From: SAAVIK              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 04/29/91 21:56:32
Message Number 16302

SA>I wouldn't trade my kids for all the Ferraris in Florida
TS>No? How about just one or two? Hell, I would. 
 
This, coming from a man who  HAS no children....... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 04/29/91 21:58:07
Message Number 16303

Perhaps what Turtle is trying to say is that a relationship does NOT 
have to be a monagomous one to be sucessful.... that may well work for 
some people but I believe that most people desire a one on one 
relationship.... a non monogamous relationship could only work if BOTH
parties agreed to it and were very secure with themselves... I mean, if 
you truly love someone.... you tend to want to keep them to yourself...
it's hard to think of them being intimate with anyone else... at least, 
it is for me. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: names          
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:01:54
Message Number 16304

T>Actually, that's "ploymorphonuclearlucocyte"
 
Picky picky picky
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Names?         
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:03:01
Message Number 16305

Goldenrod is also the nickname that Han Solo tagged onto C-3-P-O on
Star Wars.... I don't know how that's at all relevant.... I just felt 
like saying it...... 4 days in bed has made me strange...... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:04:55
Message Number 16306

Turtle, how can we hope to save our Rainforests in this lifetime.... 
hopefully, my children and my childrens  children will continue to fight
for the precious things worth saving on this earth... the new generation
is much more alert to the ecology than the past generations have been...
you can't make me believe that I have done anything wrong by bringing 
life into this world.... My children WILL NOT be destructive, overblown
simians..... and there is nothing pale or shallow about bearing and 
raising children...... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Flicker noise  
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:09:45
Message Number 16307

Yes I see why Flicker Noise was a good comparison... 
It's funny you should make that statement about couples who seem 
perfectly happy then WHAMMY.... I just found out another couple I know
are getting a divorce... they were like... very very lovey dovey all 
the time.. did everything together, been married 2 years..... I mean
real Thirtysomething type couple.... I asked "her" why, she said they
are breaking up because she wants children and he doesn't.... "He" told
me that "all she ever talks about are kids, kids, kids. and he wants
to wait until they pay off their car (2 years).... I dunno. They were 
like all over each other week before last.... and now, the papers are  
already filed....... beats me..... so much for compromise and trying to 
work things out...... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Say what?      
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:14:47
Message Number 16308

No one should have to tolerate jealousy and dishonesty, Turtle... 
Trust is a very valuable thing in a relationship that must be earned... 
if there is a great deal of jealousy and dishonesty, then trust isn't 
going to be there..... it doesn't grow well in that environment. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: <continuing>   
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:19:36
Message Number 16309

I love it when you rant and rave.... you brought up some very good 
points and educated me on a few things..... I never stopped to think 
about the car vs sex death issue.... yeah, I drive everyday and I'm sure
that I have a much better chance of dying in a car accident than by 
a sexually transmitted illness even if I slept around...  
It's like back in the late 70's when Jaws came out.... no one wanted to 
go swimming.... they were certain that there was this big shark lurking 
under the water waiting to grab them.... they built shark towers and thi
guy with a whistle would yell and blow his whistle whenever a shark was
sighted... well, there are sharks all over the beaches and always have 
been.... and exactly how many people ever really get attacked by a 
shark? Not many....... but I guess the difference is.... when you are 
driving, you are in control... even if an accident happens.... you are 
in control of that vehicle....   you can't control a shark.... you can't
control a sexually transmitted illness. Does that make any sense....? 
Probably not.... I think it's the painkillers..... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: ODEN                
Subject: Kiwi Fruits    
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:30:41
Message Number 16310

OD>(on Kiwi Fruit)next time you are at the supermarket, pick one up and 
    fondle it. bet you will make a weird face and put it down promptly
    (unless you like ape balls) 
 
God, I'll never be able to handle the produce department again.... I'll 
break into uncontrollable laughter everytime I walk into Publix.... 
they'll think I'm nuts...... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: fruits         
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:33:13
Message Number 16311

Drf>what about parts of speech? 
 
Dangling participle? (I don't even know if I spelled that right) 
verb (hmmm Hi, my name is Verb). 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Kiddies        
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:35:35
Message Number 16312

Drf>...another friend of mine was  also in the hospital, getting a cyst 
       removed.... 
 
She has My Sympathy!!! Ug! this /hasn't/ been fun.. but it's the closest
thing to a vacation I've had in over a year!!!!!! 
 
Drf>Hope die Kinder don't drive mommy crazy. 
 
Actually, my mother (bless her heart) has taken one of the kids off my 
hands since the surgery so I only have to deal with one during the day.
She took Val (the 4 yr old) the first couple of days then Marshall went
with Daddy fishing yestarday and Mom had him today... so it's really 
been rather relaxing.... like only having one child and no job!!!!! 
Tomarrow, the fantasy is over.... I have to go back to work! Blah! 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: You're Preggers
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:42:56
Message Number 16313

(Saavik wobbles up, fork sticking out of her stomach) Here! (pulls fork 
out and hands it to Scott Steel) Don't jinx me.... I am not allowed to 
get pregnant..... I'd have a hell of a time explaining it to Glenn since
he had a vasectomy last year! 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:46:39
Message Number 16314

SS>To make a more obvious point, if one of your lovers in an open
   relationship decides to remain faithful to one of her other lovers, 
   then she has just changed something in your relationship. 
 
Very good point.... Open relationships between two people seem to 
constantly change... I mean, how long can it go on that way without 
one of the partners finding someone whom they are very attracted to 
who wants a monogamous relationship?  It's bound to happen.... sooner 
or later......... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Seriously now  
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:53:24
Message Number 16315

You are too busy making spelling errors to correct them....... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: HACMAN              
Subject: SERIOUS PROBLEM
Date & Time: 04/29/91 22:58:32
Message Number 16316

Burney is right..... as long as two people are willing to sacrifice and 
make it last...... it can and will.... but most people get tired and 
selfish, they just don't stick it out through the lumps and bumps of 
ANY relationship... not just marriage... any relationship brother/sister
mother/child, best friends, ANY relationship is going to have it's share
of ups and downs..... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: HACMAN              
Subject: Birth          
Date & Time: 04/29/91 23:01:01
Message Number 16317

I don't knock someone for not wanting children of their own... it kinda
irks me when someone says they "personally hate kids," though... how 
can anyone HATE children.... I mean yeah, maybe they can make someone 
uncomfortable, or maybe, as you, they don't have the desire to have any
of their own..... 
                     But to Hate children.... just seems like there is 
something evil and twisted about that.... I dunno....... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: HACMAN              
Subject: doby           
Date & Time: 04/29/91 23:03:35
Message Number 16318

If he's swallowing plastic, erg!, don't give him anymore, that's for 
sure.... I buy bones (real bones) really cheap from publix...(ask the 
guy behind the counter, some will, some won't)... the dogs love them 
and they are really good for them too. Keeps them busy for hours... 
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: ODEN                
Subject: Kiwi Fruits    
Date & Time: 04/30/91 00:06:16
Message Number 16319

You're gross... You wouldn't catch me dead fondling kiwi fruit!
 
- Or cocoanuts either -
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: 1=1            
Date & Time: 04/30/91 00:22:46
Message Number 16320

DF>We learned very quickly in our relationship that we CAN'T b 
everything to each other... but that it didn't matter.
 
No 2 people are everything for each other, whether they be friends or 
spouses.Think about your friends, do you share the same interests or 
likes/ dislikes with all of them? No, I very much doubt it.
 
 
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 00:35:31
Message Number 16321

TS> What ythe hell's a "physically intimate, close, non-sexual relation-
ship?
 
It is a relationship where body contact exists, whether it be a hug or a
kiss. It can exist between 2 people that are close friends. The above 
mentioned 'acts' are usually given for assurance, condolance, or other 
reasons as they arise.
 
Anyone care to elaborate further?
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: TURTLE              
Subject: dating         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 01:27:35
Message Number 16322

PW> I didn't start dating until I was 16...
T> Hell, I didn't start 'til I was 18.  I did take two girls to the 
   senior prom, though.
   
And now he is like the energizer bunny . . . . . ......
I guess I should not say things like this with the discussion going on 
the board.  
  
                               * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: cars           
Date & Time: 04/30/91 01:50:24
Message Number 16323

>As for cars in general, I don't like any of the cars that have been
>produced in the past several years.
 
I do. The Acura NSX, the Infinity Q45, the Lamborghini Diablo, the
Acura Legend, the Mazda Miata, the Porsche Carrera 2 and Carrera 4,
the Porsche PanAmericana, the Ferrari Testarossa...
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 01:54:04
Message Number 16324

>If the relationship is set up with sexual fidelity in the mind of
>both partners, that's a part of the trust.
 
No shit. If I were involved in such a relationship, I would be
absolutely faithful to my partner--and I would have /no/ tolerance for
lack of faith on my partner's end. The point I am trying to make is
simply that an open relationship can work, and if your prospective
partner would like such a relationship that is not immediate grounds
for terminating all contact with that person. The attitude that a
relationship must, or even "should," be founded on sexual fidelity is
Manifest Bullshit--especially when the people involved will /claim/
that their relationship isn't based on sex while still behaving as
though it were.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: fruits         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 01:58:17
Message Number 16325

Yeah, parents with odd last names can be rather cruel to their hapless
offspring, as the rather famous twins Ima and Ura Hogg can testify.
(Yep, these are real people...) Man, some people's parents should just
be shot.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 01:59:53
Message Number 16326

>It is pure foolishness to allow yourself to get very close to someone
>who has other lovers, you are virtually guaranteed to get hurt.
 
I can say with absolute conviction, based on years of personal
experience, that that statement is patently, iredeemably false. I am
quite proud of the fact that Kelly and I have not only outlasted most
marriages as a couple, but we also share more intimacy than anyone else
I have ever met, and we still behave like a couple of newbies--very
affectionate, you know? Well, guess what...we've both had other lovers.
Surprise! It's done a lot of good for us, too; I can honestly say we're
both more intimate with one another and more solidly together because of
it. Your statement sounds nice in theory, kind of like "you can only
love one person at a time" or "if s/he wants other lovers it must mean
I'm not adequate/not good enough/whatever"...all those statements that
sound so good because they reinforce preconceived ideas that have been
hammered into us since day one...but in the real world, it just ain't
so. Yes, you CAN get hurt in an open relationship. So what? You can get
hurt in a closed relationship. Yes, an open relationship can be abused.
So? So can any other type of relationship. But when it comes right down
to it, an open relationship is not "virtually guaranteed" not to work
by any stretch of the imagination, as long as it's put together in such
a way that no violation of trust occurs on either side. Is it really
that difficult to conceive of a situation where your partner can take
another lover without any violation of trust?
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:07:36
Message Number 16327

>Hypothetically speaking, how would you feel if I was interested in
>Kelly. Would you not feel threatened by me? 
 
I would not feel threatened by you. Hypothetically speaking my ass...
while I was living in Fort Myers my best friend was also Kelly's lover.
Your point, please?
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:10:15
Message Number 16328

>And what have you done for this planet's ecosystem?
 
Not reproduced! (Heh, heh, heh.) Seriously, though, that's not my point.
My point was simply that a love of life should be just that, a love of
/life/, not a desire to see your genetic heritage propogated regardless
of the cost...so I was feeling a little cynical. Sue me.
 
>You're awfully self-righteous lately.
 
Naah; I'm awfully /opinionated/ lately. Hey, if I weren't, I wouldn't
be Turtle, would I? I'd hardly call it /self-righteous/; if you want to
continue to disagree with me about anything we're discussing that's
fine. I'm having a good time arguing about it, though, and I do reserve
the right to poke holes in your logic any time I see a hole that needs
poking...so nyyah! Thpth. :P
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:13:47
Message Number 16329

>If, on the other hand, no commitment is made, and therefore, you can
>sleep with whoever you choose, ...
 
Whoa there! I see a serious error in your line of reasoning...although
given that sentence suddenly a whole lot of your argument is a lot
clearer to me. First off, having a commitment and having other lovers
are not mutually exclusive; you can do both. If you've never actually
/done/ it you will have to take my word on it, but having multiple
lovers does not preclude a deep emotional commitment. Secondly, and
most importantly, having an open relationship does NOT mean your
partner can "sleep with whomever" s/he chooses. In fact, lemme say that
a little more emphatically:
 
HAVING AN OPEN RELATIONSHIP DOES *****!!!>>> NOT <<<!!!***** MEAN YOU
CAN SLEEP WITH WHOMEVER YOU CHOOSE!!
 
If you try to work it that way, you're right, you're just asking to get
hurt. Such an arrangement is sheer foolishness. It ain't a matter of one
or the other, though; you don't get either 100% fidelity or the town
slut.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:18:36
Message Number 16330

T>I know for a fact that if my partner takes another lover it has no
T>bearing on our relationship.
 
SS>Bullshit!
 
Beg pardon?
 
SS>That's bullshit and you know it.
 
On the contrary. My partner /has/ taken other lovers, with my knowledge
and consent. It had no bearing on our relationship.
 
I know /for a FACT/ that if my partner takes another lover it has no
bearing on our relationship.
 
Now, any questions?
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:21:18
Message Number 16331

>Physical intimacy implies sexual relationships!
 
That, my friend, is a myth I dearly wish our society would not hang onto
with such dogged tenaciousness. You know what? Not only do I hear that
line all the time, I've even met far too many people who actually
believe, for some absurd reason that's totally beyond me, that any 
affectionate touching between a man and a woman mush be sexual in
nature. What bullshit. You can be physically intimate with another
person, and spend a great deal of time touching, kissing, etc, etc,
without fucking her. Of course, a lot of people might assume you're
sleeping with her, but what can you expect in a society that looks upon
physical affection as "implying sexual relationships"?
 
>If she wants to have other lovers, fine...without me.
 
That's your right. I'm not trying to argue that your postion is /wrong/;
i'm simply trying to argue that it doesn't have to be that way.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Not 15000 atall
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:28:07
Message Number 16332

Y'know, I really don't see why you assume that if your lover wants to
sleep with someone else, that must be a reflection on you...sexual
attraction is not something that you have control over. It seems kind
of like assuming that if your lover says she wants to stop at
McDonald's one day it mush be because the nine-course meals you so
elaborately prepare for her every night aren't adequate somehow.
I won't even get into your "she has two lovers, and they have two
lovers, and so on, and so on" preconception...if you actually sit down
and think about it, I'm sure you're capable of spotting the flaw in
that reasoning yourself.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: HACMAN              
Subject: Marriage & stuf
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:32:07
Message Number 16333

I am afraid you missed my point. Yes, I believe that a "good" marriage,
one that involves two people who are truly committed to one another,
and are trusting, and so on can exist. I also believe that such a
relationship can exist without marriage.
 
My point had nothing to do with an inability to conceive of a good
marriage. My point is just the opposite, in fact: Marriage is primarily
a social convention. In a society where that convention holds little
or no meaning, there is simply no reason to get married. Why, pray
tell, should I get married? To demonstrate my commitment? Marriage is
no longer functionally a demonstration of commitment. To ensure that
my children, should I have them, grow up in a stable environment? There
are enough people out there, and even enough people ON THIS BULLETIN
BOARD, who have grown up in the splinters of a fragmented marriage to
demonstrate that marriage is no such thing. So what does that leave?
As a tax break? No; I have too much respect for what a marriage /should/
be to get married for economic reasons. Why, then, should I marry?
Marriage is a social artifact that has, functionally, lost its meaning.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:37:40
Message Number 16334

>I mean, if you truly love someone.... you tend to want to keep them
>to yourself....
 
Uh-huh. And with any other form of selfishness, it's hard for me to
think of that desire to keep your lover to yourself as anything other
than twisted and evil. And, as the Greeks discovered, the tighter you
try to latch onto something you find valuable the more likely it is to
slip through your fingers...the best idea if you want to make it last
is to hang on loosely.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:40:12
Message Number 16335

>You can't make me believe I have done anything wrong by bringing life
>into this world...
 
Naah; you're taking my cynicism too personally. I was simply pointing
out that "passing on the torch of life" is not by itself a good
argument in favor of having kids. It can be argued that indescriminate
child bearing is actually, in the long run, counter-productive if your
sole interest is to pass on the torch of life, but I'm tired and I don't
really feel like defending my point anyway...I was being cynical...
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: <continuing>   
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:45:06
Message Number 16336

>I love it when you rant and rave...
 
Really? I do believe you're the first person who's ever said that. :)
 
>But I guess the difference is.... when you are driving, you are in
>control...you can't control a sexually transmitted illness.
 
You know, to tell you the truth I simply never thought of that. It does
make perfect sense to say that you tend to exaggerate the fears you
can't control, though. Damn, I don't believe I missed that point.
/Of course/ people distort the risk of contracting AIDS...you can't see
it coming and you can't control it except by not taking outside lovers.
Bleah. I'm slipping. (Score one for Saavik...)
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:49:12
Message Number 16337

>I mean, how long can it go on that way without one of the partners
>finding someone whom [sic] they are very attracted to who wants a
>monogamous relationship?
 
That, in a nutshell, is why one of the parameters of an open relation-
ship is that you are up-front with a prospective lover and make sure
that person understands the nature of the arrangement from the outset.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Birth          
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:51:28
Message Number 16338

>But to Hate children.... just seems like there is something evil
>and twisted about that....
 
Touche. I deserved that.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:52:42
Message Number 16339

>The above mentioned 'acts' [of physical intimacy] are usually given
>for assurance, condolance, or other reasons as they arise.
 
Naah. In my experience, the above mentioned 'acts' are 'given'
because the people involved enjoy being physically affectionate, not
for any 'reasons'.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: dating         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 02:54:26
Message Number 16340

>And now he is like the energizer bunny . . . . . .....
 
Heh, heh. Ten'll get you one nobody really figures out how to interpret
/that/...
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Energizer bunny
Date & Time: 04/30/91 10:00:54
Message Number 16341

T> heh, heh, Ten'll get you one nobody really figures out how to inter-
pret /that/...
 
He keeps going.... and going... and going... and going... and going.....
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: TURTLE              
Subject: N-S 'acts'     
Date & Time: 04/30/91 10:05:20
Message Number 16342

T> Naah, in my experience, the above mentioned 'acts' are 'given'
because the people involved enjoy being physically affectionate, not for
any 'reasons'.
 
I was referring to those 'acts' on an either-sex basis.
 
Ours is a very strange society, where physical contact is automatically 
assumed to be a part of sex.
 
I talked to a friend last night about this very thing. If you look to 
other cultures of the world, same-sex physical contact is not taboo.
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: TURTLE              
Subject: S-S contact    
Date & Time: 04/30/91 10:16:32
Message Number 16343

Uh oh... I think I just got in over my head on this subject...
(referring to last message)
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Not 15000 atall
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:25:46
Message Number 16344

>In that kind of relationship [an open one], I don't even bother trying
>to get close to that person, basically, we would spend some time
>together, but we were just a fuck-buddy for the other.  Nothing more.
   
   It sounds like sex overshadows everything else in your relationships.
Would you agree with the statement: If she's not going to be monogamous
to me, she's not worth being close to?
   
>If I want a meaningful relationship with someone, then I stipulate that
>neither her and myself will be involved with anyone. If she finds this
>not to her liking, she knows where the door is.
    
   Another question: Can you be close to someone without having sex?
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:31:33
Message Number 16345

>  Because I feel that if two people are intimate with one another then
> that relationship can be allowed to run deep emotionally.
    
*Ding!*
   
> If, on the other had, no commitment is made, and therefore, you can
> sleep with whoever you choose, then I question your depth of feeling
> for your lover.
    
*Clank!*  There are two faults to your argument:
   One: Is sex the only commitment that two people can share?  Is sex
        the only way you can express the depth of your love? (pun
        unintentional.) 
   
   Two: Why do you assume that a person can only feel deeply toward one
        other person? 
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Whoops...      
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:39:23
Message Number 16346

>...She is not completely happy with the sex aspect of our relationshipm
>so in a fit of pique, she decides to try someone else. Rather than h
>have this happen, I would rather she broke up with me *before* she
>took someone else, becuase until she found out if she was *clean* after
>that, I wouldn't want to sleep with her.
    
*Ding!* As I said before, fear of diseases seems for me to be one of the
best reasons to keep a relationship mutually monogamous.
   
>Absolutely, no exceptions.
    
*Klank!*  I don't (and didn't!) go that far.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:43:43
Message Number 16347

>If you truly love someone... you tend to want to keep them to 
>yourself...
   
   Why?  If you truly love someone, the BEST way of finding out about
your partner's love is to set them free. 
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Work...        
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:47:38
Message Number 16348

   Hope your first day back at work went smoothly!
     
             /     /     /
         @---------------
           \   \  \    \          //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:52:20
Message Number 16349

> An open relationship can work, and if your prospective partner would
> like such a relationship that is not immediate grounds for terminating
> all contact with that person.
     
   Ye Ghods in Heaven... are we agreeing, then? (And on the "unpopular"
side of the issue, too.)
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 11:57:36
Message Number 16350

T> You can be physically intimate with another person, and spend a
T> great deal of the time touching, kissing, etc, etc, without fucking
T> her.
     
  *Ding!*   *Ding!*
   
   A person who I wanted (note: past tense!) as a girlfriend was only
interested in being touched (even on her hands) by me when she thought
a sexual relationship leading to marriage was possible.  When I told her
I didn't want to get married (yet), she dropped most of the touching.
And when it looked like we wouldn't be having sex, she quit allowing me
to even hug her, or hold her hand.  Sheesh!
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: dating         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 12:04:32
Message Number 16351

The "Energizer bunny" goes on... and on... and on... and on...
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: N-S 'acts'     
Date & Time: 04/30/91 12:05:35
Message Number 16352

KO> If you look to other cultures of the world, same-sex physical 
KO> contact is not taboo.
     
*Ding!*  In Mexico, there's the abrazo (hug) between two men as a way of
greeting.  French men, of course, kiss.  Heck -- MOST other cultures of
the world (and even among women of this culture) OK same-sex physical
contact.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: ALL                 
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 04/30/91 12:09:02
Message Number 16353

   Most of y'all seem to think that closed relationships work better
than open ones.  Fine.  
   If you were in a closed relationship, and you have sex with someone
else, would you tell your partner?  And, if so, how long would it take
you to tell her/him?
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: P.WHIPPED           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: oxymorons      
Date & Time: 04/30/91 12:24:41
Message Number 16354

Speaking of oxymorons...rap music.....just doesn't work
===========

From: P.WHIPPED           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: hallucinations 
Date & Time: 04/30/91 14:16:03
Message Number 16355

When it comes to hallucinations, it is good to pass.
This one guy i know had one once when i was around.  It was kinda
cute for a while, but when he started yelling at me to put my head
back on i decided that it wouldn't be so neato keen after all.
He never took a hallucinogen again, but said that he was glad he did
at least once.  
===========

From: P.WHIPPED           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: oK             
Date & Time: 04/30/91 14:18:58
Message Number 16356

WE GOT A CAR!!!!!!
    Actually it's a moo car...(a bovine mini-van).
We also have a nice liitle group to trip with too...Turtle, Nadia, my
friend & me!   Philadelphia here we come......
===========

From: RUFUS               
To: TURTLE              
Subject: fruits         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 19:23:13
Message Number 16357

Then there was Brooke Lynn Bridge.  Sigh.....
===========

From: OPUS                
To: ALL                 
Subject: My Move..      
Date & Time: 04/30/91 20:20:02
Message Number 16358

    Kheblan straigtens up and glares at Robert as he exits the room, "Yo
u know", he tells Shandra, "I've had a little experiance with guns and
other arments, I beleive I'll go to town and see what I can find in a 
local Trog Surplus Shop, hmm, as for money, I shant be needing any, I 
beleive I remember wher I placed my belongings now, a quick trip to
my house, it's right across the street from the Ifel tower", he beams, 
then continues, "I shall return soon."
 
				      With that Kheblan exits, turns and smiles at the bears, then 
starts walking on down the road.
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:19:49
Message Number 16359

I think an non sexual intimate relationship is /any/ relationship where 
you are very close with a person, (mentally linked, so to speak) but you
do not share sex with them... I have a few male friends whom I hug 
freely, kiss (I mean, we are talking pecks, here), share secrets with, 
we can talk about /anything/, but we are not nor have we ever been 
sexually involved.... but I'd say that we are as close if not closer 
than men that I /have/ been sexually involved with in the past... (yeah,
the very distant past). 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: dating         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:23:43
Message Number 16360

Heheheh. Now everytime I see that energiser bunny walk across the screen
I think of Turtle........ 
 
......so reach out and touch someone.... 
           *BAM BAM BAM BAM* 
 Turtle keeps going and going and going..... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:31:39
Message Number 16361

Well, I didn't mean to take your cynicism personally.... I've had this 
argument before with someone who insisted that by having children, I was
merely contributing to the worlds problems.... (like my kids are evil, 
they must be destroyed).... bearing children is just all part of the 
cycle of life....... not everyone has to, not everyone wants to, not 
everyone can..... I understand your point and it is well taken. 
I am not Mother Earth just because I put another couple of lifeforms on 
this planet... there is much more to be done... much more life already 
here that needs to be saved..... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: <continuing>   
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:35:05
Message Number 16362

T>(Score on for Saavik) 
 
And the crowd goes wild!!!!!!! 
 
Turtle, you ain't slippin'... I understood your original point about 
open relationships and you made a damned good point about AIDS....
Most people don't realize the actual statistics (chances of actually
contracting it), and we DO listen to all the propaganda of how to avoid
it.......  
I know open relationships can work, at one point in my marriage, my 
husband and I went through that "phase".... I merely call it a phase 
because we eventually decided to go back to monogomy because we were 
both starting to feel the twinges of jealousy....(yeah, I know, I know).
 
If I were to become single again.... I believe that I would prefer an 
open relationship.... at least for a while.... I like the feeling of 
having my lover as my good friend as well, so I prefer to have a intimat
lover (not a bunch of one nighters) but variety does keep things 
interesting..... I dunno..... I just see your point. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:41:17
Message Number 16363

T>...one of the parameters of an open relationship is that 
you are up-front with a prospective lover and make sure that person
undersands the nature of the agreement from the outset. 
 
True. But people being people, things can change very fast in a relation
ship....... "Nothing looks the same in the light...." 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:47:22
Message Number 16364

Drf>If you tryly love someone, the BEST way of finding out about your
    partner's love is to set them free. 
  
Er, um.... I ain't exactly got a collar and lead on him. He is free to 
go and do as he pleases.... and it pleases me that he doesn't want to 
go and "do" anyone but me.... we have a monogamous relationship... if 
tomarrow he came to me and said...." Amy, I want to have other lovers.."
I would take an evening and really think whether or not I could handle 
that then give him my feelings... I wouldn't stop him if that was what 
he wanted.... but I would discuss my feelings with him after careful 
consideration.... for one: I would want to know why he wants other 
lovers, if it's something that I am not fulfilling or what.... for two: 
I would want to make damned sure that there is not someone else he wants
in his life, but just doesn't want to hurt me or lose me.... 
We have tried to be very honest in our relationship, at one time, we did
have an open relationship and we went back to being monogamous when we 
both started to feel a little jealous.... we've been together for 11 
years this summer...... I would be a little afraid of losing him .... 
do you know what I mean? 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Work...        
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:54:10
Message Number 16365

Drf>Hope your first day back at work went smoothly! 
 
ug! I spent all morning in conference with the Pres of the Co and 
the Southwest Manager and the Service Manager...... blah, blah, blah, 
and I kept wanting to nod off.... no, I was not my usual alert self.... 
but it went ok, thank you for asking.... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:57:20
Message Number 16366

Drf>If you were in a closed relationship, and you have sex with someone
else, sould you tell your partner? 
 
I dont think so...... I don't think I have the courage.... 
 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: P.WHIPPED           
Subject: hallucinations 
Date & Time: 04/30/91 21:59:08
Message Number 16367

Noooooo thanks..... I've done acid before... n.n.n.n.nasty stuff... Oh, 
maybe two outa three times it's great,,, but the third time aint worth 
it.... I've never been so scared in all my life... so outa control and 
helpless.... I hate that feeling ..... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: P.WHIPPED           
Subject: oK             
Date & Time: 04/30/91 22:00:55
Message Number 16368

PW>WE GOT A CAR!!!!!!! 
 
Yayyyyy! PA or Bust!!!!!!! 
 
PW>Turtle, Nadia, my friend & me! 
 
Well, you ARE in good company... have fun!!~!!!! 
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 04/30/91 23:09:30
Message Number 16369

SA to TS> This, coming from a man who HAS no children.......
  
....consider the source.....
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 23:10:59
Message Number 16370

SA> ..I mean, if you truly love someone...you tend to want to keep them
SA> to yourself...it's hard to think of them intimate with anyone else..
SA> at least, it is for me. 
 
Ding. 
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 04/30/91 23:20:41
Message Number 16371

T> If I were involved in such a relationship, I would be absolutely 
T> fathful to my partner--and I would have /no/ tolerance for 
T> lack of faith on my partner's end.  The point I am trying to make is 
T> simply that an open relationship that is not immediate grounds for 
T> terminating all contact with that person.  The attitude that a 
T> relationship must, or even "should," be founded on sexual fidelity is
T> Manifest Bullshit--especially when the people involved will /claim/ 
T> that their relationship isn't based on sex while still behaving as 
T> though it were. 
  
Ok, enough bullshit...an open relationship can /ONLY/, /ONLY/ work
if and only if both people want that kind of relationship.  Period. 
If I want a committed relationship with someone and they want an 
open relationship, then I will not date them.  Period.  
  You said, "I would have no tolerance for lack of faith on my 
partner's end," then you said, "The attitude that a relationship must, 
or even "should," be founded on sexual fidelity is Manifest Bullshit.  
especially when the people involved will /claim/ that their relationship
isn't based on sex while still behaving as though it were."  That seems
like a non-sequitor to me, first you say you would insist upon faithful-
ness, then you claim it's bullshit for someone to believe in a 
relationship founded on sexual fidelity. 
  That doesn't make sense. 
 
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 04/30/91 23:50:09
Message Number 16372

S>......so reach out and touch someone.....
S>            *BAM BAM BAM BAM*
S>Turtle keeps going and going and going......
   
My heavens, I do believe you know what I am saying.  heheheh snicker :)
  
                                * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 04/30/91 23:55:41
Message Number 16373

     So you do understand.  Except for the slight tinge of jealously you
are correct.  You do have an honest relationship.  That is important. 
Also the fact that he would come and talk to you about it first is a 
plus and that is even more important.  Comunication, honesty, trust, 
love, respect, friendship are all very important they all rank number
one, none is more important than the other. A couple must have all of 
those 100% before the relationship is opened.  You can not begin a 
relationship open, then try to build the other stuff.
     It took Turtle and I two years before we began talking about 
opening our relationship.  It was easier for him because the only way I
knew was monogomy.  To be honest, I did not believe it could work, and
I just knew that would not work, then I saw it happen.  First I was with
a friend of his.  I learned from this experience that Turtle did not see
me as a slut, (feel free to inject any other word of your choice) and 
the incident not only improved communication but now I could tell him 
anything.  But I was not sure I could do the same for him.  But I did 
anyway.  My problem was not with him, but with the girl he chose.  I 
was not sure she could handle it.  And well I was correct.  And when she
got out of hand and hard to deal with, I just asked Turtle to stop and 
that was fine with him.  That told me I was important to him. And 
although he did want her phisicely he would not do anything to jepordize
us.  That is, I found out that with out a doubt I am the women he wants
to spend the rest of his life with, and no one is going to come between
us. Thats the way we are.  We don't do anything the other one does not
agree with.  And If one day, for some reason we choose to close our 
relationship again, then It will be something we both decide. But now it
is working for us so it will stay open.
                                   * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 02:50:18
Message Number 16374

                                 *
                                 D
                                 I
                                 N
                                 G
                                 !
                                 *
 
I too, have friends to whom I emotionally linked. One of them is male, 
and its absolutely non-sexual.
 
Today's society treats sex as acommodity, taking it for granted. More 
often than not, it tends to seperate peop.
 
It would be interesting to learn the 'touch' custom, and their origins
from other countries.
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/01/91 14:01:51
Message Number 16375

SS>...consider the source.... 
 
I did. "The I-don't-like-children-fags-or-anyone-who-doesn't-think-the-
way-I-do Specialist". 
 
                               
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/01/91 14:04:37
Message Number 16376

SA>....it's hard to think of them intimate with anyone else...
SS>Ding. 
 
But that doesn't mean that I don't believe that an open relationship 
can't work..... there's just a different attitude involved there. 
I mean, if you had a friend, whom you really cared about and shared your
life with, you wouldn't mind them having other close friends, right? 
Well, if you had the same attitude about sharing sex with them and them
sharing sex with others...... that would be ok..... but if the attitude 
isn't right.... It isn't going to work. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/01/91 14:09:26
Message Number 16377

Cy>My heavens, I do believe you know what I am saying. 
 
I have a vivid imagination......I know he has to channel of that hyper-
active energy into "something"....... what better way to do it? 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/01/91 14:12:51
Message Number 16378

It was the same way when my husband and I opened our relationship.... 
the problems started with "other" partners (they became jealous first) 
and that bled over into our relationship, when we saw that happening, 
we decided to call a halt..... As I said, we have been monogamous for 
many years now, and I'm not certain that I could return to an open 
marriage.... but I do know that if my husband wanted that.... he would 
talk to me about it.... 
Usually we communicate very well.... but he is a moody person and some-
times he builds these walls around him that I can't penetrate.... this
I can not learn to deal with no matter how I try... I always take it 
personally. I think that this is one of the flaws in our marriage. 
Whenever he puts that wall up, I start harping on him trying to get 
through, this agravates him further and I get my feelings hurt.... when
my feelings are hurt, I cry.... and when I cry, it makes him even more
shut off and angry...... so a small situation becomes a major stress 
bath until we finally talk...... which is sometimes a day or two later.
Meanwhile we both go around moping and feeling miserable...stupid eh? 
Except for when the wall is up, (which happens more and more lately) we
can talk about anything.......   
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 14:21:38
Message Number 16379

I like to touch and be touched but so many people misinterprete it, that
I have learned to be reserved until I know someone very well.... 
Too many times, a simple touch on the arm while your talking is taken
as a come on by the other person.... 
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: ALL                 
Subject: Turtle         
Date & Time: 05/01/91 15:53:17
Message Number 16380

I was asked by Turtle to inform you all that he is out of town for the
next three days.  He has gone to Philly. 
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:00:37
Message Number 16381

I guess the best way to deal with this is to chalk up our differences to
your reptilian ancestry. 
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: TURTLE              
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:03:41
Message Number 16382

SS> You're awfully self-righteous lately. 
 
T> naah; I'm awfully /opinionated/ lately. 
 
Dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding..(barred)
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:06:27
Message Number 16383

T> you don't get get either 100% fidelity or the town slut. 
  
Well, if she chooses to be faithful to me, I will do the same.  But, if 
I want 100% fidelity and she doesn't then I will break up with her. 
Simply because I know that I will develop too strong of feelings for her
and, therefore, won't tolerate infidelity.  If we both decide an open 
relationship, then that /is/ okay by me.  But, it MUST be one or the
other, not a combination of the two.  
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:10:47
Message Number 16384

T> Now, any questions? 
  
Yeah, what if Kelly decided to be monogamous with another man?  What 
then?  (And don't say it will never happen, because even you can't 
predict the future.)
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:13:03
Message Number 16385

T> I'm not trying to argue that your position is /wrong/' 
T> I'm simply trying to argue that it doesn't have to be that way. 
  
Ding! It's a matter, again, of preference. 
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Not 15000 atall
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:21:22
Message Number 16386

DFy> It sounds like sex overwhelms everything else in your realtionships
DFy> Would you agree with the statement: If she's not going to be 
DFy> monogamous to me, she's not worth being close to? 
 
No.  Not really.  I'll explain that with your other question. 
 
DFy> Can you be close to someone without having sex? 
  
Yep, sure can.  I have a lot of female friends that I have no sexual 
contact with...and, no, that doesn't bother me.  Saavik and I are 
close, and we haven't had any sexual contact.  (yet....heheheh)
As far as monogamous goes as it pertains to whether or not I'd think
she's worthy of getting close to:  I don't decide someone's worth 
by their sexual orientation; whether it be straight, gay, bi, with
or without monogamy.  I would not date someone in a relationship
where she wanted an open relationship, and I wanted a monogamous one, 
because I would just be setting myself to get hurt.  (If I want a
monogamous relationship with someone, I know that I would become too
attach (for lack of a better word) to be able to tolerant her having
any other lovers.  
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:30:09
Message Number 16387

DFy> Is sex the only commitment that two people can share? 
That question is too silly to even answer. 
DFy> Is sex the only way you can express the depth of your love? 
  
Love? Who said anything about love?  I wouldn't fall in love with some-o
(someone) I was involved in an open relationship with.  Period. 
 
DFy> Why do you assume that a person can only feel deeply toward one
DFy> other person? 
 
I don't, per se, I simply choose that way for myself.  I find it too 
confusing the other way.  Besides, women can get jealous and try to 
make you decide between them, and it can lead to all sorts of trouble. 
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:35:00
Message Number 16388

DFy> the BEST way of inding out about your partner's love is to set 
DFy> them free. 
  
Of course, if they don't come back, you can hunt them down and kill 'em.
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:37:47
Message Number 16389

DFy> If you were in a closed relationship, and you have sex with someone
DFy> else, would you tell your partner?  And if so, how long would it 
DFy> take you to tell him/her?
  
Yes, I would tell her.  And the guilt that I would experience lead me 
to tell her as soon as possible.  (I've had this happen once before.)
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 05/01/91 16:45:31
Message Number 16390

SA> I don't think so.... I don't think I have the courage. 
  
*clunk*  You told me you wouldn't be able to live with yourself.  What 
would you do? 
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/01/91 18:30:51
Message Number 16391

SA>I wouldn't trade my kids...
TS>Hell, I would...
SA>This, coming from a man who HAS no children....
 
Heheheh.  What do you think happened to them?
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/01/91 18:32:20
Message Number 16392

SA>[Comment on monogamous relationships vs. non-]
 
Eh, ok.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 18:37:50
Message Number 16393

TS>"physically intimate, close, non-sexual relationship"?
KO>It is a relationship where body contact exists, whether it be a hug,
KO>or a kiss.  It can exist between two people that are close friends.
KO>The above mentioned 'acts' are usually given for assurance, 
KO>condolance, or other reasons as they arise.
 
Kinda catch all, ain't it?  It may be physically close but intimate it
ain't.  Intimate implies something more serious than "Oh, it's so good 
to see you!" or "Hey, I'm sorry to hear about your dad...." or other
situations like that.  (The word intimate is difficult for me to fully
describe, so here goes:)  Intimacy is more of a "I am fond of you more
than anyone else." or "I care for you more than I care for anyone else,
more than I care for myself."  type of thing.  It follows that if you
feel that way for someone (and they for you) that sexual relations 
between thon should be exclusive...or else, you have cheapened what you
feel for the first one by doing the same thing with someone else.
 
Physically close, yes, this implies position.  But intimacy is something
else altogether.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 18:50:50
Message Number 16394

T>I can say with absolute conviction, based on years of personal 
T>experience, that statement is patently, irredemably false.
 
Uh huh.
 
T>Is it really that difficult to concieve of a situation where your 
T>partner can take another lover without any violation of trust?
 
Let's say that it's far easier to concieve of many situations where
said "partner" (being of the mind to take other lovers _anyway_) might
simply decide to drop you in favor of another.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/01/91 18:55:18
Message Number 16395

T>while I was living in Fort Myers my best freind was also Kelly's 
T>lover.
T>Your point please?
 
That your best freind was screwing your girlfriend.  Some friend.  Tell
me, did he do this with your prior approval?  Is not, then I would have
been tempted to kick his ass, *prior* best freind or not.  If you *did*
give permission ahead of time, or it was understood that you wouldn't 
mind, then let me ask you this:  what if Kelly had decided that he 
was a much better lover than you had *ever* been and decided to drop
you like a rock?  Oh, surely, this could never happen between you and
Kelly, but for us other "abnormal sexual relation" type people, this 
is somewhat of a common occurance.
  You may be quite proud of the fact that you and Kelly have been 
together for a long time, and I congratulate you heartily. (Seriously.)
But almost NO ONE else is as set in that particular mindframe which you
two seem to be in.  THEREFORE you must certainly be able to see why
all of us "strange" people don't participate in "open" relationships.
Society in general, it seems, cannot successfully accomplish what you
and Kelly have been able to, and it is a rare, lucky couple that can.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:07:12
Message Number 16396

T>First off, having a commitment and having other lovers are not 
T>mutually exclusive,
 
Hmmm.  Depends largely on what type of commitment you're talking about,
I suppose.  If there is a very vague commitment, then I can see what you
mean.  But if you have a serious commitment, you have to define the 
terms of your commitment.
 
T>...haveing multiple lovers does not preclude deep emotional commitment
 
Oh, certainly not.  You simply diminish the amount you devote to each 
one.  There is just /so much/ emotion that you can give, without
getting bland about it.  You can't have "something special" with many
people, otherwise, there's nothing special about it.  It's cheapened.
 
T>Having an open relationship does not mean that you can sleep with 
T>whomever you choose.
 
Ok, so both of you have to approve of the "Canidate Lover", right?
Does that mean that only you and Kelly have to approve, or does
everyone in the Coven have to approve?
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:19:01
Message Number 16397

T>Physical intimacy implies sexual relatons!
T>That, my friend, is a myth that I dearly wish society...
 
That is not a myth.  Atlantis, Olympius, Hercules, ect...those are 
myths.  Physical intimacy *implies* sexual relations.  I didn't
say that "physical intimacy always is connected to sexual relations".
You say that you can have a great time with a woman, kissing, touching,
without fucking her.  Well, I dunno about *your* dates, but the ones
*I* date usually don't allow that until they are ready to be FUCKED too!
And not a whole lot of guys I know will want to ONLY kiss and hug a 
woman, INTIMATELY, without wanting to FOLLOW UP.  Get it?
  Lets face it.  Your method of "open relationships", while workable
for you, is not practical for society in general.  Period.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Not 15000 atall
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:31:00
Message Number 16398

T>I don't see why you assume that if your lover wants to sleep with 
T>someone else that mus be a reflection upon you...sexual attraction
 
Cannot be controlled, true.  And if she feels enough attraction to 
another person, undoubtedly, she will find a way to that person.  And
if she needs him that much, then she can have 'im.
 
T>I won't even get into your "she has to lovers," [etc] preconception.
 
Oh, no.  I can't spot my flaw.  Please enlighten me.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:35:37
Message Number 16399

T>...best idea is to hang on loosely...
 
Uh huh.  Hang on too loose and you might lose it.  Someone might remove
it from your grasp.  Your analogy lacks.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:37:55
Message Number 16400

NO>The above mentioned 'acts' [of physical CLOSENESS] are usually given
NO>for assurance, condolance, or other reasons as they arise.
 
T>Naah.  In my experience, the above mentioned 'acts' are 'given' 
T>because the people involved enjoy being physically affectionate,
T>not for any 'reasons'.
 
Ding.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Not 15000 atall
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:44:46
Message Number 16401

(Excuse me, I couldn't help but overhear your conversation with SS)
DF>If she's not going to be monogamouse to me, she's not worth being
DF>close to?
 
DING!
 
DF>Can you be close to someone without having sex?
 
I personally cannot, although I am sure that these type relationships
exist.  Certainly there are those out there incapable of sex, thought
being ruined by venereal diseases (viruses that can re-occur with 
repeated sexual activity) or because of being paralyzed from the waist
down, or being just plain FRIDGID or celebate (shudder) even.
 
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 19:49:45
Message Number 16402

(Again, if you don't mind....)
DF>One: Is sex the only commitment that two people can share?
   Two: Is sex the only way you can express the depth of your love?
 
No, and no.
 
DF>Three: Why do you assume that a person can only feel deeply toward
   one other person?
 
  Because a relationship is supposed to be something special...something
unique!  How can you have two similar things which are unique?  
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Whoops...      
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:00:34
Message Number 16403

TS>Absolutely, no exceptions.
DF>*Klank!*  I don't (and didn't!) go that far.
 
Uh huh.  Say, didn't you and Jen break up?
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:01:32
Message Number 16404

DF>Why?  If you truly love someone, the BEST way of finding out about
DF>your partner's love is to set them free.
 
