From: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:00:35 GMT
Organization: Medieval England, Iowa

In article <ptpj77h@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>There's still something wrong with this...what's wrong with asking for
>monogamy >as it is<. 

Nothing ... as long as that's what you really want.  But what if you
don't really need or want monogamy?  An open relationship is when you
don't NEED to be the only one your SO is sleeping with.  If you want
to talk about trust, it's about trusting your SO to keep coming back
to you even if he does sleep with someone else.  You trust that the
bonds that hold you together are so strong that sex with another
person can't pull them apart.  

Otherwise, if sex is the only thing that holds you together and
defines your relationship, and if you believe the "rule" that
if you sleep with one person then you CAN'T sleep with another,
then every relationship is a choice as to which one person to sleep
with.  And if you force that choice, then as often as not the SO
will choose the other person.  I don't call that a real healthy 
relationship.

>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.

We're talking about totally different things.  You're talking about
a relationship that is supposed to be monogamous and failing; I'm
talking about a relationship where everyone agrees that sex need
not be exclusive.

>Hell- you gotta make some sort of a commitment to your partner at some
>point in a relationship, ya know.....
>Sure, there is the period of 'openess'- it would be pretty stifiling if
>every date demanded exclusivity from day one. Shades of 'Fatal Attraction'.
>But, like I said, there has to be some point in a relationship where some
>sort of commitment to each-other has to be made. I'm not talking about
>marriage vows or anything- but a point where you gotta say 'OK, I've spent
>lots of time/energy/life/whatever on this here person, they are my SO'.

Again, rON, you're making hidden assumptions here.  You're assuming
that any commitment you make to an SO *has* to involve sexual exclusivity,
and it just ain't so.  Sure, that's the unwritten (and sometimes written)
rule that we've all been brought up with, but it's not a law of
Nature.

I know couples who have written their own rules.  Their commitment
to each other usually involves living together, providing for each
others' needs, and intending to stay together as a couple permanently,
but in many cases it doesn't say ANYTHING about not sleeping with
other people.  They may agree that the partner has veto power over
other sexual partners, or they may make a commitment to another person
or couple and bring them into the household.  I know of at least
one triad where all three people consider themselves married together.
At last count they've been together for seven years and added
other partners in the meantime.

Your only REAL commitment is to keep dating your SO.  Anything else
is an extra in the contract.  Sexual exclusivity is such a standard
dealer-added option that we think it's part of the original package,
but many societies throughout history have proven that it isn't so.

If you want to promise fidelity to your SO and expect the same,
that's fine -- just remember that you're choosing to do it;
don't blindly follow what you think is a natural law.

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

I don't know about you, but I get many other things out of
having an SO that don't have anything to do with whether he's
sleeping with someone else besides me.

Pooh
      pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu