Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!anderson
From: anderson@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Scott Anderson)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Too much to ask?  -- a potentially damaging misconception
Message-ID: <1675@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-May-85 23:29:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ittvax.1675
Posted: Mon May 27 23:29:55 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 06:25:09 EDT
References: <849@sdcsla.UUCP> <1669@ittvax.UUCP> <1556@hao.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: ITT-ATC, Shelton Ct.
Lines: 58

> Scott Anderson (ittvax!anderson) in <1669@ittvax.UUCP> writes:
> > Basically, I think that if she wants to see other men, you've
> > already lost her @i(as a lover), and the question is whether you want
> > to try to keep her @i(as a friend).
> 
>   This is a potentially damaging misconception. Why does a lover have to
> be exclusive? I am currently involved in a relationship with a woman who
> has another lover, and it is still quite good for me. The reason it works
> is because everything is out in the open (at least between *us*). I know
> about him, he knows about me, etc. There's no sneaking around, or any pretense
> that she is my SO (or his, for that matter).
>   I only bring this up to point out that you *can* have a lover that is not
> an exclusive SO. Requiring that a lover be exclusive may be closing out a lot
> of wonderful relationships. As long as you have no expectations, you won't
> get hurt. It may turn into an exclusive relationship in the long run (in my
> case or Clark's) or it may not. I say, enjoy the present and quit worrying
> about the future. If you start worrying about her "leaving you" for another
> man, you may well create that happening.
> 
> --Greg
> -- 
> {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
>        		        !hao!woods
> 
> CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY

In the abstract, Greg makes a good point.  Jealousy is not the
inevitable result of non-exclusive (inclusive??) relationships,
especially when people feel secure and happy in the relationship as
it is.  I agree that non- exclusive relationships can be terrific,
and I personally wouldn't have anything against a situation like
Greg's.

It is true that requiring exclusivity can close out a lot of nice
non-exclusive relationships.  ANYTHING which is a constraint
necessarily closes out something, and some people might consider that
which is  closed-out valuable.  But in the specific case that Clark
describes, it seemed that Clark wanted an exclusive relationship with
this woman and wasn't getting it.  I boil our advice down thus:

Greg:  the problem is the exclusivity.  You shouldn't want her exclusively;
you should give her the space she needs/wants.  Stop being jealous.

Scott:  the problem is the pair.  It's okay to want exclusive relationships--
monogamy has a long and hoary tradition--but you're not going to find
it with this woman.  You'll have to look elsewhere for "Miss Right," and
decide whether to keep this woman as a friend or not.  Give up on her.

(I've probably misrepresented you, Greg.  Riposte at will.)

As I said, Greg and I see nothing wrong with non-exclusive relationships,
but if that's not what Clark wants, I think it's pointless to tell him
how great they can be.

Scott D. Anderson
decvax!ittvax!anderson
203-926-5594