Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social
Subject: Re: Meeting the Parents
Message-ID: <1915@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 13:24:34 EST
Article-I.D.: nsc.1915
Posted: Thu Nov 29 13:24:34 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 07:14:26 EST
References: <614@pucc-k> <>
Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui)
Organization: Plaid Heaven
Lines: 65
Summary: 

In article <1514@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes:
>From Laurie Sefton (pucc-k:afo):
>
>Admittedly I haven't personal experience to back this up, but have you
If you didn't admit this up front, your further comments would make this
fact painfully clear... *urg*

>It occurs to me that if you and your SO could
>successfully deal with the stresses of sharing a residence, for an
>extended period, *without* using sex to paper over disagreements, then
>your friendship would be so solid that you would greatly increase your
We HAVE been doing that, wonderfully enforced by distance and the fact
thgat sex is exceptionally unsatisfying when carried out over a pair of
computer terminals or a telephone. We don't like that option now, why would
we like that option when we are actually in the same room? During my recent
visit to my SO we didn't bother with that celibacy claptrap and got along
rather splendidly, so why ruin a good thing? If I wanted celibacy in my
relationship I'd marry a priest or something...

>chances of a successful marriage, should you decide to exercise that option.
I just got OUT of that option (final 11/18, yippee, sigh). I'm in no hurry
to tie myself down again, if ever, until I'm sure I'm going to want to stay
tied down until I die (or beyond).

>Another way to look at it is: one thing at a time.  Work out the balances
>of plain vanilla daily life first; when they are running reasonably
>swimmingly, *then* start working on the adjustments of sex.  Don't try
>to do everything at once.
Jeff, sex simply isn't that BIG of a problem. In fact, I'd be willing to
wager that most people wouldn't consider it a problem at all (It's a
feature, not a bug!). You ought to try it sometime. Until you do, please
don't give illconceived advice based upon your own naive fears. People have
been fooling around for hundreds of years, at least, and the world hasn't
gone off it's axis yet.

>The obvious difficulties in this arise from this not being the best of all
>possible worlds: a) the temptation to go ahead with sex would be there, and
>would probably be very strong; 
The word 'understatement' comes to mind. As a matter of fact, we are both
so weak in our vows that we've given into the temptation. Repeatedly.
I don't see any problem with that, as long as we don't disturb the
neighbors or do terrible things to their dog with a fork or something.

b) even if you didn't give in to that
>temptation, you'd have a tough time convincing outsiders of your celibacy
>(particularly parents, I suppose).
No, I could convince people of our celibacy, it's our sanity they would
wonder about...

But the idea still seems to me to have
>some wisdom in it.  Perhaps you could try it, and let the net know how it
>works out?

you've been working on the celibacy thing a lot longer than we have, and
have been reporting at great length about it. Tell you what-- we'll try it
our way, and if it works out maybe you might be interested in joining the
human race with us sometime, too...

chuq (*large guffaw*)
-- 
From the center of a Plaid pentagram:		Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui  nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

  ~But you know, monsieur, that as long as she wears the claw of the dragon
  upon her breast you can do nothing-- her soul belongs to me!~