Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Question....Are you stating this because you truly believe it or
    are you looking for someone to tell you that it's ok to "cheat"?:-)
    
    There are less traditional households every day because of divorce,
    unwanted pregnancy, etc.  I feel if we keep going like this the
    children of tomorrow are going to be quit confused.  Everyone may
    not like the "traditional" ways of doing things, but if you look
    at history, it will show you that every time there was a time when
    the rules about sex were "make-your-own", there was also a downfall
    in community and government.
    
    Today with the scare of disease and aids, how can you justify wanting
    to be sexually active with more than one person?  I'm not talking
    about loving or caring for more than one person, you can do that
    without being sexually active, I just think that the risk of what
    you are suggesting is to great for anyone to take.  The fact that
    aids is even a disease is mother natures way of telling you it's
    not right.  That the traditional way was the traditional way because
    it works.
    
    Kathy  :+)

    Kathy,
    
    I interpreted Joyce's message a little differently than you did.
    What I heard her say is that she'd originally "not approved" of
    or "had concerns about" the household that she visited. But she
    was pleasantly surprised to find that it was full of loving,
    respectable people. I didn't get the impression that Joyce is now
    a "convert"; rather, she realized through her experience that there
    are other "valid" lifestyles beyond the one that she was used to.
    (JLM: I hope I got that right!)
                                   
    I've often heard people say that AIDS is Mother Nature's or God's
    way of punishing "bad" people. You may truly believe that, but please
    remember that there are plenty of people who feel differently. In
    other words, it may be true for you, it may be part of your fundamental
    belief system, but that doesn't make it a universal truth.
    
    Liz

    HOORAY! FOR .1!!!!
    
    Too many people are considering "alternate lifestyles."  When a
    relationship doesn't work with a man the next thought is to condemn
    all men.  Often what people don't stop to think about when a
    relationship ends is a really basic question "AM I THE TYPE OF PERSON
    THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE IN A RELATIONSHIIP WHITH?" 
    
    I'm not getting up on a pulpit to preach but if "alternate lifestyles"
    were meant to be why didn't got make us all with parts that fit
    together like "Leggos"????
    
    If someone considers an "alternate lifestyle" I think they should
    re-examine the reasons why.  
                                                      
    Just my thoughts on the subject.
    MAC
    

    Re .1, I am really shocked and dissapointed to see that you believe
    that Aides is "nature's way" of punishing people for having active
    sex lives.
    
    Your reply is an example of what people who do strive for alternate
    lifestyles are up against.
    

    I notice a disturbing trend, here.
    
    Someone brings up what *they* term "alternate lifestyles". One
    part of which (that interests them) is "Group living". There are
    many ways of "group living", the BASES of which have nothing in
    particular to do with <gasp> S-E-X.
    
    Pretty soon, we have REPLYs which are talking about AIDS and (good
    grief) LEGO's - don't look now, but suddenly we have a discussion
    about <gasp> S-E-X, and God's punishment on those <blankety-blanks>,
    as if living an alternate lifestyle involved one's genitals instead
    of one's heart, as the author of the basenote said (my
    interperetation, of course).
    
    Sheesh.
    
    Dawn
    

    RE: .2 and .4
    
    I wasn't saying that aids is natures way of "punishing".  I was
    saying that every thing in nature happens for a reason; birds eat
    worms to stay alive, cats eat birds, dogs eat cats.  Wild animals
    live off of each other and when a pack gets to big, mother nature
    has a way of thinning them out. 
    
    I did not say that aids or disease was a punishment for being sexually
    active.  If that were true then it would not matter how many partners
    you had.  Smoking causes lung cancer, if you smoke the chances of
    you having lung cancer are great.  Sleeping with more than one person
    helps to spread aids, if you sleep with more than one person the
    chances of you getting aids is also great.
    
    RE:.2
    You were right I did misinterpret the first part about her not knowing
    or worrying about what she might see in this household.  But I felt
    towards the end that she was looking for someone to say it was ok
    for people to be sexually active with not just one person.  
    
    Kathy
    
    

    RE: .6
    
    I don't think that Joyce was, necessarily, only talking about having
    sex with more than one person in her basenote, although that, indeed,
    may be a part of an alternate life-style.
    
    And I certainly don't believe that Joyce was seeking affirmation
    or approval, if that *were* to be her choice.
    
      Alan

    I realize and understand the fact that Joyce was not necessarily
    only talking about having sex with more than one person in her
    basenote.   It was the phrase:
    
    > I think we have come a long way in understanding and accepting
    homosexuality...but we are rigid in our philosophy that it is not
    possible to care for two people at the same time and wish to "express
    that feeling sexually".
    
    ...That I was refering to.  That is why I asked my initial question.
    
    Kathy
    
    

If you feel that casual sex promotes AIDS, perhaps you should refrain from
kissing, or shaking hands, which have a much greater chance of spreading
disease...

Sleeping with more then one person does not automatically make the chances
of getting AIDS "great".

Confused?  Yes, I think that being presented with a large number of choices can
be confusing.  However, I feel that the possible disadvantage of confusion over
a large number of choices is way offset by the lessened frustration of not
having a choice which fits you.  Confronted with a large number of important
choices, I seldom am confused unless the differences are trivial. Rather I am
usually drawn to one choice.  With a lesser number of choices I might not find
one that fit me, and waste a lot of energy on frustration. 

At what times in history do you feel too many choices led to downfall?

Communities have a wide variety of sexual mores.  Some are even celibate. Some
only have sex within the group; this limits the possibility of AIDS to the
minimum. 

The arguments of .3 could equally be applied to homosexuality, different
religions, etc...

Why be interested in an alternate lifestyle?  Because it is difficult/impossible
to find ONE person who can supply all of my wants/needs/interests. 

Communities involve a little extra overhead because instead of communicating
with just one person, each person should know what is going on with each other
person.

Communities tend to be more economical fincially because the overhead of a
household is spread over a larger number of people.  They are better for support
because with more people it is more likely that someone will be there when
another person needs emotional support. 

In a Community the tendancy to "own"/"possess" people and treat them as your
possessions and take them for granted is less.

    Not to make this into an AIDS discussion, but: say, 3 people involved
    in an...er...alternate relationship who have been involved among
    themselves and WITH NO-ONE else for the last roughly 10 years are
    probably among the people with the *lowest* risk of getting AIDS.
    
    Matter of fact, a group of 10 people in the same situation are also
    at low risk. 
    
    IT has nothing to do specifically with the number of partners one
    has - a person who has been "serially monagamous" with only 2 people
    in the last 5 years *could* be at greater risk than the groups
    mentioned above.
    
    All this applies to the *het*erosexual community.
    
    --DE
    

    RE: .9
    
    > If you feel that casual sex promotes AIDS, perhaps you should
    refrain from kissing, or shaking hands.......
    
    There is no such thing as casual sex, there is casual contact, which
    would be the kissing and shaking hands that you were talking about.
    But any one who is medically educated in the least would know that
    kissing and shaking hands passes the common cold and some flu's.:*)
    
    > Some only have sex within the group; this limits the possibility
    of AIDS to the minimum.
    
    Again with a little education on AIDS you would find that AIDS,
    Which is a disease created in the body by the immune system to kill
    the immune system.  When semen gets into the blood steam, the body
    considers it a foriegn object, the blood stream is no place for
    semen which in all actuality is human cells.  The body's immune
    system fights the semen as it would any other foriegn substance.
    and then you now have a natural anti body in the blood stream so
    that it can fight this foriegn object if it ever appears again.
    Except that the anti body finds that there are lots of human cells
    around for it to fight so it keeps fighting, and that's where it
    kills the immune system.
    a man and a woman can not contract aids between themselves, there
    has to be a third party, if one man's semen winds up in the others
    blood stream this is what happens.  Once the disease is contracted
    then it can be passed to the women.
    
    My point was not to debate about AIDS, And I apologize to Joyce
    if we got sidetracted from her subject.  I was merely stating my
    opinion on why I wouldn't try an alternate lifestyle.
    Remeber we are all entitled to our own opinion, and I respect Joyces
    and everyone's as I hope the would mine.
    Sorry again about the sidetract.
    
    Kathy
    
    

    Please continue the AIDS discussion in Note 779.
    We now return you to the regularly scheduled conversation on alternate
    lifestyles.
    
    Liz Augustine

    Re .11, in .0, you said, "The fact that aids is even a disease is
    mother natures way of telling you it's not right."
    
    It's way of telling you that *what* isn't right?
    
    I think of Aides as some sort of biological coincidence, that needs
    to have a cure, and that has NOTHING to do with what's right and
    what's wrong.
    
    You also said that, "the traditional way was the traditional way
    because it works".  Well, the "traditional way" doesn't work for
    everybody and that's why there are alternate lifestyles.
    
    In .11, you said, "There is no such thing as casual sex".  What
    do you mean?  
    
    Lorna
    

    Aids is some sort of "biological coincidence" ???
    It's not a coincidence, Of course there is a reason.  The government
    definately needs to educate on this subject.  If AIDS had nothing
    to do with what is right and what is wrong.  Then explain the reason
    for the government to make oral and anal sex illegal.
    
    Kathy
    
    P.S.  I'll be over in note 779 for further AIDS debaters.. 8^)
    
    

    RE: .15
    
    Various state governments, through outdated sodomy laws still
    in the statute books, also forbid fornicating in any position
    other than the "missionary position".
    
    Just because laws are passed by some assholes, doesn't mean the
    laws have any valid reasons to exist in the first place. 
    
    Yours is a circular argument.
    
      Alan

    
    .0 actually came at a rather fortuitous time for me, and I'm
    disappointed it got sidetracked so quickly. For some time now I've
    been wrestling with how to reconcile my feelings for other people,
    some male- some female, some sexual- some 'platonic', and being a
    very happily married person. I can't imagine being without my spouse.
    On the other hand, I occasionally come to despise being *married*;
    that is, locked into (albeit voluntarily) a two-person unit with
    rather set dynamics. To give a trivial example, we don't see each
    other during the day during the week; most evenings we have specific
    activities (rehearsals, etc.); on the evenings we don't have specific
    activities and all weekend, we spend virtually all our time together.
    A picture of true love? yes. A potentially stifling situation? I
    think so. To extend a metaphor, when your spouse becomes your primary
    emotional 'hammer', do all of your personal feeling and problems
    become 'nails'?
    
    If I interpret .0 correctly, however, I agree that the question
    of 'cheating' is where the real moral dilemma lies. I am shocked
    by some of the mediaeval thinking evidenced earlier in this string.    

    Joyce, one of the points you raised about "alternative lifestyles" was
    that "alternative" basically means "non nuclear-family", and in
    particular "communal". In spite of a few people focussing on sex and
    homosexuality, I believe a much more important issue is that communal
    lifestyles offer much more for the FAMILY than traditional nuclear
    arrangements.
    
    What with divorce being rampant, it would seem to me that a much
    more stable arrangement would be a communal one. Ignoring as
    fundamentally irrelevant the issue of who sleeps with whom in such
    a community, it seems to me that children would get more care, more
    love, more attention, and a guaranteed stable environment in such
    a situation.
    
    In the past similar kinds of support were provided by the extended
    family and, to a degree, by the fact that most communities were
    small and tightly knit. With the advent of modern transportation,
    and the development of large cities the extended family has become
    much less effective in providing for children. It would seem that
    a natural response would be the forming of "extended families" of
    people who weren't necessarily related.
    
    On the other hand I sometimes wonder if such a community is actually
    possible, or whether internal friction and pressures combined with
    the massive external pressure any such commune must face would
    automatically result in the community self destructing. My sister
    in law is a practicing midwife in New Mexico and has been a member
    of some rather loosely organized communal living arrangements, and
    still has contact with them. I'm greatly intrigued by them and hope
    the work out. They seem to have such promise. My personal experience
    on visiting such communes is that they seem to have a lot of love
    in them, but they for one reason or another, don't seem to last.
    
    	-- Charles

    From time to time, the idea of some sort of commune appeals to me
    greatly. My vision of it involves a large house with enough separation
    between areas to provide privacy, yet with common space (a big kitchen,
    "great room," etc.) for shared activities. (I did not consider any
    unorthodox sexual arrangements - the residents would probably be
    single people or married couples. My idea was geared more towards
    job descriptions, in fact.)
    
    It seemed to me that a large percentage of the people I know enjoy
    working in software or hardware development, and another significant
    percentage enjoy doing artistic-type things - music, needlecraft,
    writing, and so forth. Still others are much more domestic, and
    intensely interested in gardening, cooking, and child care. It seemed
    logical that a household with several wage-earners pulling down
    good salaries could easily support other people who preferred to
    do the house-type tasks. (Wouldn't it be nice to have your own
    woodworker-in-residence? "Hey, Janet, when you get a minute could
    you do some scrollwork around the border of my desk?")

    What brought this to my mind was the realization that the old days
    of close-knit neighborhoods seem to have passed us by. Most of my
    friends live in different towns from each other, some in different 
    states - a map of Mass. and NH would be crisscrossed with lines 
    connecting all our houses, and it's impossible to "just drop by" to 
    lend somebody a lawnmower. By moving in to one big house we'd be 
    rebuilding a neighborhood to our own specifications.

    HOWEVER!!! The logistics of this are simply staggering. There are
    legal ramifications; shared ownership can be very risky. Even if
    all parties are totally honest and dedicated to the project, accidents
    can happen, and the unexpected loss of a community  member could
    wreak havoc on the "happy little commune." Personalities might clash.
    The people who liked doing the housework might well begin to feel
    that they owned the house, and might resent attempts by anybody
    else to share in the decisions. People without children could become
    huffy when the kids got too lively. Border disputes concerning noise,
    pets, odors (cooking, smoke, bodily, and perfume, among others)
    might grow frequent. And the squabbling that can be dealt with in
    a family could break apart a less... traditional... set of relationships.
    
    It's rather like an absolute monarchy as a form of government. When
    conditions are optimum and the despot is talented and benevolent,
    it's a wonderful form of government - but those conditions cannot
    be guaranteed, and when they fail, it becomes unbearable.
    
    -b

    Hasn't anyone else here lived in large houses with passles of people?
    
    I have, since school.  For 7 years we had a house of 5-7 people,
    although we were mostly friends from school, and mostly single.
    We rented, and the house broke up with only a minor nastiness at
    the end of 11 years.
    
    I've almost always known people who had more organized group houses.
    There was a house in Somerville which had members who bought shares
    of the house.  There was a feminist house I heard about once when
    we met a famous architect from MIT (she'd been one of the first
    women in the program; she lived in the house).  I visited a 
    spectacular house in California that was owned by some fannish 
    folk.  Then there are those ads from single mothers looking for
    other single mothers to share a house or apt with.
    
    Sometimes the problem is finding the right house.  It's not easy
    to find one big enough for half a dozen, probably because too many
    houses were built for some noocular family nonsense ("uhoh, no
    room for grandma!"), and the big old houses are always getting carved
    up into apts or offices.  (And sometimes they just fall down.) 
    We had some trouble finding a house in the 'burbs, because they
    all had one decent bedroom and two or three tiny ones (for the kids).
    But if you're committed, and have patience, who knows what treasure
    you might find.

    I would be willing to swear that I saw a feature spot on TV about
    a...well, commune, I guess.... that started back in in the late
    60's/early 70's and is still in existence. My impression is that
    people have come and gone, but there has always been a core group
    that's been around long enough to provide the necessary stability
    for changes to be made.
    
    One of the things I noticed about it is that it took care quite
    nicely, thank you, of the issue of child care. Some of the...uhm..
    "residents", I guess (members?) worked away from the grounds and
    some worked *on* the grounds, so there were always folks around
    to monitor the young'uns. 
    
    Group meetings were the method of handling day-to-day operations,
    and while discussion got heated, things seemed to work out OK in
    the end.
    
    Maybe it *is* possible. I think such a group would have to take
    into account personalities of prospective members, to a large degree.
    Also, it would seem that this type of thing would work better if
    the folks involved had some kind of common philosophy of life.
    
    --DE
    

There are lots of Communities that last for decades...

I have a couple of books on the subject.  The most successfull ones have
some central common beliefs of interests...

Jim

        Group living and group marriages can both work, but as others
        have said they are very complex, and there are a lot of strains
        on them.
        
        When I was in college, a couple came back for a visit and
        brought with them their new wife--the three of them had been
        "married" (I have no idea who performed the wedding or what
        formal, religious, orlegal status it had) for a few months. It
        was very clearly a very symmetrical and mutual love affair. 
        
        It was a little surprising to have a woman, especially one who
        was in a committed long-term heterosexual relationship, beam and
        proudly introduce her wife, and yet all of them clearly behaved
        as typical newly-weds. I have no idea how they have fared since,
        but they clearly had a tough situation in terms of social
        acceptance before them. At least at that point, though, they had
        a lot of internal support.
        
        Even simple group living arrangements, without the complications
        of group sexual relationships can be fairly hard to maintain.
        Nearly 15 years ago, my wife and I shared half of a three story
        house with a number of our friends. Most of the time there were
        8 or 9 of us--two couples (one married and one not), and 4 or 5
        singles. On the whole it worked pretty well and there were a lot
        of advantages, both in terms of simple economics and in social
        terms as well, but the sheer complexity of the interactions can
        be a real disadvantage. 
        
        JimB.

    I've lived in a number of group houses/communes/communities during the
    past 15 years.  Some of them included both gay and straight people,
    others included 1 couple among a number of single people, and others
    included all single people, some of whom were in relationships with
    people who did not live in the household. 
    
    When people who had never participated in a group living situation
    heard about some of these houses, the first reaction often seemed to be
    along the lines of "How do you figure out who sleeps with whom, and
    when?".  (They must have read 'The Harrad Experiment'.) I was always
    amazed that people equated 'choose to share living space' with 'choose
    to have sex with'. 
    
    I have never, ever been sexual with any of my housemates.  I can't
    remember even considering the possibility seriously.  I've lived
    with groups of people for other reasons:  company, shared philosophies,
    to save money, to be able to live in a house instead of an apartment,
    and to have people to give my cats a little more attention than
    they would have gotten otherwise.   
    
    I agree with the person who said that the ideal group house is a
    very large house with plenty of space for personal privacy.  That's
    the kind of situation I'm in now.  3/5 of us are DECcies, one man
    and one woman are in a couple, and we lead extremely independent
    lives other than the occasional house meeting to solve nitty-gritties.
    I sometimes go for days without running into certain of my housemates.
    Some of us are involved with people outside of the household.  
                          
    There are two factors which make this household work, in my opinion.
    Everyone has agreed to keep the common areas neat, and not leave
    personal belongings around.  Everyone has income and takes financial
    responsibility.  (The household is relatively quiet, too.)
    
    My household is definitely on the conservative end of the 'community
    living' spectrum, as are most other group households I know of these
    days...
    
    Holly
    
    

    When we bought our house in the country eight and a half years ago
    it was with the idea that we might some day have an alternate community
    there. We had two sets of freinds with whom we had discussed setting
    up such a community. We were basically Christian of various
    orientations, ecologically aware, and anti war at the time.
    
    Over the years we had to let go of that dream. Each set of friends
    went off and developed their own unique life style tho we still
    stay close.
    
    Right now we are thinking about using our land (about 50 acres)
    to try and set up a community for adult handicapped/mildly retarded
    individuals (like our 13 year old son). I don't know if anything
    more will come of this dream than the first one but we have just
    begun to investigate the options.
    
    We are so far out in the 'boonies' that it is unlikely that our
    kids will settle on our land - but my oldest said to me once that
    if there ever comes a war or ecological disaster he will head for
    our hills...all those years of learning how to heat with wood,
    haul water, raise our own meat and vegies may turn out to have been
    useful!
    
    Bonnie