Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    It would help if you define what you mean by multiple.
    One a week or once a year?
    
    Politicians looking for an edge have made sex an issue.
    
    Sex is the latest weapon for the media to destroy
    candidates, such as Nina Totenburg of PBS did when she 
    exposed Gary Hart. It didn't hurt her career either.
    A man might well feel it dishonorable to stab a fellow
    like that.
    
    Never faithful...?  Isn't necessarily so. There is
    always the chance of meeting someone who makes a deep
    impression, and remaining faithful. I think that is a
    generalization. 

    Re "attracted to many, ever faithful to one"
    
    I like that! My first marriage lasted 18Yrs. I was attracted to
    many during that time, but remained faithful. Like Jimmy C, I
    only lusted in my heart. But then, I actually tried to set up
    a situation where I could lust with my body. Didn't happen, but
    it got me thinking along the 'what's missing?' line. I got a
    divorce before I commited adultery in a weak moment. Strange mix
    of old-fashioned and new-fashioned attitudes toward marriage.
    
    I'm in my second marriage and dearly hope that it lasts as long
    as I do.
    
    Re Hart
    
    My dad played around for years and my mom was the loyal wife.
    Hart's re-entry into the campaign with his wife's support, is
    similar in my mind. "Look, I messed around a little before. But
    if you support me, I promise I'll never do it again." Sort of
    like a speeder promising the cop that he'll never speed again
    as long as the the cop doesn't give him a ticket.
    
    Bob Mc

>    Sex is the latest weapon for the media to destroy
>    candidates, such as Nina Totenburg of PBS did when she 
>    exposed Gary Hart. It didn't hurt her career either.

    Huh?  When did Nina Totenberg started working for Miami Herald?
    Where did you get the above new item?
    
    - Vikas    

    The answers so far have kind of missed the point here. I was
    specifically talking about the kind of man who appears to
    be a complusive womanizer. and as to what is my definition of
    promiscuous? well for a start how about counting 'partners'
    in the middle double digits?
    Twice in my life I have known men who boasted of counting 'partners'
    in three digits. Both of them were really amoral people,
    who proved, once you got to know them at all well, to be very
    selfish and unreliable...who could not be counted on unless they
    felt they would gain.
    
    Do you think that such behavior is always a sign of an inability
    to commit to something more than personal success/goals etc.?

    	I think there's a difference between counting partners and
    	being promiscuous in the same way there's a difference be-
    	tween counting partners for your own internal records and 
    	broadcasting said numbers to friends, strangers, family,
    	dates, SO's, etc.
    
    						Carla
    

    Carla, that is still a red herring off my original topic. I am
    not aking about men or women who count partners...I used that as an example
    because I was challenged earlier as to what I meant by promiscuous.
    Bonnie

    
    	Sorry about that, Bonnie.
    
    						Carla
    

    
    
    Bonnie,
    
    Can we open this up a little by not limiting the discussion to men
    alone.  I'm sure alot of men have been exposed to the same personality
    quirks in women as well.  Maybe the discussion should be about
    personality traits in general, not just in men.
    
    george
    
    

    No problem, the original broadcast that got me thinking on the topic
    was referring to male politicians (such as the Kennedy family) which
    was why I entered my original note here...

    Well, this conference IS MENNOTES, and thus it seems reasonable to
    have discussions here about men.  I would have no objection to
    someone bringing up this topic in QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS without
    regard to sex.
    					Steve

    
    
    Alright, so much for jabbing and jabbering....to the point!
    
    The behavior mentioned, made famous by the Kennedy brothers and
    infamous by Gary Hart is a character flaw, and I believe just the
    tip of the iceberg.  Not only does this behavior make ones morals
    suspect it opens the door to blackmail, extortion and a few other
    goodies.
    
    As far as the trick itself, my personal opinion is that someone
    who needs to persue relationships outside of a marriage, or similiar
    relationship should get divorced, or seperated, and get one with
    killing himself/herself.  I guess I'm just an old fashioned guy,
    I just don't my the multiple partner trip, seen too much B.S.
    associated with "open relationships." And to answer the question
    stated in .0 I wouldn't trust someone with that character trait
    as far as I could throw them, in a relationship, or any other way!
    
    George
    
    
    

    RE: .0
    
    Bonnie, I'll try, more or less, to  get back to your basenote question:
    
    "...do you think that a man who has established an adult pattern
    of being promiscuous , i.e., having multiple women partners can
    make a permanent commitment to only one woman?
    
    I think I'd have to qualify my response based upon the type of
    "promiscuous" behavior the man has exhibited. If he has previously
    just slept around with any woman who attracted him, but he has
    made no commitments or promises, and he has been honest with
    her about this, then I think his past behavior is no indicator
    of how he'll behave in a "committed relationship". Once he's in
    a committed relationship, he may - or may not - mess around.
    
    However, a man who finds himself in a series of committed relat-
    ionships, but still, is unable to ever be faithful to the woman
    he's with, falls into a different category. I don't think he'll
    ever be able to be monogamous, so long as his deeper-rooted
    psychological problems are not addressed. This man may truly
    want to be faithful. I just don't think he'll be able to be.
    
      Alan                                              

    	Bonnie:
    
    	Just what is meant by "commitment to one woman"?  Is it possible
    for a man to be promiscuous and still keep a commitment to one woman?
    Yes, if the commitment does not exclude sexual daliances.  I don't
    believe all women or all men demand their partners not have sex
    with other people.  I think most in this country make this demand.
    
    	There are people who have no interest in the sexual acts.  The
    partners of these people, if they have average libidos (sp?), must
    find sexual expression outside their primary relationship.
    
    	There are males and females who, for whatever reasons, need
    to experience multiple sexual partners.  It is quite possible people
    of this ilk have little or no feeling for the people with whom they
    engage in extra-marital sex save for pure sexual feelings.  These
    people could be, and some probably are, good people (loving partners,
    parents, etc.) who don't have multiple heads or minds full of lies.
    
    Douglas

    Hi Bonnie!
    
    Good topic, think I'll take a swing at it. :-)
    
    I thought about it for a while, and the more I thought about it
    them more upset at the basic unquestioned underlying assumptions
    I became. What is "promiscuous"? Is it simply the sex act? Is it
    shared intimacy? Which is more important? Everyone SAYS that sex
    without intimacy is cheap and unrewarding, but would you be more
    hurt if your spouse spent an intimate evening with someone else,
    sharing their hearts, or would them having anonymous sex with someone
    be more upsetting? Why? What's so important about marital "fidelity"?
    Granted if you've promised to "forsake all others and cleave to
    one only" then you've made a promise, a commitment. What makes this
    particular promise of such paramount importance? If it's just
    commitments we're talking about, then why isn't the question

     	"Can a man who's repeatedly broken his promises be eternally
     	faithful to one person?"
    
    I saw a survey in the last year or so that asked people to define
    what they meant by "faithful". It asked whether or not a person
    was unfaithful if they did various things like had an intimate dinner
    with someone, held hands, kissed, stayed late at the office together,
    went on a trip together, had sex together, and so on. I was shocked
    and amazed at the differences people expressed. There are people
    out there who would expect me to stop hugging my friends if I married
    them! Otherwise I was being "unfaithful"! Ye gads!
    
    I really get the sense of a not-so hidden agenda here. What I keep
    hearing (not necessarily from you Bonnie) is "Promiscuity is bad,
    fidelity is good. Promiscuity is sex with lots of people, fidelity is
    just sex with your spouse. Promiscuous people are untrustworthy
    liars, faithful people are trustworthy and admirable." I don't buy
    it. I don't buy the premise, I don't buy the definitions, and I
    don't buy the conclusions.
    
    You've tried to clear this up by saying what you meant by "unfaithful",
    but I'm still not happy. I think it *is* possible for people to
    make a "permanent" commitment to one other person, a deep, lasting,
    committed relationship, without making it *exclusive*. I didn't
    stop loving my mother when I married my wife, I didn't stop loving
    my old lovers when I married my wife. I do love her more, and love
    her better, and I will love her forever, and I want to spend the
    rest of my life with her.
    
    But neither of us promised to never look sexually on anyone else. We
    have an "open" relationship, and it works for US. If you (not you
    Bonnie, but second person plural "you") want to judge our worth as
    people or the depth of our commitment by that fact... what can I say,
    there are small minded bigots everywhere.
    
    I *KNOW* I'm never going to find someone I love as much as Janice,
    because I'm never going to spend enough time getting to know anyone
    else as well as I do her. Likewise I *KNOW* she's never going to love
    anyone as much as me, because we spend so much of our lives together,
    and have shared so much of our lives. I don't need the promise, if the
    love isn't there, the promise is hollow. At worst it will bind us into
    a relationship we both would be better out of. It's the love that
    causes you to work things out, not fear or promises.
    
    If you can't deal with your partner sleeping with someone else,
    or you DON'T have the kind of secure relationship Janice and I have,
    perhaps you are just starting out, perhaps you haven't worked things
    out, then yes extra"marital" sex can be an extremely corrosive and
    destructive force, but it doesn't HAVE to be.
    
    I find it very difficult to categorically condemn people's sexual
    habits, especially if they are different from mine. Mores change. There
    was a time, not too long ago when promiscuity (it was "fornication"
    then) was sex with ANYONE who wasn't your spouse. (Still means that in
    some places.) Fidelity meant sex with your spouse (whether you wanted
    it or not) and NO divorce. Masturbation was immoral! Times change.
    Definitions change. People change.
    
    	"Love, and do what you will."
    
    		St. Augustine [In Ioann. VIII. 7]
    
    	-- Charles

    re: .0
    
    Very quickly a thought occurred to me on this topic, considering
    if we want to extend it to be "a person with multiple partners",
    rather than "just men".
    
    I can think of "at least" one person who admittedly has had many
    sexual partners, but only "one, true love". And that one, true love
    chooses to overlook their partners "messing around" with other people
    (sexually).
    
    Looking backwards upon all the people I've met and known under a
    variety-sets of circumstances ..... it is very vague if "playing around"
    has any resemblance to a person being committed to another person,
    for the similiar reason that persons who are alchoholics do so by
    choice or by chance ?
    
    In one of her columns, a noted columnist replied (to the question:
    will this 40 year old playboy ever settle down ?) .. she said
    (as best as I  can recall: If he's evaded marriage for this long,
    why should he settle down now ?).
    
    In another reality, I had the chance to meet a clergyman who was
    45 when he finally got married ... about 30 years ago ... and continued
    to be so when we lost track of each other 5 years (or so ) ago.

    I think that philanderers, like alchoholics and druggies, will tend
    to continue to be so, until someone makes them an offer they can't
    refuse. :^)
    
    Just my opinion.
    
    Bob    
    

    Hope I'm not too late.
    
    I knew a man who had a wife (and kids), a steady girl friend, and
    regularly picked up 'one night stands'. Do I think he could be faithful
    to one woman? No. In fact I don't think he could ever be faithful
    to any commitment to anyone. I think the bed hopping was symptomatic
    of a basic character flaw. I think that the politicians who bed hop,
    many using their office, fame and power to pick up women, are showing
    the same flaws. It's more then just sleeping around.
    
>    I really get the sense of a not-so hidden agenda here. What I keep
>    hearing (not necessarily from you Bonnie) is "Promiscuity is bad,
>    fidelity is good. Promiscuity is sex with lots of people, fidelity is
>    just sex with your spouse. Promiscuous people are untrustworthy
>    liars, faithful people are trustworthy and admirable." I don't buy
>    it. I don't buy the premise, I don't buy the definitions, and I
>    don't buy the conclusions.

    While I don't believe that promiscuous people are totally
    untrustworthy liars I do believe they are doing something very
    wrong. I *do* buy those definitions of promiscuity and fidelity
    though. I also don't believe that faithful people are trustworthy
    and admirable by reason of being faithful. I do believe that fidelity
    is and admirable trait though and that sex with anyone not ones
    spouse is wrong. Doesn't mean I don't like those people just that
    I don't approve of something they do. I believe I have that right.
    
    			Alfred

    I just got into mennotes, so this topic has quieted down by now.
    
    But, of course, I do have an opinion. It seems to me that all through
    the ages, people have had different yardsticks by which to measure
    their behavior. I don't feel that I have any more right to make
    you change your measuring rules, than you have to make me change
    mine.
    
     There are excepions, of course - Hitler's yardstick had a crook
    in it.......
    
     Now, what I try to look for when I am trying to decide if I can
    trust a person is not how many people he/she sleeps with, but how
    honest he/she is. If your partner has an agenda (hidden or not)
    that does not include you sleeping with someone else, and you have
    agreed with that agenda (explicitly or implicitly), then I would
    count you as not trustworthy if you slept with other people.
    Harems still exist, but we do not reject Arab leaders on that basis.
    The real issue is the unspoken agendas, broken trusts, etc. 
    
     If you can stand tall and not hide your actions; if you don't have
    to sneak around; if you don't do something that you would NEVER
    tell your partner about; then I can begin to feel like I can trust
    you.
    
     So.....
    
     If Mrs. Hart knew that Gary slept around, and if it was ok with
    her, then both Hart's should have said so. I realize that the public
    wouldn't really accept him, then, as presidentail material. But,
    at least, they would have been honest, and if they they were rejected,
    it really would be the voters fault - not theirs.
    
     It's a funny thing, when Garfield was running for president, the
    media leaked the news that he had gotten one of his servants pregnant
    just recently. During the next rally, the pressure was on Garfield
    to make a statement.
    
     He did.
    
     He said it was true, now lets get on with the election. Which they
    did, and Garfield went on to win! He was honest! And we like to
    think that we are more open minded than the people of that time. 

    I will trust you if I think you have a consistent, thought out set
    of values and do your best to live with them.
    
    			Gregg