NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/polyamor/2456

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 42.1 KB

Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:2456 alt.personals.poly:526 alt.sex:42767
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.personals.poly,alt.sex
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!noring
From: [e-mail] (Jon Noring)
Subject: My File on Polyamory  (LONG)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: Guaranteed to Rock the Foundations of MonogamyOnlyThinking, with apologies to Drieux  :^)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:20:15 GMT
Lines: 853


[From one of my e-mail friends:]

>So, Jon, tell me about polyamory...


I am both happy and apprehensive that you ask me about that.  It is a very
controversial area, and so whenever I talk about it, I am opening myself
up to judgement.  Other polyamorous people who are "out" have said that this
lifestyle option is right now at the same place in the public eye that
gay/lesbian/bi people were viewed several decades ago.

Essentially, polyamory is a lifestyle option where a person maintains/allows/
pursues simultaneous multiple intimate/romantic relationships.  It is the
opposite of monogamy, which states that a person *should* have only ONE lover
at a time (and until recently it was defined strictly in the context of
marriage).  Monogamy is so ingrained in our culture that it is just assumed.
Even discussing polyamory to some people literally blows their circuits since
they can't even imagine anything else.

There are different variations of polyamory.  For example, some believe it is
o.k. only in a group marriage context.  Others, like me, are more loose and
relaxed about it and can keep it outside of a marital definition.

Following is my PolyFile (tm), which answers lots of questions and concerns
about this lifestyle option.  I'm sure already you have thought of objections
to polyamory, and may even feel uneasy about it.  For example, the aspect of
jealousy comes up often in discussions about polyamory.  You're probably also
thinking (with associated strong feelings) whether or not you'd allow your SO
(current or future as the case may be) to have other lovers while you are
intimate with your SO.  The words and concepts of 'committment' and 'fidelity'
also come up often in discussions about polyamory.


So, without further ado, here's my PolyFile (tm).  Enjoy.

Jon Noring



***************************************************************************
This is assembled from many posts and e-mail to Internet and elsewhere the
last two years.  No particular order.  Where thought appropriate, some
names were changed and identifiers removed to protect the guilty, I mean
the innocent.   :^)  :^)  :^)
***************************************************************************

*I* think poly can be learned.  My wife learned that it is possible to love
many people and that's it's possible for me to love many people without
hurting our relationship or the love we have for each other.  She used to
be extremely jealous of me spending any time with other women... even if I
was only talking to them.  Through discussion, we learned that her concern
was based on her low self-esteem.  In a sense, she couldn't understand how
I could not want to leave her to be with another woman, especially if she
felt that the other woman had more to offer than her.

The other problem is that she equated love with sex and sex as being love.
If another woman and I danced sensually, she would figure that I wanted to
have sex with her and therefore I must be in love with her.  She could
never believe that I didn't get turned on dancing sensually with other
woman.  It didn't fit into her understanding of relationships.  This was
mostly due to her strict Christian upbringing that told her that sex and
love are the same thing.

How did we resolve it?  Through lots of talking.  Most of the jealousy had
disappeared by the time we were married.  The sex=love thing disappeared
(along with the rest of the jealousy) when she had her first affair.  I do
not recommend this as an appropriate way of resolving the mono/poly problem,
but it is what worked for us.  And we have been extremely happy ever since. :)

Brad Booth

***************************************************************************

>Just from the statistics of the situation, and the lack of further information
>in the original post, Mr. Hulick is probably correct in his ASSUMPTION that
>the gentleman who posted the original ad is in a "closed" marriage.  However,
>what would you say if it was further stated in the ad that his marriage were
>"open" by mutual agreement of both partners?

It sounds to me as though Tom is describing the essential element of a social
contract:  the fact that it is voluntarily entered into by two competent people. I've always thought marriages would work out much better
If there was less talk of 'commitment', 'vows' and 'promises' and more about
the voluntary nature of the interaction and the fact that needs change and
fluctuate.

The idea that anyone can 'vow' to stay with another for the rest of their
lives is ludicrous.  If one is changing and growing, his/her companionship
needs will change also.

It is not only possible to love many people in our lifetimes, it is impossible
not to have a number of connections, at varying levels of intensity.

My marriage was open and when it was time to end it, we ended it.  On that
level at least, it was honest from the very beginning.  Monogamy is probably a
carryover from old Judeo-Christian theology and is used for the purpose of
control.

The key element to any successful relationship is that understanding of
individual liberty. We all have the right to design any sort of contract we
choose.  If it harm none, do as ye will.

reykja

******************************************************************************

In article (Reykja Sigurdsson) writes:

>It sounds to me as though Tom is desribing the essential element of a social
>contract:  the fact that it is voluntarily entered into by two competent
>people.  I've always thought marriages would work out much better if there
>was less talk of 'commitment', 'vows' and 'promises' and more about the
>voluntary nature of the interaction and the fact that needs change and
>fluctuate.

I very much agree with this.  And very well put, Reykja.

And I would add that any social contract, such as marriage (I agree with
Reykja that marriage is essentially a contract) should be renegotiated with
different terms if both people agree to the change.  The idea (imposed by
society) that the terms of marriage have to be a certain way forever is, to
put it mildly, not very pragmatic nor workable for most people.  People
change, needs change, even society changes, so the marriage contract needs
to be very flexible, even with respect to the expression of sexuality.


>The idea that anyone can 'vow' to stay with another for the rest of their
>lives is ludicrous.  If one is changing and growing, his/her companionship
>needs will change also.
>
>It is not only possible to love many people in our lifetimes, it is
>impossible not to have a number of connections, at varying levels of
>intensity.
>
>My marriage was open and when it was time to end it, we ended it.  On that
>level at least, it was honest from the very beginning. Monogamy is probably
>a carryover from old Judeo-Christian theology and is used for the purpose of
>control.
>
>The key element to any successful relationship is that understanding of
>individual liberty.  We all have the right to design any sort of contract we
>choose.  If it harm none, do as ye will.

S.I. Hayakawa once said (my paraphrase - can't remember the exact quote):
"Society is nothing more than the sum total of all mutual agreements between
individuals."  When viewed in that light, we realize that to change society
(maybe to solve some pressing problem), we need to understand the dynamics of
social contracts between individuals.  For example, most view that the high
divorce rate is symptomatic of something wrong in our society, and there are
many theories as to why this is so.  Maybe the fundamental reason is that the
marriage contract is so imposed on people by social and religious pressure to
the extent that the terms are not necessarily the best for the particular
physical, emotional and spiritual needs of the two individuals entering into
the marriage, nor does this default, socially imposed contract take into
account that people, circumstances and society itself change over time.

Jon Noring

**************************************************************************

I thought I'd comment on Jeffrey's message (hi, Jeffrey) because it raises
some good questions and sets the stage for a point I want to make.  There's
been a great deal of discussion recently about definitions:  what is and isn't
polyamory.  Jeffrey is having a happy relationship with two women and faces
these issues:

>Now I am faced with the task of explaining this relationship to [people] ...
>I am perfectly happy to just live the way I have been and not define what
>I am doing, but I must answer those that I care about when they ask.

Nope.  You don't have to explain yourself at all, or answer to anyone.  You're
happy.  Your feelings require no justification.  It's a mistake to try to
reconcile what you feel with a social classification, because the
classification may not really suit you.  You start with your feelings,
understand them and be comfortable with them.  You, your feeling, and the
people you care about are the important things.  You're getting in this
unnatural, inverted position of trying to explain yourself.  You don't have
to explain yourself to the world.  You just are, and your relationship just
is.  If other people want to understand it, then you try to explain to them
in basic terms what you feel, and that you're happy.  Specifically:

> What is Polamory vs Polyfidelity?

They're words.  Just words.  Don't get lost in the jargon.  If you find these
terms helpful in describing you and your love, use them.  You make labels,
they don't make you.  It's a mistake for everyone to argue and try to define
polyamory.  It means different things to different people, just like love.
It just generally deals with loving other people.


>What tactics would you suggest I use when asked, 'what the hell are you
>doing (with my daughter)?'

That's a rather rude question.  The only response a question like that
deserves is "Would you please rephrase that in a less offensive way?"  A
daughter isn't a car.  Daughters are people.  People can't be owned.  They
fought a war over that 100 years ago (we won).


Here's how I'd deal with some specific questions:

--> Are you seeing my daughter or this other girl?
I'm seeing them both.

--> So you're cheating on her?
No.  They both know;  we're all friends and we're happy that way.

--> Well, which one do you love?
I love them both.

--> Which do you love more?
I don't understand the question.  They're different people.  How do you
measure?

--> Why don't you commit to one of them?
Why can't I commit to both of them?


See? You don't have to bend over backwards to express yourself in their
terms.  They may have to learn your terms to understand you.  You're not the
one who doesn't understand;  they have to put in the work to comprehend you.
Remember, the three of you have something that comes naturally and feels right
for you;  whether or not other people get it is a secondary issue.  As long as
you do what you want you'll be happy.

David R.

******************************************************************************

In article [e-mail] (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article [e-mail] writes:

>>In any event, I assure you that Psychologists would think that sex with
>>one's mother at the age of 15 is not healthy behaviour.

>And I assure you that Psychologists(tm) find it disturbing when a father and
>son wrestle with each other on a Sunday morning in bed in pj's.  I could not
>disagree with them more.  I don't buy into their "authority" very much.

Years ago, most, if not all, psychologists/psychiatrists believed that
homosexuality was not healthy, i.e., that it reflected some type of
psychological aberration that required a 'cure'.  Over time this view has
substantially changed (although I'm sure there are still a few psychologists
who hold such a view in private).  Though gay/lesbian/bi people still have
problems with acceptance in our society, at least the label of "mentally
aberrant" is no longer automatically applied to them by the mental health
professionals like it was in our recent past.

Thus, by this one example, it is clear that mental-health professionals
themselves are susceptible to society's influences, paradigms and biases,
even if it flies in the face of scientific fact and objective reason.  I'm
not saying that parent-child sex is therefore alright in *some* circumstances
(the original thread leading to this reply), but what I am saying is that we
have to be careful and think through very clearly before we label a certain
behavior as *always* "wrong".  That is, using the argument that society says
it is wrong cannot be the *sole* reason to put the "wrong" or "aberrant"
label on certain human behavior and practices.  In this case, the 60's
dictate, "Question Authority", takes on new meaning.  Here, the "authority"
is the blind dictates of society.

This leads me to change the thread and present a related topic that I have
become quite interested in because of recent personal experience, and that is
polyamory.  Polyamory is the belief/practice of simultaneously having more
than one intimate, romantic/sexual relationship (not the best definition as
my friends in alt.polyamory would say, but the briefest one I could think of -
read the newsgroup alt.polyamory for a further perspective on this new way of
viewing intimate relationships.)  At the present, most psychologists would
automatically assert that a person who is inclined to have more than one close
and intimate romantic/sexual relationship is somehow "imbalanced" and will
strive to "help" or "cure" such a person with the goal of assisting them to
become "monogamous" as is considered "normal".  (I have a good friend who is
a very well-known psychologist in New Mexico and she basically agreed that
most psychologists view polyamory in this negative light.)

I assert that such thinking does not come from a valid scientific or objective
basis.  Rather, it comes from the extremely strong monogamous paradigm or
message that permeates throughout our society, the basis of which can be
traced to religious beliefs, tradition and custom - not necessarily the best
bases upon which to decide what is "healthy" and what is "aberrant",
particularly since our society has greatly changed in the last few decades to
a form never before seen in human history.  We cannot always effectively play
a new "game" using "old rules".

To summarize this long post and to present my belief on polyamory, I do not
believe that polyamorous feelings/practice is in any way abnormal, rather it
is normal and natural, and if properly regulated by a new set of social
"rules" to insure that it is not abused (it seems that almost everything we do,
even eating, is governed by social rules to prevent some type of abuse), that
polyamory can be a very happy and fulfilling lifestyle for those who are
inclined that way.

I'll be interested in getting further perspectives on this.

Jon Noring

(BTW, I'm cross-posting this to sci.psychology in order to get the opinions of
mental-health professionals (I am not one) on the topic of polyamory.  Of
course, I am willing to look closely at a different opinion by experts in the
field and could even be persuaded to change my opinions provided the arguments
are well-reasoned and compelling.  Though everyone has a right to their
opinion, I cannot personally accept as valid any argument whose *sole*
underlying basis is "because society says so" for the reasons I cite above.
Such an argument - one could call it "circular reasoning" - is used strictly
for social control and conformity to the old ways of doing things and by its
nature is hostile to looking at innovative ways to improve or engineer our
society to bring more happiness and benefit to all.)

******************************************************************************

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:30:21 CDT
From: [removed to maintain privacy]
Subject: Re: Polyamory (was Re: Adults, Children and sex) (LONG)

In article [e-mail] writes:

>To summarize this long post and to present my belief on polyamory, I do not
>believe that polyamorous feelings/practice is in any way abnormal, rather it
>is normal and natural, and if properly regulated by a new set of social
>"rules" to insure that it is not abused (it seems that almost everything we do,
>even eating, is governed by social rules to prevent some type of abuse), that
>polyamory can be a very happy and fulfilling lifestyle for those who are
>inclined that way.

I couldn't agree more.  I've always intellectually held these beliefs, but for
a long time I had wondered how I would react if I were to experience such a
thing first-hand.  As a result of a recent relationship with someone who is
polyamorous, I now know that such things don't really matter to me.  All that
matters is how much I love the person.

As for the question "could I be polyamorous?", I think the answer is "yes",
but I don't expect to really know for a while (women I'm interested in are
few and far between -- and *all* of the people involved in a set of
polyamorous relationships need to have very good self-esteem).

Lee

******************************************************************************

Marky writes:

>[Story of talking with a class about his poly relationships and how much
> opposition he got]
>
>I had one student come up afterward and thank me for sharing.  Only one. :(
>I was truly amazed at the lack of acceptance.  I can only hope that in the
>end love will prevail...

It doesn't surprise me all that much.  The acceptance of poly style
relationships is VERY low in this society.  I can remember a program on poly
relationships on Donahue where the audience was almost universally hostile to
the guests on the show.  And this was basically the same group of people who
on previous shows had been fairly receptive to strippers and prostitutes
(ever notice how people are more accepting of "deviant" sexuality when there's
monetary exchanges involved?)

One particular exchange during this program brought home to me just how little
understanding there is of the poly lifestyle there is in society:  three of the
guests were a FMF triad.  A female audience member asked one of the women,
"doesn't it bother you when you can hear your husband enjoying himself with
another women?"  And the woman responded, "No, I get turned on by it."

The woman from the audience had this look of total shock and surprise on her
face.  You could tell that never in a million years would it have ever occured
to her that someone could respond that way.

This is how wide the gap really is.

Chris Andersen

*****************************************************************************

Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 15:34:21 EDT
From: [removed to maintain privacy]
Subject: Re: Polyamory (was Re: Adults, Children and sex) (LONG)

Bravo on a great article.

I am currently living with 2 psychologists, and Boy oh Boy are they having
fun talking to me about polyamory.  They just don't get it.  The strangest
thing, to me, is that they are a lesbian couple and so should have a basis
for understanding that discrimination based on sexuality can and does apply
to things that are not abberrant or unhealthy.  Sigh.

Jennifer

****************************************************************************

In article (Greg Connor) writes:

>Do you usually find that you have one BIG relationship where all partners
>have open communication lines to all other partners?  Or do you have a
>collection of twosomes with partners dividing their time (for example XY and
>XZ spend time together, but Y&Z barely know each other)?  For those of you
>who have had BOTH kinds, which do you like better?  Which do you find more
>stable?

The above questions triggered some thinking about past poly relationships that
my wife and I have had.  Usually, any involvement has been started by my wife
and eventually the person has joined my wife and my relationship, but this
has mostly occured on a friendship level.  It has been very stable and very
enjoyable for everyone involved.

Recently though, my wife has become seriously involved with another woman.  I
have not met her yet, but I'm beginning to think that they are falling in love.
This is not the standard friendship that we've seen in the past and has been
forcing us to rethink and re-evaluate our relationship (in a good way).  I
guess to answer your question:  I'm finding that the circumstances really
dictate how the relationship will evolve... and talking about it helps.


>Another (possibly naive) question:  Do you usually find in your relationships
>that there are 'dominant' pairings, and that one person may be more important
>to you, (possibly the partner you have been with longest)?

My wife and I have been the dominant pairing, but mainly due to the fact that
we live together.  If we weren't married or didn't live/sleep together, then
the dominant pairing may be different.  Again, circumstances have dictated this.


>Or do you feel that favoring one partner over the other would be unfair?

This is an interesting question... my wife has been feeling that she has been
favouring her lover over me.  She feels that this is unfair to me, yet I have
no problems with this.  I know that the two of them are early in their relation-
ship and (like all new couples) need more time to become familiar with each
other.  This can cause a lot of stress if the other person feels ignored.  I've
tried to step back and be more a friend than a husband... hopefully this will
ease her concerns and permit her relationship to grow with her lover.

Brad Booth

****************************************************************************

This post came to me, literally, in a dream.

>[From talk show]
>
>Janice:  Because my feeling is that by him being very close, sex is a sign,
>I feel, at least with us, of being, um... intimacy and attachment to another
>person, a sense of closeness to another person.  And we are so close that as
>he has that with somebody else that person in some way is close to me, is
>brought into our relationship.
>
>Charles:  Let me see if I can help out a little bit.  The reason I care
>is, for me, bisexuality is primarily emotional fulfillment, and I need
>or desire close emotional attachment to both men and women.  And for
>Janice to be emotionally close to somebody that I don't know is scary.
>I mean, what is it about this person that she likes, what is it that's
>interesting, what is it that's attractive about them?  So I want to know
>this person and I want to feel like this is a good person that's
>somebody I like as well.
>
>Geraldo:  Does that sound real to you, or does it sound like just words
>to justify extramarital affairs?
>
>UAM 2(F):  It sounds like words to me, because I really don't understand.
>
>UAM 4(F):  But Why do you have to go out to someone else?
>
>Charles and Janice (simultaneously):  We don't have to.
>
>UAM 4(F):  So why do you do it?
>
>Charles:  Because we like to.
>
>UAM 4(F):  You guys, I don't understand you....


These two incidents stuck out in my mind to the point where I was dreaming
them, over and over and over.  I mean, after all, what is the objection the
audience has over doing "what you like to?"  Notice the "Are these just words
to justify extramarital affairs?"  Justify to WHO?  The audience?  Why the
f*ck do they need justification?  To their partner?  That's _obviously_ not
the case, they're perfectly happy.

Over and over I see that phrase, "I don't understand you."

Help me, folks.  Am I missing something?

What's not to understand?

Elf !!!

****************************************************************************

I've been following this thread with some interest, wondering exactly how I
was going to make my comment.  You see, I've agreed in part at least with just
about everything that's been said so far.

If I was into partitioning and pigeon-holing, I could say I can partition
people into the following groups :

      people I have met but know nothing about
      people I have known casually
      people I'm friends with
      people I'm close friends with
      people I love
      people I'm in love with

BTW - the ordering of the above groups is not meant to suggest a hierarchy of
importance or value.

Now, over the years I have had sex with at least one person in each of the
categories above.  I certainly have developed preferences out of that list in
terms of who I like having sex with, but nothing's engraved in stone.  For
that matter, I can also identify at least one person in each of those
categories that I *haven't* had sex with.

In terms of the three categories of Polyness that were in the original post in
this thread, I'm a mixture of all three.  I've had sleep-together friends.
I've had secondary love interests.  I've been in multiple long-term committed
in-love relationships.

I remember when I was a lot younger and still strugling to separate sex, love
and being in love.  I felt guilty whenever I had sex without being in love.  I
often confused loving someone with being in love with them.

Now that I've evolved a bit since then, life's a lot more relaxed.  A
relationship is too complicated a thing to try to form mechanical rules about.
Thanks to the Poly relationship I'm in, I know that no combination of sex,
love, and being in love is going to be "legislated" against.

The essence of being Poly for me is that I insist that each relationship is
dealt with purely on its own merits.  Of course there may be some times or
situations where different relationships may begin to affect each other;  but
that's dealt with as it happens.

Brian Arthur can tell us that the Rede of the Goddess is "Do as thou wilt,
'an it harm none" (or something close to that, anyway 8->).  It's a good
motto for polyamory.

I suppose I can accept that many people (for whatever reason) seem to find
some combinations of sex, love, and being in love appropriate, and others
not.  Fine, I guess - but make sure you're not doing yourself out of a
perfectly fine situation for anything less than a good reason.  Sex is good.
Love is good. Being in love is good. All of these are good on their own, even
if (as I think) they're usually better combined.

Sorry if I'm treading on anyone's toes.  I guess I've wandered off the thread
a bit here.  Back to your regularly scheduled programming. 8->

Joe Woodhouse

******************************************************************************

Outside of religious constraints, I don't see any solid reason to be
monogamous, even in marriage.  Of course, safe sex is important.  I love my
wife, I'm *spending* my life with her, she is my best friend, but I don't
*share* all of my life with her, and she doesn't share all of her life with
me.  In fact, the more worthwhile relationships I develop, the stronger my
bond is to my wife since I can then better enjoy her strengths that I am
attracted to and which complete me, while getting my other emotional needs
met, that my wife cannot satisfy, from others--I don't believe that one person
can be all things to another, it is impossible.  It runs counter to the
prevailing thinking [monogamy], which is simply wrong, IMHO.

Anyway, I don't expect most net.readers to see eye to eye with me on this
issue, since monogamy is so embedded in our culture that people have trouble
seeing that other alternatives are possible and that they can work very well.
So far, polyamory has worked for me.

Mike

****************************************************************************

>Although I may not agree with everything that you believe in, what you do
>say makes for an interesting discussion.

I appreciate your open-mindedness on alternative lifestyles.  And I understand
your viewpoint, you are in the majority who believe in sexual monogamy as the
only way to run a relationship.

To best understand my viewpoint, I separate sexual intimacy from other aspects
of relationships.   Thus, I am committed to my wife, and have full trust in
her and our relationship.  I just don't include sexual monogamy between us
to be a part of trust.  In fact, I view that true trust is only possible when
there are no rules or restrictions on the relationship.  Any relationship based
on rules and possession is by nature untrustworthy, thus true trust is not
possible unless the relationship is truly open.  Thus, if you look at the
argument for sexual monogamy as being necessary for trust in a relationship,
it becomes a circular argument.

Of course, polyamory has its challenges, too, but most of them deal with the
paradigm of monogamy that we are inundated with from birth.  Just listen to
most songs--there is usually some mention about monogamy, usually as being
the only way, when in fact I and others have real-life examples that there
is an alternative.

Anyway, I am not saying these things to "convert" you or any of the
net.readers, but only to share my thoughts and experiences on this.  Every
person needs to choose what they find most comfortable.  However, I ask
everybody to look closely at their feelings of uncomfortableness whenever
they think about polyamory and ask the question...Why am I uncomfortable?

Mike

***************************************************************************

>What exactly does trust mean in this type of situation?

This is very hard to understand.  Part of the reason that polyamorous
relationships are very hard to understand is that the concept of monogamy has
permeated so strongly into all aspects of our culture, that even the definition
of words have monogamous roots, so talking about polyamory using monogamous
words is very difficult.


>I think that this would be my A #1 fear in this whole type of relationship.
>Does this ever concern you, or is that where part of the trust comes in?

Yes.  Communication, that is, not hiding anything from the other romantic
partner (RP), is very essential.

Even in purely monogamous relationships, totally open communication is
essential.  Everybody agrees on this.  For example, suppose you had a close,
monogamous relationship with a man, and he himself is dedicated to sexual
monogamy with you.  How would you feel if he told you that there was another
woman that he flat-out is sexually attracted to, yet he says that he won't
make any move on her because of his decision to be monogamous with you?  I
know many women who would kick the guy you-know-where for even entertaining
the thought, yet if he didn't say this, he'd still be thinking about it.
Thus, by hiding that, he is not really communicating.  As a side note, I'll
guarantee one thing--a vast majority of people are not monogamous in their
thoughts and fantasy life, even though they may be monogamous, or at least
strive for it, in their physical life.  It is this dichotomy that causes some
of the relationship problems we see today.

[...some stuff deleted]

I don't believe that a true, deep relationship is possible until both people
totally give up the notion of "ownership" and the demand of some sort of
"fidelity" to keep the "contract" alive.  Looking at this another way:  if I
*truly* loved her, and she needed to spend more time with someone else for
whatever reason, which, by the way, is none of my business because I don't
own her, then out of that love I will give her the time to do just that.
Demanding fidelity at all times to keep a relationship is not a very good way
to run a deep relationship, is it?  I know this all sounds very weird, but
it's because of all the crazy paradigms that we were brought up with from the
time we were born.


>I guess in a way I would feel like someone "having their cake and eating it
>too," so to speak.

If it's possible for both people in a RPship to "have their cake and eat it,
too", and are accepting of it for each other, isn't that the best of all
possible worlds?


>I would think that this is because, even though it may be done, it may not
>yet be all that socially acceptable.  Sort of like homosexuality.  It is also
>something that is out there, but yet, even though we all know it may exist,
>some people wouldn't admit to being part of it.

You hit the nail on the head.  Imagine the hilarious scenario, which has not
happened to me yet but has happened to some other of my polyamorous friends,
of me getting a phone call from one of my wife's co-workers, whispering on the
phone to me "Do you know your wife is fooling around with somebody else", and
I answer "I know, she told me about him and I'm going to let her spend the
evening with him.  And she's letting me spend the weekend with one of my women
friends!"  You can imagine that person's brain has just short-circuited!

[...some stuff deleted]

...There's more to a relationship than sex, and when a monogamous relationship
demands sexual fidelity to be the basis of that relationship, that puts sex
above everything else.  The best relationships are defined by caring, sharing,
etc., where sexuality is an important, but not the only, part of it.


>...Then what's the point of getting married?

Good question.  Again if you *define* the concept of marriage to automatically
assume monogamy, which most people do, then I'd ask the same question.
However, if you define marriage to be a public statement that we are spending
our life together, possibly for legal, financial and/or children reasons, then
that's different.  As I've said, my wife and I *spend* our life together, but
we don't *share* all of our life together.


>I would have to say that if both people can deal with the situation like
>this, then more power to them.  I would think it would take someone with
>a very strong will to not get at least a little jealous. I don't think,
>in my case that I could ever be that easy-going.  If think that if a person
>wants this type of relationship, then they shouldn't bother being married.
>Unless, of course, the other person wants it that was as well.

Exactly.  An open, polyamorous relationship *has* to be two-sided to work.
Comments on marriage given above.  Jealousy does happen, but it is not usually
healthy.  Communication as to what and why we are doing what we are doing is
essential.  Excessive jealousy is always a sign that the jealous person has
severe self-esteem problems.


[...some discussion of differences in sexual drive between people.]

Not everyone's sex drive is the same--in fact polyamory solves this aspect
of a relationship, and usually improves it.  If a person is comfortable with
their sexuality, then they shouldn't worry about it and enjoy the sex when
they feel like enjoying it.  However, if a person feels that maybe there is
something in their past that is making them uneasy about sex, such as teaching
that sex is dirty or sinful, or coming from a dysfunctional family as examples,
then I'd suggest counseling as soon as possible to find out what is the root
cause of such feelings so they don't miss too many years from truly enjoying
sexuality.  Sex is too great to miss out!

Mike

******************************************************************************

>Hi everyone, I've been reading alt.polyamory for a while now.  It's been
>very interesting and thought-provoking so far.  I have a question to ask
>of all of you.  Do you (especially those who have done poly relationships)
>think that it's important for each partner in a poly relationship to "approve"
>of all the others?  Or is each partner free to conduct relationships with
>anybody they are interested in regardless of their partners' personal
>opinions of the other partners?

I suppose it depends on how the other relationships fit into or add to your
current relationship with your partner(s).  My wife and I share everything
about any other relationships we are having.  We do have a loose agreement
that the other(s) get a chance to voice their opions on an impending
relationship.  By other(s) I mean all that are currently in our "family".
Now, we don't have a hard and fast rule that says you must get agreement from
the other(s), but just that it should be discussed.  I've gotten a "I don't
think you should" once from my wife.  After listening to her reasons and
looking at it from her view point I decided not to pursue the relationship.
But it wasn't because she said "No", it was because she made sense (and saw
some things that I didn't because of her perspective).

In a good relationship, I think all actions of your partner(s) are up for
discussion at any time.  This tends to keep tensions from building up due to
imagined problems.  It is also a good way to keep jealousy to a minimum.
Communication is one of the key ingredients in a successful poly relationship.

Marky

****************************************************************************

(No good nickname yet) writes:

>Hi everyone, I've been reading alt.polyamory for a while now.  It's been
>very interesting and thought-provoking so far.  I have a question to ask
>of all of you.  Do you (especially those who have done poly relationships)
>think that it's important for each partner in a poly relationship to "approve"
>of all the others?  Or is each partner free to conduct relationships with
>anybody they are interested in regardless of their partners' personal
>opinions of the other partners?


  I suppose it depends on how the other relationships fit into or add to
your current relationship with your partner(s).  My wife and I share
everything about any other relationships we are having.  We do have a loose
agreement that the other(s) get a chance to voice their opions on an
impending relationship.  By other(s) I mean all that are currently in our
"family".  Now, we don't have a hard and fast rule that says you must get
agreement from the other(s), but just that it should be discussed.  I've
gotten a "I don't think you should" once from my wife.  After listening
to her reasons and looking at it from her view point I decided not to
pursue the relationship.  But it wasn't because she said "No", it was because
she made sense (and saw some things that I didn't because of her perspective).
  In a good relationship (IMHO), I think all actions of your partner(s) are
up for discussion at any time.  This tends to keep tensions from building up
due to imagined problems.  It is also a good way to keep jealousy to a
minimum.  Communication is one of the key ingredients in a successful poly
relationship.

Peace and Love,

Marky

**********************************************************************

Yes Lisa, I know what you mean, and I welcome your voice here.  Let me
add a bit.

I find there are two basic reactions from SO's or others to whom I
bring up the idea of polyamory.

1: "You don't actually love me."  If you really loved me you wouldn't
think about anyone else.  This sort of came up in a relationship I was
in years ago.  We had talked about the idea and she agreed sort of
academicly or philosophicly, but expressed deeper discomfort she
couldn't fully explain.  One time while I was out of town she spent a
sexual evening with another guy, and told me about it when I returned.
I basicly said "I'm glad you had a good time while I was gone", and I
think she was really disappointed.  I think she wanted me -- on some
deep level -- to be upset, to tell her I didn't want her to do this
sort of thing, how I found it threatening to our relationship, and by
not acting that way some part of her said "this proves he doesn't
really love me, because people who are actually in love don't sleep
with anyone else."

2: "You just want to sleep around," especially if it is a male bringing
up the idea.  This comes from the stereotype of the male who will fuck
anything that moves and most things that won't.  This one is a
slamming door in conversation.  Any protestations about it just being
an alternate lifestyle, analogies to balanced diet (romance with SO)
and occasional snacks (romance with others), or analogies to other
forms of friendship (you wouldn't want to have only one friend, why
have only one sex-friend?) come across as rationalizations and just
wither and die trying to get past this one for most people.  You're
just an over-age hormone crazed teenager and you'll just have to put
it out of your mind.

Obviously these come from deep stereotypes in western culture, and
most folks have internalized these rules to the point where they have
a very hard time thinking about them criticly.  It just "feels wrong"
to them.

Steve

***************************

(Steve Scott Roy) writes:

>Howdy folks.  I've been reading this group for a couple of weeks now
>and I thought I'd get a bit of clarification about what falls under
>the general heading of 'polyamory', at least as you guys define it.
>Didn't find it in the dictionary.

Well, for me it's the ability to love (physically, emotionally, or both)
more than one person at a time.  My wife and I noticed many years ago
(before we were married) that love and sex were in some sense
'inexhaustible'.  Not that we couldn't get tired of either, but that
giving love to person A did not reduce the amount of love one is able
to give to person B (or C, D, E, etc.).  Once we realized that loving
someone else didn't reduce the love we felt for each other, it made
no sense to maintain a monogamous relationship.  As others have said
here, communications is the key.  We always let each other know when
we're interested in someone.  That way, if the relationship deepens,
it's not a surprise to the other.  It's worked for us for over 16
years, and we think it works better than monogamy (it certainly
does for us).

Roger Ritter

*******************************

--

Charter Member of the INFJ Club.

Now, if you're just dying to know what INFJ stands for, be brave, e-mail me,
and I'll send you some information.  It WILL be worth the inquiry, I think.

=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | [e-mail]        | I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92 |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | Support UNITED WE STAND! |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : [phone]   | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: [phone]   |  caravan moves on."      |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.