Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pyuxc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxc!chris
From: chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Singles survey
Message-ID: <664@pyuxc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 09:36:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxc.664
Posted: Tue Aug 20 09:36:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 13:13:51 EDT
References: <3732@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway, NJ
Lines: 44

>	Here's an obvious singles-type question that I don't recall seeing
>asked here recently: which of the following best describes the kind of future
>you would most *like* to have?
>
>	1) You meet the MOTAS of your dreams, and live together (married or
>	   otherwise) happily ever after;
>	2) Like above, but a series of long-but-not-lifelong relationships of
>	   complete partnership;
>	3) You have many serious relationships, but live alone.
>	4) You have mostly casual relationships;
>	5) Some combination of 1-4 above;
>	6) Other (and I know there's a lot of other possibilities - declaim at
>	   will!)


I vote for 3 and 4, with an option to live with
any number of my casual MOTAS.  The reason for this
somewhat unconventional choice is that I find it very
hard picturing one woman fulfilling all my physical, spritual,
emotional, etc. needs
(or me fulfilling all of hers).
I'm more complicated than that, and I think most people are as
well, so why assume that one person can be your lover, friend, 
confidante, playmate (not the Playboy kind,
but the kind kids have), and co-lead guitarist?  Why not admit that it takes
many people to fill those roles, and that that's OK?

Too many times I've met someone and thought "She's the one"
only to find that she wasn't (thru no fault of hers or mine).
That is, that she wasn't the ideal soul mate, and that someone
else met a particular need better than she did.  At first I
either felt guilty about such feelings, or else thought
"Well, I guess I better start looking again."
Now I think perhaps the problem was not in the people I found,
but in the search itself.

Over the years I've met many women who are important to me but
who could not be my "one and only" wife.  Why not have relationships
with all of them, rather than sacrifice those relationships to
play Jim and Margaret Anderson.

Seems to me the main reason for monogamous relationships is
to bear and raise children.  Since I don't want children,
there's no need for monogamy.