Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rayssd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!rayssd!hxe From: hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Re: Nominally single???? A voice from the past. Message-ID: <1146@rayssd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 12:13:36 EDT Article-I.D.: rayssd.1146 Posted: Tue Oct 15 12:13:36 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Oct-85 07:09:39 EDT References: <285@whuts.UUCP> <533@oakhill.UUCP> <286@whuts.UUCP> Sender: hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel @ Raytheon Co., Portsmouth RI) Organization: Raytheon Co., Portsmouth RI Lines: 89 > >I include in this category people who, if you innocently say "hi" to them, > > and they happen to be of the opposite sex, say "Hi. Meet my SO." I also > > include people whose every posting contains the phrase "X and I", where X > > is the poster's SO, as I feel such postings are particularly pernicious. > > -- > > Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos > I agree with that definition entirely. But that also applies nicely > to many married people, who seem incapable of identifying themselves > separately from their spouses. It is as if neither one trusts the > other enough to make friends independently. I have found it very > difficult to become friends with married women because of this. Most > of them just keep their distance. I dunno. Seems like a lonely kind > of life, just you and the old man, forever and ever.... > > Best regards, > Andy Cohill {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whts!amc It seems to me that you're talking about two different things here. One is the seeming incapability of *some* married or involved people to make friendships outside their primary relationships. This could be for many reasons. The two most common are: 1) believing that it is somehow improper to share anything with anyone else now that you have an SO, and 2) simple reluctance to have more than one friend at a time. The second reason, although I disagree with it as it applies to *my* life, is a choice some people have made. The first (and probably most common) is a twisting of social traditions and should be gently challenged wherever appropriate. But there seems to be something else that's being suggested in these postings that I have some questions about. Based on these postings and other postings, I can see that people get offended when they meet someone and that person mentions that they have an SO, as if to warn the new acquaintance off or something. Now I've been in that situation and felt offended; I thought that my interest was purely friendly and it was presumptuous of the person to think I was in any way 'coming on' to him. However, when there's no obvious outward signs of your being "taken" (e.g., a wedding ring) and it looks as though this friendship could go in either direction, at what point is it appropriate to let someone know you're not available? I'm not talking about meeting someone at work or in a professional context; then, you should be nothing but professional. But we often meet people in social situations - situations in which it is common to meet MOTAS and assume that they might be open to starting a relationship. My basic reason for going to a party is to enjoy talking to people, maybe meet a few more, the usual. But if I'm also uninvolved at that time, I won't pretend that I might not be seeking a potential SO. So if I meet someone, I want to know as soon as is reasonable what his 'status' is, so I won't get any false hopes up. (This may sound crass, but it's honest.) I also assume, perhaps incorrectly, that if a new acquaintanceship seems to be heading in a potentially romantic direction, it is polite of me to inform someone if *I'm* not available. The way I try to do this is to somehow, as naturally as possible, work in a mention of my SO, in a context that doesn't seem like I'm saying, "Look, bub, I'm taken, so back off." I think it's only fair. Maybe this appears to people as if I can't think of myself except in terms of "him and me," when, in fact, I'm only mentioning it for their sake. Let me put some caveats is here: I don't assume that every man I meet is 'after' me; it's pretty easy to read the subtext of a conversation and tell what's what, so I only do it then. If I miss a few times, I'd rather err on the side of honesty than be accused of leading someone on. Most of the time it's a relief to get all the sexual stuff out of the way right from the start, so we can simply enjoy really getting to know one another. It's a shame that it can't be that way from the beginning, and anyone who's read my stuff in mail.feminist knows that I don't subscribe to feminine/masculine roles, but that's the way it is now so I try to deal with it as best I can. So I guess my question, after all this long-winded nonsense, is this: at what point would *you* like to be told that a new acquaintance is 'unavailable'? Nominally Single, -- --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, raybed2} rayssd!hxe -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this article are obviously my own. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ain't life a brook... Sometimes I feel just like a polished stone" -Ferron