Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tektronix.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!tektronix!moiram From: moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: what does single really mean? Message-ID: <4487@tektronix.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 14:28:42 EST Article-I.D.: tektroni.4487 Posted: Tue Dec 11 14:28:42 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 03:49:15 EST Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 40 In the book, *Fathers & Daughters*, (full review in net.women) William Appleton, MD draws various correlations between the distance in the a woman's relationship with her father, and the distance in her relation- ship with her husband. In discussing that people are satisfied with less closeness than in the past, he says the following: An attempt was made to rate the eighty-one women care- fully as happy or unhappy. Admittedly this is an inexact measure and the decision was made on the basis of their pre- dominant mood over many days and weeks rather than that of a single day....Table V shows the degree of closeness to their lovers and husbands... Happiness as a Function of Distance from Lover DISTANCE UNHAPPY HAPPY TOTAL # % # % Symbiotic 6 33% 12 66% 18 Right Distance 3 20% 12 80% 15 Distant 6 20% 24 80% 30 No Relationship 18 100% (!!!) 18 TOTAL 33 48 81 ...What is...striking is that all eighteen women with no intimate relationship were unhappy. It seems that it is not how close or far but that the partner exists that is important to a woman's well-being. This amazes me! I know I have always been one of the "different drummer" people, but are "intimate relationships" so pervasively important to women, that their entire sense of well-being rests on it? I would like responses from women (particularly) about this conclusion, to include in a letter to the author. Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram