|
Grex > Glb > #19: how did you meet your special someone | |
|
| Author |
Message |
agent86
|
|
how did you meet your special someone
| 
Dec 7 18:47 UTC 1997 |
Ok, heres a question:
how did all of you who are currently dating/married to a gay/bi/lesbian
partner meet each other? I ask because I assume that it might not always be
so easier for you, given the tradition of descrimination towards homosexuality
in this country... this part of the country isn't exactly the bible-belt, but
it isn't the most liberal place either. I am guessing that it is likely rather
difficult for all of you to meet in the "traditional" settings of school and
work, out of the difficulty in finding other g/l/b's and not offending
heterosexuals...
Is The Flame open again?
-drew
|
| 87 responses total. |
babozita
|
|
response 1 of 87:
|
Dec 7 21:52 UTC 1997 |
I'm in a relationship with a MOTOS right now (have been for, um, almost 16
years now), and have an odd relationship with another MOTOS, but don't have
any MOTSS relationships right now. ={ The MOTSS people I've had encounters
with have been the result of Pagan gatherings... Pagans tend to be more open
about such things, so it's easier to meet and getinvolved with MOTSS's, but
that's assuming (a) you're Pagan and (b) there are any Pagan events in your
area. I'm not the sort to go to bars to pick people up, gay or straight.
|
void
|
|
response 2 of 87:
|
Dec 8 02:39 UTC 1997 |
hmmm. i used to spend a lot of time in bars picking people up, but
rarely found anything more than a one-night stand there. most of my
s.o.'s i met through friends. i make it a personal policy never to date
anyone from work.
|
mta
|
|
response 3 of 87:
|
Dec 10 01:04 UTC 1997 |
The Flame never closed. It just moved. It's next door the Kana, now.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 4 of 87:
|
Dec 15 03:59 UTC 1997 |
This is actually something I've been wondering about myself...not that it's
of much direct importance to me, being as I'm also in a straight relationship
right now, but as a matter of curiousity...
|
brown
|
|
response 5 of 87:
|
Dec 28 12:12 UTC 1997 |
well i actually * met* denise in high school.. we were both Drama/Orchestra
geeks ;)
but she is 3 years my Junior and we didn't actually 'hang' back then.
we "re-met" by mutual friends. started talking about old times. and found out
HEY! we had something else in common... bisexcuality.. led to many nights of
great talks.. and many months of a great relationship
FYI the poor girl is heading off to Oregon in 10 days.. leaving me here..
alone. well for the time being anyway
strange thing is.. for as much as she 'appreciates' women.. by the time we
met we both had males as our last 2 partners.
hmm 7am time fer bed eh folks?
|
lumen
|
|
response 6 of 87:
|
Jan 3 07:21 UTC 1998 |
I met my current sweetie working as Santa in the mall..she was one of Santa's
helpers.
We've talked about my sexuality..she understands it :) I'm loyal and I
wouldn't leave a gem like her, really..also, accepting it, I think it's made
things easier.
|
lumen
|
|
response 7 of 87:
|
Jan 9 03:58 UTC 1998 |
Whoops..actually, she's not bi. But that makes it even better. What we have
in common is family members and friends that are gay. But I really worried
about offending heterosexuals..y'know, even bi women aren't that hot on
sharing their men. She joked that if she saw a hot guy, she'd point him out
for me. (; But really, I like this relationship as it stands, and I don't
feel the need for gratification elsewhere..
she's also 6 1/2 years my junior-- which I'm uncertain makes her acceptance
unusual or more likely..
|
brown
|
|
response 8 of 87:
|
Jan 9 04:13 UTC 1998 |
whyu would you be worried about offending hetero's? did I miss
somehting..
|
orinoco
|
|
response 9 of 87:
|
Jan 9 05:16 UTC 1998 |
Well, I know a while back my girlfriend and I were talking about some TV show
or another and she mentioned that she found the lead character really
cute - and then had to backtrack and ask if that offended me. (I said it
didn't, and now we both point out cute guys for each other with some
regularity..)
I think lumen might be talking about the same sort of thing in reverse -
worrying that his GF might be offended if he finds other guys attractive.
|
jazz
|
|
response 10 of 87:
|
Jan 9 16:53 UTC 1998 |
I still maintain that your SO isn't the best person in the world to
confide *all* of your thoughts to (especially if they aren't secure enough
to realise people can be attracted and yet remain completely monogamous),
but that's the kind of thing I'd hope my SOs were stable and honest enough
to confide in me with, when it was appropriate. It doesn't make great
dinner-table conversation though.
|
lumen
|
|
response 11 of 87:
|
Jan 10 00:35 UTC 1998 |
It was appropriate, because..well, she did take me to see _In & Out._ I also
don't think it's appropriate to be hoochin' or cruisin' with your SO. Sure,
your eyes may stray, but I do agree with jazz..does it need to be shared?
In broad areas besides sexuality, I don't think you can share too much of
yourself with your SO-- I mean, you should share how much you think your SO
can handle, or however much he/she tells you. I think this is part of the
concepts of "taking it slow" and "going too fast." If neither of you has a
problem with being fairly open, and you're progressive individuals, I wouldn't
worry. Some people can continue to be full of surprises.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 12 of 87:
|
Jan 10 03:17 UTC 1998 |
See, I disagree with both of you. My SO and I are both very open about who
we're attracted to, and neither of us have much of a problem with it. There
was one semi-crisis earlier when she divulged something of that sort to me,
and it took me a while to get over it, but now I don't even mind.
|
brown
|
|
response 13 of 87:
|
Jan 10 17:49 UTC 1998 |
heeh i guess knowing that your relationship is strong and open
enough should be the first thought ;)
d' abd I always ponted out "cuties" and usually jsut had a good
laugh at it. we knew it was safe.. and hell IF there was more I;m
guessing THAT is when she wouldn't say anything... nor probably
would I
|
lumen
|
|
response 14 of 87:
|
Jan 11 02:07 UTC 1998 |
good point
|
jazz
|
|
response 15 of 87:
|
Jan 11 21:12 UTC 1998 |
Depends a lot on the person. I wouldn't be involved with anyone who
was so insecure that they couldn't handle the thought that their partner
could (*eep!*) be *attracted* to someone else ... but if you did, I can see
being quiet about it, and there's no point to bringing it up each time that
it happense ...
|
snowth
|
|
response 16 of 87:
|
Jan 12 01:12 UTC 1998 |
...Semi-crisis, eh? Yeah, I guess you could call it that. :)
Hi y'all, I'm back!
|
babozita
|
|
response 17 of 87:
|
Jan 12 01:31 UTC 1998 |
(and yet john would be invovled with someone who'd be involved with someone
who was so insecure that they couldn't handle the thought that their partner
could be *attracted* to someone else...)
*g*
|
jazz
|
|
response 18 of 87:
|
Jan 12 19:37 UTC 1998 |
Uh, enough flaming, dweezil. If monogamy were the hallmark of
insecurity, you'd be monogamous yourself.
|
babozita
|
|
response 19 of 87:
|
Jan 13 18:38 UTC 1998 |
Monogamy and insecurity are unrelated.
And back with the name-calling? If we're going to have a flame-war, could we
at least stick to adult tactics?
*g*
|
orinoco
|
|
response 20 of 87:
|
Jan 13 20:48 UTC 1998 |
<sigh> It would be nice if we could avoid having another item fall prey to
Brighn-induced flaming...
|
babozita
|
|
response 21 of 87:
|
Jan 13 22:54 UTC 1998 |
No. I bait. Jazz flames. Miles trolls.
Get your terms straight... =}
|
brown
|
|
response 22 of 87:
|
Jan 14 23:07 UTC 1998 |
*grin*
|
orinoco
|
|
response 23 of 87:
|
Jan 14 23:56 UTC 1998 |
<sigh> <again. :)
|
babozita
|
|
response 24 of 87:
|
Jan 15 02:35 UTC 1998 |
I amend that. #23 was definitely a bait. =}
|