Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    
    Did you watch Donahue last night? :-)
    
    Frankly some of the woman extremes made me gag. How can you not hold
    hands with someone?? COme on - set unrealistic expectations for others.
    
    Debbi
    

    Let's put a little perspective on this. Objects can be saved.  One 
    "saves" towels, linens, silverware, china, etc. for marriage.  
    People are not objects. One "gives" oneself to one's partner.  
    
    A little less tongue-in-cheek and sarcastically, I don't think there 
    can exist a time limit on when it's OK to fall in love and get married.
    And I have a real problem with an "organization" trying to set such a
    standard, but I dislike a lot of "organizations" for setting standards
    anyway. (BTW, hubby and I knew each other for 6 months, dated for 4,
    and are still going strong after 22 years of marriage.)
    
    I guess I worry about people who desire to separate themselves
    from some of the really rewarding parts(pardon the pun) of human
    interaction by denying themselves physical contact.  What's the gain?
    Self-righteousness?  I don't get it.
    
    

    Re: .1
    
    How about setting realistic expectations for YOURSELF!  
    
    What do these folks do when someone "succombs" and (gasp!) touches his/her 
    partner "before it's time"?  
    
    When, oh when, will we as a society every finally, fully accept that
    sex is a NORMAL part of life, and stop putting fetishes and taboos on
    it? (sigh) 

    I think that whatever they want to do is okay, as long as they don't
    scowl on the rest of society for being less puritanical.  I have a
    friend who has recently decided to abstain from sex for a while. 
    That's cool with me.  My sister has been dating a man for three months,
    and they haven't gotten farther than holding hands and a brief hug,
    although they care very deeply for each other.
    
    I think that if people feel physical attention is a gift that should be
    saved and then savored, then they will probably live this way anyways. 
    I really think dealing with any guilt that arises if they should weaken
    and succumb will be difficult if their abstinence is "absolutely right"
    and weakening is "absolutely wrong" before the proper time.
    
    -Jody
    

    Carla - 
    
    Since most of this group's members have previously been married my
    initial response was that this group is probably founded from fear. 
    Many people in our society confuse sex with love and get hurt
    emotionally when they "give themselves" physically and love is not
    returned by their partner.  It seems to me that a group like this 
    encourages it's members to simply abstain (avoid or deny) from the 
    possibly threatening or hurtful situation.  In thisway they can abdicate 
    responsibility for their feelings to their partner and avoid actively 
    growing through whatever is causing the fear.  
    
    Nanci

    All right a non-sarcastic response.
    
    I sat through this one once before - DOnahue was a repeat.
    
    The people they lined up were basically divorced people who said they
    gave too much too soon. The impression they left with me is they though
    they had given "all" too soon and if they had waited until the wedding
    night they would still be married. I found that logic as pure rubbish.
    
    They can do what they choose with their lives but someone else here
    made an excellent point of creating a group out of fear. I sense fear
    of loving again and getting hurt.  If these people find any sort of
    affection before marriage (the whole gamut here not just sex) how can
    they get to know a partner or try and form a relationship.
    
    Maybe I am just too touchy feely. I love to hug others and be held that
    isn't a fault I consider it a bennie to who ever is hugging! :-)
    
    Debbi

         They struck me as people who simply dealt with things differently.
    If that is their choice, I think they have the right to live that way.
    They didn't seem to be the type to go around forcing others to 
    follow their beliefs.  Different strokes for different folks.  OR, in 
    their case, no strokes until the time is right.
    
                                         Greg

Sounds like a perfect organization to join if you are gay but trying to
deny it and the idea of anything physical with someone of the opposite
sex repulses you.

I heard of someone who did something similar once...

          Carol

    Are we as a society so hung up on sex that we can't even envision
    the possibility of an intimate rewarding relationship without sex? 
    We assume that the people who choose to delay physical intimacy
    are either sick or afraid to face their fears.  Physical intimacy
    can be a wonderfully pleasurable thing, but it's not the only
    aspect of a relationship that's wonderfully pleasurable.
    
    After Kat was born and my relationship with her father broke up, I
    chose chastity for several years.  There were several reasons for
    this:  I wanted to give myself time to heal emotionally and to
    deal with men without assuming I was going to get hurt; I wanted
    to concentrate on finishing my college degree so I could give Kat
    a decent life; but mostly I wanted to spend time with her instead
    of with men I barely knew.  
    
    I could have used a support group like this at the time, even one
    with fairly rigid rules about how long is the 'right' amount of
    time.  I knew that a sexual relationship would have been all wrong
    for me *at that time*, but it seemed like I was surrounded by
    people who thought I must be sick in the head to not want sex all
    the time.  
    
    Sex is a good thing, and physical intimacy is a good thing.  But
    maintaining any sexual relationship takes a lot of time and energy
    that people might prefer to invest elsewhere.  Chastity, too, is a
    good thing.  
    
    --bonnie

    	"Either way, it's okay -- you wake up with yourself".


    	To each his own.  Although I'd be *hanged* before I'd let anyone
    else decide what's right for *me*, either way.  It's a God-given right
    to make mistakes, and as long as I learn from them (and don't intent-
    ionally hurt anyone else), that's what counts.



    Brian

    RE:     <<< Note 933.12 by CREDIT::BNELSON "the mirror always lies" >>>
       
    >Although I'd be *hanged* before I'd let anyone else decide what's right 
    >for *me*, either way.
    
         It's a voluntary organization.
    
                                       Greg
    

 I do not expect to ever be inclined to join such an organization.

 The Doctah

    I do not expect to ever be inclined to join such an organization
    either.  I don't think I could live by the rules.
    
    Lorna
    

    Making celibacy a choice does in some respects save face. ;-)

	Being celibate isn't always a bad thing.  What I find wrong with 
	this organization is the attempt to control one's emotions, and
	placing time restrictions on when and whom you will or will not
	fall in love with.

	One of the other guidelines is to not get involved with someone
	unless they've been free of alcohol/drug dependency, financial
	problems, and other relationships for at least 24 months.  Also
	that they have been emotionally stable for 24 months.  (Who can
	say they've ever been emotionally stable for 24 months solid?)

	There's also an enormous difference between celibacy and normal
	physical affection between two people, whether platonic or not.
	However according to this organization, kissing and hand-holding
	is not conducive to a healthy relationship.  

	Restraint and control is.

	Carla

>	There's also an enormous difference between celibacy and normal
>	physical affection between two people, whether platonic or not.
>	However according to this organization, kissing and hand-holding
>	is not conducive to a healthy relationship.  

 I have several problems with this group. First of all, they attempt to control
via rules something that is best when left to its own devices. "Sorry- you
can't hold my hand for another 17 months." So much for spontaneity. Second,
they constrain how you express emotion, thus inhibiting an essential and
healthy aspect of human nature. Thirdly, they wish to control the development
of certain emotions, despite the fact that it is entirely unnatural to do so.
That they place restrictions on sex is nearly humorous at this point. If you
were able to follow all the other rules, you'd already be an unfeeling, 
unthinking robot anyway. What a way to live!

 As far as celibacy itself goes, there's certainly nothing wrong with _choosing_
to not have sex. The key word is, of course, choosing. I have chosen NOT to
have sex countless times- often for months on end (and sometimes that decision
was made for me. :-) :-) So there's nothing wrong with abstaining from partaking
in the parade of hormones so common in our society.

 I can only imagine that this group would produce a series of dysfunctional
people.

 The Doctah

RE .17

>	One of the other guidelines is to not get involved with someone
>	unless they've been free of alcohol/drug dependency, financial
>	problems, and other relationships for at least 24 months.  Also
>	that they have been emotionally stable for 24 months.  (Who can
>	say they've ever been emotionally stable for 24 months solid?)

    	Interesting.  I know of one drug rehab center/hospital that
    places a similar restriction on the people they're treating.  No 
    emotional involvement with anyone while they are being treated and 
    for (I think) 6 months afterwards.  But of course, they really have
    no way of enforcing this.

    	Personally, I just can't see stifling or holding back emotions
    as a healthy thing to do.  It would seem you would really have to
    limit interactions with others, and I just think you'd lose so
    much.  Not all physical contact is sexual in nature, and it would
    seem that in this organization, you'd lose all types (because it
    could be seen as sexual).  As for me, I could never give up hugs!
    :^)

    	amy

	Who needs an organisation that is basically negative?

	Chastity is a personal choice, its not about being bound
	by another's rule but by your own.

	Strikes me it would be better to build an organisation that
	taught people how to love, with or without sex.

	... silly old Trevor

         The key idea would be to leave the organization when it no longer
    serves your purposes.  While it does serve your purposes, it might be
    interesting to talk with those who are experiencing the same thing.
    
         The comments about "constraints, rules, etc." have no basis in
    fact due to the fact that they can not force anyone to do anything they
    do not wish to do.
    
                                       Greg

RE.: .17

>	One of the other guidelines is to not get involved with someone
>	unless they've been free of alcohol/drug dependency, financial
>	problems, and other relationships for at least 24 months.  Also
>	that they have been emotionally stable for 24 months.

Doesn't that condemn these groups of people to loneliness, exactly 
at the time when they do need someone close?

-- Ron

    re: .22 (Ron)
    
    > Doesn't that condemn these groups of people to loneliness, exactly 
    > at the time when they do need someone close?
    
    Only if one equates "celibacy" with "lonliness".  I personally find
    the two to be very different issues.  I think it's possible to be
    involved in sexual intimacy(ies) and yet be lonely; and I think
    it's equally possible to feel very connected to others while
    maintaining celibacy.
    
    Steve

    re: .23
    
    You're definitely right about that, Steve.  
    
    And avoiding people with problems seems like fairly sensible
    advice to me.  What kind of permanent relationship can you have
    with someone whose primary commitment is to chemicals or whose
    head is so mixed up s/he can't handle the basic responsibilities
    of life?  I can think of at least two friends just off the top of
    my head who were seriously hurt by becoming involved with men who
    had, respectively, a drug problem and a total inability to deal
    with money -- turns out he's gone bankrupt in three different
    states.  But that's a different story.
    
    I wonder if we actually looked at this group's literature or
    meetings, we'd find that what it boiled down to was simply saying
    "Take some time to decide whether you're in love.  Give yourself
    the time to develop the relationship before you put the force of
    labels on it."  We tend to rush things terribly in this society.
    If my friend who married the addict had taken a bit longer to get
    to know him before insisting on a commitment, she wouldn't have
    married him -- his problems were really quite obvious when you'd
    been around him for a while.
    
    Maybe putting such behavior as a rule isn't the wisest way to
    phrase things, but I don't think the idea itself is inherently
    unhealthy.  
    
    --bonnie

RE: .23

>    > Doesn't that condemn these groups of people to loneliness, exactly 
>    > at the time when they do need someone close?
>    
>    Only if one equates "celibacy" with "lonliness".

I believe the quote was "One of the other guidelines is to not get
involved with someone ... ".

Not 'have sex', but 'get involved'.


>    I personally find the two to be very different issues. I think
>    it's possible to be involved in sexual intimacy(ies) and yet be
>    lonely; and I think it's equally possible to feel very
>    connected to others while maintaining celibacy.

I quite agree. But, I do not believe you can 'feel very connected to
others' if you are not 'involved' with them. 
    
-- Ron

    involve (in volv'), v.t. to infold, complicate, entangle; to contain or
    include by implication or necessity....
    

    I've found that "get involved with" generally is used with the
    connotation of having a sexual relationship.  Euphemisms abound in the
    realm of personal relationships.

    Even if "getting involved with" wasn't intended to be a euphemism
    for a sexual relationship, it seems clear it referred to a primary
    romantic relationship with someone of the opposite sex (I have a
    feeling this organization doesn't consider romantic relationships
    with the same sex...though I imagine the same principles might
    apply).
    
    I certainly wasn't lonely during the years I wasn't involved with
    anybody.  I had my family, I had several good friends, I had my
    school studies, and I had my lovely lively beautiful little
    daughter.  And I was able to enjoy them all to the fullest without
    being dragged down by constant entanglements and complications.
    
    Sex is nice, but sexual fulfillment is only one aspect of life,
    and it's perfectly possible to live a rich, fulfilling, deeply
    involved life without getting involved in a sexual way with one
    individual.  
    
    --bonnie

RE: .29

I must be naive, but to me, 'involvement' with someone refers to
developing strong affinity and understanding with the person, being
'in tune to the highest degree' with them and maintaining a deep 
emotional and mental ties.

It could include sex (which, when 'involved' with someone, I would
call 'making love', rather than 'having sex'), but that would be
just one item in a broad, overall picture. It's not quite 'loving
them' but has many of the characteristics of 'loving'. In short, one
can be totally faithful to one's spouse or SO, yet be 'involved'
with other people of the opposite sex.

-- Ron

    >involve (in volv'), v.t. to infold, complicate, entangle; to contain or
    >include by implication or necessity....
    
    While I recognize that words can have a highly subjective connotative
    meaning... think for a moment about the possibility that we did not
    choose this word with this definition to describe what we also call
    "relationships" entirely by accident.
    
    Given some of the notes in this file about relationships... they often
    seem "complicated," "entangled," and have a kind of compulsive quality
    of inclusion "by... necessity."
    
    No, I'm not a cynic about relationships... I'd rather be in a good one
    than not... but I think I am coming to understand how ready I (and
    others) are to create complicated "involvements" instead of healthy
    relationships.  What I suggest by offering this definition is that we
    can begin to think more clearly about our own subconscious mechanisms
    and motivations in relationships and take more responsibility for what
    we create.
    
    

    	I saw part of the Donahue show.
    
    	My main impression is that these people were people who
    	always made the wrong decision about everything, and they
    	did it again with chastity.
    
    	Everyone seems to assume that people are the same sexually.
    	I expect very chaste people will tend to attract many
    	people who have a very low sexual need, if any.
    	Then when they get married:
    			SURPRISE !!!!
    	And another divorce, due to stupid reasoning.
    
    	I think the diversity of sexual need etc etc is incredibly
    	broad.  For example, I knew one woman who was physically
    	completely cold (no physical arousal), yet was almost
    	nymphomanical, but it was all in her head; she was playing
    	a role for her own reasons.  To have a family.   And I've 
    	heard of others.

    I wanted to add my two cent worth to this concept of chastity. 
    I also saw the Donahue show.  I felt sympathetic towards the folks
    in the group.  The most obvious thing to me was that it wasn't sexual
    relationships, but the pain of intimacy that was hounding these
    people.  Their interpersonal relationships are not fulfilling, and
    all the abstinance in the world will not mend that problem.  Well,
    excuse me, I think I'll go lock myself up in the apartment in case
    the boogey man is out for me!!
    
    Lori