From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,alt.sex,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:58:23 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Aug27.163807.9225@bcrka451.bnr.ca> bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
>
>In article <l9psd6INN7sh@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>> But basically, if they
>> don't want to have sex with me anymore, the relationship is likely over.
>> This is a fact -- not coercion.  
>
>Def'n: Coercion - the act, process or power of compelling to an act or
>                  choice.
>                - the act, process or power of enforcing or bringing
>                  about by force or threat.
>
>By this definition (from Webster's), if you threaten to end a relationship
>due to your partner not wishing to have sex, then you are performing an
>act of coercion.
---

    You are not threatening to end a relationship.  You are simply
stating a fact that the relation will end or be *open*.  This could be
perceived as a joyous event by the other partner or a threat depending on
their interpretation.  I had a relation where sex had stopped for a period
of 2-3 months.  I finally said, since we were no longer sleeping together,
I though we should not consider ourselves boy/girl friends anymore.  She
said 'oh, ok'.  It wasn't a threat -- it was a natural consequence.  

	Life is full of actions and consequences.  Those consequences can be
viewed as either pleasant or unpleasant depending on the individual.
By my view, is monogamy coercion?  I.e. -- if you sleep with someone
else, I'll leave you?  

>It would seem to *me* that if you're that unhappy in your current
>circumstance (sex or no sex), you should get out instead of trying to
>coerce your partner into satisfy your wishes.
---
	True, some people say if you don't like the United States the way
it is, you should just leave.  Others believe there may be things 
of value and/or worth saving.


>No, because she ended the relationship instead of saying, "Either you sleep
>with me, or I'll go sleep with him."  IMHO, it seems that sex was an 
>important part of her feeling loved.
---
	Above you said that saying "either you sleep with me or I will end
the relationship" was coercive.  It seems that the difference is only
whether or not you *communicate* your intentions and/or the consequences
of their actions (or lack of actions in this case).  From my standpoint,
I *like* to know if I am doing something wrong in a relationship --
to give myself a chance to correct it -- *if* I think the cost of my
correcting it is acceptable.  Like if the other person wants me to
put down the toilet seat, well, I might be able to manage that.  If they
want me to buy them a car, maybe not.

>True... but it's how you react to this change that counts.  If the relation-
>ship is unsuitable, then end it, but don't try to coerce the other into 
>performing your wishes or desires.
---
	I don't believe it is coercion -- they still have a choice.  I
don't believe in walking out of a relationship if something is wrong.  I
feel it is first profitable to try to address the problem.  If it is
still unaddressable, then things may be unsalvagable.  The fact of
leaving is not a 'threat' -- it is a promise -- a *fact*.  As such,
it doesn't qualify as force or threat -- just fact.

	In any event -- this is where monogamous relationships seem more
unstable/unsatisfying than non.  If you have more people you can
address to meet your needs, it seems the configuration of people would
be more stable.

-wat-
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory