Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Gee - doesn't this belong in the note on fantasies?
    
    If you've gotten that far, I would hope that both of you have
    reasonable expectations on what is to follow, but I think I'd
    err on the side of caution (that is, don't rip her clothes off
    as soon as you get back to the apartment!)  And don't be
    disappointed if "nothing happens" right away.  No matter how
    forward someone may be, they may have inner reservations
    about actually following through.  And, of course, you may have
    wildly misinterpreted their feelings.
    
    I haven't lived a situation exactly like this, but HAVE where
    there was talking on the phone for hours, all sorts of expectations
    raised explicitly, etc., etc.  But when we met - nothing.
    Unfortunately, I wasn't quite so "wise" then, and didn't understand
    that the expectations we raised over the phone didn't NECESSARILY
    translate to reality in person.
    
    What I would do given this situation is to put on some nice music,
    and sit on the couch - holding hands, talking, whatever.  If something
    is going to happen, you'll fall into it gradually.  If not, then
    you'll know it, and without too much embarrassment or destruction
    of the blossoming relationship.  Give your partner time to get
    comfortable with you and the situation.  It may only take a few
    minutes, it may take weeks, maybe never.  But it WILL be never if
    you "move" faster than your partner is comfortable with.
    						Steve

    I have had similar situations regarding the buildup of expectations
    from the use of good old ma/baby bell. Personally I think most guys
    would feel great that a phone call led to a date that led to intimacy
    on the first date. However  I don't agree that it is a good thing.
    
    Seems to me that a coupla of hours on a phone can be revealing in
    terms of the knwoledge one can learn from a prospective partner.
    But I think that it is only one step away from the meat market concept
    of dating bars. I would rather go on the date, have a good time,
    return date to her home, maybe sit and chat for awhile and then
    leave. If I am comfortable with the date and she with me then we
    will date more. 
    
    I guess from my experiences that the scenario in .0 leads more to
    a relationship based on sex as opposed to a relationship built on
    something more solid. We all need to feel that women are attracted
    to us, but  Iwould rather feel them attracted to me because of the
    kind of person that I am then because we talked up a good conversation
    around sex. 

    Then again, if it works for you to help find a SO then all the more
    to you. It's just not my cup of tea. Sex is cheap - A loving
    relationship takes time and needs a lot more nurturing than one
    date and a few hours on the phone.
    
    al
    

    Well, allow me to applaud .1, .2, .3, and it sounds like .4's mind
    is in the right place!  It's so refreshing to hear men reply as
    you all have.....we all set expectations from time to time, but
    are we setting them from the information we have gathered in a
    situation or are they really being set out of what we desire to
    happen.  I'd be real interested to hear the lady's side of this
    scenario - I'll bet it would be like listening to a very different
    story.
    
    Again, to those gentlemen who replied, thank you, you are truely 
    gentlemen.
    
    					Valerie				

       OK, I'll put in my opinion.... If you both agree to go farther
    that night so be it. What happens between two adults is there concern
    and as long as it doesn't affect others..... And if he/she/it doesn't
    want to play then its good night  and I'll see you later.
    
                   REK

    
    When I hear a man talk as in .0, I find myself wondering if there
    is a woman about to be emotionally hurt.  Does each have the same
    expectations or is the man hoping for one wild evening, not giving
    a damn if he ever sees her again, and is the woman thinking, maybe
    this could be the start of a meaningful relationship?  When in doubt
    about having sex with a near stranger, maybe it's best to try to
    discover if he/she is capable of carrying on an interesting and
    intelligent conversation.  A new friend may turn out to enrich your
    life a lot more than one more one night stand.
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  As someone else said sex *can* be cheap.  Or to look at it
    from another angle, you could always call an escort service and
    be assured of the results.
    

    It seems to me that if the rest of the evening is anything like
    the scenerio we have just seen, there's no question in my mind that
    the two individuals would be back to see one another again.
    
    Lighten up!
    
    This isn't exactly love at first sight, but it certainly could open
    the doors....
    
    And, in today's world, it seems that liking a person is enough....
    
    
               

    Isn't there a polite way to explicitly ask/tell about expectations?
    The only reason I can think of that we don't explicitly ask/tell
    that, in romance, such things should be intuitively obvious.  I'm
    not very intuitive, so polite explicit communications seems safer
    to me.

    Always do the **UN**expected - it's much more fun!
    
    On a first date, the only thing I expect is that the man be a
    gentleman, and that we have a good time.  I don't think he should
    expect anything, except of course, that I be a lady.  If he EXPECTS anything
    more, then he will be disappointed.  But if he doesn't expect anything
    think how surprised he'd be if and when the **UN**expected did happen!
                                          
    Umm, does this make any sense?  :)
    
    Toodles,             
    
    
    	-Dotti.
    
    

    RE: .0
   
         Well I ain't partaken in any sorta dating in so long, my memory
    is dim. I'll pick up at where you and her are at the door to either
    the other party's or your apartment. Hmmmmm! in my memory if it
    got this far and mutually attraction had been discussed, somewhere
    in the back of my mind the thought of being asked ot spend the night
    was creeping around usually. 
         Once I got invited in, I'de just pay careful attention to what
    the other party is saying and body language. Like when the two of
    us initially get seated in the living room for the proverbial night-
    cap, in separate chairs or safe distance from each other on the
    couch....does the distance seem to decrease with time, where are
    eyes wandering, etc. As far as expectations got, the point where
    the long, pregnant silence comes in usually says that either the
    night will end in the bedroom or I'll get a, "well ahhhh, it's
    been really ahhhh, nice. I have to get up early, I'll call you
    next week". 
        From years of riding the edge, in eager anticipation of
    something, I don't any longer expect anything more than a polite
    goodnight at the door or after coffee/nightcap. Anything more
    that happens is icing on cake. Expect nothing, if something does
    happen, it makes it all the more exciting.
    
                                      The Trappist Monk, Ray

     
     re .7:
     
     Isn't the hypothesis ("...is the man hoping for one wild evening, not
     giving a damn if he ever sees her again, and is the woman thinking,
     maybe this could be the start of a meaningful relationship?") a sexist
     stereotype? 
     
     --Mr Topaz 

    As I've said in the earlier note on "Close Encounters of the
    Terminal Kind", there seems to be this common tendency to drop
    ones normal inhibitions when conversing remotely (phone, MAIL, etc.),
    and it is hard to resist the urge to make claims and set expectations
    for both of you that you would be very unlikely to make if the same
    conversation was held face-to-face.
    
    Since this has happened to me at least once, with results that
    were painful for a while, I have tried to be very careful since
    then at making sure that expectations were held to a reasonable
    level until we actually met.
    
    However - this really doesn't apply to the situation described in
    .0 - there, the couple HAVE met, and have enjoyed each other's close
    company for at least several hours.  While to some, that may not
    be anywhere near enough to make any decisions, for others it can
    be.  As was said earlier, we are adults and can make up our own
    minds.
    
    Myself, a "one night stand" is the last thing I am looking for.
    A "meaningful relationship" is far more important to me than "wild
    evenings".  I do feel compelled to point out, however, that the
    desire for sex is not confined to the male gender.
    
    					Steve

    I would think that, given the scenario in .0, the two people would
    have established enough openness in communication for the topic
    of where the night will be spent to come up naturally -- or not
    even need to be discussed. 
    
    On the other hand, I tend to be like the earlier reply (if it was
    Bob, no pun intended) to the effect that maybe the first date, despite
    the inuendos offered, was too soon to start with sex.  Such a
    situation, I know, would have me very nervous because, if there's
    one thing that I've learned about women its that if you don't accept
    the invation, you're dead meat Jack.  Like the old song says "...to
    be a woman and to be turned down..."

Well, .0 was specific that the two of them had the chance to check out each
other's expectations:

< Note 84.0 by NY1MM::MANERA >
                          -< On Setting Expectations >-

    ............................ Eventually, you wind up talking with
    a complete stranger on the phone.
    
    Some how, it clicks!  Two hours later, you're still talking, and
    wondering what has happened to the time.  It's late, but you don't
    feel tired.  You've talked about EVERYTHING, and ........

Obviously (to me) EVERYTHING includes how one feels about casual sex, levels
of commitment, how satisfied one is with one's present relationship(s), etc.
Of course, my expectation is that people look before they leap, and having
looked, they leap.

Don.

    Expect nothing and you chance to gain alot, especially if the time is
    allowed for you to nuture the trust and comfort of this woman whom
    you say you are attracted to. Push too hard and too fast and you're
    only setting yourself up for dissappointment. Of course you have
    not stated the man's intent in this case, and whether he's looking
    for a temporary diversion or a relationship is not identifiable.
    This will have a significant bearing on how the situation will be
    treated. (I use man since the base note was written from the male's
    perspective.)
    
    
    Before expectations are fulfilled or unfulfilled, determine first
    what the both of you want out of the encounter. You indicated that
    "EVERYTHING" was talked about. It can't be assumed your phone conversation
    and dinner discussion included any talk about relationship potential.
    In fact, having only known each other for hours (add up marathon
    phone call and dinner) it may have been a premature topic, despite
    what seems to be a situation where both of you wanted to truly impress
    each other, and where there had previously been sweet intimacies
    shared over the phone.
    
    And as for me....in this type of situation (and there has been one)
    If I gleen that someone is pushing for too much too fast for right
    now, with minimal possibility of a tomorrow, then there will be a 
    man who'll walk away feeling angry and rejected, because I will
    not have been able to become intimately involved so soon, especially
    if I sense it was "simply expected".
    
    All taken into consideration, that's a waste of energy and emotion
    on the part of both people, let alone achieving the destruction of 
    any possible relationship.  
         
    It seems such a waste, in light of two people who could possibly enjoy 
    each other.
    
    Ann                                 
    

        I have to totally agree with .10 and .17 - Expect nothing
    and what ever happens is much more meaningful.  The last woman
    I dated, we went for a couple of day sails prior to even going
    out on dates.  It started as just friends.  One night she stayed
    over at my place and I slept on the couch and didn't ask what she
    thought the sleeping arrangements should be.  To make a good
    event short, she woke me up at 4:30 and I'll not forget that
    early morning for one long time.  Totally unexpected and much
    more meaningful. I Let her make the moves and didn't try to read
    anything in body language or between the lines - when I do that,
    I usually get into trouble (Anyone know of a reading course?).  
    The relationship to that point took 1 month, not one evening.

    "Tomorrow may rain, so - I'll follow the sun"

    Lee

    Do anyone of the responses heretofour
    
    take into account that we (humanity) are animals
    
    and are driven by animal needs (yes ladies too (since you are the
    majority))
    
    and therfour spontaneous in every situation?
    

    I agree with you, Don!!  I'll take animals for pure grace and honesty
    any day!!!!

    Very interesting!

    I was amazed at the first few responses to this topic.  Most of you
    had the exact same expectation in mind, i.e. that the *man* would
    expect the woman to go to bed with him.  .7 really floored me:
    
        When I hear a man talk as in .0, I find myself wondering 
        if there is a woman about to be emotionally hurt.  Does 
        each have the same expectations or is the man hoping for
        one wild evening, not giving a damn if he ever sees her
        again, and is the woman thinking, maybe this could be the
        start of a meaningful relationship?

    (Lorna - is it possible AT ALL that the opposite could have been
    true?)  How far have we really come if this is the prevailing
    attitude out there?

    In .12 or 13 (I'm not sure which) we have:
    
    	Yes, it's a sexist stereotype, and judging by the male
        responses to this note, quickly diminishing...  Hooray!!!

    That seems 180 degrees out!  The male responses beeing cheered
    were just as sexist as Lorna's, above.  What made them "sound"
    different was the afterthought, i.e. although the expectation on
    the part of the woman was (probably) that I'm about to try to 
    jump on her bones, *I'm* not the kind of man who would do that.
    That may be worth a big "Hooray!!!", but it begs the issue.  The
    men who replied in this way are making an assumption about the
    woman's expecatations, and not dealing with their own.

    I put forth that, given the description in .0, *BOTH* could have
    expected to consumate the evening in every sense of the word.
    With one exception (.14), most of you assumed the male would
    expect to get laid, and the woman would expect to have to fight
    him off.  In .14, though:

        I do feel compelled to point out, however, that the
        desire for sex is not confined to the male gender.
    
    Thanks, Steve.

    Re .24:
        I think that the attitude you saw in the earlier replies
    (including my own) that you took as "the man wants sex and the
    woman doesn't" is biased by the point of view (the man's) taken
    in .0.  Nothing was said specifically about whether or not the
    woman wanted sex, until a later reply suggested she would NOT -
    hence my comment in .14.
        I read .0 as suggesting that both were interested, but seeing
    as we haven't perfected ESP yet, the man couldn't tell for sure
    what the woman wanted.  Hence my (and others') advice to not make
    assumptions.  The truth will out, as they say.
        You could turn the situation around and look at it from the
    woman's perspective.  Maybe SHE'S hot to jump into bed with the
    man (and it's entirely likely), but for most women, it just
    "isn't done" to be so obvious about it.
    
        A further point to confuse things.  .0 simply asked "What now".
    How interesting that everyone, myself included, assumed that "What"
    meant "Sex".  Food for thought.
    						Steve

    Ok, I give up, what's with this WE crap.

Reply .24 was the first, I think, that broke loose from the
stereotyping trap into which several of the others fell. The
simplistic appropach (mostly female, I am sad to note), was:
the man expects gratification of his base lust; the woman,
poor thing, objects to this fate, worse than death...

>   When I hear a man talk as in .0, I find myself wondering
>   if there is a woman about to be emotionally hurt.

What bull! For every woman that has been hurt, there'a a guy
walking around with similar emotional scars. Every man
enjoying a one night stand, has a lady huffing anf puffing
right beside him.

From my perspective, there's no difference in aspirations of
the sexes (according to Christopher Morley --in "Kitty Foyle"--
the only differece is in the plumbing arrangements). To put it
delicately: the ladies get just as horny as the guys.

The sort of expectations discussed in .0 has, I think, to do
with our perspective of quantity versus quality, as we start
out young and inexperienced, then develop, grow, mature and
--finally-- grow old.

Young people are driven by peer pressure, societal expectations
and overflowing hormones. They are eager to take in as much as
possible - to hell with quality. If the couple discussed in .0
is in their early twenties, they may very well end up in the sack
that same evening. They wouldn't give much thought to the logevity
of the relationship, its quality, or, indeed, its existence.

The same couple, a few years older, a bit more mature, would tend
to postpone gratification of desire. They would require more quality
to the relationship. The quantity aspect won't be that important
any more.

This trend continues in life. As we mature, we tend to require
higher quality - the value of mere quantity diminishes. This
applies to every facet of out life (Observe how loudly the teen
ager listens to his stereo - compare to the requirements of the
older connosieur). Relationships are just one important example.
Behaviour on the job is another.
 
Just thought I'd put in my two cents worth.

-- Ron

    There is absolutely no denying that men and women have equal capacity
    for passion and lust, and indeed also have the same need to fulfill
    their physical desires. That doesn't seem to be the issue in .0.
    In fact nowhere has it been denied. What seems to be at stake in
    the base note, as communicated, was someone's sense of rejection
    and unfulfilled expectation....predominant expectation that is,
    be it the man or woman. And I wholeheartedly support the concept
    of quality. Ignoring the distinction between male and female, .0
    simply sounds like a case of one person deciding that based on the
    communication between the two of them, the other was not as sincere
    as they purported to the other, and someone called it quits before
    they hit the sack. Bottom line....quality was not perceived by both
    parties in this situtation as being present. Judging from the tone
    of "dissapointment" in .0 one or the other made a judgement for
    themselves that they could give no more of themselves under the
    current circumstances. No more, no less.
    
    Ann
    
    P.S. I guess A LOT can be determined by a SIGNATURE.

    Re .31:

>    of quality. Ignoring the distinction between male and female, .0
>    simply sounds like a case of one person deciding that based on the
>    communication between the two of them, the other was not as sincere
>    as they purported to the other, and someone called it quits before
>    they hit the sack. Bottom line....quality was not perceived by both
>    parties in this situtation as being present. Judging from the tone
>    of "dissapointment" in .0 one or the other made a judgement for
>    themselves that they could give no more of themselves under the
>    current circumstances. No more, no less.

    Did you and I read the same .0?  I read a straightforward
    description of a situation that the author might have found 
    himself in.  I detected no "tone of disappointment" in .0;
    if fact, I saw no clues as to what actually did happen at
    the end of the evening.  The author of .0 simply asked,
    "WHAT [would you expect to happen] NOW?".  Oddly, it seems 
    that many replies have been more concerned with assumptions 
    about what the author of .0 expected than with a discussion 
    of his question.
    
    	-Neil

    Yes, we read the same base note......I guess I'm guilty of
    internalizing this hypothetical situation. You can take out
    disappointment...(slap my wrist) it still does not alter my 
    bottom line. :-)
    
    
    Ann

    Re .10  Hi Dotti - I'm confused.  If you were the lady in .0, then
    the guy would be real disappointed if expected anything more than
    your being just that - a lady.  But if he didn't expect anything,
    you might surprise him with the unexpected, so he should pretend
    he doesn't expect anything (if he does) and then maybe what he doesn't
    expect will happen 'cause it's unexpected and you'd think...
    
    Just kiddin'  :-)
    Peter

    One last thought on all of this...
    
    Did anybody learn anything?  Valerie and Lorna (especially) had
    some interesting comments in the beginning, and didn't follow up
    later on.  One of the nice things about HUMAN_RELATIONS is that
    opinions are so diverse and, at times, meaningful, that beliefs
    can sometimes be changed.  .0 admits that sexual attraction existed
    between both of the people before and after meeting, but also points
    out that, during the phone call, two and a half hours passed before
    any mention of sex, and that, during the two and a half hours, a
    lot of good things were talked about - the two peopled "clicked".
    
    Still, most of us saw the man as McCree (is that his name?) and
    the poor woman as Pauline (as in "The Perils of...").  Even Dotti's
    sort of tongue-in-cheek reply in .10 suggests that, if the woman
    were to do the unexpected, it would be un-lady-like, although
    I don't think that's what Dotti had in mind.       
                                                       
    Men seem to be at a particular disadvantage in the beginning of
    a new relationship, as these responses seem to point out.  He might
    be damned if he does, but (almost never) damned if he doesn't -
    on the contrary, he might even be praised!
    
    Somebody brought up New York, and let me tell you, it's even harder
    here!  I'm originally from Leominster (Mass.), but I've been here
    for 10+ years now.  I'm still not used to it.  The rules here are
    really chaotic.  Herpes and aides caused a real (and justifiable)
    scare, but that's a purely sexual problem.  A more constant scare
    is what could happen to a woman here *physically*.  Every day (and
    I MEAN(!!!) it - EVERY day) there is at least one story in the papers
    about a murder, but the media really plays up the deaths of pretty
    young women.  Rape and physical violence get a lot of publicity,
    too.
    
    In short, times were simpler when the rules weren't so different
    from community to community, or from decade to decade.  The late
    60's and early 70's brought flower power and free love, at the same
    time as war was being fought and demonstrations against it were
    being held.  Then, gradually, during the late 70's and early 80's,
    we began "tightening our belts", so to speak, while at the same time, 
    women's liberation issues were a hot topic.  Bringing us to the
    stage we're in now, which hasn't really made its overall self known
    yet - perhaps it's a leaning toward a more puritan ethic that we'll
    see in retrospect 5 to 10 years from now.
    
    100 years ago, though, the rules were VERY well defined, as life
    was so much simpler then.  And expectations (Remember "expectations"?
    This is a topic about "expectations".) are based on rules known
    either explicitly or implicitly.  It seems the rules today change
    as often as the media changes what it thinks the public wants to
    see/hear/read about, and with it, the expectations change, too.
    
    To a little, tiny degree, maybe HUMAN_RELATIONS can help change
    the way *we* see things, or maybe not.  Some of us just like to
    write.  We were probably the kids in class most likely to raise
    our hand to ask or answer a question.  There are probably lots of
    read-only followers, too.  It would be nice to think that a few
    of us, readers and writers, learn a little from all of this.  I
    wonder...
    
    Peter  

re: -1,

	I agree.  If things weren't sped-up enough by media coverage of the
    sexual revolution in the sixties and seventies, electronic networks (such
    as this) bring the momentum of change to the speed of light (or at least
    the speed of "type").

	This can have as many good effects as bad I would think, if not many
    more good.  While we still cannot see the true expressions on each other's
    faces here while talking about these subjects (except for smiley faces :-)
    it's hard to always know for sure what people really mean with their state-
    ments, and even harder to distinguish between the muffled mumblings of a
    person, and the profound revelations of the same person.

	On the other hand, at least this system of communication provides all
    of us the ability to add our own 2 cents in these issues, as opposed to
    being spoon-fed opinions from the mass-media.  While none of us are immune
    to the quasi-political pressures of conformity and mores imposed here on the
    net, at least we have the freedom to say what we feel WHEN we feel it, and
    then maybe retract it later if neccessary to "keep the Net-peace".

	I would imagine that alot of the opinions expressed here are based on
    as much as 50% or more on the feelings of the author at the time they wrote
    their note/reply, and I wouldn't want to force someone to stand behind their
    statements if their life depended on it.  People are just too "human" to
    expect them to be so perfect that everything they say must reflect a whole
    lifetime of thought and precision.

	For all of my notes to be that well thought out, would probably
    require that I spend 24 hours a day thinking about the subject first, and
    not getting anything else done as a result.  Some members of society do
    devote the lives to thinking about these things, but they are generally
    also paid for doing so as well. :-)

	As to the topic of expectations, I have chose not to second guess on
    this situation having to hold myself back from the terminal several times
    because this was such a tempting scenario to elaborate on.  Instead, I have
    decided to sit this one out and watch the reactions of those who were able
    to share their thoughts on it.  Gee, could it be?  Am I becoming a Read Only
    Noter (RON)???

							-davo

    Re .38:
        I'm sorry you feel that way.  Unless you've deleted notes from
    this conference too, I can't find any of your notes which were
    responded to in a caustic or narrow-minded matter.  But in any
    event, it is necessary to understand not only that we should avoid
    offending others, but that we should be slow to take offense.
        Yes, it is safer not-to-note.  It is safer to lock yourself
    in a room and never come out too, but what fun is that?  I am not
    aware of any pattern of bad-mouthing or character assasination
    in this conference.  There have been occasional offenders and
    they have been dealt with off-line.  But if you aren't willing to
    take a little risk, you won't get anything in return.
    
    					Steve

RE: .40 by MTAVAX::CHRISTENSEN

>    It is a hostile world... And still, even here in the H_R notesfile
>    it is a risk to express oneself freely.

You're absolutely right. On the other hand (just out of curiosity),
would you mind telling us what you are talking about? I've been
following this file and have yet to find true, gory, narrow minded
malice. I was getting positively bored. Do point me in the right
directrion.

Thanx, Ron

        I'll agree that the world is full of risk, but I wouldn't have
        it any other way. Nothing worthwhile exists with out risk. Risk
        is a result of involvement and participation. Any time you put a
        bit of yourself into something there is risk, and if you don't
        put yourself into something, it isn't worthwhile. If you care
        about somethign, you could lose it. If you don't care about
        anything, then life isn't worth living. 
        
        Risk isn't bad. Risk is life. Risk is inevitably intertwined
        with value.
        
        I totally disagree that it is a sad commentary that this file
        isn't 100% safe. The only way it could be risk free would be if
        we were discussing things that we didn't care about at all or
        there was no chance of disagreement. But this file talks about
        things that people do care about, and care about deeply. It has
        been strong and vital because people have taken risks, have
        exposed themselves. If I wanted risk-free entertainment I
        could find it all over our public media.
        
        I disagree that finding someone totally safe is magnificent.
        First of all, there's no such thing. Human beings are imperfect.
        If you trust people inevitably they will fail you. If you trust,
        you WILL be hurt. Second, it isn't the safe people who bring you
        alive, it's the people you can take risks for, the ones who'll
        share risks with you. No-one has ever hurt me as deeply as my
        wife. No-one ever could, no-one else is as important to me,
        no-one else has gotten as deep within in me. And for that very
        reason, no-one has menat so much to me, brought me so much joy.
        You don't build an important relationship by finding someone
        totally safe. You do it by finding someone worth the risk,
        someone to share the risks with. 
        
        I disagree that we aren't born or trained to be involved, to
        view each other as sentient, to reach out. Babies at the age of
        a few hours will mimic facial movements (not expressions). You
        can't mimic without some recognition of the similarity, the
        corespondence, the relationship between you and what you
        imitate.
        
        Babies and small children are chock full of dependencies,
        relationships and involvement. They assume that the world is
        like them, that everything is alive and has intentions and
        feelings. What they have to learn is that some things are
        different from them. People are both born to involvement and
        then trained to it. If we become isolated and desperate it is
        becauae we have lost touch with our natures and our experience. 
        
        JimB.

    I often feel as you do - about the viciousness of some replies -
    which is why I RARELY respond.  (Don't ask for example people -
    I don't know how to file - I just read and then it's gone).  BUT
    our moderators have generously offered a way for us to respond
    anonymously.  The moderator would know who you are - no one else!
    Yes - I know it's the "chicken" way out - but I intend to use it
    when I feel I really want to participate.
    

     I have a few ideas/opinions that I'd like to share on the subjects
     which have been discussed in this topic.

       I feel that many of the people expressing what they would
       have  done in that situation would never have gotten into
       that situation in the first place.

       The  terms 'lady' and 'gentleman' are very subjective and
       judgmental,  I  feel it is better to share what one might
       have  done, or  why  one  might  not have gotten into the 
       situation  in  the  first  place instead of 'judging' the
       character of those in the situation.

       I  think  that  our  society  has  taught  us  that it is
       acceptable  for  a  man to act on his sexual desires, but
       that women should repress and/or ignore them.

       Expectations,  whether  the  are expectations of imminent
       sexual  activity  or  of  a  long  term  relationship are
       expectations.   Any   expectations   held  going  into  a
       relationship  are limiting, and even after a relationship
       has been established the only expectations that are valid
       are those which the parties have agreed to.


       As  for  myself, I don't believe that I would have gotten
       into  the  situation as presented.  I don't think that my
       telephone  conversation  would  have lasted as long and I
       think  I  would  have gotten together with the woman on a
       very casual date first.  But I could also see that casual
       date  ending  in  bed  if  exceptional circumstances were
       present.  Most  likely I would determine during the first
       date  whether or not to keep seeing this woman.  If I did
       decide  to  keep  seeing  her I would try to 'go with the
       flow',  and try to express my feelings and listen to hers
       if  she  wished  to  share  them.  The relationship would
       then go where ever we took it.


                           Thanks for reading,
                              Tony Purmal
                              Mountain View, Ca.

    I am puzzled by the feeling people seem to have that their comments in
    this file are being responded to in an unpleasant or vicious manner.
    Either I am not reading things in the same order (which tends to make
    connections not obvious, sometimes) or people are perceiving things I
    am missing. If you want to know proper recourse, please see Note 1
    or contact one of the moderators. That's what we're here for. 
    
    It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference in this new, non-verbal
    medium, between honest disagreement with opinions expressed and
    personal attack. I once again urge everyone to carefully consider
    their words when they reply.
    
    Would everyone please remember your manners and above all the Golden
    Rule when noting in this conference. No pushing or shoving please, and
    don't step on each other's toes. (I don't do as good a Miss Manners as
    JimB, but I try. ;-) 
                                                                 
    Tamzen (A School marm in a previous incarnation)

    Gee - I didn't notice any ugliness either - maybe I wouldn't recognize
    it - maybe I have been ugly to someone unintentionally - maybe that's
    what these folks are talking about - it sure would be good for my
    paranoia if folks would be more explicit about what has offended
    them - I, for one, would like for anyone who I offend to tell me
    about it, because I, like most folks, didn't intend to.

    Folks, can we close off the discussion of whether or not there are
    "nasty" notes here?  This is well off of the base topic.  I will
    move the notes on this subject to a separate note later today,
    so the discussion can be continued, leaving this note for the
    "setting expectations" topic.
    					Steve

    I have read through these notes with interest.  I feel that the
    responses have been genuine and mainly caring.
    
    The only thought I had was with the comment about animals not
    contributing to our world, helping it to become a better place.Have
    you forgotten how much pleasure we gain from our animals?  Many
    lonely people have been comforted by a pet.
    
    We are also realising how soothing animals can be.  If we are in
    the company of an animal they have no hidden feelings, repressed
    desires, age old hates and no stress caused by living as we do.
    This is not to say that I would be in any other time than now either
    forward or back.
    
    An animal gives affection without hope of gain, we can be ugly,
    spiteful to others, crippled (either mentally or physically) they
    still give comfort.
    
    
    I take pleasure in seeing from the previous responses that people
    do really care for one another and the desire to help is there.
    I just wish we could show it in our day to day lives to each other
    and not just in the NOTES files.  How many people who have written
    here take their caring into life?
    
    

    
    No one really knows what animals feel/think(I've seen
    this in animals)or for that matter know.  I cannot resist to comment
    that without animals our ecology would not support the ''superior''
    human species.  For sure they treat each other and us more civilly
    and  with more truth than we treat ourselves, each other and them.
    Animals have relationships which are greater than behaviors...
    they share; sacrifice for each other - love - and respond to love
    and yes, even talk (you just have to understand the language. 
    It is an arrogant attitude which puts one form of life above another.
                 
    
    Larry, do you really want to continue this.  Perhaps we're really
    bantering about different sphere's of reference...
    
    
    Judy    

    
    I'm not sure this is all in the same vein, but here goes.
    
    I've been on both sides of the "things are not as they seem in this
    relationship", and it isn't very pleasant for either side, it appears.
    
    In the first case, I got involved with a woman because I was at
    the right place at the right time -- she had been rejected by a
    mutual friend and she was feeling very worthless.  She came to me
    and I helped her out, and then not very long after that I found
    out she thought we were in love, and we weren't, for a whole lot
    of reasons.  We parted civilly if not exactly as friends, so I suppose
    that wasn't too bad, but for quite a while after I thought, "Lord,
    what a piece of toxic waste you are.  How could you have taken
    advantage of her like that?"  Finally, after some more talking out,
    I realized it was not malic of forethought on my part, just bad
    communication.
    
    Of course, a year goes by and I find myself succumbing to a very
    similar delusion -- that I was in love with someone and she with
    me, and it just wasn't so.  While I do not make any claim to
    omniscience, (I don't even think I can spell it) I'm usually pretty
    rational and clear thinking, even in times of considerable stress.
    So why am I continually failing to preceive things as they are?
    
    DFW

    I wish to digress from the previous few notes back because I lost
    my way back here temporarily!!!
    
    Back to .51!!!!
    
    I have to totally disagree with hiker Bob on this subject in fact
    I feel that my "buddy" Bob is being either deliberately provocotive!!
    or else has become anthropomorphic about animals in general.
    
    I believe that there are no "animals" in the world that are malevolent,
    except the "human animal".  Look more closely at them, they to not
    kill except to feed themselves or their young.  Look at some animals
    which are much maligned such as the coyote, they have a marvellous
    family life.  
    
    OK sometimes to US it may seem like cruelty when a Lion goes in
    for the kill on a lovely pretty little gazelle with those large
    liquid eyes ............  It maintains the balance.  Man is the
    only killer for material gain, hence the seal problems, the whale
    problems, the pollution (yawwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn) and on and on.
    
    By the way I have three cats, and yes they do take on the people
    who own them in personality.  I always say "what bad dog? look at
    the owners!"  
    
    
    PS.  I have now changed my name as suggested by the Early's around
    hope this clears up the mistaken identity.  
    
    PPS. It is my belief that when you have seen a persons notes a couple
    of times the wording, content and style become like the personal
    signature of that person.
    

    I return to the last few notes now (I think).
    
    My Personal feelings on the subject of relationships and when they
    do or do not become involved are that it all depends on how you
    are feeling at the time, how receptive you are to body language
    and words.  Each time is different, sometimes it may feel right
    and others not so.
    
    Only when I was younger (I mean mentally) have I ever played games
    with people, which I believe is what is in question.  These kind
    of games can cause hurt to either oneself or the recipient and are
    not to the good.
    
    You KNOW in an evening, even if only unconsciously, what the other
    persons expectations are (weeeeeel mostly, maybe not 100%) if your
    expectations are otherwise you have time enough to reset either
    yours or theirs.
    
    I do not have thoughts on making other people act in a certain way.
    I will do what works for me, this is not so for everyone, either
    because of upbringing or taboos.  
    
    For myself I will continue living to my own standards which are
    high.  That way I will try not to hurt anyone and still enjoy life
    which is too short.
    
    
    Be well, Be happy, and Be good
    

    This sort of hits on a bunch of things brought up in the last 10
    replies or so.
    
    On one level, I tend to agree with those who are advocating that
    a good way to avoid misconceptions about each other's expectations
    is to know each other well, before falling into bed together. However
    when I say that, I feel very much as though I were preaching and
    telling you to do what I say and not what I do.
    
    The two key relationships of my life both started when I propositioned
    someone. Both times I knew the person, but they were more what I would
    term an acquaintance, rather than a friend. In neither case, was I
    looking for anything more than a good time with a person I liked, but
    really knew very slightly. 
    
    Now, I realize I tend to fall at one end of a statistical range
    as far as my attitudes and experiences go, even for noters in his
    file. What happened may be due to who I am and my general lack of     
    expectations, but in both cases what resulted was far from the
    energetic and strictly physical time I had thought I was getting.
    
    I found, in each case, someone with whom I formed and instant and
    insoluble bond. These are both people, with whom I will *always*
    be soulmates. Things may change, but that link can't be destroyed.

    Do I advocate this for everyone? Hell, I don't even advocate it
    for ME! I wouldn't have believed that something so wonderful could
    have developed from something so very casually begun. But, it happened
    twice. Maybe because I wasn't looking for something wonderful,
    permanent, long-term or even vaguely resembling a relationship,
    this was able to happen. I certainly had NO expectations for
    relationships, my expectations were all geared toward immediate
    gratification ;-)
    
    I guess there's exceptions to prove every rule. Or, again, perhaps
    due to my lack of expectations in these situations, something more
    was able to develop. I didn't EXPECT to find a relationship. I EXPECTED
    to have a strictly physical good time. I certainly had no EXPECTATIONS
    that my emotions would be involved at all. So maybe I prove the
    rule after all. What I expected to happen was not the totality of
    what did happen, so my expectations were proved to fall far short
    of reality.                  
                                                        
    Tamzen

     
                ...or at least my next non-casual
            relationship, that is......

    

    WOW!  I've been gone for a while.  Just before I left, I put in
    what I thought would be one of (if not the) last reply to this topic,
    only to come back and find about 30 more replies.  With the exception
    of the major digression on animals (please - no more - start another
    topic) I really enjoyed reading them - especially the discussion
    between Suzanne and "The Eagle".
    
    As I write this, there have been 72 replies to my initial .0.  If
    you've read them all, then you know how the discussion has progressed.
    But as you're reading this, take a look at the top of your screen
    - at the topic:  On Setting Expectations.  Let me suggest that the
    operative word there is "Setting".
    
    Is there *ANY* doubt in anyone's mind as to what the expectations
    were for the couple in .0?  The first 30 or so replies all came
    to the conclusion, without actually spelling it out, that the
    expectation was clearly sexual.  Most of you had some fairly sexist
    remarks about the scenario as described (see some of the early
    responses), and a few of you spent a lot of time dealing with my
    last question, "What now?".
    
    My fault for not framing things better than I did, but given the
    past 20 or so responses, let me ask this:  How could the scenario
    in .0 have been avoided?  How could expectations have been set
    differently?   Should .0 situations be avoided at all costs?
    
    Early in the discussions, the feelings were somewhat anti-male.
    More recently, the conversation has centered on going slowly vs
    living for the moment.  But how does one know?  "Going slowly" implies
    knowledge of what "fast" means for the other person.  "Living for
    the moment" could put the other person in a very difficult situation.
    
    Do you see what I'm getting at?  Is there a way to "SET" expectations?
    
    Peter

    Re .73:
    
    I, for one, see nothing whatsoever wrong with the scenario in .0.
    I read into your query, though, that you did.  Perhaps my thoughts
    would be best summed up by saying it is best NOT to set expectations.
    Have no expectations, and take what comes naturally.  I think that's
    the best approach.
    				Steve

    re: .67
    
    		Truer (is that a word?) words were never spoken!
    
    					Phil
    

From the male side I believe that there are many things one can do to set
expectations, and it's a VERY good idea to do so. Not HAVING expectations is
a little bit impossible, not really totally under control. But SETTING them
is another matter.

If you're feeling attraction, you might as well let him/her know it, but go
further than that and give an idea of what you are going to do about it. You
can play it up or down by the way you dress, move, look and other non-verbal
cues, and you can actually mention explicity verbally what your own
strategy/style is for dealing with attraction. As in: "I'm waiting for my
divorce to be final before I get serious with anyone" or "I've always agreed
with the poet Horace, Carpe Diem is my motto." (i.e. you can be fast or
slow, direct or allusive.)

To me the woman's outfit described in .0 was very definitely and strongly a
sexy message. One can dress nicely and be attractive without being
explicitly sexy, or go for the explicitly sexy look, depending on the
expectation you want to set. 

Don.

    Re .79 - no way, Bob!!!
    
    And it doesn't matter if it's Provincetown or New York - what's
    considered provocative is dictated nationally by what we see on
    television.  No such thing as "regional sexuality".  I'd look if
    the lady invited me to look, PTown or NYC.
    
    As for your nun-anology (non-anology would be appropriate, too)
    yes, nuns do get hurt in NY more often than PTown, but women dressed
    like .0 and walking around alone that way are simply asking for
    trouble.  The odds of a nun getting hurt vs a woman dressed as in
    .0 and walking through Central Park!!!!!!!   Come on - get serious!
    
    Peter

    I don't watch TV, so I didn't get my ideas of what constitutes
    provocative dress from that medium.  I think it depends on your
    surroundings, and how the other people around are dressed.  I recall
    vividly running into trouble some places in Israel (where the "dress
    code", especially for women, changes every block as you walk through
    a city) for wearing blouses with sleeves that were "too short" in
    Arab neighborhoods (where the armpit(!) is considered overly sexy),
    and of course I knew that no matter how hot it was I had to wear
    my long-sleeved, high-necked, linen (coolest thing I could find)
    jacket in all the orthodox Jewish religious sites; and slacks or
    shorts and sandals with no opaque socks or stockings get you in
    trouble nearly everywhere.  I also think that (apart from cultural
    issues overseas) how you act has more of an effect on how you are
    viewed than how you are dressed (within reason).

As suggested by .73, I re-read .0 carefully.  I agree with previous
implicit or explicit comments that the scenario, as given, would give the
_reader_ an expection that sexual activity would be likely to follow.
However, there is a lot that wasn't detailed in the narrative of .0.  We
know that the couple's conversations included sexual areas, but we don't
know what they said.  _My_ actual expectation about this scenario is that,
given they seemed so comfortable with each other, including apparently
talking about sexual matters, there is a good chance that _their_
expectations were appropriately set for the evening.  There were certainly
opportunities to, at least indirectly, indicate one's interests and
expectations. 

Expectations would be mis-set by a _lack_ of intimate conversation, not by
too much of it, unless one of the people were playing some kind of game. It
may be more typical to consider this revised scenario: two people have
become acquainted, feel attracted to one another, but are _not_ so
comfortable that they have been able to talk much about their views on sex
and relationships.  After a pleasant evening, they may wind up at one's
apartment, partly out of a desire just to prolong the evening. One or both
might be thinking "it's kinda soon, but if I don't act interested in sex,
he/she may think I don't like him/her"; or alternately, "I'd like to go to
bed with him/her, but I don't want to pressure him/her", or a hundred other
alternatives. 

So much cultural conditioning seems to stand in the way of simply talking
out expectations in situations like this.  We don't talk about sex - that
wouldn't be "romantic"; we deny that we're interested in having sex until
it "just happens"; and the big myth: if he/she were the 'right' person,
they would just know how I feel.  Hogwash.  Even with a lot of talking,
it's hard to know how someone else really feels.  If we were all brought up
in exactly the same culture, with the same conditioning, it would be much
easier. With the wide diversity of attitudes in our society, they only way
you can find out what somebody's expectations are is if they tell you.
Otherwise, I agree that, for example, "provokative dress is in the mind of
the beholder", and what's in the mind of the beholdee may be different! 

Dan

    I have a question that runs along the line of this old note....
    
    	Are expectations good or bad?
    
    I got into a discussion with a friend in which he told me that people
    can get hurt if expectations are not set.  I had mostly thought that
    people get hurt if expectations *are* set.  (Maybe I'm being too
    pessimistic?)
    
    What do you others think?
    
    Carol
    

    The most hurt seems to be done when someone has expectations that
    they don't share with the person they expect something from.  
    
    A friend of mine got hurt not long ago when she found out the man
    she had gone out with a couple of times was also going out with
    several other women.  She expected that if he was dating her, he
    was investigating a permanent relationship, but he merely enjoyed
    her company and didn't necessarily forsee anything deeper. 
    
    Setting expectations ahead of time -- "Are you looking to get
    married?  If you aren't, I won't go to the movie with you" --
    would have cleared the air, but would probably have nipped any
    relationship in the bud.  
    
    So I suppose my answer is, be aware of your own expectations and
    hidden assumptions, so you can communicate them if you need to.
    
    --bonnie

    
    Just because you don't verbally state expectations doesn't
    mean the they're not set - not talking about them or
    formally agreeing them just allows people to go to their
    own favourite default "expectation set".....
    
    What I'm saying is that if you don't communicate about your
    expectations of the people around you with them you will
    find, sooner or later, that they:-
    
    a) have expectations of you
    b) have expectations of what *they* thought *you* expected of them
    c) both the above conflict with your own expectations
                                         
    Communication is, as always, the key....