Q&A #3

Jan. 8th, 2011 01:27 pm
jack: (Default)
Q. How many of these questions are frequently asked?
A. This wins the question that actually is asked most often :) I haven't taken a representative survey, but I think there's a mix of questions that are natural to ask and ones that you might not think of. The art of an amusing not-actually-frequently-asked FAQ is very amusing, and often what's needed, although it does have the downside that it doesn't necessarily include the ACTUALLY most frequently asked questions. I've decided to use "Q&A" instead of "FAQ" for the moment.

Q. Do you mind if we have a massive religious/technical/political argument on your post?
A. No, that's great. Try not to get unduly annoyed by people.

Q. Are you going to get more soppy? Less soppy?
A. I'm embarrassed to admit that as well as very rational, we have been incredibly soppy. I didn't assume I would be an incredibly soppy person, but it seems if we're both happy with it we do it more and more... Sorry :) I assume it will be much the same.

Q. You seem like a really good couple, I'm glad to hear that you're settling down together.
A. Thank you! Although now you say it, I think I'd prefer "setting off on a wild adventure together" to "settling down together" but I'm certainly not quibbling :)

Q. So, are you both going to stop flirting with other women now?
A. Not necessarily, we both seem to find it quite bonding :)
jack: (Default)
I was recently musing on different perspectives on marriage, and one in particular struck me. Romance is often cast as a game of meeting The One. Which I don't think is literally true, but probably has a lot of truth in, in the sense that a certain small fraction of people will make an excellent partnership with you, and most people will eventually meet one of them.

Awkward musing about fidelity )
jack: (Default)
Good job ✓
Good friends ✓
Relationship with subheadingy and beautiful woman ✓
Life ✓

Chorus: Yay!

Going abroad on holiday was one of the fun things I wanted to do this year (or, to be fair, last year), and I'm pleased I have: for several years I've never got round to it, having so much excuse to spend time with people nearby.

Chorus: Aw!

But the reason I was in Stockholm specifically was to see [livejournal.com profile] livredor as a delayed Cyril and Methodius[1] weekend. We really met at my and her Christmas parties, and had a date at New Year when she was in the country, and exchanged email spiralling out of all control, and are now officially going out.

Chorus: Squee!

[1] Apparently the correct honorific for "Saints" is "Sts." But is that right? Shouldn't it be "St.s"? But that looks completely wrong :)

Chorus: Wuh?

It was obviously a calculated risk visiting someone in an unformed relationship; it could indeed have been awkward if we had felt pressure to get on. But we decided we were objectively optimistic, given how well we hugged both on our coffee date, and electronically, indeed, we were as comfortable hugging in real life.

Chorus: Squee!

So we had a lovely weekend and debating, snuggling and Stockholm, and I don't really have anything more to say in this paragraph, I just wanted to mention again that we officially examined the common relationship paradigms available to us in this culture and decided that "relationship" and "going out" best cover what we agreed we were going.

Chorus: SQUEE!

Chorus: But do we get a link?

Of course. Her post: here

Active Recent Entries