From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: "infidelity" (was Re: Back Again To Father)
Followup-To: alt.polyamory
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: BNR, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:49:12 GMT


Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> woodhous@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes...
> 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. 

I think if you did a worldwide study of marriages, you would find that a
large number of wives expect that their husbands are not going to be
monogamous.  "Most marriages" may only apply in a North American context.

> Again, I realise that this is not your perspective, but please
> accept those of us who prefer monogamy without condemning us as crusading
> moralists.

Accept those of you who prefer monogamy???  We live surrounded by you
ever single day of our lives.  Condemn you as crusading moralists??  Only
if you make assumptions that everyone is like you or should be like you.

> 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.

You're discussing different points, but related to a common thread.
Infidelity and faithfulness have a different definition in my marriage
than it does in a "normal, monogamous" marriage.  You may see it as 
not applying at all, but that is based on your context.  What is 
important is that the partners involved understand what is required
for faithfulness and fidelity in their relationship.  For us, it's
honesty... for others, it's not screwing around.

> 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.

Or for that matter, marrying others. :)  (Not a legal marriage of course,
but just as symbolic and important as a legal marriage.)

> Yes, of course, but it *is* cheating when you have agreed to "forsake all
> others". 

Actually, it's only cheating if you get caught. ;)  But seriously, it's
only cheating if those involved decide to call it cheating.

> 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.

Why not??!!!  You seem to be judging ours.  I don't see where Joe was
trying to judge you, but rather to present another lifestyle that 
people do live and do enjoy.  A lifestyle that permits those in
relationships to have other relationships without the same concerns of
infidelity, faithfulness, or cheating.

I think you should re-read what Joe said... after you cool your jets.

Follow-ups to alt.polyamory.


    __o     Brad Booth              | "If somebody feels really good
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  about who they are, they don't
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  feel threatened by what other
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |  people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men