Have you experienced this?

rdos said:
I always formed attachments in similar ways as in the initial text. That's my way of forming attachments
Click to expand...

That sounds exhausting, all the hinting and hoping.

The problem with the approach in the scenario (one of them, at least) is that this "mutual interest" isn't known until someone actually speaks up and lets it be known "Hey, I like you, but I am far too passive to say it". I've picked up that someone might be interested in me before, body language goes a long way, but I'm going out on a limb and assuming that both people in this scenario communicate non-verbally about as well as they do verbally. So, while both of these people are quietly following the other around, neither actually know that this is the case until the junior high game playing is set aside for an actual conversation of some kind. It boggles the mind.

Having said all that, it doesn't really matter if I find it exhausting or child-like, every person gets to decide for themselves how they choose to engage their fellows.

rdos said:
I also don't form attachments by talking to possible partners
Click to expand...

So you don't socially bond through sex or communication. How do you bond with people? I'm just curious.
 
Marcus said:
That sounds exhausting, all the hinting and hoping.
Click to expand...

It's not. That's the best part of it all.

Marcus said:
The problem with the approach in the scenario (one of them, at least) is that this "mutual interest" isn't known until someone actually speaks up and lets it be known "Hey, I like you, but I am far too passive to say it".
Click to expand...

Mutual interest is communicated non-verbally. The honesty of the communication is ascertained by putting down time and effort in trying to get together without planning it verbally. In fact, you know early that there is mutual interest, you just don't tell each others verbally. Once you become verbal, you are practically already dating. In fact, when I meet my wife, we never even talked verbally about being together, because we already knew we were so there were no need to talk about that.

In the opening scenario here it was assumed there was no common ground, but when I met my wife we shared a dancing interest, and we did dance with each others, but didn't talk. So we kept looking for each others at different dance places.

Marcus said:
So you don't socially bond through sex or communication. How do you bond with people? I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

The bonding happens in the first non-verbal phase. That's why this is the best phase.
 
Last edited:
Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about. Whether the person is male, female, kinky, poly, vanilla, asexual, pansexual or all of the above, what you said in your Op sounded like a stalker.
 
rdos said:
That's actually wrong. BD/SM, role playing (like in this scenario) and polyamory are related.

Evidence: http://www.rdos.net/eng/aspeval/je2/relje2.htm (for instance, study item 86 that relates to all of these things).
Click to expand...

That's a questionnaire. At best, research, not evidence. That it has your handle attached to it does not lend it any credibility.

BDSM and polyamory are not necessarily any more related than apples and mayonnaise. (That is, people eat them. Some people eat them together. Some people enjoy them separately. Others won't eat either, except perhaps when they are the only available food options. And not always then. For example).
 
rdos said:
Uhm, couldn't the same be said about polyamory people? Isn't it also creepy to want to have multiple partners?
Click to expand...

To some people it is. In general, probably not. Or there wouldn't be so many non-con non-monogamy situations. Culture dictates monogamy, biology frequently wants something else.

rdos said:
But what if these grown-ups want the other part to put down some effort in them to prove they really care??
Click to expand...

They have no relationship between them. How can either care? At best, you've got a crush going on for someone about whom you know nothing, perhaps feel some chemistry toward. At worst, you've got a case of erotomania. (which can also go back to stalking).

rdos said:
And what is really the difference between this and BD/SM play? Why is it creepy between strangers but not creepy between bonded parties?
Click to expand...

Negotiation, communication, consent. Makes almost everything less creepy. If a stranger brings me food I haven't requested, it's creepy, even if it is my favorite thing and I'm hungry. If a waiter brings me food -- and they are equally a stranger, despite the ritual introduction -- then it's part of their job and a managed social interaction. If my husband or lover brings me food, even if I haven't requested it, it's intimate.
 
I am poly but dislike bdsm in all its forms. I am vanilla as they come. So how are poly and bdsm related?
 
rdos said:
Mutual interest is communicated non-verbally.
Click to expand...

And you are sure of this, how?

rdos said:
In the opening scenario here it was assumed there was no common ground, but when I met my wife we shared a dancing interest, and we did dance with each others, but didn't talk. So we kept looking for each others at different dance places.
Click to expand...

You had an unspoken attraction. Chemistry. It's lovely. But you also ran into each other at least one shared dance place (indicating a shared interest), and then on the basis on that interest, looked for each other in other dance places.

You already knew you had at least one thing in common, from safe, shared, public experience.

That's a little different from being, say, the neighbor who observes my dog walking route each evening and tries to intersect with me subsequently -- and in your scenario, would do so non-verbally, so would probably continue to follow me on various walking routes and observe my home from outside the windows. Engaging in conversation, we might find common ground and friendship might be broached.

rdos said:
The bonding happens in the first non-verbal phase. That's why this is the best phase.
Click to expand...

Or the most awkward. Your mileage varies.
 
For the record, I am poly.. I dabble in some BDSM (time constraints, ha, limit from any real time) .. and I have been a swinger.

I think you posted a similar concept in regards to spirituality. Which I also disagree with. Honestly I think you need to go back to the drawing board. You are attempting to paint people with really broad strokes, and it really doesn't work.
 
KerryRen said:
That's a questionnaire. At best, research, not evidence. That it has your handle attached to it does not lend it any credibility.

BDSM and polyamory are not necessarily any more related than apples and mayonnaise. (That is, people eat them. Some people eat them together. Some people enjoy them separately. Others won't eat either, except perhaps when they are the only available food options. And not always then. For example).
Click to expand...

In that case you don't understand correlation. The report clearly shows that these things are correlated, and thus are related to some extent. It doesn't say they have a causative route, but they are related. Sample size is a little above 3,000, largely randomly selected individuals from the Internet. These things have p < 0.001 that they are not related.
 
KerryRen said:
Negotiation, communication, consent. Makes almost everything less creepy. If a stranger brings me food I haven't requested, it's creepy, even if it is my favorite thing and I'm hungry. If a waiter brings me food -- and they are equally a stranger, despite the ritual introduction -- then it's part of their job and a managed social interaction. If my husband or lover brings me food, even if I haven't requested it, it's intimate.
Click to expand...

If some stranger comes up to me to talk I find that creepy.
 
KerryRen said:
That's a little different from being, say, the neighbor who observes my dog walking route each evening and tries to intersect with me subsequently -- and in your scenario, would do so non-verbally, so would probably continue to follow me on various walking routes and observe my home from outside the windows. Engaging in conversation, we might find common ground and friendship might be broached.
Click to expand...

While I didn't write it in the initial text, there is some other common background, but it's not important to the argument.
 
Ariakas said:
For the record, I am poly.. I dabble in some BDSM (time constraints, ha, limit from any real time) .. and I have been a swinger.

I think you posted a similar concept in regards to spirituality. Which I also disagree with. Honestly I think you need to go back to the drawing board. You are attempting to paint people with really broad strokes, and it really doesn't work.
Click to expand...

FYI, explorative factor analysis places these traits on the same factor, and confirmative factor analysis supports it.

Factor analysis is a valid method for associating traits, and it is the most common tool used for this purpose in psychology, so what you are claiming is that it is not valid because you don't like it. And that is not a valid objection.
 
rdos, reading some of your posts I honestly have to wonder whether you're here to learn, engage in discussion, and interact with like-minded people, or whether you're just here to prove that you're right about everything and we're all wrong because science.

Science which you appear to be basing solely on YOUR OWN research.

There are many different ways for two people to bond and form a relationship. Any of them which involve a mutual agreement and acceptance are valid. Any that are one-sided may be less valid, may be seen by some as "creepy", and may cross the line into inappropriate behavior including stalking.

Your way of forming bonds works for you. That's great. That doesn't mean it would work for everyone, nor does it mean that everyone would accept it from you because it works for you.

People who are polyamorous are not necessarily by extension interested in BDSM, just as people who are into BDSM are not necessarily polyamorous. Swingers may not be polyamorous, and of the swingers I know personally, none are remotely interested--some are actively disgusted by--BDSM. Which is NOT representative of the opinions of all swingers, because I am basing this statement solely on people I know personally.

Regardless of how many people were used in your study, that is still not representative of ALL people who are polyamorous, into BDSM, or whatever. Nor does it prove conclusively that there is a correlation between those things; only that there is a correlation between them WITHIN YOUR SAMPLE POPULATION.

Your results do not mean that the rest of us are wrong and you're right. They simply mean that your results do not agree with what people here believe, live, and are telling you. Constantly using your links to prove to us that we're wrong and you're right doesn't change the fact that some of us--people who are polyamorous--don't agree with your statements or results.

(And because I'm in a nit-picky mood... Polyamory is a noun. People are not polyamorY, they are polyamorOUS, the adjective.)
 
rdos said:
In that case you don't understand correlation. The report clearly shows that these things are correlated, and thus are related to some extent. It doesn't say they have a causative route, but they are related. Sample size is a little above 3,000, largely randomly selected individuals from the Internet. These things have p < 0.001 that they are not related.
Click to expand...

You did not present a report. I examined your link. You showed a questionnaire, which could generate a report.

Perhaps you need to work on your citing skills. Or perhaps, you know, you could try to dealing with the people you are talking to as people, and not as research subjects or unwilling students.

"Randomly selected people from the Internet" is a concept that fails miserably. People who respond to a posted survey are self-selecting. If you draw your data from postings, you miss vital information. You're either choosing your base or they are choosing you, making neither random nor your data necessarily accurate.

Which is not to say I think the survey idea is entirely wrong. But I think you may be doing it incorrectly.
 
KerryRen said:
You did not present a report. I examined your link. You showed a questionnaire, which could generate a report.
Click to expand...

It's a report alright. Automatically generated by software. It shows the highest correlations between items.

KerryRen said:
"Randomly selected people from the Internet" is a concept that fails miserably. People who respond to a posted survey are self-selecting. If you draw your data from postings, you miss vital information. You're either choosing your base or they are choosing you, making neither random nor your data necessarily accurate.
Click to expand...

Not so. Aspie Quiz has 100s (even 1000s) of links throughout the net, and I don't post links anywhere anymore since I don't need to. This sample happened to be drawn a few months ago. Also, these questions are in many versions, and show the same clustering.
 
KC43 said:
rdos, reading some of your posts I honestly have to wonder whether you're here to learn, engage in discussion, and interact with like-minded people, or whether you're just here to prove that you're right about everything and we're all wrong because science.
Click to expand...

I think it is all of the former. I post these things here because I think people might understand the issues better than some other random forum.

KC43 said:
People who are polyamorous are not necessarily by extension interested in BDSM, just as people who are into BDSM are not necessarily polyamorous. Swingers may not be polyamorous, and of the swingers I know personally, none are remotely interested--some are actively disgusted by--BDSM. Which is NOT representative of the opinions of all swingers, because I am basing this statement solely on people I know personally.
Click to expand...

If you read the thread about polyamory and swingers, you'd probably know that I questioned why the polyamory community would support certain things that very well could be related but not others. People argued for supporting swingers, and they didn't really like it when I claimed sex shouldn't be assumed to be related to polyamory (it's not by definition at least), and we know for a fact there are asexual people that are also polyamorous. So I think what this debate is about is what we should assume is related, what we want to support and alike. Of course, I've seen no evidence for swinging and polyamory being related.
 
You've seen NO evidence for swinging and polyamory being related??

Hmm. I guess I don't exist then. I'm in an open marriage (swinger) and also polyamorous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top