From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: "infidelity" (was Re: Back Again To Father)
X-To: JOE P WOODHOUSE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:08:00 GMT

woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes...
JPW> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
JPW> >
JPW> >The two issues that come
JPW> >up are infidelity (grounds for divorce still, I believe)
JPW> >

JPW> and from a different post, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
JPW> >
JPW> >And to answer your question (again), I imagine that it would be rather an
JPW> >unpleasant surprise for a man who hasn't been having regular sexual relati
JPW> >with his wife, to discover that she has become pregnant.
JPW> >
JPW> >And I feel that a spouse has the right to know that he/she has been cheate
JPW> >I realise that I am not generally in favour of "legislated honesty," but i
JPW> >cases like this, I feel that a spouse should have the right to know inform
JPW> >which could be grounds for divorce.
JPW> >

JPW>    I'm interested to see a number of what seem to be assumptions and
JPW> defaults here...

JPW>    First off, before I even get into a discussion of monogamy and its
JPW> alternatives, it looks very much like these posts reflect (and perhaps
JPW> endorse) the idea that marriage is monogamous.


I realise your perspective, *but* in most marriages, the partners expect
monogamy.  Again, I realise that this is not your perspective, but please
accept those of us who prefer monogamy without condemning us as crusading
moralists.

You have your way, I have mine.  It isn't right or wrong, it's just the way
that we do things.


JPW>    Thus the whole notion of "infidelity" or "faithfulness" may not
JPW> apply at all to some marriages (let alone unmarried r'ships).

It does, if both partners *expect* the other to be faithful, and have discussed
it with each other.


JPW>    But I wonder why there is this assumption that it would be an
JPW> "unpleasant surprise for a man [...] to discover his wife is pregnant
JPW> [not to him]". While this form of jealousy is certainly common, by
JPW> no means is it natural, inevitable or guaranteed.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Again, it is, *if* the partners were under the presumption that they would
only have sexual relations with each other.  Naturally, if the partners *did*
agree to be polygamous/polyamorous, then conceivably you'd be correct in saying
that "by no means is it natural," though only for people who accept that sort
of lifestyle.


JPW>    Also, the notion of the "partner's right to know" is a bit fuzzy.
JPW> While normally I totally agree with that (and it's generally part
JPW> of being responsibly Poly, I would say), there are times when it's
JPW> not appropriate. I think it presupposes a certain amount of
JPW> reasonableness on the partner's behalf... I don't, for example, feel
JPW> that in abusive r'ships the abused partner has an obligation to place
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JPW> themself at further risk of harm merely because of their partner's
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JPW> prejudices.


Most of the people who have debated father notification have discussed this, and
have come to some sort of agreement ("sort of") that there should be some sort
of mechanism to opt out of notification in a violent relationship (mind you, we
still haven't agreed on what constitutes adequate "proof" of a violent
relationship, not even if there should be any proof required).


JPW>    Finally, there are many many ways of being involved with more
JPW> than one person. The quoted example assume covert dishonest behaviour,
JPW> but again there are plenty of people who don't do it that way. Nor
JPW> does it necessarily involve *any* unpleasantness for *anyone*
JPW> involved. Yes Virginia, some people actually *don't mind* their
JPW> loved ones loving others.

Yes, of course, but it *is* cheating when you have agreed to "forsake all
others".  Surely, you have your lifestyle, and others have theirs, but please
do not presume to judge myself or others by the standards of *your* own
lifestyle.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Scott me up, Beamy.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men