From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy (LONG)
Date: 16 Aug 92 10:06:37 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia


   I'm splitting my reply to this into 2 parts. One stays here, the other
goes to alt.sex. (I don't like alt.sex/alt.polyamory crossposts, and it'd
be too big for a single article anyway).


vyxter@asylum.UUCP (alice b. toklas) writes:
>>In article jemenake@zeus.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
>>>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. Since,
>>>though monogamy, they're being deprived of being able to capitalize on
>>>other sexual opportunities, shouldn't you have to make up for that somehow?
>>>What's your thinking on this, folks?

   Hell, if they don't want to be monogamous, they shouldn't!!! Pure and
simple. Relationships divided on this issue will always lead to trouble,
I think.

   Other people here have addressed this, but I'm also a bit cranky at
having monogamy reduced to being just about sex. For heaven's sake, I
think most monogamous people have a sense of transgression if a partner
of theirs falls in love with someone else! Some, even just for lunch or
going on a trip with someone else! Sex is perhaps the most obvious way
to violate the contract of monogamy, but if anything people are *more*
outraged at a partner falling in love. How many times do you hear, in
media and fiction and even real life, "Sure I had sex, but they didn't
mean anything to me?" There's a real recognition that sex is the least
of it.

   When I showed my sweetie the orginal article, they pointed out that
the poster seemed to be adding up "no sex with anyone else" (obtained
via monogamy), and "no sex with me" (when the partner won't "put out" -
grrr to that, BTW), to obtain "no sex at all".

   Or rather, once the partner has said "no sex elsewhere", saying
"and no sex with me either" is wrong, in the eyes of the poster. But
that's not because it's wrong to say "none with me", but because the
initial monogamous premise was wrong in the first place. The "wrongful
monogamy" (more correctly, the wrongness of the restrictions) becomes
more obvious when compounded by the partner's own withdrawal of sex.

   But here the poster's chosen to attack the wrong limitation. Facing
an apparant total lack of sex, they've challenged the *personal*
limitation of their partner, rather than challenging the monogamous
premise that makes the partner's "no" to sex a problem. In other words,
they've somehow thought it's more reasonable to attack the partner's
right to have control over *their own* body, than to attack the partner's
right to control the sex they have with others. And isn't that a bit
wierd?

   I think there's been a feeling that it *is* unreasonable to limit
another in this way, but because the Poly issues are being obscured, it
then goes off in the wrong direction and starts (it sounds this way to
me) talking about abusing the partner, either through "outright rape"
or a more subtle rape through pressure and playing on obligation.

   But look at the language! "Deprived of the opportunity to capitalise
on opportunities"!!! I just say Grrrr to every aspect of this. Sounds
quite mercenary and uncaring to me, a dismissal of most of the things
I think are important in relationships.


>my thinking on this is that this theory implies that the only purpose
>of a relationship is sexual satisfaction.  i think it also implies
>that masturbation is either nonexistant, or tantamount to "cheating".

   I actually have heard some people saying this, yes. Masturbation
is "cheating", or at least a bitingly negative comment on the relationship.


>there are other things that monogamous couples seek only from their
>partners.  one's partner, for example, is often assumed to be one's
>"best friend".  does that mean that whenever one partner wants to,
>say, talk, that the other partner is obligated to listen?  sure,
>listening to one's partner is a great thing, but that doesn't mean one
>never wishes to read a book, or nap, or be alone for a long hot soak
>in a bathtub.  when one partner wishes to talk, and the other does
>not, compromises have to be made.

   Right on! The issue seems (in many ways) to be about a withdrawal
of intimacies. And that's quite independent to Poly issues. (Maybe I'm
more meaning "personal space", there, or possibly even issues of
independence too).

Joe (with help from Karina).

  / Joe Woodhouse        / I'm just a sweet bisexual...   / Hello, there.
 / Latrobe University   /    (think - Rocky Horror)      / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)