|
Grex > Glb > #32: Coming Out Stories | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
jazz
|
|
response 200 of 254:
| 
Mar 9 17:32 UTC 1999 |
Fair 'nuff.
|
brighn
|
|
response 201 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:16 UTC 1999 |
Synopsis:
Julie: I know when we have a child, God will provide.
John: *insert sacririligious and inflammatory (deliberate or not) joke*
Gypsi: Julie, any parent will tell you that you never think you'll have enough
money, but that God somehow always does provide.
John: *insert sacriligious and inflammatory (all right, now it's starting to
seem deliberate) joke*
Gypsi: Ha-ha, John, but you know Julie's LDS.
Julie: That's o.k., I thought it was funny. Anyway, yeah, I know God will
provide, but *long conversations about student financial problems*
John: *insert provocational post about God and heathen children, allowing
inferences to be made aboutthe christian/LDS God being indifferent to the
suffering of the non-believers, or about the Christians/LDS being stupid
because God will protect you whether you believe or not*
Jon (Lumen): It's the latter, John, but I really don't think this is the
place. could we not talk about this here, please?
John: *whine* But I'm just trying to understand! *more flamebaiting*
Jon: I mean it, John. Let's drop it.
John: why are you being rude? I'm just trying to understand, really! Julie
brought it up! Julie shouldn't bring up religion if she doesn't want
discussion!
My comments:
John (Jazz), first off, when somebody asks you nicely to drop a subject, it's
polite to drop a subject. when you don't, then they're more than entitled to
be rude in a future post. Secondly, saying "I know the Lord will provide"
isn't bringing up the subject anymore than "Goddess bless" is. Its a statement
of personal belief. It's not an invitation to have a theological debate.
I don't know whether you have personal baggage against LDS or against
christianity in general (or organized religion, for that matter), or if you
were just in the mood to have a philosophical/theological debate (which is
a noble and fine thing in and of itself, let's go somewhere and have it, I'd
love to), but sometimes you can be a major schmuck.
|
jazz
|
|
response 202 of 254:
|
Mar 10 18:25 UTC 1999 |
Synopsizing someone as "*whine*" is flame-bait in itself, ne'?
|
lumen
|
|
response 203 of 254:
|
Mar 10 18:54 UTC 1999 |
*sigh*
Please just take it at face value, John. We didn't mean to push any
buttons.
btw, I was very surprised Julie decided to mention kids at all. I told
her quite firmly I didn't want that publicly discussed right now,
so..anyway, what's done is done.
|
brighn
|
|
response 204 of 254:
|
Mar 10 20:49 UTC 1999 |
No, John, it's outright flaming. =}
So I flamed. That's irrelevant to whether or not I can justifiably comment
on your flaming and flame-baiting. (Your implication to the contrary being
a classic fallacy ad hominem.) I'm a schmuck sometimes too. =}
Now... Lumen, speaking of pushing buttons, you just pushed one of mine. Just
because you told Julie not to discuss something, that means she's not supposed
to discuss it? Exsqueeze me? Baking powder? Is that a ring on her finger, or
a shackle and a gag?
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean that
in the way I interpreted it, since I'm willing to acknowledge that I have
triggers and baggage independent of this BBS. ;}
|
lumen
|
|
response 205 of 254:
|
Mar 10 22:11 UTC 1999 |
Whoops, I was afraid I hadn't clarified things. We want to have kids,
but the time isn't right at this point in time. I would have paid the
matter little importance except that it sparked another discussion that
I didn't want to get into, and felt was unwarranted. What I meant was I
told Julie after John's post was made that this was a matter I wasn't
comfortable discussing in public, since I know that it is very painful
for us right now.
Julie is still much more trusting than I and is still getting hurt. I
have done the same, so what I meant to say was I told her once again to
be careful what she shares, because, speaking of triggers and baggage
aside from the conference, as Paul put it, we have plenty ourselves.
Please excuse me if I speak rashly; things are very difficult now and
will be for quite a while.
|
bookworm
|
|
response 206 of 254:
|
Mar 11 07:47 UTC 1999 |
Does anybody have any idea how often it's snowed over here?
Do you realize that, if it didn't melt during the course of the day,
we'd probably have about a foot, maybe two.
How 'bout you guys? I hear you are still waiting for the first penguin
of spring to waddle through town :)
(PS. Yes, I'm deliberately changing the subject. Somebody take me up
on it.)
(PPS. Thanks for standing up for me, Paul, Jon. Your efforts are
greatly appreciated)
|
gypsi
|
|
response 207 of 254:
|
Mar 11 15:17 UTC 1999 |
I love penguins.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 208 of 254:
|
Mar 11 20:24 UTC 1999 |
An appropriate confession for the coming-out-stories item. :)
|
bookworm
|
|
response 209 of 254:
|
Mar 11 22:38 UTC 1999 |
Yeah. Perfect.
I like buttermilk.
|
i
|
|
response 210 of 254:
|
Mar 12 02:44 UTC 1999 |
What interesting uses could a kinky imagination find for buttermilk pancakes?
|
bookworm
|
|
response 211 of 254:
|
Mar 12 04:40 UTC 1999 |
Mmmm. Sounds tasty. Lemme think about it.
Jon seems to think it would be useful for rubbing. (need I say more?)
|
lumen
|
|
response 212 of 254:
|
Mar 12 04:51 UTC 1999 |
Uh, I forgot clothing. Hey, I think it could be done.
|
bookworm
|
|
response 213 of 254:
|
Mar 12 07:14 UTC 1999 |
What's kinky about Buttermilk pancakes used as clothing?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 214 of 254:
|
Mar 12 21:28 UTC 1999 |
Any food item used as clothing, or vice versa, is inherently kinky. Deal with
it.
|
void
|
|
response 215 of 254:
|
Mar 12 23:16 UTC 1999 |
do penguins use buttermilk pancakes for anything?
|
i
|
|
response 216 of 254:
|
Mar 13 18:13 UTC 1999 |
Re: #214 - Somehow, i don't find clothing items used as food kinky. Am
i erotically impaired, or do i just need better recipes for old socks? :)
Re: #213 - Well, if your lover is sufficiently hungry for buttermilk
pancakes and thinks you're an acceptable substitute for a plate....if
you soak 'em good with syrup and butter first, he'll have to work at
it to lick his "plate" clean....
|
keesan
|
|
response 217 of 254:
|
Mar 14 04:50 UTC 1999 |
I am curious if people treat you differentaly as a married couple than they
did before you married. (But do not feel obligated to answer, of course).
Or if you act differently, such as not feeling that you can spend time
individually with other friends.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 218 of 254:
|
Mar 14 22:11 UTC 1999 |
Can you second a question? If you can, I do. Otherwise, um... well, I'll
get back to you :)
|
jazz
|
|
response 219 of 254:
|
Mar 14 23:49 UTC 1999 |
Oddly enough, there's more difference, socially, when a straight couple
is married. There are certain social conventions that married straight
couples tend to fall into; among other things, children, homesteading, and
associating with other couples. Gay couples seem much more flexible about
these things, and less likely to fall into social patterns.
|
lumen
|
|
response 220 of 254:
|
Mar 15 22:29 UTC 1999 |
Well, from what I've read, when gay or lesbian couples (I'm assuming
John was using gay in a collective sense) adopt children or conceive by
artificial insemination, the responsibilities aren't evenly divided as a
whole. Often, the responsibilities are divided in much the same way as
heterosexual couples do.
I'm sure Paul has much more to say on this, but expectations of a
married bisexual couple can be very vague. There's the question of
polyamory. With Julie and I, it seemed like a lot of people assumed we
were forsaking any sort of alternative lifestyle, considering our
religion, and even our outward appearance.
We were watching 'Celluloid in the Closet' once with our G.A.L.A. group
when we were engaged (I apologize if I've mentioned this already).
There was a scene from a movie where the guy took off his shirt and we
both commented on his lovely torso. One of the girls in the group who
had been raised Mormon yelped, "But you guys are supposed to be getting
married!" Okay, so we don't do the moves, but we do make a bit of
harmless window shopping (or does that lead to trouble?)
We have a friend that wants to be more a part of our lives, but there's
just too many problems there. Besides a conflict of faith (that our
faith doesn't allow it, that she is not of the same faith that we are
and may never accept that part of us), we're just having a rough time
keeping things together, Julie and I, without having to add her in. Any
counselor or mental health professional will tell you it's difficult to
maintain a balance in a relationship with more than 2 people.
|
i
|
|
response 221 of 254:
|
Mar 16 04:30 UTC 1999 |
2 people -> 1 relationship you gotta keep healthy
3 people -> 3 relationships you gotta keep healthy
4 people -> 6 relationships you gotta keep healthy
Stable larger groups where people have real relationships are 99.99% fantasy.
|
jazz
|
|
response 222 of 254:
|
Mar 16 13:19 UTC 1999 |
I noted that the one inaccuracy in Chasing Amy is that Banky assumed
that if Alyssa (the formerly "lesbian" title character) were to admire a woman
in a mall, that it'd drive Holden crazy. I've never seen anyone really be
bothered by that kind of behaviour. It tends to be an additional intimacy.
|
brighn
|
|
response 223 of 254:
|
Mar 17 19:31 UTC 1999 |
Your math is wrong, i. It's:
2 people = 1 relationship
3 people = 4 relationships (3 2-person relationships, 1 3-person
relationship)
4 people = 11 relationships (6 2-person, 4 3-person, 1 4-person)
(Yes, there *is* a dynamic difference between a 3-person relationship and the
three component 2-person relationships.)
I've heard of one fairly stable 5-person relationship (tat's 26
interrelationships!)
But it's not just the number of relationships that's relevant, it's the
consequences of a relationship failing. If a two-person relationship fails
entirely, the parties walk away, but if two people in a three-person
relationship become total enemies, that leaves the third person in the lurch
(and in a position of choosing between them, or walking away from them both).
OTOH, in my own experience, if a two-person relationship *falters* but doesn't
fail entirely, there's a better-than-average likelihood that the parties will
give up anyway, whereas if two people in a three-person relationship have a
faltering relationship, the third person can act as a temporary bond until
the problem passes (so long as that third person knows how to manage the
tension and potential jealousies).
Conclusions:
-- Contrary to popular belief, relationships involving more than two people
ARE more stable than two-person relationships (assuming the parties can
overcome cultural baggage against poly relationships)
-- when a poly relationship fails, it FAILS, bigtime, not pretty at all
Stable poly relationships are not 99.99% fantasy. They're difficult because
of cultural pressures against them, but if the parties involved are committed,
they can be functional.
|
jazz
|
|
response 224 of 254:
|
Mar 18 14:36 UTC 1999 |
The n!/n factorial rule only applies to secure IP tunnels. :)
I'd say that behaviorology and psychology has a lot more to do with
the success and failure of *any* relationship than math. :)
|