NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/singles/37962

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 3.8 KB | 80 lines

Newsgroups: soc.singles
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!tlode
From: [e-mail] (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Credibility...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 00:25:37 GMT
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>
>>1)  Would you consider a person who had one or two dates a month with people
>>that he/she never went out with again to be non-single?
>
>I would say that person was single most of the time, but non-single
>once or twice a month.  There's no doubt he's much closer to the
>single end of the spectrum than the non-single end, but I believe
>it is a spectrum, not the black-and-white kind of thing Trygve makes
>it out to be.

"Black and white kind of thing"?  I thought interracial dating was a
different thread.  (But just in case anyone is confused about my concept
of what 'single' means, it has more to do with the degree of feelings of
attachment and commitment one feels--e.g., one could date every single
night of the week, but if there was no commitment, then one would still
very much be single and one could be wait for two years for a romantic
partner to return from the Antarctic and remain committed to that person
for that time and be non-single.)  I do agree with Ed that it's a
continuum (sorry, no theories of quantum singularity today--they mess up
gravitational theory anyway).

>Most people who say they are happy being single do not mean they are
>happy having no interaction with the opposite sex (assuming they are
>heterosexual).  They mean either a) that they are unwilling to accept
>the additional responsibility and commitment required to move further
>toward the nonsingle end or b) that they do not want to give up something
>they think they would have to give up if they became permanently nonsingle.

or c) simply happen to be happy being single and would be perfectly
happy to be unsingle as well, but that's not their current state right
now.  Remember, "happy being single" means "happy being single"--and
doesn't in any respect necessarilly imply that they wish to avoid
being unsingle.

>>2)  Would you consider a person who went out as often as he/she liked with
>>groups of friends to be non-single?

[...]

>Many, probably most, of the women I know participate in group activities
>with male friends but feel it is "inappropriate" to meet a man in
>an individual situation (especially one that is person-focused
>rather than activity-focused) unless they are officially "dating."
>I don't quite understand this, since none of them would hesitate to
>meet a female friend under similar circumstances, but that's the way
>it is.

For your friends, anyway--I often go out to dinner, attend plays, go
to movies, go shopping, etc., individually with a number of female
friends of mine in a completely non-dating way; I rather doubt that
this is a particularly unusual way to behave.

>  ...but what I really
>want is someone who enjoys going horseback riding with *me*.)
>
Oh, Ed, I had no idea you were so kinky--you may have more potential
than some of us thought.

Trygve   (I'm trying very, very hard not to make any "Mister Ed" jokes
          here.  I hope you're proud of me.) >
--
"The Tibetan Masterpiece--the History of Home Canning in the Orient,
 1885-1930 by Geraldine Foster Gibbon and Eunice Kemp Whittledge.
 Complete and entertaining guide to home canning practices in all parts
 of Asia from 1885 to 1930.  Covers all types of canning jars and
 accessories with hundreds of b&w photos and drawings.  920pp."