Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!lewak From: lewak@sdcsvax.UUCP (George Lewak) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Do we "need" relationships? Message-ID: <1147@sdcsvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 20-Oct-85 03:22:48 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.1147 Posted: Sun Oct 20 03:22:48 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 06:49:23 EDT References: <285@whuts.UUCP> <533@oakhill.UUCP> <286@whuts.UUCP> Reply-To: lewak@sdcsvax.UUCP (George lewak) Distribution: net Organization: EECS Dept. U.C. San Diego Lines: 192 Summary: Yes (long) The conversation about "needing" relationships has taken my interest, and I decided I would take time to respond to a particular dialog that I noticed appear on this subject. Overall, this dialog, although only representing two people, seem to give the general idea that most others contribute. Because of the length, I am trying to trim down as much as possible, yet still make my point. I apologize if I accidently took someone's statement out of context, and would appreciate it if it is pointed out to me. My opinions will intervene. In article <464@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) and in article <1555@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy each write: Bill: >>> You might ask yourself WHY you fear the single state and >>>are unhappy spending time with yourself. Snoopy: >>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." Bill: >This again was my reaction to the word 'need' as you were using it, >... Snoopy: >>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. Me: At this point, it became apparent that Snoopy is defending his position for his use of the word "need", because of the general belief that "needing" a relationship is immature, or not machismo, or whatever. So, by claiming lack of a better word, he redeems himself. Of course, his true opinion is still apparent when he decides not to find one, anyway. Bill: >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. Bill: >>> 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? Me: So this is where my arguments come in. I, being an open person (seemingly more so on the net), am not afraid to admit that I *NEED* a relationship. In fact, I admit that a relation is, in the long run, a necessary prerequisite for my well-being. And, I think that it is a need for most people (although they will never humiliate themselves enough to admit). It is because it is inherent in the physical makeup of human beings. It is the cause for the survival of our species. So, I ask you, Bill, what's so unhealthy about needing a relationship? Isn't it true that you need to eat? Okay. There is not much of a difference. Well, maybe there is a bit of a difference. Our species could survive if everyone decided never to get married, and people made it a ritual to have sex only to give birth. Or, even better, I'm sure Bill dreams of the day when the technological state of artificial insimination will have advanced so far that sex will no longer be necessary at all. And then, we can have semen banks, have all the women move to the eastern hemisphere, and all the men move to the west, and you won't even have to deal with the opposite sex. I know I'm distorting what you've said a little, here, but think about this world. I certainly hope that you can see that most people would be unhappy. So, here goes to show that relationships, whether to be used to pass on the generations or as shear pleasure, are necessary. Bill, by the way, you mention that you have outgrown some "painful, immature, postadolescent longings and fantasies" (I assume, you are talking about sexual relationships). Do you consider yourself happier and healthier now? I don't know you personally, but my impression is that you are not. I have met some who have told this to me in person (in all cases, divorced), and they do not appear to me to be happy (although they claim to be, as they speak with a small hint of anger and lack of smiles). Snoopy: >>...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. ... Bill: >Ah, it seems you're evading the issue by redefining what we're talking >about. >... >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. Me: It is possible, here, that Snoopy was talking about relationships in general in his first article (I didn't see it), BUT I think that sexual relationships ARE AN INTEGRAL PART of relationships in general. If Bill puts them in a different category, then I can see why he might find them undesirable, if not just unnecessary. Why does he think that it is okay to find non-sexual relationships necessary, but then take the opposite stance when sex is entered into the scene? Bill: >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). Me: I've been in only a couple of relationships with an SO in my life, and admittedly, I find there are "associated insecurities", too. However, you take "insecurities" whereever you go. You go to college, you risk flunking out. You get a job, you risk getting fired. Life it tough. So, I might as well give up and become a bum in downtown San Diego. The point is: some people do not find the insecurities of a relationship to stop them, either because they haven't been in one at all, or haven't been in one and gotten burnt. I've been burnt, too, and although I don't necessarily like the "insecurity" (mostly of getting burnt again) of a relationship, I feel more secure than without one. So, I guess it's just a matter of personal preference. I like myself too much, so it will take quite a few more bruises before I give up. Snoopy: >>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. Bill: >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. Bill: >In short, I strongly disagree that being alone isn't as satisfying >once you've had an SO. Me: In summary, what I have seen is an argument claiming two sides: People who "need relationships" are mentally unhealthy; or, that it is normal to need relationships. I have seen others argue both these positions. Relating to those I've met, the set of people who argue the former include divorced people and people (moreso) who seem to be constantly involved in relationships (usually without having to work very hard for it). I classify the first category as having an unhealthy attitude, myself. I classify the latter as hypocritical (I'd like to see THEM in my shoes, and then tell me they don't need relationships). On the other hand, those who think that "needing relationships" is normal, usually DO need them, and are usually without them. So, my stance on this is that MOST people need relationships INCLUDING most of those who argue against this. Those who argue against are usually the ones who have been through them the most, and so have no concept of "needing". But put them away from all members of the opposite sex for a few years (keep the same sex around, so they can "have relationships" with other animate objects), and THEN see if they don't need sexual relationships (if they don't become homosexual, first). Sorry to be so hard on you, Bill. Victor Romano ------------------------------------ There's a kid who had a big hallucination making love to girls in magazines he wonders if you're sleeping with your new found faith could anybody love him, or is it just a crazy dream? -Pink Floyd