reactions to polyamory
Muffy Barkocy
This is a letter from someone who cannot post. He spoke to a class
about his polyamorous relationship and I asked him to tell me about what
happened.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
About a year and a half ago a friend of mine who teaches a "Marriage & Family"
class at the local community college asked me to participate in a roundtable
discussion on alternative relationships. I reluctantly agreed (I'm kinda on
the shy side... yeah, right).
Here were the participants:
A long distance marriage. Husband lives in Brazil, wife lives in the US.
A role reversal. House husband, wife supports family.
A gay male couple. One had kids from a former marriage and was raising them.
A polyamorous relationship. (me) Married (at the time) for 12 years.
(It's 14 years now :)
The format was to have everyone give a talk on how the relationship developed
and how it functioned. After each person/couple gave their talk the class
(of which the age range was 18-35) was allowed to ask questions.
Only a were asked of the first two couples. The gay couple were asked a
fair amount of questions mostly focusing on raising the kids and how their
lifestyle might affect them. But in general, all of the class was able to
relate with all three couples' relationships.
Not true for me! They grilled me for over 45 minutes during the question and
answer session. The class ended after 15 minutes but I guess the whole class
decided to stay over and rake me over the coals. Actually it wasn't all that
bad because I like talking about how I feel, but it was kind of disconcerting
that no one in the class could relate to where I was coming from. The
questions they asked were the usual. "Don't you worry that your SO will find
someone better and leave you?" "Then why get married?" "But what about the
third person, is that fair to them?" "Why do you need more than one person?"
"How can you be *in love* with more than one person?" and on and on...
The nice thing was that it gave me a chance to put into words some things that
I hadn't had to before. I understood myself better because of it. The
teacher complimented me on how well I stated my beliefs when under so much
opposition. I had one student come up afterward and thank me for sharing.
Only one. :( I was truly amazed at the lack of acceptance. I can only
hope that in the end love will prevail...
Peace and Love,
Marky
--"It's amazing how much 'mature wisdom' resembles being too tired."
-Lazarus Long
--
Muffy Barkocy | mu...@mica.berkeley.edu | wi....@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Chris Andersen
>
>[Story of talking with a class about his poly relationships and how much
> opposition he got]
>
>I had one student come up afterward and thank me for sharing. Only one. :(
>I was truly amazed at the lack of acceptance. I can only hope that in the
>end love will prevail...
It doesn't surprise me all that much. The acceptance of poly style
relationships is VERY low in this society. I can remember a program on poly
relationships on Donahue where the audience was almost universally hostile to
the guests on the show. And this was basically the same group of people who
on previous shows had been fairly receptive to strippers and prostitutes
(ever notice how people are more accepting of "deviant" sexuality when there's
monetary exchanges involved?)
One particular exchange during this program brought home to me just how little
understanding there is of the poly lifestyle there is in society: three of the
guests were a FMF triad (one of which, by the way, was Nina Hartly the porn
star). A female audience member asked one of the women, "doesn't it bother you
when you can hear your husband enjoying himself with another women?" And the
woman responded, "No, I get turned on by it."
The woman from the audience had this look of total shock and surprise on her
face. You could tell that never in a million years would it have ever occured
to her that someone could respond that way.
This is how wide the gap really is.
--
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)
"...the only thing worse than being hurt is being bored." -- Daniel Mocsny
Joe P Woodhouse
On a related note, I was at a party last weekend where I happened to
run into someone who's fairly prominent on another newsgroup. This got us
talking about newsgroups, and I happened to mention that I'd been involved
in setting up a group earlier in the year.
"Which one", they asked.
"Alt dot polyamory".
Mistrustful look. "What's *that*?"
"Well, definitions differ, but basically I guess it's about non-
monogamy, but it's a nicer way of saying it that doesn't define it in
terms of a negative".
Shocked silence. After a very long pause, "Oh. Well, *I* definitely
wouldn't be interested in *that*". And they changed the subject.
Karina had to be restrained from making a scene. If it hadn't been
a good friend's birthday, we would've had a huge fight over it. 8->
Joe.
/ Joe Woodhouse / I'm just a sweet bisexual... / Hello, there.
/ Latrobe University / (think - Rocky Horror) / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Roger Ritter
<Short tale of describing alt.polyamory to a chance acquaintance deleted>
> Shocked silence. After a very long pause, "Oh. Well, *I* definitely
>wouldn't be interested in *that*". And they changed the subject.
> Karina had to be restrained from making a scene. If it hadn't been
>a good friend's birthday, we would've had a huge fight over it. 8->
To tell the truth, I don't see (from the description I deleted) why
Karina was so upset. Surely the person has a right not to be
interested?? (and don't call me Shirley!)
--
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ri...@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet! NH CAP: Profile 49
Joe P Woodhouse
>wood...@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
><Short tale of describing alt.polyamory to a chance acquaintance deleted>
>> Shocked silence. After a very long pause, "Oh. Well, *I* definitely
>>wouldn't be interested in *that*". And they changed the subject.
>
>Karina was so upset. Surely the person has a right not to be
>interested?? (and don't call me Shirley!)
OK, I didn't indicate the dripping malice in their tone well enough.
It left no doubt that they wished I and all my kind would go someone
very far away from them indeed.
So it wasn't just that they "weren't interested" - they were
extremely offended, and quite rude about it. Karina & I were offended
that they were so offended. Would they have said it the same way if
I'd said "oh, I was involved in setting up soc.culture.diet-coke"
or something else they simple weren't interested in?
Christopher Phillips
> OK, I didn't indicate the dripping malice in their tone well enough.
>It left no doubt that they wished I and all my kind would go someone
>very far away from them indeed.
depressing.
> So it wasn't just that they "weren't interested" - they were
>extremely offended, and quite rude about it. Karina & I were offended
>that they were so offended. Would they have said it the same way if
>I'd said "oh, I was involved in setting up soc.culture.diet-coke"
>or something else they simple weren't interested in?
Well, people round here can be pretty religious about this Coke vs Diet-Coke
issue ;)
(Let us not say how we deal with people who drink caffiene free diet p**si..)
--
Christopher Jam __________________________________________________
phil...@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au c64 forever!!!!
300,000 c64's were sold in the fiscal year ending June 1991 :)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Ritter
>rit...@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>>wood...@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>><Short tale of describing alt.polyamory to a chance acquaintance deleted>
>>> Shocked silence. After a very long pause, "Oh. Well, *I* definitely
>>>wouldn't be interested in *that*". And they changed the subject.
>>
>>To tell the truth, I don't see (from the description I deleted) why
>>Karina was so upset. Surely the person has a right not to be
>>interested?? (and don't call me Shirley!)
> OK, I didn't indicate the dripping malice in their tone well enough.
>It left no doubt that they wished I and all my kind would go someone
>very far away from them indeed.
Ah, the "What!? You fuck small fuzzy woodland creatures before
breakfast!?" tone of voice.
> So it wasn't just that they "weren't interested" - they were
>extremely offended, and quite rude about it. Karina & I were offended
>that they were so offended. Would they have said it the same way if
>I'd said "oh, I was involved in setting up soc.culture.diet-coke"
>or something else they simple weren't interested in?
Ok, next question is, why did you bother to restrain Karina? Sounds
like this person deserved a good in-person flaming. A short lesson
on tolerance, at the very least. Besides, watching such a session
when someone really deserved it can be fun!
Joe P Woodhouse
>wood...@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>rit...@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>>>wood...@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>><Short tale of describing alt.polyamory to a chance acquaintance deleted>
>>It left no doubt that they wished I and all my kind would go someone
>>very far away from them indeed.
>
>Ah, the "What!? You fuck small fuzzy woodland creatures before
>breakfast!?" tone of voice.
You got it.
>Ok, next question is, why did you bother to restrain Karina?
Oh, I didn't restrain her from having a go at this @$#^%! intolerant
so-and-so...it was more that (I think) we both pretty much decided that
(1) It was a friend's birthday party, and they were wandering around saying
it was the best party they'd had in over a decade, and
(2) Wouldn't gave acheived anything anyway. The closed-minded person had
the sort of intolerance that only comes from *years* of training &
indoctrination.
We were also pretty much in shock - it was quite startling and
scary to have someone be so against it as soon as they understood the
subject.
>Sounds like this person deserved a good in-person flaming.
No doubts about that! We did regret not politely & simply asking them
if they were bigotted about other issues too...
>Besides, watching such a session
>when someone really deserved it can be fun!
<sigh> I'm usually one for a fight on these sorts of issues, but
lately I just haven't had it in me.
Joe P Woodhouse
>wood...@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>Would they have said it the same way if
>>I'd said "oh, I was involved in setting up soc.culture.diet-coke"
>>or something else they simple weren't interested in?
>
>Well, people round here can be pretty religious about this Coke vs Diet-Coke
>issue ;)
Heh heh...it was a deliberate choice of words...
>(Let us not say how we deal with people who drink caffiene free diet p**si..)
Oy! We're here! We drink Caffeine-free Diet Pepsi! Get used to it!
Roger Ritter
> No doubts about that! We did regret not politely & simply asking them
>if they were bigotted about other issues too...
I suppose a good response to "*I* would have no interest at all in
*that*!" would be: "Don't worry, we wouldn't ask *you*!". Delivered
in a similar tone of voice. Just insulting enough to get your point
across (not that the closed-minded ever notice that sort of thing),
but low-key enough not to disrupt the party.
Keith Lim
> Oy! We're here! We drink Caffeine-free Diet Pepsi! Get used to it!
Well, *I* wouldn't have anything to do with *that*!
<insert lots of smileys at this point>
--
Keit...@sfu.ca Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
>Opinions above are probably my own only...too weird to be anyone else's.<
"I can't be sure where I'm headed after death/To heaven, hell, or beyond to
that Great Vast/But if I can I would like to meet my Maker/There's one or
two things I'd sure like to ask" --Crash Test Dummies, "At My Funeral"
cmb...@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
[discussion about dealing with indoctrinated/bioted people]
> <sigh> I'm usually one for a fight on these sorts of issues, but
> lately I just haven't had it in me.
>
> Joe.
>
Get it in you Joe, get it in you! :-)
WRT problems of the gay and bi communities not seeing eye-to-eye:
Here at Strathclyde the Homosexual and Bisexual Club is one group,
just one big happy family!.
Incidently, at Strathclyde about 10 years ago a
"Heterosexual Decadence Club" was founded to encourage sexual
openness (and orgies!) amongst the heterosexual community.
They were refused a grant subsidy (which all other clubs receive)
and, if I remember were not allowed to promote their activities!
Admittedly, it was set up more in fun than seriousness, but...
Talk to you later.
Adios, J.
Joe P Woodhouse
>wood...@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>> No doubts about that! We did regret not politely & simply asking them
>>if they were bigotted about other issues too...
>
>I suppose a good response to "*I* would have no interest at all in
>*that*!" would be: "Don't worry, we wouldn't ask *you*!". Delivered
>in a similar tone of voice. Just insulting enough to get your point
>across (not that the closed-minded ever notice that sort of thing),
>but low-key enough not to disrupt the party.
Ha ha ha! The point is, we *did* subvocalise something like that when
we were bitching about it afterwards too! 8->
Joe P Woodhouse
>wood...@latcs3.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>> Oy! We're here! We drink Caffeine-free Diet Pepsi! Get used to it!
>
>Well, *I* wouldn't have anything to do with *that*!
Ha ha ha! Priceless!
Greg Connor
which I have thought about a lot, but I couldn't find anyone else to discuss
it with seriously.
I am married (and happily) and so far we have stayed within the socially
comfortable bounds of monogamy. But I cannot help but think of what it
might be like to expand the family to include more adults.
One thing I am curious about. Those of you who have what you would call a
"stable" polyamorous relationship, please share your thoughts about this:
Do you usually find that you have one BIG relationship where all partners
have open communication lines to all other partners? Or do you have a
collection of twosomes with partners dividing their time (for example
XY and XZ spend time together, but Y&Z barely know each other)?
For those of you who have had BOTH kinds, which do you like better?
Which do you find more stable?
Another (possibly naive) question: Do you usually find in your relationships
that there are 'dominant' pairings, and that one person may be more important
to you, (possibly the partner you have been with longest)? Or do you feel
that favoring one partner over the other would be unfair?
Thanks for being patient
-----------
Greg Connor
Brad Booth
In article <1992Sep8.1...@nic.csu.net>, con...@sonoma.edu (Greg Connor) writes:
> Do you usually find that you have one BIG relationship where all partners
> have open communication lines to all other partners? Or do you have a
> collection of twosomes with partners dividing their time (for example
> XY and XZ spend time together, but Y&Z barely know each other)?
> For those of you who have had BOTH kinds, which do you like better?
> Which do you find more stable?
The above questions triggered some thinking about past poly relationships that
my wife and I have had. Usually, any involvement has been started by my wife
and eventually the person has joined my wife and my relationship, but this
has mostly occured on a friendship level. It has been very stable and very
enjoyable for everyone involved.
Recently though, my wife has become seriously involved with another woman. I
have not met her yet, but I'm beginning to think that they are falling in love.
This is not the standard friendship that we've seen in the past and has been
forcing us to rethink and re-evaluate our relationship (in a good way). I guess
to answer your question: I'm finding that the circumstances really dictate how
the relationship will evolve... and talking about it helps.
> Another (possibly naive) question: Do you usually find in your relationships
> that there are 'dominant' pairings, and that one person may be more important
> to you, (possibly the partner you have been with longest)?
My wife and I have been the dominant pairing, but mainly due to the fact that
we live together. If we weren't married or didn't live/sleep together, then
the dominant pairing may be different. Again, circumstances have dictated this.
> Or do you feel
> that favoring one partner over the other would be unfair?
This is an interesting question... my wife has been feeling that she has been
favouring her lover over me. She feels that this is unfair to me, yet I have
no problems with this. I know that the two of them are early in their relation-
ship and (like all new couples) need more time to become familiar with each
other. This can cause a lot of stress if the other person feels ignored. I've
tried to step back and be more a friend than a husband... hopefully this will
ease her concerns and permit her relationship to grow with her lover.
Gambatte kudasai,
__o Brad Booth | "If somebody feels really good
_`\<,_ Bell-Northern Research | about who they are, they don't
(*)/ (*) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | feel threatened by what other
---------- bbo...@x400gate.bnr.ca | people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
Muffy Barkocy
>Do you usually find that you have one BIG relationship where all partners
>have open communication lines to all other partners? Or do you have a
>collection of twosomes with partners dividing their time (for example
>XY and XZ spend time together, but Y&Z barely know each other)?
Well, I have heard of some couples who insist that they both get
involved with anyone new, but I don't think that this would work for me.
However, I don't see just these two options. Between any two people,
there is a whole spectrum of possible feelings. For the most part, I
would prefer to be at least friendly with anyone my SO is involved with
(more than "barely knowing them"). Better would be to be quite friendly
with them. However, unless we are both interested in each other, we
wouldn't get involved; I certainly would not want to get involved just
because my SO wanted to.
This starts to answer your next question:
>Another (possibly naive) question: Do you usually find in your relationships
>that there are 'dominant' pairings, and that one person may be more important
>to you, (possibly the partner you have been with longest)? Or do you feel
>that favoring one partner over the other would be unfair?
It is not likely that any two relationships will be at exactly the same
point at a given point in time. Even if there is the potential to be
equally close to two people, the amount of time I have had with each
one, the experiences we have shared, what we know about each other,
etc., will all affect how close we are at any particular time. So, yes,
one relationship is usually the closest. However, this does not mean
that I would "favor one partner over the other." I would certainly have
to decide how much time and attention to spend on each one. If this
decision was made purely on the basis of who I was closest to, that
would pretty much preclude developing any new relationship, since the
old one would be the closest. If I am not prepared to treat a new
person well, which includes trying to give them enough time and
attention to make them happy with the relationship (this may, of course,
not be possible, even in a mono relationship), I don't think that I
should get involved with them at all. I would still be prepared to end
one relationship if it seriously threatened a more important one.
Muffy
Elf Sternberg
>Do you usually find that you have one BIG relationship where all partners
>have open communication lines to all other partners? Or do you have a
>collection of twosomes with partners dividing their time (for example
>XY and XZ spend time together, but Y&Z barely know each other)?
>For those of you who have had BOTH kinds, which do you like better?
>Which do you find more stable?
Well, you're right; it is a bit of a naive question. At the moment,
I have a pair of twosomes, one with with a man, the other with a woman.
It works as a "big" relationship only in that all three of us get along
very well, going out to movies and plays and the like, but on the other
hand they don't sleep with each other, while I sleep with each of them
independantly.
That seems to be _my_ modus operandi of choice; I'd rather have my
partners know each other, as well as possible. One of Omaha's current
playmates is a man I regularly have dinner with, a most preferable
situation over not knowing him at all.
>Another (possibly naive) question: Do you usually find in your relationships
>that there are 'dominant' pairings, and that one person may be more important
>to you, (possibly the partner you have been with longest)? Or do you feel
>that favoring one partner over the other would be unfair?
Do we need a FAQ, folks? Yes, there is most definitely in my
relationships a ranking of priorities. My wife always comes first, not
necessarily because she's been with me the longest but simply because
she _does_ come first.
When discussing humans, remember that, as a species, consistency has
never been one of our strong points. As feelings and experiences
shift, so too do people's importances in our lives. If there are
'priority' relationships, the fact that a certain partner has been
around the longest will only be a very small part of the equation.
Elf !!!
--
Elf Sternberg __ | I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
e...@halcyon.com \/ | has looked into me. Neither liked what we saw.
e...@polari.online.com | - Brother Theodore
Greg Connor
>
> Well, you're right; it is a bit of a naive question. At the moment,
> I have a pair of twosomes, one with with a man, the other with a woman.
> It works as a "big" relationship only in that all three of us get along
> very well, going out to movies and plays and the like, but on the other
> hand they don't sleep with each other, while I sleep with each of them
> independantly.
> That seems to be _my_ modus operandi of choice; I'd rather have my
> partners know each other, as well as possible. One of Omaha's current
> playmates is a man I regularly have dinner with, a most preferable
> situation over not knowing him at all.
Thanks for your response. I think if I were in a working poly-relationship
I would also like to be friends with all parties involved at least. I don't
think I could imagine it any other way. So I can understand your view.
This may not be the case in all multi-partner relationships, but I think that
would be the only way I would feel comfortable with it.
I trust my wife implicitly. If she were to become involved with someone else
I would like to think of that other person as a friend whom I can also trust.
This is not a necessary condition, but it would sure help. We have a close
relationship and we enjoy sharing everything with each other, so I would be
anxious to hear about the new relationship too, and I would like to think
that she could share with me what is going on without feeling like she is
betraying the other person's confidence. So I would want person C to be able
to trust me. I would also like to be able to trust person C enough to tell
him/her anything, so that anything could be shared about my relationship as
well. Also I would not have irrational fears that my wife was being stolen
away (it couldn't happen, but that doesn't preclude irrational fear) because
person C would have my best interests in mind as well as my wife's.
Ideally I would like to imagine a relationship where all parties could share
with each other equally. If there are three people, that makes for three
relationships. Four people would have six relationships, etc. Of course
not all of the relationships would be at the same point in development, but
I think they should all be "best friend/confidant" relationships at the very
least. I think this may be what you were leading to...
Phil Hees
>(Let us not say how we deal with people who drink caffiene free diet p**si..)
Caffeine-free diet pussi?! What will they think of next...
(I didn't know that the usual version was caffeinated. Maybe that's what's
been keeping me "up" nights.)
((For that matter, I didn't know that there was a need for a diet
version. How many calories are in one of those things, anyway?))
--
Phil Hees
he...@cubic.com
waw...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Zhahai Stewart
Greg, you will probably get a range of answers; I can speak only for
myself. My partner and I have found that multiple dyadic pairings don't
work well for us; what in our own terminology we have called "outside
relationships", which involve one of us going through the normal courtship
phases with someone else, not unlike what happens in many serially
monogamous relationships (open or hidden) during the overlap phase. If
this works for others, fine, but for us it triggered the wrong results.
So we are more interested in "inside" relationships, ideally opening our
closeness to let others join; sometimes it doesn't work out to match the
ideal, but at minimum we would only get involved with someone our partner
knew and liked. We have a strong commitment to not let our love or
communication "slide" in favor of a new relationship (even with the
natural "new relationship energy", which we recognize and deal with); one
way to say this is that we have a primary relationship with each other
which we don't want to lose. This does not mean that a new relationship
couldn't get to be "primary" also, but it would have to be because it grew
to a level approaching our existing one, not because we had diminished the
existing one. So far, we haven't found any co-primaries, and while that
could be really great, we won't go unsatisfied to our graves if it never
happens (we enjoy our defacto monogamous periods as well). In the best
case, we would both be very close to the other person(s), whether sexual
or not, and our "family" would grow.
We have dealt with jealousy by digging for the root causes and addressing
these, rather than focus too much on the symptoms. For whatever reason,
for example, I need a solid base of security in being able to count on my
partner, and I have gotten that (not automatically; we've had to do a lot
of processing and clearing of habits and patterns) - and when I get that,
jealousy is not much problem (hey, not zero problem, but then few things
are). In the most recent case of my partner being involved, I knew that
the other person really cared about me and my feelings, as I did about
them; I knew that if I needed to talk things out, or get reassurance, or
maybe make some changes, I could go to them as an ally as well as to my
partner. We were allies, not competitors; that felt good, and it strongly
reduced any tendency towards jealousy.
For background, we have been together for 15-17 years (depending on how
one counts the start), never with an expectation of monogamy rules, thos
we have been monogamous in practice more than half that time. Sometimes
it has been very painful, and sometimes ecstatic. / ~z~
Greg Connor
>
> Greg, you will probably get a range of answers; I can speak only for
> myself. My partner and I have found that multiple dyadic pairings don't
It is refreshing to hear you say that, because I was beginning to think that
multiple two-person relationships (set of pairs) was the only kind of
polyamory there was. Most of the people I have heard here, describing their
relationships, seem to say "I have my relationships, and my partner has
his/hers" But I don't think this would work very well for me. My wife and
I share everything. Why shouldn't we share our loves?
In the descriptions of the PEPCON convention I have also seen mention of
three- or more-sided relationships. I was glad to see this also. It seems
to me that I am hearing two different kinds of polyamory described: set of
pairings ('my' relationships, or 'my' lovers) and multi-way relationships.
I wonder which is more prevalent?
Could it be that our society pushes us by encouraging heterosexuality? The
maximum number of people that will fit in a single relationship depends on
their preference I would guess.
possible multi-way relationships where ALL partners share with all others:
1 strictly hetero male and 1 strictly hetero female
no more people may be added to this relationship without breaking
these people's sexual preference boundaries
1 strictly hetero male, N bi females
1 strictly hetero female, N bi males
this tends to be unbalanced I would guess
2 or more bi partners, mixed gender
2 or more homosexual partners of a single gender
So the only other option for strictly hetero people is to have several
relationships, but to make each relationship a separate entity (partially
or completely)...
> So we are more interested in "inside" relationships, ideally opening our
> closeness to let others join; sometimes it doesn't work out to match the
> ideal, but at minimum we would only get involved with someone our partner
> knew and liked.
This however seems to be a common thread, whether in parallel pairings or
in communal clusters. This cuts down on jealousy as you mentioned, since
it is harder to be jealous of someone who you trust and who has your best
interests at heart.
Also, it makes sense that your partners should both know and trust each
other even if they don't interact much: In my opinion, my relationship is
a large part of my personality, of who I am. I would like my friends (and
other lovers) to know about that part of me and respect and love it. Also
if my partners both know and trust each other then I don't have to feel
badly about sharing details of one relationship with the other partner.
I won't feel like I am betraying someone's confidence.
Just some ramblings... Take care all.
--------
-Greg
-I'm a programmer, but I DON'T do Windows!
John Clark
+
+Could it be that our society pushes us by encouraging heterosexuality? The
+maximum number of people that will fit in a single relationship depends on
+their preference I would guess.
+possible multi-way relationships where ALL partners share with all others:
I think you need to add 'share intimacy' since in most
'heterosexual' triads, all the partners have a 'relationship' one
with the other.(This could also be extended to even non-fidelitous
monogamous, in that the partners do have a 'relationship' i.e. the
lover relative to the married person's spouse. In relational space
this may be equivalent to a 'black hole'.)
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu