Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    This is a good one! I think I have used "intimate" and "intimacy" in
    all of the ways you thought of in .0.
    
    >Is there a better word for what intimate once meant about
    >relationship, or does it still work to describe "belonging to ones
    >deepest nature" or "marked by very close association"? 
    
    I don't know it there is necessarily a 'better' word, but I use
    some alternates. There are a couple of people that I have crossed
    paths with in my lifetime, that are very special to me. I know that
    no matter what has happened, how long it's been since we've seen
    each other, or any other mitigating factor, that I can depend on
    these  people. When I see them, it's as if we had never been apart.
    I would trust them with my life, if it came to that. If I believed
    in reincarnation (which I do about 30%), I would say we had known
    each other in past lives; the intimacy we share is so great and
    effortless. I call these people my soulmates. People who can never
    be separated from me, because, in some way, they *are* me.
                                            
    >Is there an operational test to see if I have an intimate relationship
    >with someone? 
    
    I can't think of any standards that define intimate relationships.
    To me, it means someone you can tell things to you couldn't tell
    to anyone else. (This is not to say that you tell everything to
    everyone with whom you consider yourself to be intimate. I have
    things I couldn't tell my SO, but I could discuss with another close
    friend.) An intimate relationship is comfortable, whether it's
    with a lover or a friend.
                                  
    >Isn't the meaning of "intimacy" different for men and women? 
    
    Smile when you say that, pardner! No, I don't see why. It's certainly
    not biological. It's different from person to person, but I don't
    see it as a gender split. I think people may have different opinions
    on what constitutes intimacy, according to their upbringing and
    culture, but all of that is easily overcome, if you want to.
                                                
    >Can a relationship be only intimate, and lack other dimensions, or
    >does having an relationship that is intimate connote a lot more about
    >the relationship?  Maybe intimate is really a kind of moment in a
    >relationship, but not something that lasts. 
    
    A relationship can certainly be intimate in only one dimension. I have
    had intimate relationships that were primarily sexually based, comfort
    based, friendship based. The best and most lasting ones are of course
    those based on intimacy between 2 people who were not afraid to share
    with each other all of themselves. 
    
    Ah ha! Sharing. I knew there was a quality I was looking for that
    described it better. An intimate relationship is shared. It can be
    shared on many levels, partially or totally, but it is a sharing
    of some or all of yourself with another person.
                 
    >If I wanted intimacy in a relationship, how would I go about getting
    >it? 
    
    By being open, by sharing, by caring, and by being yourself. You
    can't do this with everyone, and you will be rejected and hurt
    occasionally, but the alternative is to shut yourself off from
    everyone else and let nothing touch you. If you find someone you
    and you sense a potential for intimacy, start with friendship. If
    it's a relationship that already exists and you want it to be deeper
    and closer, open yourself first and see how you are received. It's
    hard work to be intimate with someone. It makes you very vulnerable.
    You have to trust someone else with part of yourself.
                 

    >Maybe intimate is really a kind of moment in a relationship, but not
    >something that lasts. 
    
    I firmly believe that if you work at it (as you have to work at
    any good relationship), then you can have intimacy with someone
    for as long as you both want. I think intimacy is deeper at some
    moments than others, but you can't keep a 'peak' experience going
    for ever, or else it wouldn't be one.
    
    Tamzen

	... the crunching of leaves under our feet as we walked
    through the Temple courtyard.  As we walked down the gravel and
    stoned lane we entered a forest and then a secluded area covered
    by green vines with the sound of tom toms in the backround
    and the smell of sandalwood incense all around.  I asked to take
    her picture and she said yes.  As she leaned against the tree
    I wondered what she thought and could not help but ask.

    "What are you thinking?"

    "Thinking ?  I am really hungry."

    I was touched.


    

	Having leaings toward mysticism my favorite explanation for
    intimacy was, surprizingly enough, given to me by an old friend
    that worked for the Arch Dicocese's office of spiritual development
    (that would be an interesting card to hand out) 

	She explained that she felt making love was an affirmation 
     of the couples (she was more conservative than I :^) unity 
     with themselves and God. I would extend this to mean all forms
     of intimacy and infact use it as a necessary condition.   

        So, my definition of intimacy would be relationships that 
     encourage unity and discourage selfishness. 

 >>        So, my definition of intimacy would be relationships that 
 >>     encourage unity and discourage selfishness. 

 >	We might differ here ...  Assume for the moment that we have
 >   an intimate (i.e. TRUST by our own definition) relationship ...

        I do not use intimacy as a synonym for trust. Trust might
     be a necessacary condition to intimacy for not a sufficient
     characteristic. I trust KO's wisdom to guide DEC but we are 
     not intimate also I trust my barber not to cut my throat when 
     he shaves me but we are not intimate. 

>	We can (in theory) remain "intimate" in the face of massive
> DIS-unity and selfish behavior.  

        I disagree with the above comment, this should come as no
     surprise since it is "truth-functionally" exactly the opposite
     as my definition. 

>	In particular, we have often adopted the role of an UN-selfish
>  "big brother" and felt some satisfaction in being "needed" by others.

        I believe what you are decribing here is pity which is not
    a selfless act but an example of one exerting power over another
    through the guise of sympathy. 

>      	Clearly the "key" ingredients in an "intimate" relationship are
>  not unity and unselfishness ... but rather Trust and Sharing.  

        I believe I have provided an appropriate counter example above.

>  If we disagree often and lack unity and even are both selfish persons ...
>  we would still have an intimate relationship as long as we both trust
>  and continue to interact.  

	This is a good point, however I would claim that since communication
   is meaningful and takes place there is unity and the intimacy is inherent
   in that communication. 

>	Obviously trust alone does not constitute intimacy because there
>  are lots of folks we trust or who trust us ...  But when we don't find
>  anything to share there is no real relationship.

	Yes.  

	I am enjoying this I wonder if it regressing to a semantic 
   battle on whether unity implies intimacy which I can only claim
   is my opinion. 

	What is the eagle stuff in reference to?

	John 

    okay, now that we've defined "intimacy", can anyone explain to
    me the difference between "love" and "in love"?   I realize that
    I "love" my son, my dog, my ex husband, but am not "in love" with
    them....but I also love the person currently in my life, but it
    just seems a different degree or type of love.  He says that when
    he says he loves me, he doesn't mean he is "in love" with me.  Does
    that mean we are just good friends?  (of course I realize that he
    is the best person to explain this to me, however I have asked for
    an explanation and gotten no where.  He says he doesn't know the
    difference, but when it hits him he will know.  He has only felt
    with one other person that he was "in love" and now feels he was
    mistaken.  Obviously one of us is confused.  I guess the statement
    that he made: "I thought I would wake up one day and look into your
    eyes and say 'I love you' and be 'in love'", is what confuses me.
    
    
    Any comments?

RE: .8

Loving someone is when you care about them, enjoy doing things for them,
etc..  It is a mental/head love which can be strained and broken.

Being "In Love" is when you would do anything for someone, die for them, even
stay away from them and let them go, because you love them soo much...  It is an
emotional/heart love that can never be strained or broken... 

So it seems, most people can 'fall out of love', but I don't understand that...

*sigh*

    RE: .11  (Jim)
    
    I don't define simply (simply?) caring about someone enjoy doing
    things for them and with them.  That's friendship, liking someone.
    Only in extreme cases would it be called love.
    
    I define love as what you call "in love", as the very emotional
    heartfelt caring, that you would do anything for them, including
    stay away from them even though you want to be with them at almost
    all times.  It includes the above, but transcends it.  This kind
    of love cannot be broken.
    
    I also can't understand how people 'fall out of love'.  I still
    love everyone I've ever loved, but it is a different kind of love.
    I still care very much about all of them, even though some of them
    are permanently gone from my life.
    
    Kathleen
    
    

    "Intimacy" is like a finely cut diamond.  If you hold it up to the
    light you can see more facets than you could ever imagine.  I don't
    believe "intimacy" is a defineable word.  It is a feeling.  I equate
    it with being "at ease."  Intimacy is silence that isn't uncomfortable.
    Intimacy is a touch that is always warm and welcome.  It is trust,
    it is sharing, but these are only words and are so many different
    things to different people.  Intimacy is finding someone who
    understands the word to feel the way you do. Being able to tell
    a stupid joke without feeling stupid, being able to get roaring
    drunk and not worry about what you might say.  It's fragile, it
    can be shattered.  But at it's best it's strong enough to bond forever.
    
