From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Monogamy manifestos (was Re: poly-wired?)
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:19:22 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

[slightly re-formatted to wrap neatly]

john.ladwig@soils.umn.edu writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>
>>How many relationships really begin with an explicit monogamy
>>manifesto??).
>
>Umm, mine?

   Oops! Hope that didn't sound like I was denying all possibility of such
a thing - I think I was trying to make the point that it's an unreasonably
assumed default, and maybe also asking the question "why *isn't* is more
often explicitly stated? Do people think it sounds a bit unreasonable to
outright demand monogamy? And if so, what are the implications for that?"


>Elise and I spent the first couple of years of our relationship running
>on 'term commitments' - periods of a week or two where we'd pledge to be
>with each other, exclusively.  Outside activities were strictly negotiated,
>and the default assumption was that we were monogamous.

   I don't actually have an objection to monogamy is this context, providing
both parties are give full informed consent. I may at times sound very
Poly-supremist, but I'm not ranting and raving about the never-ending evils
of monogamy. *If* it's what people want, then by all means.

   I *do* however entertain doubts as to how often *informed* consent *is*
provided for monogamy. (Not saying this applies in your case, John!). I
strongly suspect that for many people, their attitudes to monogamy are
largely inherited without being examined. Of course this may well be true
about *any* attitude, but I've a gut feeling it happens more in this domain.

   I remember earlier this year on Bisexu-L, during all the discussions on
monogamy, someone wrote about being very disturbed that (for example) a
murderer, when asked in court why they did it, replied "because my partner
was cheating on me", and that's considered an answer. No-one asks, "so,
you have such strong feelings about monogamy that your immediate response
was to murder someone" or anything like that. It's not questioned, *everyone*
knows what they mean. The jurors nod in agreement - they know how *they'd*
feel about it. It's such a dangerous default. I'd like a "jealousy" defense
to be considered in the same class as the "Twinkie defense" : ie. a pretty
lame legal trick.

   It would make a bit more sense if the person the partner "cheated" with
was the one murdered, but usually it's the "cheating" one. And once again,
very few people question the sanity of murdering the one you love in the
name (supposedly) of love.

   Sorry folks, lots of strong feelings about these issues. I'm *not*
equating these values automatically to anyone who's monogamous.


>This was pretty useful in helping Elise to get over her fears of relation-
>ships, which stemmed from a not-so-long-past divorce.  It was kind of nice
>to be able to ask "Will you be mine for the next two weeks?" - you're not
>committing to forever, and you get a nice little shot of security.  Worked
>for us, eight years later.

   You were both obviously doing something right then... 8->

Joe.

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)