RE: Fidelity (WAS: RE: CFCs and ethics)

From: Billy Brown (bbrown@transcient.com)
Date: Mon Nov 08 1999 - 18:33:54 MST


Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> I've always though something like Heinlein's "line" marriages
> would be better suited to a modern society. Plenty of people
> around to pool resources, care for children, and have some
> degree of sexual variety while keeping intimacy and maintaining
> a history and consistent values.

That seems like a good possibility, although I think Heinein tended to make
marriage groups much larger than is actually practical. I suspect it would
be very difficult to maintain a group much bigger than 4-5 people, because
the number of interpersonal relationships involved becomes too large.
Besides, it was hard enough to find one person I wanted to marry - finding a
group that big would seem to require either impossibly good luck or rather
low personal standards.

I tend to favor smaller group marriages involving 3-5 partners, with gender
balance varying depending on the orientations of the individuals involved.
However, I can see plenty of other workable arrangements, from an open
version of the traditional marriage to various fluid forms of polyamory. I
think the important rules are simply:

1) Be open and honest with each other about everything.
2) Talk about and agree on the rules for your relationship up front.
3) Don't try to put restrictions on your partner(s) for no good reason.
4) Do insist on rules about the things that really matter to you.
5) Be realistic in your expectations.

Of course, this approach runs directly counter to the expectations of
Western culture. After all, <love conquers all>, <only love matters>, <your
head can't (and shouldn't) understand your heart>, and "I do" comes just
before you segue to the happy ending scene, right?

Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@transcient.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:44 MST