From: radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Radzykewycz)
Subject: Re: Exclusive relationships (Re: Morality)
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:33:25 GMT


radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Radzykewycz) writes:
>Personally, I think it is the height of hubris to expect that you can
>fulfill all the emotional and/or physical needs that another person
>will have for their entire life.

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
> The only problem with this is that, when you work from such a premise,
> you must realize that you are starting in the hole with most people.
> ... the old demon jealousy creeps in...  When you go into a
> relationship with this in mind, I think you MUST:
> 
> 1) be as entirely honest with the person as you can.  (I'm not aiming
> this at you, radzy.)  People who agree with you may simply be doing so
> to prove to themselves how liberated they are, but when the chips are
> down will go back to their old habits.

You should aim it at me.  I had to learn from experience.  And I
*knew* better, beforehand, too.  Sigh.  (OK, perhaps that should
be "you should HAVE aimed it at me."  Too late now, though.)

> 2) be selective.  ...  if you think that someone is not
> mature enough or doesn't fully appreciate the consequences of
> non-exclusivity, it is your responsibility to bow out.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Absolutely!  You have to take FULL blame for the consequences,
regardless of anything else!

> 3) be honest with yourself.

For some people, this is the HARDEST part of all.  As Janis said, and
I edited out, you absolutely HAVE to be honest, not just with yourself,
but with EVERYONE INVOLVED, both directly and indirectly.  In Janis'
example of a man who decides to have an affair in secret, the man
is at fault for hiding it from his wife, and his mistress (assuming
she knows he's married) is also at fault for hiding it from HIS wife!
I really *do* mean EVERYONE involved!

> I haven't met many women who feel this way.

Nor have I.  I've electronically "met" a bunch of women who feel this
way (or at least claim to, and I think I should believe them about it
in this case, at least UNTIL I meet them in person).

> I should say here that my own opinion is that the best thing nowdays is
> probably the old group-marriage idea.  There's enough variety to satiate
> most people (if not, blaze a new trail), and the people involved can get
> to know one another well.

Well, I'm not really too comfortable with the "blaze a new trail"
idea.  It seems to me that blazing a new trail should be a matter
for the entire group-family to decide.  Essentially, you're asking
another person to marry into the group!  That's a big decision.
(The alternative is that you're out having a fling.  I wouldn't expect
that to be necessary, in a group family.  Also, when you do this, you're
putting more people at risk than just yourself.)  Of course, if that's
the way the family in question works, that's fine with me.  I would
just prefer to be in a slightly more limited environment.

Bear Blessings!

------------------------------------------------------------
					|  An it harm none,
	-- radzy			|  do as ye will.
					|
	Tim Omelan Radzykewycz     	|  "Just pray for a
	The Incredible Radical Cabbage	|  tough hide and a
					|  tender heart."
	radzy@icsi.berkeley.edu	        |    -- Ruth Graham
					|
------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!