From: macl6441@mach1.wlu.ca (macleod heather)
Subject: Re: Square-dancing, anyone? (Was Re: Het males & bi-femmes)
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:09:43 GMT

In article <MUFFY.93Jan4174946@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>I thought of this question while writing this article, but I don't
>expect everyone to read to the bottom to see it...*smile*.  So:
>
>Michael Turner describes a four-person relationship, two men and two
>women, where the primary interactions are each person with two other
>people, one of each sex (M1, F1) (M1, M2) (M2, F2) (F1 F2).  Has anyone
>tried this, or is anyone actively looking to set up a situation?  We
>hear about three-way relationships off and on (that's how this started),
>and I've heard of various multi-person polyfidelitous relationships, but
>never this exact configuration.
>
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec30141021@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <85883@ut-emx.uucp> robear@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jay Michael) writes:
>[Jay Michael diagrams a triangle interaction.]
>>>You've also left out an interesting part of the whole interaction.  My
>>>SO and I have both been involved with two people.  In both cases, there
>>>was clearly an interaction between me and the person, my SO and the
>>>person, and "me&SO" and the person.  [etc.]
>>>Your "triangle" format leaves out all of this
>>>complexity, which I am starting to feel is the best aspect of a three-
>>>person relationship.  The triangle suggests that there are only
>>>person-person strong interactions.
>
>>Huh?  You mean, like:
>
>		   P1 --- c1 ----  P2
>		    \ \___ | ___/ /
>		     \    \|/    /
>		     c2 -- T -- c3
>		       \   |   /
>			\  |  /
>			 \ | /
>			  \ /
>			   P3
>
>>... but with direct-links from P1 to c3, P2 to c2, P3 to c1....
>
>Yup, that's what I mean.
>
>>I think this reaches a certain limit of schematizability, at least for
>>THIS communications medium.  Frankly, I think this might also be taking
>>relationship maintenance to obsessive extremes.
>
>*laugh*...I don't think so.  The fact is, the interactions and
>relationships are *there*.  I didn't really expect it when we got into
>these relationships, but it is observably the case that any people
>(friends or lovers) who interact with my SO and I end up interacting
>with all three entities, me, SO, and me&SO.  This turns out to be a lot
>of fun, and doesn't feel at all obsessive...*smile*.  In any case, I
>don't want to limit the interactions in my relationships to those that
>can be easily diagrammed...*grin*.
>
>>>Then, of course, you get into the *other* relationships people might be
>>>in, and it gets even *more* complex...*smile*.
>
>>Not necessarily.  What about a realistic attempt to close and limit things?
>
>Well, why?  I agree that it is probably possible, but I don't see that
>it's that desirable.  For me, the whole point of being polyamorous is
>that relationships are free to develop as they will, rather than having
>their structure dictated by some structure which other people consider
>desirable (currently monogamy, in our society, but there are lots of
>other structures, none of which particularly suit me).
>
>>The problem I see with three is that there are some inherent instabilities:
>>people tend to work best (and love best, I think) when they complement each
>>other.
>
>I don't agree or disagree with this; I don't have enough information.
>
>However, even if we assume that it is true, there is no reason to
>believe that "complementaryness" has to be limited to two people.  It
>could easily be the case that there are three people who are
>complementary, in the sense of each having distinct useful
>characteristics.  It is, in fact, extremely unlikely that just two
>people will have *all* the characteristics/abilities/whatever that are
>desirable in a relationship.
>
>Something that goes along with what you're saying, on the other hand
>(*smile*), is that my SO and I *are* very complementary in the way we
>interact with other people.  I think that this is one reason why there
>is such a clear me&SO entity to others, because each of us contributes
>part of the social interaction characteristics.  He's good at meeting
>people, I'm good at making future plans to see them.  He's good at
>learning about people, I'm good at showing them things about us.  Etc.
>We talk as a unit a lot when we're together, too.
>
>Still, I think that having a lot in common is just as important for a
>relationship as having complementary characteristics.
>
>>(The old "opposites attract" idea, which seems to prove out in
>>reality.)  You can't get good complementarity for each person with three
>>people -- but you CAN get it with four.  I.e.:
>
>		   M1 ----- F1
>		   |`.     .'|
>		   |  `. .'  |
>		   |   .*.   |
>		   |  .   .  |
>		   | .     . |
>		   M2 ----- F2
>
>>M1 and M2 can be opposites, as can F1 and F2, M2 and F2, and M1 and F1.
>>So long as everyone in this arrangement recognizes that M1/F2 and M2/F1
>>relations will hardly ever set the world on fire, you don't have much
>>more basis for conflict than in your standard couple relationship.
>>The asterisk in the middle might represent something about as hot and
>>tempestuous as getting together to work out the bills at the end of the
>>month.
>
>I think you're too caught up in this idea of "opposite couples."  Why
>couldn't three people (or more) all be "opposite" to each other?
>Characteristics aren't just "good/bad" or "off/on."  Most people have
>different levels of skills in different areas.  Several people could
>easily, I think, complement each other in any particular area.
>
>>I think it has the makings of something that could last awhile, satisfying
>>the proclivities of four bisexuals without requiring constant, intense
>>efforts at conflict management.
>
>Which proclivities, exactly?  I'm guessing you mean relationships with
>members of both sexes.  I imagine this *is* a desire/goal of some
>bisexuals, but I think that relationships with great people are what is
>important, not what their sex is.  I guess I'm just against trying to
>set up a predefined structure in general.  If people feel they need it,
>that's fine, but I find it way too restrictive.  I don't think it's the
>case that the vast majority of bisexual people want a partner of each
>sex (everyone feel free to tell me I'm wrong here...*smile*), although
>they might well be pleased if it happened that way.
>
>>On the other hand, if you're into relationship complexity for its own
>>sake, by all means, go at it.  
>
>I'm into relationships for their own sake...the complexity happens or
>not, depending on how it goes.  I'd rather not reject a good person
>because "it would get too complex."  Frankly, even *one* relationship
>can "get too complex."
>
>Muffy
>--
>
>Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
>muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn

This is not at all a flame, it's a serious question.  How do you meet people
interested in this kind of relationship group?

macl6441@mach1.wlu.ca

Newsgroups: soc.bi