From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 27 Aug 1992 15:15:50 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <MUFFY.92Aug26161045@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <l9l9lmINNl27@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>There is no coercion involved.  If I am in a monogamous relation, and
>>sex gets interrupted for some period of time, unless there are
>>extenuating circumstances, I will consider the relationship as open or
>>ending.  This is a black and white -- not coercion.
>
>It depends on how you define "coercion."  Actually, I would not use
>"coercion" myself, since that implies a lack of choice.  However, I
>would say that the person is not being given *much* choice - if you say
>"have sex with me or I'll leave you" and they don't want you to leave,
>then they don't have any other choice, since you have only given them
>those two.  Under those circumstances, I would certainly find it
>difficult to generate much actual desire for sex, and I would definitely
>regard it as my partner masturbating with my body.
---
	If the other person cannot or will not engage in sex with me
willingly -- then eventually, for me, the relationship is likely
*over*.  Since my love relationship include sex, if I am not getting
that, then there is a failure of the love in my life to provide for
basic needs of the relationship.  Now "eventually" doesn't mean over
night and is grey depending on circumstances.  But basically, if they
don't want to have sex with me anymore, the relationship is likely over.
This is a fact -- not coercion.  

	The problem here is a way of looking at things -- what you call
coercion is not bad -- it simply *is*.  If I freeze water, it will be
hard -- but, you complain that you don't want the water hard so I am
coercing you to keep the water above freezing. NOT!  There is an
*isness* to it.  If you remove the heat from a relationship, it will
become hard to stay monogamous or in that relationship.  Just like
the water, if you remove the heat, things become *hard*.


>>If someone, however is in a polyamorous relation, and 1 person
>>in the group opts for no sex, it only immediately has to affect the one
>>person -- in the sexual dimension. 
>
>This suggests that there will always be someone who *will* have sex with
>you, in a polyamorous relationship.  As has already been pointed out,
>that is not true at all, and, indeed, possibly not all that likely.
---
	True -- but depending on the circumstances of your polyamorous relation,
it may be "open", and you are *free* to find outlets elsewhere.  I've
found that when I am in a relationship and I am unsatisfied, some 
external female often comes along to tempt me.  If I attempt to
remain 'monogamous', or 'faithful', then I can sleep with the external
female and feel guilty, *or*, I can make it clear to my current
partners that given the current circumstances, I am choosing no longer
to be monogamous or "faithful" -- i.e. -- let them know what *is*
going on in my head -- and then if I sleep with the external female, 
I can hopefully feel less guilt (assuming all of the above is 
handled cleanly).

> In
>fact, this is a problem with the whole argument - there seems to be an
>assumption that if you had NOT promised monogamy and you wanted sex and
>your partner didn't that you could just walk out and get some sex.  From
>all I hear, it doesn't work that way at all.
---
	Perhaps not on any given night, but opportunities do come about
if you are "looking" -- especially, it seems, if you are already in
a relation.  By looking -- I don't even mean consciously -- but
unconsciously -- like if you are unhappy in your current circumstance.

> I would suggest that if
>anyone here would agree to be monogamous in return for sex whenever they
>want it, they should state that explicitly at the beginning of the
>relationship.  Of course, you might have a little trouble finding
>partners, but at least everyone will understand the "ground rules."
---

    My contention is that the ground rules are there whether you
explicitly state them or not.  Case in point.  Had a friend named Diana,
she had a boyfriend who she was in a monogamous relationship with -- she
committed to him.  He got "relgion" and felt it was wrong to sleep
together when they weren't married and began denying her sex.  She really
didn't care about the getting religion part, and she still loved him, --
but the denial of sex was *bullshit*, so after some period of time, she
ended the relationship.  Was this coercion?  Seems like the natural laws
of cause and effect.  It's very simple -- if you enter into a relationship
that has sex as a part of it, and one partner halts the sex, the
relationship has changed and may be unsuitable.


william
--
"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