From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: "infidelity" (was Re: Back Again To Father)
X-To: BRAD BOOTH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:55:00 GMT

bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes...
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>> woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes...
>> JPW>    I'm interested to see a number of what seem to be assumptions and
>> JPW> defaults here...
>>
>> JPW>    First off, before I even get into a discussion of monogamy and its
>> JPW> alternatives, it looks very much like these posts reflect (and perhaps
>> JPW> endorse) the idea that marriage is monogamous.
>>
>> I realise your perspective, *but* in most marriages, the partners expect
>> monogamy.

>I think if you did a worldwide study of marriages, you would find that a
>large number of wives expect that their husbands are not going to be
>monogamous.  "Most marriages" may only apply in a North American context.

You're probably right about that.


>> Again, I realise that this is not your perspective, but please
>> accept those of us who prefer monogamy without condemning us as crusading
>> moralists.

>Accept those of you who prefer monogamy???  We live surrounded by you
>ever single day of our lives.  Condemn you as crusading moralists??  Only
>if you make assumptions that everyone is like you or should be like you.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, I didn't, but the way that Joe spoke, seemed to imply that having
alternate partners is *not* "cheating," *ever*.  Now I realise that he
did not actually say this, but it came across as though he was trying to
judge my words by his own standards, ie., instead of realising that some
people would consider it cheating while some wouldn't, he merely said "it
isn't" (this isn't an exact quote, but it's basically what he said)


>> JPW>    Thus the whole notion of "infidelity" or "faithfulness" may not
>> JPW> apply at all to some marriages (let alone unmarried r'ships).
>>
>> It does, if both partners *expect* the other to be faithful, and have discuss
>d
>> it with each other.

>You're discussing different points, but related to a common thread.
>Infidelity and faithfulness have a different definition in my marriage
>than it does in a "normal, monogamous" marriage.  You may see it as
>not applying at all, but that is based on your context.  What is
>important is that the partners involved understand what is required
>for faithfulness and fidelity in their relationship.  For us, it's
>honesty... for others, it's not screwing around.

Of course!


>> JPW>    Finally, there are many many ways of being involved with more
>> JPW> than one person. The quoted example assume covert dishonest behaviour,
>> JPW> but again there are plenty of people who don't do it that way. Nor
>> JPW> does it necessarily involve *any* unpleasantness for *anyone*
>> JPW> involved. Yes Virginia, some people actually *don't mind* their
>> JPW> loved ones loving others.

>Or for that matter, marrying others. :)  (Not a legal marriage of course,
>but just as symbolic and important as a legal marriage.)

>> Yes, of course, but it *is* cheating when you have agreed to "forsake all
>> others".

>Actually, it's only cheating if you get caught. ;)  But seriously, it's
>only cheating if those involved decide to call it cheating.

>> Surely, you have your lifestyle, and others have theirs, but please
>> do not presume to judge myself or others by the standards of *your* own
>> lifestyle.

>Why not??!!!  You seem to be judging ours.  I don't see where Joe was
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>trying to judge you, but rather to present another lifestyle that
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>people do live and do enjoy.  A lifestyle that permits those in
>relationships to have other relationships without the same concerns of
>infidelity, faithfulness, or cheating.

Well, it was just a "general" feeling that he was trying to invalidate what
I was saying.  I think that his comment "Yes, Virginia, some people actually
*don't* mind their loved ones loving others" was to some degree patronising,
though I was hardly angry at him for it, because the situation was one of
misunderstanding, *not* perceived harassment.


>I think you should re-read what Joe said... after you cool your jets.
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You thought that I was *angry*???  As I said before, although I thought that
he could have expressed his ideas without the "Yes, Virginia", etc. (though I
admit that I have sometimes been this sarcastic before), I was hardly angry.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * He's got a magnet! Everyone BACKUP! - Data
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men