I've now-and-then dipped into the Red Flags thread and gave
up trying to understand where it was going, etc.

So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement:

"Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better
not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory
has rules that exclude *them*."

It's just another example of "Do unto others..." which has
been re-codified as "what goes around comes around".

Now if that doesn't get me flamed I've done something wrong.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc08c7h.4hq.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... I've now-and-then dipped into the Red Flags thread and gave up trying to understand where it was going, etc. So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement: "Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*." It's just another example of "Do unto others..." which has been re-codified as "what goes around comes around". Now if that doesn't get me flamed I've done something wrong.

I guess you did something wrong then, but that seems to me to make perfect
sense, so long as a person's rules aren't hypocritical. My husband and I
had pretty much identical sets of criteria, and we each met the other's
list without any trouble. "Do unto others" with such a list is good, and
I believe that if our lists of what we thought was ideal hadn't matched
up, then we never would have been happy with each other. As it is, my
husband fits my definition of the perfect man and I adore him.

Chrys wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: I've now-and-then dipped into the Red Flags thread and gave up trying to understand where it was going, etc. So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement: "Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*." It's just another example of "Do unto others..." which has been re-codified as "what goes around comes around". Now if that doesn't get me flamed I've done something wrong. I guess you did something wrong then, but that seems to me to make perfect sense, so long as a person's rules aren't hypocritical. My husband and I had pretty much identical sets of criteria, and we each met the other's list without any trouble. "Do unto others" with such a list is good, and I believe that if our lists of what we thought was ideal hadn't matched up, then we never would have been happy with each other. As it is, my husband fits my definition of the perfect man and I adore him.

Well, my remark was made because many seem to have a long
list of "instant eject" criteria meant to define what they
wish to reject.

It's too easy for people to come up with traits they choose
to reject people for having, but many don't seem to realize
that the same kind of red flag list can be applied against
*them*. Usually you see this in teen-agers.

The other side of the coin is to work up a set of traits
you *desire* to see, and work out a priority list for them.
I suspect this kind of list gets written up once married
and finalized only when the relationship falters or fails.
Under normal circumstances people don't tend to look at
inclusive lists; I don't understand why, but it seems to
be a common trait. I've heard more "don't wants" than I've
ever heard "wants".

So exclusionary lists are usually more often produced.

Inclusionary lists are less common because someone must
*think* about them, because they will vary from person to
person.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

you forgot to post this to alt.divorce where it started.

I have rules. Exclusionary too. Very. Particularly when it comes
to relationships.

My first rule is based on the equality of attraction.

I want someone who wants me in the same way I want them.

If you can't meet that criteria, your excluded.




"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc08c7h.4hq.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... I've now-and-then dipped into the Red Flags thread and gave up trying to understand where it was going, etc. So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement: "Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*." It's just another example of "Do unto others..." which has been re-codified as "what goes around comes around". Now if that doesn't get me flamed I've done something wrong. -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

urf wrote: you forgot to post this to alt.divorce where it started.

(snickers) I didn't realize it came from there.
I have rules. Exclusionary too. Very. Particularly when it comes to relationships. My first rule is based on the equality of attraction. I want someone who wants me in the same way I want them. If you can't meet that criteria, your excluded.

Actually, Urf my fiend, that sounds more like an INCLUSIONARY
rule... which is a far more productive activity! Perhaps
even a reproductive activity! :-)

See? You said "I want" not "I don't want". That's inclusion.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

>So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement:
"Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*."

Why would I be? Pissed off, that is. The whole point, IMO,
of having certain traits that we look for, either to ex-
clude or include a person, is to avoid future situations
that one or the other just cannot or does not want to deal
with. If *I* have certain situations that I don't want to
or can't deal with, then I certainly can accept that other
people have theirs, too.

(And, FWIW, I *have* been turned down/dumped/deemed not a
person to get involved with on quite a few occasions. And,
guess what? I wasn't pissed off.)

And, as far as your other comment about making 'inclusionary'
rules instead of 'exclusionary', functionally, there is no
difference. When it comes to the end result, whether I say
'I want to be in a relationship with a person with a sense
of humor' or whether I say 'I won't be in a relationship with
a person with a sense of humor', there's no difference.

Tracey

>When it comes to the end result, whether I say'I want to be in a relationship with a person witha sense of humor' or whether I say 'I won't be in arelationship with a person with a sense of humor',there's no difference.

Of course, you all knew I meant 'I won't be in a
relationship with a person without a sense of humor',
right?

Tracey

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message The other side of the coin is to work up a set of traits you *desire* to see, and work out a priority list for them. I suspect this kind of list gets written up once married and finalized only when the relationship falters or fails. Under normal circumstances people don't tend to look at inclusive lists; I don't understand why, but it seems to be a common trait. I've heard more "don't wants" than I've ever heard "wants". So exclusionary lists are usually more often produced. Inclusionary lists are less common because someone must *think* about them, because they will vary from person to person.

It seemed like it was much easier to know who a relationship wouldn't work
out with while dating. I could usually tell within a date or two if there
was a huge compatibility issue. Finding out if there was real potential
though took much longer.

Tracey wrote: And, as far as your other comment about making 'inclusionary' rules instead of 'exclusionary', functionally, there is no difference. When it comes to the end result, whether I say 'I want to be in a relationship with a person with a sense of humor' or whether I say 'I won't be in a relationship with a person with a sense of humor', there's no difference.

You know, that's an interesting point, but the inclusionary
rules aren't there so much to rule people out for having
certain attributes (though I'll admit that some things DO
need to be excluded, like a violent mindset, for instance)
but to make a list of traits that are *preferred*.

Exclusionary lists, IMHO, are "thou shalt not" ... hmmm...
maybe that's why people are so good at excluding things?

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Chrys wrote: It seemed like it was much easier to know who a relationship wouldn't work out with while dating. I could usually tell within a date or two if there was a huge compatibility issue. Finding out if there was real potential though took much longer.

Part of the issue is that small, restrictive minds build long
detailed lists of pet peeves... but will be upset when someone
that managed to get through their tortuous selection process
has standards the "selector" does not satisfy.

I have to agree that you can usually get a good grasp of a
person's values within the first few dates but that doesn't
do much to explain how many people married what they married.

(Normally I'd worry but apparently my wife had pretty low
standards when we met. Since then she's managed to keep her
expectations low enough to keep me.) :-) :-) :-)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc08psh.5gl.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Part of the issue is that small, restrictive minds build long detailed lists of pet peeves... but will be upset when someone that managed to get through their tortuous selection process has standards the "selector" does not satisfy. I have to agree that you can usually get a good grasp of a person's values within the first few dates but that doesn't do much to explain how many people married what they married.

Some people leave very important things off their lists, or have simple
lists such as "must look good in jeans and make my heart flutter."

