Re: "The Exclusiveness Ideal" (South Bay Poly November Topic)

I think the exclusiveness in monogamous relationships only applies sexual
relations, and there are good reasons for that. It prevents the spread of
venereal disease. It identifies responsible parents for any children born.
It reinforces the commitment of two people to each other. Most monogamous
relationships are not exclusive, outside of sex. A person may have many
friends, may join in various clubs or special interest groups, and may know
a great many people well and be known well by them.

So, I disagree with the assertion that it "makes two people utterly
dependent upon one another". The issue is how well adjusted each person is
within themselves and what kind of support groups they have beyond each
other. The same personality issues which make a person "utterly dependent"
upon one person will carry forward to any poly relationship, leaving them
"utterly dependent" upon the group. And that is not much of an improvement.


"WABaldwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (See separate posting for South Bay Poly November meeting info)
>
> "The Exclusiveness Ideal"
>
>
> Exclusive relationships are the ideal in American society, but I can't
help
> wondering if they are wise.
>
> Exclusiveness makes two people utterly dependent upon one another, and
> eliminates alternatives.  If anything happens to one of the partners, the
other
> is left in a difficult situation.
>
> This appears to be exactly what some people want:  You are forced to be
utterly
> dependent on each other, and therefore must remain together, no matter
what.
> The benevolent side of this:  "We must hang together or we shall hang
> separately."  The malevolent side:  "Pull out of this and you're ruined."
This
> gives an entirely new spin to the familiar sayings:  "We need each other."
"I
> need you, Baby."  "I can't get along without you, Baby."  Meaning,
perhaps:  I
> don't love you; I don't even like or respect you; but I *need* you.  I'm
> *dependent* on you.  I'll be *ruined* if I leave you.
>
> This is not good way to relate.
>
> But wait -- what about the good exclusive relationships?
>
> Are there such things?  Isn't exclusiveness itself perhaps unhealthy?
>
> By putting you in a rut and keeping you there (like an actor who is
typecast
> and never gets to expand to other roles); by limiting you (like the person
who
> has potential in several areas, but can only get hired in one); or like
> monolithic political systems.
>
> People should always be given the option of change.  People should always
be
> allowed to consider alternate points of view or alternate ways of doing
things.
>  People should be allowed to choose from a mix of choices; to "mix and
match";
> to blend and customize.  Exclusivity too easily leads to stagnation.
>
> And those of you who may truly want to have only one, exclusive
relationship --
> I would suggest that even you may want to keep open the possibility of
other
> relationships.  If your "one and only" relationship is truly
one-of-a-kind,
> then...keeping open the possibility of an alternative should reinforce for
you
> just how unique your relationship actually is.
> --
> soc.religion.unitarian-univ is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages
to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], and see http://sruu.iecc.com for the FAQ and posting policy.
--
soc.religion.unitarian-univ is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and see http://sruu.iecc.com for the FAQ and posting policy.