From: macarthr@dae.Princeton.EDU (Karen M. Macarthur)
Subject: Re: love and freedom (was Re: poly-wired?)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:42:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.020106.4114@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>
>   I'll try to explain this. "The most loving thing one can say to another"
>is "too bad, only one love at a time for you"?!? It's loving to say "Your
>freedom is *not* an issue for me"?!? 
>
>   Maybe this will explain it better. How do people feel about saying to
>a friend "You may not have any other friends than me"? Sure, most reply
>that "that's different", and I agree - I think it's very different : 
>surely our loved ones are *equally or more* important to us (and we have
>an equal or greater committment to treating them well) than friends, so
>how come this is not OK to say to friends (I don't think too many would
>agree it *was* OK), but it's fine to say to loved ones, equal to or
>greater than friends?
>
>   My biases are speaking here, but I simply *cannot* imagine a love that
>does not value the freedom of the loved one. Freedom from obligation.
>Freedom from oppression. Freedom from unpleasantness. Freedom to live a
>life that looks outward on a greater vista, not inwards to a gilded cage.
>
>   Let me qualify that. I'm *not* saying I think monogamous love is not
>really love, or anything like that. I do think *enforced* monogamy must
>go through mental acrobatics to reconcile love with loss of freedom.
>


Hmmm...joining this group, I never thought I'd do this, but I'm
actually now going to *defend* what I perceive of as monogomous 
people's beliefs.  (Just for further debate and more airing of my
own highly personal opinions, not to argue against what has been said here).

A number of people on this group describe monogamy as some kind of
contract saying "I won't have sex with anyone but you", and compare that
with a (basically valid) analogy of having more than one friend vs.
having only one friend.

Clearly most of us agree that you wouldn't want to be friends with someone
who said "You can't have *any* other friends but me."  However, what
would you think about a potential friend who said "Well, sure I'd
like to be friends with you, but you must understand that I do my
own thing and I won't call you or meet with you or spend time with
you or make any effort to share myself or my thoughts with you.  But
I do really think you're a neat person and want to be your friend."
You may care about this person, respect their freedom to do as they
just said, and so on; but you might also feel that such a relationship
is really not worth the effort.  You have a certain concept of
what constitutes a "friendship", and you may like and care about this
person all you want, and yet decide that a friendship under those
conditions just won't work out.

Similarly, there are people who have a concept of what constitutes
a "love relationship", which includes the intensity and depth
of knowing only each other to the deepest degree of
intimacy.  These people don't care who are your friends, but they
feel that the intimacy (sexual and otherwise) of the "couple"
relationship is something so special and unique that there can only
be one such phenomenon at any given time.  (Okay, so I"m not
explaining it very well because I don't subscribe to it; I still have
a general idea of it).  Someone like this may certainly care about
your freedom, your needs, and everything else about you; but by
saying you want to share that intimacy with others, you are 
essentially ending that special relationship.  Just like in the
above analogy, a relationship under these new terms is really
no longer a true relationship (to them).

To the poly person in the relationship (P), the mono person (M)
is trying to control them, restrict their freedom, etc.  To
M, P is trying to break and end the committment/relationship, 
and they will react exactly (according to particular personality)
as any of us do when someone we love and are committed with
breaks that committment (leaves, or whatever):  by being sad,
by yelling, by accusing, or whatever.

Does this make sense?  What I'm trying to get across is that
I don't think monogamy vs. polyamory lies in a bunch of
"rules" ("No sex with anyone else!") which some people need
to re-examine; rather it's a very complicated issue involving
what a given person believes constitutes a relationship.
"Committment" and "fidelity" are very important concepts, which
even us polyamorous types have our own versions of.

That's my core dump for the day.  Once again, thanks for the bandwidth!

     -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. /