Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    Hmmmm... I never personally use the expression "having sex" as I
    prefer to think of it as "making love" so perhaps we are not talking
    about the same thing. There is a difference I believe. 
    
    I'm not a particularly religous person and if anything, I would
    recommend pre-marital sex but when we get onto this topic then the
    "touchiness" of it rings all sorts of bells that maybe we're dealing
    with something different. And indeed, in my opinion, we are.
    
    Whilst many people could get very emotional about playing tennis
    (I've lost a few games myself !!) the "emotion set" is entirely 
    different and I personally could not relate to the two activities
    as a similar experience. Making love involves great deal of caring
    and affection - something I've never found with playing tennis or
    going to a movie. In addition, when you marry, you make
    a commitment to someone and that commitment includes being faithful
    (both morally and legally) - I personally would feel very hurt if
    I had a wife and she nipped out every so often for a "quick bit on
    the side". (apologies Mr Moderator if this is sailing too close
    to the wind - I couldn't think of another way to put it !).
    
        I personally dont believe that there is room within marriage
    for sexual relations with another person. I think the
    hurt it causes is unnacceptable between two Adults who care for each
    other and it rather denigrates the process.
    
        People who are not ready to commit fully to another person
    should remain single until they are - that way we would probably
    have fewer divorces and a lot more happy people in the world. 
    How many marriages have dissolved in bitterness because of this
    I wonder ?. For me, it simply wouldn't be worth it.
    
    Steve  
                                   

    Eric Osman is correct in that there may be no external reason why
    people behave and feel as they do about sex outside of marriage,
    and that as a activity, sex has no external reason to be any more
    significant than tennis.
    
    There might, however, be an internal reason, one which is part of the
    design of the human animal, which makes sex different from tennis.
    I believe this is the case.
    
    The human animal shows certain connections between the external
    world and its internal emotional state.  One of those hard-wired
    connections is that between sex and pair-bonding.  Another is
    that between "infantness" and the desire to hold and protect.
    ("Infantness" is the name for a collection of factors: small size,
    rounded body contours, large head and small jaw, large unfocused eyes,
    a particular smell; those things which are true of babies, puppies,
    teddy bears, some dolls, Mickey Mouse and other "cute" things.)
    
    Given that the machinery we inhabit has known behaviour of this
    sort, it is rational to avoid trouble by not entering into situations
    where trouble is likely to occur.  Thus, given the likelihood of
    pair-bonding to a sexual partner, it is rational to avoid the
    complications attendant on the disruption of one bond and the
    establishment of another by not having casual intercourse.
    
    I hope this is mechanistic enough!
    					-John Bishop

    First I think we need to clarify your question.  Are you asking
    it about your personal situation or more globally?  In your situation
    the answer is simply what vows you spoke.  If you promised to be
    faithful then that kind of answers the question, no?
    
    More generally though, fidelity and marriage is the way to ascertain
    the financial responsibility of males to the children they father.  The 
    "rules" were drawn up long before reliable birth control and are the 
    result of society having decided long ago that each man would be
    financially responsible for the results of his own sexual behavior.
    
    Take away the issue of children and fidelity really is nothing more
    than ego-salve.  That's not to say we don't NEED it - few egos are
    strong enough to stand the inevitable sexual comparison that would
    result.  Could yours?  Really?
    
    There's no question that tennis or hiking or any other inocuous
    activity can lead to a new 'allegiance', and also that sex doesn't
    necessarily always lead that way, then it follows that there must be 
    some OTHER reason for the taboo against sex with another person.  I 
    think it's simply the sexual comparison itself whether or not it leads 
    to a new 'allegiance'.   Love may have no pride but it doesn't like having
    its strength tested too often, either.  The more secure a person is,
    the less frantic one tends to be about being so compared but this kind
    of self-assurance is very rare and not something you can accurately
    ascertain ahead of time.  So the chances are very good that most
    infidelities would destroy the person 'left-behind'.  No one could
    make me want to destroy a man I loved.  No one.
    
    If you can't even discuss this with your wife then you've got a
    pretty good idea how she feels about it.  If you love her, you'd
    better think long and hard, (no pun intended), about those 'possibili-
    ties', why you took the vows you did and why your momentary desires
    seem sometimes more important than the entire self-image of the woman
    you say you love.
    
    Sandy
    

    Amen to .4!
    
    If I were you, Eric, I would want to check out completely that line
    you put in about what "..the rule seems to be".  Seems to me you
    better make REAL sure you know (and your wife knows) what the rules
    are.  
    
    And I agree--forget religious considerations--think about the person
    you married, and your relationship with her;  moreover the trust
    involved in marriage.  Sex is NOT in the "tennis with a friend"
    catagory.
    
    Jane

In response to the comment "I only require competence to hike with someone,
I don't have to like them, unlike sex in which like is important".

I personally don't enjoy hiking with someone I don't like, and I don't
like sex with someone I don't like.  Sure, if it's a group hike, then
if there's a few in the group I don't like so what.  But if it's just
me and you, I want to like you to hike with you, or it's a drag.

In response to "infidelity" and "what are my vows":

My question about sex with others is NOT a question about infidelity.
I'm talking about ACKNOWLEGED sexual relations with others.

My vows with Barbara are fairly clear.  We are committed to supporting
each other and to be honest with each other.  So our vows clearly don't
include infidelity.

But our vows DO allow the possible inclusion of "new" activities within
our marriage.  And if either of us thinks a "new" activity might be
against the other person's wishes, then we need to discuss it before
doing it.

So, no, I wouldn't go jump someone's bones without talking to Barbara
first.

I would go to lunch with someone or play tennis, because we've already
established that that is o.k.

This might seem trivial to some of you.  But I know of a number of marriages
where even lunch or tennis (a movie, forget it!!) with a non-spouse of
opposite sex would mean arguments, jealousy, suspicion, all sorts of things.

The reason for my original question is that I feel attracted to other
women, and sometimes I wonder if it would be possible to include sexual
relations with others in our marriage.

I'm trying to look at this from an open viewpoint.  If sex-only-with-spouse
is of historical origin, then there's a possibility.  If there are real
biological and insurmountable psychological reasons why this can't work
without threatening marriage, as was suggested by some replies, then maybe
it's not a possibility.

Does sex with another necessarily threaten the committment and love
between a married couple ?  I'm not convinced it necessarily does.

Sure, you develop bonds with someone you have sex with.  But expectations
may have a more major role than we realize.  If you're single and EXPECT
that maybe you'll fall in love, that's one thing.  But what if you're
married and EXPECT that you'll just be friends with this sexual partner,
and you EXPECT to reamin married (or you expect your new sexual partner
to remain married with theirs) ?  Then, maybe sex doesn't mean "getting
involved".

That is, maybe there can be the wonderful exciting short time together
occasionally between the spouse and non-spouse without it "leading
to something else".

/Eric

I think that I'd rather keep sex/making love, as something special...

Jim.

    Eric, this is something that I've thought out carefully (for myself),
    because I'm not only concerned about maintaining the trust in my
    marriage, but also in why I believe what I do.
    
    Part of the commitments in my marriage are that there will be no
    sexual partners outside the marriage.  My reason for committing
    to this (I believe my husband's are more territorial in nature)
    has to do with how I define my marriage.
    
    I decided that if we are to have a relationship that matures and
    develops as we do, we must each have outside interests, friends,
    activities, but if we are to maintain the core of the relationship,
    we must have something that is exclusive to the two of us; ie.
    something that no one from the outside can affect or violate.  
    
    If I was willing to give *all* that I give to my husband to someone
    else, or some of it to one person and some of it to another, so
    that nothing remained that I shared with no one else but my husband,
    it would drain the relationship of the vitality that it will need
    to survive the next fifty-sixty years.  
    
    Pretty high flown!  
    
    Also, I think the physical/emotional factors involved in sex make
    us vunerable.  Sexual exclusivity in a marriage takes away a lot
    of the fear involved in vunerability, because we are in a situation
    where we have reason to trust.
    
    Gloria
    

>My question about sex with others is NOT a question about infidelity.
>I'm talking about ACKNOWLEGED sexual relations with others.

