From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:52:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: spool.1992Apr7.225215.855
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <dzpjfsh@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.080406.14999@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>Ron says:
>>> Saying 'Oh, I trust you to do what you want' is
>>> simply asking them to remain monogamous, but your just 'preparing'
>>> yourself because you really don't trust your partner, and you want to
>>> be ready with the 'Oh, I guess I couldn't trust him/her after all' when
>>> they play with your trust- or the 'I'll give her/him *one more chance*,
>>> but thats all' beating.

>>It can be - if you're immature.  But note that what you said isn't
>>what Pooh said.  It could be, if you added to it:
>>   I trust you to do what you want, and I trust that you wouldn't
>>   want to do anything that hurt me.

>Yes, but a monogamous relationship >is< trusting the other person to
>not sleep with anybody else.
>Calling it 'open' doesn't add one iota of trust that shouldn't have already
>been there in the first place.  I guess it means I consider my SO sleeping
>with somebody else to be a 'bad' thing.

Yes, but if someone DOESN'T consider their SO sleeping with someone else to
be a 'bad' thing, then "trusting them not to do so" is a degree of trust
which is irrelevant, and indeed unnecessarily restrictive.

>>> Otherwise, whats the point of >having< an SO?

>>What's the point of having anything if you don't get exclusive use of it?
>>Is that what you're asking?

>When it comes to sex? You're damn right I want (and give) exclusivness.
>If I'm not enough to 'satisfy' my lover, well then either me and her need
>to have a talk and work things out, or whe should find another lover. (or
>vice-versa, of course).

Why?  Some people might feel that one person can satisfy some things for them,
while other people can satisfy other things for them.  They may, in fact,
believe that it is not possible for one person to be all (sexual) things
to another person.  If both people believe this and are comfortable with it,
then it seems quite reasonable to me that they might enter into an open
relationship.

(This to me implies that there is *probably* some non-sexual attraction
between the two people as well.)

I'm wired a little oddly, myself; I tend to feel that one person cannot be
all (sexual & emotional) things to another person, but I'm too possessive
to deal with an open relationship.  I'm still trying to decide whether this
is just the way my brain is set up, or if it's some emotional immaturity
or misunderstanding I have.

>Maybe my attitude towards the whole thing is a bit straight-laced, but I
>consider sex an important part of a relationship, and monogamy an important
>part of sex.

No one is disputing this (your attitude, that is; not whether or not it is
"straight-laced" :-)  I think it all depends on what one wants to get out
of the sexual and emotional aspects of a relationship.

This is obviously not an easy question to answer (I'm not sure I can come
up with a very clear answer for myself), but what DO you want to get out
of a relationship?

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

All the wine in your life's all dried up - is now the time to give up?
				- Bryan Ferry, "When She Walks In The Room"
Newsgroups: soc.singles