Jack C Lipton wrote:
I've now-and-then dipped into the Red Flags thread and gave up trying to understand where it was going, etc. So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement: "Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*." It's just another example of "Do unto others..." which has been re-codified as "what goes around comes around". Now if that doesn't get me flamed I've done something wrong.

Flamed? Why? If I was dating I would've wanted the man
to be as choosy as I would be. I wouldn't want someone to
pick me casually and just because of some initial "gut feeling"
or some such. That only means trouble down the road

Tracey wrote: So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement: "Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*." Why would I be? Pissed off, that is. The whole point, IMO, of having certain traits that we look for, either to ex- clude or include a person, is to avoid future situations that one or the other just cannot or does not want to deal with. If *I* have certain situations that I don't want to or can't deal with, then I certainly can accept that other people have theirs, too. (And, FWIW, I *have* been turned down/dumped/deemed not a person to get involved with on quite a few occasions. And, guess what? I wasn't pissed off.)

AHA! So is that why you wouldn't consider dating a Hassidic Jew? :-)
I probably should look this up. I presume it means a strictly religious, and
very committed to the faith, Jew (but I'm not sure).

Chrys wrote: Some people leave very important things off their lists, or have simple lists such as "must look good in jeans and make my heart flutter."

How many here never fulfilled either of those traits?
(raises hand)
I thought so.

(sighs) I really *do* wonder how many use that as their
selection criteria. Of course, I'd've been excluded, at
leat for the jeans part. Gimme a defibrillator and we'll
see what I can do about the latter.

Look, I know I'm having way too much fun with a very
serious issue, but I worry that your comment was spot-on.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Ellie wrote: If I was dating I would've wanted the man to be as choosy as I would be. I wouldn't want someone to pick me casually and just because of some initial "gut feeling" or some such. That only means trouble down the road

As others have got me to think, so deselection criteria
would be good, but the "specific" lists we've seen, IMHO,
edge towards the offensive.

OK, lemme wing it at coming up with 'generic' criteria:

1) must not have a long fuse; any anger, irritation, etc
should be near the surface and not accumulate enough
to become violent.
2) must be free of dangerous STDs.
3) must be able to count, even if only using fingers and
toes (and perhaps genitalia).
4) must like the potential partner.

These are intended to be general and ambiguous enough that
by #3 I was looking at traits that were positive, not
negative.

Oh, yeah... I'm not violent but I still would not do well on
#1, above. So, even with my own list, I'd pretty much
disqualify myself. I'm not sure if my wife would consider
me as failing #3, though, and I'm not sure I want to ask. :-)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc08rmp.5gl.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Chrys wrote: Some people leave very important things off their lists, or have simple lists such as "must look good in jeans and make my heart flutter." (sighs) I really *do* wonder how many use that as their selection criteria. Of course, I'd've been excluded, at leat for the jeans part. Gimme a defibrillator and we'll see what I can do about the latter. Look, I know I'm having way too much fun with a very serious issue, but I worry that your comment was spot-on.

I've had way too many friends who did seem to use that as their sole
criteria. It wouldn't matter if it was a man who was married and cheating
on his wife, or had a major drinking problem, or some other serious flaw,
if he was hot, that would be good enough. Then inevitably things wouldn't
work out and my friend would be perplexed. No suggestions from me that
perhaps people with serious flaws shouldn't be considered to date would be
listened to.

Chrys wrote: "Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message news:slrnc08rmp.5gl.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Chrys wrote: Some people leave very important things off their lists, or have simple lists such as "must look good in jeans and make my heart flutter." (sighs) I really *do* wonder how many use that as their selection criteria. Of course, I'd've been excluded, at leat for the jeans part. Gimme a defibrillator and we'll see what I can do about the latter. Look, I know I'm having way too much fun with a very serious issue, but I worry that your comment was spot-on. I've had way too many friends who did seem to use that as their sole criteria. It wouldn't matter if it was a man who was married and cheating on his wife, or had a major drinking problem, or some other serious flaw, if he was hot, that would be good enough. Then inevitably things wouldn't work out and my friend would be perplexed. No suggestions from me that perhaps people with serious flaws shouldn't be considered to date would be listened to.

That's because "the body talks, and the mind walks...."

As others have got me to think, so deselection criteriawould be good, but the "specific" lists we've seen, IMHO,edge towards the offensive.

What I've been finding very ironic in this discussion is
that the group of people who have found things in the
specific things listed to be offensive have been doing
*exactly* what they have been accusing the people who
have mentioned their criteria of doing and that is making
snap judgments about people based on very little information.
Apparently, from what I've seen, it's perfectly reasonable
to make a judgment about someone based on very little
*except* when it comes to whether you want to date them
or not, because then you're shallow if you do that.

Tracey
<shaking head...>

Jack C Lipton wrote:
As others have got me to think, so deselection criteria would be good, but the "specific" lists we've seen, IMHO, edge towards the offensive.

Offensive to whom?

I don't understand the mentality that feels offended if someone
rejects them as a mate because of some criteria (rigid as it may
seem to the rejected). I mean, if someone told me they wouldn't
want to hook up with me (we are talking long term relationship
here, not just a fun fling, right?) because I am not a particularly
adventurous person who enjoys roughing it too much I would
perfectly understand and not offended in the least. To the contrary,
I APPRECIATE that he knows what he likes, sees that I don't share
it, and doesn't lead me on and allow me to develop deep feelings,
and THEN get into constant argument about why I don't like to
go camping on Mount Everest or something!

How many times in this newsgroup someone has brought
up a problem about their spouse, only to be asked "didn't
you know this before getting married"?! Invariably, either
they did and thought "well maybe it's not important, I can
live with it as long as we love each other", or "we love each
other so they'll change in time", or, on the other side, the partner
didn't *show* this particular trait during the dating
because they sensed that the other side wasn't too keen on it.
All big mistakes in my view.
OK, lemme wing it at coming up with 'generic' criteria: 1) must not have a long fuse; any anger, irritation, etc should be near the surface and not accumulate enough to become violent. 2) must be free of dangerous STDs. 3) must be able to count, even if only using fingers and toes (and perhaps genitalia). 4) must like the potential partner.

Well, these don't even come close to the minimum
requirements that I would have for a mate! So call me
a snob, rigid, or whatever else having high expectations
make me. Sticking to my criteria has done me a lot of
good in life, and I'm very happy that I didn't compromise
on them. Mind you, I DID compromise on things that
some others may think important, but nothing that was
important to ME.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc08l3b.58s.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... urf wrote: you forgot to post this to alt.divorce where it started. (snickers) I didn't realize it came from there. I have rules. Exclusionary too. Very. Particularly when it comes to relationships. My first rule is based on the equality of attraction. I want someone who wants me in the same way I want them. If you can't meet that criteria, your excluded. Actually, Urf my fiend, that sounds more like an INCLUSIONARY rule... which is a far more productive activity! Perhaps even a reproductive activity! :-) See? You said "I want" not "I don't want". That's inclusion.

I want a lot of things Jack. Hmmm. Does this mean I can have multiple
partners because they meet my criteria? (Does Estelle's criteria count).

Your fiend,

Urf -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Tracey wrote:As others have got me to think, so deselection criteriawould be good, but the "specific" lists we've seen, IMHO,edge towards the offensive. What I've been finding very ironic in this discussion is that the group of people who have found things in the specific things listed to be offensive have been doing *exactly* what they have been accusing the people who have mentioned their criteria of doing and that is making snap judgments about people based on very little information.

Hmmm. I presume I'm included in there too. Making "snap judgments" about
people owning Mercedes or BMWs for image and appearance.....

Yeah, right. They buy it because ... it is a "better engineered car". Uh
huh. And Dorothy lives in Kansas....?
Apparently, from what I've seen, it's perfectly reasonable to make a judgment about someone based on very little *except* when it comes to whether you want to date them or not, because then you're shallow if you do that. Tracey <shaking head...>

Ellie wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: As others have got me to think, so deselection criteria would be good, but the "specific" lists we've seen, IMHO, edge towards the offensive. Offensive to whom? I don't understand the mentality that feels offended if someone rejects them as a mate because of some criteria (rigid as it may seem to the rejected). I mean, if someone told me they wouldn't want to hook up with me (we are talking long term relationship here, not just a fun fling, right?) because I am not a particularly adventurous person who enjoys roughing it too much I would perfectly understand and not offended in the least. To the contrary, I APPRECIATE that he knows what he likes, sees that I don't share it, and doesn't lead me on and allow me to develop deep feelings, and THEN get into constant argument about why I don't like to go camping on Mount Everest or something! How many times in this newsgroup someone has brought up a problem about their spouse, only to be asked "didn't you know this before getting married"?! Invariably, either they did and thought "well maybe it's not important, I can live with it as long as we love each other", or "we love each other so they'll change in time", or, on the other side, the partner didn't *show* this particular trait during the dating because they sensed that the other side wasn't too keen on it. All big mistakes in my view. OK, lemme wing it at coming up with 'generic' criteria: 1) must not have a long fuse; any anger, irritation, etc should be near the surface and not accumulate enough to become violent. 2) must be free of dangerous STDs. 3) must be able to count, even if only using fingers and toes (and perhaps genitalia). 4) must like the potential partner. Well, these don't even come close to the minimum requirements that I would have for a mate! So call me a snob, rigid, or whatever else having high expectations make me.

Yeah, you just may be a bit rigid. How old did u say you were? :-) You
sound older than me!

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s4_Mb.8280$zj7.1603@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
(And, FWIW, I *have* been turned down/dumped/deemed not a person to get involved with on quite a few occasions. And, guess what? I wasn't pissed off.) AHA! So is that why you wouldn't consider dating a Hassidic Jew? :-) I probably should look this up. I presume it means a strictly
religious, and very committed to the faith, Jew (but I'm not sure).

I thought it was because the lifestyles were too incompatible? I think most
non-Hasidics would not seriously date a Hasidic Jew - not because there is
anything wrong, but because the lifestyles are incompatible. It is a
religion that permeates every aspect of your life. (Some interesting info
here: http://www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/~yuri/VB/molloy.htm)

Imagine the ramifications if you could only eat in kosher restaurants, for
example - this would restrict not only your dating options (Red Lobster is
definitely out!) but also can impact things that most of us take for
granted - like going to lunch at most restaurants with clients or your boss.
Think about having to consider every mouthful of food you will ever eat -
not just whether or not it is healthy, or whether or not you like it, but
whether or not it is kosher.

Sabbaths and Holy Days are major issues, too - imagine telling your employer
you have to leave early on Friday, and no you CANNOT work overtime, and oh
by the way you have to be off next Tuesday from sunset to sunset because it
is a Holy Day. Yes, it causes problems with employment. Yes, it causes
problems if you try to have a relationship outside your faith.

I'm not sure what differences there are in how Hasidic Jews and orthodox
Jews keep the Sabbath, but I know that there are those who will not drive a
car from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Or cook. Or handle money. Or
flip a light switch.

I'm not in anyway critical of observant Jews of any flavor - in fact I have
a great deal of respect. I do, however, think this is a good example of a
case in which lifestyles can be incompatible - where lifestyle isn't defined
by how much money you have at all, but by how you choose to LIVE (which I
think some people tried to point out early in the thread). A true
partnership does require compatible lifestyles - and no amount of thinking
"love will overcome all" will change that.

Thanks for the reference, Joy. That was an interesting read...

I had forgotten just how traditional some things can really be. And to the
answer your question, no, I can't really imagine living in that lifestyle,
especially these days. Perhaps a century or two ago it would have been
easier, but now it seems it would be a bit challenging to do so. But then
again the Amish are still thriving, aren't they? (and probably w/o some of
the social problems facing our culture, to boot).

Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:s4_Mb.8280$zj7.1603@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... (And, FWIW, I *have* been turned down/dumped/deemed not a person to get involved with on quite a few occasions. And, guess what? I wasn't pissed off.) AHA! So is that why you wouldn't consider dating a Hassidic Jew? :-) I probably should look this up. I presume it means a strictly religious, and very committed to the faith, Jew (but I'm not sure). I thought it was because the lifestyles were too incompatible? I think most non-Hasidics would not seriously date a Hasidic Jew - not because there is anything wrong, but because the lifestyles are incompatible. It is a religion that permeates every aspect of your life. (Some interesting info here: http://www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/~yuri/VB/molloy.htm) Imagine the ramifications if you could only eat in kosher restaurants, for example - this would restrict not only your dating options (Red Lobster is definitely out!) but also can impact things that most of us take for granted - like going to lunch at most restaurants with clients or your boss. Think about having to consider every mouthful of food you will ever eat - not just whether or not it is healthy, or whether or not you like it, but whether or not it is kosher. Sabbaths and Holy Days are major issues, too - imagine telling your employer you have to leave early on Friday, and no you CANNOT work overtime, and oh by the way you have to be off next Tuesday from sunset to sunset because it is a Holy Day. Yes, it causes problems with employment. Yes, it causes problems if you try to have a relationship outside your faith. I'm not sure what differences there are in how Hasidic Jews and orthodox Jews keep the Sabbath, but I know that there are those who will not drive a car from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Or cook. Or handle money. Or flip a light switch. I'm not in anyway critical of observant Jews of any flavor - in fact I have a great deal of respect. I do, however, think this is a good example of a case in which lifestyles can be incompatible - where lifestyle isn't defined by how much money you have at all, but by how you choose to LIVE (which I think some people tried to point out early in the thread). A true partnership does require compatible lifestyles - and no amount of thinking "love will overcome all" will change that.

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JY0Nb.8037$1e.3075@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Thanks for the reference, Joy. That was an interesting read... I had forgotten just how traditional some things can really be. And to
the answer your question, no, I can't really imagine living in that lifestyle, especially these days. Perhaps a century or two ago it would have been easier, but now it seems it would be a bit challenging to do so. But
then again the Amish are still thriving, aren't they? (and probably w/o some
of the social problems facing our culture, to boot).

I'm sure they have their own unique set of problems; they have strengths and
weaknesses, just like any other subset of society.

The point I was trying to make is that lifestyle is defined by a lot of
things - not just by material things, although the red flag thread seemed to
veer that way. There are people who would only be happy living by the
ocean, and people who want a "mountain cabin" lifestyle. There is nothing
wrong with either - but if these people try to pair off, somebody will wind
up unhappy. There are people who want a very adventurous lifestyle, always
traveling or looking for the next great expedition. There are people who
want a very quiet lifestyle, and feel a sense of "belonging" to a place, and
never go very far from home. There is nothing wrong with either of these,
but if two people from opposite extremes try to pair off, somebody will wind
up unhappy. These things have nothing at all to do with materialism, what
kind of car you drive, or how much money you earn - they have to do with
lifestyle - how you choose to live your life.

Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:JY0Nb.8037$1e.3075@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... Thanks for the reference, Joy. That was an interesting read... I had forgotten just how traditional some things can really be. And to the answer your question, no, I can't really imagine living in that lifestyle, especially these days. Perhaps a century or two ago it would have been easier, but now it seems it would be a bit challenging to do so. But then again the Amish are still thriving, aren't they? (and probably w/o some of the social problems facing our culture, to boot). I'm sure they have their own unique set of problems; they have strengths and weaknesses, just like any other subset of society.

I'm not sure what problems the Amish really face, from their viewpoint. I
mean, if they are happy with their lives, and their *family unit* is intact,
and they support each other in a neighborhood, what more could you ask for?
Sure, they're missing out on technology.....or are they really....missing out?
(I'm not so sure, in the final analysis)
The point I was trying to make is that lifestyle is defined by a lot of things - not just by material things, although the red flag thread seemed to veer that way. There are people who would only be happy living by the ocean, and people who want a "mountain cabin" lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with either - but if these people try to pair off, somebody will wind up unhappy. There are people who want a very adventurous lifestyle, always traveling or looking for the next great expedition. There are people who want a very quiet lifestyle, and feel a sense of "belonging" to a place, and never go very far from home. There is nothing wrong with either of these, but if two people from opposite extremes try to pair off, somebody will wind up unhappy.

This does hit home a bit. Probably for a lot of us - especially in ASD, as
you know.
These things have nothing at all to do with materialism, what kind of car you drive, or how much money you earn - they have to do with lifestyle - how you choose to live your life.

Well, there were occasionally two tangential subthreads going on in here. One
was on compatibility, and one was on lifestyle. Well of course those two
interrelate! But I also think lifestyle can be discussed on its own merits,
too. And perhaps you would call that tangential. (Guilty as charged,
then). My mind isn't always linear. Come to think of it, I don't recall
the last time that..... oh never mind. :-)

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vp4Nb.8821$zj7.5311@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:JY0Nb.8037$1e.3075@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... I'm sure they have their own unique set of problems; they have strengths
and weaknesses, just like any other subset of society. I'm not sure what problems the Amish really face, from their viewpoint.
I mean, if they are happy with their lives, and their *family unit* is
intact, and they support each other in a neighborhood, what more could you ask
for?

I think you may be romanticizing again. I don't know all that much about
the Amish lifestyle - but one of the things I recall is that at a certain
age, their kids have to make a decision about whether or not to live Amish -
and that choosing not to means leaving the community - as in REALLY leaving
the community. Sometimes this happens. It means the family unit is NOT
intact. I'm sure it is heartbreaking. Also, the lack of education (kids
leave school after about 8th grade, and start work at that age - they don't
keep the money, though, it goes to their parents until they marry) probably
causes some problems, especially for the brightest among them. They have a
very strictly enforced, rigid lifestyle where everybody has to toe the line
(and families are monitored by their church leaders to make darn sure they
do so), and those who don't are shunned. It is a lifestyle with a mix of
good and bad, just like any other.

Well, there were occasionally two tangential subthreads going on in here.
One was on compatibility, and one was on lifestyle.

But how can you really discuss compatibility, without discussing lifestyle?
Compatibility MEANS, in large part, wanting the same lifestyle. (Lifestyle
does NOT mean how much money you have.)

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vp4Nb.8821$zj7.5311@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I'm not sure what problems the Amish really face, from their viewpoint.
I mean, if they are happy with their lives, and their *family unit* is
intact, and they support each other in a neighborhood, what more could you ask
for? Sure, they're missing out on technology.....or are they
really....missing out? (I'm not so sure, in the final analysis)

Problems like this are something they face:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00001355.html

Thanks for posting that, Chrys. That was a very interesting and educational
read for me. Wow, my heart goes out to them, after reading that.

Chrys wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vp4Nb.8821$zj7.5311@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I'm not sure what problems the Amish really face, from their viewpoint. I mean, if they are happy with their lives, and their *family unit* is intact, and they support each other in a neighborhood, what more could you ask for? Sure, they're missing out on technology.....or are they really....missing out? (I'm not so sure, in the final analysis) Problems like this are something they face: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00001355.html

Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vp4Nb.8821$zj7.5311@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:JY0Nb.8037$1e.3075@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... I'm sure they have their own unique set of problems; they have strengths
and weaknesses, just like any other subset of society. I'm not sure what problems the Amish really face, from their viewpoint. I mean, if they are happy with their lives, and their *family unit* is
intact, and they support each other in a neighborhood, what more could you ask for? I think you may be romanticizing again.

Yeah, I seem to have a tendency to do this sometimes, for some reason.
I don't know all that much about the Amish lifestyle - but one of the things I recall is that at a certain

You might also look at that article just posted by Chrys here. It is an
interesting read, or at least I found it to be so.
age, their kids have to make a decision about whether or not to live Amish - and that choosing not to means leaving the community - as in REALLY leaving the community. Sometimes this happens. It means the family unit is NOT intact. I'm sure it is heartbreaking. Also, the lack of education (kids leave school after about 8th grade, and start work at that age - they don't keep the money, though, it goes to their parents until they marry) probably causes some problems, especially for the brightest among them. They have a very strictly enforced, rigid lifestyle where everybody has to toe the line (and families are monitored by their church leaders to make darn sure they do so), and those who don't are shunned. It is a lifestyle with a mix of good and bad, just like any other. Well, there were occasionally two tangential subthreads going on in here. One was on compatibility, and one was on lifestyle. But how can you really discuss compatibility, without discussing lifestyle?

You can't. (I don't think I said you could).
Compatibility MEANS, in large part, wanting the same lifestyle. (Lifestyle does NOT mean how much money you have.)

It might relate to it, if one partner is dedicated to the pursuit of monetary
and materialistic rewards, above all else. THAT could definitely present a
problem in the relationship. Or if that is all they value - or primarily what
they value.

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Q2fNb.9115$zj7.5846@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Thanks for posting that, Chrys. That was a very interesting and
educational read for me. Wow, my heart goes out to them, after reading that.

I feel sad for them too. I also can't imagine how they could knowingly
decide to keep having children that they know will have these diseases and
will suffer their entire lives. At least they will use technology to
treat the diseases once the children have been born.
Chrys wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vp4Nb.8821$zj7.5311@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I'm not sure what problems the Amish really face, from their
viewpoint. I mean, if they are happy with their lives, and their *family unit* is
intact, and they support each other in a neighborhood, what more could you
ask for? Sure, they're missing out on technology.....or are they
really....missing out? (I'm not so sure, in the final analysis) Problems like this are something they face: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00001355.html

Chrys wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Q2fNb.9115$zj7.5846@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Thanks for posting that, Chrys. That was a very interesting and educational read for me. Wow, my heart goes out to them, after reading that. I feel sad for them too. I also can't imagine how they could knowingly decide to keep having children that they know will have these diseases and will suffer their entire lives.

Because they don't look at it that way. At least that's what I get, from
reading that article. Which is very interesting. I think *we're* looking at
it from a more pragmatic or clinical viewpoint; they don't view it that way.
At least they will use technology to treat the diseases once the children have been born. Chrys wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vp4Nb.8821$zj7.5311@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...> I'm not sure what problems the Amish really face, from their viewpoint. I> mean, if they are happy with their lives, and their *family unit* is> intact, and they support each other in a neighborhood, what more could you> ask for? Sure, they're missing out on technology.....or are they> really....missing out? (I'm not so sure, in the final analysis) Problems like this are something they face: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00001355.html

urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote:
you forgot to post this to alt.divorce where it started.


Shhh!

Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote:
I've now-and-then dipped into the Red Flags thread and gave up trying to understand where it was going, etc. So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement: "Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*." It's just another example of "Do unto others..." which has been re-codified as "what goes around comes around". Now if that doesn't get me flamed I've done something wrong.

What's funny about lists is that when you fall in love, you find out
what things on your list really weren't important after all. After my
divorce, I wanted an older man, who had certain life experiences, who
had worked on himself. I certainly didn't want the kind of guy who did a
lot of partying and drinking, or who was a frat boy.

Then I fell in love with a younger guy who had always been funded by his
parents, loved to go out with the guys, and had been the president of
his fraternity. Never mind!

I am still not arguing against lists entirely, though, because DH *does*
have the important things on my list. He is intelligent, he cares about
giving back to society, is respectful to those weaker than him, does not
have a drinking problem, has no violent tendencies, etc.

So have a list, but be flexible; that's my conclusion.

"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes:
"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vp4Nb.8821$zj7.5311@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I'm not sure what problems the Amish really face, from their viewpoint. I mean, if they are happy with their lives, and their *family unit* is intact, and they support each other in a neighborhood, what more could you ask for? Sure, they're missing out on technology.....or are they really....missing out? (I'm not so sure, in the final analysis) Problems like this are something they face: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00001355.html

What a sad little story. Can you say "inbreeding?"

It is odd that they mention cystic fibrosis as "relatively common" in
the general population. I think the incidence is about 1 out of
10,000, which means that in the population they discuss (20,000) one
might expect 2, but 0 isn't even surprising.

As far as other problems they face, I wonder if they are actually
happier with their lives than other groups. They live with a lot of
restrictions; some may be fine with those, others may find them
chafing but lack the resources or confidence to trade more freedom for
exile from their family and community.

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes:
Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote: I've now-and-then dipped into the Red Flags thread and gave up trying to understand where it was going, etc. So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement: "Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*." It's just another example of "Do unto others..." which has been re-codified as "what goes around comes around". Now if that doesn't get me flamed I've done something wrong. What's funny about lists is that when you fall in love, you find out what things on your list really weren't important after all.

Yeah, I think this is a good point. This conversation reminds me of
"God" (anyone remember him) who was planning to get married in 6
months, and was trying to design a questionairre for potential brides.

It is a good intellectual exercize to think about what you want. But
then most people are happy to make some compromises when they meet
someone who they really click with. And then, those of us who like to
believe that we behave rationally can tell ourselves that we only
compromised on the unimportant things!

It's even true, since if something was _really_ important it would
have kept us from clicking with that person in the first place.
But I think it is pretty hard to decide all the important criteria in
_advance_ because choosing your spouse is much more wholistic than
checking off properties on a list.

Emma Anne wrote:
What's funny about lists is that when you fall in love, you find out what things on your list really weren't important after all.

But that's because you put unimportant things on the list
to begin with! Either that, or later when things cool off and
your incompatibilities show their annoying face you realize
that the list WAS important after all :-)

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Emma Anne wrote: What's funny about lists is that when you fall in love, you find out what things on your list really weren't important after all. But that's because you put unimportant things on the list to begin with!

Yeah, and the question is: can you figure out which are the
unimportant things before you meet the person you fall in love with,
or do you have to be with the person to realize that it is unimportant
that they like country music and you don't.
Either that, or later when things cool off and your incompatibilities show their annoying face you realize that the list WAS important after all :-)

Right. That too.

Our rational mind likes to make lists, but we need some other input to
figure out what really _does_ matter to us.

Doug Anderson wrote:
Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes: Emma Anne wrote: What's funny about lists is that when you fall in love, you find out what things on your list really weren't important after all. But that's because you put unimportant things on the list to begin with! Yeah, and the question is: can you figure out which are the unimportant things before you meet the person you fall in love with,

Probably not, but I think you can figure out which one
of your list items ARE important, even if you are in love.

The great thing about love is that it makes many things
that are otherwise unacceptable, acceptable to us. That's
why living with someone that you don't love is so difficult.
The problem with love is that sometimes (in the beginning)
it can blind us to the point of not realizing we are compromising
the uncompromisable! I believe that if we are careful we can
avoid this and stick with the important things on the list.

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes: Emma Anne wrote: > What's funny about lists is that when you fall in love, you find out > what things on your list really weren't important after all. But that's because you put unimportant things on the list to begin with! Yeah, and the question is: can you figure out which are the unimportant things before you meet the person you fall in love with, Probably not, but I think you can figure out which one of your list items ARE important, even if you are in love.

Then you're smarter than most people.

By the way, what is the difference between figuring out which items
are important and figuring out which ones are unimportant?

Doug Anderson wrote:
Then you're smarter than most people.

Not at all. I just think that anybody can train themselves
not to be *totally* blinded by love. Mind you, a little blind
is good, even necessary! I mean, if it wasn't for love
it would be really difficult to put up with annoying things
about our mates!
By the way, what is the difference between figuring out which items are important and figuring out which ones are unimportant?

Well, I think one may have a long list of qualifications
in their mind (much of it subconsciously). Many
of these things are just *ideals* or the fantasy
image that we have in our mind. Some of them are true
conditions that will be important in our lives. When
we fall in love with someone who doesn't fit our profile
those things that were just on the *nice* list (what I
call a designer mate properties!) simply lose their importance,
as they should. That means they weren't really core issues
for us to begin with, but because we didn't have any frame
of reference we had *designed* our ideal mate that way.

I believe that the real important issues don't actually
melt away. What happens is many times people talk
themselves into believing that they are not important,
because they don't want to break up with their beloved.
But deep down we know they are important.

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Then you're smarter than most people. Not at all. I just think that anybody can train themselves not to be *totally* blinded by love.

Totally, yes. But the fact is we fall in love with the person, not
with the list of good and bad properties. The person is not
unrelated to the list of good and bad properties, but is also not the
_same_ as the list of good and bad properties.
Mind you, a little blind is good, even necessary! I mean, if it wasn't for love it would be really difficult to put up with annoying things about our mates! By the way, what is the difference between figuring out which items are important and figuring out which ones are unimportant? Well, I think one may have a long list of qualifications in their mind (much of it subconsciously). Many of these things are just *ideals* or the fantasy image that we have in our mind. Some of them are true conditions that will be important in our lives. When we fall in love with someone who doesn't fit our profile those things that were just on the *nice* list (what I call a designer mate properties!) simply lose their importance, as they should. That means they weren't really core issues for us to begin with, but because we didn't have any frame of reference we had *designed* our ideal mate that way. I believe that the real important issues don't actually melt away. What happens is many times people talk themselves into believing that they are not important, because they don't want to break up with their beloved. But deep down we know they are important.

Yeah, I got that. There _are_ important things and unimportant things,
no argument there. The question is, how do you figure out in advance
which is which.

You're proposing that you can figure out what the important things are
in advance, but not the unimportant ones (or maybe you proposed it the
other way around). But my question was, if you can do one of those,
can't you do the other? It seems to me
if you can figure out what the important things are, then by process
of elimination you've also figured out what the unimportant things
are, and vice versa.

Doug Anderson wrote:
Totally, yes. But the fact is we fall in love with the person, not with the list of good and bad properties. The person is not unrelated to the list of good and bad properties, but is also not the _same_ as the list of good and bad properties.

Of course. I never meant that relationships and love
can fit into some precise set of rules or anything.
In fact, being human means that we can never
repeat the exact same experience, let alone have
very tight and rigid rules to live by. What I say is
meant to work withing what's reasonable for humans!
Yeah, I got that. There _are_ important things and unimportant things, no argument there. The question is, how do you figure out in advance which is which.

I am not sure if I meant you can accurately figure
"in advance". But personally I think there are certain
things that would prevent me from even getting close
enough to a person to fall in love. I call those important.
On the other hand, "unimportant" doesn't always mean
disposable or useless! They are still preferences, and
may be valid. To me unimportant means that they aren't
deal breakers, so to speak. And sometimes we may
discover that they were not even desirable!
You're proposing that you can figure out what the important things are in advance,

Yes, in the sense that I said above. Things that would
prevent me from allowing myself (for lack of a better
phrase) to fall in love with someone are important. I know
many people disagree with me on this. But I believe that
we don't *just* fall in love without any control. We put
ourselves in the path of love in a way.
but not the unimportant ones (or maybe you proposed it the other way around). But my question was, if you can do one of those, can't you do the other?

Maybe if I thought hard about it I could. But I don't see
the need to do that. I can have my unimportant list (which
I'd call preferences), and if I find a person who fits them
great, if not, I'll drop them if needed! As long as they don't
prevent me from opening myself to love, why should I care
if I know exactly what they are in advance? After all, they
are not THAT important!
It seems to me if you can figure out what the important things are, then by process of elimination you've also figured out what the unimportant things are, and vice versa.

I suppose it can be done, but why bother? Mind you, when I was
dating (ages ago) I never sat down and carefully made a list.
What you are suggesting is too much work and no fun!

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
I am not sure if I meant you can accurately figure "in advance". But personally I think there are certain things that would prevent me from even getting close enough to a person to fall in love. I call those important.

Yeah, that makes sense. So your notion of "important" isn't complete,
it just consists of things that would prevent you from even being able
to consider a person.
On the other hand, "unimportant" doesn't always mean disposable or useless! They are still preferences, and may be valid. To me unimportant means that they aren't deal breakers, so to speak. And sometimes we may discover that they were not even desirable!

OK, so the categories are "important" which means so big, and
sufficiently blatant, that someone needs to have that property to even
be considered, "unimportant" which means fun to consider, but possibly
negotiable, and some third category which is difficult to quantify but
needs to be added to the important ones to go from "worth considering"
to "being in love with."
You're proposing that you can figure out what the important things are in advance, Yes, in the sense that I said above. Things that would prevent me from allowing myself (for lack of a better phrase) to fall in love with someone are important. I know many people disagree with me on this. But I believe that we don't *just* fall in love without any control. We put ourselves in the path of love in a way.

Sure. I'm just asserting that although we can figure out what _some_ of
the important things are, we can't really figure out what all of them
are, unless we take a pretty limited definition of "important." But I
think that is what you are doing, no?
but not the unimportant ones (or maybe you proposed it the other way around). But my question was, if you can do one of those, can't you do the other? Maybe if I thought hard about it I could. But I don't see the need to do that. I can have my unimportant list (which I'd call preferences), and if I find a person who fits them great, if not, I'll drop them if needed! As long as they don't prevent me from opening myself to love, why should I care if I know exactly what they are in advance? After all, they are not THAT important! It seems to me if you can figure out what the important things are, then by process of elimination you've also figured out what the unimportant things are, and vice versa. I suppose it can be done, but why bother? Mind you, when I was dating (ages ago) I never sat down and carefully made a list. What you are suggesting is too much work and no fun!

Hey, I'm not suggesting it at all; I thought maybe you were. I don't
think people really work that way, though as I said before, those of
us who like to believe we behave rationally might occasionally fool
ourselves into thinking we work that way.

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) wrote in message news:<1g7jtue.1gpiaui1kmv4ibN%mbjq@earthlink.net>... Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote: I've now-and-then dipped into the Red Flags thread and gave up trying to understand where it was going, etc. So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement: "Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*." It's just another example of "Do unto others..." which has been re-codified as "what goes around comes around". Now if that doesn't get me flamed I've done something wrong. What's funny about lists is that when you fall in love, you find out what things on your list really weren't important after all. After my divorce, I wanted an older man, who had certain life experiences, who had worked on himself. I certainly didn't want the kind of guy who did a lot of partying and drinking, or who was a frat boy. Then I fell in love with a younger guy who had always been funded by his parents, loved to go out with the guys, and had been the president of his fraternity. Never mind!

isnt that funny how that works out? :)
I am still not arguing against lists entirely, though, because DH *does* have the important things on my list. He is intelligent, he cares about giving back to society, is respectful to those weaker than him, does not have a drinking problem, has no violent tendencies, etc. So have a list, but be flexible; that's my conclusion.

well said emma.

audrey

Doug Anderson wrote:
OK, so the categories are "important" which means so big, and sufficiently blatant, that someone needs to have that property to even be considered, "unimportant" which means fun to consider, but possibly negotiable, and some third category which is difficult to quantify but needs to be added to the important ones to go from "worth considering" to "being in love with."

Something like that! But all of this applies to the things
that we already KNOW about ourselves. It's possible
to fall in love with someone and later discover something
that becomes important to you but you never thought of
it before.

For example, I read in this newsgroup many posts about
how difficult it is to be married to someone who is prone
to depression. I have never experienced depression myself
or with people around me. So when I was dating if I would
come across someone with depression I wouldn't think much
of it. Who knows, maybe later I would find it a very important
factor, as I hear some people say here.
I suppose it can be done, but why bother? Mind you, when I was dating (ages ago) I never sat down and carefully made a list. What you are suggesting is too much work and no fun! Hey, I'm not suggesting it at all; I thought maybe you were.

I used the word suggesting to mean "stating", not "recommending".

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: OK, so the categories are "important" which means so big, and sufficiently blatant, that someone needs to have that property to even be considered, "unimportant" which means fun to consider, but possibly negotiable, and some third category which is difficult to quantify but needs to be added to the important ones to go from "worth considering" to "being in love with." Something like that! But all of this applies to the things that we already KNOW about ourselves. It's possible to fall in love with someone and later discover something that becomes important to you but you never thought of it before. For example, I read in this newsgroup many posts about how difficult it is to be married to someone who is prone to depression. I have never experienced depression myself or with people around me. So when I was dating if I would come across someone with depression I wouldn't think much of it. Who knows, maybe later I would find it a very important factor, as I hear some people say here.

Actually, if you were dating, other criteria you have would probably
steer you away from someone who is depressed, since depressed people
tend to be not much fun and not very emotionally attractive.

A sensible criterion might be "avoid anyone who might become
depressed" except that I think this is pretty hard to predict.

>It is odd that they mention cystic fibrosis as"relatively common" in the general population.I think the incidence is about 1 out of 10,000,which means that in the population they discuss(20,000) one might expect 2, but 0 isn't evensurprising.

I think the key word here is 'relatively'. Compared
to the condition they were discussing, CF is 'rela-
tively' common. There are so many conditions/diseases
that are far less common. One of my friends had a
nephew diagnosed with a condition that is only shared
by (at the time he was diagnosed) *5* other children
in the US and something like 20 other children in the
entire world. Talk about uncommon.

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
It is odd that they mention cystic fibrosis as"relatively common" in the general population.I think the incidence is about 1 out of 10,000,which means that in the population they discuss(20,000) one might expect 2, but 0 isn't evensurprising. I think the key word here is 'relatively'. Compared to the condition they were discussing, CF is 'rela- tively' common.

That's true. But since they are only talking about a population of
20,000, one wouldn't expect many cases of CF if the incidence is 1
out of 10,000.

The article seemed to be holding up the fact that this community is
free of CF as a consolation, but (and I could be wrong about the
incidence) if the incidence is only 1 out of 10,000 they'd be likely
close to free of CF even if they had the _same_ incidence as the
general population.
There are so many conditions/diseases that are far less common. One of my friends had a nephew diagnosed with a condition that is only shared by (at the time he was diagnosed) *5* other children in the US and something like 20 other children in the entire world. Talk about uncommon.

Wow. Was it something that has a profound effect on this child's
health? There are certain things that are being noticed now more
because there are more procedures to discover them.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc08l3b.58s.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... urf wrote: you forgot to post this to alt.divorce where it started. (snickers) I didn't realize it came from there. I have rules. Exclusionary too. Very. Particularly when it comes to relationships. My first rule is based on the equality of attraction. I want someone who wants me in the same way I want them. If you can't meet that criteria, your excluded. Actually, Urf my fiend, that sounds more like an INCLUSIONARY rule... which is a far more productive activity! Perhaps even a reproductive activity! :-) See? You said "I want" not "I don't want". That's inclusion.

Inclusionary vs. exclusionary is a mere matter of semantics. It's just a
couple words difference between, say, "I want someone who has a job" vs. "I
don't want someone who doesn't have a job." Yet by your logic there's some
kind of profound different between these two types of criteria?

>>There are so many conditions/diseases that are far less common. One of my friends had a nephew diagnosed with a condition that is only shared by (at the time he was diagnosed) *5* other children in the US and something like 20 other children in the entire world. Talk about uncommon.
Wow. Was it something that has a profound effect on thischild's health? There are certain things that are beingnoticed now more because there are more procedures todiscover them.

Yes. I don't remember the exact details, but a person
(child, actually, because no one seemed to have ever
made it to adulthood who has this) who has this condition
is not able to absorb or utilize one of those obscure
minerals that our body needs in miniscule amounts to
function correctly. I don't remember exactly which one
it is, but, eventually, it ends up getting to the point
where the child is no longer able to live.

I would imagine that if we were able to do retroactive
diagnosing, a lot of the children who were 'frail and
sickly' and died very young had something that is
pretty easily diagnosed today.

Tracey

DrLith wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: urf wrote: you forgot to post this to alt.divorce where it started. (snickers) I didn't realize it came from there. I have rules. Exclusionary too. Very. Particularly when it comes to relationships. My first rule is based on the equality of attraction. I want someone who wants me in the same way I want them. If you can't meet that criteria, your excluded. Actually, Urf my fiend, that sounds more like an INCLUSIONARY rule... which is a far more productive activity! Perhaps even a reproductive activity! :-) See? You said "I want" not "I don't want". That's inclusion. Inclusionary vs. exclusionary is a mere matter of semantics. It's just a couple words difference between, say, "I want someone who has a job" vs. "I don't want someone who doesn't have a job." Yet by your logic there's some kind of profound different between these two types of criteria?

This is going to sound fatuous of me, but it's more of
an illumination of "mindset" rather than semantics.
The semantics *reflects* the attitude, and, instead of
a mental "wall" it's defining the shape of the mental
"welcome mat".

Please note that at no time did I claim to make sense.

If I had any useful answers I'd be better at applying
them to my own less-than-perfect life.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
There are so many conditions/diseases that are far less common. One of my friends had a nephew diagnosed with a condition that is only shared by (at the time he was diagnosed) *5* other children in the US and something like 20 other children in the entire world. Talk about uncommon.Wow. Was it something that has a profound effect on thischild's health? There are certain things that are beingnoticed now more because there are more procedures todiscover them. Yes. I don't remember the exact details, but a person (child, actually, because no one seemed to have ever made it to adulthood who has this) who has this condition is not able to absorb or utilize one of those obscure minerals that our body needs in miniscule amounts to function correctly. I don't remember exactly which one it is, but, eventually, it ends up getting to the point where the child is no longer able to live.

Bizarrely, I know someone who was frightened by the prospect (based on
preliminary testing) that their newborn had such a condition.
It turned out that there child did have a minor genetic abnormality
which seems benign.
I would imagine that if we were able to do retroactive diagnosing, a lot of the children who were 'frail and sickly' and died very young had something that is pretty easily diagnosed today.

Probably. Or at least some of them. Of course we still have frail
and sickly children with no identifiable cause; it is just often no
longer so life-threatening.

Ellie wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: I've now-and-then dipped into the Red Flags thread and gave up trying to understand where it was going, etc. So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement: "Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*." It's just another example of "Do unto others..." which has been re-codified as "what goes around comes around". Now if that doesn't get me flamed I've done something wrong. Flamed? Why? If I was dating I would've wanted the man to be as choosy as I would be. I wouldn't want someone to pick me casually and just because of some initial "gut feeling" or some such. That only means trouble down the road


Since I know what "gut feeling" is I'd prefer to be a "chooser" or
"choosee" in a gut feeling situation over a "head case" situation ANY
DAY, thank you very much. :)

amy

Amy D <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
Ellie wrote: Flamed? Why? If I was dating I would've wanted the man to be as choosy as I would be. I wouldn't want someone to pick me casually and just because of some initial "gut feeling" or some such. That only means trouble down the road Since I know what "gut feeling" is I'd prefer to be a "chooser" or "choosee" in a gut feeling situation over a "head case" situation ANY DAY, thank you very much. :)

To each their own. I am VERY happy with my choice of mate, hope you are too!

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kfr7y2bd3q.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote: I've now-and-then dipped into the Red Flags thread and gave up trying to understand where it was going, etc. So I decided to step back and make a blanket statement: "Those who choose to set up exclusionary rules had better not be pissed off when someone they found satisfactory has rules that exclude *them*." It's just another example of "Do unto others..." which has been re-codified as "what goes around comes around". Now if that doesn't get me flamed I've done something wrong. What's funny about lists is that when you fall in love, you find out what things on your list really weren't important after all. Yeah, I think this is a good point. This conversation reminds me of "God" (anyone remember him) who was planning to get married in 6 months, and was trying to design a questionairre for potential brides. It is a good intellectual exercize to think about what you want. But then most people are happy to make some compromises when they meet someone who they really click with. And then, those of us who like to believe that we behave rationally can tell ourselves that we only compromised on the unimportant things! It's even true, since if something was _really_ important it would have kept us from clicking with that person in the first place. But I think it is pretty hard to decide all the important criteria in _advance_ because choosing your spouse is much more wholistic than checking off properties on a list.

I'm a strong believer that those we click with, we click with them for
a reason. That gut feeling usually leads us to someone who will
ultimately end up challenging us in an important growth area. Despite
any rational list we might make, we really *do* know exactly what is
good for us - that's our gut leading us straight to it!

For awhile I thought it was wise to be cautious about gut feelings
precisely for this reason - "gut feeling" seemed to be a clue that the
relationship was going to end up causing me pain down the road! But
now I look at it differently. Why avoid the growth process? If I'm
attracted to someone and it turns out down the road that we have a
matching set of dysfunctions, then what better opportunity to work
through those dysfunctions?

I am happy to say that the dysfunctions nowadays, when they rear their
ugly heads, don't seem to be as nasty and volatile as in my past
relationships. :0 As for lists and requirements and absolutes about
not dating, say, someone with a history of depression or alcholism,
etc, I can say now that I simply wouldn't find myself attracted to
someone like that. There would be no gut feeling, so nothing to
rationalize.

So I must be doing something right; I must be headed in the right
direction. I am not one to be opposed to serial long-term, committed
relationships. I've learned something and become a better person from
all of my past relationships. Am hoping my current relationship lasts
the rest of my life, but if it's not meant to be, well I will go with
the flow on that. However I suspect that some of my past relationships
may have ended not necessarily because I outgrew them, but because
either I or my partner didn't have the guts to work through the issues
and grow from them. I am in a much different place today.

Does any of that make sense, or am I just rambling again?

jen

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:46:40 GMT, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:

I would imagine that if we were able to do retroactivediagnosing, a lot of the children who were 'frail andsickly' and died very young had something that ispretty easily diagnosed today.

I'm sure you're right. My grandmother had a baby girl in the late
1930's who died at age 3 months. Grandma said that she was always
sickly and small, and just never did well (and finally died). They
just didn't have the tests and knowledge that we do these days; I
always wonder if it wasn't something simple that would be easily fixed
today. It always bothered Grandma, even into her 80's; she'd shake
her head sadly and say, "I don't know why she died."

Lauri in WA



I like my email spamless

audrey in velvet <lindauermadness@mydotcomaddress.com> wrote:
Then I fell in love with a younger guy who had always been funded by his parents, loved to go out with the guys, and had been the president of his fraternity. Never mind! isnt that funny how that works out? :)

Yes; that's why it is good to be able to laugh at yourself. :-)

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is a good intellectual exercize to think about what you want. But then most people are happy to make some compromises when they meet someone who they really click with. And then, those of us who like to believe that we behave rationally can tell ourselves that we only compromised on the unimportant things!

And I don't think you can precisely put things either in the unimportant
or the important category anyway. Liking country music is unimportant,
but not enjoying the same music, or movies, or books, or . . . - at
some point it makes things more difficult.

Also, whether something is important often depends on whether it is
really the marker for the underlying value that you thought it was. DH
is a social animal and he likes to go out with his buddies, play sports,
have a few beers. This could be important if it were a marker for
having a drinking problem, or ignoring his family, or being insufferably
macho. But since, in him, it isn't any of those things, it is
unimportant.

But even with all of these complexities, I still think it is more than
just an intellectual exercise to have some sort of a list. I *was*
married to the wrong person for five years, and I *didn't* want to do
that again. Having a list can make you stop and think early enough in
the process to keep you from making a time consuming mistake.

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote:
Emma Anne wrote: What's funny about lists is that when you fall in love, you find out what things on your list really weren't important after all. But that's because you put unimportant things on the list to begin with! Either that, or later when things cool off and your incompatibilities show their annoying face you realize that the list WAS important after all :-)

Actually, the toughest issues weren't things that were on the list at
all! For example, my DH is a packrat. We have to negotiate about what
to keep and where to keep it all the time. I never thought of that as a
potential problem until it was one.