As others said, "I find this very appealing - and very scary, all at the same time".
It wasn't forgotten, but while I think it's a good idea in theory and I hope you find a way to make it work, it's not something I think I could participate in geographically speaking, unless nodes started to fan out or something. Therefore, I didn't have much to say at the time. It seems to me that to encourage comfort levels it would work better with a somewhat stable set of members than whoever's in town for a visit. People one knows online, even very intimately... it takes time to acclimate to their in-person self. That would become exponential if applied to a group of people.
It's too bad nothing like this was constructed at Grinnell, at least not while I was there... or was there? Then again, there may have been too many "issues" to make it work.
Rereading the idea itself, I also remember I had issue with the requirement of "Willing to have sexual encounters with more than one gender(s)" to be a member and yet respecting others' practices and preferences, and having as tenets "mutual attraction" and "mutual enjoyment". I think it's a nice ideal, that flexibility, and clearly one of the main goals is to expand sexual boundaries... at the same time, people are wired how they are wired, and I know I'd be rather uncomfortable feeling I was "expected" to be sexual with other women to be in such a group. And I'm fairly heteroflexible, I would imagine that feeling would only be stronger for a person more hard-wired to be straight.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-25 12:26 am (UTC)It wasn't forgotten, but while I think it's a good idea in theory and I hope you find a way to make it work, it's not something I think I could participate in geographically speaking, unless nodes started to fan out or something. Therefore, I didn't have much to say at the time. It seems to me that to encourage comfort levels it would work better with a somewhat stable set of members than whoever's in town for a visit. People one knows online, even very intimately... it takes time to acclimate to their in-person self. That would become exponential if applied to a group of people.
It's too bad nothing like this was constructed at Grinnell, at least not while I was there... or was there? Then again, there may have been too many "issues" to make it work.
Rereading the idea itself, I also remember I had issue with the requirement of "Willing to have sexual encounters with more than one gender(s)" to be a member and yet respecting others' practices and preferences, and having as tenets "mutual attraction" and "mutual enjoyment". I think it's a nice ideal, that flexibility, and clearly one of the main goals is to expand sexual boundaries... at the same time, people are wired how they are wired, and I know I'd be rather uncomfortable feeling I was "expected" to be sexual with other women to be in such a group. And I'm fairly heteroflexible, I would imagine that feeling would only be stronger for a person more hard-wired to be straight.