Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

H&SBR: Cheating

Page: 1 2(3)4

Closed for Business Time

13:35 / 15.03.07

From Wikipedia: In sociology, a norm, or social norm, is a rule that is socially enforced. Social sanctioning is what distinguishes norms from other cultural products or social constructions such as meaning and values.

Just to clarify what I said to Haus. In my social groups, monogamy and honesty are norms that are socially enforced. They are also claimed by most of the members of those groups, but in absence of evidence to the contrary (re not cheating), I have no reason to disbelieve these claims.

13:36 / 15.03.07

XK, thanks for clarifying. I was assuming honesty with oneself as a prerequisite, although by doing so I think I'm guilty of underselling its worth.

Los, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as if you think monogamy is better than polyamory.

Closed for Business Time

13:37 / 15.03.07

... and... XPOST! And yes Haus, my friends are inhuman in that respect. We are not Mennonites. We're just inhumanly nice.

Closed for Business Time

13:38 / 15.03.07

Boboss - personally, I don't have the stomach for polyamory. But I did mean it when I said each to their own, different folks different strokes and all that.

13:45 / 15.03.07

Los, sorry to nit-pick but what you said was that you like to think that monogamy is *exclusively* the norm among your friends and loved ones, now, call me mad, but that reads like you wouldn't like to think that polyamory was the norm, or - and I'm thinking of your use of the word "exclusively" here - even present.

I too see some value in monogamy, but I also see great value in polyamory, even though I am unlikely to ever go near it. Some of my closest friends are polyamorists, by the way.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:48 / 15.03.07

I know what you mean. I respect the gays, each to their own, but I like to think all of my friends are straight. Even the gay and bisexual ones. Especially them.

What I really despise, however, are single people.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:48 / 15.03.07

Ah, so exclusive monogamy among your friends is the norm, in the sense of being the expectation of standard behaviour, which is a statement which has no relation to whether or not your friends are actually sleeping with other people? However, unrelated to that you also believe that they are not sleeping with other people? Of course, since this is the norm, it is in their interests, if they are sleeping with other people, not to let it be known, lest they suffer social sanction. So, the norm is perpetuated, but has no real connection to what people are, in fact, doing. Gotcha.

13:50 / 15.03.07

Most serial killers are single. What does that tell you?

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:52 / 15.03.07

That they are focusing on their careers.

13:54 / 15.03.07

And having children later in life.

Disco is My Class War

13:58 / 15.03.07

Yay (s)Ex.

Closed for Business Time

14:00 / 15.03.07

Boboss - I said "So for me, my SO, (and I like to think most of my friends and loved ones), exclusive monogamy is the norm". Unless my logical fu has entirely deserted me today, that does not strictly entail that (exclusive) monogamy is exclusively the norm among my friends. Although it certainly implies it, I must admit.

Wikipedia again - Polyamory (from poly=multiple + amor=love) is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. (see B? quoted in BOLD)

As far as I know, none of my friends practice polyamory as stated above. I take it that my loving, intimate relationship with my family doesn't count as polyamory? Haus, I'll get back to you. With my beasthunting, dick-swinging RPG character sheet-enhanced flamethrower.

Tryphena Absent

14:03 / 15.03.07

In my experience cheating (and being the "other woman". Let's not forget that!) are essentially pretty fucked up things that leave you resonating with insecurity, particularly if you end up in a relationship with the person who was cheating/you were cheating with. It's just that sometimes you don't care because you want to rip someone's clothes off (sometimes their brain clothes too). The relationship definitely doesn't make the earlier action morally justified though, it just confirms that you were cheating in every way.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:14 / 15.03.07

Polyamory (from poly=multiple + amor=love) is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

Is it me, or is that a bit value-laden?

14:15 / 15.03.07

Although it certainly implies it, I must admit.

Quite. But, yeah, my reading was a little off. That said, the question remains whether monogamy is privileged over polyamory in your way of thinking, Los (I'm still on that "like to think" thing). If so I have to ask why?

Closed for Business Time

14:22 / 15.03.07

For reference, here's a definition (well, sorta) from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq/

What's polyamory, then?

(Glad you asked that. ;-) ) Polyamory means "loving more than one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it (Why not - Mos Noltes). "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved in less than one.) Some people think the definition is a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly arrangements out there.

And from http://www.polyamorysociety.org/page6.html...
Polyamory is the nonpossessive, honest, responsible and ethical philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultanously. Polyamory emphasizes consciously choosing how many partners one wishes to be involved with rather than accepting social norms which dictate loving only one person at a time. Polyamory is an umbrella term which integrates traditional mutipartner relationship terms with more evolved egalitarian terms. Polyamory embraces sexual equality and all sexual orientations towards an expanded circle of spousal intimacy and love. Polyamory is from the root words Poly meaning many and Amour meaning love hence "many loves" or Polyamory. Of course, love itself is a rather ambiguous term, but most polys seem to define it as a serious, intimate, romantic, or less stable, affectionate bond which a person has with another person or group of persons. This bond usually, though not necessarily always, involves sex. Sexualove or eromance are other words which have been coined to describe this kind of love. Other terms often used as synonyms for polyamory are responsible, ethical or intentional non-monogamy.

I see loads of values entering into this. I'm also having a hard time getting my brane around this concept, but that's certainly a good thing. Still learning, at least.

14:24 / 15.03.07

Have you checked out the threads I linked to on the first page? Lots of good discussion in 'em.

Closed for Business Time

14:32 / 15.03.07

Boboss - monogamy isn't privileged over polyamory in my way of thinking, if by privileged you mean that I place a higher moral premium on monogamy than polyamory. If you meant, do I personally seek out and enjoy monogamous relationships, and happily let others enjoy their polyamorous romps, most certainly.

Why? Sheesh.. Cowardly, I fall back on socialisation and personal history, which has taken place in a universe where heteronormative and AFAIK monogamous norms reign (in blood). That said, I have friends and acquaintances across the spectrum from militant straight heteros to L/G/B/Ts, and I hope you believe me when I say that I'm happy for them as long as they're getting good stuff out of, alternatively putting good stuff into, whatever type of relationship or lack thereof they've pursued.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:46 / 15.03.07

A good way to demonstrate that might be not to describe what you do as "relationships" and what they do as "romps", though, LosM. I'm sure it was not malicious, or indeed intentional, but it is quite interesting that this is how the language plays out.

At the risk of getting Sapir-Whorf about it, the various ways language operates arond non-monogamy is interesting. In particular the _bloody horrible_ neologisms. Eromance. Frubbly. Erosexual. Metamour. Gah. Gah. Gah. There's a point about écriture feminine in there, but my eyeballs are bleeidng too hard to discern it.

14:49 / 15.03.07

Hey, I don't think it's cowardly to not engage in polyamory, and would stridently resist claims that polyamory is inherently superior or more mature.
There are real disadvantages to the polyamorous practices I have encountered - time, ability to service multiple relationships satisfactorily, difficulty out growing ingrained tendancies towards monogamy, negotiation of boundaries - just as there are real disadvantages to monogamous practices. What bothers me is the privileging of monogamy over polyamory in terms of moral worth, and practical value. That monogamy is somehow best.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure I like the dichotomy created by the use of the terms in question...

14:51 / 15.03.07

^Swap "disadvantages" for "difficulties".^

Closed for Business Time

14:53 / 15.03.07

Point taken, Haus. I do admit to a hetero-mono bias. At least it's not totally unconscious. But, pleading innocence, in my non-native speaker dictionary, romping is a most pleasurable activity.

Merriam-Webster makes my biases even more embarrasing..

Main Entry: 1romp
Pronunciation: \ˈrämp, ˈrȯmp\
Function: noun
Etymology: partly alteration of 2ramp; partly alteration of ramp bold woman
Date: 1691
1: one that romps; especially : a romping girl or woman
2 a: high-spirited, carefree, and boisterous play b: something suggestive of such play: as (1): a light fast-paced narrative, dramatic, or musical work usually in a comic mood (2): an episode of lovemaking
3: an easy winning pace; also : runaway 3

Not only am I a closet sexual fascist, but a misogynist to boot. Grr.

Ex

15:09 / 15.03.07

To yank all this back to my personal experience, which is of course VERY MEANINGFUL, I cheated on a partner when younger, and had various reasons which weren't primarily about lust (although they probably all made me feel more lusty about it). I wanted to be the person I felt like when with the other person (romantic, generous, interesting). I liked interacting with the social group of that person.

Partner didn't find out, and I stopped. But it distorted my interractions with my partner; even the ways in which it could have made our relationship 'better' (I was subsequently more patient, communicative, affectionate) were oddly loaded, because it wasn't about us any more - it became all about my own sense of guilt/making it up to partner, rather than our relationship itself. So I swung between contrition and resentment, with the third person was kind of skewing the balance years after they'd actually shoved off. I don't intend to do it again.

(Oh, and I have been an acessory to someone else's breaking-relationship-rules once (wittingly) because I thought his girlfriend was - there's no polite way to put this - basically imaginary. She lived two hours away on the train, but they'd never met and they'd been in a monogamous relationship for about three months. I even offered to give him the money to go and see her, which he declined. The fact that they split up about two hours after they finally met does not mean that I was not dodgy. I should not take it as a sign that my lust is always right in the end. Nonono.)

15:09 / 15.03.07

Hey, I don't think it's cowardly to not engage in polyamory, and would stridently resist claims that polyamory is inherently superior or more mature.
There are real disadvantages to the polyamorous practices I have encountered - time, ability to service multiple relationships satisfactorily, difficulty out growing ingrained tendancies towards monogamy, negotiation of boundaries - just as there are real disadvantages to monogamous practices. What bothers me is the privileging of monogamy over polyamory in terms of moral worth, and practical value. That monogamy is somehow best.

Well... it seems to me that going back to what Haus said:

polyamorous relations tend to need to define their terms rather than assuming their shared preexistence

being sexually mono vs. poly isn't the place we should be looking but rather are we successful in communicating and defining our relationships with the people we're having them with?

So rather than judge based on the quantity, maybe it's about the quality?

I've had very successful sexually mono relationships based around the idea that we're emotionally poly and therefore can't assume shit about what's going to happen. There's a release valve on the mono status through the use of honest and thoughtful communication. So poly by definition (equipped with poly dialogue), mono in practice seems to work.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:10 / 15.03.07

Well, hey, it's this kind of thing that we are all working to help each other to examine and understand, in our various ways. I think there often is an unconscious assumption, or indeed a conscious assumption, that polyamory is about wanting or having more sex, a lack of self-control or boundaries, that it is effectively swinging with a LiveJournal.

Of course, an individual polyamorous relationship might display any or all of those traits in a more or less functional way - but then, so might a notionally monogamous relationship. It's a bit like langue and parole, I guess.

15:20 / 15.03.07

Thinking about it, I'm not sure I like the dichotomy created by the use of the terms in question...

I do see the gaping cracks in the vs thing, but I'm only just starting to think them through. With a bit of help from lovely Barbeland, natch

15:22 / 15.03.07

...I did stress that I was only talking about the polyamorous relationships I have encountered, and not attempting to define all polyamorous relationships.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:23 / 15.03.07

That to MosNolte. Quick thread!

Closed for Business Time

15:46 / 15.03.07

Waddyamean? Me being a sexua fascist & misogynist-thread? Pardon me, your Hausilious Majesty, my brane is not what it could be today.

Or could it be Sapir-Whorf in light of terms used for sexual relations outside one's own experience?

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:00 / 15.03.07

Sorry, LosM. Hilariously, in the time it took me to post that, two more people had posted in between. What I meant was that thhe comment by me a couple of posts above that was a direct response to your post about romping, yet further above.

Closed for Business Time

16:13 / 15.03.07

Hah. Me brane-weak. You meant that the thread moved quickly. I read it as... well, you know from my previous post. I was just re-reading some of the threads the Boboss linked to on page 1. Seriously, we could do with H&SBR forum, no? It's not like those threads, good as they are, are the be all end all. More more more, and not constrained by HS rules (excellent as they are).

16:52 / 15.03.07

What does everyone think of the third party person? I have this friend who's almost never in a relationship, but always seems attracted to people who are. He usually ends up attracted to these people, becomes friends, and eventually ends up sleeping with them. And nothing weird or strange happens afterwards, they continue being friends, don't sleep together anymore usually and that's that.

But the guy's done it several times, and he wonders if he is attracted to people because they're in a relationship, or just that the people he's attracted to happen to be in a relationship. The guy usually doesn't really become friends with the girl's boyfriends, and maybe because of this he never really feels guilty.

When the guy's in a relationship, which isn't very often, he doesn't really care if his other cheats on him, although he kinda feels that he shouldn't cheat on them. He feels that he doesn't own his partner, so if she wants to do something with other people it's her life ya'know, but on the other hand he knows that it would usually hurt her feelings if he cheated on her.

Does this guy have some kinda weird fetish?

Tryphena Absent

16:59 / 15.03.07

So I swung between contrition and resentment, with the third person was kind of skewing the balance years after they'd actually shoved off

I think that's potentially a problem in any monogamous relationship where there's been a third person no matter on the situation, I think that's probably where my problem with the confirmed relationship idea comes from. You're never going to win in a situation where your actions mean hurt unless you're mildly psychotic (in the true sense of the word).

Denfield are you talking about yourself? You can tell us, we don't mind.

17:04 / 15.03.07

Denfield are you talking about yourself? You can tell us, we don't mind.
The H&SBR sometimes make me feel red faced or emberassed, but on the other hand I think I'm too lazy to do the secret poster thing.

17:06 / 15.03.07

Well, not knowing your friend it is hard to say really but I have known some folks who prefer being involved with people already in a primary relationship because their emotional needs are for the most part being met. The requirements of the secondary relationship are often viewed through the extra bonus lens rather than the 'holy crap we need to have our shit together to survive' life partner lens.

your friend may just prefer a lower expectation relationship, which is not the same as a lower quality one.

Or in the other direction I have a friend who likes to be the white knight to damsels in failing relationships. The sexy romantic hero rescuing the neglected lady is his focus. Lot's of over stepping other people's relationship lines there.
Of course all the men think he's an uber asshat and not a few of us ladies wished we'd been a bit smarter about who we invited to climb up the trellis...

Just because someone wants you does not mean they are qualified to have you.

Page: 1 2(3)4