From: Cynthia Nolan
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Reply-To: Joe's comments
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:33:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.012550.6259@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au
(Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>Cynthia Nolan writes:
...I can't (indeed,mustn't) take the responsibility for another person's
physical or emotional well-being.  


Joe responds with: 

>   Um, minor quibble, very small point really. Perhaps the way I'd've put
>in would be something like "I have a responsibility to behave responsibly
>about my partners well-being, but not past the point where that starts
>decreasing their power to be responsible for themselves".
>
>   Not sure if that came across well. I sort-of simultaneously feel that
>both I and a love of mine have somewhat of a responsibility to both of us,
>but it's a bit different depending from whom to whom. Sorry, too tired to
>explain it much better than that. 8->

And C. says to Joe:

You say it beautifully, and much better than I did.  I shouldn't state things
in such rough, black and white terms all the time.  I guess it comes from
having had this conversation recently with a (soon-to-be (i hope)) lover and
thinking in a sort of short-hand about it all, rather than spreading out every
card from the very beginning... (I'm a little tired too!)
 

C's original comments continue:
...one does no favours to a lover by sublimating one's own rights
>>or feelings to theirs. 

Joe says:
>   Yeah, that's crucial for me too.
>
And chatty C. natters on...
>>I think the most important responsibility we have to partners is to be honest
with them, and to expect and encourage the same honesty from them, about our
needs and our feelings.  And to not play rotten little "you owe me" games with
each other. 


And Joe responds:
>   Right on Cynthia. Although I, with my famous super-caution 8->, add a
>little disclaimer : generally there is an obligation to be honest and
>communicative *unless* there is a better reason not to. I can certainly
>envisage many scenarios where it's very reasonable for a love to not want
>to tell me something, even though I might be affected by that. But yeah,
>I don't think we're in disagreement here. 8->

And to wrap up the current line of discussion, C says:
Once again, Joe, you have ensured that those crucial components of the whole
"honesty first" thing are clearly stated rather than leaving them to be assumed
- as I did in my first comments.  We're not in disagreement, it's true, but you
expressed it more fully than I.  Thanks.
 
Now, I'm off for a week so I'll miss you guys and will look forward to some
interesting new lines when I get back.  Also, I really am considering putting
together an introductory brochure to polyamory,(I'm so, so very tired of
explaining it from square one and I'd just like a little help with the
constantly repeated bits - the stuff that only applies to an individual
couldn't be written in but it seems to me that the basic concepts could be
defined pretty nicely and save me a lot of effort etc.) so if you've got
definitions, FAQ's,illustrations,  post 'em and let's see what we can come up
with.

Have a great week folks, you're super.

C.


Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.couples