Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.14 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!twitch!hocad!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!qantel!dual!zehntel!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!kaufman From: kaufman@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re ** 2: What's an SO-ship Anyway? Message-ID: <26600108@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 23-Sep-84 01:21:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.26600108 Posted: Sun Sep 23 01:21:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 03:44:32 EDT Lines: 113 Nf-ID: #N:uiucdcs:26600108:000:6849 Nf-From: uiucdcs!kaufman Sep 16 00:21:00 1984 [Can you guess what this line looks like?] From Jeff Sargent (pucc-h!aeq): > One other point that your paragraph suggests is that it's much better if your > SO is also your friend. In my opinion, there is no question about it. It is easy to have a FBNSOOTAS (Friend but not significant other of the appropriate sex), but what is the relationship based on the other way around? An SO-ship between non-"friends" is mind-boggling. The two would claim to be committed to each other, while feeling no bond, sharing, or warmth. Gee, sounds like a lot of marriages :-( Seriously, why would they have made and kept such commitments without the necessary building blocks of friendship? Perhaps you are referring to love at first sight, but it seems to me that if a freindship doesn't develop under the other feelings, the relationship is likely to fall apart before too long. I definitely concentrate on friendship first when developing relationships with interesting young ladies, preferring to let whatever happens (in the immortal words of Graham Nash) happen. Of course, considering my track record, that's probably all wrong. Jeff, you're probably better off sweeping them off their feet 15 minutes after meeting them. Actually, if nothing else, my method makes me feel better inside, even when a friendship doesn't work out. > It may take a while to escape one's societal conditioning which states > that the distinction [between friend and SO], and hence the decision, must be > made -- and that if you don't have an SO, something's wrong with you. (There > are, of course, things wrong with me, but the mere fact of not having an SO > is not itself one of them; rather, they are the *reasons* I don't have a > full-fledged SO.) *Sigh!* Nobody said it would be easy. If everything was so easy, the world would be in a lot better shape. This is not a personal flame, since that represents the attitude of a lot of people. BUT, if you want something done badly enough, you'll work for it. It takes a lot of work to create inner change, and a lot to make others hear and consider what you're saying. Perhaps I was lucky in some perverse way, in that I was an oldest child, even shier in my youth than I am now, whose parents were divorced when I was in my early teens. Result: I wasn't fed a lot of societal preconceptions and was left to discover and decide things on my own. I observed others in relationships that I didn't have and was able to see what I perceived were the good and the bad in them. When my time came to get more involved with MOTOS, I had a clean slate to work from. And that's why I might go around preaching these revolutionary (?) ideas. Personal to Jeff: I only met you once, but from what I could tell, you had no more problems than the rest of us - except perhaps your self- image and confidence. Smile and don't worry. Good things are in store for you. > The snag for some of us (well, me at least) is that it would feel very good to > have a woman commit -- give -- herself to me, but the thought of reciprocating > is scary as all hell. Why? Doesn't it make you feel good to do nice things for people for whom you care? Or are you scared of the thought that you might not be able to provide what she wants/needs? Know yourself, your abilities and limitations, and you will know what you can or can't provide for a would-be SO. If you can't, well, then she probably wasn't right for you anyway. If you're worried about something you don't know your abilities in, because you've never tried anything in the area, or even considered needing the talent, hey, you've either got it or you don't - and is it worth throwing away a potential relationship on an unknown quantity? > This raises an interesting point: Is it best if one picks an SO from among > the MOTAS's one already knows fairly well, so that one is not so scared of > her/him? This is a topic I would like to see some response on. OK, here's a response. I really don't like to make a selection. I see some females I've never met, and I'm supposed to pick an SO from that lot? That's worse than Miss America! I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and so each and every one of these women are going to be considered perfect for the moment. Am I supposed to select one and reject the rest? Should I flip a coin or perhaps go for the one I find most attractive? This analytical mind likes to know what it's getting, thank you! Even when I know them fairly well, I feel somewhat guilty about selecting one from the bunch. Only when I can honestly say that there is but one woman in the picture will I force myself upon her full steam ahead. This last happened in early 1981, and wouldn't you know it? That lovely wretch would have no part of me. In other conditions, I prefer to meet my would-be halfway, meaning that she has to make some of the advances too. There are a number of women around who would be my SO, or at least a closer friend, had they expressed a definite interest in such. A select few have taken advantage of the situation. > Certainly it's unnecessary and unwise at first. But if you want to get > married, there does come a point at which you have to settle on one partner. Hey, nothing wrong with marriage, under the right conditions. I thought my original article clearly said that it was dealing with non-marital relationships. But, if the commitment is there, of course two people should get married. But again we are talking about the phenomenon of friendships dissolving soon after one person involved gets married. It's all right for most husbands to have female friends, but not girlfriends. Where's the line drawn? In the degree of commitment? In the bedroom? Just because two people's commitments toward each other grow deeper, they shouldn't have to toss off other ones except by (perhaps tacit) mutual consent. Again, we must ask in what must a married person settle on one partner? Please, nobody say "tennis". Certainly not in friendship. Could Jeff perhaps be referring to that teeny-weeny three-letter word that begins with an "s", ends with an "x", and finds room to hold an "e"? Well, if that's all a commitment or an SO-ship means to you, perhaps you need a little learning or growing. In my experience, there has been little correlation between the amount of bodily contact and the quality of my relationship with a MOTOS. I think there's quite a bit wrong in how people (at least in this culture) have ritualized sex, much like they have done with the mythical SO stuff we've been discussing. But that's another topic, and I'll discuss it another time, if at all. Until I take the pulpit again ... Keep those cards and letters coming! Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman) "Amo, amas, amat, amamos, amatis, amant"