i love riding with the kids from point83. back in december, on our last thursday night ride we ended at the end of the night down at the college inn pub. we rapidly became embroiled in a heated discussion of sorts. our topic: the nature of relationships. beer-fueled discourse at 1am is the best. i certainly came away with alot to ponder.

my bike gang is a pretty diverse group. we’ve got a bunch of married and engaged guys, a number of guys who are in extremely long-term (7+ year) relationships, and yet others who have a different girlfriend every week. we’ve got a a few divorcees, and guys single by choice or fate. we’ve even got a swinger. we also have a reputation that every eligible woman who rides with us ends up with a serious boyfriend. needless to say, all these varied experiences make for an interesting dialogue about how relationships ought to play out and what expectations people have going into them.

we’ve talked before at how i am not a player, so it was interesting to compare and contrast my thoughts with those at the table around me. jill made an observation: “we want to be the first.” not necessarily the first relationship chronologically, but the number one of the moment. the none other. we want people to be interested in us above all others, and we seek this exclusivity – symmetrically if possible. this is a lesson underscored by the experiences of my friends who had open marriages and other convoluted arrangements.

so as it turns out, apparently i’m pretty good at being interested in people. this is not actually a surprise, a quick scan of my many friendships reveals that i have a knack for meeting people who are really, really interesting. of course, the initial requirements are actually quite simple. for the most part, if i meet someone who is:

1. intelligent,
2. intriguing, i.e. quirky, mysterious, passionate about something,
3. and laughing at my jokes,

then i’m basically interested in them. these criteria are not met terribly often, in particular i’ve often thought of a and c as being mutually exclusive to some extent. still, it happens often enough, and unfortunately when dealing with members of the opposite sex this can be dangerous. i’d say that i don’t want to be misinterpreted, but that’s not quite right – i don’t myself know the correct interpretation of my intent. i guess i should get that straightened out.