From: macarthr@dae.Princeton.EDU (Karen M. Macarthur)
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:30:06 GMT

In an article cross-posted by noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring):

>In article jemenake@zeus.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
>
>>About a month ago, I asked you folk what you thought about situations when
>>just ONE of a couple was in the mood; if the non-in-the-mood one should put
>>out or if they should turn their back.
>>
>>Among the responses, there was an interesting one that basically said "Big
>>deal. If he/she isn't in the mood, go to one of your other lovers who is".
>>Well, this isn't an option for someone who's committed to monogamous
>>relationships. So this got me thinking:
>>
>>It seems that, if you're going to ask your mate to be faithful to you, you
>>should be obligated to put out when they're in the mood. Although I'm not
>>sure I agree with it, I like the reasoning behind it. If you're going to
>>ask that you be the only source of your mate's sexual pursuits, it seems
>>only fair that you should be more receptive to his/her advances. Since,
>>though monogamy, they're being deprived of being able to capitalize on
>>other sexual opportunities, shouldn't you have to make up for that somehow?
>>What's your thinking on this, folks?

My reaction to this idea?  EEYUGGH!  That's what.
In my own utterly subjective personal opinion, having
sex with my mate which consists of me being "in the mood"
and my mate "putting out" out of duty to my being nice enough
to "deprive myself" by choosing monogamy, is abhorrent.
Whether sex is the greatest communication of ultimate love,
a fun friendly romp, or anywhere in between, there's some kind
of communication going on there.  If you do it out of some kind of
duty or guilt or anything else, and your partner is doing it
thinking there's some kind of closeness and mutual communication there,
that's almost the worst kind of lying there is.  I'd much rather
have my partner express exactly how they feel, and let us deal with
the frustration or conflict, than have them insidiously poison the
relationship with a "well, OK dear" resentful physical release.

If all you want is physical release, that's easy enough to take care
of yourself.  If what you want is the emotional and physical
closeness of sex, "duty" sex is not gonna take care of that, and it's worse
because you may actually think it's being satisfied.

If you want a good, deep conversation with your best friend,
and this best friend with whom you talk about everything,
and who has all the background knowledge, and with whom you need to work
out a certain issue with, doesn't feel like talking, 
then it really doesn't do much good either to
make them sit and talk with you in monosyllables, OR to go
find some other person to talk to; it's an unhappy situation but
it's just something that's got to be worked out between you two.

My highly subjective judgement call for the day:  I hope no one
in any kind of committed relationship ever uses the above kind of 
argument as a reason for (or as a description of the need for) polyamory.

Hmmm... I think I'm going to start a flame war because of all the
flagrant morality judgements I just made.  At least it should
lead to some highly interesting discussion of perspectives!

(Note I took this off of alt.sex to decrease bandwidth, so flame away!)

Your increasingly reckless core-dumper,

    -Karen :)
-- 
/      Karen MacArthur        \ / If you want to understand reality, you must \
    Princeton University       | take part in the practice of changing reality.
macarthr@phoenix.princeton.edu | If you want to know the taste of a pear, you 
\                             / \ must change the pear by eating it yourself. /
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory