From: miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.)
Subject: Square-dancing, anyone? (Was Re: Het males & bi-femmes)
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:13:04 GMT

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:

[from Jay]
>>   F_____________F           It is this situation that mandates the 
>>     \         /             bisexuality of the F's, in order to complete
>>       \     /               the emotional loop and raise all three
>> 	  \ /                 to a sum greater than the individual totals.
>>	   M                  Perhaps this symbol has something to do with
>>		 	      the standard 'bi-triangle'?
>
>>  This again deals a great deal with polyamory, but forms an equality
>>  by the triangular relationship between the three.  A Triad, a trio, the 
>>  three muskateers, etc., which is acceptible to the het male perspective.

I have trouble seeing how triangularity -- or any polygonality, for that
matter -- can form (or prevent) an equality.  Though it does seem to me
that friendship grouplets tend to be in threes rather than any larger
number.

[Now over to Muffy]

>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.  That is, there was a relationship
>with the entity formed by our relationship as well.  In our current
>situation, there is an all-three-of-us entity that is a lot of fun and
>which I hope will develop more.  I'm also hoping, when things get more
>worked out, that there will actually be two more interactions, so that
>each of the "couples" has an entity which interacts with the other
>person as well.  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....

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.

>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?
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.  (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 it has the makings of something that could last awhile, satisfying
the proclivities of four bisexuals without requiring constant, intense
efforts at conflict management.  Probably it would help if there were
some synchonization conditions -- four individuals arriving in the
relationship at about the same time, or two couples who had been together
about the same amount of time.  Then you can hope for the relationship
having something close to the expected duration of most heterosexual
relationships.  But even that expectation must be conditioned by some
understandings gained only by long experience.

On the other hand, if you're into relationship complexity for its own
sake, by all means, go at it.  You'll enter old age with plenty of
advice for younger people.  "Hey, you think you're in tough situation,
I was once in this relationship...."
---
Michael Turner
miket@tcs.com
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss