Decompression for singles

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:01 pm

grammmm her a beerr over hea (Boston accent)

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:04 pm

studying my backgammon moves

is that an obscure euphamism?

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:25 pm

this time, no.

you see, it was cribbage that always led to other things.
this time i just have an eternal backgammon grudge match so i'll be using much of my spare time at work to play against the computer, who is incredibly lucky, thus overpreparing me for the real thing.

of course, there was a conversation about the 'stakes' of tonight's game.....

um. oh, jeebus, there are people here.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:28 pm

why leave sex to chance?

http://boardgames.about.com/gi/dynamic/ ... %2Fdd.html

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:30 pm

stuart wrote:why leave sex to chance?

http://boardgames.about.com/gi/dynamic/ ... %2Fdd.html

don't worry, it's not.
and i don't need no weighted dice.

but perhaps i'll remember that you have them if we ever play...

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:49 pm

well do have fun

I like dice games too. Unfortunately, if I brought those gizmos what I linked to where I like to play I'd need another round of reconstructive surgery.

if we ever play

the mind boggles.

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:51 pm

Never forget, Stuart, it's usually just the men that worry about the chance of having sex. Women usually know going into the date. :-)

sexism, anyone? Probably. I blame the men for always wanting it.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:01 pm

it's usually just the men that worry about the chance of having sex

tell that to my wife

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:26 pm

stuart wrote:
it's usually just the men that worry about the chance of having sex
tell that to my wife

Doh!

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:35 pm

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:08 pm

Okay so you brought it up: do you like to make her beg, or is it just that her libido outpaces yours? And if the latter, can I get her number? :-P

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:58 am

Uh, on second thought, forget I asked. Beer makes me say stupid things. :-/

Anyway, bringing things back on-topic: I would argue that decompression _IS_ for singles. I'm sure I feel more out of place there than most, partially because I'm in a committed relationship. Maybe I should suggest a decompression for Married Horndogs?

M-Files · Post by **M-Files** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:23 am

Alpha wrote:
Anyway, bringing things back on-topic: I would argue that decompression _IS_ for singles. I'm sure I feel more out of place there than most, partially because I'm in a committed relationship. Maybe I should suggest a decompression for Married Horndogs?

As the writer of the original post, I've since occasionally dropped in to watch this thread fray in way off directions.

This last post, however, begs intervention because it is so untrue.

On the contrary to the above misguided quote, Burning Man and its associated Decompressions really are for couples, not singles, just as are most things in life.

Consider the theme camps on the playa: How many events, domes, massage parlors, etc were distinctly "couples only"? How many were "singles only"? I counted ZERO.

And don't forget that famous last Burning Man newsletter we got just before the event: You know, the one with the full color front page photo of the ideal Burning Man attendees, i.e. the "holy trinity", the happy, loving heterosexual couple, complete with child to boot.

Happy, loving couples are the exhalted highnesses of Burning Man and all its events. The reason that there isn't a "married peoples' list or event" is the same reason that while there is a Black Entertainment Television Network (BET), there isn't a White equivalent: It just isn't needed because mainstream defines it.

Those of you who are part of happy, loving couples: Count your blessings. Life is very inclusive for you.

Refer your single friends to:
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/burning-singles .

M-Files
Owner/Chief Recruiter,
burning-singles

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:01 am

cowboyangel wrote:...somebody say grammer?

grammar
noun: studies of the formation of basic linguistic units

grammer
No entries found that match grammer.
Here is a list of similar words.
crammer
cranmer
creamer
creamier
cremer
cromer
crooner
crowner
crummier
grainer
grainier
grammar

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:11 am

just 8 am and i beat the computer at backgammon.

luckily, it paid off in my game last night. muhahahaha. although after that i was too tired for anything but sleeping.

i'm going to be unstoppable.
oh! shit! off topic.. that wasn't me, was it?

so, the singles/couples thing:
maybe this is all in your point of view........
yeah, there are some things geared to couples, but perhaps the general BM culture is more for singles or those looking for 'moresomes'.

maybe i'm way off, but all of BM is a potential hookup zone. perhaps the couples' places - and things like kidsville - cropped up to make it more welcoming to those who aren't on the prowl.

at this point i don't really give a damn either way. ain't never gone with an SO, ain't never arrived planning or looking to hookup.

thoughts?

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:13 am

Simply Joel wrote:
cowboyangel wrote:...somebody say grammer?
grammar
noun: studies of the formation of basic linguistic units

grammer
No entries found that match grammer.
Here is a list of similar words.
crammer
cranmer
creamer
creamier
cremer
cromer
crooner
crowner
crummier
grainer
grainier
grammar

I vote creamier...

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:15 am

M-Files wrote:...Happy, loving couples are the exhalted highnesses of Burning Man and all its events. The reason that there isn't a "married peoples' list or event" is the same reason that while there is a Black Entertainment Television Network (BET), there isn't a White equivalent: It just isn't needed because mainstream defines it....

So... "single burners" are the niggers of Burning Man?

I gots to get me premium cable, for shizzle.

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:23 am

M-Files wrote:
Alpha wrote:
Anyway, bringing things back on-topic: I would argue that decompression _IS_ for singles. I'm sure I feel more out of place there than most, partially because I'm in a committed relationship. Maybe I should suggest a decompression for Married Horndogs?

As the writer of the original post, I've since occasionally dropped in to watch this thread fray in way off directions.

This last post, however, begs intervention because it is so untrue.

etc&etc&etc....

M-Files
Owner/Chief Recruiter,
burning-singles

Actually, almost everything posted on the ePlaya appears to be off thread... and a thread is just that: a wispy thing that can float around in different directions depending on which way the wind is blowing. For most residents of the ePlaya, a thread is a toy, a baubble, a sparkly thingy that we can play with. A cat with a ball of string is generally more serious. There are many here who like to throw stuff in to get the same effect that half a side of beef would create in a tank full of sharks; turbulance, blood, gore, and adrenaline. Once the water clears... well... it's off to the next shark tank.

Singles, couples, triples? Whatever. Burning man is about inclusion (in my mind anyway, and my mind is the only one I have direct access to) and definitions and distinctions are meant to separate. Fuck separation. We have enough of that in the world. Can't we all just get along?

By the way... has anyone considered a "Beastial Necrophilia Camp"? There's some really sexy road kill I'd love to introduce to the community.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:29 am

samtzu wrote:
M-Files wrote:
Alpha wrote:
Anyway, bringing things back on-topic: I would argue that decompression _IS_ for singles. I'm sure I feel more out of place there than most, partially because I'm in a committed relationship. Maybe I should suggest a decompression for Married Horndogs?

As the writer of the original post, I've since occasionally dropped in to watch this thread fray in way off directions.

This last post, however, begs intervention because it is so untrue.

etc&etc&etc....

M-Files
Owner/Chief Recruiter,
burning-singles
Actually, almost everything posted on the ePlaya appears to be off thread... and a thread is just that: a wispy thing that can float around in different directions depending on which way the wind is blowing. For most residents of the ePlaya, a thread is a toy, a baubble, a sparkly thingy that we can play with. A cat with a ball of string is generally more serious. There are many here who like to throw stuff in to get the same effect that half a side of beef would create in a tank full of sharks; turbulance, blood, gore, and adrenaline. Once the water clears... well... it's off to the next shark tank.

Singles, couples, triples? Whatever. Burning man is about inclusion (in my mind anyway, and my mind is the only one I have direct access to) and definitions and distinctions are meant to separate. Fuck separation. We have enough of that in the world. Can't we all just get along?

By the way... has anyone considered a "Beastial Necrophilia Camp"? There's some really sexy road kill I'd love to introduce to the community.

where's the sparkly???

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am

Jeezus, M, thanks for letting me know that my personal perceptions are so "untrue" and "misguided." Is anything in your world relative, or subject to personal interpretation?

Woodrow · Post by **Woodrow** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:39 am

Rian wrote:

where's the sparkly???

TA-DAH!!!! Wadda' ya' say, Green thing? Sparkly enough for ya'?

Oh, you can't see me, can you. Well, I've got a tiara on, and a long velvet robe... and if I had feet, I'd be wearing ruby slippers... And I'm holding my sparly wand!!!

