posted
Has anyone heard of Cohousing? It's a less commune-y type of community that's becoming more popular in the US (it's more widespread in Europe and Japan, from what I've heard)... there's a couple ways to do it, groups either try to buy a bunch of houses near one another, or start fresh by designing a development...
Basic idea = folks still have separate jobs/incomes and their own separate living spaces... but they'll eat together a few times a week, and share some resources... so, a Cohousing group in Portland I knew that bought up a bunch of houses near one another would share meals a few times a week... and one yard would have a big vegetable garden for all to use... and each house would try to have a different communal resource for folks to use (photo lab, pottery studio, etc.)
Or, famously (in a Cohousing famous kind of way), Village Homes in Davis, California was developed so that it be more ecological (less driveways, more orchard and garden space)... the problem with most city (and suburban) apartments/houses being that most yards are too small to have trees AND lawns AND gardens AND playspace... but if you're thinking on a more group level, you can do stuff like minimize driveways and consolidate vegetable gardens and orchards and trees and playspaces...
It varies with the cohousing groups, but generally they set it up so that you either rent from the group, or buy from the group but agree to sell your house back to them if you leave.
posted
I've been interested in some sort of cohousing idea. You'd be able to have a close-knit group of people who can rely on each other and a lot of amenities that no one can afford on their own. Plus, communal meals and babysitting built right in.
But it'd be hard to arrange, and the soon-to-be lawyer in me can think of a hundred different law suits arising out of such a setup.
I've been here almost 9 years. I lived in a group household ("The Tofu Swamp" ) after college and liked that; later one of my friends from that house moved to East Wind, I heard about it from her and came out to visit one winter in between farming seasons out in Oregon. I had a great time, and so a year later I came back and have been here since.
I'm actually planning on shifting communities soon, to East Wind's older sibling in Virginia, Twin Oaks Community -- www.twinoaks.org -- for a bunch of reasons, but basically because it's a bit more organized and it's closer to my brother's family in NJ.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't chat. If she talks about it anywhere else, I've missed it. But I'm rather skeptical that she intends to engage in ANYTHING meaty with the "spouses" involved.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with dags that the cohousing thing sounds interesting . . . mayhaps I shall look into such after my degree is completed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A group of roomates and I decided we'd try to live the law of consecration (not exactly, but our best apporximation of it) for a while and it worked out really well. We'd all buy food and whatnot when we could, making sure that we got things for everybody. I worked a lot of hours and made more money, so I bought a lot of the food, and the roommate who didn't have a job did a lot of the cleaning and jobs around the house.
It worked until one of the girls got a boyfriend who told her that we were taking advantage of her and that she needed to be more assertive. She started having a cupboard of food we couldn't eat and would assign us chores to do on days she was gone. We finally decided we'd just go back to the standard fend-for-yourself model, which was really too bad. I think everyone had been a lot better off before. Any sort of commune is only as good as the dedication of the people involved.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, a family is law of consecration by definition, I guess. Though I think it's good when each person also has some of their own resources they have absolute control over. If only for buying each other gifts!
Tom, you are squicking me out. I don't do public speculation about your family life and I'd count it a great courtesy if you would refrain from thinking about ours. But I will say that you seem to have totally misunderstood everything I've posted here on the subject of married relationships. The metaphor of the mountain lake is the key if you'd like to understand it. If you're just heckling why then
[ August 26, 2004, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, rather than continuing to a cite a metaphor that I've said I no longer recall, you'd like to actually EXPLAIN what you mean rather than remaining cryptic?
I was deliberately squicking you out, BTW. As far as I'm concerned, there are actual consequences, rewards, and ramifications associated with actual marriage that are not, as far as I can tell, associated with the virtual marriages you're elated about. Unless I'm again missing some vital bit of information here, I think you're cheapening the word "marriage" by applying it to a form of dependent friendship.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I beg your pardon for cheapening your marriage, my dear Tom! I had no idea! Please extend my deepest apologies to Christy as well and tell me what I can do to make amends?
I have not said we are married. I have said we are engaged. I'm delighted with that and my fiances seem to be as well, and am so happy that my friends share my joy.
I am completely puzzled by your hostile reaction here, but if there's any way I can fix it I would love the chance to do that. Indeed my joy is full, and I would that the whole world were joyful as well. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. It's not that I'm angry, Anne Kate. It's that I'm kind of sad.
Do you intend to actually marry either of the two lads? If not, then engagement is at best a bad pun.
I don't mean to sound hostile, but I worry sometimes about things it's not my business to worry about and lack the tact to avoid the subject altogether.
posted
P.S. Slashy has given us his blessing. Shall I have him speak to you about it? I'm puzzled how it is that I could possibly have offended thee by getting engaged. Perhaps Slashy and you could understand each other better?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are four now and of course I intend to marry them!
Main Entry: en·gage·ment Pronunciation: in-'gAj-m&nt, en- Function: noun 2 : a mutual promise or contract for a future marriage
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll call you on that one, Anne Kate. I don't think you DO intend to marry them, at least not in the commonly-understood way. If I have that wrong, I wholeheartedly apologize.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, WHEN do you intend to marry these four young bachelors? Who had you picked to officiate? Where were you going to hold the ceremony, and who's picking the dance music for the reception?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We haven't set a date, and so of course no arrangements have yet been made. You and Christy shall certainly get an announcement when the time comes.
Mmmmmmm, pie! <licks> My favorite! Chocolate cream! Thanks, Scott!
[ August 26, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who proposed, and how was it done? Have you told the parents yet, or were you intending to elope?
You get my point, I hope. You're playacting, as far as I can tell; your "engagements" don't appear to be any more real than the promises twenty-somethings make to each other when they're single, the ones like "if we're still single at forty, we'll get married, right?"
This doesn't mean that you don't care a great deal for these kids, Anne Kate. But I think you're confusing maternal instinct with amor.
posted
Grisha originally came up with the idea of marrying me, he and another both together. I was the one who actually proposed to Grisha and Rahul together, in a chatroom where we were playing trivia with some of Rahul's friends, and they both accepted. Then later I proposed to Jorge and he accepted. After that I proposed to D and he refused, but we persisted and a few nights later when Grisha proposed to him again in hatrack chat he acquiesced.
I couldn't be happier. I'm seriously the luckiest girl in the supercluster. These four guys are the most awesome people I've ever known. I adore them all to little bitty pieces.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eduardo -- well, when you've got 75 interesting and idealistic people living and working together and helping to raise each other's kids... there's lots of sparks...
So, if you're imagining Hatrack as a commune, imagine that Eddie, Balder, Tom, Thor, Ron Lambert, David Bowles, Sara, Ralphie, Slash, dkw, and Bob (thinking of some of the more prominent and/or colorful jatraqueros) are part of it and dealing with working together, raising their kids, doing long-term economic planning and making membership decisions... yep, it'd be interesting...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I think we'll have a blissful idyllic family life filled with wonderful music and joy and fun. And yes, of course I actually intend to marry them. That's what is commonly meant by the word "engagement" (see definition posted earlier).
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Law of Consecration-- as loosely defined in Mormon terminology, having all things (talents, materials, etc) held by the community for use within the community.
posted
And I think what Anna (Toretha) was trying to say earlier, and perhaps what I intended to hint as well, is that one can't really speak with authority about another's feelings, instincts, true intentions, etc, so that it's really best overall just to accept what they say about those things.
I hope I've never done that to you, tried to tell you what you were feeling. I think I've mainly shared your joy, both at your marriage and at the advent of the wonderful Sophie.
[ August 26, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Reading ak's posts) oh yeah, and have them dating one another, and have a few people trying out polyamory (usually disastrously)...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I notice I'm not on that list. I almost never make the Prominent Hatrackers list. *thinks* It's probably because I'm not particularly nice online. <whoops> I am nicer in person.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm nicer in person, too, Kat, but it's probably because I get to hide behind my monitor and say how I really feel without having to see the hurt or annoyance on their faces. In person, I have to care what people think, so I act nicer.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ack, this is the problem with coming up with a list in 10 seconds, I should've just said "imagine hatrackers a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i, and j [fill in the names yourself]"
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm nicer in person because it takes so much out of me (as it does out of other people) to be the same person to a hundred as to a few. It's a recipe for major burnout. The upside is that I don't leave: the downside is that not all of me is here.
---
And OSC's essay is one of the reasons I don't leave and am not as fond of the other forums as I am of this one. Favorite living author, there.
posted
And as I said, have you actually mentioned this to anyone's parents? Have you considered dates? Having met "Grisha," and having met other people who have recently been engaged, I must say that he acted like no other engaged person I've ever met.
<Note: paragraph removed at Anne Kate's request.>
These "marriages," to me, seem like one more step up from the Hug Thread; they're a way of PRETENDING to give people hugs without actually having to hug anyone, and a way of receiving hugs without having to actually work for them. Marriage is WORK. It is a solemn vow and a serious sharing of not just mind and "joy" and happiness but genuine responsibility. What you have here, as far as I can tell, is a bunch of good friendships.
Again, I don't want you to sell your good friendships short. But until "Grisha's" shown up on your doorstep with a ring and asked your family for your hand, this is no realer an engagement than a tamagotchi is a pet.
Here's the deal: you DON'T intend to marry all four of 'em, because it's not legal to do so and you haven't shown any sign of trying to get that changed. Nor does your church, to which you express devotion, permit polyandry. Nor do you intend, as far as I can tell, to outlive 'em all and marry them in series.
You're a very caring, very wonderful, and very loving person, Anne Kate. I don't like the thought of you sealing yourself off from an actual relationship by surrounding yourself with phantoms -- no matter how real the friendships are at the heart of those longings.
posted
See, Kat, I used to feel that way about myself, but I realized something. It's not harder for me to be nice to a group of people, it's harder for me to assimilate to a group of people. If I'm dealing with one or two people, I can say whatever they want to hear without annoying anyone else. If I try that in a large group, someone will call my bluff.
/extreme honesty on my part
*grimace*
Oh, this isn't supposed to imply anything about you, it just got me thinking about myself.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sits on the couch between AJ and PSI, bug-eyed*
---
(Since the original topic appears to be stalled...) Maybe it's because I'm a little less attentive in person? It's not hard to be nice in person because you only talk to one or two at a time, at the most. Online, I read everything, and think about everything, and I can't act on what I want to say because there isn't really an end to it, and it's not consequenceless for me. It takes too much out of me. I have to admit I'm here at Hatrack for entirely selfish reasons - I love it, and there's interaction with people here that I don't do in any other part of my life. But I can't be always who I am in person. I just can't. Since it isn't really fair to go Jekyll and Hyde, I usually don't begin.
posted
Katie, I took that list as being hatrackers who might be particularly thorny and or exciting to get along with. <laughs> Notice that it is headed by Baldar. I think it's a compliment that we were left off. At least I know I'm relieved to have been.
Tom, dear heart, I am deeply grateful for your concern. Indeed I know that I have ventured to give you advice in the past which was perhaps bordering on being this impertinent, motivated by a desire for your best happiness, as I know yours is for me. I will take your concerns into sincere consideration.
Grisha is, as are all four of my fiances, one of the awesomest people I know and I consider myself extremely lucky to be engaged to him. I don't convey such compliments lightly.
[ August 26, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat: Well, maybe you are so unique and interesting and loved and elegant and sauve that you are the only one suited to be on any list that could reasonably include you. So -- you are on everyone's list -- it's just that you're the only one on that list. And the list doesn't come up in regular conversation here because, well, there's no controversy about it. It's just THE LIST.
Or at least that's what I tell MYself. .
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
