From: FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:53:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.140035.7681@midway.uchicago.edu>,
pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>In article <ptpj77h@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>There's still something wrong with this...what's wrong with asking for
>>monogamy >as it is<.
>
>Nothing ... as long as that's what you really want.  But what if you
>don't really need or want monogamy?  An open relationship is when you
>don't NEED to be the only one your SO is sleeping with.  If you want
>to talk about trust, it's about trusting your SO to keep coming back
>to you even if he does sleep with someone else.  You trust that the
>bonds that hold you together are so strong that sex with another
>person can't pull them apart.

The bonds would have to be strong, yes; however, the bonds would
also have to be streched-out at times (that is to say, not very
tight or close).  I can't see an open relationship being as close as
an *ideal* monogamous relationship (for me).  Part of my definition of
trust, in this sense, has to do with knowing the other person will be
there when I need her, which she won't be if she's involved with someone
else.  And I can't be there for her if I'm involved with someone else.

>Otherwise, if sex is the only thing that holds you together and
>defines your relationship, and if you believe the "rule" that
>if you sleep with one person then you CAN'T sleep with another,
>then every relationship is a choice as to which one person to sleep
>with.  And if you force that choice, then as often as not the SO
>will choose the other person.  I don't call that a real healthy
>relationship.
>
>>Saying 'Oh, I trust you to do what you want' is
>>simply asking them to remain monogamous, but your just 'preparing'
>>yourself because you really don't trust your partner, and you want to
>>be ready with the 'Oh, I guess I couldn't trust him/her after all' when
>>they play with your trust- or the 'I'll give her/him *one more chance*,
>>but thats all' beating.
>
>We're talking about totally different things.  You're talking about
>a relationship that is supposed to be monogamous and failing; I'm
>talking about a relationship where everyone agrees that sex need
>not be exclusive.

I think you're both talking about "need" - Pooh sez that one doesn't
have to have her/his emotional needs met through just one person
- you can get different things from different people.  rON would
argue that one should get everything from one person.  I would say
that either person looks outside of the relationship to meet his/her
needs, then, obviously, neither person's needs are being adequately
met.

>>Hell- you gotta make some sort of a commitment to your partner at some
>>point in a relationship, ya know.....
>>Sure, there is the period of 'openess'- it would be pretty stifiling if
>>every date demanded exclusivity from day one. Shades of 'Fatal Attraction'.
>>But, like I said, there has to be some point in a relationship where some
>>sort of commitment to each-other has to be made. I'm not talking about
>>marriage vows or anything- but a point where you gotta say 'OK, I've spent
>>lots of time/energy/life/whatever on this here person, they are my SO'.
>
>Again, rON, you're making hidden assumptions here.  You're assuming
>that any commitment you make to an SO *has* to involve sexual exclusivity,
>and it just ain't so.  Sure, that's the unwritten (and sometimes written)
>rule that we've all been brought up with, but it's not a law of
>Nature.

I agree - there is no rule about sexual exclusivity until the
subject is agreed upon by both parties.  One could say that there is
a "traditional" rule in this area, which applies especially after
marriage, but that could be argued.

>I know couples who have written their own rules.  Their commitment
>to each other usually involves living together, providing for each
>others' needs, and intending to stay together as a couple permanently,
>but in many cases it doesn't say ANYTHING about not sleeping with
>other people.  They may agree that the partner has veto power over
>other sexual partners, or they may make a commitment to another person
>or couple and bring them into the household.  I know of at least
>one triad where all three people consider themselves married together.
>At last count they've been together for seven years and added
>other partners in the meantime.

Every couple writes their own rules.  Problems rear their heads when
each person assumes the other is playing under the same rules.

>Your only REAL commitment is to keep dating your SO.  Anything else
>is an extra in the contract.  Sexual exclusivity is such a standard
>dealer-added option that we think it's part of the original package,
>but many societies throughout history have proven that it isn't so.

Does there even need be a commitment to keep dating?  If I stop
getting anything good out of a relationship, why continue?
What if the only good thing I get from the relationship is sex?  Is
that possible?  Can that be healthy?  Can one be completely
apathetic towards another and still have good sex with that person?

>>Otherwise, whats the point of >having< an SO?
>
>I don't know about you, but I get many other things out of
>having an SO that don't have anything to do with whether he's
>sleeping with someone else besides me.
>

Pooh - I'm interested - do you see this open lifestyle lasting for
the duration of your life, or are you just looking for the right
person with whom to spend it?

Thom