Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!trwrdc!frith
From: frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Nominally Single???
Message-ID: <1079@trwrdc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 16:58:33 EST
Article-I.D.: trwrdc.1079
Posted: Mon Oct 28 16:58:33 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 22:45:44 EST
References: <1071@trwrdc.UUCP> <490@rti-sel.UUCP>
Reply-To: frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA.
Lines: 173
Keywords: honey sweetums kissy poo snuggles bunny ;-)

In article <490@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes:
> In article <1071@trwrdc.UUCP> frith@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) writes:
>
>> That's not what I read above.  The feeling of loss that you describe as
>> unhealthy is due to the loss of a particular relationship and not the
>> absence of a relationship in general.  In other words, the need and
>> feelings of loss are for that single individual and NOT based upon the
>> fear that you will unable to find a suitable surogate.  
>
> Can you honestly say that you've never felt at the end of a
> relationship a twinge of irrational fear that you may never fall in
> love again, or that the intensity of your experience together will not
> be repeated?

Never for the first question.

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.  I don't EXPECT to fall in love on a regular schedule though.
That's not the way life is.  Life is dull without someone to love.
Life is painful having loved and then lost one's love (especially
through rather tragic means).  But better to have loved and lost then
never to have loved at all.  Hey that's pretty good... I think I'll
right that down.

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

> I think many people have these thoughts. My
> contention is that HEALTHY people consider these things, react
> rationally to them, and get beyond them. Unfortunately, there are
> people who cannot get beyond these thoughts and lead miserable
> lives as a result. You may not have known people like this; I have. 
>
>> Each person and relationship is unique.  Once finished....  that
>> relationship is ended forever.  When something this precious is lost it
>> should come as no surprise that there is an extended period of morning
>> or even scars that cannot be forgotten.
>
> When the mourning period starts interfering with the rest of your
> life, you've got a problem. Period. Scars that cannot be forgotten are
> going to affect the way you relate to other people, the way you view
> life, and the way you perform your everyday tasks. This is a problem.
> Saying a scar can't be forgotten is surrendering your life to despair
> and/or pain. That's abdicating responsibility for your actions.

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 of
course.  But the bad experiences in life will become part of you just as
the good ones have.  They WILL effect your outlook and behavior in life.

Now I agree that surrendering your life COMPLETLY to pain and despair is
not a good thing.  But one must accept the pain and despair and not try
to submerge it or try to fool one's self into thinking that they don't
exist or are so unnatural and alien that they should not be there.
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.

>> That depends on what is truly normal, or to be more precise... what is
>> truly healthy.  If the feeling of loss can linger for a week... a
>> month...  a year.... then it can linger for even longer periods of
>> time.  To say it isn't "normal" isn't saying much.  What is normal?
>> Who is to dictate what is normal and how long feelings of any kind
>> should last?  What is normal is what is.
>
> No. Charles Manson's behavior is not normal, Son of Sam's behavior is
> not normal, Richard Speck's behavior is not normal, John Wayne Gacy's
> behavior is not normal ... I suggest you go and spend a few weeks as an
> observer at a mental institution and then come back and tell us about 
> normality.

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.

> Abnormal behavior is destructive to the individual and/or to the
> community. When your 'mourning' goes on to the point where your
> enjoyment of life, interaction with other people, or job performance
> is affected you'd damned well better get some help because your life
> is out of control. I don't think the definition of the bounds of
> 'normal' or 'healthy' behavior is as difficult a task as you seem to
> think. 

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.
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 aside from the benefits that are possible.... is such a period
"healthy?" That's an interesting question.  I would say often times
no.  But... I would also add that such unhealthy behavior does not
necessarily condemn one to self-destructive, life-threatening acts.  Is
such behavior "normal?"  I think sometimes yes.  Many people experience
such phases in their lives.  Many people don't.  But then many people
have never fallen in love.

>> Obsession is not always self-destructive.  The popular public opinion of
>> the obsessed person is someone who is driven.... derranged.... ready to
>> sacrifice ALL for his neurotic psychosis.  You know... like Bruce Dern.
>
> The kind of obsession I was referring to IS self destructive. I
> repeat: 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.

>>> them. I repeat my challenge: can you come up with some POSITIVE 
>>> interpretations of the belief that one MUST HAVE a relationship?
>>
>> By this I might conclude that you think Sex is necessarily a negative
>> thing because so many people NEED it.  Or that love is an unhealthy
>> thing because so many people say they NEED their loves.
>
> The sex drive can be controlled. A properly socialized person does not
> spot a sexually attractive person on the street, rip off his/her
> clothing and have at it. We make decisions whether or not to have sex,
> and some people choose to remain celibate for long periods of time.
> Dependency on sex or love is a form of addiction, I believe. If you
> can't go two days without a phone call from your sweetie or if you
> can't make a conscious decision to abstain from ALL sex (including
> masturbation) for X days you're an addict.

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?

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

> I've never said either sex or love were negative things; I enjoy them
> both. It's our ATTITUDES and BELIEFS about sex and love that can get
> us into trouble.
>
> Let me tell you a story:

Image wavers.... wierd music plays...

> last Christmas holiday, someone I'm close to and I were both home for
> about a week. He had a picture of his fiancee and he would spend a good
> part of the time we were together morning and crooning over it. Every
> evening at about 7:00 PM he HAD to call his little sweetie; if he
> didn't he became frantic.

This guy must be an absolute joy at parties, right?

> He also told me during the course of the week that (1) she was so
> beautiful that he felt 'intimidated' by her beauty and

THAT'S TRULY SICK.

> (2) that she had told him to thank his mother for giving birth to a
> wonderful son like him. Now, this behavior kept him from enjoying his
> vacation and ruined the times we were together. Everyone (including his
> mother) had it up to HERE [hand extended flat just below my chin] with
> him. Oh, by the way, he's since married her. It's his third marriage.
> BEHAVIOR THAT RUINS A LONG-PLANNED HOLIDAY AND THAT MAKES FAMILY AND
> FRIENDS UNCOMFORTABLE IS NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR.

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.