Uh huh.  Sounds good, don't it?  'Till they don't come back.  Then there
you are, hurt.  The hell with them at that point, because they left you
anyway.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:03:43
Message Number 16405

T>An open relationship can work, and if your prospective partner would
T>like such a relationship that is not immediate grounds for 
T>terminating all contact with that person.
 
No, not terminating "all contact", but it would be basis for 
termination of any further "intimate relations".  
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:07:33
Message Number 16406

DF>[The person I wanted wouldn't let me touch her when she found out
DF>I wasn't interested in marrying her.]
DF>Sheesh!
  
Oh, you poor thing you!  (Sarcastically.)  Welcome to reality!  So
lemme get this straight:  when she thought that sex led to marriage was
a possibility, you were allowed to touch her...but when she found out
that you weren't the marrying type, she dropped the touching...and 
with it the hugging and all sex?  In other words, she wanted no further
physical contact with you after she found out that you two weren't going
to get married?  And you were dissapointed?  Oh, please.  That is
a typical woman...better get used to 'em.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:12:23
Message Number 16407

DF>If you were in a close relationship
 
(I am--I know no other type)
 
DF>and you have sex with someone else
 
Hold it...that's not a closed relation...that's cheating.
 
DF>would you tell your partner?  And if so, how long would it take you
DF>you to tell her/him?
 
First, that's a null situation--wouldn't happen.  I would have the 
decency to break up with my girlfriend before bopping someone else. 
So yes, she would either know already, or she would never know.  I 
would not tell her if I broke up because I wanted to bop someone else.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 20:34:16
Message Number 16408

SS>...besides, women can get jealous and try to make you decide between
SS>them, and it can lead to all sorts of trouble.
 
Ah, and yet another reason!  And an extremely practical one at that!
DING DING DING!
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:09:02
Message Number 16409

>It would be interesting to learn the 'touch' custom, and their origins
>in other countries.
     
   Other countries: Why?  New College has traditionally had a lot more
physical contact (touching, backrubs) than most places I'`ve known.
(Damn "pop up" terminal program doesn't have backspaces...)  and,
frankly, I love it!  I admit: there are male friends I have who I
hug.  And I've receive d backrubs from some other males.
              //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:20:35
Message Number 16410

> Well, I dunno about your dates, but the ones I date usually don't
> allow that [kissing, touching] until they are ready to be FUCKED too!
    
   Ya know, that statement says one hell of a lot about society.  And
I'm not sure I like it.
     
   Let me be honest: I'm a relatively physical person, when I feel safe.
I don't mentally equate touching with sex. I was really, really shocked
when one of my dates showed me how much she equated the two: when it
came that it would not be a good idea for the two of us to have sex, she
also wanted to stop kissing, hugging -- even holding hands. 
                   //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Not 15000 atall
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:25:56
Message Number 16411

   One of my closest relations -- actually, my best friend for over a
year (I had told her things I hadn't even told Jenn!) was female, and
made it clear that she didn't want sex with me.  Even still, we stayed
extremely close friends, hugging and kissing occasionally. Well -- 
hugging lots. (She's getting married in December.)
   Many of my closest friends have been female... and most of them, I
haven't had sex with. I'm perfectly capable of sex, have no known
venereal diseases, and I'm not frigid.  (Though I'm currently celebate.
Damn!) I've just known the difference between sensual and sexual for a
long while.
                 //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:31:47
Message Number 16412

DF> Why do you assume that a person can only feel deeply toward one
DF> other person?
   
TS> Because a relationship is supposed to be something secial...
TS> something unique!  How can you have two similar things which are
TS> unique?
    
   Something special, yes.  Something unique, no.  I have felt very
deeply toward many people at once.  (Even while Jenn was my girlfriend,
and my lover, Julietta was my closest friend for a long time.) (And I
also loved several others -- not physically.)
   I know from experience that it's possible to love several people,
all in completely idfferent ways. (No backspace key... damn!) Could I
love one person with all the love I felt fro all of them? Perhaps...
but she would be an extremely rare person! (To share all of my interests
at once, to be growing at the same rate I grow, and yet to be constantly
bringing new ideas into the relationship -- that would be a rere 
person, indeed!)
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Whoops...      
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:39:30
Message Number 16413

TS> Asolutely, no exceptions.
DF> *KLANK!*  I don't (and didn't) go that far.
     
TS> Uh huh.  Say, didn't you and Jen break up?
    
   Yes, but that had nothing to do with an open or closed relationship.
We ddid *NOT* have an open rel;ationship (as in, we were not supposed
to have sex with anone ... uh, anyone else.) but we had close friends
of both genders outside the relationship. 
   If you must know, she was really tired of a long-distance relationshi
...uh, relationship.  Neither of us have lovers, right now.
                 //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:44:22
Message Number 16414

DF> Why? If you truly love somebody, the BEST way of finding out about
DF> your partner's love is to set them free.
   
TS> Uh huh.  Sounds good, don't it?  'Till they don;'t come back.  
TS> Then there you are, hurt.  The hell with them at that point, because
>TS> They lefy you anyway.
    
   (I am going back to a good terminal program ASAP!) Precusely. So
what's your point?
    
   Seriously, the sentence I stated I still feel is excellent. If you
really want to knnow if your partner loves you,  if you truly want to
find out if she loves you, and if you're willing to face the fact that
sge might not love you, the best way of finding this information out
is by setting her free.  If you want to hold someone forever, if
you want to possess her forever -- it's not a good idea to set her
free.
                   //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:51:38
Message Number 16415

Well, you got part of it right.  We never had sex.  (To be honest, she
seemed waaaay too eager -- I was internally flashing *caution* lights.)
    
   "Typical" woman, indeed!  Might be typical to your culture -- but
I'm used to New College types... and most of the women I've known
outside New College have also been relatively "physical."
                 //\Dragonfly///
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: ALL                 
Subject: The Question   
Date & Time: 05/01/91 21:59:28
Message Number 16416

Bering that I posed the question, I'll answer it myself.
     
   Yes, I would (and have!) told my girlfriend if/when I had sex with
another person.  And, yes -- I've taken the consequences.  Then again,
she did the same for me when she cheated on me.
               //Dragibnfly//  ,,<<-- whatever my name is...
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/01/91 22:50:28
Message Number 16417

S> I have a vivid imagination..I know he has to channel of that hyper-
  active energy into "something"...What better way to do it?
  
 I agree 110%.
 
                               * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/01/91 22:53:16
Message Number 16418

Yes, the walls.  I am the one to do that.  But I am getting better.  
Now I will try to not want to talk about it, but as soon as I here,
"Ok, do you want to talk about it, or pout about it?"  Then I usually am
ready to discuss it.
  
Although I will say, about the particular incident I was refering too, 
we have both learned and are more careful about who is aproved and who
is not, and why.  Then if we both are not satisified with the decision 
we have made, then the other person has no physical contact with the 
outside person.  ( I am not sure if I made any sense here or not. )
 
                              * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Turtle         
Date & Time: 05/01/91 23:01:50
Message Number 16419

Yes, indeed he is gone, and guess what, I AM THE JOUNIOR SYSOP!!!
 
Actually all that means is I am only useful if the board does not go 
down.  But you will all be happy to know, I recieved a call from the 
shelled one and he has arrived in Philly just fine.  No bruses, no 
tickets, and he should be home early Friday morning.  Praise be the
Ardvark.
 
                               * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/02/91 00:20:48
Message Number 16422

TS> ....might simply decide to drop you in favor of another.
  
If that is the case, monogomas relationships also run this risk.  And
in the last four and a half years Turtle and I have been together, we 
have lost count of the turn over rate of all of our monogomas friends.
                              * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/02/91 00:27:12
Message Number 16423

Yes he did do it with pryor aproval.  And no he was not a better lover
then Turtle.  But so what if he was.  Turtle means more to me then just
an excellent fuck any way.  Tim however was, at that time a friend, r
roomate, and a person that I slept with a few times, and yes it was just
a few.  Tim and I did not sleep together to begin a relationship, we 
slept together to have fun, and it was fun. But that all it was, now 
when Turtle and I sleep toghther it is fun plus a whole lot more.  The
whole lot more part is what keeps us together.  That is the part I have 
never shared with any other partner.  At least we are honest about our
needs, and when we are atracted to other people we tell each other, we
don't hide it.  We discuss it, If one of us does not like something 
about an outside party then the rules are set and followed.  An example
I am interested in someone. I tell Turtle.  He says no.  I say Ok. And
life goes on.  It can only be exciting if he would not be upset about 
what I was doing.  This is where you don't understand, I think, I do
believe you think an open relationship is constantly everyone having sex
with everyone else.  No.  It only works if everyone involved is happy.
If I am not happy about someone, then nothing happens.  If he is not
happy about someone , then nothing happens.  In the last 4 1/2 years
between the two of us we have had a total of 5 lovers.  Now that is 
Turtle 3, other then me, and Crystal 2, other then Turtle.  Now, how
many people, maybe yourself included, have had more monogomas 
relationships then that.  My sister is a good example, she is strictly
monogomas.  She became active at the age of 17.  She is now 20.  In this
time she has had 7 monogomas relationships.  I became active at age 18.
I am now 25.  I have had 6 lovers.  Three of them were before Turtle.  I
don't know weighing the odds, my sisiter has a greater chance of 
catching something then me.  Now what are your, or your friends odds?
Anyway I am running out of space.  Think about it.
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/02/91 00:54:23
Message Number 16424

Excuse me.
> HOw can yo have two similar thing which are unique?
  
How can you love you girlfriend.  You must love her or you would not be
sleeping with her right?  And how can you love you mother?  Or are you
sleeping with your mother too?  I know that was ever so low.  I did not
say it to piss you off, I just said it to show you that their are 
different kinds of love out their.  Do you understand it now.  I do not
see how you can love two totaly different people the same way any way.
After all we are all individuals.
 
                             * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/02/91 01:00:47
Message Number 16425

DF> The best way of finding out about your partners love is to set them
    free.
TS> Uh huh. Sounds good, don't it?  'Till they don't come back.  Then
    there you are, hurt.  The hell with them at that point, because they
    left you anyway.
  
    At that point, I would say they truly did not love you and were neve
r theirs, or they were never yours to beging with.  So maybe in the long
run you would have been hurt anyway,  but at least you would have lived 
a lie a little longer.
  
                               * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 05/02/91 01:08:58
Message Number 16426

TS> I would not tell her if I broke up because I wnated to bop someone
    else.
  
That is it, honesty is the best policy. (smirk),(nodding of head), yes
indeed love those frequent monogomas relationships.
  
                               * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/02/91 10:20:59
Message Number 16427

>I just said it to show you that their are different kinds of love 
>out their.
     
*DING!*   *DING!*   *DING!*   (Was it good for you, too?)
               //Dragonfly//
===========

From: RUFUS               
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/02/91 18:35:46
Message Number 16429

>Heheheh.  What do you think happened to them?
 
I like it.
 
I sold my kids and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt. (c) 1990 W.N.R.,
Inc.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/02/91 20:51:02
Message Number 16430

DFy>I admit: there are male friends I have who I hug.  And I've
DFy>recieve d [sic] backrubs from some other males.
 
No doubt.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Not 15000 atall
Date & Time: 05/02/91 20:53:58
Message Number 16431

DFy>Many of my closest friends have been female...and most of them, 
DFy>I haven't had sex with.
 
No kiddin.  How about that.  And here I thought that I was an unusual 
type for not having had sex with all my real close female friends.
 
DFy>I've just known the difference between sensual and sexual for a 
DFy>long while.
 
Again, I am amazed.  I never thought there was a difference!
 
Please....
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:01:36
Message Number 16432

You are wrong.  Simply.  Emotions like that should be reserved for one
person at a time.  If you try to distribute them, you lessen the amount
you have for each person.  It is FINITE>
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:06:08
Message Number 16433

DFy>"Typical" woman, indeed.
  
Yes, indeed.
 
DFy>Might be typical of your culture--but I'm used to New College types.
 
And they are as far from the norm (for the most part) of "my culture"
as savages in the jungles of Borneo. (Not nescessarily stating that
they are similar--just as far removed.)  "Your culture" (that is, 
New College) is not "normal".  But I am sure that there are a few
holdouts; ie, "normal" people (to within the confines of "my culture")
who will seem atypical to the "average" NC individual.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:15:55
Message Number 16434

Ah, yes, but if I were in a monogamous relationship, my lover wouldn't
be doing other lovers, she would be with me and therefore wouldn't 
be in the mind to try someone else and having not tried someone else,
would not therefore end up with that someone else....
 
Next?
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:21:05
Message Number 16435

Ok, then lemme ask you this: If only you and Turtle have to approve,
then what about the poor canidate?  Does he get to approve of any 
other canidate lovers?  Like, if you had someone that was approved,
(by Turtle and you) and Turtle had someone who was approved (by you
and Turtle) do those two get a chance to approve or dissaprove of
each other?  And what about the lovers that those two may have had?
Sorry, but that brings *way* too many people into the situation to
be controlled effectively.  You never see AIDS coming...you can't 
see it written across your lovers forehead and more, it doesn't show
up for two years....  
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:24:30
Message Number 16436

Yes, there are types of love.  There can be love bewteen freinds,
and there can be love between relatives, and there can be the special
love shared between two people...this is intimacy.  Love is not
predicate on sex, of course.  But I feel that sex is connected with
love.  And that type of love is something to be shared between two
people...if you try to distribute it, you end up cheapening it.  It is
FINITE.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 05/02/91 21:28:19
Message Number 16437

On the subject of "those frequent monogamous relationships", I started 
active at 18, and now am 25.  I have had a total of 4 relationships,
one which lasted for a year and 10 months.  You can wipe that smirk
offa your face and take that "knowing nod" and....grrr....
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/02/91 23:21:41
Message Number 16438

Yes, I can't agree with you more on the STD worries, however, when you
jump from one monogomas relationship to another, you risk the same.  
And one thing you seem to be missing.  When Turtle and I are with 
anyone else We Are Using condoms.  It is only when we are with each 
other we do not use condoms.  We met each other early enough in our
active sex lives that we know we are clean and want to keep us condom 
free.  However when we take on other partners extra precautions are
taken.  Can you say, with total conviction, that you are as cautious
with all your monogomas relationships?
 
                               * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/02/91 23:27:24
Message Number 16439

Yes, I also feel sex is connected with love.  Everytime I make love to
Turtle I feel it.  BUT when I sleep with someone else it is different.
It is more of a deep caring thing, it is intimit.  I also believe If you
keep falling deeply in love with people over, and over again.  And the
relationships keep going sour then the depth of your love gets shallow.
And you never find happiness.
  
                              * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: P.WHIPPED           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: trip           
Date & Time: 05/03/91 11:14:56
Message Number 16440

Weeeee'rrreee Baaaaaaaacckk
     The trip was fun (even if we had to do it in a moo car).  The 
dudes at Alamo probably won't be too pleased with us.  2600 miles in
3 days....not to mention we ran out of washer fluid mysteriously...
average velocity, 70-75 mph.   God it was fun.  We come back with a new
lust in life...CHEESESTEAK!!!!!
      
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: >ALL<               
Subject: Philly & Stuff 
Date & Time: 05/03/91 11:58:40
Message Number 16441

Didja miss me? I'm BAAAAACK! Yep, after a totally irrational three-day
sojurn to Philadelphia, the Rotting City of Memories and Inertia (tm),
where I was exposed to Philly cheese steaks and homeless people in front
of Benjamin Franklin's Philadelphia Philosophical Society (yep, if he
were alive today he'ds be spinning in his grave) I have returned to
the parts that are where I return to when I come back from being places
where I am when I'm not here...it was fun. More as it degenerates.
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:30:49
Message Number 16442

Drf>The BEST way of finding out about your partner's love is to set
   >them free. 
SS>Of course, if they don't come back, you can hunt them down and kill' 
  >em
 
Naw, I'd just sell his boat... that would really hit him where it hurts.
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:33:09
Message Number 16443

SS>You told me you wouldn't be able to live with yourself. What would 
   you do. 
 
I wouldn't put myself in that position in the first place. No matter HOW
attracted I am to another man, I simply will not allow my hormones to 
rule my mind..... I won't even entertain the thought (er, well, maybe 
I'll entertain it a little), but I will NOT be unfaithful. My husband 
trusts me a great deal, and even if things are not so hot between us... 
for instance, right now, he's like in one of this "Sheilds raised" modes
which pisses me off and makes me feel sooooo lonely, but I refuse to 
betray him. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:36:48
Message Number 16444

SA>I wouldn't trade my kids for all the Ferraris.... 
TS>Hell, I would
SA>This, coming from a man who HAS no children... 
TS>Hheheh. What do you think  happened to them? 
 
You traded them for the Charger???? Boy, did you get giped. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:43:24
Message Number 16445

TS>Hang on too loose and you might lose it. Someone might remove it from
   your grasp. 
 
Gee, TS, are you talking about a woman or a peice of meat... last time 
I checked, it takes two to tango... No one can steal someone from you...
that person walks away of their own volition. If you squeeze too tightly
you're going to lose control. No one likes to be smothered constantly. 
Sooner or later, they will assume you simply do not trust them and
walk away. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:53:23
Message Number 16446

DF>[The person I wanted wouldn't let me touch her when she found out
asn't interested in marrying her.]
DF>Sheesh!
 
TS>Oh, you poor thing you!  (Sarcastically.)  Welcome to reality!  So
> lemme get this straight:  when she thought that sex led to marriage wa
> a possibility, you were allowed to touch her...but when she found out
> that you weren't the marrying type, she dropped the touching...and
> with it the hugging and all sex?  In other words, she wanted no furthe
> physical contact with you after she found out that you two weren't goi
> to get married?  And you were dissapointed?  Oh, please.  That is
> a typical woman...better get used to 'em.
 
Oh, really? A typical woman eh? Ahem! 
 
You sound very bitter, TS.... From a man who doesn't like dogs or 
children, and Now I see, you really don't think much of women either. 
How sad. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/03/91 16:59:38
Message Number 16447

You CAN'T hold on to someone who doesn't want you.... Point! 
You can't POSSESS another person because people are NOT peices of 
property..... Yes, hold on loosely, but DON'T let go.... by setting 
someone free (whatever that means) you have just conveyed that you 
maybe don't really care what they do and with who.... 
 
Give them the freedom to be with their friends, give them the space 
they need for their own, but don't "set them free", it implies too 
much. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:05:57
Message Number 16448

Hey Crystal, how are the nails coming along?   I've been working on mine
and they are actually starting to grow again... Amazing. now if I could 
just stop slamming my fingers in windows.... 
 
All you GUYS just ignore this post, it's, like, woman bullshit. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:07:47
Message Number 16449

Yeah, that made sense. If one of you doens't approve of the person for 
whatever reason, then the deals off... that's because you two are still 
"together" and anyone else whom you make love with is still basically 
an outsider and not "part" of Your relationship with each other. 
 
As for the walls issue. I don't know how much longer I can handle this 
situation, my husband just refuses to talk it out. It's like, "Nothings
wrong, I'm just tired." Or "Nothings wrong, why do you keep asking me 
that?" Both said with a pissed off tone of voice... I don't know... 
Everything was fine until I got the cyst... then came the surgery, and 
I really felt alone during that time.... It was like, the whole affair 
was just a big bother to him and he lent me little if no moral support. 
He's never been like that before. He seems so preoccupied with "what
ever" that I feel like I don't even belong here. 
Maybe something is going on that I should know about... I only hope that
he'll come to terms with it and discuss it with me.... if he doesn't 
soon, I don't know what I'm going to do, I can't live like this.... 
I'm not used to being so depressed about "things" and this whole 
situation is making me  very emotional and depressed.  But, at least
I have my friends on the BBS.... You guys could make any situation 
tolerable as long as you were here to post to...:) 
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:25:00
Message Number 16450

C>...Turtle and I use condoms...
 
And sexual intercourse is not the only way that STDs can be transmitted.
How about mono?  And they haven't proven CONCLUSIVELY that AIDS cannot
be transmitted via SALIVA.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:26:52
Message Number 16451

C>..can you say that you are as safe with all your monogamous 
C>relationships?
 
Yes, I can say that.  (I'd be lying, but I could say that. :))
But for the most part, I can be sure of whom I'm with...and who she's 
been with.  Can you say the same?
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:29:00
Message Number 16452

C>Yes, I also feel sex is connected with love.
 
No, not just connected. They are interlinked.
 
C>...keep falling in love over and over again...you love gets shallow.
 
And if you don't bother to love the one you make love to, that's just
as shallow.  (Looks around, notes thin ice, backs up a few steps...)
I mean, yes, naturally you feel as if you care deeply for the person
you are making love to...some sort of a hormonal thing, I guess.  But
you said it yourself...it's different from the kind of real love that
you feel for Turtle.  It may be intimate, but it's a really ersatz 
type of intamacy.  It's a...surrogate---substitution type of intamacy.
It's fake...it's nothing more than simple lust in disguise.
 
Oh, shit...listen to me...  "Ah, yes, ye sinners!  Cast away the Lust
from you and only indulge in the love sanctified by the Lord!  Can you
say, Hallejula?" 
 
Well, anyway, I'm serious...it's not really love.  And news flash: I 
don't fall in love too often.  Love is a really serious thing, not for
casual use.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:40:54
Message Number 16453

SA>I wouldn't trade...
TS>Hell, I would
SA>This, coming from the man who HAS
TS>Heheheh.  What do you thing happened to them?
SA>You traded them for the Charger??? Boy, did you get giped. [sic]
 
No, I traded them for a 69 Super Sport Camaro.  And yes, I got gypped.
So I sold the Camaro for all I could get ($12) and bought a much better
car, the Charger.  
 
Next?
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:43:05
Message Number 16454

SA>Gee, TS, are you talking about a woman or a piece of meat...
 
There's a difference?
 
SA>If you squeeze too tightly you're going to lose control.  
 
Gee, SA...you should write lyrics for .38 Special.
 
SA>Sooner or later they will assume you simply do not trust them and
SA>walk away.
 
No kiddin.  I don't hold on too tight, I was simply saying that you
should make sure that She knows that you are concerned.  Hold on
loosely but don't leggo, know whatta mean?
 
(Yes, I took it from the song...)
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/03/91 17:46:37
Message Number 16455

Look, Saavik, that *is* a typical woman, wether you realize it or not.
Most women won't let you get that close unless you are willing to 
"pay for the milk" so to speak.  No, I'm not bitter, just realistic.
 
SA>...and not I see you really don't think much of women either.
 
I know what most are like, and based on that, I take 'em on a case by
case basis.  Besides, it's not like I'm out to screw them all or 
something like that.
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: DA,ILOYOWIALMYHE    
Subject: access         
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:03:15
Message Number 16456

   Congratulations.  You made it in the BBS.
   "General Smack Talk" usually doesn't work around here.  But I love
yer name.  How do you pronounce it?
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:06:33
Message Number 16457

TS> You are wrong.  Simply.
     
   Why?
    
TS> Emotions like that should be reserved for one person at a time.
     
   Why?
    
TS> If you try to distribute them, you lessen the amount you have for
TS> each person.  It is FINITE>
    
   Oh, so the person with the most love is the person who holds love
inside the most?  In other words, the person who is perpetually grouchy,
has no friends, few acquaintences, is the person who has used up the
least amount of his (or her!) finite supply of love, and should there-
fore be the most deserving of love?
     
   Give me a break.
     
   <Ghods, this will sound corny!>  There's no limit to the amount of
love, joy, or happiness a person can give, or receive.  There's no limit
to the number of fond memories a person can have.  Love isn't a 
commodity to be hoarded away; it is possible to love many people at 
once.  (Always expressing this physically isn't a good idea.)  
   
   Read Leo Buscaglia... he says it much better than I do.
     
   Again, I don't believe that loving one person lessens the amount you
can love another... provided you love each person for their own
individuality.  (If you love someone because they remind you of someone
else... that's a different story.)  Love's not a concrete object that
can be withered away.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:24:12
Message Number 16458

>You never see AIDS coming... you can't see it written across your
>lovers forehead and more, it doesn't show up for two years.
     
   HIV can be tested for within six months. But point taken.
    
   Let me try to summarize my position... would you do the same?
    
Love:  It is extremely possible to *feel* love for many people, so long
       the love is unique to each person.
   
Sex:   An open relationship can work -- if the two partners are 
       extremely secure with each other.  But that's rare.  And diseases
       today are one of the best reasons not to make a relationship
       open.... but it still can work.
   
   Simple, no?            //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:32:21
Message Number 16459

Aha! Thank you, Saavik.  Even you found it strange that when we weren't
going to have sex, she wanted me to stop holding her hand...
     
   As I've said before, when I trust someone, I can be very physically
affectionate (if she also enjoys such.)  I do NOT let people get
uncomfortable, and I understand the word "Stop." But to go from an
physically close relationship (long hugs and kisses; short backrubs 
only...) to a "hands off" relationship completely confused me.  I 
wanted to hear y'alls reactions to it.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:37:03
Message Number 16460

>By setting someone free (whatever that means) you have just conveyed
>that you maybe don't really care what they do and with who....
     
   Touche!  Jenn knew that she was always free to leave our relationship
when she chose, without hassle.  (Okay.  With some questions about why,
yes.)  But I made sure that she knew that I would (and, DO, dammit!)
miss her.
   
   "Setting them free" doesn't necessarily mean opening the relationship
in the way Turtle and Crystal have.  It just means (well, this should be
done BEFORE marriage...) that either one can leave the relation with few
hassles.  If they stay with you, you know you've got something real.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:42:43
Message Number 16461

I know about growing nails.  When I was really, really into classical
guitar, I had four long fingernails on my right hand (filed to points),
and six very short ones (Clipped at least twice a week.)
   
   I miss them, now that I'm playing a bit again.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:47:04
Message Number 16462

About you and your husband:  I really wish I could help more than this:
Have you told your husband about your feelings?  That you feel that
you don't belong there?
     
   You did the right thing: making the first move.  And I'm sorry you're
feeling depressed.  Good luck.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/03/91 20:50:39
Message Number 16463

>And they haven't proven CONCLUSIVELY that AIDS cannot be transmitted
>via SALIVA.
     
   And they haven't proven CONCLUSIVELY that AIDS cannot be transmitted
by someone thinking about the great Aardvark.  What of it?  So far as I`
know, every case of AIDS has been transmitted by means other than 
kissing.  Do you have any medical documentation backing up your
position?
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: N-S 'acts'     
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:15:59
Message Number 16464

>Ours is a very strange society, where physical contact is automatically
>assumed to be a part of sex.
 
Yes, like I said...only I would probably say "ours is a psychotic
society..."
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:20:45
Message Number 16465

>Ye Ghods in Heaven...
 
So to speak.
 
>...are we agreeing, then?
 
Sadly, tragically, unfortunately...yes.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: P.WHIPPED           
Subject: oK             
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:21:58
Message Number 16466

>WE GOT A CAR!!!!
 
We got a loaf. We got a big, ugly not-so-mini van that steers like
a cow and has a blind spot you could hide a camel caravan in. We got
a wallowing, clumsy, slow monmstrosity of a self-propelled vehicle
that has all the grace and speed of your average oxcart without any
of the convenience. We got a nightmare.
 
...but hey, it was fun!
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Wabbits?       
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:27:26
Message Number 16467

>Now everytime I see that energiser bunny walk across the screen I
>think of Turtle........
 
Hey!
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: <continuing>   
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:30:00
Message Number 16468

>I dunno..... I just see your point.
 
You seem to be in the minority, then.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:32:07
Message Number 16469

>...we've been together for 11 years this summer...... I would be a
>little afraid of losing him ....
 
Huh? After eleven years you still think he might abandon you over a
sexual matter? Damn, woman, what does it take to convince you that
someone has no intention of going anywhere?? That doesn't follow.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:36:50
Message Number 16470

>Okay, enough bullshit... an open relationship can /ONLY/...workl if bot
>partners want it that way...
 
Yes. Precisely. It can't work if both people don't want it that way.
 
>...first you say you would insist on faithfulness, then you say it's
>bullshit to start a relationship founded on sexual fidelity.
>That doesn't make sense.
 
It certainly does. I am happy with a relationship that is either open
or closed. However, if my partner wants it closed, then it is
/closed/...no fooling around. I don't think it's bullshit to have a
relationship that's based on sexual fidelity; I think it's bullshit to
believe that a relationship /must/ be founded on sexual fidelity. I
know for a fact that a lasting, intimate, stable relationship can be
sexually open; therefore, statements like "no open relationship can be
intimate" are bullshit.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:44:32
Message Number 16471

>>...so a small situation becomes a major stress bath until we finally
>>talk...
 
...and there's no way to predict ahead of time how bad it'll be...and
the distribution is fractal...
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:49:17
Message Number 16472

>I guess the best way to deal with this is to chalk up the differences
>to your reptilian ancestry.
 
[LOL] But, isn't jealousy mediated by the lizard brain?? Ironic, yesno?
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:51:06
Message Number 16473

T> Now, any questions?
S> Yeah, what if Kelly decided to become monogamous with another man?
 
Same thing that would happen if she chose to break off the sexual part
of our relationship for any /other/ reason. It would cause a significant
change in the nature of our relationship, although I doubt that it would
end the relationship. If Kelly decides to do something which affects our
relationship, it doesn't matter /why/ she made that decision; the only
thing that's significant is the fact that she /did/ make that decision.
If she chose to stop being my lover, it wouldn't matter two squats if
it was because she were monogamous with another man or she simply
decided to be celibate or she became a Jehovah's Witless; the simple
fact is that we would no longer be lovers, and our relationship would
change accordingly.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:56:13
Message Number 16474

>I wouldn't fall in love with [someone] I was involved in an open
>relationship with. Period.
 
Now that is just plain silly. Real damn silly. But at least it's also
sort of inconsequential, since you don't always choose the people you
fall in love with in the first place...
 
Why the hell do people insist on tangling love and sex into a big, nasty
knot that can't really be sorted out? I never could figure that one
out. Sex is a matter of biology; love is a matter of psychology; the
two are not necessarily related. Predicating the one on the other is
silly.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/03/91 23:59:18
Message Number 16475

>Intimacy implies..."I care for you more than I care for anyone else..."
 
Implying that intimacy can only exist toward one person at a time.
Manifest Bullshit (tm).
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:00:54
Message Number 16476

>Then your best friend was screwing your girlfriend...Tell me, did he do
>this with your prior approval?
 
Yes. 
 
>What if Kelly had decided that he was a *much* better lover than you
>could *ever* be...
 
Then good for her. In a world fo four billion human beings, it's
rational to assume that no matter what I do and no matter what skills I
have, someone--and probably someone I know, for that matter--can do them
better. JonBoy is a better programmer than I am by a long shot; that
doesn't bother me. Why should it bother me if my best friend is a better
lover than I am?
 
>...and decided to drop you like a rock?
 
Non-sequitur. The relationship between Kelly and I is not based on sex.
If we were to stop sleeping together, the relationship would not end.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:04:32
Message Number 16477

>Ok, so both of you have to approve of the "Candidate Lover," right?
 
Nice choice of words. "Candidate Lover"...hmph. But, yes, everyone
involved has to agree to the situation. That way, nobody gets hurt.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Not 15000 atall
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:07:32
Message Number 16478

T>I won't even get into your "she has [two] lovers," [etc] preconception
S>Oh, no. I can't spot my flaw. Please enlighten me.
 
Well, to start with, it simply doesn't work into the big branching
pyramid that you describe. That sort of situation is inherently
unstable. It's nice in theory, but you won't see it happen in the
real world...human sexual interactions aren't that tidy.
 
Also, let us assume that someone in this mythical pyramid of yours
contracts a social disease. You seem to keep using that as an argument
against sexually open relationships, on the grounds that disease will
propogate through such a relationship...I got news for you, if
sexually transmitted diseases propogated that way, almost every sexually
active human being on the planet would be infected by now. Simple
epidemology shows that disease propogation through a given population
falls off as a function of 1/logn(x), where x is the number of
intervening steps between case 0 (the original point of infection) and
the point of interest, presumably yourself. If it fell off as a function
of 1/x like you seem to imply. the human race would have long since
ceased to exist...but it just plain don't work that way. AIDS, in
particular, is a very difficult disease to transmit; unless you engage
in homosexual sex or share contaminated needles or blood products, it's
only moderately transmissable, less so than hepatitis or any of the more
familiar STD's. In short, your argument doesn't hold up to reality
very well.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:20:52
Message Number 16480

>Because a relationship is supposed to be something special...something
>unique! How can you have two similar things which are unique?
 
That's an easy one. You cannot possibly love two different people in the
same way, even if you express your love to both of these people
sexually.
 
Next?
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:23:12
Message Number 16481

>I would have the decency to break up with my girlfriend if I wanted
>to bop someone else.
 
Oh, you're just the paragon of decency, aren't you? Yeah, great; of
/course/ it's much better to hurt your girlfriend for no other reason
than you've got the hots for someone else than to continue with both
relationships and not hurt anyone...right. I though you were trying to
seize the moral high ground in this discussion...what happened?
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Whoops...      
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:26:32
Message Number 16482

>...but we both have close friends of both genders...
 
Of both /sexes/. The word "gender" is properly applied only to
/words/--ie, masculine, feminime, or neuter nouns in German, etc.
People don't have a "gender," they have a /sex/.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Not even close 
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:52:13
Message Number 16483

>No kiddin. How about that. And here I thought I was the different type
>for not having sex with all of my real close female friends.
 
Oh, give it a rest. That's not what we're discussing here. It don't work
that way.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:53:22
Message Number 16484

>You are wrong. Simply.
 
My, how arrogant! Not only does he decide how his relationships ought to
work, he decides how everyone else's should work, too.
 
>If you try to distribute them, you lessen the amount you have for each
>person.
 
Maybe YOU do. Don't make the mistake of assuming everyone ELSE does,
also. While I can't love /everyone/ and have it mean something, I for
one can love more than /one/ person and still have it mean something.
There's plenty of reserve capacity there.
 
>It is FINITE>[sic]
 
And evidently, in your case quite limited.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: P.WHIPPED           
Subject: trip           
Date & Time: 05/04/91 00:58:10
Message Number 16485

>We come back with a new lust in life...CHEESESTEAK!
 
Gimme gimme gimme! Good stuff.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/04/91 01:00:38
Message Number 16486

>You guys could make any situation tolerable as long as you were here
>to post to...
 
Even when we're vigorously disagreeing with one another and making you
dig into your own worldview and challenging your approach to life while
we're at it? :) Jeepers, that's swell!
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/04/91 01:02:20
Message Number 16487

>And sexual intercourse is not the only way that STD's can be trans-
>mitted. How about mono?
 
How about mono? Last time I checked, Epstein-Barr virus wasn't
considered a sexually transmitted agent at all. Come to think of it,
you can catch a cold just by touching an object someone else has
touchd...my goodness, now there's a compelling reason to engage only
in monogamous relationships! I don't see your point.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/04/91 01:04:24
Message Number 16488

>But for the most part, ...
 
Nice qualifier. You can't see AIDS coming, you know.
 
>...I can be sure of whom I'm with...and who she's been with. Can you
>say the same?
 
I can, and so can Kelly. You still don't seem to grok that "open
relationship" doesn't equate with "indescriminate sex." Unless all
your partners have been virgins when you became lovers, I really don't
see that you've taken the high ground here.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/04/91 01:07:53
Message Number 16489

>Read Leo Buscaglia...
 
Oh please. "Dr. Feelgood's Syrupy Guide to Making Everything Swell
Forever"...that man is so shallow that a walk through the ocean of his
soul wouldn't get your feet wet. He'd be a Smurf if he could formulate
a philosophy sophisticated enough to be seen on Saturday morning
cartoons.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: PARTICIPANTS        
Subject: The Den...     
Date & Time: 05/04/91 01:12:21
Message Number 16490

...has ground to a shuddering halt...it might be a good thing to
see posts from Kyara and Tampa soon...*ahem*.
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/04/91 06:16:51
Message Number 16491

DF> Other countries: Why?
Well, because it may be interesting to learn how some of the customs got
star.
DF>New college had traditionally had a lot more physical contact (touch-
ing, Backrubs) than most places I've known.
Great! Where is this place? I wouldn't mind getting a back-rub or two.
DF> and frankly, I admit: there are male friends I have who I hug.
I'll betchya The Specialist isn't one of 'em. *]:)
DF> And I've received some backrubs from some other friends.
 
More power to you! There's nothing wrong with se - sex nonsexual contact
!!!!!!
 
L8R!
Knight Owl
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/04/91 06:29:03
Message Number 16492

TS> Kinda catch-all, ain't it?
Yeah, I tried the best I could though.
TS>It follows that if youfeel that way for someone else (and they for 
you ) that sexual relations between thon should be exclusive... or else,
you have cheapened what you feel for the first one by doing the same 
thing with someone else.
 
I agree with your point, but I have something to add:
Not all intimate relations, though intimate, are sexual.
Two people can care for each other, and sex isn't part of the picture.
 
Some examples would be trust, confiding in someone, or just being there 
in a time of need.
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: TURTLE              
Subject: N-S 'acts'     
Date & Time: 05/04/91 06:45:27
Message Number 16493

... only I would probably say "Ours is a psychotic society..."
It's also paranoid. (Just because you thing someone is following you
doesn't mean they aren't.)
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: P.WHIPPED           
Subject: trip           
Date & Time: 05/04/91 06:56:01
Message Number 16494

> We come back with a new lust in life... CHEESESTEAK!!!!
 
God! I haven't had one of then in EONS!!! They make 'em down here, but 
the roll is all wrong.
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/04/91 10:15:28
Message Number 16495

Well, I broke both thumb nails, and my left pointing finger.  I cryed.
The rest are doing just fine.  I broke my thumb nails about a week ago
but they are over the shock and begining to grow now.  
  
I  got  a  couch.  I love it.  It is my first couch.  And guss what it
is a sleeper couch.  You'll have to come over and see it.  It is so 
comfortable.
  
                              * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/04/91 10:26:02
Message Number 16496

I am sorry to hear that your husband has built walls.  Have you come
right out and said to him how upset you have been lately?  He may not
see anything wrong and may not know what he is doing.  Sometimes I 
get snappy and don't realize I am snapping.  You could always tie him 
down and force him to talk (just kidding).  But I do hope everything 
works out.
  
                             * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/04/91 11:54:10
Message Number 16497

DFy>...(To be honest, she seems waaaay too eager -- I was internally 
DFy> flashing *caution* lights.)
  
That's my problem with my new female companion (not really girlffiend, 
because in my eyes, I'll be breaking up with her right directly), she's 
getting waaaayyyy to serious, waaaaaayyy too fast.  
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/04/91 12:07:30
Message Number 16498

C> Can you say, with total conviction, that you are as cautious with all
C> your monogamous relationships? 
  
This question wasn't directed toward me, but I decided to answer it 
because it will help me make a point for the Specialist and myself. 
  
Remember the "she has two lovers and those two lovers have two lover, 
and so on, and so on," situation that the Specialist brought up? 
Well, I haven't quite had that but lets just go with a similar situation
 
Lets say that I have AIDS (just for the sake of making my point)  I will
use one actual case,  I meet this girl, and give her AIDS.  She is now
planning to marry her fiance and father of her unborn child. (Because 
of me, she has it, her fiance has it, and now her unborn child has it.)
......I meet another girl, (I give her AIDS too), she meets this guy, an
(and) he and I became friends.  (she gives him AIDS.)  My friend at 
school has this girl that he sleeps with on occasion, I became her lover
for a while.  (I give her AIDS)  He, later on, slept her again. (He 
now has contracted AIDS from her.)  During the time that I was with this
girl, I was involved with a threesome, with her and her friend. (So now,
her friend has AIDS too)  My friend (from school) now has a new
girlfriend.  (He gives AIDS to her.)  The girl that I had the threesome 
with now has a new boyfriend. (so, he gets AIDS too.)  I have had two 
lovers since her, and, lets just say the gets AIDS for me as well.
  
To the best of my knowledge I don't have AIDS, but if I did have AIDS fo
(for) the past 10 months you can see the number I people I could have 
infected.  (BEAR in mind that these are only the people I know of, there
may be more people involved than I know about.)  So, if I have had AIDS 
(hypothetically speaking) for the past 10 months, I have given it to 
AIDS to NINE people that I know of.  If you ask me, that's pretty 
heavy, nine people, all people I know personally, infected with AIDS 
because of me.  
===========

From: SCOTT STEEL         
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/04/91 12:34:02
Message Number 16499

SA> Geez, Specialist, are you talking about women or just a piece of 
SA> meat. (sorry, that may not be accurately quoted.) 
 
TS> There's a difference?
  
Ooooo buddy you're trending on thin ice again, better watch it.  But 
the next you get lonely, I'll buy you a steak to cuddle up with. 
===========

From: HACMAN              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: SERIOUS PROBLEM
Date & Time: 05/04/91 17:18:49
Message Number 16501

You're absolutely correct.  I had a friend (or so I thought) tell me we 
weren't friends anymore.  He just said it out of the blue one day.  He 
said we were just aquaintences(sp).  I asked why, he said I was a bright
guy, I should figure it out.  What in heavens name is that supposed to 
mean.  Well we parted company.  After thinking about it, I concluded 
that we were never friends to begin with. After all, a friend would at
least give you the chance to make it right if you did something to 
offend.  To this day, I dont know what I did...if anything.  So I say
SCREW him.  I dont need friends like that.  I asked, begged him to tell 
me what I did.  Nope...he refused to tell me.  So fine.  He never
wanted a friendship.  He didnt want to try either.
===========

From: HACMAN              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Birth          
Date & Time: 05/04/91 17:25:51
Message Number 16502

Personally, I dont hate children.  I just dont want any and I dont 
appreciate being forced to deal with them in theaters, restaurants, etc.
If a parent cannot control their child, they should not take them out.
My wife just said they are nothing but "curtain climbers", "rug rats",
"puppy lickers","crumb snatchers", "diaper dirtyers",etc.  But she 
loves our neice.  Just when she gets tired of her, she gives her back.
Too bad you cant do that with cars, jobs, pets,....
            Burney
No really, she feels the same way I do.  We just don't want any...
PS: You have mail waiting on YOED.
===========

From: HACMAN              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: doby           
Date & Time: 05/04/91 17:31:27
Message Number 16503

Yeah, but what about the splinters.  Wont that hurt'm?
===========

From: HACMAN              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Marriage & stuf
Date & Time: 05/04/91 17:33:28
Message Number 16504

Your point was eloquently put.  I am afraid that I must agree with you. 
I have a good marriage, I think, but the way society is today, I am in a
minority.
===========

From: HACMAN              
To: ALL                 
Subject: bbs stuff      
Date & Time: 05/04/91 17:37:17
Message Number 16505

HEY people.  I'm advertising again.  Try out the newest bbs in the area.
it is:
                    ***   YE OLDE ENGLISH DEN   ***
.
          sysop: Inn Keeper (me)                   baud: 300-1200
                    9pm-6am 7days...SOON to go 24hrs.
.
***Call NOW!   Call NOW!   Call NOW!   Call NOW!   Call NOW!   ***
.
           Telephone number is 493-8401.  
.
All computer types WELCOME!    Try it you'll like it!
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: P.WHIPPED           
Subject: tube at picnick
Date & Time: 05/04/91 20:09:44
Message Number 16506

I have no idea! That's what's fun about scrounging - ya never know what 
uses it had, and only your creativity to find uses FOR it! Enjoy... :)
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: breaking habits
Date & Time: 05/04/91 20:11:03
Message Number 16507

I know what you mean about smoking habits, tho I haven't gone a day
without smoking (in 20 years)....even with asthmatic bronchitis (1968),
I managed 3 or 4 tokes (so to speak) every 4 or 5 hours...I got it
bad, and that ain't good!!
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: hung up on GOD?
Date & Time: 05/04/91 20:12:41
Message Number 16508

The problem (as I know you know) is the lack of logic and cause/effect
when it comes to religious beliefs. Is it ALL God's will, NONE of it
God's will, or SOME of it God's will, and how much is Our will?? Is
this God speaking thru ME?? (Ha!), or am I writing to God?? (hmmm)...
:)
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: hung up on GOD?
Date & Time: 05/04/91 20:15:07
Message Number 16509

'Course, if God DOESN'T have a sense of humor (& He's like "they" say),
I'm in BIG trouble!!!
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Birth Control  
Date & Time: 05/04/91 20:16:11
Message Number 16510

There's the Tantric Method...
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 05/04/91 22:52:38
Message Number 16511

>...of /course/ it's much better to hurt your girlfriend for no other
> reason than you've got the hots for someone else than to continue
> with both relationships and not hurt anyone... right. I thought you
> were trying to seize the moral high ground in this discussion...
> what happened?
    
   Simple.  The two of you have conflicting definitions of morality --
or, at least, moralities where you place things in different orders.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Whoops...      
Date & Time: 05/04/91 22:56:16
Message Number 16512

> The word "gender" is properly applied only to /words/... 
> People don't have a "gender," they have a /sex/.
     
   Sorry.  According to Webster's, "gender" was used to refer to 
people before it was used for words, and gives Charles Dickens'
"black divinities of the female gender" as an example. 
    
   Where's the source of your information?
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:01:35
Message Number 16513

   I think you don't grok Buscaglia.  Of course, there's almost nothing
to UNDERSTAND in his books -- his books weren't written for your brain.
His books are written for the emotions, not the intelligence.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:04:54
Message Number 16514

New College is at the very northern tip of Sarasota, just west of
the airport.  When you stop at Turtle's, you're real close to it.
     
   There's a few problems: New College is also a very closed society.
It does NOT like "outsiders" (or "townies") invading its ground...
Until you get to know a fair number of the students, expect some cold
shoulders, OK?
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:10:00
Message Number 16515

   Yes, but as Turtle points out, it's not so easy to catch AIDS as
you might think.  If you have unprotected sex (i.e. no condoms...),
you're more likely to catch it -- but even if you have unprotected
anal sex with a known AIDS carrier, you're not guaranteed to catch it.
(Of course, you'd be quite stupid to try that stunt.)
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: CHARLES DITTELL     
Subject: hung up on GOD?
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:14:45
Message Number 16516

Of course you're writing to God! She hears everything we type.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:38:07
Message Number 16518

>Let me...make a point for The Specialist and myself.
 
Nice try. It doesn't really work that way, though; the situation you
describe has nothing to do with "open" or "closed" relationships, and in
any event an AIDS carrier does not give AIDS to everyone he/she sleeps
with. AIDS is actually only ,arginally communicable; there are
documented cases of people having unprotected sex with an AIDS carrier
dozens of times without contracting the disease themselves, and the
risk becomes much smaller if you have /responsible/ sex to begin with.
No disease--NO disease, none, not one, not even Lhasa Fever (the most
communicable disease known to man), /no/ disease is transmitted every
time an infected person comes into contact with an uninfected person.
It would be much more difficult than you think for you to infect all the
people in your list, and if you're using a condom it would be an order
of magnitude more difficult. If that weren't the case, there would
be many hundreds of times more cases in the United States than there
actually are.
 
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: HACMAN              
Subject: Marriage & stuf
Date & Time: 05/04/91 23:43:38
Message Number 16519

>I am afraid I must agree with you...I am in a minority.
 
You certainly are. That doesn't happen very often...
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: new college    
Date & Time: 05/05/91 00:12:42
Message Number 16520

Well, I didnt intend upon going to New College. Thanks for the advice 
though. I'll put it in my "One day, this might be useful" file.
 
The last time I had any physical contact, I lost a few tail feathers. *]
*]:)
L8R!
Knight Owl (minus a few feathers)
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:39:17
Message Number 16521

TS>I would not tell her if I broke up because I wanted to bop someone 
   else. 
 
Cy> That is it, honesty is the best policy. (smirk), (nodding of head), 
    yes indeed love those frequent monogomous relationships. 
  
Hehehehe.... Point taken.... well taken. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: P.WHIPPED           
Subject: trip           
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:47:36
Message Number 16522

Welcome back...... hope Alamo didn't charge you by the mile.... :) 
ah, well, you could always pay him off in Cheesesteaks!!!!! 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Philly & Stuff 
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:48:56
Message Number 16523

Well sure we missed ya.... but Crystal kept us busy !!!!!!!!! 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:51:31
Message Number 16524

TS>How about mono? And they haven't proven CONCLUSIVELY that AIDS cannot
   be transmitted via SALIVA. 
 
So, Ts, when is the glass bubble you've ordered arriving?? Gee, gonna 
get awful lonely in there... but at least you'll be completely 100% 
safe..... 
 
Hey, I believe in safe sex but worrying about saliva... um, I think 
there'd be one hell of a lot more people crawling around with AIDS if 
it could be passed that way...., don't you? 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:54:22
Message Number 16525

TS>But for the most part, I can be sure of whom I'm with.... and who 
she's been with. 
 
Oh? Do you ask her for an itemized list of previous lovers.... do you 
call and check her references?   How can you be sure of someone's past 
lovers... what are you going to do? Date only virgins?   Point is, TS 
You can NEVER really be sure about someone's past lovers beyond this 
shadow of doubt.... in love we all take our chances.... as few as 
possible... but you never really know for sure where your lover was 
before you came along... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/05/91 10:59:18
Message Number 16526

SA>Gee, TS, are you talking about a woman or a peice of meat? 
TS> What's the difference? 
 
I know you're kidding but 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:02:13
Message Number 16527

Not corny, very well put... (sniffle) brought a tear to my eye. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:06:57
Message Number 16528

If "setting them free" means that a person is free to leave the 
relationship if they want to.... then, well, I'm sorry, I don't see 
where that's unique... Anyone can leave a relationship if they want to..
unless of course, your partners a pychotic with a pistol pressed to your
head.... and I've never (rarely) seen any divorce that didn't turn  
nasty at some point, no matter what the couple said before hand... ei...
"I'd never hassle you like that... I'd never put you through that.." 
 
I dunno... I shouldn't be posting.... I'm  really off today. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:10:59
Message Number 16529

Dfy>I had four long fingernails on my right hand (filed to points) 
 
Ah, Built in picks.... save time, save money... save going through the 
house screaming "where's all my picks".... ever notice that something
keeps eating them whenever you lay them down for a moment... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:12:44
Message Number 16530

Thanks. Yes, I have tried talking to him all week, but he just isn't 
listening... that is until last night... Has anybody here ever had 
a nervous breakdown? Can you tell me what happens? I am going through 
something really scarey right now.... something I've never gone through 
emotionally before in my whole life.... I think he realised last night 
that while he's hiding out in his grouchy mood this last week, I have 
been slowly falling apart.....       now, I can't seem to stop.... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:17:33
Message Number 16531

T>After eleven years you still think he might abandon you over a sexual 
  matter? 
 
No, not just for sex... Maybe for someone better all around... I dunno. 
I'm more afraid of losing myself right now. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:19:53
Message Number 16532

T>...and there's no way to predict ahead of time how bad it'll be... 
  and the distribution is fractal... 
 
Please explain.... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:27:02
Message Number 16533

T>Even when we're vigorously disagreeing with one another and making yuo
  did into your own worldview and challenging your approach to life 
  while we're at it? 
 
Even if!!!!! It takes my mind out of the emotions and into the guts of 
the matter.... it makes it easier to clinically analyze without becoming
upset..... and it makes me see that there is no right and wrong... just 
different ways of looking at things.... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: TURTLE              
Subject: The Den...     
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:31:49
Message Number 16534

Sorry, Turtle.... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:34:56
Message Number 16535

Ah! No more people crashed on the floor.. you have a sleeper couch.. 
Mine has gotta go, it's soooo uncomfortable... 
 
Here's one of those irritating females questions for ya.... Are you usin
a nail hardner???? My nails keep wanting to break and split...... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:37:46
Message Number 16536

Yeah, last night I forced him to talk to me.... I tried subtly... and 
after a week of asking "What's wrong?" and getting.. "Nothing, nothing 
is wrong." yet he went on being silent and unresponsive... I just blew
last night... I told him if he didn't talk to me I was going to scream..
soooo, he pulled out his guitar and played for hours... (typical 
musician trick when they don't want to deal with reality), we finally 
did talk, but by the time he was willing to talk, I was so upset..... 
there were so many things on my mind... I just told him everything I was
feeling... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:44:50
Message Number 16537

SA>Geez, TS, are you talking about a woman or a peice of meat? 
TS>What's the difference? 
SS to TS>...next you get lonely, I'll buy you a steak to cuddle up with.
 
Hehehee. Get him a nice T-Bone..... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: HACMAN              
Subject: SERIOUS PROBLEM
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:49:25
Message Number 16538

Someone else probably told your friend something about you or about 
what you said.... misquoted or even a lie.... 
 
True friends don't end a relationship without facing you about it.... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: HACMAN              
Subject: doby           
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:51:53
Message Number 16539

A good steak bone won't hurt a dog... also a Ham bone... my dog loves 
them.. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CHARLES DITTELL     
Subject: breaking habits
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:54:04
Message Number 16540

Last week,  when I had my surgery, I went without smoking for 3 days. 
I said, Hmmmmm,  this isn't so bad.... so I tried it at work... I made 
it another day... but it was hell... so I bought three packs and smoked
them all within 2 days. Then I took Friday off and didn't smoke all day 
Friday or Saturday...I bought a pack Saturday Nite... and smoked the 
whole thing.... And today is Sunday and I haven't had a smoke today.. 
 
I dunno... I'm beginning to think this is not a nicotene addiction for 
me.... i think it's all in my mind... how else could I go without so 
easily in situations like home but not work. 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CHARLES DITTELL     
Subject: hung up on GOD?
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:57:40
Message Number 16541

I get so confused when talking about religion... I cannot intelligently
argue the point with someone.... so I try not to bring it up..... 
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CHARLES DITTELL     
Subject: hung up on GOD?
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:59:00
Message Number 16542

God HAS to have a sense of humor!!!!! Ever seen a Duckbill PLatypus? SP?
===========

From: SAAVIK              
To: CHARLES DITTELL     
Subject: Birth Control  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 11:59:41
Message Number 16543

Ok, I'll bite...... What's the Tantric method of Birth Control? 
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/05/91 15:31:24
Message Number 16544

The "built-in picks" were WONDERFUL for classical guitar.  I don't
normally play with normal, separable-from-finger picks, though... you
can really only play one melodic line at a time with them.
      
   Of course, picks are also wonderful for teasing hair, and they do
in a punch as a very strange army (wearing only a little blue paint...)
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/05/91 15:36:18
Message Number 16545

>there were so many things on my mind... I just told him everything I
>was feeling...
     
   Wonderful!  That was about the best thing you could have done.  The
next thing you should have done is said something like, "I've laid out
my feelings.  What are you really feeling?"... and then listened.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Birth Control  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 15:38:54
Message Number 16546

>What's the Tantric method of Birth Control?
     
   Tantric Yoga is a meditative technique involving sex.  The woman
involved gets multiple orgasms.  The man... well, he gets to meditate.
    
   Tantric Yoga teaches men either not to cum -- or, if he does, to,
well... cum inwardly, into the urine sac. (It's not that great for the
man.)
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/05/91 19:31:59
Message Number 16547

My couch is sooo comfortable.  Ghods I love it.  I have not stoppd 
talking about it since Wednesday.  Everyone has got to be tired of 
hearing about it.  But I love it.
   
No I am not using a nail hardner,  but I am going to be.  I need all the
help I can get.
  
                               * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: CRYSTAL             
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/05/91 19:35:05
Message Number 16548

Now keep talking to him.  Now that you've got him going don't stop.
Do it all, talk, cry, scream.  By all means feel better.  He will be 
able to deal with it.
  
                              * CRYSTAL *
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:22:09
Message Number 16549

Love is something palpable.  It can be withered away.  And trying to 
distribute something which should be reserved for someone special (note:
some ONE! not some PEOPLE) can only lessen the emotion -- loving becomes
commonplace.  Ordinary.  Then it;s not love anymore.  It's just "Hey, 
I know her.  And I have screwed her, too."
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:25:15
Message Number 16550

DF>Love:  It is extremely possible to *feel* love for many people, so
          long as the love is unique to each person.
 
Uh...well, yes, but no.  Love can be classified into many categories.
But the kind of love which should lead to a man-woman relationship shoul
be only shared between two people.  Yes, it is possible to have a love 
for many people, except for the kind I mentioned above.
 
DF> Sex:  An open relationship can work -- if the two partners are 
          extremely secure with each other.  But that's rare.  And 
          diseases today are one of the best reasons not to make a 
          relationship open...but it can still work
 
  Hmmm.  Yes, I can't find any flaws with that.  I have to emphasize 
what you said, though...it takes a special couple to make that work.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:34:47
Message Number 16551

DF>...Even you found it strange that when we weren't going to have sex
DF>she wanted me to stop holding her hand...
 
There's nothing strange about it.  The typical woman "leads a man on"
until she finds out what she wants to know.  (In this case, marrying
type or not.)   So she allowed you to touch, until she found out tht
you weren't the marrying type, when she cut you off cold.  Typical, and
predictable.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:38:44
Message Number 16552

DF>And they haven't proven CONCLUSIVELY that AIDS cannot be xmitte
DF>[nonsensical expression to stupid to repeat].  What of it?
 
Tell me, did you go back and read this thread before jumping in with
both feet in your mouth?  In answer to your question, Crystal and I
had been talking about what safeguards she was taking to prevent c
catching deseases in her open relationship.
  She remarked that Rubbers were used, and I said that transmission of
AIDS could be through saliva, too.  (Or for that case, any body fluids.)
 
Vss
DF>So far as I know, every case of AIDS has been transmitted though mean
DF>other than kissing.  Do you have any medical documents backing up 
DF>your position?>
 
Oh, yes, why certainly!  I collect them, for chrissakes....  Don't be 
ridiculous.  Do you have any to back up YOUR conclusions?
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:47:16
Message Number 16553

T>I don't think it's bullshit to have a relatonship that's based on 
T>sexual fidelity; I think that it's bullshit to believe that a 
T>relationship /must/ be founded on sexual fidelity.
 
You think that it's bullshit to believe that a relationship /must/ be
founded on sexual fidelity.  I think that ssxual fidelity !is! an 
important part of a relationship...but only a part...hmmm.  I want my
girlfriends total devotion...and in return I will give her mine.  That
seems like a pretty fair deal, to me.  But it includes all -- emotions
as well as physical things.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 20:58:07
Message Number 16554

T>Implying that intimacy can only exist toward one person at a time.
T>Manifest Bullshit (tm).
 
Wrong.  But I do like the way you cut to the heart of the matter. (if 
you will pardon the pun.)  The intimacy which is love which leads to 
sex can only exist toward one person at a time. (Between two peple
only.)
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Not 15000 atall
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:03:19
Message Number 16555

If diseases are so "hard to transmit" as you say, then how come over
2 billion people are infected with AIDS?  And the number increases 
daily?
 
Oh, and another thing.  Even in that Logarythmic dropoff rate you 
specified, there is still a chance that you may contract someting.  And
if there is even a slim chance, I'm not interested in playing.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:05:26
Message Number 16556

T>You cannot possibly love two different people in the same way, even
T>if you express you rlove to both of these people sexually.
 
What, so no two loves are the same?  Then you must love one more,
therefore, you love one less.  
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Another questio
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:06:49
Message Number 16557

I'm not trying to seize any moral ground.  My point was simply that
if I cared enough for my girlfriend, I would want to minimize the 
chances of giving her something that I might pick up from the new 
chick.  If I wanted the new chick bad enough,  I'd have to break off
with the current chick.   But that'd be a pretty bad want...and I 
certainly wouldn't do it just because I had the "hots" for this 
other chick.  That alone is not sufficient reason to hurt my girlfriend.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Whoops...      
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:10:04
Message Number 16558

T>People don't have a "gender" they have a sex.
 
Hmmm.  *Some* individuals don't.  Some only have a gender...by virtue 
of thier sex.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:12:45
Message Number 16559

Lemme get this straight.  You feel that you are impervious to catching
disease, right?  You must, because the only precaution you take is that
both of you have to vote on the canidate lover and the only protection
you feel you need to use is a rubber.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:15:30
Message Number 16560

DF>and frankly, I admit: ther are male friends I have who I hug.
KO>I'll betchya The Specialist isn't one of 'em.  *]:)
 
Ding.  Hey, that's not even funny.  Don't EVEN associate me like that.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:25:40
Message Number 16561

SA>Hey, I believe in safe sex, but worrying about saliva... um, I think
SA>there'd be one hell of a lot more people crawling around with AIDS
SA>if it could be passed that way...
 
How do you know that there aren't a lot of cases that *were* caused that
way?  YOU DON'T.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:28:15
Message Number 16562

TS>What's the difference?
 
No, I said, "There's a difference?"
 
SA>I know you're kidding but
 
Ah, I didn't get that...wanna say it again, please?
 
(Yes, I was kidding.  Sorry.  Probably in pretty poor taste.)
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: SCOTT STEEL         
Subject: DINK? Me??     
Date & Time: 05/05/91 21:32:33
Message Number 16563

SS>But the next time you are get lonely, I'll buy you a steak to cuddle
SS>up with.
 
Just make sure you warm it up first.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Whoops...      
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:36:53
Message Number 16564

>Sorry. According to Webster's, ...
 
Webster is a friggin' upstart.
 
>Where's the source for your information?
 
The Oxford Handbook of Standard English Usage...you know, the tome that
sneers at use of the word "towards" and thinks that people who use the
word "hopefully" as an adjective ought to be shot. Okay, okay, I'll
admit it; when it comes to English grammar you are unlikely to find
anybody anywhere who's more conservative than I am...unless maybe you
count George Will.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:39:12
Message Number 16565

>[Buscaglia's] books are written for the emotions, not the intelligence.
 
Yeah, and it shows. The man doesn't really write for sapient beings
at all.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:42:09
Message Number 16566

>...save going through the house screaming "where's all my picks"....
>ever notice that something keeps eating them whenever you lay them down
>for a moment...
 
Yeah, and you know what? They end up at my house. I keep finding guitar
picks all over the apartment, and I don't even own a guitar.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:43:55
Message Number 16567

>Please explain....
 
The distribution of the arguments is fractal. That is, if you look at
ratio of large arguments to small arguments over ten or a hundred or
a thousand iterations, the distribution will be exactly the same. Chaos
theory again...I can't get away from it. Grr.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Huh-uh         
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:45:17
Message Number 16568

>..and it makes me see that there is no right and wrong...
 
Sure there is! Deliberately hurting other people is wrong.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Birth Control  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:48:44
Message Number 16569

>Tantric Yoga teaches men not to cum... 
 
That's "come." You've been reading too many Penthouse magazines lately;
even Mr. Webster would be most disapproving of "cum."
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:50:08
Message Number 16570

>And trying to distribute something which should...
 
"Should"? That sounds a whole lot like a subjective argument you've
never even bothered to examine...why "should" it be "reserved" for one
person (or presumably, a /sequence/ of people who don't overlap)?
 
>...be reserved for one person can only lessen the emotion...
 
Bullshit. You're theorizing. You've already said you've never loved more
than one person at a time, so how the hell would you know? I state for a
fact that's not true.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:53:24
Message Number 16571

>But I do like the way you cut to the heart of the matter.
 
Thank you.
 
>The intimacy which is love which leads to sex can only exist toward one
>person at a time.
 
You forgot to end that sentence. It should end, "...for me." Okay, fine,
maybe /you/ can only love one person at once; please, don't re-create
the entire world in your own image and assume that everyone /else/ can
only love one person, sexually or not, at a time.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:55:47
Message Number 16572

>What, so no two lives are the same?
 
*Ding*
 
>Then you must love one more, therefore, you love one less.
 
Non sequitur. You are thinking two-dimensionally; the love can vary in
kind as well as in degree. Your conclusion is invalid.
===========

From: TURTLE              
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/05/91 23:57:13
Message Number 16573

>Lemme get this straight. You feel that you are impervious to
>catching disease, right?
 
No. I don't feel impervious to dying in a traffic accident, yet I still
drive. Again, your conclusion is invalid. I will say, though, that I
have in my entire life had fewer lovers than almost every fanatic
monogamy fan I know who is sexually active...I think that's a rather
telling fact, don't you?
===========

From: KNIGHT OWL          
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Hey!           
Date & Time: 05/06/91 00:26:03
Message Number 16574

Geez... I was just kidding. I knew that I'd hit a nerve with my comment
but I didn't expect you to take it seriously.
 
L8R!
Knight Owl
 
PS
What do you specialize in? Just curious.
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: CRYSTAL             
Subject: Couch!         
Date & Time: 05/06/91 01:25:37
Message Number 16576

>My couch is sooo comfortable.  Ghods I love it.
     
   My arms are sooo tired (still!)  Ghods i hate it.
    
>I have not stopped talking about it since Wednesday.
     
   Thank you.  At least it was worth SOMETHING!
   Anyways, who was the lucky person/persons to first sleep in it?
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 01:27:57
Message Number 16577

>Love is something palpable.  It can be withered away.
    
   Okay.  Weigh out an ounce of love, and I'll believe you.
    
>...loving becomes commonplace.  Ordinary.  Then it;s not love anymore.
>It's just "Hey, I know her.  And I have screwed her, too."
     
   I'm not denying it's possible to screw people indiscriminantly --
without really caring for the person.  "Push-ups with a friend" as the
phrase goes.  That's not what I'm talking about.
     
   I have close friends, both sexes, who I love.  That has nothing to do
with intercourse... I simply feel I can share anything with them. (I
wouldn't consider having sex with most of them... that's not the way our
relationships are.)  My relationship with Jenn did not subtract from my
love for them, though it might have taken time away from seeing them.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/06/91 01:36:51
Message Number 16578

*Ding!*  You've got it!
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 01:40:48
Message Number 16579

>What, so no two loves are the same?  Then you must love one more,
>therefore, you love one less.
     
Logically the equivalent of:
   No two different words are the same.  Therefore, given any two words,
one must be better than the other, and one must be worse than the other.
     
   Manifest Bullshit (tm).  Love might be quantifiable -- I might love
one person more than another -- but it ain't necessarily so.  Love is
a poset (as Turtle might put it.)  
     
   Given two different people that I love, I MAY love one person more
than another, but I always love one DIFFERENTLY than I love the other.
To phrase it bluntly and selfishly, each of my close friends serves some
emotional need I have... no one person I've found has shared all of my
interests in the same amount as my own interests.  No one person I've
found has exactly fit my emotional needs perfectly, so I search out a
balance among my friends.  And I do the same for my friends...
   (Ghods! What a computerized way of sounding!  But it's how I think.)
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Morality.      
Date & Time: 05/06/91 01:56:39
Message Number 16580

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  The rest is
commentary.
                        //Dragonfly//
     
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Whoops...      
Date & Time: 05/06/91 17:50:55
Message Number 16581

T>unless you count George Will.
 
Isn't he that asshole editorialist?
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Energized      
Date & Time: 05/06/91 17:51:54
Message Number 16582

T>They end up at my house.  I keep finding guitar picks all
T>over the apt...
 
Hey, those are MINE!
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 17:53:43
Message Number 16583

T>I state for a fact that's not true.  
 
There you go again.  Making facts out of emotional subjects.
 
T>You've already said you've never loved more than one person at a time,
T>so how the hell would you know?
 
Because I CAN'T.  I can't FLY either...and neither can you!  
 
I can go out and grab a handfull of dirt.  There's plenty of it.  It's
cheap.  On the other hand, plutonuim is rare.  
I can go out and love many people (subjectively speaking), and my love 
would be pretty easy to come by.  But if I love only one person, that 
love is very special.  It would be the rare thing.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 17:57:54
Message Number 16584

T>You forgot to end that sentence. 
 
Oops.  Ok, the intimacy which is love which leads to sex can only exist
toward one person at a time, usually.
 
Better?
 
T>Ok, fine...please don't re-create the entire world in your own image
T>and assume that everyone /else/ can only love one person, sexually or 
T>not, at a time.
 
Ok.  Fine.  But I will state for the record that it is an unusual couple
which can do otherwise successfully.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Say how?       
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:04:34
Message Number 16585

T>I will say, though, that I have in my entire life had fewer lovers 
T>than almost every...monogamy fan I know who is sexually active...
T>I think that's a rather telling fact, don't you?
 
Yup.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: KNIGHT OWL          
Subject: Hey!           
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:05:54
Message Number 16586

KO>...just kidding.
 
NO prob.
 
KO>What do you specialize in?  Just curious.
 
Er, actually, nothing, anymore.  I just like the handle.  If you
are really curious as to it's origin, I'll tell you...
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:07:43
Message Number 16587

DF>Wiegh an once of love, and I'll believe you.
 
I can, figuratively.  It won't be an aviordupois ounce, but the measure
will be just as valid.
 
DF>I have close friends, both sexes, who I love.
 
I think that you have confused love with close freindship.
===========

From: THE SPECIALIST      
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:10:24
Message Number 16588

DF>No two different words are the same.  Therefore, given any two words,
DF>one must be better than the other, and one must be worse than the 
DF>other.
 
Yes, that is true.  For instance, when referring to your father, do you
call him "elderly gentleman" or, "old man"?  I would refer to my father
(given those two choices) as "old man" [:)] but not in front of him! 
In front of him I would use "elderly gentleman"...therefore that 
expression (or word) is better than the other.
You could also use numbers.  If one number is not the other, then one
must be greater or less than the other.  
 
What is a poset?
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:28:03
Message Number 16589

TS> Love is something palpable.  It can be withered away.
DF> Weigh out an ounce of love, and I'll believe you.
    
TS> I can, figuratively.  It won't be an aviordupois ounce, but the
TS> measure will be just as valud.
   
   If you really believe that love is "lost" once it's given away, then
you must accept the person you should try to get to "love" you is she
who has not "loved" yet.  She who has "loved" the most is useless to
your definition of love.
     
   I doubt that.  Love is a resource renewed daily.  One can give away
all the love you "have" -- and still find more love to give.
     
DF> I have close friends, both sexes, that I love.
TS> I think that you have confused love with close friendship.
    
   The only difference I've ever felt was in degree, not in kind.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:40:11
Message Number 16590

Let me take these out of order:
   
TS> What's a poset?
   
   A poset is a "partially ordered set," and it's a part of lattice
theory.  Basically, if you take a set (say, the set of all living 
people), and you take an "ordering relation" on the set (say, X is
a parent or an ancestor of B) that does NOT need to operate on all
possible pairs (that is, we don't need to assume that Jimmy Smith,
in Sarasota is either an ancestor or descendent of Hoo Wang Chao,
in Beijing.)  Does that make sense?
    
   You might consider all the words or phrases in English for the 
best one to call your father at a certain time, as an "ordering
relation."  You'd probably rather call him "elderly gentleman" than
"old man" when he's around.  (Take the nnext sentence seriously.)
But would you rather call him "blue suede shoes" or "Altoids 
peppermints"?  Neither, of course. 
    
   Going on to your second example of numbers, sure: you can impose
an ordering relation that makes it into a "completely ordered set."
But there are other relations that don't.  (For example, let a < b
if a factors into fewer primes than b does.)
      
   What does all this have to do with our topic of conversation?
Continued, next message.
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: DRAGONFLY           
To: THE SPECIALIST      
Subject: Love and Posets
Date & Time: 05/06/91 18:52:58
Message Number 16591

   What does this have to do with love?  That was a very complicated
way of saying that though I might "love" one person more than I do
another, most of the time, I simply can't compare how I feel to one
to how I feel for another.
   
   It is impossible to, say, rank Crystal among my other close friends.
Or Barbara.  Or Wolf.  I love them all in unique ways, for their unique
characteristics.  (And I do NOT accept the idea that if you have an
ordering on a set, there must be a "highest" element in the set.)
                        //Dragonfly//
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: hung up on GOD?
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:00:41
Message Number 16592

She? What defines God as any gender? Sex organs??
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: breaking habits
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:01:55
Message Number 16593

some good points!
Don't overanalyze, just keep clear that you need to KEEP GOING 
without smoking..... (I got my fingers crossed for ya)...
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: hung up on GOD?
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:03:00
Message Number 16594

What I get is that religious discussions, by their very nature, cannot
be "intelligent", or "logical"....
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: GOD's sense of 
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:04:01
Message Number 16595

[Humor].... Yeah, or, what's that bird that comes in for a landing and
flops like a whale?  
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Birth Control  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:05:26
Message Number 16596

Part of Tantric Buddhism has to do with experiencing Life in the
context of Enlightenment. This includes sexual activities which
"enhance" the participants' "depth" of experience. This isn't really
the place to discuss this subject, but I do find it fascinating: I'd
suggest reading a book on the subject....
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Birth Control  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:08:42
Message Number 16597

Basically, you're right, EXCEPT for the part that "It's not that great
for the man." Tho I've never practiced it, I've read that it is
an enlightening experience for the man, both spiritually AND sexually!
(I'm tempted to say, "Try it, you'll like it!", but I won't)....
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: TURTLE              
Subject: Buscaglia      
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:15:36
Message Number 16598

Agreed - yet I know alot of non-intellectuals who like Leo - probably
much as I like a Bugs Bunny cartoon now and then (but not too often!!)
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: TURTLE              
Subject: "Wrong"        
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:17:26
Message Number 16599

My doctor disagrees whenever he gives a patient a shot....
===========

From: CHARLES DITTELL     
To: DRAGONFLY           
Subject: Relationships  
Date & Time: 05/06/91 21:20:27
Message Number 16600

Whew!! This is a FASCINATING conversation (no, debate)!
My 2 cents: if each of us were to free ourselves from
limiting beliefs, we could let ourselves be who we more
deeply are, love who we love, do what we do, dream what
we dream...
           ...and rarely become constipated!
===========

