lumen
|
|
response 14 of 19:
| 
Nov 3 19:14 UTC 2000 |
resp:10 <sound of hand smacking forehead>
I have taken pride in being a near immaculate speller.. and then I miss
"E - r - i - n - n." I shouldn't have missed that-- the spelling is
non-standard and makes it that much more memorable.
Regarding Dallas, well, understood. I understand it's pretty slummy
down there.
On point #2-- that's a good thing to have. I was making a biased
statement on what I know of you. I met you in what I thought was an
ideal way: thru the party forum, I came to know some of your thoughts
and feelings; and then when I saw your pictures on Jess's webpage at
grexers.nether.net, I noted your outward beautiful appearance. When I
met you in person, I remember that you were dressed really casually, but
your amicability was apparent, and it seemed that the Erinn I met over
Grex was consistent with the Erinn I met in person.
Being able to blend in, however, is a valuable trait. I wish I had it.
Perhaps I do and don't know it, but being 310lb. and 6'1" makes it hard
=\
pt. 3- Yes, awe. I have never met such a genuine person, really, and
one that wasn't afraid to be touchy-feely even though I am married. I
have another friend like that, and she is very much married as I am.
The interesting point is that I got a little tense and had to voice my
boundaries; generally, if she decides to caress my face, squeeze my
hand, or take my arm (if we are walking somewhere) in a friendly way, I
let her do it. But I generally don't initiate the touch.
I heard it said somewhere that we are an oversexed but undertouched
nation-- and to a degree, that's true. So much touch is assumed to have
sexual overtones, especially between men. (Well, so football players
slap each other on the butt, but then, they bang helmets, too.)
To get back to the point, the general problem is that we probably think
about sex too much-- and not only does it reduce our touching, but it
effects our other non-verbal communication. I was reading that in
France, a man may stare at a woman, and it is usually noted as a
platonic interest and an appreciation of the woman's beauty, unlike the
example in the poem, which is sexually charged.
Sorry to drift a bit, but I guess my point is that it's a shame we tie
so many things to sex that it gets in the way of what could be friendly
communication.
|
freedom
|
|
response 15 of 19:
|
Nov 13 21:15 UTC 2000 |
May the poet herself make a comment-sorry I hadn't checked back at this on
e for awhile'
The girl in the poem, notes, like Erinn pointed out, the double edged sword
of beauty, it can be both good and bad. It draws nice compliments, but may
I add behind every nice comment is something we cannot see...
generally speaking, no, scientifically speaking, for a man, on average, that
would be, conciously, or subconsciously a sexual thought or urge, etc. It
is natural, but hard to control. The idea being that beauty must be protected
in several ways. One, as a female, I feel I have a responsibility to not go
around TRYING to arouse men, by looking and acting a certain way. But
secondly,
as was the case w/ me before, I didn't try, it just happened, perhaps this
is where innder beauty also plays a part. Which is why actions are even more
important. Secondly, if you let people see or have too much of something, it
will become abused. Now, this has to happen to some degee, for example,
when you get close to somehow, things they say will hurt more than others
becuase your level of emotional connection is greater and you are more
vulnerable. The female body, can become easily abused in this context. Not
just physically, but even mentally. Personally speaking, I do not any longer
enjoy arousing a strange man's desires. I would rather him long to know the
inner me, and not speak to me because of my appearance...and women are
constantly battling this trying to decide what guys like them for, despite
what they may say. Perhaps, I am speaking on a assumption bases, and from a
personal level...but the most important thing being that beauty is such a
small part of a person.....
on with Jon's discussion on touching..
personally speaking I do not see a necessity for a woman, otehr than your
wife to caress you face, touch your hand, or touch you at all for that matter.
Explanation? If you *are* attracted to her, it will cause some sort of
sexual arousal in you...if you aren't aroused by her, then it is either
becuase you really aren't attracted by her, or because you force yourself to
try not to feel that way b/c you ARE married. Now, I'm not meaning to attack
you personally...but you used yourself as an example! If you do have friends
who "touch" you more....and you find their touch to create some kind of feel-
ing...then you may be tempted to want to explore that even more...
none of these possibilities should even have to be considered for a married
man or woman....I mean, wouldn't you feel a little uncomfortable if you knew
your wife had a male friend, whom when he hugged her, or touched her is made
her drift in wonder what it would like being w/ him, etc......aaaaaah..
that just drives me nuts...
A lot of people say its ok to look but not touch....I mean, I can argue that
but my views are a bit extreme...but not touching is the key there...
just some thougths to ponder....
|
jazz
|
|
response 17 of 19:
|
Nov 13 21:52 UTC 2000 |
Personally, I'd hope that whomever I go out with or marry to be
perfectly comfortable with their friends of both genders, whatever that meant
to them. If that meant hugging and kissing (friendly kissing, not that
Clinton stuff), then that's great. And I'd certainly hope she had fantasies
about other people occasionally, because if she didn't then she'd be dead
from the neck up.
It's not worth worrying about, and I vastly prefer people to have
their own friends and life.
|
lumen
|
|
response 18 of 19:
|
Nov 14 00:10 UTC 2000 |
My point was that because people don't touch each other much, any such
touching is more often assumed to be sexual than friendly.
It's a pity. Now, in my case, I just drew my boundaries and remained
aware of them. In general, if a woman wants a hug from me, she'll
extend her arms and make some sort of friendly greeting. Now, Emily
happens to be more touchy-feely than my other friends, but well.. we
understand. Besides, we both know how crushed and angered our spouses
would be if anything wrong did happen.
The sad thing is.. if my guy friends were touchy-feely, people would
think we all were homosexual or something. (That bites.)
|
jazz
|
|
response 19 of 19:
|
Nov 14 17:42 UTC 2000 |
There are different rules and regulations, socially, for male-to-male
contact, but the meaning is the same. It's not just a matter of "men don't
touch other men as much as women", for the kind of antics you'll see at any
football game you'll only see rarely among women.
Might as well work within the system as without, especially since touch
can be a very sensitive issue. Most people, when they don't want to be
touched, view touch as an invasion of personal privacy, and it's not a very
good feeling. So you're right to be uncomfortable touching someone unless
they've given you a clear indication or invitation.
|