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!~