@HERMAN: "know thyself" is the right call. If you don't want it, say no.

But "know your partner" is the other half: Be sure whether this renegotiation is really a negotiation. If it's not, move on. You don't have kids, or entangled finances, or anything like that; if you're not compatible, own it.

@SDCS: If you become regular fuckbuddies with any of your usual outside partners, consider asking if they'll be your call-buddy. Stranger things have happened.

A nicer hotel which will give you a "live" wake-up call will also send someone up to knock on the door if you don't pick up. And if you don't answer the door, they'll enter the room to check if you're there/okay.

Such hotels also have bell staff, who for a price will often do anything for you that's legal and won't get them fired. The bigger the tip, the higher the level of discretion. Keep an eye out for one you get a good vibe from and chat them up.

SDCS-- Let's say the hotel sends someone for that safety/wakeup call because you haven't answered. How does that make you any less dead?

Too true Crinoline @3. Some people want all of the action with none of the danger.
Knife under the pillow. Learn some self defense.

LW1. Haven't read thru Dan's words yet, as I'm confused how you don't see your partner will also be dealing with jealousy, when you go off with another woman.
I think burning off jealousy is one way to get past it. Feel it, own it and move past it.

HERMAN is describing the one-penis policy. It’s a little controversial in poly circles — that is, it’s common and commonly accepted, but you get enlightenment points for looking down on it.

If the woman in a poly OS couple only wants to date women, there’s no need for a policy. The policy only becomes necessary if she wants to date men. So there’s a double burden on the woman:

• She’s the only one with a restriction. Her partner is free to date anyone he’s attracted to who will have him. She is not.
• She’s the only one who has to do the emotional work to deal with jealousy (even the most enlightened poly souls experience it from time to time). It’s clear that he considers OS relationships potentially serious, unlike SS ones. So her partner is off having potentially serious relationships (if he can find them) but — in his mind at least — his partner is just off playing.

When only one partner experiences a restriction and only one partner — coincidentally, the same partner — is being asked to do difficult emotional work, there is an imbalance in the relationship. The unrestricted, unburdened partner may never realize what they are asking of the other because it is never asked of them. They may treat the gift they are getting lightly because they don’t appreciate its cost.

Money is a fairly crude, time-honoured way to redress the balance. The emotionally unburdened partner makes shitloads of money and keeps a literal or figurative harem in high style. Most people can’t do that. If you want to be the unburdened partner, you need to find a way to be sure that each of you fully appreciates what they are getting from the other, and that each feels like they they are getting the better deal.

Or not. You can tell your partner that you aren’t interested in doing difficult emotional work (most people aren’t), that if one day you feel jealous they are going to be sent packing subito presto, and that they will just have to deal. You can find a woman who doesn’t want to date men so that no policy is required. You can close the relationship. You can accept terms that don’t work for you and be miserable.

Or you can try to find out if you can forgo the protections of a one-penis policy and learn how to cope with jealousy. Not everyone can. Some people can but don’t find it worth the effort. But since this was HERMAN’s question, there are books and blogs. Opening Up, More Than Two and The Ethical Slut are the books people recommend these days. Go to munches, meet people and get a reality check on the dynamics of your relationship. See if there are people who feel sane to you who you can try to emulate. Be respectful of your own limitations. If you are miserable, something isn’t working.

There are no perfect solutions.

Crinoline @3,

When your date is aware of the check-in; when you register at the hotel with your date’s credit card and license plate.

One thing I have thought of is to borrow my date’s phone and use it to take a picture of their license plate and text it to someone. In practice I have just borrowed my date’s phone and used it to text the address I will be at to my husband.

When I worked a corporate job I would have dates pick me up at work and ask the security guard to call me. That way they knew they’d been seen and could be recognized later, and there was video footage of them from the company’s security cam. So you can make sure to go places with security cams, and point them out to your date.

Men tend to be reassured by these kinds of overt precautions, not insulted. They typically like to know that their date isn’t crazy and has normal fears.

Not sure the guest's idea for a 3way for LW1, is the best idea. Someone posted on FB how a guy, killed his friend in a 3way, because their balls touched.

@Alison: If restricting both partners to fucking only women is imbalanced, than so is opening the relationship to both men and women when only one of the partners is bisexual.

I think the problem may be in assuming that the goal is pure balance. Different people have different levels of jealousy, anxiety, attachment etc. Just because you have perfectly sliced the baby in half does not mean that everyone will be exactly equally happy. If your partner is Bi but hetero-romantic then you are actually being pretty rational in requesting they limit to same-sex partners beside you. And that's not even getting into the people who are turned on by being in an unequal situation. I think couples can come to their own arrangements so long as they both agree with open eyes and there is no need for the open-relationship police to tell them that it's badwrong.

@Seandr: By your logic then, it would still be an open relationship if they opened it to just males for both partners? I mean, what could the straight male partner complain about? He's got this totally awesome open relationship, after all...

@Prof L: if they opened it to just males for both partners

Also imbalanced.

what if they opened the relationship to men for her and women for him?

Imbalanced.

what if they close the relationship and fuck only each other?

Imminently, if not already imbalanced.

Re SDCS, who wrote "My partner can't be that person because of the whole DADT thing."

My opinion: If your partner cares more about not knowing than about your safety when screwing strangers, then your partner is not really okay with your outside sex. Deal with those issues, first.

When the men can carry babies, and bleed out each month, and carry responsibility for pill taking re pregnancy prevention.. then we can talk about what is or isn't balanced. Oh, and when we live in a matriarchal not patriarchal culture.

@EricaP: your partner is not really okay with your outside sex. Deal with those issues, first.

They have, it's called a "DADT" arrangement.

I know you like to push the bounds of open-mindedness, but come on. As someone who has a riskier hobby than the LW, and one that my spouse would likewise rather I didn't have, I'd have to be a total douchebag to lay any of the responsibility for my safety on her.

Now that I think about it, if LW feels she's taking real risks, she should do the right thing and buy a life insurance policy to make sure her family's standard of living wouldn't be affected if she get's killed.

@LavaGirl: When the men can carry babies...then we can talk about what is or isn't balanced.

You heard her, everyone. No more talking about what is and isn't balanced.

Re: restrictions and imbalances - do many straight people feel a sense of deprivation at not getting to sleep with the same sex?
Reminds me of the "gay men have the same right to marry a woman as any other man" argument.

LW1/HERMAN: How do I deal with the jealousy and emotions that will come up when she does kiss another man? In the words of the great master, "“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” I don't think there's any one strategy to "not be jealous." If you can do it (might take practice) great, but not everyone can do it. I don't think I could, so I have never sought out a poly arrangement. Know thyself. Oh, and also..."“Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering.”

LW#/SDCS: Just being in a hotel lends a certain degree of safety...thin walls, lots of people around, ID usually required to check in). According to this website (the first that popped up in a google search) http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=4… only 0.1% of violent victimizations took place in a hotel which, jibes to my own sense of common sense. And, yes, ask for a personal "wake-up" call (knock on the door). Real people are better than any "app."

Just pointing out to you Sean how far we can go in your argument.
Had a rough xmas did you?
The LW can call the whole thing off if he is not ok with his partner going with men. It's just bullshit to claim it's unbalanced.
If the LW was a woman and her man was bi, I'd be giving her the same advice. Having an open relationship involves risk, involves sharing one's partner with others.
Do it or don't do it.

YESSSSSSSS! @14 LavaGirl wins the thread! That was beautifully summed up.
Griz warmly wishes Dan, LavaGirl, seandr, Donny, nocuteneme, EricaP, sissoucat, vennominon, CMDwannabe, BiDanFan, lolorhone, Hunter, cockyballsup, avast2006 and everybody a safe, happy, healthy New Year and all the very best in 2016 and beyond.

@20 Part II: I knew I'd mistakenly omitted somebody! Happy New Year's wishes to sb53, too, among SL regulars and commenters, and all the heartfelt best.

@20: Happy 2016, auntie grizelda! Wishing you much musical success.

@22 nocutename: Many thanks, and mutual wishing of happiness and success in 2016 to you, as well. Big hugs, VW beeps, and great hopes for all. Cheers!

This is off topic, and pertains to another Stranger column this week, but----Dan--for the record--please DON'T have any regrets over your wildly successful santorum contest in Savage Love (from 2003) that produced the winning definition entry ("a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex"). Spot on in your book, American Savage: Rick Santorum's problem is Rick Santorum, and thankfully, enough voters in the U.S. know well enough NOT to support his hypocritical wingnut agendas or elect him into the White House.
I don't know where to start with Donald Trump---the idea that so many of the people that stand to lose the most by supporting such a brash, dangerous megalomaniac is just nuts. Trump knows he has the stupid voters eating out of his filthy, profiteering slumlord hands.
Is there some sort of way we could initiate a creative awakening of the ugly propaganda Trump and others are currently spewing, to enlighten the ignorant and brainwashed, or is the stupidity of certain voters (I.e.: Trump, Bush supporters, et.al.) truly incurable?

Hey Dan!
Ryan is the CO-author of Sex at Dawn (he wrote it with Cacilda Jetha ... And they were married to each other at the time. Not sure if they still are or not.) If that's Dan's mistake, shame on Dan; if it's Ryan's mistake, shame on him.

@24, Part II: Anyway----no regrets, Dan the Man, and no butt-kissing bullshit! I will always be a devout Savage Love fan, and look forward to your column every week.

drjones @10: I think couples can come to their own arrangements so long as they both agree with open eyes and there is no need for the open-relationship police to tell them that it's badwrong.

I agree — except I’m a little worried about the notion of open-relationship police. I very much hope they are fictitious, and appear only in suspense fiction so I can avoid it because I hate suspense.

Open eyes means seeing. When I look at something I like to compare what I see with what someone else sees. It's rarely the same thing, which can lead to some interesting conversations.

Follow Christopher Ryan on Twitter @ChrisRyanPhD, and check out his podcast (Tangentially Speaking), videos, and swag at ChrisRyanPhD.com. Someone who needs to toot their PhD horn so aggressively is massively insecure and fairly pathetic. Just sayin'.

