Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hou2g!scott
From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Colonel'K)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Needing Relationships
Message-ID: <682@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 14:31:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2g.682
Posted: Mon Oct 21 14:31:36 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 06:14:08 EDT
Organization: A Rent-Controlled Gothic Mansion
Lines: 32



I just had a thought.  I would agree with Snoopy and Victor that
we "need" (romantic) relationships.  However, Bill is also right
in a sense.  

When I first read Bill's postings, my reaction was that he was 
coming across as sort of "holier than thou" in his declaration 
that such a need is "unhealthy".  However, I'm sure this is not 
the impression he intended to give, and I'll give him the benefit 
of the doubt about it.

My hypothesis is that we ALL need such relationships.  However,
each of us differs in the degree to which we have that need--this 
degree may be correlated with the length, number, and success of
relationships an individual has had.  This is what I think Victor
was trying to say, and if so I agree.

This being the case, I find it not unreasonable to assume that
there are two ends to the spectrum--those who can't survive for 
more that a few weeks, and those who go nearly a lifetime without 
"needing" a relationship (perhaps Bill's case).

I don't see any one situation as being more normal than another.  
What's normal is what's right for YOU.


			"The majority is always sane" - L. Niven

			Scott J. Berry
			ihnp4!hou2g!scott