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:45 am

Woodrow wrote:Rian wrote:
where's the sparkly???
TA-DAH!!!! Wadda' ya' say, Green thing? Sparkly enough for ya'?

Oh, you can't see me, can you. Well, I've got a tiara on, and a long velvet robe... and if I had feet, I'd be wearing ruby slippers... And I'm holding my sparly wand!!!

it recognises me. time to change the avatar again.....
quick! i need camo!

M-Files · Post by **M-Files** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:11 am

Rian Jackson wrote: so, the singles/couples thing:
maybe this is all in your point of view........
yeah, there are some things geared to couples, but perhaps the general BM culture is more for singles or those looking for 'moresomes'.

maybe i'm way off, but all of BM is a potential hookup zone. perhaps the couples' places - and things like kidsville - cropped up to make it more welcoming to those who aren't on the prowl.

at this point i don't really give a damn either way. ain't never gone with an SO, ain't never arrived planning or looking to hookup.

thoughts?

Since the Burn, e-playa has been full of complaints against the treatment of BM as a potential hook-up zone for singles, claiming that those who do so aren't true Burners.

Of course they're not. If anything, Burning Man and Decompression are for couples, not singles. Unoffically, of course - but that's the end result.

It's a common misconception for people in couples to associate "single" with "swinging". For most singles, that's simply not the case.

All the world loves lovers - and Burning Man is no exception.

Still your burning matchmaker,
M-Files

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:11 am

Stuart, Joel, Force
I've been mulling over my reaction to Force's assertion trying to find out why it was so strong. It's not the first time I've heard it, so I've had time to develop an antipathy. Partly, I think it ignores the powerfull experience that many women in this culture have of sexual rejection. Partly, it has the potential subtext of "women are too fussy" and it was probably that that I was reacting to.
There's another one of these tropes, perhaps related that I've spent some time wondering about over the past couple of years. "Women are the ones with sexual power." (Poorly phrased, I know.) I have a great difficulty with that one too. I suspect that the "platonic" woman and implied subject is not a hirsute, overweight, soft butch who occasionally veers too close to pretension. Anyway, I'll continue to gnaw on these bones and if there seems to be interest, report. And again sorry for any toes stepped on. I agree with Stuart that sweeping generalizations are horrible inexact, although I think they can serve as a useful starting point for certain conversations.

M-Files · Post by **M-Files** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:15 am

Alpha wrote:Jeezus, M, thanks for letting me know that my personal perceptions are so "untrue" and "misguided." Is anything in your world relative, or subject to personal interpretation?

Sorry - I really didn't intend to sound mean.

I was only trying to show my perspective on a common thought which I perceived as only one point of view. I'll try to be nicer about it next time.

Really, it is interesting reading couples' and singles' points of view.

M

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:16 am

Fishy wrote:

I agree with Stuart that sweeping generalizations are horrible inexact, although I think they can serve as a useful starting point for certain conversations.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! ALL generalizations are correct!!

M-Files · Post by **M-Files** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:19 am

theCryptofishist wrote: There's another one of these tropes, perhaps related that I've spent some time wondering about over the past couple of years. "Women are the ones with sexual power." (Poorly phrased, I know.) I have a great difficulty with that one too. I suspect that the "platonic" woman and implied subject is not a hirsute, overweight, soft butch who occasionally veers too close to pretension.

One thing I've learned is to ignore the title of a certain best seller. Truth is: Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Period. Bravado talk aside, we all want the same thing.

M-Files

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:20 am

M-files
You saw a need and started filling it. That is the "burner way."
For many burners there is a strong distrust of blanket statements (you did catch that the original "cites" person was nipped with similier comments) and of speech that seems "commercial." I know you are not making money off or your service, but it still seems to be promoted in terms that sound like advertising.
There is a bias in the larger culture towards the couple. I don't know that that is reflected in bm. We have very different experiences than you. Is it possible you take some of your loneliness and feelings of exclusion with you to the playa? Wherever you go, there you are, after all.
You might try and sooth your feathers in regard to us, I think you're taking our doubts and recitations of different experiences as attacks rather than attempts at engagement and exploration.
Just some thoughts.
Chukka[/code]

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:37 am

M-Files wrote: Since the Burn, e-playa has been full of complaints against the treatment of BM as a potential hook-up zone for singles, claiming that those who do so aren't true Burners.

Of course they're not. If anything, Burning Man and Decompression are for couples, not singles. Unoffically, of course - but that's the end result.

It's a common misconception for people in couples to associate "single" with "swinging". For most singles, that's simply not the case.

All the world loves lovers - and Burning Man is no exception.

Still your burning matchmaker,
M-Files

As having been both a single and a couple at Burning Man, I would have to say that it seems BM is geared more towards single folk. For every 'couples only' camp there are a dozen bars, dance clubs, etc. And let's face it, those types of places are mainly for singles. Go to any bar or club in the real world and count the ratio of couples vs. singles.

I fully understand the 'couples only' camps as any time a sexual camp (or event in the real world) happens, there is an unequal amount of male to female ratio. By having 'couples only' events, you ensure a more equal footing and avoid the creepy 'just out to get some' vibe.

As to the 'common misconception' of singles vs. swinging- I don't see this either. 'Swinging' can only happen when you are in a relationship. You can be polyamorous as single or couple or ?- but you can only be a 'swinger' when in a relationship. If you mean that once you are part of a couple, you assume anyone single is automatically promiscious- this discounts the fact that people are single before they become a couple. I think people realize well enough from their own life experience that this is not the case. But if you were a 'slut' prior to entering a relationship, then you probably assume anyone not in a relationship is a slut. If you were lonely prior to entering a relationship, then you will assume that anyone not in a relationship is lonely.

It just boils down to your individual perception of relationships and single life. I don't believe in 'common' pre-conceived notions that are universal.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:41 am

M-Files wrote:
Since the Burn, e-playa has been full of complaints against the treatment of BM as a potential hook-up zone for singles, claiming that those who do so aren't true Burners.

Of course they're not.

M-Files, I have a problem with it anytime someone tries to say another - especially another group - isn't/aren't true burner(s). I'm not going to ask you not to say it, but be forewarned that it makes me feel icky and respond rather pissily. i mean, i don't think the 'point' of BM is to hookup. but maybe for someone that's their outlet of expression - allowing themselves to give and be given to in a physically intimate way - that they can't bring themselves to do the rest of the year. maybe it's just one facet of the experience, but maybe it's an important one for some people. if having a hookup broadens someone's mind, enables them to embrace more and experience more and live and grow more - who am i to deny it or say it's unburnerlike??

It's a common misconception for people in couples to associate "single" with "swinging". For most singles, that's simply not the case.

actually, i'm not making that mistake. i'm a'saying that BM is full of possibilities for hookups - whether they be long lasting or brief, soul-shaking or purely sexual. i'm not even going to touch the idea that everyone has the same 'chances', only to say that BM probably heightens the 'chances' for anyone who is looking, despite the physical traits that usually have such a huge impact in the default world. sure, they still play in... only our perception is shifted, cleared, sometimes, if we're lucky, if we've shed enough shit from the default, at least a little bit, a step..... i dunno...

Crypto wrote:M-files
You saw a need and started filling it. That is the "burner way."
For many burners there is a strong distrust of blanket statements (you did catch that the original "cites" person was nipped with similier comments) and of speech that seems "commercial." I know you are not making money off or your service, but it still seems to be promoted in terms that sound like advertising.
There is a bias in the larger culture towards the couple. I don't know that that is reflected in bm. We have very different experiences than you. Is it possible you take some of your loneliness and feelings of exclusion with you to the playa? Wherever you go, there you are, after all.
You might try and sooth your feathers in regard to us, I think you're taking our doubts and recitations of different experiences as attacks rather than attempts at engagement and exploration.
Just some thoughts.

CF-ist is pretty much spot on. I think everyone applauds you... but i'd really like it if you joined this forum as a person with a voice and a thought process more than as an advertisment. does that make sense? i'm not trying to insult, please don't misunderstand. but i think you have a lot to share - and seem like a pretty decent chica - and maybe it's your stance of needing to defend/promote burningsingles that corners you into generalisations and hard positions that then you can't get out of.

look at it this way, i look like a chicken today. a rubber one. don't you want to play with a chicken??