more and more lately) we
|
||
can talk about anything.......
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 14:21:38
|
||
Message Number 16379
|
||
|
||
I like to touch and be touched but so many people misinterprete it, that
|
||
I have learned to be reserved until I know someone very well....
|
||
Too many times, a simple touch on the arm while your talking is taken
|
||
as a come on by the other person....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: ALL
|
||
Subject: Turtle
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 15:53:17
|
||
Message Number 16380
|
||
|
||
I was asked by Turtle to inform you all that he is out of town for the
|
||
next three days. He has gone to Philly.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:00:37
|
||
Message Number 16381
|
||
|
||
I guess the best way to deal with this is to chalk up our differences to
|
||
your reptilian ancestry.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:03:41
|
||
Message Number 16382
|
||
|
||
SS> You're awfully self-righteous lately.
|
||
|
||
T> naah; I'm awfully /opinionated/ lately.
|
||
|
||
Dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding..(barred)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:06:27
|
||
Message Number 16383
|
||
|
||
T> you don't get get either 100% fidelity or the town slut.
|
||
|
||
Well, if she chooses to be faithful to me, I will do the same. But, if
|
||
I want 100% fidelity and she doesn't then I will break up with her.
|
||
Simply because I know that I will develop too strong of feelings for her
|
||
and, therefore, won't tolerate infidelity. If we both decide an open
|
||
relationship, then that /is/ okay by me. But, it MUST be one or the
|
||
other, not a combination of the two.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:10:47
|
||
Message Number 16384
|
||
|
||
T> Now, any questions?
|
||
|
||
Yeah, what if Kelly decided to be monogamous with another man? What
|
||
then? (And don't say it will never happen, because even you can't
|
||
predict the future.)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:13:03
|
||
Message Number 16385
|
||
|
||
T> I'm not trying to argue that your position is /wrong/'
|
||
T> I'm simply trying to argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
|
||
|
||
Ding! It's a matter, again, of preference.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Not 15000 atall
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:21:22
|
||
Message Number 16386
|
||
|
||
DFy> It sounds like sex overwhelms everything else in your realtionships
|
||
DFy> Would you agree with the statement: If she's not going to be
|
||
DFy> monogamous to me, she's not worth being close to?
|
||
|
||
No. Not really. I'll explain that with your other question.
|
||
|
||
DFy> Can you be close to someone without having sex?
|
||
|
||
Yep, sure can. I have a lot of female friends that I have no sexual
|
||
contact with...and, no, that doesn't bother me. Saavik and I are
|
||
close, and we haven't had any sexual contact. (yet....heheheh)
|
||
As far as monogamous goes as it pertains to whether or not I'd think
|
||
she's worthy of getting close to: I don't decide someone's worth
|
||
by their sexual orientation; whether it be straight, gay, bi, with
|
||
or without monogamy. I would not date someone in a relationship
|
||
where she wanted an open relationship, and I wanted a monogamous one,
|
||
because I would just be setting myself to get hurt. (If I want a
|
||
monogamous relationship with someone, I know that I would become too
|
||
attach (for lack of a better word) to be able to tolerant her having
|
||
any other lovers.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:30:09
|
||
Message Number 16387
|
||
|
||
DFy> Is sex the only commitment that two people can share?
|
||
That question is too silly to even answer.
|
||
DFy> Is sex the only way you can express the depth of your love?
|
||
|
||
Love? Who said anything about love? I wouldn't fall in love with some-o
|
||
(someone) I was involved in an open relationship with. Period.
|
||
|
||
DFy> Why do you assume that a person can only feel deeply toward one
|
||
DFy> other person?
|
||
|
||
I don't, per se, I simply choose that way for myself. I find it too
|
||
confusing the other way. Besides, women can get jealous and try to
|
||
make you decide between them, and it can lead to all sorts of trouble.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:35:00
|
||
Message Number 16388
|
||
|
||
DFy> the BEST way of inding out about your partner's love is to set
|
||
DFy> them free.
|
||
|
||
Of course, if they don't come back, you can hunt them down and kill 'em.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:37:47
|
||
Message Number 16389
|
||
|
||
DFy> If you were in a closed relationship, and you have sex with someone
|
||
DFy> else, would you tell your partner? And if so, how long would it
|
||
DFy> take you to tell him/her?
|
||
|
||
Yes, I would tell her. And the guilt that I would experience lead me
|
||
to tell her as soon as possible. (I've had this happen once before.)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:45:31
|
||
Message Number 16390
|
||
|
||
SA> I don't think so.... I don't think I have the courage.
|
||
|
||
*clunk* You told me you wouldn't be able to live with yourself. What
|
||
would you do?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 18:30:51
|
||
Message Number 16391
|
||
|
||
SA>I wouldn't trade my kids...
|
||
TS>Hell, I would...
|
||
SA>This, coming from a man who HAS no children....
|
||
|
||
Heheheh. What do you think happened to them?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 18:32:20
|
||
Message Number 16392
|
||
|
||
SA>[Comment on monogamous relationships vs. non-]
|
||
|
||
Eh, ok.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 18:37:50
|
||
Message Number 16393
|
||
|
||
TS>"physically intimate, close, non-sexual relationship"?
|
||
KO>It is a relationship where body contact exists, whether it be a hug,
|
||
KO>or a kiss. It can exist between two people that are close friends.
|
||
KO>The above mentioned 'acts' are usually given for assurance,
|
||
KO>condolance, or other reasons as they arise.
|
||
|
||
Kinda catch all, ain't it? It may be physically close but intimate it
|
||
ain't. Intimate implies something more serious than "Oh, it's so good
|
||
to see you!" or "Hey, I'm sorry to hear about your dad...." or other
|
||
situations like that. (The word intimate is difficult for me to fully
|
||
describe, so here goes:) Intimacy is more of a "I am fond of you more
|
||
than anyone else." or "I care for you more than I care for anyone else,
|
||
more than I care for myself." type of thing. It follows that if you
|
||
feel that way for someone (and they for you) that sexual relations
|
||
between thon should be exclusive...or else, you have cheapened what you
|
||
feel for the first one by doing the same thing with someone else.
|
||
|
||
Physically close, yes, this implies position. But intimacy is something
|
||
else altogether.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 18:50:50
|
||
Message Number 16394
|
||
|
||
T>I can say with absolute conviction, based on years of personal
|
||
T>experience, that statement is patently, irredemably false.
|
||
|
||
Uh huh.
|
||
|
||
T>Is it really that difficult to concieve of a situation where your
|
||
T>partner can take another lover without any violation of trust?
|
||
|
||
Let's say that it's far easier to concieve of many situations where
|
||
said "partner" (being of the mind to take other lovers _anyway_) might
|
||
simply decide to drop you in favor of another.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 18:55:18
|
||
Message Number 16395
|
||
|
||
T>while I was living in Fort Myers my best freind was also Kelly's
|
||
T>lover.
|
||
T>Your point please?
|
||
|
||
That your best freind was screwing your girlfriend. Some friend. Tell
|
||
me, did he do this with your prior approval? Is not, then I would have
|
||
been tempted to kick his ass, *prior* best freind or not. If you *did*
|
||
give permission ahead of time, or it was understood that you wouldn't
|
||
mind, then let me ask you this: what if Kelly had decided that he
|
||
was a much better lover than you had *ever* been and decided to drop
|
||
you like a rock? Oh, surely, this could never happen between you and
|
||
Kelly, but for us other "abnormal sexual relation" type people, this
|
||
is somewhat of a common occurance.
|
||
You may be quite proud of the fact that you and Kelly have been
|
||
together for a long time, and I congratulate you heartily. (Seriously.)
|
||
But almost NO ONE else is as set in that particular mindframe which you
|
||
two seem to be in. THEREFORE you must certainly be able to see why
|
||
all of us "strange" people don't participate in "open" relationships.
|
||
Society in general, it seems, cannot successfully accomplish what you
|
||
and Kelly have been able to, and it is a rare, lucky couple that can.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:07:12
|
||
Message Number 16396
|
||
|
||
T>First off, having a commitment and having other lovers are not
|
||
T>mutually exclusive,
|
||
|
||
Hmmm. Depends largely on what type of commitment you're talking about,
|
||
I suppose. If there is a very vague commitment, then I can see what you
|
||
mean. But if you have a serious commitment, you have to define the
|
||
terms of your commitment.
|
||
|
||
T>...haveing multiple lovers does not preclude deep emotional commitment
|
||
|
||
Oh, certainly not. You simply diminish the amount you devote to each
|
||
one. There is just /so much/ emotion that you can give, without
|
||
getting bland about it. You can't have "something special" with many
|
||
people, otherwise, there's nothing special about it. It's cheapened.
|
||
|
||
T>Having an open relationship does not mean that you can sleep with
|
||
T>whomever you choose.
|
||
|
||
Ok, so both of you have to approve of the "Canidate Lover", right?
|
||
Does that mean that only you and Kelly have to approve, or does
|
||
everyone in the Coven have to approve?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:19:01
|
||
Message Number 16397
|
||
|
||
T>Physical intimacy implies sexual relatons!
|
||
T>That, my friend, is a myth that I dearly wish society...
|
||
|
||
That is not a myth. Atlantis, Olympius, Hercules, ect...those are
|
||
myths. Physical intimacy *implies* sexual relations. I didn't
|
||
say that "physical intimacy always is connected to sexual relations".
|
||
You say that you can have a great time with a woman, kissing, touching,
|
||
without fucking her. Well, I dunno about *your* dates, but the ones
|
||
*I* date usually don't allow that until they are ready to be FUCKED too!
|
||
And not a whole lot of guys I know will want to ONLY kiss and hug a
|
||
woman, INTIMATELY, without wanting to FOLLOW UP. Get it?
|
||
Lets face it. Your method of "open relationships", while workable
|
||
for you, is not practical for society in general. Period.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Not 15000 atall
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:31:00
|
||
Message Number 16398
|
||
|
||
T>I don't see why you assume that if your lover wants to sleep with
|
||
T>someone else that mus be a reflection upon you...sexual attraction
|
||
|
||
Cannot be controlled, true. And if she feels enough attraction to
|
||
another person, undoubtedly, she will find a way to that person. And
|
||
if she needs him that much, then she can have 'im.
|
||
|
||
T>I won't even get into your "she has to lovers," [etc] preconception.
|
||
|
||
Oh, no. I can't spot my flaw. Please enlighten me.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:35:37
|
||
Message Number 16399
|
||
|
||
T>...best idea is to hang on loosely...
|
||
|
||
Uh huh. Hang on too loose and you might lose it. Someone might remove
|
||
it from your grasp. Your analogy lacks.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:37:55
|
||
Message Number 16400
|
||
|
||
NO>The above mentioned 'acts' [of physical CLOSENESS] are usually given
|
||
NO>for assurance, condolance, or other reasons as they arise.
|
||
|
||
T>Naah. In my experience, the above mentioned 'acts' are 'given'
|
||
T>because the people involved enjoy being physically affectionate,
|
||
T>not for any 'reasons'.
|
||
|
||
Ding.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Not 15000 atall
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:44:46
|
||
Message Number 16401
|
||
|
||
(Excuse me, I couldn't help but overhear your conversation with SS)
|
||
DF>If she's not going to be monogamouse to me, she's not worth being
|
||
DF>close to?
|
||
|
||
DING!
|
||
|
||
DF>Can you be close to someone without having sex?
|
||
|
||
I personally cannot, although I am sure that these type relationships
|
||
exist. Certainly there are those out there incapable of sex, thought
|
||
being ruined by venereal diseases (viruses that can re-occur with
|
||
repeated sexual activity) or because of being paralyzed from the waist
|
||
down, or being just plain FRIDGID or celebate (shudder) even.
|
||
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:49:45
|
||
Message Number 16402
|
||
|
||
(Again, if you don't mind....)
|
||
DF>One: Is sex the only commitment that two people can share?
|
||
Two: Is sex the only way you can express the depth of your love?
|
||
|
||
No, and no.
|
||
|
||
DF>Three: Why do you assume that a person can only feel deeply toward
|
||
one other person?
|
||
|
||
Because a relationship is supposed to be something special...something
|
||
unique! How can you have two similar things which are unique?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Whoops...
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:00:34
|
||
Message Number 16403
|
||
|
||
TS>Absolutely, no exceptions.
|
||
DF>*Klank!* I don't (and didn't!) go that far.
|
||
|
||
Uh huh. Say, didn't you and Jen break up?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:01:32
|
||
Message Number 16404
|
||
|
||
DF>Why? If you truly love someone, the BEST way of finding out about
|
||
DF>your partner's love is to set them free.
|
||
|
||
Uh huh. Sounds good, don't it? 'Till they don't come back. Then there
|
||
you are, hurt. The hell with them at that point, because they left you
|
||
anyway.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:03:43
|
||
Message Number 16405
|
||
|
||
T>An open relationship can work, and if your prospective partner would
|
||
T>like such a relationship that is not immediate grounds for
|
||
T>terminating all contact with that person.
|
||
|
||
No, not terminating "all contact", but it would be basis for
|
||
termination of any further "intimate relations".
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:07:33
|
||
Message Number 16406
|
||
|
||
DF>[The person I wanted wouldn't let me touch her when she found out
|
||
DF>I wasn't interested in marrying her.]
|
||
DF>Sheesh!
|
||
|
||
Oh, you poor thing you! (Sarcastically.) Welcome to reality! So
|
||
lemme get this straight: when she thought that sex led to marriage was
|
||
a possibility, you were allowed to touch her...but when she found out
|
||
that you weren't the marrying type, she dropped the touching...and
|
||
with it the hugging and all sex? In other words, she wanted no further
|
||
physical contact with you after she found out that you two weren't going
|
||
to get married? And you were dissapointed? Oh, please. That is
|
||
a typical woman...better get used to 'em.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:12:23
|
||
Message Number 16407
|
||
|
||
DF>If you were in a close relationship
|
||
|
||
(I am--I know no other type)
|
||
|
||
DF>and you have sex with someone else
|
||
|
||
Hold it...that's not a closed relation...that's cheating.
|
||
|
||
DF>would you tell your partner? And if so, how long would it take you
|
||
DF>you to tell her/him?
|
||
|
||
First, that's a null situation--wouldn't happen. I would have the
|
||
decency to break up with my girlfriend before bopping someone else.
|
||
So yes, she would either know already, or she would never know. I
|
||
would not tell her if I broke up because I wanted to bop someone else.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:34:16
|
||
Message Number 16408
|
||
|
||
SS>...besides, women can get jealous and try to make you decide between
|
||
SS>them, and it can lead to all sorts of trouble.
|
||
|
||
Ah, and yet another reason! And an extremely practical one at that!
|
||
DING DING DING!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:09:02
|
||
Message Number 16409
|
||
|
||
>It would be interesting to learn the 'touch' custom, and their origins
|
||
>in other countries.
|
||
|
||
Other countries: Why? New College has traditionally had a lot more
|
||
physical contact (touching, backrubs) than most places I'`ve known.
|
||
(Damn "pop up" terminal program doesn't have backspaces...) and,
|
||
frankly, I love it! I admit: there are male friends I have who I
|
||
hug. And I've receive d backrubs from some other males.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:20:35
|
||
Message Number 16410
|
||
|
||
> Well, I dunno about your dates, but the ones I date usually don't
|
||
> allow that [kissing, touching] until they are ready to be FUCKED too!
|
||
|
||
Ya know, that statement says one hell of a lot about society. And
|
||
I'm not sure I like it.
|
||
|
||
Let me be honest: I'm a relatively physical person, when I feel safe.
|
||
I don't mentally equate touching with sex. I was really, really shocked
|
||
when one of my dates showed me how much she equated the two: when it
|
||
came that it would not be a good idea for the two of us to have sex, she
|
||
also wanted to stop kissing, hugging -- even holding hands.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Not 15000 atall
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:25:56
|
||
Message Number 16411
|
||
|
||
One of my closest relations -- actually, my best friend for over a
|
||
year (I had told her things I hadn't even told Jenn!) was female, and
|
||
made it clear that she didn't want sex with me. Even still, we stayed
|
||
extremely close friends, hugging and kissing occasionally. Well --
|
||
hugging lots. (She's getting married in December.)
|
||
Many of my closest friends have been female... and most of them, I
|
||
haven't had sex with. I'm perfectly capable of sex, have no known
|
||
venereal diseases, and I'm not frigid. (Though I'm currently celebate.
|
||
Damn!) I've just known the difference between sensual and sexual for a
|
||
long while.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:31:47
|
||
Message Number 16412
|
||
|
||
DF> Why do you assume that a person can only feel deeply toward one
|
||
DF> other person?
|
||
|
||
TS> Because a relationship is supposed to be something secial...
|
||
TS> something unique! How can you have two similar things which are
|
||
TS> unique?
|
||
|
||
Something special, yes. Something unique, no. I have felt very
|
||
deeply toward many people at once. (Even while Jenn was my girlfriend,
|
||
and my lover, Julietta was my closest friend for a long time.) (And I
|
||
also loved several others -- not physically.)
|
||
I know from experience that it's possible to love several people,
|
||
all in completely idfferent ways. (No backspace key... damn!) Could I
|
||
love one person with all the love I felt fro all of them? Perhaps...
|
||
but she would be an extremely rare person! (To share all of my interests
|
||
at once, to be growing at the same rate I grow, and yet to be constantly
|
||
bringing new ideas into the relationship -- that would be a rere
|
||
person, indeed!)
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Whoops...
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:39:30
|
||
Message Number 16413
|
||
|
||
TS> Asolutely, no exceptions.
|
||
DF> *KLANK!* I don't (and didn't) go that far.
|
||
|
||
TS> Uh huh. Say, didn't you and Jen break up?
|
||
|
||
Yes, but that had nothing to do with an open or closed relationship.
|
||
We ddid *NOT* have an open rel;ationship (as in, we were not supposed
|
||
to have sex with anone ... uh, anyone else.) but we had close friends
|
||
of both genders outside the relationship.
|
||
If you must know, she was really tired of a long-distance relationshi
|
||
...uh, relationship. Neither of us have lovers, right now.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:44:22
|
||
Message Number 16414
|
||
|
||
DF> Why? If you truly love somebody, the BEST way of finding out about
|
||
DF> your partner's love is to set them free.
|
||
|
||
TS> Uh huh. Sounds good, don't it? 'Till they don;'t come back.
|
||
TS> Then there you are, hurt. The hell with them at that point, because
|
||
>TS> They lefy you anyway.
|
||
|
||
(I am going back to a good terminal program ASAP!) Precusely. So
|
||
what's your point?
|
||
|
||
Seriously, the sentence I stated I still feel is excellent. If you
|
||
really want to knnow if your partner loves you, if you truly want to
|
||
find out if she loves you, and if you're willing to face the fact that
|
||
sge might not love you, the best way of finding this information out
|
||
is by setting her free. If you want to hold someone forever, if
|
||
you want to possess her forever -- it's not a good idea to set her
|
||
free.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:51:38
|
||
Message Number 16415
|
||
|
||
Well, you got part of it right. We never had sex. (To be honest, she
|
||
seemed waaaay too eager -- I was internally flashing *caution* lights.)
|
||
|
||
"Typical" woman, indeed! Might be typical to your culture -- but
|
||
I'm used to New College types... and most of the women I've known
|
||
outside New College have also been relatively "physical."
|
||
//\Dragonfly///
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: ALL
|
||
Subject: The Question
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:59:28
|
||
Message Number 16416
|
||
|
||
Bering that I posed the question, I'll answer it myself.
|
||
|
||
Yes, I would (and have!) told my girlfriend if/when I had sex with
|
||
another person. And, yes -- I've taken the consequences. Then again,
|
||
she did the same for me when she cheated on me.
|
||
//Dragibnfly// ,,<<-- whatever my name is...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 22:50:28
|
||
Message Number 16417
|
||
|
||
S> I have a vivid imagination..I know he has to channel of that hyper-
|
||
active energy into "something"...What better way to do it?
|
||
|
||
I agree 110%.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 22:53:16
|
||
Message Number 16418
|
||
|
||
Yes, the walls. I am the one to do that. But I am getting better.
|
||
Now I will try to not want to talk about it, but as soon as I here,
|
||
"Ok, do you want to talk about it, or pout about it?" Then I usually am
|
||
ready to discuss it.
|
||
|
||
Although I will say, about the particular incident I was refering too,
|
||
we have both learned and are more careful about who is aproved and who
|
||
is not, and why. Then if we both are not satisified with the decision
|
||
we have made, then the other person has no physical contact with the
|
||
outside person. ( I am not sure if I made any sense here or not. )
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Turtle
|
||
Date & Time: 05/01/91 23:01:50
|
||
Message Number 16419
|
||
|
||
Yes, indeed he is gone, and guess what, I AM THE JOUNIOR SYSOP!!!
|
||
|
||
Actually all that means is I am only useful if the board does not go
|
||
down. But you will all be happy to know, I recieved a call from the
|
||
shelled one and he has arrived in Philly just fine. No bruses, no
|
||
tickets, and he should be home early Friday morning. Praise be the
|
||
Ardvark.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 00:20:48
|
||
Message Number 16422
|
||
|
||
TS> ....might simply decide to drop you in favor of another.
|
||
|
||
If that is the case, monogomas relationships also run this risk. And
|
||
in the last four and a half years Turtle and I have been together, we
|
||
have lost count of the turn over rate of all of our monogomas friends.
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 00:27:12
|
||
Message Number 16423
|
||
|
||
Yes he did do it with pryor aproval. And no he was not a better lover
|
||
then Turtle. But so what if he was. Turtle means more to me then just
|
||
an excellent fuck any way. Tim however was, at that time a friend, r
|
||
roomate, and a person that I slept with a few times, and yes it was just
|
||
a few. Tim and I did not sleep together to begin a relationship, we
|
||
slept together to have fun, and it was fun. But that all it was, now
|
||
when Turtle and I sleep toghther it is fun plus a whole lot more. The
|
||
whole lot more part is what keeps us together. That is the part I have
|
||
never shared with any other partner. At least we are honest about our
|
||
needs, and when we are atracted to other people we tell each other, we
|
||
don't hide it. We discuss it, If one of us does not like something
|
||
about an outside party then the rules are set and followed. An example
|
||
I am interested in someone. I tell Turtle. He says no. I say Ok. And
|
||
life goes on. It can only be exciting if he would not be upset about
|
||
what I was doing. This is where you don't understand, I think, I do
|
||
believe you think an open relationship is constantly everyone having sex
|
||
with everyone else. No. It only works if everyone involved is happy.
|
||
If I am not happy about someone, then nothing happens. If he is not
|
||
happy about someone , then nothing happens. In the last 4 1/2 years
|
||
between the two of us we have had a total of 5 lovers. Now that is
|
||
Turtle 3, other then me, and Crystal 2, other then Turtle. Now, how
|
||
many people, maybe yourself included, have had more monogomas
|
||
relationships then that. My sister is a good example, she is strictly
|
||
monogomas. She became active at the age of 17. She is now 20. In this
|
||
time she has had 7 monogomas relationships. I became active at age 18.
|
||
I am now 25. I have had 6 lovers. Three of them were before Turtle. I
|
||
don't know weighing the odds, my sisiter has a greater chance of
|
||
catching something then me. Now what are your, or your friends odds?
|
||
Anyway I am running out of space. Think about it.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 00:54:23
|
||
Message Number 16424
|
||
|
||
Excuse me.
|
||
> HOw can yo have two similar thing which are unique?
|
||
|
||
How can you love you girlfriend. You must love her or you would not be
|
||
sleeping with her right? And how can you love you mother? Or are you
|
||
sleeping with your mother too? I know that was ever so low. I did not
|
||
say it to piss you off, I just said it to show you that their are
|
||
different kinds of love out their. Do you understand it now. I do not
|
||
see how you can love two totaly different people the same way any way.
|
||
After all we are all individuals.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 01:00:47
|
||
Message Number 16425
|
||
|
||
DF> The best way of finding out about your partners love is to set them
|
||
free.
|
||
TS> Uh huh. Sounds good, don't it? 'Till they don't come back. Then
|
||
there you are, hurt. The hell with them at that point, because they
|
||
left you anyway.
|
||
|
||
At that point, I would say they truly did not love you and were neve
|
||
r theirs, or they were never yours to beging with. So maybe in the long
|
||
run you would have been hurt anyway, but at least you would have lived
|
||
a lie a little longer.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 01:08:58
|
||
Message Number 16426
|
||
|
||
TS> I would not tell her if I broke up because I wnated to bop someone
|
||
else.
|
||
|
||
That is it, honesty is the best policy. (smirk),(nodding of head), yes
|
||
indeed love those frequent monogomas relationships.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 10:20:59
|
||
Message Number 16427
|
||
|
||
>I just said it to show you that their are different kinds of love
|
||
>out their.
|
||
|
||
*DING!* *DING!* *DING!* (Was it good for you, too?)
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: RUFUS
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 18:35:46
|
||
Message Number 16429
|
||
|
||
>Heheheh. What do you think happened to them?
|
||
|
||
I like it.
|
||
|
||
I sold my kids and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt. (c) 1990 W.N.R.,
|
||
Inc.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 20:51:02
|
||
Message Number 16430
|
||
|
||
DFy>I admit: there are male friends I have who I hug. And I've
|
||
DFy>recieve d [sic] backrubs from some other males.
|
||
|
||
No doubt.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Not 15000 atall
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 20:53:58
|
||
Message Number 16431
|
||
|
||
DFy>Many of my closest friends have been female...and most of them,
|
||
DFy>I haven't had sex with.
|
||
|
||
No kiddin. How about that. And here I thought that I was an unusual
|
||
type for not having had sex with all my real close female friends.
|
||
|
||
DFy>I've just known the difference between sensual and sexual for a
|
||
DFy>long while.
|
||
|
||
Again, I am amazed. I never thought there was a difference!
|
||
|
||
Please....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:01:36
|
||
Message Number 16432
|
||
|
||
You are wrong. Simply. Emotions like that should be reserved for one
|
||
person at a time. If you try to distribute them, you lessen the amount
|
||
you have for each person. It is FINITE>
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:06:08
|
||
Message Number 16433
|
||
|
||
DFy>"Typical" woman, indeed.
|
||
|
||
Yes, indeed.
|
||
|
||
DFy>Might be typical of your culture--but I'm used to New College types.
|
||
|
||
And they are as far from the norm (for the most part) of "my culture"
|
||
as savages in the jungles of Borneo. (Not nescessarily stating that
|
||
they are similar--just as far removed.) "Your culture" (that is,
|
||
New College) is not "normal". But I am sure that there are a few
|
||
holdouts; ie, "normal" people (to within the confines of "my culture")
|
||
who will seem atypical to the "average" NC individual.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:15:55
|
||
Message Number 16434
|
||
|
||
Ah, yes, but if I were in a monogamous relationship, my lover wouldn't
|
||
be doing other lovers, she would be with me and therefore wouldn't
|
||
be in the mind to try someone else and having not tried someone else,
|
||
would not therefore end up with that someone else....
|
||
|
||
Next?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:21:05
|
||
Message Number 16435
|
||
|
||
Ok, then lemme ask you this: If only you and Turtle have to approve,
|
||
then what about the poor canidate? Does he get to approve of any
|
||
other canidate lovers? Like, if you had someone that was approved,
|
||
(by Turtle and you) and Turtle had someone who was approved (by you
|
||
and Turtle) do those two get a chance to approve or dissaprove of
|
||
each other? And what about the lovers that those two may have had?
|
||
Sorry, but that brings *way* too many people into the situation to
|
||
be controlled effectively. You never see AIDS coming...you can't
|
||
see it written across your lovers forehead and more, it doesn't show
|
||
up for two years....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:24:30
|
||
Message Number 16436
|
||
|
||
Yes, there are types of love. There can be love bewteen freinds,
|
||
and there can be love between relatives, and there can be the special
|
||
love shared between two people...this is intimacy. Love is not
|
||
predicate on sex, of course. But I feel that sex is connected with
|
||
love. And that type of love is something to be shared between two
|
||
people...if you try to distribute it, you end up cheapening it. It is
|
||
FINITE.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:28:19
|
||
Message Number 16437
|
||
|
||
On the subject of "those frequent monogamous relationships", I started
|
||
active at 18, and now am 25. I have had a total of 4 relationships,
|
||
one which lasted for a year and 10 months. You can wipe that smirk
|
||
offa your face and take that "knowing nod" and....grrr....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 23:21:41
|
||
Message Number 16438
|
||
|
||
Yes, I can't agree with you more on the STD worries, however, when you
|
||
jump from one monogomas relationship to another, you risk the same.
|
||
And one thing you seem to be missing. When Turtle and I are with
|
||
anyone else We Are Using condoms. It is only when we are with each
|
||
other we do not use condoms. We met each other early enough in our
|
||
active sex lives that we know we are clean and want to keep us condom
|
||
free. However when we take on other partners extra precautions are
|
||
taken. Can you say, with total conviction, that you are as cautious
|
||
with all your monogomas relationships?
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/02/91 23:27:24
|
||
Message Number 16439
|
||
|
||
Yes, I also feel sex is connected with love. Everytime I make love to
|
||
Turtle I feel it. BUT when I sleep with someone else it is different.
|
||
It is more of a deep caring thing, it is intimit. I also believe If you
|
||
keep falling deeply in love with people over, and over again. And the
|
||
relationships keep going sour then the depth of your love gets shallow.
|
||
And you never find happiness.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: P.WHIPPED
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: trip
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 11:14:56
|
||
Message Number 16440
|
||
|
||
Weeeee'rrreee Baaaaaaaacckk
|
||
The trip was fun (even if we had to do it in a moo car). The
|
||
dudes at Alamo probably won't be too pleased with us. 2600 miles in
|
||
3 days....not to mention we ran out of washer fluid mysteriously...
|
||
average velocity, 70-75 mph. God it was fun. We come back with a new
|
||
lust in life...CHEESESTEAK!!!!!
|
||
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: >ALL<
|
||
Subject: Philly & Stuff
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 11:58:40
|
||
Message Number 16441
|
||
|
||
Didja miss me? I'm BAAAAACK! Yep, after a totally irrational three-day
|
||
sojurn to Philadelphia, the Rotting City of Memories and Inertia (tm),
|
||
where I was exposed to Philly cheese steaks and homeless people in front
|
||
of Benjamin Franklin's Philadelphia Philosophical Society (yep, if he
|
||
were alive today he'ds be spinning in his grave) I have returned to
|
||
the parts that are where I return to when I come back from being places
|
||
where I am when I'm not here...it was fun. More as it degenerates.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:30:49
|
||
Message Number 16442
|
||
|
||
Drf>The BEST way of finding out about your partner's love is to set
|
||
>them free.
|
||
SS>Of course, if they don't come back, you can hunt them down and kill'
|
||
>em
|
||
|
||
Naw, I'd just sell his boat... that would really hit him where it hurts.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:33:09
|
||
Message Number 16443
|
||
|
||
SS>You told me you wouldn't be able to live with yourself. What would
|
||
you do.
|
||
|
||
I wouldn't put myself in that position in the first place. No matter HOW
|
||
attracted I am to another man, I simply will not allow my hormones to
|
||
rule my mind..... I won't even entertain the thought (er, well, maybe
|
||
I'll entertain it a little), but I will NOT be unfaithful. My husband
|
||
trusts me a great deal, and even if things are not so hot between us...
|
||
for instance, right now, he's like in one of this "Sheilds raised" modes
|
||
which pisses me off and makes me feel sooooo lonely, but I refuse to
|
||
betray him.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:36:48
|
||
Message Number 16444
|
||
|
||
SA>I wouldn't trade my kids for all the Ferraris....
|
||
TS>Hell, I would
|
||
SA>This, coming from a man who HAS no children...
|
||
TS>Hheheh. What do you think happened to them?
|
||
|
||
You traded them for the Charger???? Boy, did you get giped.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:43:24
|
||
Message Number 16445
|
||
|
||
TS>Hang on too loose and you might lose it. Someone might remove it from
|
||
your grasp.
|
||
|
||
Gee, TS, are you talking about a woman or a peice of meat... last time
|
||
I checked, it takes two to tango... No one can steal someone from you...
|
||
that person walks away of their own volition. If you squeeze too tightly
|
||
you're going to lose control. No one likes to be smothered constantly.
|
||
Sooner or later, they will assume you simply do not trust them and
|
||
walk away.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:53:23
|
||
Message Number 16446
|
||
|
||
DF>[The person I wanted wouldn't let me touch her when she found out
|
||
asn't interested in marrying her.]
|
||
DF>Sheesh!
|
||
|
||
TS>Oh, you poor thing you! (Sarcastically.) Welcome to reality! So
|
||
> lemme get this straight: when she thought that sex led to marriage wa
|
||
> a possibility, you were allowed to touch her...but when she found out
|
||
> that you weren't the marrying type, she dropped the touching...and
|
||
> with it the hugging and all sex? In other words, she wanted no furthe
|
||
> physical contact with you after she found out that you two weren't goi
|
||
> to get married? And you were dissapointed? Oh, please. That is
|
||
> a typical woman...better get used to 'em.
|
||
|
||
Oh, really? A typical woman eh? Ahem!
|
||
|
||
You sound very bitter, TS.... From a man who doesn't like dogs or
|
||
children, and Now I see, you really don't think much of women either.
|
||
How sad.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:59:38
|
||
Message Number 16447
|
||
|
||
You CAN'T hold on to someone who doesn't want you.... Point!
|
||
You can't POSSESS another person because people are NOT peices of
|
||
property..... Yes, hold on loosely, but DON'T let go.... by setting
|
||
someone free (whatever that means) you have just conveyed that you
|
||
maybe don't really care what they do and with who....
|
||
|
||
Give them the freedom to be with their friends, give them the space
|
||
they need for their own, but don't "set them free", it implies too
|
||
much.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:05:57
|
||
Message Number 16448
|
||
|
||
Hey Crystal, how are the nails coming along? I've been working on mine
|
||
and they are actually starting to grow again... Amazing. now if I could
|
||
just stop slamming my fingers in windows....
|
||
|
||
All you GUYS just ignore this post, it's, like, woman bullshit.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:07:47
|
||
Message Number 16449
|
||
|
||
Yeah, that made sense. If one of you doens't approve of the person for
|
||
whatever reason, then the deals off... that's because you two are still
|
||
"together" and anyone else whom you make love with is still basically
|
||
an outsider and not "part" of Your relationship with each other.
|
||
|
||
As for the walls issue. I don't know how much longer I can handle this
|
||
situation, my husband just refuses to talk it out. It's like, "Nothings
|
||
wrong, I'm just tired." Or "Nothings wrong, why do you keep asking me
|
||
that?" Both said with a pissed off tone of voice... I don't know...
|
||
Everything was fine until I got the cyst... then came the surgery, and
|
||
I really felt alone during that time.... It was like, the whole affair
|
||
was just a big bother to him and he lent me little if no moral support.
|
||
He's never been like that before. He seems so preoccupied with "what
|
||
ever" that I feel like I don't even belong here.
|
||
Maybe something is going on that I should know about... I only hope that
|
||
he'll come to terms with it and discuss it with me.... if he doesn't
|
||
soon, I don't know what I'm going to do, I can't live like this....
|
||
I'm not used to being so depressed about "things" and this whole
|
||
situation is making me very emotional and depressed. But, at least
|
||
I have my friends on the BBS.... You guys could make any situation
|
||
tolerable as long as you were here to post to...:)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:25:00
|
||
Message Number 16450
|
||
|
||
C>...Turtle and I use condoms...
|
||
|
||
And sexual intercourse is not the only way that STDs can be transmitted.
|
||
How about mono? And they haven't proven CONCLUSIVELY that AIDS cannot
|
||
be transmitted via SALIVA.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:26:52
|
||
Message Number 16451
|
||
|
||
C>..can you say that you are as safe with all your monogamous
|
||
C>relationships?
|
||
|
||
Yes, I can say that. (I'd be lying, but I could say that. :))
|
||
But for the most part, I can be sure of whom I'm with...and who she's
|
||
been with. Can you say the same?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:29:00
|
||
Message Number 16452
|
||
|
||
C>Yes, I also feel sex is connected with love.
|
||
|
||
No, not just connected. They are interlinked.
|
||
|
||
C>...keep falling in love over and over again...you love gets shallow.
|
||
|
||
And if you don't bother to love the one you make love to, that's just
|
||
as shallow. (Looks around, notes thin ice, backs up a few steps...)
|
||
I mean, yes, naturally you feel as if you care deeply for the person
|
||
you are making love to...some sort of a hormonal thing, I guess. But
|
||
you said it yourself...it's different from the kind of real love that
|
||
you feel for Turtle. It may be intimate, but it's a really ersatz
|
||
type of intamacy. It's a...surrogate---substitution type of intamacy.
|
||
It's fake...it's nothing more than simple lust in disguise.
|
||
|
||
Oh, shit...listen to me... "Ah, yes, ye sinners! Cast away the Lust
|
||
from you and only indulge in the love sanctified by the Lord! Can you
|
||
say, Hallejula?"
|
||
|
||
Well, anyway, I'm serious...it's not really love. And news flash: I
|
||
don't fall in love too often. Love is a really serious thing, not for
|
||
casual use.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:40:54
|
||
Message Number 16453
|
||
|
||
SA>I wouldn't trade...
|
||
TS>Hell, I would
|
||
SA>This, coming from the man who HAS
|
||
TS>Heheheh. What do you thing happened to them?
|
||
SA>You traded them for the Charger??? Boy, did you get giped. [sic]
|
||
|
||
No, I traded them for a 69 Super Sport Camaro. And yes, I got gypped.
|
||
So I sold the Camaro for all I could get ($12) and bought a much better
|
||
car, the Charger.
|
||
|
||
Next?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:43:05
|
||
Message Number 16454
|
||
|
||
SA>Gee, TS, are you talking about a woman or a piece of meat...
|
||
|
||
There's a difference?
|
||
|
||
SA>If you squeeze too tightly you're going to lose control.
|
||
|
||
Gee, SA...you should write lyrics for .38 Special.
|
||
|
||
SA>Sooner or later they will assume you simply do not trust them and
|
||
SA>walk away.
|
||
|
||
No kiddin. I don't hold on too tight, I was simply saying that you
|
||
should make sure that She knows that you are concerned. Hold on
|
||
loosely but don't leggo, know whatta mean?
|
||
|
||
(Yes, I took it from the song...)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:46:37
|
||
Message Number 16455
|
||
|
||
Look, Saavik, that *is* a typical woman, wether you realize it or not.
|
||
Most women won't let you get that close unless you are willing to
|
||
"pay for the milk" so to speak. No, I'm not bitter, just realistic.
|
||
|
||
SA>...and not I see you really don't think much of women either.
|
||
|
||
I know what most are like, and based on that, I take 'em on a case by
|
||
case basis. Besides, it's not like I'm out to screw them all or
|
||
something like that.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: DA,ILOYOWIALMYHE
|
||
Subject: access
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:03:15
|
||
Message Number 16456
|
||
|
||
Congratulations. You made it in the BBS.
|
||
"General Smack Talk" usually doesn't work around here. But I love
|
||
yer name. How do you pronounce it?
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:06:33
|
||
Message Number 16457
|
||
|
||
TS> You are wrong. Simply.
|
||
|
||
Why?
|
||
|
||
TS> Emotions like that should be reserved for one person at a time.
|
||
|
||
Why?
|
||
|
||
TS> If you try to distribute them, you lessen the amount you have for
|
||
TS> each person. It is FINITE>
|
||
|
||
Oh, so the person with the most love is the person who holds love
|
||
inside the most? In other words, the person who is perpetually grouchy,
|
||
has no friends, few acquaintences, is the person who has used up the
|
||
least amount of his (or her!) finite supply of love, and should there-
|
||
fore be the most deserving of love?
|
||
|
||
Give me a break.
|
||
|
||
<Ghods, this will sound corny!> There's no limit to the amount of
|
||
love, joy, or happiness a person can give, or receive. There's no limit
|
||
to the number of fond memories a person can have. Love isn't a
|
||
commodity to be hoarded away; it is possible to love many people at
|
||
once. (Always expressing this physically isn't a good idea.)
|
||
|
||
Read Leo Buscaglia... he says it much better than I do.
|
||
|
||
Again, I don't believe that loving one person lessens the amount you
|
||
can love another... provided you love each person for their own
|
||
individuality. (If you love someone because they remind you of someone
|
||
else... that's a different story.) Love's not a concrete object that
|
||
can be withered away.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:24:12
|
||
Message Number 16458
|
||
|
||
>You never see AIDS coming... you can't see it written across your
|
||
>lovers forehead and more, it doesn't show up for two years.
|
||
|
||
HIV can be tested for within six months. But point taken.
|
||
|
||
Let me try to summarize my position... would you do the same?
|
||
|
||
Love: It is extremely possible to *feel* love for many people, so long
|
||
the love is unique to each person.
|
||
|
||
Sex: An open relationship can work -- if the two partners are
|
||
extremely secure with each other. But that's rare. And diseases
|
||
today are one of the best reasons not to make a relationship
|
||
open.... but it still can work.
|
||
|
||
Simple, no? //Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:32:21
|
||
Message Number 16459
|
||
|
||
Aha! Thank you, Saavik. Even you found it strange that when we weren't
|
||
going to have sex, she wanted me to stop holding her hand...
|
||
|
||
As I've said before, when I trust someone, I can be very physically
|
||
affectionate (if she also enjoys such.) I do NOT let people get
|
||
uncomfortable, and I understand the word "Stop." But to go from an
|
||
physically close relationship (long hugs and kisses; short backrubs
|
||
only...) to a "hands off" relationship completely confused me. I
|
||
wanted to hear y'alls reactions to it.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:37:03
|
||
Message Number 16460
|
||
|
||
>By setting someone free (whatever that means) you have just conveyed
|
||
>that you maybe don't really care what they do and with who....
|
||
|
||
Touche! Jenn knew that she was always free to leave our relationship
|
||
when she chose, without hassle. (Okay. With some questions about why,
|
||
yes.) But I made sure that she knew that I would (and, DO, dammit!)
|
||
miss her.
|
||
|
||
"Setting them free" doesn't necessarily mean opening the relationship
|
||
in the way Turtle and Crystal have. It just means (well, this should be
|
||
done BEFORE marriage...) that either one can leave the relation with few
|
||
hassles. If they stay with you, you know you've got something real.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:42:43
|
||
Message Number 16461
|
||
|
||
I know about growing nails. When I was really, really into classical
|
||
guitar, I had four long fingernails on my right hand (filed to points),
|
||
and six very short ones (Clipped at least twice a week.)
|
||
|
||
I miss them, now that I'm playing a bit again.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:47:04
|
||
Message Number 16462
|
||
|
||
About you and your husband: I really wish I could help more than this:
|
||
Have you told your husband about your feelings? That you feel that
|
||
you don't belong there?
|
||
|
||
You did the right thing: making the first move. And I'm sorry you're
|
||
feeling depressed. Good luck.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:50:39
|
||
Message Number 16463
|
||
|
||
>And they haven't proven CONCLUSIVELY that AIDS cannot be transmitted
|
||
>via SALIVA.
|
||
|
||
And they haven't proven CONCLUSIVELY that AIDS cannot be transmitted
|
||
by someone thinking about the great Aardvark. What of it? So far as I`
|
||
know, every case of AIDS has been transmitted by means other than
|
||
kissing. Do you have any medical documentation backing up your
|
||
position?
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: N-S 'acts'
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:15:59
|
||
Message Number 16464
|
||
|
||
>Ours is a very strange society, where physical contact is automatically
|
||
>assumed to be a part of sex.
|
||
|
||
Yes, like I said...only I would probably say "ours is a psychotic
|
||
society..."
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:20:45
|
||
Message Number 16465
|
||
|
||
>Ye Ghods in Heaven...
|
||
|
||
So to speak.
|
||
|
||
>...are we agreeing, then?
|
||
|
||
Sadly, tragically, unfortunately...yes.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: P.WHIPPED
|
||
Subject: oK
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:21:58
|
||
Message Number 16466
|
||
|
||
>WE GOT A CAR!!!!
|
||
|
||
We got a loaf. We got a big, ugly not-so-mini van that steers like
|
||
a cow and has a blind spot you could hide a camel caravan in. We got
|
||
a wallowing, clumsy, slow monmstrosity of a self-propelled vehicle
|
||
that has all the grace and speed of your average oxcart without any
|
||
of the convenience. We got a nightmare.
|
||
|
||
...but hey, it was fun!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Wabbits?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:27:26
|
||
Message Number 16467
|
||
|
||
>Now everytime I see that energiser bunny walk across the screen I
|
||
>think of Turtle........
|
||
|
||
Hey!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: <continuing>
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:30:00
|
||
Message Number 16468
|
||
|
||
>I dunno..... I just see your point.
|
||
|
||
You seem to be in the minority, then.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:32:07
|
||
Message Number 16469
|
||
|
||
>...we've been together for 11 years this summer...... I would be a
|
||
>little afraid of losing him ....
|
||
|
||
Huh? After eleven years you still think he might abandon you over a
|
||
sexual matter? Damn, woman, what does it take to convince you that
|
||
someone has no intention of going anywhere?? That doesn't follow.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:36:50
|
||
Message Number 16470
|
||
|
||
>Okay, enough bullshit... an open relationship can /ONLY/...workl if bot
|
||
>partners want it that way...
|
||
|
||
Yes. Precisely. It can't work if both people don't want it that way.
|
||
|
||
>...first you say you would insist on faithfulness, then you say it's
|
||
>bullshit to start a relationship founded on sexual fidelity.
|
||
>That doesn't make sense.
|
||
|
||
It certainly does. I am happy with a relationship that is either open
|
||
or closed. However, if my partner wants it closed, then it is
|
||
/closed/...no fooling around. I don't think it's bullshit to have a
|
||
relationship that's based on sexual fidelity; I think it's bullshit to
|
||
believe that a relationship /must/ be founded on sexual fidelity. I
|
||
know for a fact that a lasting, intimate, stable relationship can be
|
||
sexually open; therefore, statements like "no open relationship can be
|
||
intimate" are bullshit.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:44:32
|
||
Message Number 16471
|
||
|
||
>>...so a small situation becomes a major stress bath until we finally
|
||
>>talk...
|
||
|
||
...and there's no way to predict ahead of time how bad it'll be...and
|
||
the distribution is fractal...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:49:17
|
||
Message Number 16472
|
||
|
||
>I guess the best way to deal with this is to chalk up the differences
|
||
>to your reptilian ancestry.
|
||
|
||
[LOL] But, isn't jealousy mediated by the lizard brain?? Ironic, yesno?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:51:06
|
||
Message Number 16473
|
||
|
||
T> Now, any questions?
|
||
S> Yeah, what if Kelly decided to become monogamous with another man?
|
||
|
||
Same thing that would happen if she chose to break off the sexual part
|
||
of our relationship for any /other/ reason. It would cause a significant
|
||
change in the nature of our relationship, although I doubt that it would
|
||
end the relationship. If Kelly decides to do something which affects our
|
||
relationship, it doesn't matter /why/ she made that decision; the only
|
||
thing that's significant is the fact that she /did/ make that decision.
|
||
If she chose to stop being my lover, it wouldn't matter two squats if
|
||
it was because she were monogamous with another man or she simply
|
||
decided to be celibate or she became a Jehovah's Witless; the simple
|
||
fact is that we would no longer be lovers, and our relationship would
|
||
change accordingly.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:56:13
|
||
Message Number 16474
|
||
|
||
>I wouldn't fall in love with [someone] I was involved in an open
|
||
>relationship with. Period.
|
||
|
||
Now that is just plain silly. Real damn silly. But at least it's also
|
||
sort of inconsequential, since you don't always choose the people you
|
||
fall in love with in the first place...
|
||
|
||
Why the hell do people insist on tangling love and sex into a big, nasty
|
||
knot that can't really be sorted out? I never could figure that one
|
||
out. Sex is a matter of biology; love is a matter of psychology; the
|
||
two are not necessarily related. Predicating the one on the other is
|
||
silly.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:59:18
|
||
Message Number 16475
|
||
|
||
>Intimacy implies..."I care for you more than I care for anyone else..."
|
||
|
||
Implying that intimacy can only exist toward one person at a time.
|
||
Manifest Bullshit (tm).
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:00:54
|
||
Message Number 16476
|
||
|
||
>Then your best friend was screwing your girlfriend...Tell me, did he do
|
||
>this with your prior approval?
|
||
|
||
Yes.
|
||
|
||
>What if Kelly had decided that he was a *much* better lover than you
|
||
>could *ever* be...
|
||
|
||
Then good for her. In a world fo four billion human beings, it's
|
||
rational to assume that no matter what I do and no matter what skills I
|
||
have, someone--and probably someone I know, for that matter--can do them
|
||
better. JonBoy is a better programmer than I am by a long shot; that
|
||
doesn't bother me. Why should it bother me if my best friend is a better
|
||
lover than I am?
|
||
|
||
>...and decided to drop you like a rock?
|
||
|
||
Non-sequitur. The relationship between Kelly and I is not based on sex.
|
||
If we were to stop sleeping together, the relationship would not end.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:04:32
|
||
Message Number 16477
|
||
|
||
>Ok, so both of you have to approve of the "Candidate Lover," right?
|
||
|
||
Nice choice of words. "Candidate Lover"...hmph. But, yes, everyone
|
||
involved has to agree to the situation. That way, nobody gets hurt.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Not 15000 atall
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:07:32
|
||
Message Number 16478
|
||
|
||
T>I won't even get into your "she has [two] lovers," [etc] preconception
|
||
S>Oh, no. I can't spot my flaw. Please enlighten me.
|
||
|
||
Well, to start with, it simply doesn't work into the big branching
|
||
pyramid that you describe. That sort of situation is inherently
|
||
unstable. It's nice in theory, but you won't see it happen in the
|
||
real world...human sexual interactions aren't that tidy.
|
||
|
||
Also, let us assume that someone in this mythical pyramid of yours
|
||
contracts a social disease. You seem to keep using that as an argument
|
||
against sexually open relationships, on the grounds that disease will
|
||
propogate through such a relationship...I got news for you, if
|
||
sexually transmitted diseases propogated that way, almost every sexually
|
||
active human being on the planet would be infected by now. Simple
|
||
epidemology shows that disease propogation through a given population
|
||
falls off as a function of 1/logn(x), where x is the number of
|
||
intervening steps between case 0 (the original point of infection) and
|
||
the point of interest, presumably yourself. If it fell off as a function
|
||
of 1/x like you seem to imply. the human race would have long since
|
||
ceased to exist...but it just plain don't work that way. AIDS, in
|
||
particular, is a very difficult disease to transmit; unless you engage
|
||
in homosexual sex or share contaminated needles or blood products, it's
|
||
only moderately transmissable, less so than hepatitis or any of the more
|
||
familiar STD's. In short, your argument doesn't hold up to reality
|
||
very well.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:20:52
|
||
Message Number 16480
|
||
|
||
>Because a relationship is supposed to be something special...something
|
||
>unique! How can you have two similar things which are unique?
|
||
|
||
That's an easy one. You cannot possibly love two different people in the
|
||
same way, even if you express your love to both of these people
|
||
sexually.
|
||
|
||
Next?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:23:12
|
||
Message Number 16481
|
||
|
||
>I would have the decency to break up with my girlfriend if I wanted
|
||
>to bop someone else.
|
||
|
||
Oh, you're just the paragon of decency, aren't you? Yeah, great; of
|
||
/course/ it's much better to hurt your girlfriend for no other reason
|
||
than you've got the hots for someone else than to continue with both
|
||
relationships and not hurt anyone...right. I though you were trying to
|
||
seize the moral high ground in this discussion...what happened?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Whoops...
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:26:32
|
||
Message Number 16482
|
||
|
||
>...but we both have close friends of both genders...
|
||
|
||
Of both /sexes/. The word "gender" is properly applied only to
|
||
/words/--ie, masculine, feminime, or neuter nouns in German, etc.
|
||
People don't have a "gender," they have a /sex/.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Not even close
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:52:13
|
||
Message Number 16483
|
||
|
||
>No kiddin. How about that. And here I thought I was the different type
|
||
>for not having sex with all of my real close female friends.
|
||
|
||
Oh, give it a rest. That's not what we're discussing here. It don't work
|
||
that way.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:53:22
|
||
Message Number 16484
|
||
|
||
>You are wrong. Simply.
|
||
|
||
My, how arrogant! Not only does he decide how his relationships ought to
|
||
work, he decides how everyone else's should work, too.
|
||
|
||
>If you try to distribute them, you lessen the amount you have for each
|
||
>person.
|
||
|
||
Maybe YOU do. Don't make the mistake of assuming everyone ELSE does,
|
||
also. While I can't love /everyone/ and have it mean something, I for
|
||
one can love more than /one/ person and still have it mean something.
|
||
There's plenty of reserve capacity there.
|
||
|
||
>It is FINITE>[sic]
|
||
|
||
And evidently, in your case quite limited.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: P.WHIPPED
|
||
Subject: trip
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:58:10
|
||
Message Number 16485
|
||
|
||
>We come back with a new lust in life...CHEESESTEAK!
|
||
|
||
Gimme gimme gimme! Good stuff.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 01:00:38
|
||
Message Number 16486
|
||
|
||
>You guys could make any situation tolerable as long as you were here
|
||
>to post to...
|
||
|
||
Even when we're vigorously disagreeing with one another and making you
|
||
dig into your own worldview and challenging your approach to life while
|
||
we're at it? :) Jeepers, that's swell!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 01:02:20
|
||
Message Number 16487
|
||
|
||
>And sexual intercourse is not the only way that STD's can be trans-
|
||
>mitted. How about mono?
|
||
|
||
How about mono? Last time I checked, Epstein-Barr virus wasn't
|
||
considered a sexually transmitted agent at all. Come to think of it,
|
||
you can catch a cold just by touching an object someone else has
|
||
touchd...my goodness, now there's a compelling reason to engage only
|
||
in monogamous relationships! I don't see your point.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 01:04:24
|
||
Message Number 16488
|
||
|
||
>But for the most part, ...
|
||
|
||
Nice qualifier. You can't see AIDS coming, you know.
|
||
|
||
>...I can be sure of whom I'm with...and who she's been with. Can you
|
||
>say the same?
|
||
|
||
I can, and so can Kelly. You still don't seem to grok that "open
|
||
relationship" doesn't equate with "indescriminate sex." Unless all
|
||
your partners have been virgins when you became lovers, I really don't
|
||
see that you've taken the high ground here.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 01:07:53
|
||
Message Number 16489
|
||
|
||
>Read Leo Buscaglia...
|
||
|
||
Oh please. "Dr. Feelgood's Syrupy Guide to Making Everything Swell
|
||
Forever"...that man is so shallow that a walk through the ocean of his
|
||
soul wouldn't get your feet wet. He'd be a Smurf if he could formulate
|
||
a philosophy sophisticated enough to be seen on Saturday morning
|
||
cartoons.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: PARTICIPANTS
|
||
Subject: The Den...
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 01:12:21
|
||
Message Number 16490
|
||
|
||
...has ground to a shuddering halt...it might be a good thing to
|
||
see posts from Kyara and Tampa soon...*ahem*.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 06:16:51
|
||
Message Number 16491
|
||
|
||
DF> Other countries: Why?
|
||
Well, because it may be interesting to learn how some of the customs got
|
||
star.
|
||
DF>New college had traditionally had a lot more physical contact (touch-
|
||
ing, Backrubs) than most places I've known.
|
||
Great! Where is this place? I wouldn't mind getting a back-rub or two.
|
||
DF> and frankly, I admit: there are male friends I have who I hug.
|
||
I'll betchya The Specialist isn't one of 'em. *]:)
|
||
DF> And I've received some backrubs from some other friends.
|
||
|
||
More power to you! There's nothing wrong with se - sex nonsexual contact
|
||
!!!!!!
|
||
|
||
L8R!
|
||
Knight Owl
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 06:29:03
|
||
Message Number 16492
|
||
|
||
TS> Kinda catch-all, ain't it?
|
||
Yeah, I tried the best I could though.
|
||
TS>It follows that if youfeel that way for someone else (and they for
|
||
you ) that sexual relations between thon should be exclusive... or else,
|
||
you have cheapened what you feel for the first one by doing the same
|
||
thing with someone else.
|
||
|
||
I agree with your point, but I have something to add:
|
||
Not all intimate relations, though intimate, are sexual.
|
||
Two people can care for each other, and sex isn't part of the picture.
|
||
|
||
Some examples would be trust, confiding in someone, or just being there
|
||
in a time of need.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: N-S 'acts'
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 06:45:27
|
||
Message Number 16493
|
||
|
||
... only I would probably say "Ours is a psychotic society..."
|
||
It's also paranoid. (Just because you thing someone is following you
|
||
doesn't mean they aren't.)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: P.WHIPPED
|
||
Subject: trip
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 06:56:01
|
||
Message Number 16494
|
||
|
||
> We come back with a new lust in life... CHEESESTEAK!!!!
|
||
|
||
God! I haven't had one of then in EONS!!! They make 'em down here, but
|
||
the roll is all wrong.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 10:15:28
|
||
Message Number 16495
|
||
|
||
Well, I broke both thumb nails, and my left pointing finger. I cryed.
|
||
The rest are doing just fine. I broke my thumb nails about a week ago
|
||
but they are over the shock and begining to grow now.
|
||
|
||
I got a couch. I love it. It is my first couch. And guss what it
|
||
is a sleeper couch. You'll have to come over and see it. It is so
|
||
comfortable.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 10:26:02
|
||
Message Number 16496
|
||
|
||
I am sorry to hear that your husband has built walls. Have you come
|
||
right out and said to him how upset you have been lately? He may not
|
||
see anything wrong and may not know what he is doing. Sometimes I
|
||
get snappy and don't realize I am snapping. You could always tie him
|
||
down and force him to talk (just kidding). But I do hope everything
|
||
works out.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 11:54:10
|
||
Message Number 16497
|
||
|
||
DFy>...(To be honest, she seems waaaay too eager -- I was internally
|
||
DFy> flashing *caution* lights.)
|
||
|
||
That's my problem with my new female companion (not really girlffiend,
|
||
because in my eyes, I'll be breaking up with her right directly), she's
|
||
getting waaaayyyy to serious, waaaaaayyy too fast.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 12:07:30
|
||
Message Number 16498
|
||
|
||
C> Can you say, with total conviction, that you are as cautious with all
|
||
C> your monogamous relationships?
|
||
|
||
This question wasn't directed toward me, but I decided to answer it
|
||
because it will help me make a point for the Specialist and myself.
|
||
|
||
Remember the "she has two lovers and those two lovers have two lover,
|
||
and so on, and so on," situation that the Specialist brought up?
|
||
Well, I haven't quite had that but lets just go with a similar situation
|
||
|
||
Lets say that I have AIDS (just for the sake of making my point) I will
|
||
use one actual case, I meet this girl, and give her AIDS. She is now
|
||
planning to marry her fiance and father of her unborn child. (Because
|
||
of me, she has it, her fiance has it, and now her unborn child has it.)
|
||
......I meet another girl, (I give her AIDS too), she meets this guy, an
|
||
(and) he and I became friends. (she gives him AIDS.) My friend at
|
||
school has this girl that he sleeps with on occasion, I became her lover
|
||
for a while. (I give her AIDS) He, later on, slept her again. (He
|
||
now has contracted AIDS from her.) During the time that I was with this
|
||
girl, I was involved with a threesome, with her and her friend. (So now,
|
||
her friend has AIDS too) My friend (from school) now has a new
|
||
girlfriend. (He gives AIDS to her.) The girl that I had the threesome
|
||
with now has a new boyfriend. (so, he gets AIDS too.) I have had two
|
||
lovers since her, and, lets just say the gets AIDS for me as well.
|
||
|
||
To the best of my knowledge I don't have AIDS, but if I did have AIDS fo
|
||
(for) the past 10 months you can see the number I people I could have
|
||
infected. (BEAR in mind that these are only the people I know of, there
|
||
may be more people involved than I know about.) So, if I have had AIDS
|
||
(hypothetically speaking) for the past 10 months, I have given it to
|
||
AIDS to NINE people that I know of. If you ask me, that's pretty
|
||
heavy, nine people, all people I know personally, infected with AIDS
|
||
because of me.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 12:34:02
|
||
Message Number 16499
|
||
|
||
SA> Geez, Specialist, are you talking about women or just a piece of
|
||
SA> meat. (sorry, that may not be accurately quoted.)
|
||
|
||
TS> There's a difference?
|
||
|
||
Ooooo buddy you're trending on thin ice again, better watch it. But
|
||
the next you get lonely, I'll buy you a steak to cuddle up with.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: HACMAN
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: SERIOUS PROBLEM
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 17:18:49
|
||
Message Number 16501
|
||
|
||
You're absolutely correct. I had a friend (or so I thought) tell me we
|
||
weren't friends anymore. He just said it out of the blue one day. He
|
||
said we were just aquaintences(sp). I asked why, he said I was a bright
|
||
guy, I should figure it out. What in heavens name is that supposed to
|
||
mean. Well we parted company. After thinking about it, I concluded
|
||
that we were never friends to begin with. After all, a friend would at
|
||
least give you the chance to make it right if you did something to
|
||
offend. To this day, I dont know what I did...if anything. So I say
|
||
SCREW him. I dont need friends like that. I asked, begged him to tell
|
||
me what I did. Nope...he refused to tell me. So fine. He never
|
||
wanted a friendship. He didnt want to try either.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: HACMAN
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Birth
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 17:25:51
|
||
Message Number 16502
|
||
|
||
Personally, I dont hate children. I just dont want any and I dont
|
||
appreciate being forced to deal with them in theaters, restaurants, etc.
|
||
If a parent cannot control their child, they should not take them out.
|
||
My wife just said they are nothing but "curtain climbers", "rug rats",
|
||
"puppy lickers","crumb snatchers", "diaper dirtyers",etc. But she
|
||
loves our neice. Just when she gets tired of her, she gives her back.
|
||
Too bad you cant do that with cars, jobs, pets,....
|
||
Burney
|
||
No really, she feels the same way I do. We just don't want any...
|
||
PS: You have mail waiting on YOED.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: HACMAN
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: doby
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 17:31:27
|
||
Message Number 16503
|
||
|
||
Yeah, but what about the splinters. Wont that hurt'm?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: HACMAN
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Marriage & stuf
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 17:33:28
|
||
Message Number 16504
|
||
|
||
Your point was eloquently put. I am afraid that I must agree with you.
|
||
I have a good marriage, I think, but the way society is today, I am in a
|
||
minority.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: HACMAN
|
||
To: ALL
|
||
Subject: bbs stuff
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 17:37:17
|
||
Message Number 16505
|
||
|
||
HEY people. I'm advertising again. Try out the newest bbs in the area.
|
||
it is:
|
||
*** YE OLDE ENGLISH DEN ***
|
||
.
|
||
sysop: Inn Keeper (me) baud: 300-1200
|
||
9pm-6am 7days...SOON to go 24hrs.
|
||
.
|
||
***Call NOW! Call NOW! Call NOW! Call NOW! Call NOW! ***
|
||
.
|
||
Telephone number is 493-8401.
|
||
.
|
||
All computer types WELCOME! Try it you'll like it!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: P.WHIPPED
|
||
Subject: tube at picnick
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 20:09:44
|
||
Message Number 16506
|
||
|
||
I have no idea! That's what's fun about scrounging - ya never know what
|
||
uses it had, and only your creativity to find uses FOR it! Enjoy... :)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: breaking habits
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 20:11:03
|
||
Message Number 16507
|
||
|
||
I know what you mean about smoking habits, tho I haven't gone a day
|
||
without smoking (in 20 years)....even with asthmatic bronchitis (1968),
|
||
I managed 3 or 4 tokes (so to speak) every 4 or 5 hours...I got it
|
||
bad, and that ain't good!!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: hung up on GOD?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 20:12:41
|
||
Message Number 16508
|
||
|
||
The problem (as I know you know) is the lack of logic and cause/effect
|
||
when it comes to religious beliefs. Is it ALL God's will, NONE of it
|
||
God's will, or SOME of it God's will, and how much is Our will?? Is
|
||
this God speaking thru ME?? (Ha!), or am I writing to God?? (hmmm)...
|
||
:)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: hung up on GOD?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 20:15:07
|
||
Message Number 16509
|
||
|
||
'Course, if God DOESN'T have a sense of humor (& He's like "they" say),
|
||
I'm in BIG trouble!!!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Birth Control
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 20:16:11
|
||
Message Number 16510
|
||
|
||
There's the Tantric Method...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 22:52:38
|
||
Message Number 16511
|
||
|
||
>...of /course/ it's much better to hurt your girlfriend for no other
|
||
> reason than you've got the hots for someone else than to continue
|
||
> with both relationships and not hurt anyone... right. I thought you
|
||
> were trying to seize the moral high ground in this discussion...
|
||
> what happened?
|
||
|
||
Simple. The two of you have conflicting definitions of morality --
|
||
or, at least, moralities where you place things in different orders.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Whoops...
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 22:56:16
|
||
Message Number 16512
|
||
|
||
> The word "gender" is properly applied only to /words/...
|
||
> People don't have a "gender," they have a /sex/.
|
||
|
||
Sorry. According to Webster's, "gender" was used to refer to
|
||
people before it was used for words, and gives Charles Dickens'
|
||
"black divinities of the female gender" as an example.
|
||
|
||
Where's the source of your information?
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:01:35
|
||
Message Number 16513
|
||
|
||
I think you don't grok Buscaglia. Of course, there's almost nothing
|
||
to UNDERSTAND in his books -- his books weren't written for your brain.
|
||
His books are written for the emotions, not the intelligence.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:04:54
|
||
Message Number 16514
|
||
|
||
New College is at the very northern tip of Sarasota, just west of
|
||
the airport. When you stop at Turtle's, you're real close to it.
|
||
|
||
There's a few problems: New College is also a very closed society.
|
||
It does NOT like "outsiders" (or "townies") invading its ground...
|
||
Until you get to know a fair number of the students, expect some cold
|
||
shoulders, OK?
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:10:00
|
||
Message Number 16515
|
||
|
||
Yes, but as Turtle points out, it's not so easy to catch AIDS as
|
||
you might think. If you have unprotected sex (i.e. no condoms...),
|
||
you're more likely to catch it -- but even if you have unprotected
|
||
anal sex with a known AIDS carrier, you're not guaranteed to catch it.
|
||
(Of course, you'd be quite stupid to try that stunt.)
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
Subject: hung up on GOD?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:14:45
|
||
Message Number 16516
|
||
|
||
Of course you're writing to God! She hears everything we type.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:38:07
|
||
Message Number 16518
|
||
|
||
>Let me...make a point for The Specialist and myself.
|
||
|
||
Nice try. It doesn't really work that way, though; the situation you
|
||
describe has nothing to do with "open" or "closed" relationships, and in
|
||
any event an AIDS carrier does not give AIDS to everyone he/she sleeps
|
||
with. AIDS is actually only ,arginally communicable; there are
|
||
documented cases of people having unprotected sex with an AIDS carrier
|
||
dozens of times without contracting the disease themselves, and the
|
||
risk becomes much smaller if you have /responsible/ sex to begin with.
|
||
No disease--NO disease, none, not one, not even Lhasa Fever (the most
|
||
communicable disease known to man), /no/ disease is transmitted every
|
||
time an infected person comes into contact with an uninfected person.
|
||
It would be much more difficult than you think for you to infect all the
|
||
people in your list, and if you're using a condom it would be an order
|
||
of magnitude more difficult. If that weren't the case, there would
|
||
be many hundreds of times more cases in the United States than there
|
||
actually are.
|
||
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: HACMAN
|
||
Subject: Marriage & stuf
|
||
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:43:38
|
||
Message Number 16519
|
||
|
||
>I am afraid I must agree with you...I am in a minority.
|
||
|
||
You certainly are. That doesn't happen very often...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: new college
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 00:12:42
|
||
Message Number 16520
|
||
|
||
Well, I didnt intend upon going to New College. Thanks for the advice
|
||
though. I'll put it in my "One day, this might be useful" file.
|
||
|
||
The last time I had any physical contact, I lost a few tail feathers. *]
|
||
*]:)
|
||
L8R!
|
||
Knight Owl (minus a few feathers)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:39:17
|
||
Message Number 16521
|
||
|
||
TS>I would not tell her if I broke up because I wanted to bop someone
|
||
else.
|
||
|
||
Cy> That is it, honesty is the best policy. (smirk), (nodding of head),
|
||
yes indeed love those frequent monogomous relationships.
|
||
|
||
Hehehehe.... Point taken.... well taken.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: P.WHIPPED
|
||
Subject: trip
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:47:36
|
||
Message Number 16522
|
||
|
||
Welcome back...... hope Alamo didn't charge you by the mile.... :)
|
||
ah, well, you could always pay him off in Cheesesteaks!!!!!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Philly & Stuff
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:48:56
|
||
Message Number 16523
|
||
|
||
Well sure we missed ya.... but Crystal kept us busy !!!!!!!!!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:51:31
|
||
Message Number 16524
|
||
|
||
TS>How about mono? And they haven't proven CONCLUSIVELY that AIDS cannot
|
||
be transmitted via SALIVA.
|
||
|
||
So, Ts, when is the glass bubble you've ordered arriving?? Gee, gonna
|
||
get awful lonely in there... but at least you'll be completely 100%
|
||
safe.....
|
||
|
||
Hey, I believe in safe sex but worrying about saliva... um, I think
|
||
there'd be one hell of a lot more people crawling around with AIDS if
|
||
it could be passed that way...., don't you?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:54:22
|
||
Message Number 16525
|
||
|
||
TS>But for the most part, I can be sure of whom I'm with.... and who
|
||
she's been with.
|
||
|
||
Oh? Do you ask her for an itemized list of previous lovers.... do you
|
||
call and check her references? How can you be sure of someone's past
|
||
lovers... what are you going to do? Date only virgins? Point is, TS
|
||
You can NEVER really be sure about someone's past lovers beyond this
|
||
shadow of doubt.... in love we all take our chances.... as few as
|
||
possible... but you never really know for sure where your lover was
|
||
before you came along...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:59:18
|
||
Message Number 16526
|
||
|
||
SA>Gee, TS, are you talking about a woman or a peice of meat?
|
||
TS> What's the difference?
|
||
|
||
I know you're kidding but
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:02:13
|
||
Message Number 16527
|
||
|
||
Not corny, very well put... (sniffle) brought a tear to my eye.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:06:57
|
||
Message Number 16528
|
||
|
||
If "setting them free" means that a person is free to leave the
|
||
relationship if they want to.... then, well, I'm sorry, I don't see
|
||
where that's unique... Anyone can leave a relationship if they want to..
|
||
unless of course, your partners a pychotic with a pistol pressed to your
|
||
head.... and I've never (rarely) seen any divorce that didn't turn
|
||
nasty at some point, no matter what the couple said before hand... ei...
|
||
"I'd never hassle you like that... I'd never put you through that.."
|
||
|
||
I dunno... I shouldn't be posting.... I'm really off today.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:10:59
|
||
Message Number 16529
|
||
|
||
Dfy>I had four long fingernails on my right hand (filed to points)
|
||
|
||
Ah, Built in picks.... save time, save money... save going through the
|
||
house screaming "where's all my picks".... ever notice that something
|
||
keeps eating them whenever you lay them down for a moment...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:12:44
|
||
Message Number 16530
|
||
|
||
Thanks. Yes, I have tried talking to him all week, but he just isn't
|
||
listening... that is until last night... Has anybody here ever had
|
||
a nervous breakdown? Can you tell me what happens? I am going through
|
||
something really scarey right now.... something I've never gone through
|
||
emotionally before in my whole life.... I think he realised last night
|
||
that while he's hiding out in his grouchy mood this last week, I have
|
||
been slowly falling apart..... now, I can't seem to stop....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:17:33
|
||
Message Number 16531
|
||
|
||
T>After eleven years you still think he might abandon you over a sexual
|
||
matter?
|
||
|
||
No, not just for sex... Maybe for someone better all around... I dunno.
|
||
I'm more afraid of losing myself right now.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:19:53
|
||
Message Number 16532
|
||
|
||
T>...and there's no way to predict ahead of time how bad it'll be...
|
||
and the distribution is fractal...
|
||
|
||
Please explain....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:27:02
|
||
Message Number 16533
|
||
|
||
T>Even when we're vigorously disagreeing with one another and making yuo
|
||
did into your own worldview and challenging your approach to life
|
||
while we're at it?
|
||
|
||
Even if!!!!! It takes my mind out of the emotions and into the guts of
|
||
the matter.... it makes it easier to clinically analyze without becoming
|
||
upset..... and it makes me see that there is no right and wrong... just
|
||
different ways of looking at things....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: The Den...
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:31:49
|
||
Message Number 16534
|
||
|
||
Sorry, Turtle....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:34:56
|
||
Message Number 16535
|
||
|
||
Ah! No more people crashed on the floor.. you have a sleeper couch..
|
||
Mine has gotta go, it's soooo uncomfortable...
|
||
|
||
Here's one of those irritating females questions for ya.... Are you usin
|
||
a nail hardner???? My nails keep wanting to break and split......
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:37:46
|
||
Message Number 16536
|
||
|
||
Yeah, last night I forced him to talk to me.... I tried subtly... and
|
||
after a week of asking "What's wrong?" and getting.. "Nothing, nothing
|
||
is wrong." yet he went on being silent and unresponsive... I just blew
|
||
last night... I told him if he didn't talk to me I was going to scream..
|
||
soooo, he pulled out his guitar and played for hours... (typical
|
||
musician trick when they don't want to deal with reality), we finally
|
||
did talk, but by the time he was willing to talk, I was so upset.....
|
||
there were so many things on my mind... I just told him everything I was
|
||
feeling...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:44:50
|
||
Message Number 16537
|
||
|
||
SA>Geez, TS, are you talking about a woman or a peice of meat?
|
||
TS>What's the difference?
|
||
SS to TS>...next you get lonely, I'll buy you a steak to cuddle up with.
|
||
|
||
Hehehee. Get him a nice T-Bone.....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: HACMAN
|
||
Subject: SERIOUS PROBLEM
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:49:25
|
||
Message Number 16538
|
||
|
||
Someone else probably told your friend something about you or about
|
||
what you said.... misquoted or even a lie....
|
||
|
||
True friends don't end a relationship without facing you about it....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: HACMAN
|
||
Subject: doby
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:51:53
|
||
Message Number 16539
|
||
|
||
A good steak bone won't hurt a dog... also a Ham bone... my dog loves
|
||
them..
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
Subject: breaking habits
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:54:04
|
||
Message Number 16540
|
||
|
||
Last week, when I had my surgery, I went without smoking for 3 days.
|
||
I said, Hmmmmm, this isn't so bad.... so I tried it at work... I made
|
||
it another day... but it was hell... so I bought three packs and smoked
|
||
them all within 2 days. Then I took Friday off and didn't smoke all day
|
||
Friday or Saturday...I bought a pack Saturday Nite... and smoked the
|
||
whole thing.... And today is Sunday and I haven't had a smoke today..
|
||
|
||
I dunno... I'm beginning to think this is not a nicotene addiction for
|
||
me.... i think it's all in my mind... how else could I go without so
|
||
easily in situations like home but not work.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
Subject: hung up on GOD?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:57:40
|
||
Message Number 16541
|
||
|
||
I get so confused when talking about religion... I cannot intelligently
|
||
argue the point with someone.... so I try not to bring it up.....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
Subject: hung up on GOD?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:59:00
|
||
Message Number 16542
|
||
|
||
God HAS to have a sense of humor!!!!! Ever seen a Duckbill PLatypus? SP?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: SAAVIK
|
||
To: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
Subject: Birth Control
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:59:41
|
||
Message Number 16543
|
||
|
||
Ok, I'll bite...... What's the Tantric method of Birth Control?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 15:31:24
|
||
Message Number 16544
|
||
|
||
The "built-in picks" were WONDERFUL for classical guitar. I don't
|
||
normally play with normal, separable-from-finger picks, though... you
|
||
can really only play one melodic line at a time with them.
|
||
|
||
Of course, picks are also wonderful for teasing hair, and they do
|
||
in a punch as a very strange army (wearing only a little blue paint...)
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 15:36:18
|
||
Message Number 16545
|
||
|
||
>there were so many things on my mind... I just told him everything I
|
||
>was feeling...
|
||
|
||
Wonderful! That was about the best thing you could have done. The
|
||
next thing you should have done is said something like, "I've laid out
|
||
my feelings. What are you really feeling?"... and then listened.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Birth Control
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 15:38:54
|
||
Message Number 16546
|
||
|
||
>What's the Tantric method of Birth Control?
|
||
|
||
Tantric Yoga is a meditative technique involving sex. The woman
|
||
involved gets multiple orgasms. The man... well, he gets to meditate.
|
||
|
||
Tantric Yoga teaches men either not to cum -- or, if he does, to,
|
||
well... cum inwardly, into the urine sac. (It's not that great for the
|
||
man.)
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 19:31:59
|
||
Message Number 16547
|
||
|
||
My couch is sooo comfortable. Ghods I love it. I have not stoppd
|
||
talking about it since Wednesday. Everyone has got to be tired of
|
||
hearing about it. But I love it.
|
||
|
||
No I am not using a nail hardner, but I am going to be. I need all the
|
||
help I can get.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CRYSTAL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 19:35:05
|
||
Message Number 16548
|
||
|
||
Now keep talking to him. Now that you've got him going don't stop.
|
||
Do it all, talk, cry, scream. By all means feel better. He will be
|
||
able to deal with it.
|
||
|
||
* CRYSTAL *
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:22:09
|
||
Message Number 16549
|
||
|
||
Love is something palpable. It can be withered away. And trying to
|
||
distribute something which should be reserved for someone special (note:
|
||
some ONE! not some PEOPLE) can only lessen the emotion -- loving becomes
|
||
commonplace. Ordinary. Then it;s not love anymore. It's just "Hey,
|
||
I know her. And I have screwed her, too."
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:25:15
|
||
Message Number 16550
|
||
|
||
DF>Love: It is extremely possible to *feel* love for many people, so
|
||
long as the love is unique to each person.
|
||
|
||
Uh...well, yes, but no. Love can be classified into many categories.
|
||
But the kind of love which should lead to a man-woman relationship shoul
|
||
be only shared between two people. Yes, it is possible to have a love
|
||
for many people, except for the kind I mentioned above.
|
||
|
||
DF> Sex: An open relationship can work -- if the two partners are
|
||
extremely secure with each other. But that's rare. And
|
||
diseases today are one of the best reasons not to make a
|
||
relationship open...but it can still work
|
||
|
||
Hmmm. Yes, I can't find any flaws with that. I have to emphasize
|
||
what you said, though...it takes a special couple to make that work.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:34:47
|
||
Message Number 16551
|
||
|
||
DF>...Even you found it strange that when we weren't going to have sex
|
||
DF>she wanted me to stop holding her hand...
|
||
|
||
There's nothing strange about it. The typical woman "leads a man on"
|
||
until she finds out what she wants to know. (In this case, marrying
|
||
type or not.) So she allowed you to touch, until she found out tht
|
||
you weren't the marrying type, when she cut you off cold. Typical, and
|
||
predictable.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:38:44
|
||
Message Number 16552
|
||
|
||
DF>And they haven't proven CONCLUSIVELY that AIDS cannot be xmitte
|
||
DF>[nonsensical expression to stupid to repeat]. What of it?
|
||
|
||
Tell me, did you go back and read this thread before jumping in with
|
||
both feet in your mouth? In answer to your question, Crystal and I
|
||
had been talking about what safeguards she was taking to prevent c
|
||
catching deseases in her open relationship.
|
||
She remarked that Rubbers were used, and I said that transmission of
|
||
AIDS could be through saliva, too. (Or for that case, any body fluids.)
|
||
|
||
Vss
|
||
DF>So far as I know, every case of AIDS has been transmitted though mean
|
||
DF>other than kissing. Do you have any medical documents backing up
|
||
DF>your position?>
|
||
|
||
Oh, yes, why certainly! I collect them, for chrissakes.... Don't be
|
||
ridiculous. Do you have any to back up YOUR conclusions?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:47:16
|
||
Message Number 16553
|
||
|
||
T>I don't think it's bullshit to have a relatonship that's based on
|
||
T>sexual fidelity; I think that it's bullshit to believe that a
|
||
T>relationship /must/ be founded on sexual fidelity.
|
||
|
||
You think that it's bullshit to believe that a relationship /must/ be
|
||
founded on sexual fidelity. I think that ssxual fidelity !is! an
|
||
important part of a relationship...but only a part...hmmm. I want my
|
||
girlfriends total devotion...and in return I will give her mine. That
|
||
seems like a pretty fair deal, to me. But it includes all -- emotions
|
||
as well as physical things.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:58:07
|
||
Message Number 16554
|
||
|
||
T>Implying that intimacy can only exist toward one person at a time.
|
||
T>Manifest Bullshit (tm).
|
||
|
||
Wrong. But I do like the way you cut to the heart of the matter. (if
|
||
you will pardon the pun.) The intimacy which is love which leads to
|
||
sex can only exist toward one person at a time. (Between two peple
|
||
only.)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Not 15000 atall
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:03:19
|
||
Message Number 16555
|
||
|
||
If diseases are so "hard to transmit" as you say, then how come over
|
||
2 billion people are infected with AIDS? And the number increases
|
||
daily?
|
||
|
||
Oh, and another thing. Even in that Logarythmic dropoff rate you
|
||
specified, there is still a chance that you may contract someting. And
|
||
if there is even a slim chance, I'm not interested in playing.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:05:26
|
||
Message Number 16556
|
||
|
||
T>You cannot possibly love two different people in the same way, even
|
||
T>if you express you rlove to both of these people sexually.
|
||
|
||
What, so no two loves are the same? Then you must love one more,
|
||
therefore, you love one less.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Another questio
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:06:49
|
||
Message Number 16557
|
||
|
||
I'm not trying to seize any moral ground. My point was simply that
|
||
if I cared enough for my girlfriend, I would want to minimize the
|
||
chances of giving her something that I might pick up from the new
|
||
chick. If I wanted the new chick bad enough, I'd have to break off
|
||
with the current chick. But that'd be a pretty bad want...and I
|
||
certainly wouldn't do it just because I had the "hots" for this
|
||
other chick. That alone is not sufficient reason to hurt my girlfriend.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Whoops...
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:10:04
|
||
Message Number 16558
|
||
|
||
T>People don't have a "gender" they have a sex.
|
||
|
||
Hmmm. *Some* individuals don't. Some only have a gender...by virtue
|
||
of thier sex.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:12:45
|
||
Message Number 16559
|
||
|
||
Lemme get this straight. You feel that you are impervious to catching
|
||
disease, right? You must, because the only precaution you take is that
|
||
both of you have to vote on the canidate lover and the only protection
|
||
you feel you need to use is a rubber.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:15:30
|
||
Message Number 16560
|
||
|
||
DF>and frankly, I admit: ther are male friends I have who I hug.
|
||
KO>I'll betchya The Specialist isn't one of 'em. *]:)
|
||
|
||
Ding. Hey, that's not even funny. Don't EVEN associate me like that.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:25:40
|
||
Message Number 16561
|
||
|
||
SA>Hey, I believe in safe sex, but worrying about saliva... um, I think
|
||
SA>there'd be one hell of a lot more people crawling around with AIDS
|
||
SA>if it could be passed that way...
|
||
|
||
How do you know that there aren't a lot of cases that *were* caused that
|
||
way? YOU DON'T.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:28:15
|
||
Message Number 16562
|
||
|
||
TS>What's the difference?
|
||
|
||
No, I said, "There's a difference?"
|
||
|
||
SA>I know you're kidding but
|
||
|
||
Ah, I didn't get that...wanna say it again, please?
|
||
|
||
(Yes, I was kidding. Sorry. Probably in pretty poor taste.)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: SCOTT STEEL
|
||
Subject: DINK? Me??
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:32:33
|
||
Message Number 16563
|
||
|
||
SS>But the next time you are get lonely, I'll buy you a steak to cuddle
|
||
SS>up with.
|
||
|
||
Just make sure you warm it up first.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Whoops...
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:36:53
|
||
Message Number 16564
|
||
|
||
>Sorry. According to Webster's, ...
|
||
|
||
Webster is a friggin' upstart.
|
||
|
||
>Where's the source for your information?
|
||
|
||
The Oxford Handbook of Standard English Usage...you know, the tome that
|
||
sneers at use of the word "towards" and thinks that people who use the
|
||
word "hopefully" as an adjective ought to be shot. Okay, okay, I'll
|
||
admit it; when it comes to English grammar you are unlikely to find
|
||
anybody anywhere who's more conservative than I am...unless maybe you
|
||
count George Will.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:39:12
|
||
Message Number 16565
|
||
|
||
>[Buscaglia's] books are written for the emotions, not the intelligence.
|
||
|
||
Yeah, and it shows. The man doesn't really write for sapient beings
|
||
at all.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:42:09
|
||
Message Number 16566
|
||
|
||
>...save going through the house screaming "where's all my picks"....
|
||
>ever notice that something keeps eating them whenever you lay them down
|
||
>for a moment...
|
||
|
||
Yeah, and you know what? They end up at my house. I keep finding guitar
|
||
picks all over the apartment, and I don't even own a guitar.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:43:55
|
||
Message Number 16567
|
||
|
||
>Please explain....
|
||
|
||
The distribution of the arguments is fractal. That is, if you look at
|
||
ratio of large arguments to small arguments over ten or a hundred or
|
||
a thousand iterations, the distribution will be exactly the same. Chaos
|
||
theory again...I can't get away from it. Grr.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Huh-uh
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:45:17
|
||
Message Number 16568
|
||
|
||
>..and it makes me see that there is no right and wrong...
|
||
|
||
Sure there is! Deliberately hurting other people is wrong.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Birth Control
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:48:44
|
||
Message Number 16569
|
||
|
||
>Tantric Yoga teaches men not to cum...
|
||
|
||
That's "come." You've been reading too many Penthouse magazines lately;
|
||
even Mr. Webster would be most disapproving of "cum."
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:50:08
|
||
Message Number 16570
|
||
|
||
>And trying to distribute something which should...
|
||
|
||
"Should"? That sounds a whole lot like a subjective argument you've
|
||
never even bothered to examine...why "should" it be "reserved" for one
|
||
person (or presumably, a /sequence/ of people who don't overlap)?
|
||
|
||
>...be reserved for one person can only lessen the emotion...
|
||
|
||
Bullshit. You're theorizing. You've already said you've never loved more
|
||
than one person at a time, so how the hell would you know? I state for a
|
||
fact that's not true.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:53:24
|
||
Message Number 16571
|
||
|
||
>But I do like the way you cut to the heart of the matter.
|
||
|
||
Thank you.
|
||
|
||
>The intimacy which is love which leads to sex can only exist toward one
|
||
>person at a time.
|
||
|
||
You forgot to end that sentence. It should end, "...for me." Okay, fine,
|
||
maybe /you/ can only love one person at once; please, don't re-create
|
||
the entire world in your own image and assume that everyone /else/ can
|
||
only love one person, sexually or not, at a time.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:55:47
|
||
Message Number 16572
|
||
|
||
>What, so no two lives are the same?
|
||
|
||
*Ding*
|
||
|
||
>Then you must love one more, therefore, you love one less.
|
||
|
||
Non sequitur. You are thinking two-dimensionally; the love can vary in
|
||
kind as well as in degree. Your conclusion is invalid.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: TURTLE
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:57:13
|
||
Message Number 16573
|
||
|
||
>Lemme get this straight. You feel that you are impervious to
|
||
>catching disease, right?
|
||
|
||
No. I don't feel impervious to dying in a traffic accident, yet I still
|
||
drive. Again, your conclusion is invalid. I will say, though, that I
|
||
have in my entire life had fewer lovers than almost every fanatic
|
||
monogamy fan I know who is sexually active...I think that's a rather
|
||
telling fact, don't you?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Hey!
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 00:26:03
|
||
Message Number 16574
|
||
|
||
Geez... I was just kidding. I knew that I'd hit a nerve with my comment
|
||
but I didn't expect you to take it seriously.
|
||
|
||
L8R!
|
||
Knight Owl
|
||
|
||
PS
|
||
What do you specialize in? Just curious.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: CRYSTAL
|
||
Subject: Couch!
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 01:25:37
|
||
Message Number 16576
|
||
|
||
>My couch is sooo comfortable. Ghods I love it.
|
||
|
||
My arms are sooo tired (still!) Ghods i hate it.
|
||
|
||
>I have not stopped talking about it since Wednesday.
|
||
|
||
Thank you. At least it was worth SOMETHING!
|
||
Anyways, who was the lucky person/persons to first sleep in it?
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 01:27:57
|
||
Message Number 16577
|
||
|
||
>Love is something palpable. It can be withered away.
|
||
|
||
Okay. Weigh out an ounce of love, and I'll believe you.
|
||
|
||
>...loving becomes commonplace. Ordinary. Then it;s not love anymore.
|
||
>It's just "Hey, I know her. And I have screwed her, too."
|
||
|
||
I'm not denying it's possible to screw people indiscriminantly --
|
||
without really caring for the person. "Push-ups with a friend" as the
|
||
phrase goes. That's not what I'm talking about.
|
||
|
||
I have close friends, both sexes, who I love. That has nothing to do
|
||
with intercourse... I simply feel I can share anything with them. (I
|
||
wouldn't consider having sex with most of them... that's not the way our
|
||
relationships are.) My relationship with Jenn did not subtract from my
|
||
love for them, though it might have taken time away from seeing them.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 01:36:51
|
||
Message Number 16578
|
||
|
||
*Ding!* You've got it!
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 01:40:48
|
||
Message Number 16579
|
||
|
||
>What, so no two loves are the same? Then you must love one more,
|
||
>therefore, you love one less.
|
||
|
||
Logically the equivalent of:
|
||
No two different words are the same. Therefore, given any two words,
|
||
one must be better than the other, and one must be worse than the other.
|
||
|
||
Manifest Bullshit (tm). Love might be quantifiable -- I might love
|
||
one person more than another -- but it ain't necessarily so. Love is
|
||
a poset (as Turtle might put it.)
|
||
|
||
Given two different people that I love, I MAY love one person more
|
||
than another, but I always love one DIFFERENTLY than I love the other.
|
||
To phrase it bluntly and selfishly, each of my close friends serves some
|
||
emotional need I have... no one person I've found has shared all of my
|
||
interests in the same amount as my own interests. No one person I've
|
||
found has exactly fit my emotional needs perfectly, so I search out a
|
||
balance among my friends. And I do the same for my friends...
|
||
(Ghods! What a computerized way of sounding! But it's how I think.)
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Morality.
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 01:56:39
|
||
Message Number 16580
|
||
|
||
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The rest is
|
||
commentary.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Whoops...
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 17:50:55
|
||
Message Number 16581
|
||
|
||
T>unless you count George Will.
|
||
|
||
Isn't he that asshole editorialist?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Energized
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 17:51:54
|
||
Message Number 16582
|
||
|
||
T>They end up at my house. I keep finding guitar picks all
|
||
T>over the apt...
|
||
|
||
Hey, those are MINE!
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 17:53:43
|
||
Message Number 16583
|
||
|
||
T>I state for a fact that's not true.
|
||
|
||
There you go again. Making facts out of emotional subjects.
|
||
|
||
T>You've already said you've never loved more than one person at a time,
|
||
T>so how the hell would you know?
|
||
|
||
Because I CAN'T. I can't FLY either...and neither can you!
|
||
|
||
I can go out and grab a handfull of dirt. There's plenty of it. It's
|
||
cheap. On the other hand, plutonuim is rare.
|
||
I can go out and love many people (subjectively speaking), and my love
|
||
would be pretty easy to come by. But if I love only one person, that
|
||
love is very special. It would be the rare thing.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 17:57:54
|
||
Message Number 16584
|
||
|
||
T>You forgot to end that sentence.
|
||
|
||
Oops. Ok, the intimacy which is love which leads to sex can only exist
|
||
toward one person at a time, usually.
|
||
|
||
Better?
|
||
|
||
T>Ok, fine...please don't re-create the entire world in your own image
|
||
T>and assume that everyone /else/ can only love one person, sexually or
|
||
T>not, at a time.
|
||
|
||
Ok. Fine. But I will state for the record that it is an unusual couple
|
||
which can do otherwise successfully.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Say how?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:04:34
|
||
Message Number 16585
|
||
|
||
T>I will say, though, that I have in my entire life had fewer lovers
|
||
T>than almost every...monogamy fan I know who is sexually active...
|
||
T>I think that's a rather telling fact, don't you?
|
||
|
||
Yup.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: KNIGHT OWL
|
||
Subject: Hey!
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:05:54
|
||
Message Number 16586
|
||
|
||
KO>...just kidding.
|
||
|
||
NO prob.
|
||
|
||
KO>What do you specialize in? Just curious.
|
||
|
||
Er, actually, nothing, anymore. I just like the handle. If you
|
||
are really curious as to it's origin, I'll tell you...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:07:43
|
||
Message Number 16587
|
||
|
||
DF>Wiegh an once of love, and I'll believe you.
|
||
|
||
I can, figuratively. It won't be an aviordupois ounce, but the measure
|
||
will be just as valid.
|
||
|
||
DF>I have close friends, both sexes, who I love.
|
||
|
||
I think that you have confused love with close freindship.
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:10:24
|
||
Message Number 16588
|
||
|
||
DF>No two different words are the same. Therefore, given any two words,
|
||
DF>one must be better than the other, and one must be worse than the
|
||
DF>other.
|
||
|
||
Yes, that is true. For instance, when referring to your father, do you
|
||
call him "elderly gentleman" or, "old man"? I would refer to my father
|
||
(given those two choices) as "old man" [:)] but not in front of him!
|
||
In front of him I would use "elderly gentleman"...therefore that
|
||
expression (or word) is better than the other.
|
||
You could also use numbers. If one number is not the other, then one
|
||
must be greater or less than the other.
|
||
|
||
What is a poset?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:28:03
|
||
Message Number 16589
|
||
|
||
TS> Love is something palpable. It can be withered away.
|
||
DF> Weigh out an ounce of love, and I'll believe you.
|
||
|
||
TS> I can, figuratively. It won't be an aviordupois ounce, but the
|
||
TS> measure will be just as valud.
|
||
|
||
If you really believe that love is "lost" once it's given away, then
|
||
you must accept the person you should try to get to "love" you is she
|
||
who has not "loved" yet. She who has "loved" the most is useless to
|
||
your definition of love.
|
||
|
||
I doubt that. Love is a resource renewed daily. One can give away
|
||
all the love you "have" -- and still find more love to give.
|
||
|
||
DF> I have close friends, both sexes, that I love.
|
||
TS> I think that you have confused love with close friendship.
|
||
|
||
The only difference I've ever felt was in degree, not in kind.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:40:11
|
||
Message Number 16590
|
||
|
||
Let me take these out of order:
|
||
|
||
TS> What's a poset?
|
||
|
||
A poset is a "partially ordered set," and it's a part of lattice
|
||
theory. Basically, if you take a set (say, the set of all living
|
||
people), and you take an "ordering relation" on the set (say, X is
|
||
a parent or an ancestor of B) that does NOT need to operate on all
|
||
possible pairs (that is, we don't need to assume that Jimmy Smith,
|
||
in Sarasota is either an ancestor or descendent of Hoo Wang Chao,
|
||
in Beijing.) Does that make sense?
|
||
|
||
You might consider all the words or phrases in English for the
|
||
best one to call your father at a certain time, as an "ordering
|
||
relation." You'd probably rather call him "elderly gentleman" than
|
||
"old man" when he's around. (Take the nnext sentence seriously.)
|
||
But would you rather call him "blue suede shoes" or "Altoids
|
||
peppermints"? Neither, of course.
|
||
|
||
Going on to your second example of numbers, sure: you can impose
|
||
an ordering relation that makes it into a "completely ordered set."
|
||
But there are other relations that don't. (For example, let a < b
|
||
if a factors into fewer primes than b does.)
|
||
|
||
What does all this have to do with our topic of conversation?
|
||
Continued, next message.
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: DRAGONFLY
|
||
To: THE SPECIALIST
|
||
Subject: Love and Posets
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:52:58
|
||
Message Number 16591
|
||
|
||
What does this have to do with love? That was a very complicated
|
||
way of saying that though I might "love" one person more than I do
|
||
another, most of the time, I simply can't compare how I feel to one
|
||
to how I feel for another.
|
||
|
||
It is impossible to, say, rank Crystal among my other close friends.
|
||
Or Barbara. Or Wolf. I love them all in unique ways, for their unique
|
||
characteristics. (And I do NOT accept the idea that if you have an
|
||
ordering on a set, there must be a "highest" element in the set.)
|
||
//Dragonfly//
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: hung up on GOD?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:00:41
|
||
Message Number 16592
|
||
|
||
She? What defines God as any gender? Sex organs??
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: breaking habits
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:01:55
|
||
Message Number 16593
|
||
|
||
some good points!
|
||
Don't overanalyze, just keep clear that you need to KEEP GOING
|
||
without smoking..... (I got my fingers crossed for ya)...
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: hung up on GOD?
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:03:00
|
||
Message Number 16594
|
||
|
||
What I get is that religious discussions, by their very nature, cannot
|
||
be "intelligent", or "logical"....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: GOD's sense of
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:04:01
|
||
Message Number 16595
|
||
|
||
[Humor].... Yeah, or, what's that bird that comes in for a landing and
|
||
flops like a whale?
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: SAAVIK
|
||
Subject: Birth Control
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:05:26
|
||
Message Number 16596
|
||
|
||
Part of Tantric Buddhism has to do with experiencing Life in the
|
||
context of Enlightenment. This includes sexual activities which
|
||
"enhance" the participants' "depth" of experience. This isn't really
|
||
the place to discuss this subject, but I do find it fascinating: I'd
|
||
suggest reading a book on the subject....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Birth Control
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:08:42
|
||
Message Number 16597
|
||
|
||
Basically, you're right, EXCEPT for the part that "It's not that great
|
||
for the man." Tho I've never practiced it, I've read that it is
|
||
an enlightening experience for the man, both spiritually AND sexually!
|
||
(I'm tempted to say, "Try it, you'll like it!", but I won't)....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: Buscaglia
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:15:36
|
||
Message Number 16598
|
||
|
||
Agreed - yet I know alot of non-intellectuals who like Leo - probably
|
||
much as I like a Bugs Bunny cartoon now and then (but not too often!!)
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: TURTLE
|
||
Subject: "Wrong"
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:17:26
|
||
Message Number 16599
|
||
|
||
My doctor disagrees whenever he gives a patient a shot....
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
From: CHARLES DITTELL
|
||
To: DRAGONFLY
|
||
Subject: Relationships
|
||
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:20:27
|
||
Message Number 16600
|
||
|
||
Whew!! This is a FASCINATING conversation (no, debate)!
|
||
My 2 cents: if each of us were to free ourselves from
|
||
limiting beliefs, we could let ourselves be who we more
|
||
deeply are, love who we love, do what we do, dream what
|
||
we dream...
|
||
...and rarely become constipated!
|
||
===========
|
||
|