NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/romance/16419

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-26 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.romance:16419 alt.polyamory:2475
Newsgroups: alt.romance,alt.polyamory
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!tuff
From: [e-mail] (Geoff Tuffli)
Subject: Re: Polyamory again (was Re: last night...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:02:30 GMT
Lines: 53

In article [e-mail] (Jon Noring) writes:
>
>Our relationship has gotten closer because of it since ours is not built on
>some stupid idea of possession and exclusive ownership, but one on giving.
>I can't be all things to her, and she can't be all things to me.  I choose to
>love her unconditionally - that is the best form of love, imho.  I will never
>put the requirement of monogamy on my romantic partners - trying to restrict
>another person on the matters of love is *not true love*.  It can never deep
>down lead to any kind of trust - it is an inherently untrustworthy act to
>demand monogamy - do you want to build a close relationship on such a
>foundation?  If a person chooses truly on their own to be monogamous that is
>great - they are doing it because of their love for their partner.  But to
>*demand* it of others is not right, for me at least.  Monogamy is a fine and
>workable lifestyle option (actually the default in our culture at this time)
>if both people of the relationship are *truly* committed to it - it *only
>works* to enhance the relationship when both *voluntarily* choose monogamy
>because of love for their partner and not because it was taught as the only
>way to be in our obsessively uptight monogamous culture.
>

    Some points that might be worthwhile in considering...

    Polyamory is, I completely agree, a perfectly acceptible type of
relationship, but despite your avowal of it as an alternative, you do lob
a few blows directly at the concept of monogamy that I think reveals a
misunderstanding of what and why people may prefer monogamy.

    Monogamy is not, I feel, a matter of possessing your partner, nor
is is a matter of trust even, as you correctly, I think, pointed out, trust
should not require that you be looking over one's partner's shoulder --
such is hardly what can be construed as trust.

    To me, at least, I prefer monogamy, demand it in any long-term
relationship I might undertake or have undertaken, simply because it is a
matter of rapport, or, to put it another way, complete and utter focus
in that aspect of one's life. One can certainly love any number of people;
as it has been stated, the more people you love, the more you CAN love,
but rapport or focus is by definition a thing that can be done with only
one person at a time. This is not love, per se, though it generally requires
love; it is not "becoming" the other person, it is matching the other
person.

    People need and want and desire different things in my experience
(think Myer-Briggs as a good example of this, for those who know of it),
and what I described above is what *I* want and desire. For others, it is
irrelevant, and love alone is perfectly satsfactory. For some, even that is
not desired on any deep level. Matter of taste, matter of personality. The
upshoot is, tho' polyamory is perfectly fine, moral, what-have-you, I feel
it is unfair to label monogomy in the terms you have.

    Geoff Tuffli
    The Green Griffin