From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:38:07 GMT


In article <l9psd6INN7sh@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
> But basically, if they
> don't want to have sex with me anymore, the relationship is likely over.
> This is a fact -- not coercion.  

Def'n: Coercion - the act, process or power of compelling to an act or
                  choice.
                - the act, process or power of enforcing or bringing
                  about by force or threat.

By this definition (from Webster's), if you threaten to end a relationship
due to your partner not wishing to have sex, then you are performing an
act of coercion.

> 	True -- but depending on the circumstances of your polyamorous relation,
> it may be "open", and you are *free* to find outlets elsewhere.  I've
> found that when I am in a relationship and I am unsatisfied, some 
> external female often comes along to tempt me.  If I attempt to
> remain 'monogamous', or 'faithful', then I can sleep with the external
> female and feel guilty, *or*, I can make it clear to my current
> partners that given the current circumstances, I am choosing no longer
> to be monogamous or "faithful" -- i.e. -- let them know what *is*
> going on in my head -- and then if I sleep with the external female, 
> I can hopefully feel less guilt (assuming all of the above is 
> handled cleanly).
> 
> 	Perhaps not on any given night, but opportunities do come about
> if you are "looking" -- especially, it seems, if you are already in
> a relation.  By looking -- I don't even mean consciously -- but
> unconsciously -- like if you are unhappy in your current circumstance.

It would seem to *me* that if you're that unhappy in your current
circumstance (sex or no sex), you should get out instead of trying to
coerce your partner into satisfy your wishes.

>     My contention is that the ground rules are there whether you
> explicitly state them or not.  Case in point.  Had a friend named Diana,
> she had a boyfriend who she was in a monogamous relationship with -- she
> committed to him.  He got "relgion" and felt it was wrong to sleep
> together when they weren't married and began denying her sex.  She really
> didn't care about the getting religion part, and she still loved him, --
> but the denial of sex was *bullshit*, so after some period of time, she
> ended the relationship.  Was this coercion? 

No, because she ended the relationship instead of saying, "Either you sleep
with me, or I'll go sleep with him."  IMHO, it seems that sex was an 
important part of her feeling loved.

> Seems like the natural laws
> of cause and effect.  It's very simple -- if you enter into a relationship
> that has sex as a part of it, and one partner halts the sex, the
> relationship has changed and may be unsuitable.

True... but it's how you react to this change that counts.  If the relation-
ship is unsuitable, then end it, but don't try to coerce the other into 
performing your wishes or desires.

Just my 2 cents,

      __o       Brad Booth                |  
    _`\<,_      Bell-Northern Research    |  "He doesn't need a motive.
   (*)/ (*)     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   |   He's a psychopath."
 ------------   bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca    |  ... Tony Scalli, The Commish
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1092 soc.couples:3709