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 hammer.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!orca!hammer!seifert From: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Just how far can friendship go? Message-ID: <1371@hammer.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 20:32:56 EDT Article-I.D.: hammer.1371 Posted: Tue Jul 9 20:32:56 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 07:32:23 EDT References: <317@azure.UUCP> <800@vax2.fluke.UUCP> Reply-To: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) Distribution: net Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm Lines: 67 Keywords: hugs sex friendship SO Summary: hugs != sex In article <800@vax2.fluke.UUCP> cassidy@fluke.UUCP (Rion Cassidy) writes: >> >> Recently I posted a query to this newsgroup asking just where the drawing >> line between friendship and SOship lies. The main purpose behind this was >> to determine just how far some people would consider taking a friendship >> (ie one that remains purely platonic). >> >> The point I would like to make about this is this: We never did anything >> serious, and at this time I had no other SO in my life, yet my RDA of >> physical and emotional comfort was fulfilled because of my relationship >> to this girl, *despite* the fact that we never, ever did anything that others >> might consider sexually fulfilling. Now I just want to know why I can't seem >> to have this kind of relationship with others of the opposite sex? Furthermore, >> I suspect that a few friends of this variety would equal the gratification >> that can come from an SOship. >> >> Any comments? >> >> Chris Andersen (aka "The Stranger") > >First, I'm a little new to the net.singles group (possibly just naive) and >am really not sure what 'SO' (as in SOship) stands for. Could someone please >clarify the term? I think its meaning through context is pretty obvious. SO = Significant Other All people new to the net should read net.announce.newusers. A lot of questions like this are answered there. [story of two platonic friends] >Most of us who knew either or both of them didn't really condemn them, but >at the same time there was a nagging feeling in the back of our minds that >this really wasn't okay. I think this was mainly a result of our social >conditioning, but I still feel these two were a little confused regarding >their own desires since I know that they each were having thoughts of a >sexual nature towards each other, yet doing nothing about them. Two friends having lunch together isn't okay? Since when? How do you 'know' that they were "having thoughts of a sexual nature"? Did they tell you? Or are you just assuming this? >My point here is that if you're 'snuggling' and hugging someone of the opposite >sex, yet not having any sexual contact, this isn't just a close friend (like >one of the same sex) and you're probably denying yourself of something you >really want. Oh, so I should have sex with anyone I hug? Thank you very much, but I'll pass on that one. I hug lots of people that I wouldn't have sex with, including other males, relatives, married women, children... It is quite possible to be close to someone, give them hugs, kisses, and cuddles, and *not* have sex with them, and to be quite happy with the situation. You can even sleep with them and not have sex with them. Too many people think the way you do. It doesn't lead to more sex, it leads to less hugging. :-( I wish that more people thought the way Chris does. Sex isn't the be-all and end-all that the popular media make it out to be. Wonderful, yes, but there *are* other worthwhile things in life. Affection, caring, trust, these are what really count. hugs to all, Snoopy tektronix!hammer!seifert