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 azure.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!teklds!azure!chrisa From: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: How far can friendship go? Message-ID: <360@azure.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 05:21:16 EDT Article-I.D.: azure.360 Posted: Tue Jul 16 05:21:16 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 02:55:21 EDT References: <315@tektools.UUCP> Reply-To: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) Distribution: net Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 106 Summary: I'm a Post-revolutionary now? Does that mean I have to eat Grape Nuts? :-) In article <315@tektools.UUCP> janec@tektools.UUCP (Jane Caputo) writes: >I'm starting to suspect that the difference in attitudes about platonic >relationships has something to do with age. Most of my younger friends >seem to agree with Chris Anderson: Where are these younger friends? I'd like to meet them. (seriously). I'd also like to meet you. I'd like to meet everyone (but that's being a little TOO unrealistic). > >>I wonder why they can't do it without turning on? Even more important, >>why do they feel they *HAVE* to finish it off by making love? I wonder if >>it might just be that they *feel* that they must do it, not that they really >>have to. I think that some people just don't realize that you *don't* have >>to go 'all the way' every time you touch another persons body. > >In the fifties and early sixties there were girls around (I wouldn't dream >of calling them women) who bragged about going to bed with their boyfriends >and refusing to allow them to finish. They were "saving it" for their >husbands. They were "good" girls, in contrast to the "bad" girls who let boys >go all the way. Listening to them turned my stomach. > >In the sixties we decided our husbands (if we chose to marry) could do without >that great gift. We were entitled to have premarital sex and enjoy it. Hmmm, I don't know about your use of the word "entitled", it sounds to much like you have a right to pre-marital sex. I think it's more along the lines of "you have the right to have (or not have) pre-marital sex provided that your partner also wants it". You also aren't entitled to enjoy it. However, one should strive to meet that goal since sex without enjoyment is empty. >After all those years of not being able to, it was a privilege. It became a >women's issue similar to abortion today: women who didn't do it >personally (like me, since I was already married) still thought it important >to support those who did. Men who still >wanted to classify women into "good" and "bad" were obviously hopelessly >behind the times, and we weren't interested in them anyway. But some >responsibility came with the freedom. We were entitled to be honest when >we wanted someone, but we were also honest when we weren't interested. >We didn't advertise what wasn't available. Here I think is where we might have the problem. You seem to think that being physcialy close to someone implies that you are advertising a product which the other can pay for (sounds to much like prostitution to me). >I've gone through all the ancient history so you can see why I would >never be alone with a man kissing and hugging, unless I wanted to finish. I might be able to see it, but I can't understand it. >I started to say unless I wanted to make love, but actually to me the kissing >and hugging *is* making love. In fact there are a whole complex of other >things, like certain kinds of compliments, that also to me are part of the >lovemaking. I would never do them under any other circumstances. True, lovemaking can have a very broad meaning. However, since you seem to define lovemaking as something you do with someone who is more then a friend (correct me if I'm wrong) and since you define lovemaking so broadly, what do you have left to share with your "just friends"? >Now, I don't say that once I got myself into that situation, I could never >imagine myself saying no. There have been times when I've changed my mind. >But I haven't felt good about doing that to someone. And if a man did it >to me, I'm sure I'd feel hurt. If he tried to smooth it over by saying he >was just a friend who had never intended to do any more than a little kissing >and hugging, I'd be furious. I'm glad that you seem to have feelings for the other person while still retaining your integrity by knowing when to say "no". I would also agree that if someone appeared to be leading me on and then told me they "just wanted to be friends" I wouldn't like it. That is why I am so much for being upfront with friends. Let them know, as soon as possible that your just being friendly and your not interested (right now) in doing anything further. If your not sure whether you are interested or not, then don't let yourself get led into a situation where you have to hurt someones feelings. > >I'm really interested in what you are all saying about this kind of non- >sexual closeness. You're really the post-revolutionary generation, and >it's interesting to sit back and see how it all got sorted out. It may turn >out to be a really good, healthy thing. I hope so, but I'm not so convinced >that I'm anxious to try it myself. That's fine with me. I'm not trying to convert anyone (*very small white lie*). I do hope though that you not only listen, but try to learn to (it's never to late to learn something new). And so The Stranger closes out yet another verbose posting... Life, Love, Laughter, and Hope, Chris Andersen (aka The Stranger) P.S. Jane, e-mail me sometime if you want to talk about. -- "Roads? Where we're going we don't need any roads!" ----------------------------------------------------- tektronix!azure!chrisa