From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Het males & bi-femmes
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:10:21
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<85883@ut-emx.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: robear@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 28 Dec 92 10:11:17 GMT

In article <85883@ut-emx.uucp> robear@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jay Michael) writes:
[discussing types of relationships]
>	   F <____________> M <____________> F          (polyamorous male)

> I'm not going to say much about this because 1) It's not really bi-
> related, and 2) It would seem the females are getting the shaft.

It certainly *could* be bi-related, though.  In a situation like this,
it is quite common for the two part-time partners to have other partners 
of their own (who might well be of the same sex).

As far as "getting the shaft," I have been in this situation with a man,
and it was one of the better relationships I have ever had.  The
"females" are only "getting the shaft" if they're being lied to.
Otherwise, this can be quite a happy arrangement.

>   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.

It kind of depends on how you define bisexuality, actually.  You have
specfied an "emotional loop" of energy between the people.  While sex
helps with this, it is not actually necessary for the two women to have
sex for them to have a very close emotional connection, particularly if
they each already have strong connections to another person.  Even if I
am not attracted to the people my SO gets involved with, I still feel
strongly towards them.

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.

Then, of course, you get into the *other* relationships people might be
in, and it gets even *more* complex...*smile*.

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss