Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!pesnta!hplabs!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Nominally single???? A voice from the past.
Message-ID: <1213@ames.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 17:20:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1213
Posted: Fri Oct 18 17:20:07 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 01:04:14 EDT
References: <285@whuts.UUCP> <533@oakhill.UUCP> <286@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 53

From Heather Emanuel (rayssd!hxe):
>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.
>...
>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'?

	The sooner, the better. I'm so completely in agreement with you
on this that I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would disagree.
Unless the intent to be impolite were clear (eg, I walk up to a strange
woman at a party and say "hi"; if she responds "bug off, I'm married",
then, yes, I'd feel insulted), why would anyone be offended to have a
new acquaintance mention that they're married, or otherwise exclusively
involved? This happens to touch on one of my personal hangups. I would
say that my single greatest fear when I'm getting to know a new woman,
and hoping there are romantic possibilities, is that it will turn out
she's already involved (to the exclusion of other romance) with someone
else. I can't recall *ever* asking a woman out on a date, or anything
with equivalent connotations, until I was *sure* that she was at least
theoretically available. Intellectually I know that asking a married
woman out would be an understandable and forgivable error, if she had
never made her status clear, but, emotionally, I'd be hideously embarrassed,
and she might be embarrassed, as well. So, doesn't it just make more
sense to be up-front about one's lack of availability? When I'm "available"
(like now; where are all you women hiding? :-)) I'm open to both the
possibility of romance, or just a new friendship or acquaintance, but
when I'm not "available", it is I who wish to circumscribe the possible
directions a new friendship may take, and it is therefore my responsibility
to let others know the rules under which I'm operating. Doesn't this
seem a reasonable system?

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	ELECTRIC AVENUE:	 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry