Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Nominally Single???
Message-ID: <515@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 13:48:47 EST
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.515
Posted: Wed Oct 30 13:48:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 06:30:59 EST
References: <1071@trwrdc.UUCP> <490@rti-sel.UUCP> <1079@trwrdc.UUCP>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 155
Keywords: honey sweetums kissy poo snuggles bunny ;-)
Summary: 

In article <1079@trwrdc.UUCP> frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith) writes:

>What I missed is that one unique irreplaceable relationship...  which
>may never be repeated in it's intensity and may never be repeated at
>all.  

ALL relationships are 'unique' and 'irreplaceable.' If you get around
enough you realize that there are many people out there you can fall
deeply in love with; repeating the intensity is a matter of getting
off your duff and meeting new people. There's a slight hint here of the
tired myth that we all have one 'special' Someone out there created 
especially for us, and it's up to us to go out and find that 'special' 
Someone (and pity the poor person who never finds his/her Perfect Love!).

>...  Life is dull without someone to love.

That's too bad. I think you're missing out on a lot.

>Life is painful having loved and then lost one's love (especially
>through rather tragic means).  ...

So what? We all lose our loves sooner or later, whether through
divorce, breakup of a relationship, or death. Life is painful and life
is not painful.

>God it's such fun pineing away for one's love.

I'm assuming this is a joke.
 
>> Saying a scar can't be forgotten is surrendering your life ...
>
>Nope... it's the truth.  Some scars simply cannot be removed.  They don't
>HAVE to control your life so completely that you become a basket case ...
>But the bad experiences in life will become part of you ...

The choice of the word 'forgotten' was unfortunate. What I meant was
that 'saying a scar can't be GOTTEN OVER or GOTTEN BEYOND is
surrendering your life to despair.' You're misreading what I've been
saying.
 
>I don't think it's healthy to try and define, through rational means, how
>long a mourning period should be.  Neither do I think it's healthy to
>allow one's emotions to take over completely if you can consciously
>stop it.

If you CAN'T stop it, you'd better get some professional counselling.
As to the length of the mourning period: I never said anyone should
arbitrarily decide that mourning longer than X days/weeks/months is
unhealthy. What I advocate (and I suggest you reread my postings if
you doubt this) is periodic self-analysis to examine your mental and
emotional states.
 
>>> That depends on what is truly normal, or to be more precise... what is
>>> truly healthy.  ...
>>
>> No. Charles Manson's behavior is not normal, Son of Sam's behavior is
>> not normal, Richard Speck's behavior is not normal, ...
>
>I assume you mean normality in our environment and not that of the mental
>institution.  No I'm not tryin to be difficult.  I'm trying to point out
>that we don't all conform to one standard of normality.  Besides, your
>example is so hyperbolic that it misses the argument altogether.

Hogwash. There's a time and a place for hyperbole, and hyperbole was
called for in this instance. Normality has to do with personal and
social integration, and a person who's making himself and/or other
people miserable or uncomfortable, realizes he's doing so and CHOOSES
to indulge in this kind of behavior is not behaving in a sensible
or healthy fashion. If his behavior is hurting OTHER people as well 
as himself, he's indulging in antisocial and abnormal behavior.
 
>People can struggle with such mourning periods and come out with a far
>more mature and far more well-rounded outlook on themselves and life.

What on earth makes you think I'm arguing against this?

>Of course some can't handle it and commit (self)destructive acts.  For
>some it might be self-destructive.  For others it might be a time for
>introspection that is necessary.
>...  But... I would also add that such unhealthy behavior does not
>necessarily condemn one to self-destructive, life-threatening acts.  

You're interpreting 'self-destructive' in a very narrow sense.
Behavior can be internally self-destructive; there doesn't have to be
a specific external 'act' involved. Look up the definition of 'self'
in the dictionary. You can destroy your sense of self-worth, for 
example, or your ability to deal constructively with members of the 
opposite sex.

>Is such behavior "normal?"  I think sometimes yes.  

What, self-destructive behavior? No way.

>Many people experience
>such phases in their lives.  Many people don't.  But then many people
>have never fallen in love.

What makes you think many people have never fallen in love? This is
certainly true of your average group of 20 year olds, but there are a
LOT of people posting to this group who are much older and experienced. 
This is another myth: that Love is a rich and rare thing that only 
occasionally strikes down a lucky and willing victim. Love is as common 
as dirt, my friend.
 
>> ... when you can't function because of your obsession, you have a
>> problem.
>
>But then that goes without saying doesn't it?  That kind of argument is
>really just denotational... "It is unhealthy because it is self-destructive."
>Sure... guarenteed self-destructive acts are unhealthy although I can argue
>that self-destructive acts are not deterministically self-destructive.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.
 
>> Dependency on sex or love is a form of addiction, I believe. ...
>
>Ah but why would I want NOT to be addicted to sex?  Because I would be
>forced onto the streets to slake my unquenchable thirsts?  Properly
>controlled, an addiction might be directed positively.  But then I
>guess it isn't really an addiction if it can be consciously controlled
>is it?

HOW are you going to direct an addiction to sex in a positive manner?
As to why you would want not to be addicted to sex: you obviously
haven't been reading what I've been saying, or what I've been saying
is so foreign to your way of thinking that it's beyond your
understanding.

>What is the motivation for NOT wanting to call my sweetie every other
>hour of the day?  If we both enjoy this then is it "unhealthy?"  is it
>"unnatural?"  No one likes to admit that they are slave to anything,
>yet I can't find anything wrong with this except in extreme cases.

It sure as hell is unhealthy if you're unhappy if you can't call your
sweetie every other hour of the day. It's a sign of immaturity and
insecurity. These are not good starting points for an adult and
responsible relationship.

>And don't such social negativisms really reflect the maturity of the
>people involved, as opposed to the nature of love?

What's a 'social negativism?'
 
>This guy must be an absolute joy at parties, right?
>...
>THAT'S TRULY SICK
>...
>And this is entirely a reflection upon his maturity and ability to handle
>his feelings, I think.  She doesn't sound so mature either if she actually
>participates in all of this.

But you apparently are incapable of tying the point of this 'charming'
little story into what I was saying in the rest of my response.

                              -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly