Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpf!bithead
From: bithead@ihlpf.UUCP (bithead)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re:Re:Re: Nominally single???? A voice from the past.
Message-ID: <203@ihlpf.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Nov-85 16:09:07 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlpf.203
Posted: Fri Nov  8 16:09:07 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 07:46:11 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 135

What an utterly depressing posting! One would think that you
are the personification of the "easy come, easy go" mentality.
Please, say it aint so! I've taken the liberty of cutting out
segments which don't pertain to my responses.
 
LC:
>Speaking personally, and for the ``already had several relationships''
>crowd, that emotional investment is a big turn off.  When I meet
>someone who is obviously infatuated with me I want to be as nasty as
>possible to that person so as to stop this disease as soon as possible.

What a sophisticated way to handle the situation! Where can I meet
understanding women like you?

>After all, if we just met, they can not have much of an idea as to what
>I am really like (yea, even if they have been readin me for 5 years on
>usenet!).  What they are doing is trying to stuff me into their image of
>``the ideal lover'' and they are seriously in love with that ideal.
>Rather than being impressing, this is a real drag.  Even if I wanted to
>live for the sake of someone who has all that investment in me (which
>I assuredly do not!) I couldn't.
>
>This is really sad.  What I am looking for in new people is that they
>are interesting as people.  If I get an evening of good conversation
>out of any new people, then I am pleased.  if I get someone whom I can
>respect I get someone that I am likely to look up again and again.
>
>It is difficult for me to work up respect for anyone who is desparate
>for a relationship.  I feel that I am getting railroaded.  What I want
>is dinner, conversation and good times.  If you turn out to be a lot
>of fun to be with then I am goign to want to spend more time with you.

Of course everyone wants a partner that's fun to be with. But I hope
the purpose of my existence is more than being a woman's entertainment.
I don't like having those instances where I'm not "fun to be with"
held against me. Relationships are give and take.
 
>But if you are desparate for a relationship, then you are going to be
>not very much fun to be with and I am going to spend my time elsewhere.
>
>Rememeber the adage where the girl ``plays hard to get''?  This is 
>deceitful little con whereby girls (all who are presumed to be
>desparate for a relationship) decieve the guys who don't want to be
>clung to that they are not clingining until the poor guy gets so
>intrigued that he ends up marrying someone for the difficulty involved.
>This business of viewing someone as a trophy to be won turns my stomach,
>but there is a point here.  This scam worked!  How come?  Because for any
>reasonable (read not-love-desparate in addition to whatever else you call
>reasonable) person a big display of need is a turn off.

Maybe so, but a reasonable and mature person can deal with it. Me
thinks that our society puts too much emphasis on first impressions.
We quickly reach conclusions about a person by what lies on the
surface. A "display of need" maybe a temporary phase brought on by
a variety of factors. If you take a little time and effort (inconvenient
as it may be) you might discover that the person's plusses far 
outweigh the minuses (such as a "display of need"). You may also
discover that as the person senses your interest, the disease "display
of need" will wane and probably disappear altogether. It is very
much in your interest to understand the "display of need". If you
don't even try you could be screwing yourself out of one hell of a
find. 

LC:
>There is something
>very wrong about how women are raised.  All of them in this society
>get some of a very bad brainwashing trip which says ``the function of
>woman is to nurture the emotionally wounded''.  It is not the case that

Of course you have the proper perspective:

              I. Men exist to entertain us.
             II. The moment a man fails to entertain - dump him !
                 There's always more where that came from. 

>most women enjoy this nurturing -- mostly they resent it like crazy but
>feel that they ``have'' to do it.  if you go out projecting ``I'm
>emotionally wounded -- I need a relationship'' you will probably catch
>someone who will start the nuturing end of this trip without thinking.
>If this is what you want....

LC responding to another:
>If you go out with a lot of people, the only person who will think that
>you are a reject is *you*.  There is no big social stigmata about this.
>There are circles where it will be assumed that for some reason you
>want to get laid by lots of different woemn, but even those aren't all
>that common.  Most people are really not all that preoccupied with you
>to notice that you are going out with a lot of people (outside of
>high school, where everybody is bored, people find more interesting
>things to do than keeping statistics on each other).  it will be assumed
>that you want a lot of variety in your life, and a great many people
>(including me) will find you intriguing.  If you know lots of people
>then you are probably broad enough as a person to be very interesting
>and if you keep going out with lots of different ones then you must
>have high standards (or you would have clung to the first one that was
>reasonable to you).

This last sentence is almost the most absurd thing I've ever read on
the net. Knowing a lot of people means one thing: you have a lifestyle
that fosters social contacts. How you conclude that a person is 
interesting from the number of acquaintances is beyond me. I find
nothing enviable in being "broad". Being "broad" typifies the absence
of character traits such as drive, dedication and perseverance, all
required to be good in any one thing. Of course people who are "broad"
pose no threat and never really force us to think, hence their
popularity.
"keep going out with lots of different ones" clearly shows that
anyone will do and the most likely reached conclusion is an
absence of standards. It could also mean you lack the maturity
to enter any kind of relationship which requires a commitment, and
the worthwhile always do. 
 
LC responding to another:
>There are 2 points in your favour.  If I end up
>not liking you all that much I know you must be able to take it (since
>you have had a lot of practice in gracefully ending dinners at this point).
>
>If I knew this about you I would go out to dinner in a minute.  I may be a
>bad example, since I go out to dinner with almost anybody who asks me since
>I am confident that I can handle any sort of situation that can arise
>(because, sigh, I *have* already...) but for people with less gusto than
>I do you would still be a good bet.

Dinner dates are a real acid test aren't they?

I hope your book is a big success. I'll keep my eyes open for it.
Take care.
                            the bithead (ihnp4!ihlpf!bithead)

    "I've seen the dogs of war enjoying their feast
     I've seen the western world go down in the east
     The fools of love became the creed of our time
     And now we're living on the profits of crime"

                            Ozzy -  circa 1975