non-monogamy, not necessarily adultery
Apr. 30th, 2004 12:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lnrHang on a mo, do you think all non-monogamous sex is on a par with adultery? Because it doesn't seem like that to me.
How about a hypothetical example. L and R are a long term couple. K has two girlfriends J1 and J2 both fairly long-term, J2 has another boyfriend P who she's also been seeing for some time. If R and J1 and J2 are all happy about it, and P has no real opinion, is there any reason at all why K and L shouldn't go to bed together if that happens to seem like a good idea to them? Would it be different if any of the pairs involved are married? Is any of it adultery?
I don't mind if Richard wants to sleep with other people, I'd rather he checked if I have any specific objection to an individual before going ahead, but it's unlikely I would. I'd expect him to tell them the situation (if they don't already know) and to take sensible precautions.
Just because a relationship is non-monogamous doesn't mean there's no concept of cheating or lying. And doesn't mean it's not something to which you can have a lifetime commitment. I intend to be with Richard for the rest of my life.
This doesn't stop me being sweet on several other people. Some of these I won't do anything about because they're seeing someone else and are monogamous, and I'm very happy for them in their current relationship. Others because they believe in monogamy and aren't happy with seeing me under these terms even though they themselves are currently single. Hell at the moment I'm barely interested in sex at all (side effect of pills).
I'm pretty sure I could be monogamous if that was what Richard wanted. I've occasionally slipped up in monogamous relationships in the past, but I think I learned from them. Sometimes it feels life would be much easier that way even. But that's not the way it is.
Does any of this make sense?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-29 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-29 11:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-29 11:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 09:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 09:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 09:58 am (UTC)I am a non-smoker who occasionally has a cigarette. If we're being really picky I'm an ex-smoker who occasionally has a cigarette. Those occasional cigarettes (incredibly few and far between, admittedly) do not make me a smoker (again). So long as I am happy with it, and no one else is unhappy, it's acceptable. If it made unhappy anyone who mattered to me I wouldn't do it, and if I continued to it would be unacceptable. If everyone involved in polyamory (including monogamous partners) finds it acceptable, it's acceptable. If someone objects, but is ignored, it's not. Then it might be adultery, in that the ignored partner is being cheated on and lied to (which I find much worse than the actual sex, providing that sex is safe sex). Non-monogamous consensual relationships are not adultery, unless you're from the school of thought that says all unmarried sex is adultery. In which case fling the gates wide, most of us are going to Hell. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 12:15 pm (UTC)As with anything it depends on how you define the terms. You can define `adultery' in such a way that the given example isn't adultery, and you can define it in such a way that it is. According to the usual dictionary definition, none of this is adultery if the people involved aren't married, and it is if they are. Whether it's wrong or not is quite another matter. If you are someone who holds to strict Biblical principles then clearly it is wrong, and equally clearly if you believe in liberal or atheist principles then it's perfectly fine provided everyone involved is happy with it. As others have said, though, there's `happy' and there's `happy' (http://www.livejournal.com/users/nou/17056.html?thread=132000#t132000).
(Incidentally I don't subscribe to the opinion that `adultery' extends to non-married sex. That is, of course, not adultery but fornication. (-: )
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 03:26 pm (UTC)It bothers me when people apparently fail to see any difference between "I don't want to do that" and "You are evil because you do that". That's what we're ranting about.
And, just so you don't clobber me with the meta-stick of intolerance-for-intolerance, I certainly don't think it's evil to say "You are evil because you do that", I just don't think it's helpful. In the real sense, not the St Aldates "you're-a-disgusting-pervert-but-it's-not-PC-for-us-to-say-that" sense. It's just not helpful to anybody.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 08:19 pm (UTC)From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]: Adultery \A*dul"ter*y\, n.; pl. {Adulteries}. [L. adulterium. See {Advoutry}.] 1. The unfaithfulness of a married person to the marriage bed; sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife, or voluntary sexual intercourse by a married woman with another than her husband.Here, any consensual sex between a married person and someone else who is not their spouse is adultery. Seems simple.From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]: adultery n : extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce" [syn: {criminal conversation}, {fornication}]Now we have "willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations". That would seem to allow consensual poly relationships!From Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary [easton]: Adultery conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress."Illicit"... would consensual poly relationships be illicit in the eyes of the participants?Of course, "adultery" is an emotionally laden term. Even if we used Webster's definition, this is not to say that adultery is bad. Heh, as someone who regularly has sex with a married woman, it's good :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 11:03 pm (UTC)"Illicit"... would consensual poly relationships be illicit in the eyes of the participants?
In 1897 I should think all non-marital sex would have been viewed as illicit.
it's good
Well you would say that, wouldn't you.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-01 03:15 pm (UTC)Yeah, I used the "dict" command :-)
In 1897 I should think all non-marital sex would have been viewed as illicit.
For our culture as a whole, probably (heck, it probably still is) but that's why I explicitly said "in the eys of the participants", where I wouldn't be too sure. And other cultures... maybe not!
no subject
Date: 2004-05-01 12:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 01:36 am (UTC)Personally, I think it counts as adultery if you are supposed to be in a monogamos relationship and your SO has not agreed to a change of the rules, or if you are doing it in secret because SO would not approve (whether that is as part of a poly- or monogamos relationship). I also don't think it matters whether your married or not, as long as everyone knows as much as they want/need to know. Does that make sence?
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 07:46 am (UTC)I am of the 'polyamorous but never manage to pull anybody but my one partner' persuasion. People keep asking me whether it's hard being monogamous with somebody who's polyamorous and I have to say "I'm not! I'm just crap!" Boo to that.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 08:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 08:59 am (UTC)FWIW I'm 100% behind anyone who's monogamous. You can't make people be able to cope, as much as you might sometimes like to.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 09:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 09:21 am (UTC)I have to admit I get really pissed off with people who proclaim that poly is the one true way and everyone else is wrong (I don't mean you Ellie, don't worry!).
I think what Ellie said was very well put and made a lot of sense.
No real reason for the comment, I just wanted to use yet another new icon.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 09:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 09:57 am (UTC)erm..
something like that :)
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 09:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 10:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 10:27 am (UTC)On the other (third?) hand, I'm very bad at coping with relationships where $partner won't just tell me that they're unhappy with something: there's nothing more frustrating than "No, no, really, I'm fine" followed by protracted and pointed moping. (If I'm willing to give somebody the right of veto on what I do, then I want them to use it rather than trying to emotionally manipulate me in other ways!)
"Doesn't mind" is a different matter; if it's really "doesn't mind", then that's fine, but often it seems to mean "I do mind, but I daren't say so". This Does My Head In. See above.
I find it's hard to say "I don't mind" in such a way that people believe it. I mean, I really don't see sleeping-with-somebody-else as all that different from other ways that my partner can spend time doing stuff with people-who-are-not-me. Or just doing stuff on their own. I'd be just as hurt if they were neglecting me for faffing with Linux as if they were neglecting me for shagging someone else. (In fact possibly more hurt, because the shagging I can grok, but the Linux just shuts me out completely. But that's just me.) So a lot of the time I really actually don't mind if they want to go off with other people. I suppose I'm "happy about it" in a kind of abstract well-if-it-makes-them-happy way, but only as "happy" as I would be if they said "I'm taking night-classes in basketweaving, it's really interesting". "That's nice, dear." (But if basket-weaving took over their life, I'd be unhappy about it.) Other times I'm genuinely happy because I can see the relationship doing really good things for the people involved; I felt like that about
Sometimes I feel uneasy about things -- e.g. if I think the relationship is going to be bad for the people involved -- but I try not to veto things on that basis, because people have to make their own mistakes. So I guess that's an instance where I wouldn't be "happy", but I don't think it would go as far as being "unhappy" about it; just a feeling of "this-will-all-end-in-tears-you-know", & being resigned to the fact that I'll probably have to pick up at least half of the pieces when it does all go wrong. But, hey, that's life.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 03:26 pm (UTC)BSD girl then? Oops, you could take that two ways. Er, as it were. I'll stop now.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 09:09 am (UTC)For me, the important thing would be that it feels right for everyone involved; that's not something that can be logicked away, or (most of the time, I'd imagine) talked around/argued out. It's just not a rational thing, it's a gut reaction; "I can cope" versus "I can't deal with this". That's why I think turning a monogamous relationship into a poly one is so very hard; in a way, if it's going to work the relationship has always -been- poly, just that side of it hasn't been being expressed.
I know I couldn't cope with a polyamorous relationship, either on my side or on a prospective partner's; but that's not a general thing, and can't be construed to be one - but it disturbs me sometimes (and this isn't an accusation of anyone in this thread, though I'd be amazed if all of you didn't know at least one case of this) when monogamy is derided by one of polyamory's more strident advocates. It's not particularly pleasant to feel accused of being part of the Great Oppressive Majority, particularly when one tries quite hard not to be, just because one doesn't want to sleep with multiple different partners. I think there are real advantages to both monogamy and poly relationships, and it's a case of finding what works for oneself; caricaturing either way of being is just divisive and downright unpleasant.
If you're not coming from the (pseudo-)Christian moral backdrop of "all sex outside marriage (*) is adultery", and I'm not, I don't see how you can agree with the first line of your article; I'd draw the line at "anything that changes the nature of the relationship from what it was previously, or which one (or more) of the participants in the relationship is made unhappy by".
- A (wibbling aimlessly)
* (or long-term relationship, whatever)
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 10:42 am (UTC)I think for me this is rather like saying "There are real advantages to both heterosexuality and homosexuality". I mean, sure, there probably are -- if you're in a gay relationship you can more easily borrow your other half's underwear when you run out, right? -- but most people don't sit down and weigh the advantages and disadvantages; they just do what feels right to them, whether or not they engage with the politics of "self-identification" (moo).
I also think that, like gay/straight, mono/poly is more of a continuum than a binary divide. Some people really really are "wired for monogamy"; some people will experiment with "open relationships" but decide that in the long-term they want to settle down with one person; some people may be mostly-monogamous but not be averse to the odd "bit on the side" (with partner's blessing, in an ideal world); other people may decide that they're really only happy if they at least have the opportunity of being in multiple relationships.
I cannot think of a single principle which I would only apply to polyamorous relationships, or which I would only apply to monogamous relationships; but then, I don't draw rigid lines between "friends" and "lovers" and "partners" and so on. Even the most monogamous relationship in the world doesn't take place in a vacuum; the participants still have relationships (in the broadest sense) with other people: family, friends, colleages. All of these can trigger just as many emotions (both positive and negative) for all concerned as relationships which are recognised as "romantic" or sexual.
For me, honest and open communication is paramount in EVERY RELATIONSHIP UNDER THE SUN, from a brief transaction in a shop (I have to communicate what I want, they have to communicate how I can get it or why I can't) to agreeing on marriage vows, and all points inbetween. It's not a "poly thing", it's a people thing.
(All of this not intended as a criticism of you or indeed of anybody else -- just a convenient point to hang my own wibbling. One day I will get round to writing all this up into an essay. Or maybe a book.)
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 11:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 01:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 02:21 pm (UTC)I think my unease in absolute approval of communication as a good thing lies in the fact that communication can be used for ill (eg purely selfishly) rather than to improve the state of things; and if so, the communication itself hurts rather than mends.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 04:01 pm (UTC)I still think I'd rather somebody was honest (even if that honesty hurts) than not, all other things being equal. Even if they're using communication purely selfishly and even maliciously, that communicates something useful to me: namely, that I don't want to be around them if they're going to continue behaving like this.
(I have a feeling we may be violently agreeing...)
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 03:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-01 04:13 pm (UTC)