    Now for being "in love."  That's another feeling.  Being "in love"
    is being intimate.  It's the same feelings.  It's not the way you
    feel with your children or your dog.  But it *is* the way you feel
    with your spouse (if you're lucky) or your lover, or even a few
    close friends.  It doesn't necessarily need to be sexual - neither
    does intimacy.  Minds can be intimate without bodies ever joining.
    People can be "in love" without ever meeting in person.  In the
    right relationship, sexual intimacy heightens an already well-developed
    relationship between two people who choose that route.  But it is
    not in and of itself the be-all and end-all of intimacy.  It can
    be achieved without it.
    
    That's how I see it anyway.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    

        Some of you will have seen the following in a couple of places.
        Sorry to repeat myself (but I'll do it anyway). My sister asked
        me to read something at her wedding. I couldn't find anything
        that really said what I wanted to say, so I wrote and then read
        the following. It addresses the question of "what is 'Love'
        asked in this topic. It also discusses related topics.
        
        
             To My Sister: On Marriage, Love, Trust, & Commitment
                                by Jim Burrows
            Read at the wedding of Katey Burrows and Peter Kintzer,
                                2 August 1986.
     
    I think that there are three important ingredients to a good marriage,
    and that one of major risks in marriage is the misunderstanding of these
    ingredients. 
                        
    First there is love. Love is not something that happens to us. It isn't
    a state, something we fall into and out of, or something that we feel.
    That's passion, infatuation, desire, or lust. Each of these can
    contribute to a good or pleasant marriage, but they are no substitute
    for love. 
                        
    Love is an action. It's something we do. It is valuing, considering and
    caring for someone as much as you value, consider and care for yourself.
    It is the great commandment in the realm of relationships among men.
    It's hard work, and it is at the core of every good relationship,
    especially a marriage. 
                        
    The second important contributor is trust. Recently I've heard several
    people express the opinion that a trust once broken can never be
    repaired. That is a tremendously dangerous notion. Once you've decided
    that you've doomed yourself. We humans are all fallible. Every trust
    eventually will be, if not broken, at least bent or abused. If we allow
    that inevitable failure to destroy the trust, we can never win. 
                        
    Trust is like faith. We trust not because it is rational, or because
    there is evidence. We don't trust only the proven or the perfect, but
    the unproven and the known imperfect. What we need to do is not to trust
    our loved ones to never fail us, but rather trust that even though they
    may fail us, they still care; that even though they may fail, they are
    trying. Trust is inherently risky and in a sense irrational. 
                        
    The last factor is commitment. Often we hear marriage spoken of as a
    contract, an agreement, a 50/50 proposition. In order to succeed, a
    marriage must be much more than that. If two of us each merely "do our
    share", "carry our half of the burden", statistically � of the time
    we'll both be doing it. Half the time one or the other of us will be
    doing it, and � of the time no-one will be doing it. 
                        
    The way to make a marriage work is to first trust your spouse to do
    their part, and then to do almost all of it yourself. If you both are
    giving 99%, then the marriage will only be unsupported one time in
    10,000. In 50 years of marriage, that would be less than 2 days. 
                        
    [To the bride and groom, directly:] So, on this day and for the rest of
    your lives, take with you love, trust and commitment, and strive each
    day to understand them and each other better. 

    re: .13
    
    It seems to me that, to the degree that you have complete knowledge
    of a person, you either love or are intimate with that person. 
    The source of knowledge (experience, self revelation, soulmate,
    etc) is unimportant, but the completeness of the knowledge is
    important.  Intuitively, I think that being "in love" suggests
    significant incompleteness in the knowledge, but that intuition
    is based on my experience rather than observation of others.

RE: .14

I'm not sure you're using the best term for your last factor. commitment.

To me, commitment implies that I will stay in a relationship with a person even
if they turn into a snakes slimy belly...  I'm not sure whether this is a good
thing; traditionally it is, but I can't see it's place in the scheme of
relationships...

What you seem to be saying is the a relationship takes conmstant work, which I
would agree.

Jim.

        I guess what I was talking about was degree of commitment.
        Recently, I have seen a number of people make highly conditional
        commitments, things like "I'll do my share, if you'll do yours"
        or "I'll stay with you as long as I love you", or "I'll keep
        working on this relationship as long as it is worth my while". I
        believe that's not a sufficient commitment. I believe that to
        make a marriage work you have to trust the other person and then
        commit yourself to keeping it going. 
        
        You have to be willing to do more than "your share". It's sort
        of like JFK's old advice, "Ask not what your marriage can do for
        you. Ask what you can do for your marriage." This may sound like
        an invitation to be taken advantage of, but I believe that if
        you can't trust your partner to not take advantage, if you
        aren't sure that they are making the same commitment, you
        shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
        
        JimB. 

RE: .17

It *sort of* seems to me like you are saying that I should have an infinite
amount of commitment in a marriage, even if the other person has no commitment
in the marriage. 

I guess what I'm trying to say it that there is commitment, and then there is
commitment.  Not all commitments are infinite and alike, nor should they be;
that would be an unrealistic ideal. 

Commitments do have limits.  Even though I'd like to be proved wrong...

Jim.

    A few years ago my wife and I went to a Marriage Encounter, and
    though we found the religious emphasis to be  a bit much, we did
    come away with some good ideas.  This topic was dealt with very
    early on in the session.  There is a very definite difference between
    "being in love" and loving someone.  "Being in love" is an emotion,
    with all of the frailties that emotions are prey to (hardly anyone
    ever stays angry forever or is sad forever).  "Being in love" is
    therefore an ephemeral experience--here today, gone later.  Loving
    someone, on the other hand, is a DECISION which is made on a
    moment-by-moment basis.  That is not to say that it is short-lived,
    but rather that it is a continuing commitment to another person.
    Having decided to love someone else I must recognize that that love
    is a decision that I made and that I renew daily---the essence of
    commitment.  My wife and I make the commitment to each other to
    keep on deciding to be together and to work on our relationship
    over time.  That is the essential trust that we have together, that
    we'll work together.  It hasn't got much to do with "being in love",
    but that didn't hurt, either :^).
    
    Bill

        RE: 19.19
        
        No, you missed the point of the last paragraph. Your commitment
        should be complete and not contitional on "what's in it for me".
        That's the first point. The second is that you shouldn't marry
        anyone who doesn't make the same commitment and whom you can't
        trust.
        
        Two of the biggest causes of divorce are marrying the wrong
        person (just because you are "in love", but without any real
        love, real trust, or real commitment), and putting your own self
        intrest above your spouse's (by ceasing to trust due to a single
        breach, or by making your commitment conditional on theirs.
        
        As soon as you put the burden of responsibility or the blame on
        the other person, you've lost the game. In order for that to
        work you have to marry the right person for the right reasons.
        
        JimB.

But even 100% is a limit... I don't think you've directly answered my questions/
doubts.  I really would like to see an answer/ explaination.  I don't *want* to
win this discussion!  Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more using my own words,
if you would...

What about commitments other then marriage?  How do different kinds of
commtments commitments graduate up to the commitment of marriage? 

Jim. 

        I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by limits, nor
        precisely what your questions/doubts are. Could you clarify
        that a little bit, and I'll see what I can do about answering
        them, or at least addressing them. (I don't claim to have
        all the anwers. [just most of them? :-)])
        
        JimB. 

RE: .23

You said that you have seen a number of people make highly conditional
commitments, things like, "I'll do my share, if you'll do yours".

I said that, yes, that is a bad sort of condition to make in the short run. But,
in the long run, how long would you keep doing both shares, while your
'''partner''' was not doing their share?  Should you put up with that forever,
or even be expected to put up with that forever?  These commitments can't be
infinite/forever/for everything.  There has to be some limits.  Usually the
limits are left unstated, which is good in the short run, it seems less
unromantic, but it sucks if you're left holding the bag! :-) 

The problem is not that the person did not trust, she did! And now she's stuck.
The problem is not that the other person didn't apparently make the commitment.
So far, we've been addressing this from the side of the person who is supposedly
failing their commitment.  Ok, now what does the other person, the one left
holding the bag do?  How long do they put up with it?

What do you mean by "complete" commitment?

Jim.

        re: 91.24
        
        As you might have come to expect, yes I do expect to keep it up
        forever, and believe that you *ought* to expect to keep it up
        forever. The point I appear to have a hard time getting across
        is that when you blame the problem on the other person, when you
        start worrying that they aren't doing their share, that it is
        unfair to you, you start to tear down the relationship. The
        point is that a commitment is what *you* will do, and not what
        you expect.
        
        After I read my little piece on love, trust, and commitment at my
        sister's wedding, the wedding continued, and the priest said a
        few words about what was happening there. He pointed out that
        when you make you marriage vows what you talk about is what
        *you* will do. You promise before God and man that you will keep
        working on the relationship for the rest of your life. There are
        no conditions stated in the vows, no expectations. 
        
        The heart of the commitment is that it is yours. It isn't your
        partner's. It isn't conditional. You promise to stick through
        the bad times and the good. Of course, to make it work you both
        have to make the same commitment. That is where the good
        judgment in picking your spouse and trust both come in. You
        should only marry if both of you are making the same commitment,
        but having made the commitment you trust your spouse to keep
        their commitment. You accept their love and their commitment on
        faith. You trust against reason. You should ask lots of hard
        questions before making the marriage and the commitment and then
        *stop* asking them once the marriage is going. 
        
        This is where I think the idea of divorce, the possibility of a
        break-up, gets in the way. It's why I said I didn't believe in
        pre-nuptual agreements, and their implicit assumption that the
        commitment might be limited, might be conditional, might
        dissolve. It undercuts your commitment, suggests that it might be
        limited, and it undercuts your trust in your partner, in their
        commitment. Once you doubt, and question, you open the doors.
        Once you start to shift the responsibility off of your own
        shoulders and assume that the other person is responsible, you
        open the possibility that neither of you will be responsible.
        
        I guess I really disagree with you on two points. First, the
        commitments of marriage are not limited, they're not
        conditional. Second, I disagree with the notion of worrying
        about being "left holding the bag", of shifting the blame onto
        the other person. The question IS, "Are you keeping your
        commitment?", and not "What do you do if the other person
        doesn't?". 
        
        I don't know what vows others have made. Mine start with the
        question "Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live
        together after God's holy ordinance in the holy estate of
        matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her
        in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keep thee
        only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?", to which I
        answered "I will by God's help." Those declarations didn't
        stipulate "as long as she keeps up her commitment", or "as long
        as ye choose to", or "as long as it's a good deal". They were
        absolute and unconditional. 
        
        The answer has two important parts to it. (Three, actually, but
        I'll leave the third for a specifically religious topic
        somewhere.) First the answer was an unmodified "Yes". It stated
        absolutely "I *will*". Second, by invoking God's help it
        acknowledges that people aren't perfect, that on their own they
        are unable to keep an absolute vow. Any human who makes a vow
        abuses it is some way at some time. Every married person fails
        at least a little. Only an absolute and perfect being ("God")
        could keep every iota of the vows forever. It is important to
        recognizes the frailty of humanity in order that the inevitable
        lapses not be allowed to overwhelm the commitment. 
        
        These questions are a vital part of a marriage ceremony. They
        are the crucial questions you have to ask each other at least
        once, *before* the marriage starts. They are ceremoniously asked
        here for the last time before the actual vows are made. They
        symbolize the need to know that the other person is making
        the same commitment as you.
        
        My actual vows read: "I James take thee Selma to my wedded wife,
        to have and to hold from this day forth, for better or worse,
        for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to
        cherish, till death do us part, according to God's holy
        ordinance; thereto I plight thee my troth." and were followed by
        the declaration, "With this ring I thee wed, and with all that I
        am, all that I have, I honour thee, in the Name of the Lord."
        Again notice that these are all absolute and unconditional
        promises. They do not hold out the exception that "when and if
        this marriage breaks up, all that I have and all that I am
        reverts to me".
        
        To love someone is to care for, value, and consider someone else
        as much as you do yourself. When you start worrying about
        yourself more than them, when you shift the burden to their
        shoulders, you have not only weakened your commitment, you have
        weakened your love. 
        
        JimB.

    I keep losing the flow of this discussion.  I think my confusion
    is around what intimacy and commitment have to with each other.
    I don't understand how I could commit to intimacy, at least not
    in the same sense I could commit to fidelity.  I do understand how
    I could commit to myself to take risks in order to expand my capacity
    for intimacy, but that doesn't seem like the kind of commitment
    that is being discussed.  It seems to me that one can commit to
    a process (self revelation) in pursuit of an attribute (intimacy),
    but one cannot commit to an attribute itself.

      After reading 27 replies, I forgot what the topic was, so I read
    it over again.  I believe it was suppose to help define the INTIMATE-
    A Human relation concept.  
    
      The more words tacked on to a meaning of the word can either clarify
    it or confuse it.  I don't see where there is any clearer meaning
    of the word "intimate" has come up here.
    
      Are we so hung up that all we can suggest intimacy with sex and
    marriage?  Our human bonds have been stretch so far that it isn't
    possible to become intimate with people of the same sex without
    a sexual overtone.  If I get close to another human by any contact
    I have established some degree of intimacy.  How close I get deter-
    mines the degree of my intimacy and what factors are set as borders
    to that intimacy are the factors that wil also determine the con-
    tinuance of the relationship.  
    
      i.e.  If someone confided in me about a personal event and we
    became close and enjoyed being close then the intimacy is the
    closeness that we have.  
    
      I don't really think most people know how to be intimate.  Given
    how people act even after marriage, it's no wonder marriage is on
    the decline.  How many of us just enjoy coming home sitting down
    on the couch and cuddling with the people that are close to us.
    I mean just sit there and be close, talk, feel good about being
    held and being warm to eachother?
    
      GRG
    

        Don't try too hard to find a strong connection between what I
        said in the last couple of notes regarding commitment and the
        topic of this discussion--intimacy. What we have here is your
        basic digression, perpetrated in part by one of the moderators
        of the conference.
        
        Discussing intimacy does bring up the topic of "love", which is
        fairly legitimately tied to intimacy. My reply .14 posted
        something I'd written that addressed the topic of love but also
        the topics of trust and commitment, and specifically in the
        context of marriage. From there the rest of the digression is
        history.
        
        
        To get back to "What is intimacy?", I would say that it is a
        special closeness shared between people who love, trust, and
        enjoy one another. "Love", as I use the term, means valuing,
        caring for and considering another as you do yourself.
        "Intimacy", to me, implies a degree of mutal caring that is
        rightly called love. 
        
        It also implies a level of sharing that requires enough
        vulnerability and risk, that the two people must trust each
        other. (I suppose that intimacy is *possible* without that level
        of trust, but it doesn't seem very well advised.)
        
        Finally, at least as I understand the word, intimacy implies a
        high degree of mutal enjoyment. This might seem to be implied in
        the term "love", but you need to be careful. As I use it, "love"
        doesn't have to imply that you like or enjoy the loved one. As
        long as you care for them and value them to the requisite degree
        it is love. A mother may very well still love a dispicable
        offspring, one that causes them tremendous anguish to be around.
        
        I don't believe that intimacy requires commitment. (Just can't
        escape that digression, but since I brought up both love and
        trust, I might as well get in my third topic from my earlier
        note.) Intimacy is a wonderful thing, and it is desirable to
        foster it, but there needn't be a commitment to repeat an
        intimate experience or to maintain an intimate relationship. I
        would say that I have intimate relationships with many several
        folk in this file and throughout my life, but I reserve a deep
        commitment for my wife and family. I have loved and do love many
        people. I have promised to love only my wife and immediate
        family.
        
        There are degrees of intimacy, and intimacy in different realms.
        One may share an aspect of oneself with intimates, but not share
        other aspects. I think this may be something that leads to some
        confusion, both in this discussion and in life.  In terms of the
        discussion it leads to the questions we see about "is sexual
        intimacy the only kind?" and the confussion that difffernt
        people are tyalking about diffrent types of intimacy.
        
        In life we often assume that because two people are intimate on
        one level they are or wish to be intimate on another. This can
        be confusing both when we are involved and when we merely
        observe. When we are involved, we may suddenly come to expect
        that a person who shared an intimate moment also wants to share
        a sexual intimacy, and suddenly go beyond their expectations
        (which relates this to another topic or two in this file). Great
        misunderstandings can happen here, and because of the openness
        and trust implicite in intimacy, they can hurt deeply.
        
        We can also misjudge the relationships we see between others
        because we confuse one level of intimacy with another. When we
        see two people of the opposite (or appropriate?) sex who share
        an emotional intimacy we may assume that they share a sexual
        intimacy. This can lead to all sorts of embarrassing
        misunderstandings, especially if one of them happens to be
        someone we are (or wish to be) involved with.
        
        Enough rambling. Are we back on topic yet?
        
        JimB. 

        The walls we build around us (have had built around us) define
    the level of confidence we have in other people.  The word trust
    deals with that confidence.  Betraying it, betrays intimacy. But
    the number of times love seems to appear as a synonym for intimacy
    is quite confusing.  
    
        I can be very intimate with someone else and not love them.
    I don't even have to like them. But out of respect for my fellow 
    human being, if they were to confide in my and share some intimacy,
    I would expect to respect that person and not betray that confidence.
    Have you ever felt that some of your closest friends are closer
    to you than some or any of your family.  Its not odd to find 
    a lack of intimacy in close physical or family relations.  Sometimes
    the all these other clouds get in the way.
    

      How Often?
    
      I don't really know.
    
      Can we forget how to be intimate?  Is it a learned behavior or
      an inherited trait?
    
      Managing intimacy puts me too close replacing feelings with
    obligations.

RE: .24

I'm sorry if I don't find that terribly helpfull...   I mean if you're standing
there 'holding the bag', and someone walks up and says, 'Well, the problem is
that you blew it 3 years ago...', it's not terrifically helpfull.

Jim. 

    re: .33
    
    We certainly can forget.  I'm in the midst of relearning.
    
    DFW

        RE: .34
        
        (Back to the digression.)
        
        I assume that you were addressing yourself to my .26, and not to
        your own .24. If it was another note you meant, just ignore me,
        I'm confusesd.
        
        Well, if one did blow it 3 years ago, what can one do now? In my
        opinion, two things. First of all one should realize what the
        mistakes are and not repeat them. Understand that doubt,
        conditional commitments and thinking about one's own best
        interests rather than one's spouses are causes of failure. Avoid
        thinking of it as being betrayed, being left holding the bag.
        Take the responsibility for one's own life. 
        
        Second, one can get on the right track. If the situation is a
        failing marriage, then the thing to do is to start a solid one
        from scratch. Ask the questions that should have been asked, and
        then make the commitments that should have been made, and keep
        them. Treat the point of asking the questions and remaking the
        vows as the starting point. Given the power of ritual, it might
        be well to actually have a cerimony. 
        
        I'm sorry if I wasn't helpful. I try to make my statements be
        general and to speak about the abstract principles rather than
        give advice, for fear of sounding critical of others or the
        like. The problem is that I feel that divorce is a failure of
        marriage, for instance, a view not held by all in this
        conference. I really don't want to point at anyone and say "You
        failed, and here's why." I'd rather say "Avoid this, as it leads
        to failure." This isn't terribly useful to those who've already
        done "this".
        
        I find it very hard to talk about this sort of thing without
        running the danger of being offensive. I have very strong views
        on the matter, views which appear to be on the wane, and it is a
        subject that directly affects a lot of people, and affects them
        deeply. Also, a large part of my message on the topic is regards
        the importance of love, of valuing others as much as you value
        yourself. Many of the people that might find views hard, or who
        might misinterpret them as being critical are people whom I do
        love, do value. It is very important for us to realize that we
        humans can fail, can err, and still be of value, of very extreme
        value. Conveying the love while talking about the mistakes is
        extremely hard in written communication. 
        
        JimB.

        re: .33
        
        (and then back on topic)
        
        How often? Very often--at different levels, and in different
        domains, with different people. I don't think we can maintain a
        high level of across the boards intimacy with lots of people,
        but with enough love and trust in our hearts there can be a lot
        more intimacy than is common.
        
        The major obsticle to intimacy is ourselves. If we allow
        ourselves to be driven by fear or selfishness, then we erect the
        walls that have been spoken of in other notes, and intimacy is
        excluded. What we need to develope is the courage to risk, to
        trust, and the wisdom to realize that when we give of ourselves
        we receive much more than we give. This can be very hard in our
        society. Fear, guilt, hatred, selfishness, and greed are
        strongly fostered and sometimes raised to the stature of
        virtues.
        
        JimB. 

    Being intimate is a frame of mind, I think.  You have to be able
    to respect a persons fears, no matter how bizzare they are to you.
    Listening to what they say, how they say it, remembering it for
    future reference. Because it always helps to listen to what and
    how someone says something to you, its hard to share your inner
    most secrets with anyone....unless you know they won't "use it against
    you".  Having that comfort allows people to be "intimate", talk
    in a way, about things extremely sacred to them.  Expressing your
    feelings, why you feel them, how a person can enhance those feelings.
    (Lucky them!)  Like I said, intimate is a frame of mind at my house!