Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Holly,
    
    You have hit the button for me on this one! When I married both
    my SO and I both agreed that if in the future we found that it was
    not working we would be grateful of the good times and go our separate
    ways. What I find is that now that the times are bad something keeps
    me and possibly him from calling it quits. Maybe we are both afraid
    of being alone or going through the process of trying to find someone
    else. 
    
    I have discovered that when I agreed to marry that I was in that state
    of "romantic love" where everyone lives happily everafter. (it won't
    happen to us) Well the real world is a sure eye opener! I know now
    that I am the kind of woman that wants the forever. I have proved
    this to myself by still trying to make my current relationship stay
    together. Its not because I have a child either, because I know
    this can have just the opposite effect on her. Maybe it is because
    I feel that by leaving the relationship I would have failed somehow.
    But I also know I can not continue this relationship as it is currently.  
    
    So in conclusion, I can only say that I am currently in counseling
    to answer some of the questions you have raised here in this
    conference. Hopefully I will be able to answer my questions and
    go forward.
    
    Helena
        

    Generally, I think it's culturally inbred (at least with my
    Irish-Catholic background) that marriage is forever. The implication
    of divorce always seemed to be that you 'failed' or 'didn't try
    hard enough' somehow.
    
    The basic element for me in deciding to marry my SO was that he
    was the first person that I felt deeply enough about, that I was
    willing to work with on the good and bad that comes up.  I've often
    reminded myself of that, too, in the last 4 years, as we've worked
    through some very hard times.  That willingness to work/communicate
    has gotten us both through the hard times.
    
    On a romantic level, he was also the first person I could envision
    growing old with, and feeling comfortable old -- together --. I
    hadn't even thought on that level in previous relationships.
    
    Lynn
    

    If a person can't at least *want* to commit to forever in the beginning
    when they are "madly in love" then what's the sense of commiting
    to anything?  If I can't feel secure with someone's feelings I'd
    just as soon be able to come and go as I please knowing it's nobody
    else's business.  (I can be totally committed to someone I'm in
    love with and I can deal with being totally free, but anything in
    between sucks.  It's when you get hurt the most.)
    
    Lorna
    

    By anthing in between I mean people who say things like "Love never
    lasts forever, but as long as I do love you, maybe a year or two,
    we can live together and be monogamous."  No thanks.  We can date,
    we can be friends, but we ain't going to be monogamous.  
    
    How many people reading this really feel like they can trust another
    human being again anyway?
    
    We all know that love doesn't always last forever, but I just feel
    that if people don't at least FEEL in the beginning of a relationship
    that they'd like it to, that the relationship is doomed anyway.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I think people really differ on this issue.  I have known some people
    who can enter into a relationship knowing that (and feeling ok about 
    the fact that) it may end.. in a while.  And when their partners have 
    felt the same way about the relationship (mutual understanding is, I 
    think, a key element here), they have been happy for a while, then 
    separated, and remained friends.
    
    I personally have never been very good at that kind of thing.  I
    hate endings, and with the exception of a few "flings" (and in these
    cases my partners and I both knew that's what they were), I have 
    considered every adult relationship I've been in as a possible forever.
    It may be that I hate endings and deal with them badly, but I also
    think that I like the stability and comfortable-ness of a committed
    relationship.  I like the feeling that staying together is important
    to both of us.  
    
    There's a line there, I guess, that each of us has to draw for herself.
    My first significant relationship lasted almost 4 years, but it
    would have been healthier for me if I'd ended it after about 4 months,
    but I hung in there (at great risk to myself) because I was afraid
    to end it.  Anything was better than being alone, I thought.
    I think I've learned to deal with endings better, but I feel ok
    saying that I hope I don't have to.  I think I now know the 
    difference between hanging onto a bad relationship as if it were 
    a life raft and wanting a good relationship to last and making the
    effort required to make it last.
    
    Thanks for starting this topic, Holly, and good luck in your new
    role as moderator :-)
    
    Justine
    

    While the notion of having one person, forever, is a nice one, I
    don't think it is realistic.
    
    I don't view a relationship that lasts a few years, weeks, or hours
    a failure, as long as both got some lasting benefit out of it. 
    As people grow, they may grow in different directions, so that the
    best thing for both of them is to part and live their lives separately.
    This does not mean that the people don't, or never did love each
    other.
    
    Monogamy?  Is it really necessary?  While I agree that it's a bad
    thing if one person is running around with others, and hurting their
    SO, I think there are more important things to worry about.  If
    both people can get out of the "one and only forever" mindset, it
    doesn't have to hurt.  I agree with .5 - the key element is mutual
    understanding, and living up to agreements.
    
    Monogamy also has its roots in patriarchy.  If a woman is not
    monogamous, how is the man to know who his children are?  In the
    early matriarchies it didn't matter.
    
    Elizabeth  (above are my opinions only)

	RE: .0

        Forever is very important to my current relationship. 

        Forever lets us plan things.  Even if we can't afford something now,
        we can plan to save up the money and do it in 2 years, in 10 years, in
        20 years. 

        Forever changed the level of commitment we had in our relationship.  I
        can't exactly describe it, but our relationship really felt different
        after we decided to marry and stay together forever.  I think saying
        forever makes you really work at the relationship.  Now I'm not
        stupid, and if it really turns out that we grow apart so much that we
        can't live together, we will divorce.  But that wanting to be together
        forever is what makes us work at it. 

	Forever helps with financial planning.  A 30 year mortgage seems like
	forever anyways.  We plan how much money we will need together when we
	retire.  It keeps us from thinking about what belongs to whom.  When
	we lived together, we kept track of who owned what.

	If we ever decide to have children, it will take both of us to rear
	them.  That's a long term commitment.
	
        I think bottom line: We can't imagine not loving each other forever.
        It sometimes surprises us to think of the time before we loved each
        other.  We're not being naive to think our love will last, we will
	make every effort to make sure it lasts.

	...Karen

	p.s.  This is how my relationship is.  It has nothing to do with
	how I view other people's relationships or even how I viewed
	mine before I met Tom.

    Re 636.3  (Jim Baranski)
    
    I'm not sure that there are more men around who don't care if their SO
    is monogamous or not than there are women who don't care.  In some
    sectors of society, men playing around is "boys will be boys", while
    women playing around is "I'll %$## kill that sl%%%!" 
    
    Even if your asertation is true (I don't know), it is probably because
    it is part of the traditional marriage "contract" - if she has sex with
    other men, she will be left without means of support. There is also the
    emotional conditioning involved with this (remember, monogamy was not
    invented yesterday!).        
    
    The fact remains, that no matter who a woman sleeps with, she knows
    who her children are.  A man has no such way of knowing.  It is
    certainly to his advantage to only have "his woman" sleep with him.
    For survivability of the race, a wide variety of combinations within
    the gene pool are desirable.  For a woman to have several children
    by different fathers is the best way of assuring the survival of
    some of her offspring.
    
    As a rhetorical question, Jim, what would your reaction be if you were
    to find out that one or both of your children were not actually yours? 
    
    Elizabeth
                          
    (These dual-sex notes make it hard to reply to the other sex)

    re 636.7
    
    Kerry, please read the questions in the basenote again.  
    
    Although I asked men and women to reply separately (partly to see how
    it would work to have consecutive basenotes, and partly because I was
    interested in seeing if the sets of answers were significantly
    different), I did *not ask* which sex wants committment and which sex
    wants to get off.  That has been discussed at great length, I agree. 
                               
    

    Re 636.9 (YODA::BARANSKI): 

>RE: 635.9
>
>>"The fact remains, that no matter who a woman sleeps with, she knows who her
>>children are."
>
>Not if she has sex with more then one man within a few days of the appropriate
>time.

    Nit - "she knows who *her* children are". The statement never claimed
    that she knew who the father was, only that she knew that *she*
    was the mother. (Nowadays, if childbirth occurred under anesthesia,
    I suppose the argument could be made that the mother can't be certain
    either, though!)

    -b

    Something in me likes to think it's forever.  I think it's probably
    the part that doesn't want to repeat the hurt and heartbreak I felt
    when it "wasn't forever".  Breaking up with someone feels no better
    than having someone break up with you.
    
    I really wish I could be that "anchorless" and "free" and feel
    confident enough about myself as a person to say, "it's okay if
    it ends, it was good while it lasted and I grew..."  but sometimes
    it seems that the stakes are higher than I like them.
    
    Unfortunately, my relationships with men have been almost constant
    (no "time off" between relationships) for the past 6 years.  It
    seems best to describe it as each man is like a trapeze, and when
    I am in the air between I am afraid to look down for fear there's
    no net.  So I latch on to another as soon as possible...
    
    Fortunately, I've been getting better matches as I go, and have
    been growing as a person.  If what I am a part of ends, I will be
    okay, the world will go on.  This relationship with my current beau
    offers new forms of exploration - most recently in his request for
    "time off" to find out who he is and what he really wants.  This
    affords me something I have not experienced in a long time...time
    and space to be alone.  Or make new friends.  Or take up new hobbies.
    Part of me has no idea what to do with this time/space, and another
    part of me is breathing a sigh of relief that I can have time off,
    too.

    -Jody
    

    Re .636.11, (I *think* I'm replying in the right note for my gender
    but I'm getting confused jumping back and forth to read this stuff!)
    
    At any rate, I'm also confused about this discussion in regard to
    the benefits of monogamy.  I would think the main benefit of monogamy
    would be that you know you're more special to the person than everybody
    else.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna - I think that you are right!
    
    :-) Bonnie

    Re .-2
    
    Perhaps, Lorna.  But I think there are other ways of telling someone
    "you're special" than reserving yourself for them sexually.
    Consideration, sharing, caring readily come to mind.  It has always
    been quite easy for me to love more than one person at a time. 
    I think that they are all special.  In fact, I think everyone I
    have ever loved (sexually or not) is special, even though I may
    not be able to see them anymore.
    
    Besides, monogamy doesn't "value the differences" of bisexuals,
    who may want a lover of each sex.
    
    Elizabeth

    Re .15, funny, I never thought of bi-sexuals as being people who
    need to always have a relationship going with one of each sex. 
    I thought of it more as, if I were bi-sexual, I might have a monogamous
    relationship with a person of one sex and then if that ended for
    one reason or another, the next relationship might be with the other
    sex just because I wouldn't be limited to only being attracted to
    men (the way I am in real life).  I guess what I'm saying is that
    I think of bi-sexuals not as being people who have a *need* to have
    sex with both sexes, but as people whose choices are not limited
    to just one sex so they could, therefor, wind up with either one
    - whichever sex the person they love happened to be!  Oh, well.
    
    As far as loving a lot of people and thinking of them all as special,
    there are quite a few people that I love and consider to be special
    but they are in addition to (and on a slightly less important level
    to me) than a monogamous love relationship would be.  It is important
    for me to have one person who is more special than everybody else
    I know and who feels the same way about me.

    Lorna
    

    RE .16 (Lorna)
    
    My understanding is that there are both kinds of bisexuals.  By
    rights, the term "ambisexual" should be used for those who enjoy
    either sex.  "Bisexual" actually breaks down to wanting a partner
    of both sexes.  Since this is not possible, many of them may want
    2 partners, one of each sex.
    
    Elizabeth