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 hammer.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!orca!hammer!seifert
From: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Do we "need" relationships?
Message-ID: <1576@hammer.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Oct-85 00:57:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: hammer.1576
Posted: Sun Oct 20 00:57:09 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 06:44:43 EDT
References: <285@whuts.UUCP> <533@oakhill.UUCP> <286@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
Distribution: net
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
Lines: 88
Summary: Welcome back my friends, to the "References:" line that never ends!

In article <464@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes:

>Snoopy (God, am I REALLY talking like this to a cartoon character? :-),

Hey, cartoon characters need love too! (Whoops! There's that word again! :-)  )

>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.

Doesn't matter.  I get misinterpreted no matter how careful and precise I am.
And misinterpret others no matter how careful *they* are.  And many
others have the same problem.

> 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.

Not 'is' as in *all* SO-less persons are condemed to be unhappy, etc.
Rather that the SO-less person *might be* unhappy, etc.

>Ah, it seems you're evading the issue by redefining what we're talking 
>about.

Not evading, just shooting off on a tangent.  Sorry for the confusion.

> 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.

Sigh.  I was mainly talking about "romantic" relationships, which
may or may not include sex. (or bowling with Mike Royko :-) )
Then I shoot off on a tangent, saying that (almost) everyone
needs "generic" relationships, and some need "romantic" relationships.

>>Even if we limit the discussion to relationships with SOs, I
>>still feel that they can be necessary, but won't claim that 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.

Well...if you have a relationship, you can be healthy, if you don't...

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

It *can* be, but it isn't *necessarily* as satisfying. (Why do I feel
like a broken record?)

OK, Bill, question for you: what if you were a victim of the
"no-SO blues"?  How would you get back into the healthy state
of self-sufficiency?

Snoopy
tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy

All together now:

A winter's day, in a deep and dark December,
I am alone, gazing from my window, to the streets below
on a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock. I am an island.

I build walls, a fortress deep and mighty.
That none may penetrate.
I have no need of friendship,
friendship causes pain.
It's laughter and it's nothing I distain.   (?)
I am a rock, I am an island.

Don't talk of love, well I've heard the word before.
It's sleeping in my memory.
I won't disturb the slumber, of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock, I am an island.

I have my books, and my poetry to protect me,
I am shielded in my armor.
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch noone, and noone touches me.
I am a rock, I am an island.

And a rock feels no pain, and an island never cries.

		Simon and Garfunkel