From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: sex and relationships (was Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:49:10
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: noring@netcom.com's message of 14 Aug 92 15:43:09 GMT


I've been thinking (and posting) about this subject a fair amount
lately.  In the process, I've been getting accused of thinking I'm
"superior" somehow.  I think I have finally figured this out, and
although I'm not sure that the people with this opinion are inclined to
listen, I'll explain one more time.  Yes, there exist people who think
that they are "superior" because they are "above just having sex."  This
is not, however, how *I* feel, and I would appreciate it if people would
not cast me in that role, since it is a viewpoint which is quite
repugnant to me.

At various points in my life, I have had a strong interest in "just
sex."  Currently, I am most interested in creating working multi-person
relationships, and my focus is not on sex (it's still great, though...
*grin*).  I do not think this makes me in any way superior to someone
who is primarily interested in sex; indeed, I would like to be a little
more interested in pursuing sex for its own sake, as I used to be, so
I'm hoping I will proceed to that after I work out the emotional stuff a
little bit.  Nonetheless, I think that the focus of polyamory is
feelings, not sex...sex is often a great way of expressing feelings,
intensifying closeness, etc., but it is not the feelings themselves.

The article which set me to thinking was cross-posted from alt.sex.  I
don't like posting there, so I've deleted alt.sex from the newsgroups
line.

In article <xv6m_sk.noring@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>In article jemenake@zeus.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
[What if only one person in a couple wants sex at a point in time?]
>>[one response] If he/she isn't in the mood, go to one of your other
>>lovers who is". 
[this doesn't work for monogamous couples]
>>It seems that, if you're going to ask your mate to be faithful to you, you
>>should be obligated to put out when they're in the mood. Although I'm not
>>sure I agree with it, I like the reasoning behind it. If you're going to
>>ask that you be the only source of your mate's sexual pursuits, it seems
>>only fair that you should be more receptive to his/her advances.

Once again, the idea seems to be that the major purpose of a
relationship is sex, and that the purpose of multiple relationships is
more people to have sex with.  Why is this?  I could have sex with
someone who I happened to pass on the street, and I could have a very
intense, long-term, committed relationship with someone I was not having
sex with.  I certainly don't see that "having sex" is equivalent to
"having a relationship."

In an email conversation, someone told me that his SO felt that he
should not "need" anyone but her.  So, I asked about good friends...did
she have people she liked to talk to, people she was close to?  Yes, but
somehow having sex with someone was different.

In the end, I think that is the major reason I am polyamorous.  It is
someone's *feelings* that matter to me, not who they are having sex
with.  It seems pretty clear to me that someone can love any number of
other people without changing how they feel about me.  If I worried
about sex, I could see quite a few possible problems.  One is physical
capacity (*grin*).  Someone having sex with someone else might very well
decrease the amount of sex they wanted to (or could!) have with me.
Another is comparisons of ability.  This other person might be much
better at some (or all) sexual techniques than me.  Another is
restrictions imposed by the new person.  They could easily ask my
partner to not have sex with me.  It would be much harder for them to
ask (and get) someone to stop loving me...*smile*.

I guess that last one comes to an element of control, too.  Some people
believe they have partial or total control over their feelings...they
think that they can regulate who they fall in love with and how much.  I
don't believe this is possible; I have not seen it done, even by people
who think they can.  However, you certainly have a lot of control over
who you have sex with, and if you give that control to someone else,
then you give some control over the other people you have having sex
with to that person, as well.  That is, if I'm seeing A and A starts to
see B, and B tells A not to have sex with me, then B has some control
over me, since I'd like to have sex with A and now cannot.  I definitely
would not want to give control to some other person indirectly like
that.

Why is it that people don't see sex and love as distinct things?  I know
that they often go together and can influence each other, but that
doesn't make them identical.

And to answer the original person's question - I don't care how many
people you are involved with, the only one you can *expect* to satisfy
you sexually is yourself...*smile*.  Being in a relationship, even a
monogamous one, does not, in itself, require you to have sex with the
other person.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory