From: miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.)
Subject: Re: Square-dancing, anyone? (Was Re: Het males & bi-femmes)
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:24:15 GMT

In article <MUFFY.93Jan4174946@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>I thought of this question while writing this article, but I don't
>expect everyone to read to the bottom to see it...*smile*.  So:
>
>Michael Turner describes a four-person relationship, two men and two
>women, where the primary interactions are each person with two other
>people, one of each sex (M1, F1) (M1, M2) (M2, F2) (F1 F2).  Has anyone
>tried this, or is anyone actively looking to set up a situation?  We
>hear about three-way relationships off and on (that's how this started),
>and I've heard of various multi-person polyfidelitous relationships, but
>never this exact configuration.

Now that I think of it, I saw an ad somewhere once (how helpful) about
such a scheme, called "Quadragamy".  Ring any bells out there?  I've
long since lost the reference.

[Some discussion of triples, and my absurdly detailed diagram, deleted.]

>>I think this reaches a certain limit of schematizability, at least for
>>THIS communications medium.  Frankly, I think this might also be taking
>>relationship maintenance to obsessive extremes.
>
>*laugh*...I don't think so.  The fact is, the interactions and
>relationships are *there*.  I didn't really expect it when we got into
>these relationships, but it is observably the case that any people
>(friends or lovers) who interact with my SO and I end up interacting
>with all three entities, me, SO, and me&SO.  This turns out to be a lot
>of fun, and doesn't feel at all obsessive...*smile*.  In any case, I
>don't want to limit the interactions in my relationships to those that
>can be easily diagrammed...*grin*.

BEGIN BORING TERMINOLOGY DIGRESSION:

	I guess I draw the line at calling a "relationship" an
	"entity".  Oddly, I have this difference of opinion far more
	often with women than with men; most women who I've known well
	enough for me to have such differences with say that they think
	of the relationship as "something", an almost palpable, singular
	presence in their lives.  I always think of it as a *process*.

	So I would attempt to describe what I think YOU are describing as
	follows: that I act differently around my SO, and around other
	people when I'm with my SO, than I do when I'm not with my SO,
	and so does my SO.

	Obviously, you can only get so much mileage out of these terms;
	each of us is a "process", in a real sense, and our relationships
	are at the very least represented partially (and nearly as
	persistently) as memories which could be called "entities".

	Where you draw the line is a matter of who you are, probably.

YOU CAN EXHALE NOW, I'M DONE

>>>Then, of course, you get into the *other* relationships people might be
>>>in, and it gets even *more* complex...*smile*.
>
>>Not necessarily.  What about a realistic attempt to close and limit things?
>
>Well, why?  I agree that it is probably possible, but I don't see that
>it's that desirable.  For me, the whole point of being polyamorous is
>that relationships are free to develop as they will, rather than having
>their structure dictated by some structure which other people consider
>desirable (currently monogamy, in our society, but there are lots of
>other structures, none of which particularly suit me).

Perhaps my proposal was framed too much as an objection.  Well,
actually, it WAS an objection, but it was a purely personal one.

And what I'm saying is that MORE can be SIMPLER.  (And, as you
point out later, "fewer" can be "more complex", so I guess we
don't really disagree.)

All I'm really proposing is that people who feel a continuous
deep attraction to people of both sexes AND who also feel the
pull toward a settled family life might "develop as they will"
some structure such as I suggest.  That such an arrangement hasn't
become an institution yet might be because both bisexuality and
alternative family structures are still-emerging aspects of our
sociosexual frontier, or might be because of some fundamental
instability I haven't suspected.  (More likely the latter.)

My mistake for not amplifying this.

>>The problem I see with three is that there are some inherent instabilities:
>>people tend to work best (and love best, I think) when they complement each
>>other.
>
>I don't agree or disagree with this; I don't have enough information.

A good book that discusses this phenomenon is _Please Understand Me_
(Keirsey & ???) that never goes out of print.  It oversimplifies,
but it doesn't pretend not to.  Along the axes described, people
*do* in fact tend to pair as more-or-less opposite.

>However, even if we assume that it is true, there is no reason to
>believe that "complementaryness" has to be limited to two people.  It
>could easily be the case that there are three people who are
>complementary, in the sense of each having distinct useful
>characteristics.  It is, in fact, extremely unlikely that just two
>people will have *all* the characteristics/abilities/whatever that are
>desirable in a relationship.

No, but some would say "that's what friends are for."  The theory
of complementarity in primary relationships is that most of us
spend most of our time occupying a fairly narrow range along any
single personality axis you can think of.  Yes, situationally
people will stray far from their usual behavior; on the other
hand, they are usually more comfortable where they are competent.
Thus, they seek out partners who can cover their own weak points,
AND show them how to be at least adequate in these ways when
the partner is not there to fill in for them.  Call this lazy,
if you like, but it's a pretty well-verified pattern.  Life is
short, we're all born different, and usually have better things
to do than fight that.

Can three people be as complementary?  Depends on how you measure
it, I'm sure.  If they all have different, balancing strengths, yes.
How likely is this, though?

>Something that goes along with what you're saying, on the other hand
>(*smile*), is that my SO and I *are* very complementary in the way we
>interact with other people.  I think that this is one reason why there
>is such a clear me&SO entity to others, because each of us contributes
>part of the social interaction characteristics.  He's good at meeting
>people, I'm good at making future plans to see them.  He's good at
>learning about people, I'm good at showing them things about us.  Etc.
>We talk as a unit a lot when we're together, too.

I know what you mean, because I've been in relationships that are
even more extreme this way.  I'm not much for making people feel
at ease, but at least I'll introduce myself.  My current SO will
hardly ever do this herself, but I usually just get out of the
way after I've broken the ice for her, because I can't keep up
with the torrent anyway.

>Still, I think that having a lot in common is just as important for a
>relationship as having complementary characteristics.

Depends on what you mean.  I believe that what people need to have
in common for a stable relationship has more to do with areas of
potential conflict than with cooperation (which is where complementarity
really shines.)  I've had relationship-conflict over hours (I'm a
night-owl), frequency of sex (my appetite varies widely), finances
(I like a greater margin of error than some), schedules, housing
situations, entertainment options, noise, distribution of bedcovers
....these kinds of things, however, are not always closely tied to
personality traits. Conflict over them is often real, not some pretext
for ditching the other person.  Other things to have in common that are
not strictly personality-related but which sometimes affect the
survival of the relationship: religion, politics, class, ethnicity,
and other shaping social contexts into which we are born (unfortunately).

>>(The old "opposites attract" idea, which seems to prove out in
>>reality.)  You can't get good complementarity for each person with three
>>people -- but you CAN get it with four.  I.e.:
>
>		   M1 ----- F1
>		   |`.     .'|
>		   |  `. .'  |
>		   |   .*.   |
>		   |  .   .  |
>		   | .     . |
>		   M2 ----- F2
>
>>M1 and M2 can be opposites, as can F1 and F2, M2 and F2, and M1 and F1.
>>So long as everyone in this arrangement recognizes that M1/F2 and M2/F1
>>relations will hardly ever set the world on fire, you don't have much
>>more basis for conflict than in your standard couple relationship.
>>The asterisk in the middle might represent something about as hot and
>>tempestuous as getting together to work out the bills at the end of the
>>month.
>
>I think you're too caught up in this idea of "opposite couples."  Why
>couldn't three people (or more) all be "opposite" to each other?
>Characteristics aren't just "good/bad" or "off/on."  Most people have
>different levels of skills in different areas.  Several people could
>easily, I think, complement each other in any particular area.

Yes, they can and they do, and there is some good theory on this
in the context of working teams.  However, I'm talking about a very
specific context: domesticity.  How do you live with other people for
years and not go crazy, or drive them crazy, or both?  A certain
simplicity can go along way, here, and complementarity is at its
simplest in twos.  I'm interested in stable building blocks, not
the full range of possibilities (which is limitless but of doubtful
durability to my mind.)

>>I think it has the makings of something that could last awhile, satisfying
>>the proclivities of four bisexuals without requiring constant, intense
>>efforts at conflict management.
>
>Which proclivities, exactly? I'm guessing you mean relationships with
>members of both sexes.  I imagine this *is* a desire/goal of some
>bisexuals, but I think that relationships with great people are what is
>important, not what their sex is.

But again, some people would say "that's what friends are for."
(Opposing "friends" and "lovers", which is probably getting too
structured for some people.)

>				   I guess I'm just against trying to
>set up a predefined structure in general.  If people feel they need it,
>that's fine, but I find it way too restrictive.  I don't think it's the
>case that the vast majority of bisexual people want a partner of each
>sex (everyone feel free to tell me I'm wrong here...*smile*), although
>they might well be pleased if it happened that way.

"Square-dancing" (or "quadragamy" or whatever you want to call it)
isn't necessarily addressed to the vast majority of those who
are attracted to both sexes.  It's just a question, really.
You have something that works, for you.  I only have an idea
that I'm floating.

Personally, I like neither the ongoing sexual compression-decompression
cycles of shifting partners, nor my ongoing C-D peaks of sexual
orientation one way or the other.  What I propose might or might not
work for me, but at least it *seems* it could address those two
issues.  Otherwise, I'm concerned about whether it would require much
more maintenance than a monogamous relationship, because if it did, it
would just be too exhausting (again, at least for me.)  Hence my
(I hope) simplifying notion of four-way binary complementarity:
four basic kernels of monogamy to lend structural stability to
something that might not have much else going for it in the face of
the centrifugal forces of competition and conflict.

"But why have competition and conflict?" you might ask.  (In fact,
I think you did, didn't you?)  Why, indeed?  Why, oh why?  Shit
indeed happens.  Only human, I guess.  My kind of human, anyway.
---
Michael Turner
miket@tcs.com
Newsgroups: soc.bi