Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I answer with the same line that I got sooooo many times after I
    was divorced:
    
    		"Well, I like you as a friend but...."
    
    

    
    Well, I do not know if it is gracefull or not, but it has worked,
    and saved a few friendships.
    
    Tell her no, and then lie.
    
    Well not lie, but fib a little (a lot :-)?)
    
    Example:
    
    A girl friend of mine (platonic) always, and I mean always, started
    coming on to me after a few drinks.  Finally I just sat her down
    and told her that I valued our friendship too much to risk it by
    going to bed with her.  (That is the truth, the lie is what I omitted,
    that she did not turn me on.)
    
    So far so good, but the next big party will tell for sure.
    
    It pretty much seems to be a question that you have to answer on
    an individual basis.
    
    good luck,
    
    Clark.

    Smile, and say "Thank you! I really appreciate the offer, but no."
    
    If she persists, drop the smile a bit and say "Thanks, but really,
    no."
    
    If she still persistst, drop the smile completely, and just say
    no. :-)
    
    	-- Charles

    
         Well, whatever you do, do it carefully.  In my experience,
    women don't handle rejection as well as men do.  They haven't had
    as much practice.
    
                                 Bubba
    

    
    
    	This happened to me within the week.. I blushed and said "Thanks,
    BUT I have to decline.. As much as I'd like to take you up on the
    offer, and I really do!, I can't.." When asked why I just said that
    now was not a good time for me so as not to make her feel bad..
    
    	Any of you guys, have you ever said "No" to a woman? ie: "Not
    tonight, I have a headache" or "No, I'm not in the mood"? I have
    and like 97.7 said, women don't handle rejection very well at all...
    
    						mike

    Geez, am I living in OZ or something? I've actually USED the lines
    I mentioned in my note ("Thank you, but no.") and the reaction was
    basically "Oh, ok.". (Then we cuddled... maybe that's it.) I think
    the smile, and the non-verbal message that I liked the person, and
    thought they were attractive, but didn't want to have sex with them
    was enough. Since there WASN'T any "rejection" and the lack of
    rejection was clear, perhaps that helped things.
    
    With my lover, saying things like "no, I'd rather not" or "I'm not
    really in the mood" is fair, and in fact gets used by both of us.
    No problem, no feeling of rejection. Usually we end up cuddling,
    though when the answer is "Not now, I'm too tired, I'd rather just
    go to sleep." then we usually fall asleep cuddled together. [But
    in the morning...]
    
    I have occasionally been turned down, and turned down people such
    that I (or they) felt bad, but then that happens ANYTIME you don't
    oblige someone.
    
    	-- Charles

    Let's face it, you're discussing a difficult situation whether she
    wants you and she doesn't turn you on or it isn't appropriate, or
    whether you want her and you don't turn her on, etc.  Any time
    something as fundamental to human nature as our sexual urges get
    out of synch, a relationship can capsize. 
    
    As Charles points out, within the context of a healthy relationship,
    it's no big deal if either of you wants to decline a particular
    advance.  If you aren't such good friends, yes, you run quite a risk of
    having your rejection of sex be interpreted as rejection of the woman
    as a person.  You have to keep it light. And be especially careful not
    to phrase it in a way that makes her think you think she's a loose
    woman for asking. 
    
    The only time I made the first sexual advance, I got turned down -- we
    were at a party, we were both fairly drunk, and he told me no, if we
    were going to do something like this, we should be awake enough to
    enjoy it.  I thought at the time, and still do think, that his real
    reason was that he wasn't that interested in me, but by phrasing it the
    way he did, he let me save face and didn't make me feel like a cheap
    harlot looking for a customer. We're still good friends many years
    later. 

    --bonnie
    

    RE: .10
    
    	I try my best to let the other person save face. I've been in
    the situation of getting turned down without being able to save
    face and it really sucks. But I still believe that alot of women
    can't handle the "rejection" no matter how "face saving" it is due 
    to the fact that they haven't had to experience it before.. Honestly, 
    most women can count on two hands the amount of times they've been 
    turned down.. Guys usually need a calculator from TI. (Some need
    an 8800.. :-))

    May I never hear "It's cuz you don't like me, isn't it??!!" again..
    
    						mike

    RE .11

    When you've said no to her, does she keep pressuring?
    
    Given the pressure, do you ever "give in" and say why not, and _really_
    regret the why not?
    
    That happens a lot to women, I think.

    As an aside, one of the reasons I may be prone to handle that sort
    of rejection badly is guilt: I know how horrible I feel when a man
    wants to have sex with me and I say no, and I feel really rotten
    whenever I put someone else in that position.  
    
    Another reason is that by "normal" standards, a man is no less
    "masculine" if he comes on to a woman, but a woman is _certainly_ less
    "feminine" if _she_ comes on to a man.  He is *expected* to make that
    first move so when as a woman I am rejected while being "aggressive"
    (not very, really), not only do I have the rejection of me as a person
    to cope with, but there is also the feeling that if I were a "real
    woman", I never would have put myself in the position in the first
    place.     

    Lee

    I figure that 9 out of 10 men who are interested in having sex with
    a certain woman will have already suggested it to the woman in question
    *before* it occurs to her to suggest it to him.  So, if he hasn't
    suggested it yet, don't bother, he's probably not interested.
    
    I don't think I've ever been first to actually "put the moves" on
    a man.  I guess I come from the act cute and see if he gets the
    idea school of how to get it on.  Sometimes they get the idea and
    sometimes they don't, or maybe sometimes they get the idea and aren't
    interested.  Life can be so cruel, can't it?
    
    In an ongoing relationship, I think people should be perfectly
    understanding when one or the other occasionally says they're too
    tired or don't feel good.  "Not in the mood" doesn't sound quite
    as acceptable.  However, if it gets to the point that one of the
    partners isn't in the mood most of the time, the other one has a
    right to complain I think.
    
    Lorna
     

    RE: .13
    
    "When you've said no to her, does she keep pressuring?"
    
    I've never been in that situation. Usually what I've said is enough.
    I really don't know what I would do if someone was that aggressive..
    It would probably be a very big turn-off.. I'm the type of person
    that takes "No" as "NO" and I get turned off when someone says "What's
    the matter? I meant "Yes!". Ooooooooohhhh that pisses me off to
    no extent!
    	
    						mike

    
         You can rest assured that my statements were 'well worded',
    and didn't seem to come off as rejections.  The problem is that
    with intelligent women, euphemisms are almost transparent.  I didn't
    have the chance to blame the urges on alcohol (we weren't drunk).
    But, the fibs I came up with weren't good enough (I lie badly).
    So, it still came down to them not being able to handle the rejection
    that is a major part of dating life, for men.
    
                            Bubba
    

    "When you've said no to her, does she keep pressuring?"
    
    This is one of the points I was trying to address with my cutsie "just
    say no" and "taken from Miss Manners". In Miss Manners Guide to
    Excruciatingly Correct Behavior (a great book by the way, funny in a
    wry sort of way, and very useful too) Miss Manners tackles the ticklish
    subject of turning down an invitation. (I believe she's referring to a
    dinner invitation, but the applicability is obvious) The basic idea is
    that YOU DON'T *HAVE* TO EXPLAIN WHY. You don't need to be rude, you
    don't need to be defensive, but you don't need to explain why either.
    Her example went something like "Oh, that would be nice, but I'm afraid
    I can't." "Why, not?" "It's simply just not possible." "But why?",
    "It's just impossible." (Repeat...) 
    
    You don't HAVE to explain why if you don't want to. The situation seems
    exactly analogous to a woman turning down a man's overtures. She should
    have to explain why SHE doesn't want to have sex (or dinner) with you,
    and you shouldn't feel compelled to ask.
    
    The rules in an ongoing relationship are different of course, but
    that's not the topic at hand.
    
    So, seriously, if she keeps pressuring, "just say no".
    
    	-- Charles 

    
         That's just the problem.  As the title states, one is also
    trying to keep this woman as a friend.  Mighty ticklish.
    
                                  Bubba
    

    Sometimes I don't think there is any way to reject someone's sexual
    advances and still keep them as a friend.  The reason being that
    perhaps they just aren't *interested* in being friends with you
    if the friendship doesn't include some sort of dating or sex.  If
    that's the case, and you aren't interested in sex with the person,
    what can you do?  It's their problem.
    
    If you really and sincerely would like to be friends with the person,
    but don't want to have sex with them, all you can do is continue
    to act like a friend to that person.  If they don't respond, forget
    it.  If you really *don't* want to be friends with the person, then
    forget it.  Just ignore them and hope they do the same.
    
    The first time you have to reject a person's sexual advances try
    to be as kind and gentle as possible.  Even if you have to lie a
    little bit and say you're being faithful to somebody else, or going
    through a phase where you aren't into sex, or whatever.  If the
    person persists on other occasions, try suggesting that you honestly
    don't feel that the two of you have enough in common.  If the person
    persists beyond that, tell them to get lost.  They've pushed the
    bounds of curtesy beyond the limit.
    
    Lorna
    

re: .15
    
    This is not meant as a personal attack, just a bit of irritated
    reaction to a perceived attitude problem.
    
    >                                           . . . if he hasn't
    > suggested it yet, don't bother, he's probably not interested.

    What about the shy/inhibited/insecure type?  We are more common
    than you seem to think.  Just because someone does not try to
    attack does not mean that he is a wimp or otherwise inferior (unless
    you consider men to be only sexual tools).
        
    [$ SET FLAME ON/SEVERITY=WARNING]

    >   I guess I come from the act cute and see if he gets the
    > idea school of how to get it on.  
    
    This is unfair on at least two counts: 1) you give off signals that
    may be too subtle or ambiguous to encourage any but the most agressive,
    and 2) you do a disservice to other women by contributing to the
    stereotype that all women are just waiting to be swept off by a
    caveman, and being cute implies desire for sexual advances.
    
    >                                Sometimes they get the idea and
    > sometimes they don't, 
    
    Is it any wonder?

    [$ SET FLAME OFF]
    
    >                 or maybe sometimes they get the idea and aren't
    > interested.

    This should be OK.  We would all be better off if we could be
    honest and clear about offers of intimacy, and NO, YES, and LET'S
    SEE should all be acceptable answers, without being construed as
    attacks on one's ego.  This applies to both men and women equally,
    when approaching either men or women.

    Sandy

    re BULK of answers thank you some good food for thought.
    re.14 "never met a woman that didn't turn me on" YOU either 
    live in a closet or are so tatally nondescrimination that you 
    own a blow up doll.
     
    re.22 I feel very sorry for your timerity.....even very low life
    forms mate.......

    Along the lines of .22, I'm reminded of a situation of mine.  I
    was a senior in high school (17 years old) and I dated a Sophomore
    (15 years old).  I took her to the prom, we had a marvelous time,
    and then I went on to other things and other girls.  She was very shy
    and she gave me the impression that she wasn't interested in anything
    after prom night.  Although I liked her a lot, I didn't see any
    future to a relationship with her so I found another girl who seemed
    to be more promising.  16 years later, I came to find out that she
    was devistated because I had just started ignoring her and picked
    up with someone else.  She was 'in love' with me and I didn't even
    notice because she didn't show it.  Boy, what I would give to go
    back and do *that* all over again.  It hit me like a knife in the
    heart.  She (reportedly) cried for a week because of it AND I DIDN'T
    EVEN NOTICE *THAT*.  Her father was irate because he thought that 
    I was prejudiced and didn't like her because she was Japanese. 
    Hell, I dated 4 different Japanese girls that year, along with 3
    white girls.  (OK, so I was a gigolo ;-)  Anyway, if she had given
    just a hint that she liked me, I would have been all over her.
    
    On the other side, I dated her cousin.  She hung onto me like moss
    on a tree.  My thoughts about her were that she would be an easy
    target for any sexual perversion that I desired.  No, this isn't
    a stereotype, I could have done anything with/to her that I wanted
    to and she offered it to me, but *I* was too embarrassed to do
    anything. 
    
    Another girl was head over heels 'in love' with me and she interested
    me slightly.  I had just lost a girlfriend that I was in love with
    and had dated for 6 months.  She left me with no explanation.  I
    was hurting from that and this girl started hanging onto me.  I
    had an old convertible and as I passed her house, she blocked the
    road, forcing me to stop, and then jumped into the car, uninvited
    and insisted on going somewhere.  I had the same feelings about
    her (anything goes) but this time it was more of a stereotype. 
    I didn't like her being so forward.
    
    All in all, I think that a woman should show some interest but don't
    hang onto a guy.
    
    To answer the original question, tell him/her that you are under
    treatment for A.I.D.S.
    
    Spence

    PS, .23, "timerity"???  Where did you make up that word?

    timerity = a cross between temerity and timidity?

    Correct me if I have formed a wrong impression here . . . but it sounds
    as though several of the men who have answered this note feel that a
    woman won't continue to respect you if you decline to become involved
    in sexual activity with her? ?? ??? ????  

    Have I exaggerated the implications of some of your [collective]
    statements?
    
    --bonnie

    re.26 no you have not exaggerated the implications
    
    but....sex with a platonic lady friend could ruin a friendship...
    and refusal by a guy kills it just as quickly

    
    
    If a platonic friend develops sexual or romantic attractions,
    does not the friendship "change" or cease to exist?  By that
    I mean, if one person is interested in remaining platonic
    friends, and the other desires more, then it is no longer
    simply friendship is it?  It seems that in that case, it 
    would be best to terminate the relationship.
    
    Or am I overreacting?
    
    I guess I am thinking in terms of a person with an SO and
    a friendship with a member of the opposite sex, and if the
    "friendship" becomes more in the eyes of one or both friends,
    then it might prove threatening to the relationship with the
    SO.
    
    I know what I'm trying to say (does anyone else?) but can't
    seem to find the right verbage.
    
    

    re.28
    i tink i unnerstan wadd u i sayin bud fer sure 
    some of us want to maintain uniquely platonic 
    Female frenz
    

    Re: .28
    
    Let me see if I understand the question.
    
    If I am involved in a commited, exclusive relationship, and have
    another friend who comes on to me, if that friend won't take "no"
    for an answer, should I break off the friendship?
    
    Probably, but I would hope that being friends, you could explain
    the situation in such a way that you stayed friends. It would probably
    change the friendship, but not necessarily for the worse. After
    all it would clear the air, and you could (hopefully) avoid worrying
    about "sending the wrong signals" as much. Could really improve
    things.
    
    This all seems very abstract to me. I would certainly *try* to stay
    friends, explaining at the same time that there was no hope of sex
    since I was in a committed relationship. (Of course, as mentioned
    before, you aren't under any OBLIGATION to explain.) If someone
    wouldn't be friends with me unless I had sex with them, I'd drop
    them like a hot rock, that's no friendship I understand. Sounds
    more like a desctructive possesiveness and manipulation to me. 'Course
    if the person was nice otherwise, I'd spend some time talking about
    it, and trying to understand why they felt that way, and explaining
    why I felt the way I did.
    
    (It's hard to be concrete when the described situation isn't clear
    to me.)
    
    	-- Charles

    
         Slight confusion in the replies is due to some people speaking
    from the point of view in which they already have a romantic/sexual
    relationship with another person, while others are speaking from
    the point of view of having no current attachment.  Since the basenote
    did not specify which situation was the focus, examining both seems
    appropriate.
    
         In either case, the situation is touchy, but if I were married
    and the 'agressor-friend' knew this, I would be very upset with
    that friend for her actions, and would probably axe the friendship.
    Having no such commitment, I am more likely to attempt to salvage
    the friendship (if possible), and avoid at all costs hurting that
    friend.
    
                              Bubba
    

    Re .22, this reminds me of one of my very favorite "Cathy" cartoons
    by Cathy Guisewaite (sp?).  Cathy is in a singles bar with one of
    her girlfriends.  She is watching an attractive guy sitting alone
    at a bar.  Her girlfriend keeps saying, "Cathy, go over and say
    hello!  Come on!  This is the era of the liberated woman!  Don't
    be a chicken!"  Cathy wrings her hands and says, "Oh, no.  I can't!
     I can't!  I'm too shy!  I'm too afraid of rejection!"  Her friend
    keeps encouraging her, "Go ahead!  Take charge of the situation!
     Times are changing!"  Finally Cathy walks up to the guy, smiles
    and says, "Hi!  How are you?"  The guy jumps back in horror and
    shouts, "Aaaahhh!  I HATE pushy women!"  Turns and runs away.
    
    Lorna
    

    Whooo! Sounds like you're really pissed about something Bob. I'm sorry
    that you've been rejected so callously in the past, hope you have
    better luck in the future!
    
    	"Pity more women don't get to experience rejection."
    
    No, no, no! "Pity so many men feel rejected." The problem is not that
    women aren't getting rejected enough, the problem is that there are
    insensitive people on BOTH sides of the fence. You can't solve that
    problem by adding to the rejection! (Sorry if I'm sounding simplistic
    here, but this part of the problem really IS simple, it's the rest
    that's hard.)
    
    As for the rest of your note, I hope you're just blowing off steam
    and don't really lump all women together like that. If you really
    do see all women that way, I have a really simple explanation for
    your problem...
    
    	-- Charles

    .34
    
    Bob, you are not alone, we are all rejecting and being rejected.
    But I think your attitude is to simplistic and the problem far more
    complex.  You and I are a generation apart but yet we have experienced
    life in the same way.  We have been divorced, single parents, and
    had relationships that have gone sour.  
    
    We are all looking for perfection, we are scared and we hate making
    mistakes...
    
    It is so easy to say that only the good looking people succeed in
    love.  That is a cop out.  Physical appearance is important but
    it also requires some measure of maintenance on our part and after
    being attractive, clean and neat then we have to have a personality
    to maintain the relationship.
    
    Bob, you are a sweetheart, and no one will ever know it if you keep
    writing notes like this one.
    
    Joyce
    
    P.S.  You are not alone in your feelings of rejection but it makes
    better sense not to express the feelings publicly.  Good friends
    will humor you and make you feel better, and/or beat you up for
    your nonsense ;-).  I know my friends did that for me last week.

    also re:.34
    
    The man I spent 3 years getting over (which for a 24 year-old is
    a long time) is 6'3", approx 30 lbs overweight, has a receding chin,
    pasty white skin, bad acne, has stringy hair (what is left of it),
    and is distinctly pear-shaped.  A picture of him would not make
    anyone's knees weak.
    
    But *my* knees still turn to jello around him, and *he* never seems
    to lack for [attractive or not] female companionship.
    
    Lee

    re.34
    thanx good note.
    about time someone stated a reality.
    
    Women hold all the cards and thats what makes them them the
    insufferable/inconsiderate/selfish/worthless pains that they are.
    

    Re .34, I don't know you, what you look like, or how old you are,
    but I've read a few of your notes in the past and you always sound
    so miserable.  My honest response is, what the hell happened to
    you?
    
    You keep harping on the fact that only good looking guys get to
    play (which is absolute bullshit since most women, unlike most men,
    are more into personalities than looks), but I'd be willing to bet
    that whoever it is who hurt you this bad is pretty good looking.
     I'd also be willing to bet that what you're so hurt about is not
    that NO WOMEN are interested in you but that NO BEAUTIFUL WOMEN
    are interested in you.
    
    You think it's only the good looking men who get to play.  Well,
    wake up to the fact that men care more about looks than women do
    IN MOST CASES (there are exceptions to both) and that there are
    thousands of interesting, intelligent, average to ugly looking women
    out there who haven't exactly had their doors battered down by eager
    suitors either!  And lasting, meaningful relationships are even
    harder to get than one-nite stands, and most women are after long,
    meaningful relationships, whereas (from what I can tell) many men
    are quite satisfied with a life-time of one night stands with
    goodlooking young women!  
    
    Another thing, age is never an enemy to men.  Teenage girls are
    perfectly happy to date men in their 40's, but as women approach
    those years (regardless of the few examples everyone can throw out)
    most men under 35-40 lose interest fast.
    
    Unless you're the elephant man or the hunchback of Notre Dame, things
    can't be THAT bad!
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: -1
    
    	Gee Lorna, there have been a few older women that have gotten
    my blood boiling at times.. Older women make great friends and know
    all the old tricks.. They are great teachers too.. ;-) (I'm going
    on 26 and the oldest woman I have dated is around 35)
    
    RE: Bob
    
    	High time you got some friends that are women. Then it'll be
    less of an "Us vs. Them" battle.. Sure, I've been screwed over the
    coals before and yea, I'm hesitant when it comes to new relationships
    but that's natural. I don't have the bad attitude you do.. You might
    seriously want to sit down with someone and talk it out..  Also,
    not all the "good-looking" guys get all the dates/girls. Far from
    it. I consider myself "non-repulsive looking" but many friends think
    I'm good looking.. I don't "get all the dates/girls" I have just
    as hard a time as you probably do. It's a facet of ones personality
    that allows one to "get all the dates/girls". Not just looks..
    
    							mike

    
    Lordy, lordy, lordy.  It's enough to make you glad you're single.
    I don't know what's worse, being lonely or having to tread the social
    and emotional minefields.
    
    The only time I ever had to fend a woman off, she wasn't trying *that*
    hard (I'm not the sort women try hard for), and we were both half in
    the bag.  Both of us appreciated my self-control the next morning,
    which was a first.  I'm not noted for my self-control.  My waistline
    bears mute testimony to this fault.
    
    DFW
    

    re: the issues of age that several people have mentioned (and I
    use the term people loosely when referring to Mike  nyark) beyond
    the biological  clock for kid having what difference does age make?
    
    

    
    	My opinion:
    
    	I'm not sure about you guys but in this silly town (Colo. Springs)
    	I've seen more half-way together gals with the stupids of stupids
    	red-neck dumb dumb dudes in the world. And you can't tell me
    	it's their personalities! I'm not sure WHAT it is. Yet if I
    	were to walk up and ask for a date or something, they'd look
    	at me like it was AliensIII or something. Hmmmm, maybe it's
    	my aftershave.....(Where's that note about scents anyway..)
    
    	Todd

re: 42

It doesn't!

    How did this conversation shift from a discussion of how
    to tactfully say "no" to a woman, to why women go out with
    jerks?  I'm confused.
    
    I'm also slightly incensed with the sweeping statement that
    "all" women are insensitive....pains.  I DO NOT fit your de-
    scription and never will and please do not generalize!!
    
    Todd!  Jill and I just commented this morning on what a cutie
    you are!  Really, I just cannot imagine a woman looking at you
    as something out of Aliens!  Perhaps you are misreading the 
    look....
    
                           Deb
    
    

    re.45 all generizations are false
    don't mean we can't make em.
    I guess I am just doing some of the same cat noises I hear in
    womannotes
    
    re. mikey and needing schooling in what you referenced the 100's
    and 100's of ladies that talk about you claim you is the one doin
    the teachin not them :)

    btw .45
    if you ain't fittin de mold how come ya answered?
    

    .47
    
    
    My state of confusion is maintained....why does one have
    to "fit the description" to qualify to answer?  
    
    I answered because I feel stongly that you, and others,
    are laboring under a misconception when you say "all"
    woman are [list of negative qualities].  And that is a
    self-defeating attitude.  Believe it or not (and I sense
    that you will choose 'not'), some woman really are kind
    and sensitive and warm and loving.  Not all the time. I
    do admit to my cranky days.  But for the most part, I 
    stive to be positive and gentle with all people, including
    men!
    
    Perhaps if your attitude was more positive, you would at-
    tract more positive input...give out as you wish to receive.
    
                          Deb
    
    

    I am this and I am that.
    
    why is it that I have trouble being sold 
    on someone 
    

    Rest assured, I come with references!  However, you are
    mistaken, I am not for sale.
    
                  DK
    
    

    everyone has their price
    

    RE: .45
    
    	Hey Deb, you haven't seen him up close, have you? Nor have you
    	seen the foot long tongue that flys out just like the thing
    	in Aliens? And don't let me even start on the nose!
    
    	Hey buddy, how the hell are ya? :-) :-) :-) Just doing my part
    	to help ya with the women.. hee hee
    
    	RE: Kerry
    
    	100's and 100's?? Has it really been that many???? :-) :-)
    
    						mike

    broke moi TI calculator when i tried to figgure out how many
    mikey
    

    
    	RE: Mike
    
    	Ha! You should talk. I understand you were the model they
    	used when developing Preparation H! And another thing...
    	if you were any taller you'd be SHORT!
    
    	Besides that, I don't need help with the ladies...I need to
    	get out of this state!
    
    
    	Other than that I'm doin' fine. |^)
    
    	Todd
    
    	PS. Thanx Deb.....<blush>

    come on folks stick to the issue.........
    this is a woman bashing note lets leave it that way
    
    I am now into about 10 conferences I wouldn't have had the time
    to do if I stayed in womannnnotes 
    great no womanotes = less stress
                       = more quality notes 
                       = reasonable responses + no paranoia

    Todd!  Leave the state?  And break our little hearts?
    Love 'em and leave 'em type of guy huh?  ;-)  I'll 
    warn Jill!!
    
    Re: "everyone has their price"  Not this lady.  What I
    have to offer is beyond price.  However, it was given
    freely to the right man.  As I said, "give out as you
    wish to receive"....
    
    

    .57
    hunh?
    what could that possibly be?
    what do you have to offer?
    

    Huh ???  
    
    Am I confused ?? Kerry, your original note was wanting to know
    how to keep a womans friendship......then in .56 you called this
    a woman bashing note (and wanting to keep it that way)......
    
    What kind of women have you known that you have such a bad opinion
    of us ??  
    
    kathie

    re.59 are there different kinds?
    

    And....I'll bet that you think Heinz has one variety, too.
    
    ;-}
    kath

    If this turns into or continues being a "woman-bashing" note,
    I may have to close it down.  Bashing of any sort is not
    appropriate.
    				Steve

    Don't look now Steve but this entire note is a joke.
    The sorry part of the joke is that so many people see
    it as a serious discussion and make moral judgements 
    of it.
    What it will serve to do in my 'umble opinion is to further 
    illustrate that there is certainly a genuine need to maintain
    /build/keep a distinct separation of platonic and intimate
    relationships with "the fairer sex".
    I certainly hope we can do this without destroying the conference
    AND keeping our sense of humor.
    
    

    Sounds like somebody has the case of the ole' "Can't live with 'em,
    can't live without 'em" attitude. "Bashing" of ANYTHING whether
    it in jest or serious is about the same level as the KKK. What's
    the difference, they aren't YOU so they should be controlled or
    wiped out, no problem right? 
    
    Is it their fault that they were not born with "stuff hanging between
    their legs"?  No wonder men and women are at odds with each other
    just because they are of different sexes. I have seen a LOT of 
    animosity in different NOTE conference between sexes and it sickens
    my stomach, hence the reason I only participate in technical
    NOTES or ones that are NOT dealing with sociological behaviors of
    humans, not to mention that I get a tad busy during the day and
    do not have a terminal at home and find that Deborah and I have
    plenty to occupy ourselves outside of 1's and 0's!!!! Women bashing,
    give me a break, that went out in 6th grade along with ink wells
    and pig tails!!!
    
    Now the real reason I entered this is that you (re. 63) asked what
    Deborah's (CSC32::WOLBACH) asking price was..... Guess what, I was
    the ONLY one to hold the magic "price" and we are now getting married
    on JULY 4th at 6:30. She was never up for grabs and we just kind
    of attracted to each other and no matter how hard we have tried
    in the past to push each other away, we realize that we are better
    together than apart. Not just that we get along, we can't get along
    without each other!!! We bring stuff to each other  that no human has
    ever done for us!!! That is pretty God Damn special to me and THAT
    is why we are better together than apart and why we are getting
    married.
    
    Women bashing, even joking, is laugh at ones intellengence. How
    neandrethal (sp?) can one get. Men bashing is just as bad.
    
    As far as the original question is concerned, tell them no, politely.
    And if they ask why, tell them why, but ya don't have to be a water
    buffalo charging thru Corning Glass works!!!
    
    Chuck "Mr. Right for Deborah!"
    
    

    Re: .64
    
    Hey, now, no Neandrethal (how do you spell that anyway?) bashing
    either!
    
    And sexist jokes (such as asking a woman's "price") are just as
    out of order.
    

    In all seriousness - if you (anyone) feels the need to insult
    women, men, or anyone else, don't do it here.  Write your insult
    on a piece of crisp paper, fold it until it has LOTS of sharp
    edges and corners, and...
    
    					Steve

    
         OK.  S'pose, if you will, that you have a long-term, close
    friendship with a wonderful lady.  You have the kind of friendship
    in which frequent hugs are not unknown.  This lady and you have
    known each other for several years and each of you has witnessed
    the romantic trials and tribulations of the other, and have been
    the moral support to pull the other through.  One evening, you're
    sitting around playing backgammon (humor me) and feeling mighty
    lucky to have such a good friend.  All of a sudden, she comes over
    and hugs you.  You like it and hug her back (nothing unusual). 
    She then whispers in your ear that she 'wants' you.  Your brain
    goes off-line and your body becomes an unreachable node.  You fear
    for what might happen to the friendship if you say yes, and the
    same if you say no.  You realize that you really don't want her
    in this way.  What do you do?
    
                                Bubba
    
    PS: This is essay, not multiple choice.
    

    Re: .66
    
    I'd gently untangle, move to a single seat, and try to explain that
    I value the friendship too much to potentially destroy it over
    a moment of weakness.  And, unless she understands and agrees,
    and both of us can get back on track quickly, our friendship is
    pretty much changed for the worse.
    
    This is related to my belief that you can go from friend to lover,
    but the reverse trip is almost impossible - at least in the short
    term.
    
    					Steve

    re .66, .67 Well if it were me I'd had to have had more than a couple of
    drinks to do that - and probably would be a lousy backgammon
    player by that time anyway. So I think that gently telling her
    that you think she is really special but you know she's had a
    couple of drinks and she will be embarassed tomorrow when she
    remembers it, and thank her for the compliment....and the next day
    treat her as if nothing happened... and maybe reassure her that
    nothing unusual happened.
    
    and I hope I never am playing backgammon alone with either of
    you two :-) :-)
    
    Bonnie J

    

	It would seem if you were friends with a person there would
    	not be any serious turn-off's...it would seem that perhaps the
    	reason you were just friends was incompatible goals, age
        differences, maybe lack of common interests.
     
        So it would seem appropriate to take total responsibility for
        not wanting to be intimate.
    
        If I were the woman in the situation I would be satisfied with
        a remark that indicated truthfully why the man was not interested.
    
        But if he said to me...Our friendship would not be the same...I
        might have the ability to be intimate with friends...and therefore
        feel rejected.  He should say...I could not handle our friendship.
    
        There are some of us that can handle the transition from lover
        to friend...given the right circumstances...
    
        What I see happening a lot is people becoming lovers before
        they are actually in love...and if they don't fall in love they
        have two choices...to remain friends...or to become enemies...
      
        I value friendships a lot and can remain friends even if the
        relationship does not develop.

    Re: .68
    
    Bonnie, I think you have the right idea.  I suspect most situations
    like this would be the result of overly-loosened inhibitions, and
    your advice to simply "pretend nothing happened" is the best and
    safest way of dealing with this situation.
    
    Re: .69
    
    I don't think it's quite as bad as having a choice between being
    lovers or enemies.  But if you decide to make the transition
    from intimate friends to lovers, it's VERY hard to go back to
    the same level of intimacy you had before.  But for me, anyway,
    and I recognize that it may be different for others, sexual
    intimacy is reserved for love, or at least a commitment towards
    love.  I could not have sex with a woman with whom I wanted to
    remain "just friends", no matter HOW close our friendship was.
    
    				Steve

    
    Ever get the feeling we're all participating in some kind of weird
    experiment, and Kerry just drifts from notefile to notefile goading
    the participants into action?                                   
    
    DFW

    hey maybe that's true 
    someone has to put some life into this place 
    but now I have the perfect conference so I won't be wasting too
    much time in here 

    Re: .74
    
    Glad to hear it.
    
    I've deleted and returned a couple of Kerry's notes because they
    were merely insults.  I will keep doing so if he, or anyone else,
    persists in this line.  I do not want to see this conference hurt
    because of the actions of a few individuals.
    
    					Steve

    
         OK.  She has made her 'commitment' by broaching the subject
    of sex.  You want to say no, but she preempts you by interjecting
    'I'll kill you if you say you've got a headache'.  A joke?  Sounds
    like one, but is it really?
    
                             Bubba
    

    Intimate friend, quiet evening of backgammon, she says she wants
    me. Hmm, I say yes.
    
    Next question?
    
    Oh yeah, I'm supposed to not want to have sex with her. Well, in
    that case... hmmm. Hard problem. First of all, if she was that close
    a friend, and I hadn't had a clue that this was potentially going
    to come up (ahem) then my first reaction would be surprise. I'd
    try to explain how pleased I was that she liked me and trusted me
    enough to want this, but then I'd express disappointment that I
    had to turn her down, but I'd probably say something like "I'm really
    sorry, but I can't." Then, if she asked why, and was a close friend,
    I'd tell her. If it was because I was in a comitted monogamous
    relationship, I'd say that (something like, "Well, you know that
    so-and-so and I are lovers? Well, as part of our commitment to each
    other, we've agreed that we're not going to have other lovers. I'm
    really sorry. Shall we play another game? Say for $1 a point this
    time?" If there were some other reason, I'd tell her. This all assumes
    that we're pretty good friends to start with.
    
    	-- Charles

    Re .72, as to your comments about men not flaming at women for
    generalizing about their feelings towards men in Womannotes, are
    you kidding?????  I totally disagree.  (Does the name /dave or is
    it \dave ring a bell?)
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .69, you say that "it would seem if you were friends with a person
    there would not be any serious turn-off's".  I disagree.  There
    are a lot of people I could enjoy being friends with but frankly
    consider to be far too "creepy" to have sex with, such as overweight
    people.  But, I would never say to a man, "Well, I like you as a
    friend, but if you think I'd ever have sex with a blimp like you
    you're crazy."  I'd rather just lie and hope the person's feelings
    weren't hurt and that the next person he wanted didn't mind he was
    a blimp.  I'd hope that men would try to be as tactful with me if
    a similar situation occurred.
    
    Lorna
    

    .79
    
    If my physical appearance was a turn-off then I wouldn't want that
    man as a friend.
    
    I could be friends with someone that was not as clean as I would
    like in a lover...I am not sure that I would be able to tell that
    person that is the reason I would not want to make love.

    Hmm, I'm disturbed by .79 and I can't really put my finger on it.
    If I were pysically close enough with someone to be "huggy" I think
    I would be, if not attracted, at least not repelled by their physical
    appearance.
    
    To turn an intimate (or even very good) friend down on the basis
    of appearance alone seems exceedingly cruel or at least superficial
    to me. I can sympathize somewhat with what I *think* I hear in .79,
    but I don't buy it. It's that kind of attitude, taken to an extreme
    which forms the basis of Kerry's wholly unreasonable statements.
    There's just enough truth around to make the accusation superficially
    reasonable, or at least defensible. I guess this is the same attitude
    that forms the small kernel of truth behind (Bob?) Holt's original
    message.
    
    The attitude may exist, but it's wrong. Turning down a good friend,
    SOLELY on the basis of appearance reflects worse on the rejector
    than the rejectee. How good a friend could such a person be?
    
    Please don't take this personally Lorna, from your other postings
    I've gotten a VERY different impression of you, so I find .79 quite
    disturbing. Would you explain further?
    
    	-- Charles

    
         Hear, hear.  I don't have any CLOSE friends whom I consider
    physically repulsive.  I can't say that I would want to have sex
     with all of them, but the reasons are far more serious.

                            Bubba
    

    Perhaps attractiveness, and sexual attraction, are based
    on more than simply physical attributes.  I have a number
    of friends and/or acquintances who happen to be men.  Some
    are very attractive on a physical level-that doesn't mean
    I find them sexually attractive.  Just pleasant to look at.
    Some are less attractive physically, but very attractive
    mentally, because their personalities are so wonderful.  
    Pleasant to listen to!  However, it's that unique quality
    of physical and mental and emotional attractiveness that
    sparks the lust in me!
    
    So....if they are "friends" they are friends.  If I find
    (rarely indeed) that there is an attraction outside of
    friendship, then they are no longer friends.  They are
    "love interests."  
    
    Fortunately, this doesn't happen frequently, my schedule
    is just too hectic to concentrate on more than one man at
    a time ;-)
    
    

	But I learned a valuable lesson from Zorba:

	God has a very big heart but there is one sin he will not
	forgive- If a woman calls a man to her bed but he does not
	go.

    Re .79, Charles, I don't know.  Maybe I'm just the queasy type :).
    
    Actually, I don't think my reply in .79 is superficial.  I think
    it's honest.  It seemed to me that .69 was saying that anybody who
    was a close friend would not be too physically repulsive to have
    sex with (so, saying no would be based on other reasons.)
    
    Well, this didn't seem to me to be the case.  When I make *friends*
    with people I don't take into consideration their physical attributes
    so, it just stands to reason, that some of them might not be appealing
    to me sexually - since they weren't picked for sex, they were picked
    for conversation or some other type of activity!  (Of course, some
    of them might.)  Whenever I have been attracted to men romantically
    and/or sexually,  everything that goes into making them the person
    they are is taken into account (sort of subconsciously).  This includes
    personality, brains, looks, humor, humanity, common interests, and
    looks (which also includes style of hair, clothes, way he presents
    himself).  Physical attractiveness has to come into play or otherwise
    I'd be content to just keep the person a friend.  I don't think
    my view is shallow.  I am not attracted to men just on the basis
    of who I think is the best looking (witty conversation is everything
    to me!), but the fact is that there are some men who have physical
    attributes which turn me off (one of which is obesity), and while
    these men could be good friends I wouldn't ever want to have sex
    with them.
    
    Does that explain my view more, and hopefully make me seem less
    shallow (something I can assure you I have never considered myself
    to be :)  )?
    
    Lorna
      

    RE:  .84  "Zorba says..."
    
    Yes, but do you remember what happened to Irene Pappas after Alan
    Bates left her bed?  She had her throat slit by the spurned men
    of the village.
    

    RE:  .79  "blimps in bed"
    
    Back in my bachelor days I went through a period when I was very
    open and in love with everybody.  A woman who could be considered
    to have been very overweight turned out to be one of the most exciting
    women I had ever been with.  I'm glad that I did not have blinders
    on which would have denied me the experience of having been her
    friend and lover.  
    

    Re: .79
    
    Well, it's actually kind of funny that you would pick weight as
    a physical characteristic that would "turn you off" or cause you
    to turn down an offer from a friend that was otherwise acceptable
    (I hope I've state your position correctly.)
    
    The reason it's funny is that while I'm considered to be on the
    thin side of the "normal" range, I find "plump" women MUCH more
    attractive than "thin" or even "average" women. I realize that this
    isn't entirely germane, but I thought it was amusing.
    
    Anyway. If I had a friend, who was otheriwise acceptable, turning
    them down SOLELY on physical appearance would be mean, rude, and
    cruel. Now I can *sympathize* with your attitude, even understand
    it, but I still think it's wrong. Not necessarily superficial, and
    I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing, but I'd feel badly
    about it.
    
    	-- Charles

    What I was tring to get at earlier was that you could be honest
    about not wanting to go to bed with someone.  That does not
    mean you have to say why!  Even if they say,  "It's because
    you find me repulsive,  isn't it!"  You can still say,  "I don't
    find you repulsive,  but I don't want to go to bed with you."
    A book which I think deals with this very well is called:
    "When I say no I feel guilty."  by Manuel Smith PhD.
 
    Simon.

    Re .87, it's always good to hear about people's positive experiences
    in life, but it still doesn't make me want to run out and leap into
    bed with a fat man :-).
    
    On the other hand, I *have* been very attracted (and even in love)
    with men whom I know one of my best girlfriends wouldn't touch with
    a ten foot pole.  For example, I worked with her (several years
    ago) when I had a terrible crush on a black man we worked with (in
    fact it was more like a disease than a crush :), and she was horrified
    (shades of racial prejudice here I'm afraid).  My present S.O. is
    bald, and I couldn't care less, but I know *she* would never fall
    in love with a bald man.  In fact, I was pointing out a DEC employee
    to her (she's looking) who is *really* cute, nice personality, and
    intelligent.  She said, "Well, I don't usually go for guys with
    wavy hair."  (This guy is gorgeous and she's complaining about *wavy
    hair*.  That's what I call shallow.)  But, in other ways she's a
    wonderful person and one of my best friends.
    
    Re .88, I don't why fat turns me off so much, anymore than I know
    why pink is my favorite color.  Ya know?  It's just basic, natural
    reaction.  Why fight it?
    
    Re .89,  I would never tell anyone that I didn't want to have sex
    with them because I found them physically repulsive because I hate
    to hurt people's feelings.  I found this to be a good line, "I've
    been through so many changes lately that I just don't feel up to
    having sex with somebody new right now.  I just don't feel I could
    deal with it at this point.  I hope you can understand.  It's nothing
    personal."  Of course, at the present time I can just say I live
    with my boyfriend and we're faithful to each other and it would
    be true.
    
    Lorna
    

    I think I would just (only ?) tell him(/her) :
    
    
    
    
    
    NO !
    
    
    
    
    
    Voila, c'est tout, pas de commentaires.
    
    
    Zoziau

    
    re: .91
    
    I hope I'm not annoying you by writing this in English, but I'm
    afraid I haven't Mr. Topaz's command of French.
    
    It would be nice if everyone simply took no for an answer, without
    wondering why or feeling bad.  That is not how it always works,
    however.
    
    re: Lorna's particular tastes
    
    Whatever grinds her gears.  Of course, she's now blown the cover off a
    pretty good line, but that's the risks you take when you note.
    
    DFW (who'd probably get the line from Lorna, in the unlikely
    circumstance that it became an issue) 

    RE .90
    Wavy hair ?  Sounds pretty specific to me ? Does she
    insist on straight pubic hair, too ? :-) :-)
    

    Re .93, in all my years of friendship with her, through numerous
    discussions, I don't recall either of us ever mentioning pubic hair,
    per se :-).
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .90
    
    Why is it not ok to be turned off by black men, but it is ok to
    be turned off by fat men? Prejudice is prejudice, taste is taste,
    but you can't call one prejudice and the other taste.
    
    	"It's just basic, natural reaction. Why fight it?"
    
    *Listen* to yourself. Attractiveness of particular physical types is
    *learned* and is culture specific and it changes. It's purely a matter
    of taste. Being turned off by fat *is* *not* "basic" it *is* *not*
    "natural", it's learned. "Why fight it?" because attitudes like that can
    cause pain, hurt, humiliation, and rejection. I suspect you know all
    this, and were being flip because it's hard to talk about.
    
    I'll bet a lot of people out there would never consider having sex with
    someone much older than themselves either. Why? Our society fosters
    incredibly cruel attitudes about youth, thinness, and physical beauty.
    It seems to me that the society's current "ideal of feminine beauty"
    is typified by barely pubescent girls (I use the word advisedly),
    and I think it's *sick*.
    
    I think it's perfectly fine to have physical preferences, likes and
    dislikes. But to turn someone down, everything else being equal,
    *solely* on physical appearance bothers me. I don't say it's for sure
    wrong, or bad, natural or not, but it bothers me.
    
    After all, you *could* close your eyes :-)
    
    	-- Charles

re .95
	It is true that attractiveness and so on may be learned,  but
	so are many things.  Our entire personality was largely learned
	at an early age.  Simply because it was learned does not make
	it easy to change.  And another question is why should people
	change.  Should they change their sexual preferences just to
	be "fair" to the community at large?  Very nice in ideology,
	but if sexual preference of e.g. young athletic types "sucks",
	then let he who is free of sin cast the first stone.

	In some ways I think to myself how I would have more stable
	friendships if I was totally uninterested in sex.  Indeed in
	some ways I think this could be why some Christians talk
	of the *gift* of celibacy.  Sadly however,  I do not as yet
	have such benefits and have to reconcile myself to the fact
	that the girl I shall be seeing this weekend happens to be
	a physical beauty in all the obvious ways.  In fact she is
	a fashion model.  (I happen to like her charming personality
	as well.)  Despite this my experience is that I am attracted
    	to older women fairly frequently and would not say that
    	age itself was important to me.

	Irrespective of this,  what I am attracted to is something
	I find difficult to change.  Mere physical beauty is
	not sufficient to arouse my interest,  because there is
	a variation in attraction to personalities as well as
	to different forms.  But I ask myself,  why should I not look first
	to a woman who I find obviously attractive - is there not the same
	chance of thus finding a personality I find attractive as with
	anyone else?  This is definitely so in my experience.

	Simon.

    In specific, in personal, then preference is personal choice, and as
    such is fine. When in the abstract, in general, preference treads very
    close to prejudice.
    
    Change your preference? No that's up to you. Ask you not to propose
    personal preferences as universal truths, you bet. I'm only
    peripherally interested in your, or Lorna's personal preferences
    for physical attributes of sexual partners. What I *am* saying is
    that I feel badly about turning someone down *solely* on the basis
    of their physical appearance. But this issue is not cut and dried.
    I'm struggling to understand why this bothers me, and at what point
    preference crosses the line into prejudice.
    
    I trust you would grant that there *are* shallow people out there who
    judge each other solely on the basis of how they look, what clothes
    they wear, what car they drive, what sex they are, what color their
    skin is, what church they go to. I hope we agree that this is wrong. On
    the other hand, we all have preferences, I like chocolate, you may like
    vanilla. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, it's what makes
    people different and interesting. But at some point preference becomes
    prejudice and vice-versa. I'm simply saying that, for me, claiming
    that "I wouldn't sleep with a friend who was physically unattractive"
    crosses the line from preference to prejudice. I realize that this may
    not be what Lorna meant, but that's what it sounds like to me. (I wish
    we were talking face to face, it's hard to get across degree of
    conviction over the net. This isn't a hard held position on my part,
    it's a feeling, a gut reaction, I don't fully understand it, I'm
    exploring.) 
    
    I would feel badly if I thought I was incapable of loving someone
    merely because they didn't fit my definition of physical
    attractiveness. Given that I loved someone, I would feel badly if
    I wouldn't share physical intimacy with them simply because they
    were "unattractive". On the other hand, I would certainly prefer,
    and try to find, sexual partners that I found attractive. I don't
    see a conflict, and I think this whole thing is getting blown out
    of proportion.
    
    I think I'm repeating myself, and that's always a warning sign.
    I'm going to sit back and see what other folks have to say about
    this.
    
    	-- Charles

    also re. 97 -- Charles
    
    As I tried to express before, "attractive" is by no means an objective
    term.  If I do not know a person, then yes, I have some shallow
    criteria as to what makes that person attractive or not.  But once
    they have opened up their mouth and said hi, those criteria change.
     For many of us the word "unattractive" is not _strictly_ physical
    but has a lot to do with our perceptions of how a person thinks,
    holds themselves, etc, etc.  Someone "objectively unattractive"
    becomes the most stunning person in the world if they have the "right"
    personality.  Conversely, a Mel Gibson look-alike will often become
    ugly as sin once you get to know him.  A man or woman can be my
    friend (and a fairly close one at that0 and still be someone I wouldn't
    think of romantically because they are "unattractive" and that (for
    me) would not say anything about their body or face.
    
    Lee

    there is nothing wrong with having a  purely physical relationship.
    they are fun while they last as long as both parties are aware of
    that is what it is.
    					kelly

    Re: .100
    
    For you, perhaps.  Not for me nor for many others, I believe.
    
    				Steve

    re .101
    
    it's a little presumptuous of you to speak for the "many"...
    
    
    bruce

    Re: .102
    
    Any more presumptuous than Kelly's unrestricted claim?  I think
    not.  
			Steve

    oooopps,looks like i got my foot in my mouth again*sigh*
    what i meant to say whatever makes two people happy...
    what you want at 20 can be different than what you want at 25 and
    so on and so forth.
    i have seen some people so fried emotionally after ending a
    relationship that a physical relationship is all they are capable
    of handling for a time.
    i really dont see what is wrong with having a purely sexual
    relationship if it is what you (both parties) want.
    
    				kelly

    re: .104
    
    I suppose, if both adults understand the possible ramifications, there
    is indeed nothing wrong with a purely physical relationship for some
    people.  I agree with Steve, though - for me, sex alone wouldn't cut
    it.
    
    I have also seen some people so fried emotionally after ending a
    relationship that a physical relationship is all they are capable of
    handling.  I've seen some people that are so fearful of commitment
    that, again, a physical relationship is all they are capable of
    handling.  I think that a relationship, though, has *MUCH* more to
    offer than sex alone, and that indeed, a relationship with sex alone
    would not be satisfying (for me, not even in the short run).
    
    If two adults undertake a purely physical relationship, they should
    also accept the responsibilities of that relationship.  If the
    relationship is purely physical due to fried emotions, I can think of a
    number of scenarios that would leave the people worse off than not
    being in a relationship at all ...
    
    	-- Jeff

    re .104
    
    Right!   whatever one or more consenting adults do is fine...
    
    c'mon, steve... we don't dictate behavior by majority rule. live
    your life your way and give everybody else the freedom to do the
    same.  and don't try to legitimize your disapproval by claiming
    to speak for the "many."  we each get only one vote.
    
    
    bruce

    Saying that a particular kind of human relationship is possible
    isn't the same thing as saying that everyone *should* have that
    kind of relationship. 
    
    There are times when all a person wants with another person is a good
    tumble in the hay. I'm not saying this is true of all people or at all
    times, or even that it's always desirable, but such a relationship IS
    possible. 
    
    Further, I've seen a number of my friends do themselves a great deal of
    emotional damage by taking a good sexy relationship and trying to turn
    it into an emotional one because they couldn't stand to admit to
    themselves that all they wanted from the other person was good sex. On
    some level they seemed to think that sex by itself is dirty, but if you
    "love" someone that justifies it, so if you're having sex with them and
    enjoying it, you must love them . . . 
    
    Having sex only in the context of a sharing relation is great. Having
    sex with someone who only wants the same thing is great, too. But
    for heaven's sake don't try to fool yourself into thinking that
    one is the other.
    
    --bonnie
     

    Re: .106
    
    I did not intend to disapprove - I was simply pointing out my
    belief that many people would disagree with the notion that
    "there's nothing wrong with a purely physical sexual relationship."
    I also believe that many WOULD agree, obviously you would too.
    
    My point was that this is not as simple and obvious to all as
    some might think.
    				Steve

    .99
    
    D'accord avec toi. Par exemple, le jour ou ma mere a vu pour la
    premiere fois celui qui allait devenir son mari, sa premiere phrase
    a ete : "En tous cas, je suis sure d'une chose : JAMAIS je ne pourrai
    sortir avec ce garcon-la". Trois semaines apres, ils sortaient
    ensemble. Cinq ou six mois plus tard, ils se mariaient a New-York.

    
    re: .104
    
    Je pensais comme toi... avant ! (Ecoutez la vieille de 20 ans qui
    parle ! 8') )
    
    Avant, c'est-a-dire entre 15 et 19 ans, l'important pour moi etait
    la nouveaute, l'inconnu. Une relation sexuelle ne reussissait que
    si je connaissais peu ou pas le partenaire, et si sa facon de faire
    l'amour m'etait inconnue. A partir de la seconde seance de fesses,
    on tombait dans la monotonie de l'habitude. J'avais ainsi quelques
    copains que je voyais le moins souvent possible (afin de les oublier
    tres vite), et uniquement pour le sexe. Ca a fini par me lasser.
    Et puis, en fin de compte, ce n'etait pas tres efficace...
    
    
    Depuis une annee ou deux, j'ai change d'opinion : je fais l'amour
    avec ma tete et mon coeur avant tout, le corps suit tout seul. C'est
    depuis quelques mois que je vis une relation vraiment enrichissante.
    
    
    Faire l'amour "pour le sport" ou "pour l'hygiene" ? Non merci, vraiment
    plus du tout envie de ca...
    
    
    Zoziau
    
    
    Zoziau

    translation anyone?

    .99

    I agree.  For example, the day my mother saw for the first time
    the man who was going to be her husband, her first comment was:
    In any case I am sure of one thing: I could NEVER go out with that
    guy.  3 Weeks later they went out together.  5 or 6 months later
    they got married in New York.

        
    re: .104
    
    I thought like you do... before ! (Listen to the old lady, 20 years
    old, who talks ! 8'))
    
    Before (ie, between 15-19 years old) the important thing for me
    was novelty, the unknown.  A sexual relationship succeeded only
    if I knew the partner a little or not at all, and if his way of
    making love was unknown to me.  From the second <time> on, it would
    fall into the monotony of habit.  Thus I had several companions
    who I saw as seldom as possible (in order to forget them very quickly),
    and only for sex.  That finished by <me lasser??>  Then, finally
    it wasn't very efficient.

    After a year or 2, I've changed my mind: I make love with my head
    and my heart above all, the body follows all alone.  That's after
    a few months that I see a relationship really enriching.
    
    Make love "for sport" or "for hygeine"?  No thanks, really don't
    want that anymore...
    
    Zoziau

    
    	pomposity reins supreme 
    there are 1,000,000,000,000 kinds of relationships
    no two the same you have a choice

    I, for one, agree 110% with Steve.
    
                       DK
    
     

    hmmm....
    i dont believe that i stated  what my own personal preferences are
    (that is for steve).
    	tyhe whole point is while i was reading the notes i got this
    overwhelming feeling that people were / are making judgements on
    what a relationship should be.who are we to say???     \
    if it is sex that makes it go,good for them! if it is emotional
     /loving that makes it go good for them too!
    we all have to live with our selves,i am not going to worry about
    other peoples standards,it is not my place too.
    relax and be open to other peoples lifestyles and not make judgement
    calls on them.

    I also agree with Steve.  Personally I have never enjoyed sex for
    itself since I was 18/19 and it was still a relatively new experience
    and could be linked to learning in the abstract,  where today I see it
    as part of knowledge in the particular of another person.  Like Zoziau,  I
    see it as a part of something more satisfying to the heart and
    mind and such things cannot be hurried.  Of course I have an
    open mind to the converse possibility,  but I just haven't
    felt like that since I was in my teens.  Like anyone I can be
    turned on by seeing someone,  but my inevitable response of trying
    to get to know someone tends to mean that the scenery changes
    and suddenly a new landscape opens up and sex is suddenly
    nearer the horizon, if foreseeable at all(!), than it seemed when
    the eyes met across the crowded room or however things were before
    the reality opened up.  Sensitivity includes the realisation
    that there is a massive distance between you and another person
    that initially needs to be broached and it always takes time.
    For me this has to happen before I can really feel comfortable
    about sex.  It would be like playing only the shallow fast movement
    of a classical sonata without the deeper excitement of the first
    movement and the passive development of the slow movement which
    then gives the scherzo much greater meaning - all be this
    a tenous analogy.

    Simon.

    Steve,
    
    If your point was that "there are others who would disagree with
    you, but that doesn't mean *I* do" then I think you are hiding behind
    a verbal smokescreen. If *you* disagree, then just say so, and your
    point is not so subtle after all. The third possibility is that
    indeed I have misinterpreted you, and your point is more subtle,
    in which case would you please explain it to me?
    
    Getting back to the main point of the discussion, I get the feeling
    that there are people out there who think that "casual" or "friendly"
    sex is inherently "bad" or "wrong" or some milder but still negative
    word. First of all, if you've promised your partner that you won't
    have "friendly" sex with others, and you do, then that is bad, not
    because friendly sex is bad, but because you've broken a trust.
    I'd be interested in hearing from those who think that "friendly"
    sex is *inherently* bad. (or simply should be avoided, and I'm not
    talking about risk of disease or pregnancy or because you said you
    wouldn't)
    
    If you are not in a committed relationship, or your relationship
    is "open" is there something wrong with having sex with someone
    else? Perhaps a very good friend, or an ex-lover, or even someone
    you met at a party? WHY is it wrong? Simply saying that sex in the
    context of a loving relationship is so much better doesn't explain
    why "casual" sex is bad. To draw an analogy, sex with someone you're
    committed to is like a fine dinner with good wine, while casual
    sex is like eating at Burger King. Just because a gourmet dinner
    is wonderful and better doesn't make fast food bad.
    
    Especially don't judge everyone by your capacity for love. If someone
    claims to me that they are capable of loving many people equally,
    I don't call them a liar simply because *I* am not so capable. Wouldn't
    it be WONDERFUL if we could all love each other as much as we love
    our (logical) spouses? How could that be bad? And if we did so love,
    how would "casual" sex be bad? To claim that no one is capable of
    this love is narrow minded and simplistic.
    
    If sex with a friend brings each of us only a fraction of the intimacy
    and joy that sex with a loved one does, in what way is that bad?
    The intimacy and joy are good for their own sakes. As long as it
    does not detract from the joy and intimacy you share with others
    then it isn't bad. To say that "friendly" sex must necessarily take
    away from others is tantamount to claiming that we are each limited
    in our capacity for love. I deny it.
    
    	-- Charles

    re: <97.117 OPHION::HAYNES "Charles Haynes">
 

    >Getting back to the main point of the discussion, I get the feeling
    >that there are people out there who think that "casual" or "friendly"
    >sex is inherently "bad" or "wrong" or some milder but still negative
    >word. 

    >I'd be interested in hearing from those who think that "friendly"
    >sex is *inherently* bad. (or simply should be avoided, and I'm not
    >talking about risk of disease or pregnancy or because you said you
    >wouldn't)
    
	You said, "I'd be interested in hearing...." so hear goes.  First of
    all; inherently bad things about "casual" and/or "friendly" sex.

    CASUAL SEX CAUSES:

			UNWANTED PREGNANCIES
			DIVORCE cause by marital unfaithfulness
			MURDER though abortions
			USURY (devaluation of people - use their body and 
				then, through them away.)
			DEPRESSION caused by guilty feelings from the 
					above mentioned problems
			

    CASUAL SEX TRANSMITS:

			AIDS
			HERPES (and other sexually transmitted diseases)
			MISTRUST
			GODLESSNESS

	Now, for a discussion on the things morally wrong with casual sex.
    First of all , there is no such thing as "casual sex".  How sick to think
    of sex as a casual thing.  That is just USURY; plain and simple.  It is 
    selfish pleasure seeking.  The real words for casual sex are IMMORALITY,
    FORNICATION, ADULTERY, and HOMOSEXUALITY.  To call these acts "casual
    sex" is an attempt to remove oneself from the guilt associated with these
    acts and ease one's conscience.  Today, immorality is call "casual or
    Friendly sex", adultery is called "a fling" (sounds fun, doesn't it) and
    homosexuality is called "an alternative lifestyle".....how sick.

	Another thing about casual sex is that it requires that the person
    be an atheist.  To willingly take part in casual sex is to go against
    God's Law.  [I wont quote Scripture in here, but if anyone is interested,
    let me know.]  

	NO FLAMES PLEASE, YOU ASKED FOR IT.  If you feel yourself getting
    defensive while reading this, then ask yourself, "Why am I getting
    defensive?"; "Do I feel guilty?".

    Regards,
    Tony

    

Well, aren't we all a self-righteous bunch, eh? :-)

Ah I've forgotten what the original question was... er, oh yes.

Right, well, from where I sit personally I like think I would go for it and
worry about the new social and domestic arrangements afterwards. I mean, you
never do know, as it were, where the next meal is coming from. And some of us 
might actually be grateful for the offer.

On the other the hand this has never actually happened to me, so I suppose it 
would depend upon what circumstances were like on the day. Expect I would run a 
mile probably.... :-) I must admit, it's not something I've devoted a lot of
thought to really.

Tarik.

    
    hmm.  as the lady on Church Chat (SNL) would say - "I'n't that
    speshul..."
    
    hmm.  bringing up such terms as immorality and godlessness and adultery
    and homosexuality (which I believe is in a different category entirely,
    and not a deadly sin for those who choose it) and usury in conjunction 
    with casual sex sparks just oodles of controversy.  I am not flaming 
    (although I'm tempted), but I will state my case and exit.  
    
    I have occasionally found pleasure in physical closeness (not
    necessarily just sex) with close friends in the past.  There was a 
    desire, and no one was hurt, both parties felt free to say "stop", and 
    often did at the appropriate point for their comfort.  I have not 
    experienced this for a long time, but I am familiar with the idea.  
    
    It would, for me, be wrong to pick up a complete stranger and expect
    safe sex / satisfaction / feelings of warmth and caring.  I am now
    committed to someone for a very long time, if not forever, so I
    am of the mind that this sort of friendly physicality is no longer
    for me, but I will not go casting stones at those who choose
    another way of thinking.  
    
    Some people can have casual sex with no guilt, worry, or other
    emotional hurt.  some can't (like me).  some can - and I feel it
    is better done with a friend than a stranger (what does one say
    to a stranger the morning after - anyway?)
    
    anyone else care to opine?
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .118
    
    Yup, you're right, we asked for it ... phew.  A mouthful.
    
    I can see what you're saying, and I personally feel that casual sex
    isn't for me; however, who am I to place my morals on others and ask
    others to live by my lifestyle?  Everybody's different, and everybody
    has different beliefs.
    
    I personally don't do drugs.  I don't drink alcohol very much. I don't
    care for crowded, noisy places.  Yet, I don't expect others to live by
    the lifestyle I've chosen.  One good friend of mine, as a matter of
    fact, does do drugs.  That doesn't effect me, and that doesn't effect
    our friendship.  He respects my beliefs and I respect his.  Other
    friends of mine drink; some drink a lot.  Is this inherently bad? No,
    it's just a different belief from my own.
    
    You're right: Casual sex causes many things.  Pregnancy is one serious
    side effect.  And casual sex can transmit disease.  However, making
    love (in a committed relationship) may cause these things too. I've
    known people to catch a disease in a committed relationship (people
    don't always know when they have a problem). Also, pregnancy can be a
    serious problem in a committed relationship, too. There are levels of
    commitment; not all commitments are permanent.

    If two consulting adults understand the ramifications of what they are
    doing, and are willing to accept the consequences, and if their actions
    don't hurt others, I don't see anything wrong with that. I may not
    *PERSONALLY* agree with their actions, but that doesn't make their
    actions wrong or immoral.  Live and let live, that's my philosophy.
    
    	-- Jeff

	re .118:
	
>    CASUAL SEX CAUSES:
>
>			UNWANTED PREGNANCIES
	Not when birth control is used.
>			DIVORCE cause by marital unfaithfulness
	I agree that breaking a commitment, cheating on a partner, is
	wrong. But we're talking about casual sex between single
	people here, not adultery.
>			MURDER though abortions
	Again, birth control.
>			USURY (devaluation of people - use their body and 
>				then, through them away.)
	This is the closest to a valid concern here. Casual sex can
	sometimes take this form, two people just using each others'
	bodies for temporary pleasure. But it can also take the form
	of two people giving warmth and comfort to each other.
	
	Is it "usury" if the use is mutual? If each party understands
	going in that they're basically trading the use of their own
	body for the use of the other's? Yes, Tony, I know what you
	think, what do the other noters think? Oh, and yes, sometimes
	the "use" is one way, and I do agree that that is wrong.

>			DEPRESSION caused by guilty feelings from the 
>					above mentioned problems

	The "above mentioned problems" aren't problems for people who
	approach sex maturely and with due consideration and caring
	for each other.

>    CASUAL SEX TRANSMITS:

>			AIDS
>			HERPES (and other sexually transmitted diseases)
	Not when appropriate precautions are taken (i.e., condoms).

>			MISTRUST
	How?
>			GODLESSNESS
	
>	Another thing about casual sex is that it requires that the person
>    be an atheist. 

	Not necessarily. Many people with strong, sincere religious
	beliefs do not believe that God disapproves of "casual sex".

	Your only argument that casual sex is "inherently wrong" that
	isn't easily torn down is "because God says it is". That's
	your belief, and you're welcome to it, but please try to
	respect the beliefs of others.

	Mike
	
	P.S. Tony, you obviously feel strongly about this and are
	welcome to express your opinion. But your hostile tone does
	not reflect well on either yourself or your beliefs.

    
    
    	Atta-boy Mike. |^)
    
    	Todd

    RE .122
    And, there are atheists who do not engage in casual sex.
    

    And who says you're an atheist if you prefer another god(dess) than
    the one in your Bible?
    
    Lee

    one of the things that i have learned from this conversation
    is that men(sorry to sound sexist) do care and do think about their
    minds,hearts,souls,resposibilties,and their parnters.it really does
    my heart glad to see that you do stop and think before acting.
    i was brought up be a parent that drummeds into me that men are
    after only one thing :-)
    now if only that darned double standard would go away :-)
    				kelly

    Re: .117
    
    I goofed.  I should have simply stated my own views and let others
    state theirs.  I should have known better...
    
    But, I thought I had made my position quite clear, especially in
    earlier notes.  My position is that I do not believe in casual
    sex, for me.  I make no moral or ethical judgements about those
    who believe otherwise.
    					Steve

RE: .118
>	NO FLAMES PLEASE, YOU ASKED FOR IT.  If you feel yourself getting
>    defensive while reading this, then ask yourself, "Why am I getting
>    defensive?"; "Do I feel guilty?".



The same question can be asked of people that have your religious beliefs.
One thing that consistantly bothers me about the "so called" born again
(or whatever they call themselves today) is how condeming they are.  If they
truly believed in their faith as they profess, there would be more tolerance
shown, instead what we see and hear is condemnation.  If God had been as
unforgiving and narrow minded as they are, then man would have never been
saved.  You don't change people by condeming them but by living the life
you profess and loving ALL mankind whether they believe and act as you do
or not.  The religion I learned (and I believe my faith is stronger and
longer lasting than most of these people) is tolerant, forgiving and flexible
no intolerant, unforgiving and inflexible.  The contempt shown for people
that haven't reached the level of faith you feel you have, is very evident
and does more to turn people away than it does to get them to see what may
be the right way to live.  Another factor not taken into account is there are 
certain HUMAN emotions that are automatically invoked whenever something people 
believe in is attacked, they react defensively.

Remember, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".


JEF
    

re .120
	On the other hand one could regard casual hetero-sex as a form of
	homosexuality - to the extent of being like a hermaphrodite:
	If you don't have a deep relationship with someone
	and so don't know them then you are effectively using them
	to have sex with yourself - the images about them that
	only originate them from them on a superficial level.
	The rest is coming from you alone and so in that sense
	you are largely having sex with yourself.  This is right,
	acceptable or wrong depending on your view.  It equates
	in someways to masturbation using a person instead of
        e.g. a hand -- (I decline to opine whether it is right.)

	I agree with the physical closeness - in fact it happened
	to me last Thursday when I was sort of picked up by
	a girl from Florida.  She wanted to come home and it
	turned out that she was happy to just experience
	physical closeness which was certainly all I felt
	I could give under the circumstances.  As I explained in
	.116 - I feel that I am too aware of not knowing the other
	person to even feel turned on until I know them pretty well.
	Or may be I am afraid of
	the guilt and so on I experienced as a teenager
	when I did have casual sex occasionally - I am not
	sure about that last possibility.

re .122
	If something goes wrong then occasionally a woman may
	have to take a morning after pill,  which
	I understand is not a pleasant experience.
	Alternatively the man gets a vascectomy and so
	my point here is that there are
	still medical problems attached to the whole
	business of contraception.  According to
	an ex-girlfriend who clearly has a vested
	interest,  there are
	stats to show complications such as cervical
	cancer arising from the use of IUD/the pill
	and the safest (for the woman's health) is
	the diaphragm or the condom,  the latter
	of which is not always possible for the man.
	So the diaphragm features strongly and
	since it is not totally safe (can be
	very safe if used rigorously and perhaps
	in conjunction with a temperature chart
	but never really close to 100%),  then
	an unwanted pregancy is a risk always
	being taken in casual sex - assuming that
	one is not casual about pregnancy as well!

Simon.

    re:.129
    
    This may be off the beaten track - but did I just hear you
    say that condoms are sometimes not an option for the man, when speaking
    of condoms and diaphragms for birth control?
    
    Why wouldn't they be?
    
    They come in a variety of sizes, thicknesses, lubrications, price
    ranges, and are available in all 24-hour drug stores (which are
    available in most cities).
    
    confused - Jody
    
    

    Re: .130
    
    Condoms do NOT come in a variety of sizes - at least not in this
    country.
    			Steve

    Re: .132
    
    According to the manufacturers, I suppose so.
    
    I'm sorry I continued down this digression - please return to the
    original topic.
    					Steve

    RE: .117
    
    Charles,
    
    Vous devriez expliquer ceci a mon ami...
    
    
    ZoZiau

              < I've told him this a hundred times, but . . . >
    
    re: .117
    
    Charles,
    
    You will have to explain this to my friend . . .
    
    
    

    In regard to the idea of a purely physical relationship, I don't
    think there is anything morally wrong with it.  But, I don't think
    it would work for me.  It seems like one of two things would probably
    happen.  If I didn't develop feelings for the guy I would lose interest
    in seeing him for just sex, and if I did develop feelings for him
    and he didn't have feelings for me, then I'd get hurt.  
    
    Re .97, and the others by Charles Haynes about personal preferences.
     I think it's a shame, too, that there may be some wonderful
    over-weight men somewhere that would make a wonderful S.O. for me
    if only I weren't so weight conscious.  But, I also think it's a
    shame that there may be some wonderful guy out there somewhere who
    will never give me a chance because I am not a tall, gorgeous blonde,
    with an hour glass figure.  I think it's a damn shame but I think
    it's the way it is and we all have to accept and deal with the fact
    that looks *do* come into play when people pick romantic partners.
     Basically, I totally agree with Lee in .99 when it comes to somebody
    being attractive (with exception of very obese men).
    
    Lorna