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!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Do we "need" relationships?
Message-ID: <464@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 10:46:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.464
Posted: Mon Oct 14 10:46:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 00:58:33 EDT
References: <285@whuts.UUCP> <533@oakhill.UUCP> <286@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Distribution: net
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 106

In article <1555@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy writes:

>>Obsessive longing for a shattered relationship ...
>
>Whoa!  Who said anything about obsessive longing...?  

This was a reaction to your use of the word 'need' in your posting.
 
>> You might ask yourself WHY you fear the single state and
>>are unhappy spending time with yourself.
>
>Later in my previous article I attempted to explain that there's a
>difference between "I don't want to be alone 100% of the time." and
>"I don't ever want to be alone, even for 10 minutes."

This again was my reaction to the word 'need' as you were using it,
and the 'you' here wasn't really meant to refer specifically to you,
Snoopy (God, am I REALLY talking like this to a cartoon character? :-), 
but to the general class of people who feel they 'need' a relationship. 
As to your previous article, I sometimes have a hard time keeping up
with who has said what in these exchanges and don't really have a
clear understanding of the Life Philosophies of all the participants.
So if I've misinterpreted your stance I apologize.
 
>The original used the word 'need', I left it in when turning it around.
>It's a stronger word than I really intended at the time, but
>after thinking about it I think I'll stick with it.

That's one of the hazards of posting to the net: unless you're precise
about what you say (whoops, unless ONE is precise about what ONE says)
you're liable to misinterpretation. I believe you personally are not
obsessive about relationships, but don't assume the class of
net.singles readers in general are not. When a strong word like 'need'
is joined to 'relationship' it causes a lot of associations to spring
up in a net reader's mind. For me, it brings back painful and immature
postadolescent longings and fantasies I've long since grown out of, and 
my immediate reaction is to assume you're talking about the same thing.
The standard meaning of the word 'need' implies the needed something
is a prerequisite for happiness or health or well-being. As applied to
relationships, 'need' implies that a SO-less person is unhappy, unhealthy, 
and/or incomplete in some way. This was the sense of the word I was
strongly reacting to.
 
>> I can't come up with a single indication that the feeling of necessity
>> you're talking about is either healthy or desirable. Can you?
>
>There's a lot of things we're stuck with that aren't healthy or
>desirable, ICBMs, for example.  I'm not going to try to defend
>the necessity of relationships.  Like many things, it's rather
>inconvienant.   Just pointing out an observation.  Some people
>have relationships with an SO, some have them with friends,
>or with themselves, or God, or nature, or their pet, or whoever.
>The point is that relationships *are* necessary.  ...

Ah, it seems you're evading the issue by redefining what we're talking 
about. Most people do not have the kind of relationship we were talking 
about (at least that I THOUGHT we were talking about) with their God 
or with nature or with their pets (unless they're kinky in the extreme, 
that is :-). I assumed we were talking about SEXUAL relationships, not 
general interactions with other living beings and inanimate objects. 
Apparently I was wrong. If this is the case, we've been talking about
two different things entirely.

But you'll also notice that I was addressing a particular ATTITUDE
toward relationships, the feeling that one MUST HAVE a relationship
with its associated insecurities (I'm not going to catalog them
again). It ain't the necessity of social intercourse I was talking
about but a longing and obsession that becomes a driving force in
one's life. A person whose entire life revolves around an obsession
with a house or a pet or a political cause is in just as much trouble
as a person who is obsessed with romantic relationships.
 
>Even if we limit the discussion to relationships with SOs, I
>still feel that they can be necessary, but won't claim taht they
>are necessary for everyone.

Of course they can be necessary. My postings on this topic have
questioned whether this kind of need is an entirely healthy state. I
say no, you apparently say yes.
 
>Perhaps a big part of it is knowing that there is something better.
>Being alone just isn't as satisfying after having an SO.
>Like having to drive one of Detroit's rolling disaster areas after
>taking a German wonderwagen out on the racetrack.  ...

I've eaten at some fine restaurants, and had meals there that make all
other meals pale in comparison: food cooked to perfection, artfully
balanced and presented. Now, there were a few possible reactions
to these intense sensations of culinary pleasure: I could decide that
no other eating experience could match them and devote my life to the
pursuit of the most sublime and refined cuisine on the face of the
earth, bankrupting myself in the process and alienating my family and
friends as I pursued my obsession; I could decide that this experience
comes only a few times in a lifetime, and resign myself to comparing
my ordinary meals to the absolute perfection I've known once or twice
in life, knowing that nothing I ever eat will ever match the bliss I
know is possible; lastly, I could realize that I very well may eat a
meal that will match the perfection of the two or three I've known,
decide that this will be very nice if it happens but that I won't get
crazy about it, and decide to appreciate the simple joys of a bowl of
oatmeal and a cup of tea out on the porch as the sun's coming up.

In short, I strongly disagree that being alone isn't as satisfying
once you've had an SO.

                                -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly