From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Square-dancing, anyone? (Was Re: Het males & bi-femmes)
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:49:46
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Dec30141021@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1993Jan1.001304.8551@tcsi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: miket@hermes.tcs.com's message of Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:13:04 GMT


I thought of this question while writing this article, but I don't
expect everyone to read to the bottom to see it...*smile*.  So:

Michael Turner describes a four-person relationship, two men and two
women, where the primary interactions are each person with two other
people, one of each sex (M1, F1) (M1, M2) (M2, F2) (F1 F2).  Has anyone
tried this, or is anyone actively looking to set up a situation?  We
hear about three-way relationships off and on (that's how this started),
and I've heard of various multi-person polyfidelitous relationships, but
never this exact configuration.

>In article <MUFFY.92Dec30141021@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <85883@ut-emx.uucp> robear@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jay Michael) writes:
[Jay Michael diagrams a triangle interaction.]
>>You've also left out an interesting part of the whole interaction.  My
>>SO and I have both been involved with two people.  In both cases, there
>>was clearly an interaction between me and the person, my SO and the
>>person, and "me&SO" and the person.  [etc.]
>>Your "triangle" format leaves out all of this
>>complexity, which I am starting to feel is the best aspect of a three-
>>person relationship.  The triangle suggests that there are only
>>person-person strong interactions.

>Huh?  You mean, like:

		   P1 --- c1 ----  P2
		    \ \___ | ___/ /
		     \    \|/    /
		     c2 -- T -- c3
		       \   |   /
			\  |  /
			 \ | /
			  \ /
			   P3

>... but with direct-links from P1 to c3, P2 to c2, P3 to c1....

Yup, that's what I mean.

>I think this reaches a certain limit of schematizability, at least for
>THIS communications medium.  Frankly, I think this might also be taking
>relationship maintenance to obsessive extremes.

*laugh*...I don't think so.  The fact is, the interactions and
relationships are *there*.  I didn't really expect it when we got into
these relationships, but it is observably the case that any people
(friends or lovers) who interact with my SO and I end up interacting
with all three entities, me, SO, and me&SO.  This turns out to be a lot
of fun, and doesn't feel at all obsessive...*smile*.  In any case, I
don't want to limit the interactions in my relationships to those that
can be easily diagrammed...*grin*.

>>Then, of course, you get into the *other* relationships people might be
>>in, and it gets even *more* complex...*smile*.

>Not necessarily.  What about a realistic attempt to close and limit things?

Well, why?  I agree that it is probably possible, but I don't see that
it's that desirable.  For me, the whole point of being polyamorous is
that relationships are free to develop as they will, rather than having
their structure dictated by some structure which other people consider
desirable (currently monogamy, in our society, but there are lots of
other structures, none of which particularly suit me).

>The problem I see with three is that there are some inherent instabilities:
>people tend to work best (and love best, I think) when they complement each
>other.

I don't agree or disagree with this; I don't have enough information.

However, even if we assume that it is true, there is no reason to
believe that "complementaryness" has to be limited to two people.  It
could easily be the case that there are three people who are
complementary, in the sense of each having distinct useful
characteristics.  It is, in fact, extremely unlikely that just two
people will have *all* the characteristics/abilities/whatever that are
desirable in a relationship.

Something that goes along with what you're saying, on the other hand
(*smile*), is that my SO and I *are* very complementary in the way we
interact with other people.  I think that this is one reason why there
is such a clear me&SO entity to others, because each of us contributes
part of the social interaction characteristics.  He's good at meeting
people, I'm good at making future plans to see them.  He's good at
learning about people, I'm good at showing them things about us.  Etc.
We talk as a unit a lot when we're together, too.

Still, I think that having a lot in common is just as important for a
relationship as having complementary characteristics.

>(The old "opposites attract" idea, which seems to prove out in
>reality.)  You can't get good complementarity for each person with three
>people -- but you CAN get it with four.  I.e.:

		   M1 ----- F1
		   |`.     .'|
		   |  `. .'  |
		   |   .*.   |
		   |  .   .  |
		   | .     . |
		   M2 ----- F2

>M1 and M2 can be opposites, as can F1 and F2, M2 and F2, and M1 and F1.
>So long as everyone in this arrangement recognizes that M1/F2 and M2/F1
>relations will hardly ever set the world on fire, you don't have much
>more basis for conflict than in your standard couple relationship.
>The asterisk in the middle might represent something about as hot and
>tempestuous as getting together to work out the bills at the end of the
>month.

I think you're too caught up in this idea of "opposite couples."  Why
couldn't three people (or more) all be "opposite" to each other?
Characteristics aren't just "good/bad" or "off/on."  Most people have
different levels of skills in different areas.  Several people could
easily, I think, complement each other in any particular area.

>I think it has the makings of something that could last awhile, satisfying
>the proclivities of four bisexuals without requiring constant, intense
>efforts at conflict management.

Which proclivities, exactly?  I'm guessing you mean relationships with
members of both sexes.  I imagine this *is* a desire/goal of some
bisexuals, but I think that relationships with great people are what is
important, not what their sex is.  I guess I'm just against trying to
set up a predefined structure in general.  If people feel they need it,
that's fine, but I find it way too restrictive.  I don't think it's the
case that the vast majority of bisexual people want a partner of each
sex (everyone feel free to tell me I'm wrong here...*smile*), although
they might well be pleased if it happened that way.

>On the other hand, if you're into relationship complexity for its own
>sake, by all means, go at it.  

I'm into relationships for their own sake...the complexity happens or
not, depending on how it goes.  I'd rather not reject a good person
because "it would get too complex."  Frankly, even *one* relationship
can "get too complex."

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn