Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 3/23/84; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!cbosgd!rbg
From: rbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: affairs
Message-ID: <145@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jul-84 15:12:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.145
Posted: Fri Jul 20 15:12:25 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jul-84 04:53:00 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 71

<line-eaters still lurk>

The subject of affairs is an interesting one which has come up in several
ways in the past few months, but not gotten a very thorough discussion.  
By affairs I mean generally not being monogomous.  There are other ways to
say it, depending on the relative status of the relationships involved.
They might be called flings, or the issue might be fidelity, or someone
might just be dating more than one person at a time when things get serious
on more than one front simultaneously, all the way to having more than
one SO (the Mormons and a lot of other cultures have supported this notion).
The BIG problems with these relationships are the destructive feelings they 
can generate, guilt and jealousy, which are dictated by the social norms.  
However, affairs of all kinds are not just the product of the "sexual 
revolution", they have occurred throughout history (including the bible), 
and probably prehistory too (not to mention primate behavior).

Just a few more generalizations before I get down to cases.  I am not 
necessarily either advocating or denouncing affairs, just curious to hear 
about real situations and feelings.  My own feeling is that the meat
market approach to relationships is a big loss, but that it really is 
possible to care about and be sexually involved with more than one person.
Dr. Zhivago is my favorite example of someone who really cared about both
of his SOs.  However, it often seems that an affair is less threatening 
(and thus more acceptable) without emotional involvement. Another 
generalization I've discussed with friends (both men and women) is that many
women tend to get emotionally involved with their sexual partners while men 
often find it easier to separate the physical and emotional aspects of 
relationships.  None of this discussion is meant to imply a male prerogative
in this domain - nice women have affairs too!  Just that people may approach
affairs differently.  It is also important to add, that I also do not believe
in deception.  If I am involved with more than one person, I try to be open 
about it, without harping on it.  This is a delicate problem:  how to say 
you care about someone and care about someone else too, without causing 
hurt feelings.  The big issue here is trust.  Not just trusting someone 
to maintain fidelity, but to go on caring and loving.  You have to be pretty
secure to allow yourself to become that vulnerable.

Now that some of the generalities are out of the way, I'll start things off
with a few examples.  One situation I've been in I've heard called "geographic
monogomy."  This means no more than one lover at a time per city visited.  
When I moved to a new city, I continued to visit a girlfriend in the place 
I had moved from, and started meeting new people and making new relationships 
in a new city.  Psychologically, this situation is easier to rationalize.
Like all such situations, it has the hazard of the balance changing for which 
relationship is most important.  

I have also been known to use personal ads as an alternative to meeting
women in bars.  The result is often that you suddenly have lots of people 
(sometimes too many) who are interested in meeting you.  In the process of
getting to know some of the more interesting ones, unpredictable things
usually happen, and it can lead to multiple involvements.  Sometimes this
leads to getting pressure from several directions to pick just one.  But
if you don't know each other that well (years) this can be a risky choice.
Then again, nothing in life (that's worth much) is guaranteed.  I tried to 
keep such a situation intact for a while, and while it was occasionally
rocky, I am still friends with all involved (and still involved with one
of my understanding SOs from that period).

I haven't been entirely consistant in my approach to this subject, but it
isn't entirely a rational realm.  I hope there is enough here of interest
to generate some lively discussion (and less personal flaming than we
have been subjected to recently).


Rich Goldschmidt    Nothing in life (that's worth much) is guaranteed

UUCP:  {ucbvax|ihnp4|decvax|allegra}!cbosgd!rbg
ARPA:  cbosgd!rbg@Berkeley.ARPA