NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/romance/16437

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 6.9 KB

Xref: sparky alt.romance:16437 alt.polyamory:2477
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!decwrl!olivea!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!sscl.uwo.ca!carl
From: [e-mail] (Carl Kaufmann)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Polyamory again (was Re: last night...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:40:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Soc.Sci.Comp.Lab., U.West.Ont.
Lines: 114
Nntp-Posting-Host: vaxs.sscl.uwo.ca

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon Noring) writes:
> In article [e-mail] (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
>
>>Last night, my girlfriend went out with another guy.  Well, let me tell
>>you a little more: we're separated by 150 miles of interstate highway.
>>Fortunately, we have a very honest relationship--she told me of this
>>outing on Thursday evening.  Now, of course it bothered me, but what can
>>I do?  Tell her to stay home?  I think not.
>>
>>So, anyway, we talked again today, and I asked how her evening went.
>>She said it was great--they went to a place she and I usually go: Coyote
>>Joe's (a country-music bar near where we live).  She told me that they
>>were dancing most of the night (I inquired of slow dances--she said they
>>did and that hurt...).  They were rarely sitting she said.
>>
>>After we hung up, I began to wonder...did they kiss?  This really began
>>to bother me for a while.  After consulting with a good friend, I
>>decided to call her--turned out she called me back.  I told her that I
>>had to ask (trust is a BIG deal with me--more later).  She very quickly
>>answered "no" and asked me if they should have.  I told her that I hoped
>>not.
>>
>>Well, my system is shutting down in a minute or two, so I have to end
>>this quickly...
>>
>>Anyway, we talked for a while after that and our conversation just
>>instilled great trust between us--if she ever had to hide something like
>>this from me, we'd no doubt have a serious problem.
>>
>>One last thing: the whole thing kinda bothered her--what with dating me
>>serious (thoughts of marriage?) and going out with him last night--it
>>didn't sit to well with her, after the fact.
>>
>>Perhaps this was better fit for a diary.  Anybody else ever have an
>>experience like this and can share your thoughts?  I could really use
>>some right now.  Thanks.
>
>
> [Please read the following a couple of times carefully before responding -
> it discusses a radically different way to view the above post, so radical
> that it can easily be misunderstood if not read carefully and thought
> through in its entirety.  You need not agree with it, but please do try
> to fully understand my viewpoint before responding.]
>
>
> Wouldn't life be a whole lot easier if polyamory was accepted as a lifestyle
> option in our culture?  I have a very close woman friend (verrry close
> romantically) who has another male friend that she sometimes enjoys being
> with (he has quite a different personality than I do).  At first she was
> timid to admit that she liked to be with him occasionally for dinner, movies,
> etc., since she was not sure how I would react.  But when I said that I didn't
> mind and that she could have *any* type of relationship she chooses with
> anybody (as long as it is safe, in moderation and doesn't lead to problems for
> others - words of advice, not words of restriction), and that it won't change
> our relationship (at least in my eyes), she felt quite relieved, and somewhat
> surprised.  If she wants to kiss him, fine, I hope she enjoys it - it's stupid
> to feel guilty about things that are enjoyable and fulfilling.  If that's all
> she wants to do with him, fine.  If she wants more, fine.  And if she wants
> less, fine.  And she of course is accepting of my lifestyle as well (else it
> would not work out between us, obviously).
>
> 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.
>
> Of course, I realize most readers of alt.romance will have extreme difficulty
> understanding what I just wrote above.  The concept of polyamory is almost
> unthinkable to most people in our culture.  A few days ago I posted my
> polyamory file and if you're interested in trying to more fully understand my
> admittedly minority viewpoint, just download it and read it.  Or e-mail me
> and I'll send it.
>
> I'll also admit that to some what I wrote above sounds just a little bit too
> egalitarian.  But as the original poster shows so well, as well has hundreds
> of posts to this newsgroup since I've begun to read it, the monogamy-only
> viewpoint of romance/relationships in our culture is nowhere near egalitarian
> either.
>
> Have a good day.

I certainly will Jon, knowing that I am not the only one who
feels this way.  It has taken quite a bit of time and
soul-searching to overcome a lifetime of social
conditioning, but I have reached the point where I no longer
have problems being my primary's secondary relationship.  I
care for her far too much to either demand that she choose
between us, or for me to drop out of her life.

> Charter Member of the INFJ Club.
>
> Now, if you're just dying to know what INFJ stands for, be brave, e-mail me,
> and I'll send you some information.  It WILL be worth the inquiry, I think.

You have me wondering.  Send me the info, please.

*******************************************************************************
*  See how the heart reaches  *  Carl Kaufmann   *    Trust is the ultimate   *
*  out instinctively, for no  * Soc.Sci.Comp.Lab *    aphrodisiac.            *
*  reason but to touch.       *    U.West.Ont    *                            *
*        -Kate Bush           * [e-mail] *       -Me                  *
*******************************************************************************