I'm not clear on your distinctions.  You're going to have to define
'acknowledged' because I read your base note as you looking for a way
to GET sexual relations with others 'acknowledged' but you've been so
far unsuccessful because your wife is antsy about discussing it.  Could 
the word acknowledged be replaced with 'accepted' - 'tolerated' - 
'approved'?

Infidelity - Lack of fidelity or loyalty; unfaithfulness.  

Infidelity has nothing to do with whether it is 'acknowledged' or not
so like it or not, you are discussing infidelity and what you seem to be 
looking for is some info and support and reasons why it can/should be in-
cluded into your marriage.

>But our vows DO allow the possible inclusion of "new" activities within
>our marriage.  

This statement makes me feel very cold.  Clearly the phrase "new activities 
within our marriage" does NOT automatically mean "new sex partners" - if
it did you would have no base note here.  You're really stretching it to
fit your own desires and I can't help feeling you're looking here for valid-
ation of something you have already thought out and decided on.

>So, no, I wouldn't go jump someone's bones without talking to Barbara
>first.
>I would go to lunch with someone or play tennis, because we've already
>established that that is o.k.

Then I don't understand what your note is asking.  If you wouldn't jump
anyone's bones without taking to your wife first I suppose that's commend-
able.  I can't help but feel you are looking for arguments to give her when 
she says simply, "no" as you, (and I and probably 9/10's of the readers), 
expect she will.

>The reason for my original question is that I feel attracted to other
>women, and sometimes I wonder if it would be possible to include sexual
>relations with others in our marriage.

Talk to Barbara like you said you would.  I'm sure she'll let you know if 
such a thing is possible.  What we say/think/do/feel doesn't count at all.

>I'm trying to look at this from an open viewpoint.  If sex-only-with-spouse
>is of historical origin, then there's a possibility.  

Regardless of what Barbara feels?  Are you looking for facts to use against
her protestations?  She only has feelings but you have HISTORICAL FACTS??
Feelings are valid and they are going to affect your life far more than
historical facts no matter how many of them you have.  I shudder to think
anyone ever thought MY feelings were little more than an obstacle to be 
overcome with the right words or the right 'facts'.

>Does sex with another necessarily threaten the committment and love
>between a married couple ?  I'm not convinced it necessarily does.

And what does Barbara think?  What is SHE convinced of?

>Sure, you develop bonds with someone you have sex with.  But expectations
>may have a more major role than we realize.  

You are kidding yourself far more than you realize.  If the attraction is
SO strong you're willing to risk your marriage for it, (and you know that's
what you would be doing),  then it doesn't sound like you have as much control 
of the situation as you think.  That you can be lead away from your wife will 
have already been established.  What you still don't know is how FAR you can
be lead away and you WON'T know until you get there.  You are playing with 
fire when you think your world can be controlled solely by you.  What if the
other woman isn't so self-controlled?  What if she falls in love?  Gets
pregnant?  Has a silent disease?  Gets into a car accident when with you?
You are thinking only of yourself and expect everyone around you will be-
have according to your neat little plan.  

>That is, maybe there can be the wonderful exciting short time together
>occasionally between the spouse and non-spouse without it "leading to some-
>thing else".

Go ask Barbara.  She'll tell you where it will lead.  But I suspect you have
already decided you have some sort of human right here and that Barbara just 
needs the proper convincing, i.e. to see it your way.  I would be packing up
my heart if you were mine.

Sandy
    

    GEE i must be pretty closed mined but if i were married or in love
    with someone, i would not want them making love to someone else.
    no matter how open minded i thought i was man would that hurt. I
    SEE nothing wrong with having friends of the opp. sex but that is
    as far as it must go. why do we marry or love these people if it
    is not for us wanting to share ourselfs with them only. it would
    make me sick to think my loved one was making love to anyone but
    me. i guess i live in the 80's and i am an 80's person, but when
    it comes to your loved one's. HANDS OFF

    Re:    definition of "acknowledged sexual relations with others"
    
    
    	What I mean is, AGREED by both spouses that yes, we may have
    	a sexual relationship with another person.
    
    	So, I'm elminating "sneaky".  And I'm eliminating "doing it
    	against the wishes of the other spouse".
    
    Re:  talk to Barbara, feelings vs. historical stuff
    
    	Yes, I have talked to Barbara, and plan to talk ALOT more.
    	It's difficult though.  (that's one of the things about this
    	conference, sometimes I can talk here before elsewhere)
    
    	Yes, her feelings matter a great deal to me.  I wouldn't
    	just go jump some beauty's bones before Barbara and I had
    	resolved the issue.
    
    Re:	    "you've already made up your mind and are just looking for
    		how to convince Barbara"
    
    	No.  False.  I sometimes feel I'd like the oppurtunity to
    	have an "adventure" with another, but I'm not demanding that
    	this come to pass.
    
    	I'm attempting to toss the idea into the open (here and at home)
    	for discussion.
    
    Re:	Packing up heart
    
    	Yes, if I were really set on actually going ahead and having
    	an adventure, and Barbara were against it, and I proceeded,
    	then sure, I could understand her packing up and leaving.
    
    	But there's all the world of difference between fantasy and
    	action.
    
    	I think there are alot of marriages that are stuffy because
    	the partners don't dare to talk about their fantasies, because
    	they think the fantasies are "wrong".
    
    	If in my marriage I can get to the point where we admit our
    	fantasies, that's alot more healthy.
    
    Thanks for sharing, Sandy.  I can really feel you put alot into
    what you said !  Phew.  This all gets nerve-racky sometimes.
    
    /Eric

    "Jump some beauty's bones".  Listen to yourself.
    
    And if you're replacing the word 'acknowledged' with 'agreed' then
    I still don't understand your question because in your case it is NOT 
    agreed.  It is NOT even discussed very much. You know that - you said 
    that.  YET you write this base note and wonder.  Why do you still
    wonder?  You have your answer and yet you are not satisfied with it 
    because you are still wondering, still 'fantasizing' about the surface-
    area of other women and how much you are 'missing' by letting their
    beautiful bones walk away.
    
    You my man are simply not ready for marriage and it's a shame Barbara
    didn't see it.  You're eliminating 'sneaky' TODAY.  But because
    you think the grass really is greener despite the fact that Barbara
    wisely says it isn't, I suspect your noble (?) intentions of cheating
    right under your wife's nose will soon degenerate to 'sneaky' if she 
    doesn't agree with you soon.
    
    And I wouldn't wait for you to cheat if I were Barbara.  Because
    you are considering sex with someone else, you MUST be exhibiting
    subtle distancing behavior like it or not.  I'd start packing up
    my heart at the first sign of your distance and I'd sit YOU down
    for an honest chat.  Then I'd honestly tell you that I'd rip your
    lungs out ;-) if you cheated on me.
    
    That puts the pressure where it belongs - on you.
    
    Sandy

    We all have our imaginations we all fanticise - that is healthy
    and normal. But being married means working at the relationship,
    and finding ways to switch over from the zip and tingle of
    chemistry and work instead on the solid parts of sharing and
    relating with another over the long term. Being married doesn't
    mean that we stop being attracted to other people but it does
    mean that we think very much about why we are attracted and
    what is reasonable to do about it.
    
    Bonnie

    Eric:
    
    One question: do you want to have sex with no feelings, no giving,
    and no spirit?
    
    I am not talking religion, but there seems to be an unmeasurable
    bond between two people who "bed together".  
    
    I don't think you are interested in just a physical act... if you
    are, you will always be disappointed, and seeing greener grass
    elsewhere. (Not to say that some partners are more sexually exciting
    than others, but part of that excitement is what THEY give, at least
    it is so for me.)
    
    The emotions that I expend in sex are for my SO, and only her. 
    It may make it difficult for "casual sex", since sex is never casual
    with this expendature.  The spiritual attachment grows toward the
    partner... it can be seen.  Both spiritual and emotional expendature
    can be made without the physical act.  This expense, is easily sensed
    by anyone who is actively involved at a emotional/spiritual level
    with you. A wife or SO will recognize that they are not getting your 
    "full"  commitment when you sleep with others.  If they are very sensitive
    (to body language, to ????), they may even know WHO you have slept
    with.  Simply, you will take something from your relationship with
    your wife if you sleep with another.
    
    If you have no other reason to have sexual relations other than
    the physical act... why don't you take a hard look at yourself.
    
    dana   

Eric --
	Check out some of what's said in 188.* ("Monogamy vs.
Promiscuity"--now isn't that a loaded title?) in this
conference; I think you'll see that the ideological lines
are very clearly drawn on this subject.
	You're asking if it's possible to have a committed,
"marriage-type" relationship without necessarily being
monogamous or exclusive in your sexual behavior.  At least,
that's how I read it.  Be prepared for flames!!
	Many people are extremely threatened by this idea,
because it is such an integral part of our cultural heritage
that monogamy is the ONLY accepted way of relating sexually,
and that one MUST cheat or lie if one does not accept this
(in other words, one must willingly take on the role of the
"sinner" or bad person to be non-monogamous).
	Why this is such a fundamental tenet of our society
is open to question, but the issues of assigning responsibility
for (and determining inheritance rights of) offspring and of
avoiding sexually transmitted diseases were probably the
original motivations behind it.  They're still pretty decent
reasons (especially with AIDS nowadays), but the irrational
reactions you're going to get (e.g., the person who wanted
to "rip your lungs out") are based less on reasons than on
primitive gut level conditioning.
	I don't know if it will be any help, but there were
some books (like "Open Marriage") written a few years back
that at least talked about alternatives to the current state
of relationships.  Don't take the flamers too personally!
						-- paul

    When I am "in a relationship" (read: "monogamous-type-relationship")
    I feel more threatened by the though of my SO having less love for
    me than by his having sex with someone else.
    
    The problem is that I have a fundamental belief that sex _must_
    have a great deal of love involved, or it's no fun.  So a one-time
    encounter, while it might flip me out some ("what am I not providing
    in this relationship?  What do you need that I do not give?"), does
    not strike me as very important, because if it had been any fun,
    he would have done it more than once with that person.  And if it
    had been any fun, that would mean that he felt that something special,
    that he loved _her_.  And if he loves someone other than me in that
    special way, then I am no longer the most important person in his
    life.
    
    The point is that I have always been more concerned with the feelings
    involved, and those feelings are the only reason an affair would flip
    me out.  When I am "with" someone, they are the most important person
    in my life, and I need for those feelings to be mutual (otherwise
    a power-imbalance comes up; the person who "loves more" is more
    dependent on the other, and everything goes downhill from there).
    
    So if you were my SO, and you decided to get l**d with a friend, and
    did it once or twice(preferably while I was not there) I would be less
    upset than if you spent all of your time with someone else, even
    if you never had any physical relationship with them.  You would
    be important to me, more important than anyone else, and if someone
    else were more important to me than you, or even commanded as much
    of your affection as I did, I would start throwing around ultimata,
    "love me or I go."
    
    Lee

    back to .0....
    
    consenting adults ought to be able to play whatever game they want...
    as long as they are all playing with the same rules.
    
    i would feel quite threatened if my SO wanted to change the rules
    in the middle of the game... (what's wrong with me?)
    
    i would feel deceived if my SO revealed that she was never happy
    with the rules, anyway... (then why play with me?)
    
    
    in my experience, casual sex has never been as satisyfying as making
    love in a "committed" relationship... random bone-jumping just doesn't
    seem worth the effort when one has something "real" available. so
    if i or my SO really felt that we needed extra sex, first i'd
    want to figure out why...
    
    many aspects of "open" relationships make sense in lots of ways, 
    but i think we need to be careful when deciding what we require 
    for "fulfillment"
    
    

    Re:   "ripping lungs out"  (.12)
    
    	Sandy, take a hike.
    
    	If you're not going to converse in a supportive way, get a life.
    
    	Thanks to most of you that have been willing to hear me out
    	on this issue, and give constructive feedback.
    
    	But Sandy, your harshness only hurts, and is not necessary *no
    	matter what* your opinion.  In fact, if you feel want very much
    	to have your opinion make a difference, you're doing the opposite
    	with ridicule like that.
    
    
 Re:  What is it I'm really looking for
    
    Someone back there suggested something important.  It's probably
    not merely the physical act with others I crave.  It's something
    more (or perhaps something less)
    
    Remember warm summer evenings ?
    
    Real quiet ?  Except for the crickets.
    
    And the sweet smells of spring.
    
    And the woman.  What is she thinking ?  Does she like me ?
    She sure is pretty.
    
    It's memories of long ago first, or second dates, like scenes
    like this, that I think are one of the things I yearn for sometimes.
    
    So some of you are right, it's probably not the physical act itself
    that I really fantasize about.  Instead, it's a fantasy of the return
    of the adventurous romantic evening, not knowing what will happen.
    
    Yes, I love Barbara.  And we have alot of good things in our marriage.
    (For example, we're performing a piano/violin duet this Friday in
    a concert!)
    
    But there are certain types of adventures we don't have, because
    we know each other so well.
    
    Sometimes I'll be at a red light in my car and see an attractive
    woman in next car.  Then I'll fantasize about the crickets, a warm
    summer night walk with that woman, she not saying anything, me
    wondering what she's thinking, etc.
    
Re:     bad person ?  Sinner ?  Unfair to Barbara ?
    
    No!  Go talk to all the people that made marriage vows and then
    broke them, breaking the heart of the spouse.
    
    If I choose to deal with the difficulties (like what I've been
    discussing in this note) in a marriage by bringing up in a forum
    like this conference, then that is a GOOD step.
    
    The people that DON'T bring things up, and then up getting divorced
    because of their unwillingness to face difficulties, THEY'RE the
    ones to be flamed.
    
Re:  "jumping bones"
    
    I actually don't use the expression much, until a party last week
    when someone used it.  I got a kick out of the expression.
    
    Isn't that when you start using new expressions ?  You just hear
    someone use it ?
    
    
    /Eric

    Eric (and the million of other readers):
    
    	It sounds like there's something missing in your life that
    you're searching for - that extra little bit of mystery and
    romance.  I have a few questions for you:
    	1)  When's the last time you bought your wife something,
    	well, something a little "mysterious" to wear?
    	2)  When's the last time you surprised her - provided HER
    	with a little mystery and romance - weren't predictable?
    	3)  Have you ever talked to her about changing a few things
    	in your lives so that there'd be time for the candles and
    	fine china, or the picnic, or the walk on the beach at midnight,
    	or whatever it is that makes you feel romantic?
    
    I know at one time you must've looked at your wife like you're looking
    at these strange women - after all, you *did* marry her.  You don't
    have to lose that women she was; she still is that woman.  And look
    at the man she may see herself as having lost - the one who looked
    at her like she was someone special and couldn't stop looking -
    the one who took her out to hear the crickets.
    
    Slow down and stop to hear the birds sing with the person you love.
    They are still singing, and it's still spring, and you can always
    recapture that feeling if you try.  Plus you have all the rest of
    the feelings you've built up while you have been married, which
    makes the romantic fluff all the richer.
    
    --Louise

    Eric seems to be having a tough time here, and I don't know that
    I can help him out.    One thought, though, on .18:
    
    About fantasising on the woman in the next car, and putting her
    back into the romantic summer evenings etc - is it worth considering
    sharing (mentioning) this fantasy to your wife at some later convenient
    moment?   I've not married, so don't know if it still works for really
    long-term relationships, but sometimes it's been
    interesting/ stimulating/ invigorating/ whatever
    to occasionally discuss an attraction for another person, with a steady
    girl-friend.   Maybe doesn't recall the lost summer evenings of
    yesteryear, but it has contributed to some interesting wet afternoons
    more recently.   I've also known (one or two) girls who've made
    similar comments to me, more than once.   Or maybe they were just
    trying to give me a hint to go away :-).

    Hi again--
    
    I've been keeping up with this note because of my initial reaction
    to it.  
    
    Eric, weren't you once in SINGLES ("It's lonely in this cube")?
    I was, too;  matter of fact met the man I'm with now thru SINGLES.
    I guess that's why I have the reaction I do to this note.  If I'm
    right, and you WERE the Eric in SINGLES, this is what I read:
    
    1. You were lonely, took a constructive step toward finding someone
    to love.
    2. You obviously found someone, and got married--that's great.
    3. And now, married, you are looking to get an ok to fool around
    on the side.
    
    I guess it sounds like wanting the cake, then having the cake, and
    then going back to the bakery.  Is that really what you want?
    
    Jane

    Eric--
    
    	Tell your wife to take her car to such-and-such a street,
    with the windows rolled down.  Drive your car there, too.  Pull
    up besides her car and lean over and say "Hey, cute stuff, wanna
    date tonight?"  Take her out like a first date...tell her to
    slap you if you get fresh.  Kinky maybe, but it might be fun!
    
    	If you don't have two cars, you should rent one.
    
    			-John Bishop

    WHAT IF...
    
    the first born of blood lines did not make any importance? the
    relsultant offspring was loved by all in the community? the respect
    of one another for their desires instead of imposing on the other?
    
    The taboos of sex came from a pratical sense rather than a moral
    sense, no???
    
    /cal

re: .25    

>    The taboos of sex came from a pratical sense rather than a moral
>    sense, no???

	Obviously they were practical in the sense that they served
some of the interests of certain people or factions.  I don't think
you can dismiss them as purely superstitious or neurotic concepts.
	Minimizing sexual activity or restricting it to monogamous
partnerships obviously (given our present hindsight about AIDS) helps
to slow the spread of sexually transmitted diseases throughout the
population.
	Also, since our patriarchal/patrilineal society grew up in times
when there was no easy way to be sure of a child's paternity, restricting
the sexual activity of WOMEN gave their husbands more of a "warm-and-fuzzy"
feeling that they were not willing their worldly goods to someone else's
bastards.
	The question is: are solid practical reasons like these sufficient
to justify the gross distortions of sexual and child-rearing behavior that
the old taboos have fostered?  Is the question of paternity of such over-
riding importance that it has warranted the reduction of women to a state
somewhere between outright servitude and "benign" second-class citizenship?
Is the fear of sexual disease and/or unwanted pregnancy so compelling that
we must teach our children to view all sexual behavior as shameful, inevitably
hurtful, and even hateful or disgusting?  I would suggest that perhaps we can
find more humane solutions to some of the problems that vexed our ancestors,
and in fact I think we have (as a society) obviously been struggling with this
issue for the last several decades.  But we have to force ourselves to not take
anything for granted and keep questioning our own behavior, which is NOT easy.

re: .26
       
>It would appear, that since it was men who founded religion; made the laws;
>enforced the laws; that the "taboos" came from the "practical" aspects which
>permits ( permitted) men to have offspring and not be held responsible for them

	Surely it's a bit of an overstatement to say that "men ... founded 
religion"!  Because they've got their names all over the current major brands
(:^)) does not mean that they originated the concept.
	Men ARE very concerned with bastardy...as it relates to the offspring
of their wives!  In certain parts of the country shooting one's wife for
adultery is reputedly still viewed as a male prerogative by law enforcement
officials.  Of course, a single woman who is gotten "with child" has to look
out for herself, in this scheme of things.  The "normal" insanity, right?

								Pc.

    Wouldn't it be real "special" if your best friend or for
    that matter a perfect stranger who walks by you in the 
    grocery store, stops to tell you that he likes your wife's
    "bones"?  Hmmmm....sure is a different way of looking at a 
    one night stand when it is on the "significant other set of
    "bones"!
    

        I think that there are a lot of reasons to be monogomous, to
        have sex only within the context of a relationship that is or
        that you are willing to make permanent. I can go along with your
        "Pretend ... that you are a ... person that feels fine about
        premarital sex", to this extent: that sex which precedes a
        marriage, which can be allowed to grow into a marriage is OK.
        This is very different from feeling that casual sex is OK. I
        can't pretend that much and still be involved in a meaningful
        dialog.
        
        Sex as I see it operates on at least levels: reproduction, pair
        bonding, physical pleasure, and health. You have asked that we
        leave considerations of health out, but you must realize that is
        a real factor. There isn't any such thing as totally "safe sex"
        from a health stand point. Caution (though not fear) is
        definitely called for in the health aspects of even totally
        monogomous sex. 
        
        Reproduction can not be dismissed all that lightly either. I
        won't ask for a show of hands of members of this conference
        who've had one or more children (or pregnancies) at unexpected
        times. Miss Manners would never approve. I assure you though
        that it is not only possible, but quite common. 
        
        This leaves us with the recreational and bonding aspects of sex
        to consider. The recreational aspect is, of course, the reason
        why one would consider sex outside of marriage or outside of a
        permanent or potentially permanent relationship. It's easy to
        say that there are no recreational aspects of sex that make
        extra-marital sex a bad idea, but I think that it's not true.
        I can think of two such aspects that do.
        
        First off, there is jealousy. Whatever the form of recreation,
        recreation takes time, time spent away from your spouse is
        something that you have in a sense deprived them of. Now, you
        can't in all practicality be with your spouse 100% of the time,
        and it is also true that you can't spend all of your recreatinal
        time with your spouse, at least for most of us. None-the-less,
        sex is something that it is quite likely you could do with your
        spouse as readily as with someone else, and if you choose
        another partner than your spouse, it is not unreasonable for
        them to wonder why or to feel hurt.
        
        There is yet another recreational aspect of sex that may lead us
        to question the wisdom of casual or extra-marital sex. This is
        the simple question, "why is sex fun?" Silly sounding question,
        huh? But think about it. Is it the pure physical sensation? Many
        would say yes, but I don't think that's the case. You can,
        without much imagination or equipment achieve the pleaant
        physical sensations without the involvement of another party.
        Somehow, that's just not as much fun. A lot of the fun of sex
        comes from the intimacy, the sharing, the vulnerablity, and the
        bonding aspects of sex.
        
        Sex is fun because it is more intimate, more personal than
        tennis or hiking. Sex is fun because it is very complex and
        affects us on a lot of levels. Sex is fun because it is special.
        These not entirely physical contributions to the fun and
        pleasure of sex make it a rather special thing to share. They
        make it enough different to induce jealousy and pain on the part
        of the spouse. They make it enough special that sharing it with
        others can interfere with one's primary relationship. 
        
        This leads us to the final aspect of sex--the pair bonding
        aspect. Sociologically this may be the most important aspect of
        sex. Sex binds families together. It binds the members of
        different families together into extended families. It binds
        parents together to form a parental unit to raise the children
        that arise from the procreational aspects of sex. 
        
        It is easy to under-estimate the pair bonding effects of sex. It
        is easy, that is, until they roll over you like a steam roller.
        Someone in this file said that love at first sight is a mystical
        experience. Well, really good sex with the right person, with a
        person with whom the chemistry is just right, can be an amazing
        experience. Words like "mystical", "sublime", "profound", and
        the like can really apply. It isn't just the right person--"set"
        and "setting" also contribute. Sex with that special person may
        not always be special but when it is.... And you just can't
        predict when it will be. 
        
        In the end it doesn't matter if the pair-bonding aspects are
        entirely questions of hormones or expectations or pheremones, or
        cultural heritage, or a psychic phenomenon. What matters is that
        at times sex with the right person under the right circumstances
        can stand the world on its head. Bonds that were never intended
        can become overwhelming existing relationships can become
        suddenly less important. Sex is tremendously powerful. Far more
        powerful than you can believe without experiencing it. Sex isn't
        always a mystical experience, but when it is, watch out. 
        
        JimB.

    well said Jim

re: .29

Jim, I agree with a lot of what you say about both the optimum
emotional conditions FOR /and/ likely emotional consequences OF
good sexual realtionships.

But, there are some cultural biases in there that I don't think
should go completely unquestioned.

For instance, the number 2.  "Pair bonding", etc.  Why do we
assume that permanent relationships must be limited to one from
column A (female) and one from column B (male)?  There are other
societies where polyandry and polygyny have been practiced before
this.  Why are we so deadset against it?  Marriage should be
extensible to whatever number of people choose to sign up together
(and that includes many As to many Bs as well as the one-to-manys).

And what about the A-A and B-B couples?  I assume you're giving
them some sort of credit for being able to form permanent
relationships, but are they allowed to make a formal commitment of
marriage in our culture?  (As John Belushi used to say, "But
NOOOooo!!")  Let's open that up too, while we're at it (:-)).

The other thing is the role of jealousy.  Yes, it is a likely
consequence of having a partner turn elsewhere for sex, but the
severity of the reaction can definitely be culturally conditioned.
When fidelity is the be-all/end-all make-or-break factor in a
relationship, obviously you are maddened with jealousy when
your partner "strays": since plainly she must think it's pretty
darn important to be with the other person IN SPITE OF all the
be-all/end-all hooplas.

WHEEew!!!  That makes it a real judgment on you!  No wonder you
feel tortured, worthless, enraged, killing-mad, etc.  When
infidelity is viewed by the culture as less earth-shattering an
event, you might have different reactions: maybe anger, maybe
annoyance, maybe a range of other negative emotions, but none so
likely to drive you to homicide or suicide, etc.  In a culture
where infidelity was commonplace, you might just go out looking
for your own "outside" lover.  I'm not saying individuals will be
totally predictable based on their culture, but culture does help
to determine how "high-stakes" people view the game as being.

When it comes to sex, we overemphasize "the Dark Side of the
Force", and we pay the price for that.
							paul

        I am more than willing to admit the roles of both nature and
        nurture in our psychologies, but for my money our current
        culture (at least the moderately liberal, well-educated upper
        middle class segment of it) puts far too much emphasis on the
        nurture aspect.
        
        Take the example of the various forms of polygamy (polygyny,
        polyandry and group marriage). You will find that if you look at
        the cultures of the world, plain old-fashion monogamy is the
        rule almost everywhere almost always. There are exceptions, and
        they get a fair amount of press sociological, but they tend to
        be exceptions. Polyandry (one wife-many husbands) is quite rare
        and often tied with some very odd social pressures. Polygyny
        (one husband-many wives) is usually confined to a very small
        number of men at the very top of the social ladder. Group
        marriage is also pretty rare.
        
        If you look at the however many tensd of billions of people who
        have constituted the human race in the last several thousand
        years, it is a fairly obvious conclussion that human beings
        normally form mated pairs that stay together for life. Other
        patterns show up in isolated spots or for brief periods of time,
        but the general pattern is pretty clear. 
        
        Jealousy is also pretty wide-spread and historically, we're
        kinda middle of the road in our culture. Adultery is not a
        capitol offense here. It is known for a man to be let off by the
        American legal system for knocking of his wife's lover in a
        moment of "temporary insanity", but in many cultures it hasn't
        been a question of "insanity", but just exercise of his rights.
        There are lots of cultures less given to jealousy than ours,
        but many that are a lot more vehement.
        
        Just as marriage is the norm for human beings, fidelity and a
        serious reaction to infidelity is as well. When infidelity is
        winked at it is often only if it is practiced by the same people
        who are allowed multiple wives in polyandrous societies--the men
        at the very top of the social tree. The lower classes and the
        women are often bound by very strict rules of fidelity. (This of
        course leaves the women in a tough spot.) 
        
        JimB.

Gee, what didn't you like about my note?  Do I sound a little like your
own conscience?

Well since you insist on playing this game I suggest you at least play
it fairly.  You do want to be fair to the woman you love, don't you?

Since you thought this up, I suggest you let her go first.
    

    re .35
    
    
    One of my friends was very insulted by the fact that her then-lover
    felt less threatened by her sleeping with another woman than another
    man.  It seems he felt no woman could steal her away from him, while
    another man might do just that.
    
    While I shared her indignation, that friend turned out to be less
    bi- than she thought, so he was right; she _wouldn't_ fall in love
    with any woman the way she would with a man, so no woman would threaten
    their relationship.
    
    I like Sandy's idea, though...
    
    Lee

    ... and it really is the 'stealing away' part that frightens us.
    
    Outside sexual attraction could EASILY result in one losing one's
    partner to the new lover(s).  I maintain that the presense of an
    undeniable attraction is a warning signal in itself.  Undeniable
    is the key word.  Outside attraction by itself is merely human and
    poses little threat.
    
    But when it pervades one's thoughts to the point of making one 
    actually begin to consider the 'how' and the 'when' and begin rational-
    izing the 'why' then I think the partner pretty much IS already lost.
    
    Maybe I'm reading wrong, but I see this situation as the author
    dealing with 'why' here, and I can't help but presume that increasingly
    he will be dealing also with the 'how' and the 'when'.  By letting
    the wife "go first" the true motivations would be exposed and how
    the author REALLY feels about outside sex would become obvious.  How
    he feels about 'mutuality' would become obvious too.  Since I'm
    all for honesty in relationships, (no matter HOW many you have!) I
    can't help but think this would be more of a good thing than a bad thing.
    
    I've always maintained that the only true personal conflicts we
    undergo are those between what we want to do and what we know we
    should do.  If the author truly felt that sex outside marriage would
    work out fine for all concerned, then there would be no note here.  
    
    Such an important value as fidelity, (or the lack of it), should be
    clearly communicated to potential lifemates.  But the author either
    lied or didn't communicate this value at all.
    
    His wife then understandably believed that the marriage would be
    'traditional' by default.  Now, he wants to change the rules and
    be 'himself'.  Nothing wrong with that really, but I believe that
    both parties MUST be openly involved in any marriage-affecting decision.
    Anything less is pure self-serving deception.
    
    I have no problem with the issue of outside attraction OR EVEN with
    the desire to act on it.  Life is short and we are all entitled
    to decide what we want and go for it.  Only we have the power to
    make ourselves happy.  BUT we have an obligation to our lovers to deal 
    with them honestly, gently and fairly.  This wife wants fidelity and
    her husband appears not sure he can give that.  I'm sorry for the
    strong sounding words but I feel he OWES her the opportunity to find
    the fidelity she needs and he owes himself the opportunity to have as 
    many sex partners as will make him happy.  By being honest he risks 
    losing his wife but the decision here still should NOT be whether or
    not to be honest, but whether or not he wants his wife OR other
    women.  Right now he's trying to find a way to have both despite
    the fact that his wife has either insinuated or told him outright
    that he can't.
    
    I know from whence I speak, Eric,  because I was in YOUR shoes.  A long
    time ago when I was married the grass was greener for me too.  The
    difference between us is that I looked at my husband as a good and
    deserving man and I respected him enough to share OUR problem with
    him.  He found a loving woman and now has his much-wanted family,
    I found my freedom and my happiness and we BOTH emerged with our
    self-respect and our mutual respect intact.  Deception never works out 
    that way.                         
    

Yes, if my wife and I ever do decide to have other adventures, I would
be willing to let her have one before me.

/Eric

    Then you are a fair and honest man and any decision arrived at jointly
    with your wife is between the two of you and nobody else's business,
    (except of course the "other" parties involved).
    
    The issue is not fidelity vs. cheating but honesty vs. deception
    and I'm sorry if you hit a nerve with me but I've always found
    deception in love to be despicable.  As I said in another note,
    the greatest gift you can give someone is not your body but your
    loyalty.  Never cheapen its value by giving it lightly because then
    you WILL have nothing to offer any special lover ever again.

I think a little history is in order here.

I've been married almost a year, and have had a relationship with my
wife for two years before that.

Three times during our relationship, I said "let's go out with other
people".  She was always quick to agree, always suggesting "we make
better friends with each other than lovers anyway".

She was always the "do what needs to be done" type person so each
time we decided to see other people, she immediately went to a dance
or answered an ad, and was with someone else.

Sometimes I was with someone else too, but each of the three times,
as soon as she was with someone else, I got more interested in her
and wanted her back !

Each time, it took longer for her to come back (a few weeks instead
of a few days), probably because she didn't trust me.

But the very hard-to-get-don't-know-if-I'll-take-you-back-ness of
her made me even more attracted to her, and made me fight for her
even harder !

So, in light of my track record I decided I wanted to marry her.

And despite my track record she agreed.

So, yes, she knew from the beginning that I  had a history of
looking towards other women.

So I don't believe I deceived her as you (Sandy) mentioned.

Some more history...

For over ten years, I've found all sorts of activities that allow
me to pursue my hobbies and my social life simultaneously.  I went
to many contradances because I like the activity and I could meet
women.  I went to many AMC hikes and weekends and bicycle tripes because I
liked to hike and ride and I could meet women.

I went to chamber music camp because I love to play the violin, and I
love to meet women !

And I went to many tennis round robin tournaments because I love
to play tennis and I love to meet women.

At all these activities there was always an excitement I had wondering
who I'd hook up with.

And so often I did hook up with someone, and it would turn into a short
relationship.  But often after a few weeks I'd lose interest.

Except sometimes the women would hold me at bay, which would make me
even more interested, and then she'd leave me.  Those are the ones I
look back on and feel I was "in love".

So now I'm married.  I still go to music, dances, tennis, hiking.
But I can't look forward to a relationship with women I meet there.

(because I AM true to my wife, contrary to some snips)

But I still look forward to meeting women at the activities, and
then there's some frustration at not being able to "pursue" them.

Lots of people tell me to concentrate on "being friends" and not
think about sex.  This I'm attempting to learn.  Sometimes it works,
sometimes not.

I'm sure I've left out some important points, but just ask and
I'll try to fill in.

I'm not just trying to lay my own stuff out here.  I'm SURE there
are quite a number of people  reading this discussion that have some
similar private life issues that they are afraid to discuss in this
forum.

I hope some of you are benefiting from this discussion and will consider
jumping in.

/Eric

Well Eric, your history does put things in a better perspective, and
without meaning any offense, you sound simply like a young man who is
still discovering himself, sex, love and women.   There is nothing 
wrong with that except when you don't realize it and decide to tie up
your life and the life of a woman in a vow of fidelity.

Your youth is evident in the attitude you convey that you mostly want
what you can't have as evidenced by the following:

>But the very hard-to-get-don't-know-if-I'll-take-you-back-ness of
>her made me even more attracted to her, and made me fight for her
>even harder !

>And so often I did hook up with someone, and it would turn into a short
>relationship.  But often after a few weeks I'd lose interest.

>Except sometimes the women would hold me at bay, which would make me
>even more interested, and then she'd leave me.  Those are the ones I
>look back on and feel I was "in love".

When you want a person because of who they are rather than how much of a 
challenge-and-reward they may represent, then you're looking at love.  
Almost everyone goes through the "challenge" stage of relationships, testing
their attractiveness, their egos, their styles, their drawing power.  Seeing 
another person only in terms of your own ego is, I think, completely normal 
but it and marriage are mutually exclusive concepts as you will find out if 
you haven't already.

>So, yes, she knew from the beginning that I  had a history of
>looking towards other women.

This statement sounds as though you feel "She knew what she was getting
so what's her beef?"

What she 'knew' she was getting was married.  I am sure you have a good
idea of what marriage means to her.  What did you expect you were going
to do about all those exciting, unknown women on the tennis courts, the
dance floors, the trails, the supermarkets, ad nauseum when you woke up
one day and willingly took a vow of fidelity?  Did you think they would
all just go away and leave your hormones alone now that you were married?
If 'familiar' women tend to make you 'lose interest', what on earth were
you thinking of vowing fidelity to a person you were intentionally turning
into the most familiar person in your life?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I believe you like your
wife very much - probably even love her.  She would most likely be THE
one for you when you are ready but unfortunately you just met her too
soon.  You're not ready to give up the carefree life you've been used to
just yet.  You don't understand what fidelity 'til death us do part'
means and therefore shouldn't vow it.  But that's all water under (over?)
the damn because you did vow it.  Now what?

I can guarantee you that breaking that vow will only eventually make you 
dislike yourself and hate your complicated life.  I understand now why
you don't want to risk setting your wife free - you'll want her back as soon 
as you see other men paying attention to her.  She must have loved you a
lot to risk marriage with a young'un like you, or been very naive or a
little of both.  She is not going to change you into a model husband
any sooner than you're going to change her into a swinging wife.  If she
goes along with you just to please you, (and her love and/or naivitee may 
make her try), she will hate you for it and not think too much of herself
either.  Especially when the bargain you want to strike results in the
dissolution of her marriage anyway, which I predict it eventually will.
She will have lost you to the wilds and compromised her own integrity in
the process.  If she agrees, fine, but if you pressure her, you'll both
be sorry.

By the same token if you go along with her just to please her you'll end
up resentful because that's not what YOU really want.

Someone suggested here that you ought to have HER pull up next to you
at a red light - but it's not the same thing, is it?  Because it's not 
really the PERSON you are responding to but the romance and mystery of the
situation which someone as familiar as your wife can't produce.  The same 
thing would happen if a stranger were to simply offer her availability, 
wouldn't it?  Because that would would kind of kill it, no?  What's the 
"it" it would kill?  Romance and mystery.

That's the stuff of romance novels, fairy tales and high-school hormone
movies.  Most people learn after x number of these situations that romance
is only an illusion and love is the down & dirty, (pardon the pun!), reality 
of daily life.  A great line from a sit-com years ago was from a father
telling his daughter, "Love isn't going to bed with someone, it's waking up
with them".  Truer words were never spoken.

You should go for as much romance as you need to learn what love really 
is.  One day all the trappings and tense violins and little white tennis 
panties will look still good to you but shallow and will seem like nothing 
compared to being in the arms of someone with whom you share real love.

If you're not there yet don't rush it, but please don't ruin the life of
someone who IS there and who's chosen YOU over all the dinners, flowers,
rapt attention and tense violins of her own.

>I'm SURE there are quite a number of people reading this discussion that 
>have some similar private life issues that they are afraid to discuss in this
>forum.

I'd say MOST married people go through at some point what you're going through
now and the ones who survive it are the ones who've seen the difference 
between love and gothic-novel romance and remember that they chose love.

You need more women, Eric.  You need more romance, more one-night-stands
and more conquests before you realize that nearly everyone can and does have 
sex so sex all by itself is no big deal.  It's still a big deal to you and
you should allow yourself the opportunity to grow to prefer love over tennis 
panties.  It took me until I was 33 but I wasn't going to give up all those
guys and all those dinners, movies, boats, condos until I was SURE there was
something better than that.  And I learned that there's something WAY better
than that and I'm now in love and I'm immune to any great-looking guy who says
he wants to take me sailing or to dinner.  I can appreciate him, but I've got 
something far better than the starry night, the violins and the mystery and I 
KNOW I do but only because I've had plenty of starry nights, violins and 
mystery.  You haven't had enough of it yet.

Now the question remains HOW you are going to get enough to know?  Are you going
to do it in the context of your marriage and just hope it survives?  Are you
going to hide it from your marriage and hope YOU survive?  What you must
realize is that you are most likely going follow your heart sooner or later, 
one way or the other.

This desire of yours is a normal one and it's NOT going to go away even if
you quit your job and never leave home.  You have to deal with it just as all 
people in committed relationships have to deal with it.  You just have less 
strength and experience to draw on; less understanding of the difference
between real love and mere romance.

Lest anyone think I'm trashing romance I'm not.  It's wonderful if you realize
what it is, what it isn't, and how to handle it.  When you confuse it with
love, you're in trouble.  When you combine it with love, you're in heaven.

Good luck - yours is not an easy road.  You will have to make choices all
along the way as long as you are alive.  Take the time to know yourself and
make your choices carefully and you won't be so likely to paint yourself into
a corner again.

Sandy
    

    RE: 41
    
    Sensitive reply... Wonderful reading...

    Every once in awhile I run into someone here at Digital that says
    something like
    
    	So, how's your marriage ?  (with a smile)
    
    Maybe they read this topic.
    
    Anyway, I thought I'd just fill you all in.
    
    We're still "going strong", Barbara and me.  As a matter of fact,
    we're vacationing Friday for two weeks in London, with her 12-year-old
    son.
    
    I still get daily crushes on other women.  But I don't have physical
    relationships with any of them.  Barbara and I go to weekly therapy
    with a doctor to talk about this and other issues.
    
    I'd say we have a healthy relationship in that for the most part
    we are able to talk about things, if not at home, then at the doctor's.
    
    I think one of my compelling reasons to "touch base" again in this
    topic of the notes file, is that a number of people thought my notes
    here indicated that our marriage was "on the way out" or "on the
    rocks".  So I just wanted to let you all know that although it's
    tough at times, we're definitely "together and going strong".
    
    By the way, I'd still be interested in hearing other married people's
    experiences with battling the desire to be physical with non-spouses.
    I still feel the issue must be alot more prevalent than the number
    of other (small) contributors to this topic indicates.
    
    /Eric

        Warning:- OPINION alert!!
        
        It's like  reading  (hah) Playboy - it's all image - what you
        see in the  pics is what you are supposed to think you really
        want,  something new, another  body,  another  experience,  a
        different feeling.....
        
        If you want  to  mess  around,  why  pay  money  to find out?
        Either you have the love for one woman, and *only* one  woman
        and can be happy with her and all she is, or you  still  have
        the need to experiment and look for variety...
        
        Question - if your wife wanted to 'experience' other men, and
        you were deeply in love and ready to be  monogamous with her,
        what would you think?
        
        Eric,  I'm  40, and married - and I can't say that I look  at
        women *daily*  or  even  monthly  and get crushes on them - I
        like women as people, but sexually, my desire is for my wife.
        
        Andy.

                
        re: .45
        
        It's the way this wife feels! :^}
        
        Seriously,  I  believe  that  the  issues  of  fidelity    and
        exclusivity should be discussed and understood long before the
        ceremony takes place.  If you both believe in them,  and  then
        promise  to  uphold them, it's a matter of honor to keep  your
        end of the bargain.   This,  to  me,  is  probably  even  more
        important than the institutionalized promises to 'love, honor,
        cherish'.  Not only is it a matter of respect for your spouse,
        but it is also a matter of self-respect.
        
        Personally, I have no interest in or desire for  any other man
        but my husband - my commitment is total.
        
        Sandy - married and happy to be faithful :^}

    I, too, am married and happy to be faithful.  I love my husband
    and my family dearly.  I understood what I was promising when I
    promised my fidelity, and at no point have I regretted the bargain
    or considered having sex with another man.
    
    That doesn't mean I never have sexual feelings for another man.
    
    There are a lot of attractive men in the world, and biology being what
    it is, sometimes hormones respond to the cues I'm given, the same way
    my stomach will growl at the smell of fresh-baked cinnamon rolls even
    if I've just finished a gourmet dinner.  
    
    It doesn't mean I have to hope into bed with any Tom, Dick, or Harry
    that triggers my reaction any more than I have to pig out on cinnamon
    rolls just because the bakery took out a new batch.  It doesn't mean
    I'm falling in love with the man.  It doesn't mean I'm falling out of
    love with my husband.  It doesn't even mean there's anything wrong with
    the kind or amount of sex I'm getting at home. 
    
    All it means is that I find the other man attractive.  Nothing more,
    nothing less.

    As Sandy points out, the commitment is the important part.  I gave
    my word and I'm going to keep it.  
    
    --bonnie

RE: .46

Fidelity, "to me, is probably even more important than the institutionalized
promises to 'love, honor, cherish'." 

I can't believe you mean that!  That's like saying 'I don't care if you're happy
married to me, you did it, and now you're stuck with me untill death.' Divorce
is not an option under any circumstances.

RE .48

It's a common fact/belief that infidelity is a symptom of a problem with the
marriage itself, rather then being an uncaused problem itself in marriage.
However, I think that there are probably people who are sex fiends who require
lots of partners, who should not marry and promise fidelity. 

RE: .49

yep...

Jim.

Jim! 

        
        re: .50
        
        And I  can't  believe  that you're reading your interpretation
        into what I write.    I  didn't say that fidelity was the only
        promise  that  should  be  valued  -  it  isn't  part  of  the
        'standard' wedding ceremony, however.  If  a  couple  agree to
        promise to be faithful prior to the  marriage  (whether or not
        they include this promise with their vows), then  they  should
        keep this promise - simple.  Perhaps it may  be  considered as
        implicit in the word 'honor'?
        
        Sandy
        

    Part of the problem lies in the wording of the promises.
    If you promise to be faithful, you fail. If you promise
    to TRY to be faithful, and fail, you haven't broken 
    your promise. Everybody is vulnerable to the charms of
    people outside of their marriage. Sometimes, an opportunity
    arises and you just *can't* say no. 

    Re: .54
    
    I'm sorry, but I just don't operate by those rules.  I've said
    elsewhere in this conference that love is a matter of trust.  If
    my partner trusts in me to be faithful and I fail, I have violated
    that trust.  To me, it is not sufficient to shrug my shoulders
    and say "well, I TRIED".
    
    While I was married, I was 100% faithful.  Any time an "opportunity
    arose", I declined, telling myself that even if my wife never found
    out, *I* would know.  I will apply the same philosophy if/when I
    marry again.   
    
    While I cannot see myself arranging with a prospective wife to
    allow "necessary" dalliances, perhaps others can.  These people
    should make sure that the rules are laid out in advance, so that
    there is no misunderstanding.  But in the few cases I am familiar
    with where the couple (perhaps not actually married) had a
    so-called "open" relationship, the reality was that one of the couple
    got very hurt when the other took advantage of the "openness".

    					Steve

RE: .52

Hey, I just read what you wrote...  Look for yourself...  You could have
explained yourself a bit, instead of bitching back...

Last *I* knew, fidelity was still in the 'standard' wedding vows...

Jim.

    Re .54
    
    The attitude which you portray in your reply is one of a person
    who maybe should not be married.  Just because the temptation comes
    along, one is not justified in saying that I resisted as long as
    I could, so it is ok that I was unfaithful.  That is ludicrous.
    
    Would you be equally justified if you robbed a bank?  Could you
    tell the judge that you resisted as long as you could, so you shouldn't
    go to jail.
    
    Marriage is a sacred institution, and fidelity is one of the implicit
    responsibilities for both partners.  If you can't limit yourself
    to one partner, then don't mislead that partner, or yourself, by
    even trying.
    

        Although I agree that fidelity and trust are absolutely
        cornerstones to a successful marriage, the thing that you have
        to remember about people is that they are human. People give in
        to temptation. This doesn't mean you should allow yourself to.
        It means that if another person fails you, you shouldn't condemn
        them out of hand. A trust that cannot withstand even a single
        breech is doomed to fail. 
        
        I don't mean that it is inevitable that everyone will cheat on
        their spouse or that you should give in to temptation. What I do
        mean is that marriage is based on a very wide reaching trust.
        You trust your spouse in many many ways. In some of those ways
        at some time in your life they will disappoint you. Here is
        where the love comes in. You need to be able to recover from
        mistakes.
        
        JimB.

    I agree with Jim - one has to take the context into account.
    A single event during a known time of trouble in the relationship,
    combined with an earnest desire on the part of both partners to
    heal the wounds, is one thing.  A pattern of deliberate deception
    over months or years is quite another.  And there are grey areas
    in between.
    
    I'm not perfect, and I don't expect my partner to be either. 
    I do expect my feelings to be respected as I respect those of
    my partner.  If, for example, I learn that my partner has been
    involved with someone else, and she just thumbs her nose at me,
    the relationship is as good as dead.
    
    But, repeating my earlier comment, one cannot approach marriage
    (or a similar permanent commitment) with an attitude of "it's ok
    to be unfaithful" - you're fooling noone but yourself.
    
    					Steve

    Given that some of the more recent statistics on the subject indicate
    that about 50% of married women and 60+% of married men will be
    involved sexually extramaritally within 5 years (or so) of being
    married,  it would be interesting to hear some majority opinion
    here.
    
    Bill

        Please understand that many people who get involved in extra
        marital sex decide that it was a mistake. The number who get so
        involved may not be equal to the number who believe that it is
        right to do so.
        
        JimB. 

    This goes for all that want to stray....
    Before you do, think of your spouses feelings....
    marriage is a sacred thing......
    and straying out of the marriage....
    if your spouse finds out....
    has to be the most degrading,and humiliating feeling...
    one can feel......
    right?.....

    re:-1
    yes it is....
    
    Bill

"if your spouse finds out.... has to be the most degrading,and humiliating
feeling... one can feel......"

That depends on your reaction to the situation...  I wouldn't let someone
else's actions define my feelings about myself.

it's degrading & humiliating because it's degrading & humiliating??? check that
logic circuit out...  sounds like circular reasoning to me.

'it's degrading & humiliating because I *feel* degrading & humiliating'???
feelings do not define reality...  it's supposed to be the other way around,
feelings are supposed to (but often are not) based on reality. 

Jim. 

    re:-.1
    
    Aren't you just playing with words....
    
    The truth is that when something like this happens it is degrading
    and humiliating.  It shows to some people (not all) in the world
    that you did not satisfy or please your lover.  I know that sounds
    dumb, but some of the first questions I got were like "Didn't you
    satisfy her?".  Degradation and Humiliation are words that describe
    feelings not actions.
    
    Bill

No, I don't think it is just a play on words.  Motivations and actions and
feelings are all separate parts of a chain reaction.  And often a feeling
doesn't match the action or the motivation behind the action.  People are self
centered, and often assume other's intend to hurt them, when mere stupidity or
some other reason might apply. 

You are right, Degradation & Humiliation are words describing feelings, not
actions.

Jim.

    Re: .65
    
    >feelings do not define reality...
    
    Now we're getting into absolute vs. perceived realities, which is
    just loads of fun.  My feelings do not define reality, but they
    do influence my understanding of and reaction to reality.  Just
    as someone's intentions do not define reality.  Just because So-and-so
    didn't *intend* to humiliate and degrade, that does not mean their
    actions weren't humiliating and degrading.  It's kind of like various
    racist or ethnic jokes.  I'd say most of the people who tell them
    aren't intending to put someone down; they just thought the joke
    was funny.  That doesn't mean the joke isn't insulting.  If someone
    is insulted, the joke is insulting; it has accomplished the task
    of insulting someone.
    
    I can hear it now -- "The joke didn't make someone be insulted;
    the person *chose* to be insulted."  I don't agree.  Feeling insulted
    is a reaction, an emotional response.  There is no time for the
    conscious decision that the word "chose" implies.  Regardless of
    how people *should* behave, that is how they frequently behave.
    I think dealing with the reality of human behavior, rather than
    the "should" or "supposed to," is the most constructive approach.

RE: .67

Jim, 

	Using your logic, please name something that is Degrading or 
Humiliating.  Or for that matter name something that is annoying, enlightening,
or inspiring.  All of these describes how something makes someone feel.
If the infidelity of a spouse causes one to feel degraded then it is degrading.
Just as if music inspires an artist the music is inspirational.  Therefore it is
just playing with words.

Bill

RE: .68

I think it's pretty much up to the individual reaction...

There are people who wouldn't feel degraded on finding out that their spouse was
'unfaithfull'.  I'm sure that the same music I find inspirational would not make
everyone react the same way.

What ticks me off is to hear people say 'I *gotta* react this way'.  Like they
have no control over themselves.  If they *have* to react that way, let they
deal with it themselves, and not push it onto other people.  I've seen a *lot*
of manipulation try and sneak in in this form.

Sure, there are times and places where certain reactions are necessary and
appropriate, but it doesn't *have* to be that way, there are always alternative
ways of being. 

Jim.

    Re:.70
     Jim, 
    
    	I agree you don't *have* to feel that way, that is up to each
    person.  What I'm trying to point out is that an 'unfaithful' spouse
    causes one to have to decide to be humiliated or not.  It's kinda
    the same as being shot,  You can either accept and feel the pain
    or reject it and not feel it (as some martial arts and mental
    training).  The Potential of the pain in both cases is apparent,
    it just takes an extreamly strong will to block out those feelings.
    
    Bill (who isn't trying to be argumentive, but who is just trying
    to state my opinion.)
    

    I am new to the notes file.  I find some of the topics in Human
    Relations very interesting.  One "hot topic" I read was the one
    entitled "Sex with others while married".  This entry was dated
    1987 - I hope no one minds me bringing it up again.  I had to agree
    with most of the replies.  I could not understand how 265.0 could
    compare having lunch, going to a movie or playing tennis, to having
    sex with someone.  I also felt bad for the "SO" after reading this
    note.  I disagree with 265.0.  I am married and if at some point
    in my marriage I fell out of love/wanted someone else, I would tell
    my husband my feelings.  And hope that he would tell me if he felt
    that way, which he has said he would because we've talking about
    this very subject.  I do believe in getting OUT of one relationship
    before starting another.
    
    I'm curious - whatever happened to 265.0 and his "SO"?
    
    Debra
    

         
         You know how it is...gone for a week and then someone
         brings up my favorite topic....just couldn't control
         myself.... [grin]
         
>    I could not understand how 265.0 could
>    compare having lunch, going to a movie or playing tennis, to having
>    sex with someone.  

         Well, it's really quite simple. All these actions
         include sharing time and actions with someone whom
         you care about or for. The implication that *sex*
         implies a deeper commitment upon the part of the
         participants is from *your* view point; not *necessarily*
         from the view point of the participants.
         
>    I also felt bad for the "SO" after reading this
>    note.  
 
         Why? 
         
         Did you do something to this person? Are you sure
         they would be hurt? Aren't you reading your value
         system into place and projecting what you think
         your feelings would be onto this person? 
         
         The person in .0 posed a *question*....is merely
         asking a question grounds for uninvited solicitude
         these days? Why should the SO be upset?

>    I am married and if at some point
>    in my marriage I fell out of love/wanted someone else, I would tell
>    my husband my feelings.  
         
         Without offending anyone, [I hope], might I suggest
         that first of all....it is awfully hard to predict
         what any of us will do when faced with a dilemma
         of this nature. We can all *say* what we *think*
         we might do, but when "push comes to shove", we all
         sometimes act somewhat differently. I always hesitate
         to speak in absolutes because I have too many times
         done so to only be embarassed by the "truth" of my
         actions at a later date.
         
         Second of all....I would like to suggest that one
         need not "fall out of love" with one person to "want"
         another. Happens all the time. To suggest that humans
         are mutually exclusive when it comes to love and
         sexual realtions not only ignores popular wisdom
         and statistical information....but also denies the
         truly wonderful diversity of the human animal. I
         am perfectly capable of loving more than one person
         at a time...most of us are...although most of us
         suppress it.
         
>    I do believe in getting OUT of one relationship
>    before starting another.
    
         Why? [again]
         
         If all members in all relationships understand that
         multiple relationships can and do exist?...What harm
         is there? .0 defined a situation that implied no
         duplicity....the cards were on the table....under
         those circumstances the *only* method of inflicting
         hurt [betrayal, lieing, 'cheating'] has been removed
         by being totally honest. So I see no need to follow
         this edict....under the terms laid out by .0.
         
         .0 also explicitly asked that people divest themselves
         of religious and moralistic preconceptions in thinking
         about his question. I find many of the replies do
         precisiely the opposite. They *assume* a realtive
         *right* and *wrong* about this topic and then continue
         from there....
         
         .0 asked that you assume no relative right and wrong
         and discuss the possibility from that view...
         
         The relative acceptance of sexual infidelity is a
         matter of societal conditioning. Society at large
         designates whether it is right, wrong or indifferent.
         And as in all decisions made by a moral majority
         [or minority] it reflects *only* a mean of behavior.
         There is nothing intrinsically wrong with breaking
         these rules...only in the manner in which they are
         broken.
         
         "One woman's opinion only...."
         
         Melinda
         

    
    Hello.  Someone asked whatever became of the author of that note !
    
    It's me.  I still exist.  However, my life has changed.
    
    Barbara and I have been separated since Sept. 1988.  We're currently
    doing the legalities and mechanics of actual divorce.
    
    I haven't reread the earlier replies here.  Perhaps I'm a bit
    afraid I'll be embarrassed by what I see.
    
    Without rereading the replies, I'd like to say my current philosophy,
    which might differ from what I said before.
    
    I'd like to someday find the "right mate".  Such would be a person
    with whom I'd be willing to commit to having be my number one.  With
    such a commitment, I'd be willing to sexually exclusive.
    
    When the questions about sex with others came up for me while married
    to Barbara, it was one of the (many) signals that this was not the
    right marriage.  It never was.  I just didn't realize it at first.
         
    Feel free to send me mail if you have questions, but please be fair!
    If you want to know about my personal life, please reveal
    things about yours too.
    
    /Eric