welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (01/22/84)
(to that eater of first lines) Sophie Quigley has brought up some very interesting issues with regards to space, and "woman-space." When I was first getting started in the world of work, I shared a house with a bunch of guys. One of my house mates who I liked a lot and I were in the same group and shared a closet the company we worked for called an office. We couldn't lean back without touching chairs with each other. In many ways we saw more of each other than if we were married. Eventually we convinced our management on separate offices. We are still good friends, but we found living and working together a violation of our space constraints. Next, I'd like to talk about sex and space. In some respects every woman is a potential sexual partner for every man and every man is a sexual partner for every woman. When the two are mixed there is an inevitable sexual tension. This is particularly true when people are discovering their sexuality, from birth to 25, with variations depending on individuals. By sexual tension I mean, the gee your cute lets get it on syndrome. Now, this limits almost immediately how close people can get. Let me give an example, when I taught I dealt with many students, some male some female. I sometimes went down to the pub and had a beer with some of my students. I never had or suggested having a beer with a lone female student, though, I did have beers with lone male students. Why, well a lone female student would provide a potential invasion of the "gee lets get it on together" space that I didn't want invaded by a student. Yet in another way my actions were discrimination. I allowed male students to be more socially close to me than female students. The same unspoken rule held when I was a graduate student. I never had a beer with a lone female peer in the same department with me, and holds to a lesser extent in the work environment. I never invite lone female colleagues in my Laboratory home for dinner or lunch, while I frequently invite lone male colleagues home. Why? No confusion on intention. I suspect that people are so frightened of homosexuality and their own homosexuality cause it introduces a confusion of intent into a relationship. I see this as directly related to Sophie's description of a need of woman space. In an environment where there were only women, there was no confusion of intent. With a nearly equal environment, there were always enough women around where she could have friends without the issue of a potential sexual relationship. However, in a mostly male environment she is always faced with that issue. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/23/84)
Larry, I caught something creeping in there which people may not have noticed. This is the mythical 'sex makes all the difference in the world' syndrome. The idea is 'well friends are friends, but sex, gee, wow that's something really different'. I think that this is a particularily crummy attitude. Sex is nice, and friends are nice, but friends are nicer! I have some friends. Some of them I have had sex with, some of them I might have sex with, and a lot of them I would never have sex with. It doesn't matter to me as far as the friendship goes. If you think that sex is something wonderful that ties people together and makes them special, then I think that you are doing your friends whom you don't have sex with a disservice. And boy will you do awful things in the guilt-trip department if you expect some poor friend of yours to be 'very different now' just because you have had sex with them. If they didn't know that this was the rules, they may have just lost a friendship because you want something else, and if you don't watch it you will give them a guilt trip to boot -- even if they can not figure out what the heck went wrong. This is another variation on the "sex is a prize that i give to my one true love" story. If you want to play this game, fine, but let us all know so that we can avoid you if we are not interested in this game. Don't assume that we all think that this rule is just ducky, because it isn't. Sex is great, and I enjoy it -- but awarding myself off as a prize doesn't sit very well with me. Nobody "gives themself" to me -- this is a mutual enjoyment pact, not a supermarket purchase. * * * one final note -- if you really want to discourage the trama of rape (and if one out of every four women is going to be raped, this strikes me as a fine ideal) then fight this attitude wherever you see it. One of the great problems with rape is not that a person "feels defiled" or some such. This is a manifestation of the same attitude. You want to "give yourself away" but now you feel like "damaged goods" which nobody in their right mind would take. this, dear, is your problem. YOU CAN NEVER GIVE YOURSELF AWAY. Nobody can take you! People can try, and even try to be responsible for you, but it is a loosing proposition. Tough as it is, you are stuck with being responsible for yourself. You can try to abdicate this responsibility, by blaming the world, or trying to get somebody else to take responsibility, but it isn't going to work very well. But, if you *are* responsible, then sex can not be a shedding of responsibilities. The best you can do is a mutual enjoyment pact. Let's not play the double-cheat game of handing yourself as the sacred bottle to your lover and then bitching that men are too "dominant", okay. If you want to be the sacred flower-pot then the domination is there because you asked for it. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (01/26/84)
{for those of you reading this in net.singles, this is a followup
to an article by Laura in net.women. Net.singles seems to be a more
appropriate group.}
> This is the mythical 'sex makes all the difference in the world'
> syndrome. The idea is 'well friends are friends, but sex, gee,
> wow that's something really different'. I think that this is
> a particularily crummy attitude.
Well, Laura, I disagree. The "syndrome" is not mythical. Whether
it's right or wrong is another matter. Some people view sex as
just another form of recreation. Other people think that sex
*is* something very special, and should be limited to one person,
your spouse. And there is a whole continum(sp) in between.
The Bible makes it clear that sex is *not* just recreation,
so those subscribing to the Jewish or Christian religions
will need to consider this. Persons dating someone with
different religious beliefs will want to be very careful here.
So what we have is a bunch of people with various attitudes
towards sex. The problem comes when we *assume* that someone
else feels the same way about it that we do. They may very well
not, even if they totally agree with us on 173 other controversial
topics. This is a real good way to get yourself burned.
A slightly more 'generic' problem is "intimacy". Intimacy comes
from trust, respect, and friendship. Intimacy is letting another
person get inside you. This can be mentally and/or physically.
Mentally, intimacy is sharing your deepest fears, your most
secret thoughts with someone and not worring about being laughed
at, or having your secrets transmitted to the 'grapevine'. There
is a "special bond" between you. You know the person well enough
to 'read their thoughts', to know what they are going to say before
they say it. Physically, intimacy is sex. This doesn't have to
be "all the way", it could just as well be "only" a kiss or a backrub
or whatever.
Now, some people can turn intimacy on and off like a light
switch ('A'), others can't ('B'). A gets hurt when B doesn't
reciprocate A's intimacy right away. B gets hurt when A abruptly
'pulls the plug', and B is left with a big gaping hole where
the link to A used to be.
So how do we keep from hurting each other? Hey, if I knew
the answer to that one, I'd be rich! The only thing I can
think of is to echo Laura's suggestion of trying to find
out how each other feels *before* things go too far, and
someone gets burned. Even then, we can still get burned,
because emotions don't always listen to logic. (Ask me how
I know!)
<insert wise old quotation here>
--
_____
/_____\ from the flying doghouse of
/_______\ Snoopy
|___|
____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert