> WOW, who is THIS woman and where has she been lurking all our lives?
>
<snip>
Wow! What a great response! Thank you.
I've been here quite a while. I usually like to hold off and see if
someone else will say what I want to say. Someone usually does. When they
don't then by the time I get to it, the topic will have died out. This
time I just couldn't resist. Who can resist love? :-) I kind of lost it
and didn't even read from about late January to late June. In May I gave
birth to a little girl. Nice to get that load off my belly. LOL.
> I mean - bra-VO! Maybe she misspelled a few words, but shit, so do I -
>somebody could edit it.
My spelling is a total albatross. It's one of the reasons I usually just
lurk. I offer, right now, one big apology for all the misspelling I have
committed and all the misspelling I will commit. Would you believe I even
ran this sucker through a spell checker? It probably doesn't help that I
tend to invent words without noticing.
<more snippage>
>>>Mark, Roger: it looks to me like you need to gird your loins and hit
>the road ;^)
>
> She told me to hit the road (another possible insult) - but, wait a
>minute. She said it's bad to deserve it and not walk it, and she's
>telling me to walk it - so that must mean I deserve it (profound
>compliment).
>
Glad you took it the right way. I think all three of you dudes have
posted some great stuff.
>
>>>This is my take on this: BB, Mark, and Roger are lonely brothers who
>are frustrated with their love lives and the apparent injustices in
>matters of the heart.
>
> Correct,
> except I'm not so sure of the sense of "apparent". If it means
>appearing to me, correct, but the word also might mean illusory. It's
>been too apparent to me for the last 35 years and agreed to by reports
>of other people encountered in those same years to allow me to think
>it's illusory.
Oh I'm so glad you picked up on that. There's a lot behind it. First I
do NOT mean that you do not see your situation correctly. I would never be
so foolish as to think that of anyone. (and it ticks me off when others
make that mistake about me)
One of the levels on which I am using the word "apparent" is in reference
to the concept that all life is illusory. A lot of the problems people
have in their love lives has to do with the nature of Maya (the Indian
kind, as in all-of-life-is-illusion). You can tell this when you play
around a little with perspective. For example, a couple has a fight. She
has one take on what happened and why. He has another. A friend who acted
as innocent bystander will have a third. A disembodied but interested
spirit will have still another. Some of those perspectives may see the
fight as the result of gender differences. Others may not.
I have found more and more that when I pull my perspective back as far as
I can and still see the movie at all, that a lot of injustice turns out to
be life lessons. Injustice of any type is often a matter of perspective.
I've got a lot more to say about this, but don't want to take up the band
width. I just hope this gets the gist of it across.
>
>>>As an aside, there is some frustration with the anger being vented by
>women over their own frustration.
>
> It's more than an aside - it may not be exactly in the middle, but
>it's quite integral to about everything that produces my frustration.
>
Silly me. Romantic love is one of my favorite topics (right after divine
nature). I guess I was letting my mind run rampant over the whole topic
rather than primarily the frustration factor. Also, I was working from a
point of synergy having to do with where the three of you (you, Mark, and
Roger) come to an agreement. Although you all come to a point, you do it
from all different angles. I wasn't always giving yours full weight when I
framed my answer.
>>>But Sn/Carla, I love your bluntness! You really cut through the ice
>on some issues I was about to take a torch to.
>
> I'm telling you, some of the best composed , most poetic, and
>sometimes downright funny posts have been when somebody has written off
>a long simmering anger funk. I would put that one up alongside "The gods
>die tonight", by Miranda Raven.
HO
>
>>>Just remember (brothers AND sisters) to do it in moderation. Wallowing
>in the feeling does not improve anything.
>
> I believe in moderation in all things, and "all things" includes this
>statement. Sometimes it is good for both the nervous and endocrine
>systems to go off on a binge so you can experience a few things you
>can't otherwise. Prudence becomes more important, of course - but
>sometimes even that must be abandoned extremely. A Rainbow Gathering is
>- for me - a glorious extreme that I go to once or twice a year - no, I
>could not live at a Gathering year around.
I agree that a binder in any form now and then can be great. Great fun
even when the other benefits don't kick in. I was thinking more along the
lines of when people turn bitching into a habit. Even in a single bitch
session I have noticed that at some point the energies released begin to
turn back. Then you get an amplification effect. Kind of takes the
therapy out of it.
<snip>
>>>OK, now to the touchy stuff. I got the feeling you guys really would
>like to change something
>
> Correct.
>
>>>in the hopes of landing the loves of your lives.
>
> Not really, any more.
This is that full weight business again. I did read the post in which you
gave your lovelife history. Not all of us were born with a pre-ordained
mate. Some of us (the ones with really heavy trips in store) aren't really
supposed to mate at all. Just not enough time for it.
> It would not now make me happy simply to be rollin' in my sweet
>baby's arms - not when I can still hear the couple fighting in the other
>house, not while the divorce rate is 1 in 2, not while domestic violence
>is the leading situation for homicide, not while so many kids are
>growing up fucked up, not while I can't stand to listen to 90% of the
>lyrics to the songs on the radio - words that glorify jealousy and
>irrational abandonment to passions. I'm getting too old to start a
>family. My dharma must be different. For me, the only satisfying
>solution can be revolution. I think the system is irrational and brutal.
>I want to change it.
So does this mean you don't want a love life? Are you just trying to see
the perspective of women in general, or just want to be friends? Do you
want to be a knight in shining armor for the female gender? Trying to
expand your role as a man? Some combination? I guess I'm still unclear on
what you need.
> This is the cause I could devote all my passions to. If there were a
>group of people that were devoted to this, I would obsessively take up
>their sign, their microphone, their telephone.
> But right now there really ain't one. The women's movement has dealt
>with some of this, with their exploration of removing sex roles, and
>their concern with domestic violence, but men's feelings haven't been
>explored too much. The gay movement has spoken to me, with their freedom
>to be gentle and silly, and the male affection they offer me, but they
>don't tell me how to relate to women. The men's movement has given me
>some of the same, but so much of it seems to be searches for new macho
>trips to replace the old. The Rainbow Family has opened people to me in
>many ways, but as the sisters will tell you, a lot of the same old bar
>games are played there too. There's nobody really interested in
>revolutionary love.
> So why don't I start something, then? Well, I'm like Moses before the
>burning bush. "But Lord, I am short of speech..." Cynical old fart
>Bumblebee Bill advocating revolutionary love? Wouldn't that be like
>Hummingbird Cowboy trying to be the pastor of a Unity Temple?
> So I'm casting about in places like a.g.r - hell, I don't know -
>something might come up.
>
>>>I am (quite happily) nobody, so take my suggestions with a grain of
>salt.
>
This comment has a lot to do with my spiritual perspective. I am NOT
being humble when I say it. Makes a nice little irony that I get a kick out of.
> You've just turned yourself into a great big somebody to all of us
>here, sister.
>
>
> from
>>>The problem here is in appealing to the kind of women you like while
>maintaining some integrity. That is going to be a serious problem for
>several reasons. To begin with, the competition if fierce. ...
> to
>>>...And all of this has to be done with the right timing. The right
>emotional speed. The right point in both of your lives. The right time
>and place....
>
> An excellent introduction to the general theory - but still painfully
>short of details. How do we tell the right this and that. We're still
>having to sort out contradictory behavior. We're still having to try to
>read your minds.
>
Timing has a whole book's worth of material to it. I know I glossed over
it big time. I'll try to do it justice soon.
As to reading our minds, give as a few examples of times (LOL, I love
puns) when you felt a woman did something that befuddled you and us gals
will try to sort it out. (Have we covered the abuse business, or would you
like more impute on that?) I think some of the apparent confusion (yes,
same kind of apparent) is just a matter of knowing what kinds of
experiences men vs women go through on a daily basis. Some of it is so
individual that we can't help on it. Everyone here would just shrug their
shoulders and say "I don't know what s/he thinks s/he is doing."
>
>>>I don't think women are confused at all. They want to be made to feel
>good by a man they naturally respect. They want to be swept away with
>both warmth and excitement. They want both respect and help. They want
>the man who walks the golden road, but only if he belongs there.
>
> I want all of those same things, but I'm confused about how to get
>them - and so are most of the women I'll ever have a chance with.
>
>>>Montana Crystal
>
> Is there a story behind your name?
>
Yep. Sure is. When I first logged on to agr (almost 2 years ago now) I
signed everything Cris, which is what I go by in Babylon. Then I noticed
someone else was signing as Cris, even the same spelling ;^}. So I
switched to Crystal, which is the name on my birth certificate. Yet
another person was signing under that. Now I'm starting to wonder if it's
just coincidence or if god is talking to me.
When I first moved out to Wisconsin a woman from the local circle named
me Montana, that being where I had just moved from. I was going to just
sign as Montana, but I got the feeling that would also turn out to be
someone else's name. So I stuck Montana and Crystal together. So far I
haven't seen anyone else signing that way.
>
> Wait, I still got some stuff with the other people before I go.
>
>
>Talking to your tits,
> and all that M.C. said about looking into her eyes:
>
> In America, people make a big thing about people looking you in the
>eye. If someone doesn't do this, he can't be trusted, he's tying to hide
>something. This is actually culture specific behavior. In Japan, for
>instance, an inferior must never look into a superior's eyes, but look
>down in humility. And in modern Japan, superior-inferior can be things
>like diner-waiter or customer-salesperson.
> With my right hemisphere brain, my RAM sometimes gets overloaded if I
>have to deal with the very intense stimulus of someone's face and eyes
>and at the same time have to do stuff like talk in sequential language -
>often no small task by itself for me. If you want me to talk with you,
>you're gonna have to let me look off into space to collect my thoughts
>before every few sentences.
When I'm just talking this happens to me too. But when you are trying to
get the extra heat, the stronger contact needed for romance, eye contact is
where it's at. The whole point is that it does intensify a relationship.
Most of us do this without thinking. But it CAN wig you out.
BTW, if you do it right you can get a buzz off it.
> I am attracted by this behavior in women. If she looks about as she
>talks, she's another weirdo like me. I feel very uncomfortable with
>someone staring at me like a TV when talking with me.
> I have learned to consciously look at people in business situations,
>because I know some people make a big deal of it - but it really doesn't
>matter where you look with me.
>
> Someone staring at your tits may be just staring off into space, which
>your tits just happen to be in front of. Maybe he's still feeling too
>shy to look at you, and he doing the equivalent of an oriental bow. Or
>maybe you've got some good ones, and they are.
>
There is a noticeable difference between a guy who's checking you out and
one just using your chest as a stare spot. For one, if it's a stare spot
his eyes won't be focused. For another, most guys when caught looking will
look away guiltily. Others will literally talk to your tits. It's the
ones who don't even glance at your face that are annoying. Also, a chest
starepot is often on the sternum, a good 4-5 inches higher.
For what it's worth, I stare spot at chests too.
> Kriss said,
>>>I love you, Butterfly Bill.
>
> Kriss, you are such a god damn sweet little bunny wunny
<snip>
. How is it possible for ANYONE to hate you, the way you carry on?
>You could charm Joe Stalin.
> All right already -I LOVE YOU, KRISS!!!!!! Now, can we get on to the
>other stuff, now?
>
>- Butterfly Bill
>
Oh. I thought that WAS the other stuff ;^} LOL.
A comment to Rose; "all the good ones are taken" is a timing thing. They
don't stay taken all the time. The pickier they are, the longer they go
untaken. And just because someone is single doesn't mean they are available.
Hints for newbe's:
(if you don't know what a newbe is, you are one. Think of it as New Be):
;^} is a grin and a wink.
:-) is a smile
LOL is Laugh Out Loud,
LOLROF is Laughing Out Loud and Rolling On the Floor.
<snip> means I cut something out.
BTW is By The Way
HO has nothing to do with the red light district
Montana Crystal
BoomBdBoom@aol.com
Http://members.aol.com/BoomBdBoom/store.html for musical instruments