@28: Or maybe I should have said #nocutenamePhd.

Ms Cummins - The imbalance between whole pool/reduced pool is easily enough addressed with a corresponding veto on hair colour/eye colour/height/superiour beauty/whatever. I'll agree with you so far as saying that the person requesting a restriction should offer a restriction in return.

The point about emotional work strikes me as too normed to MF couples for us to be able to have a productive discussion, as I can only answer with all the couples I knew two or three decades ago that had to struggle against one of the two having a plethora of options the other didn't and the other having a lot of emotional work of coping with potential threats those options contained.

I'll agree that there are no perfect solutions.

For LW3. This depends on your line of work but I used to take business meetings in my hotel suite when I was part of the corporate world. I often asked friends to call and check on me when I was conducting an interview or meeting a client alone. Could you ask someone to call and check because you're "in a meeting?" There'd be no need to tell them the meeting is sexual.

There are apps that can contact someone if you don't respond in a given time period, but as @3 says, you wouldn't be any less dead.

http://www.techlicious.com/tip/free-pers…

@3: Yes, well, Crinoline, dying is so totally worth it if you get to have your NSA DADGT moment.

@33: That should have read "DADT," not "DADGT."
Sorry.

Men can carry babies. I carried one once. It smelled funny and drooled on me.

Happy New Year to you too G, and the rest of you merry revellers.
I'm happy to go with DrNocute.
You could join seandr, drjones and Now Prof L.

When the men can bleed out each month, we can close the emergency rooms. "Bleed out" usually means "death by exsanguination," not "have your period." Pretty sure even women can't manage that feat on a monthly basis.

@16: Are we allowed to talk about whether LavaGirl is balanced or unbalanced? Sorry, imbalanced?

Oh. All of a sudden the boys show their faces. Your posse is here, Sean.

Mr Avast - You had better grounds than vocabulary sharking.

*****

Ms Grizelda - Good musical luck next year.

@6: I get more than just a whiff of Mono-Poly here. I'd lay even money on this particular One-Penis-Policy being an attempt at making a poly/mono relationship sound acceptable to the mono partner.

Note that neither of them has been able to get any strange from women, so this looks remarkably like an attempt by a poly person to set the rules to "I sleep with other people, and you don't."

FWIW, my experience with lesbians in open relationships is pretty limited, but I've been told more than once that it's common for a lesbian in an open relationship with a bi woman to insist on a no penis policy; I don't know if this is actually true, or only the case in those particular social circles. The reasons seem obvious, and it's not clear to me why they suddenly become non-obvious in MF couples.

If you both have to work to get laid--or can't, as in this case--there's a chance at a relationship of equals. If one of you is drowning in offers and the other one gets nothing, then the unluckier partner's self esteem is in the toilet by day one, and they're probably being abused by day five.

"Don't have a thousand times as many partners as me" isn't an unbalanced restriction.

If Avast has better grounds, Venn. Then let's hear them.
Funny, how when the truth is uttered, the mockers arrive.
No one is responsible for women being the ones who get pregnant and bleed each month. Nature's design.
This no male birth control pill or devises though. Don't ever hear straight men screaming out to also join in this area. Have their bodies interfered with by chemicals. No.
All these years later, since the first female contraceptive pill appeared, so much has been achieved in the world of medicine, just not that.

Ms Lava - You stated in #14 that it would be acceptable to discuss balance in a matriarchy, which is considerably better grounds for disagreement than snarking about your vocabulary. Ms Cummins and Dr Sean were having a non-gendred discussion into which you made a gendred interjection, which disregarded orientation (a major point in the letter and to Dr Sean, although Ms Cummins was trying to be more general). I am waiting hopefully [Ms Cute will note that Henry Tilney would approve of my usage] for Ms Fan to provide us with insights she has gained, given her recent mention of the differences in her relationships with bi men from those with straight men.

You did swerve back on topic in #19 in a way that addressed some of the grounds for objection to #14.

If I had time now, I'd make a lengthy comparison and contrast between men who want male birth control and women who want more proportional representation in government, as #41 reminds me of men who say that women are the majority of the electorate. But that could take me several hours I don't have. But I thank you for giving me an interesting topic for meditation.

Eudaemonic @40,

Data point, neither here nor there: When I was in a lesbian relationship but not getting any, our deal was that I could step out and get some from men (because men are dogs) but not from women (because women are emotionally needy). Balance wasn’t at issue because she didn’t want any.

*** *** ***
It seems that I am as crankypants as you: we were both excluded from the individual New Year wishes. So Happy New Year Eudaemonic, and may you get at at least some of what you need.

LavaGirl @41,

Since when is a condom not a male birth control device?

@41: There's no male pill because it's far more difficult to make a man temporarily and reversibly infertile, and when a man REALLY doesn't ever want to have a child, the snip is a fairly simple outpatient. Condoms did exist long before the pill, as mentioned earlier.

to follow on undead ayn rand @46:

It’s far more difficult, and the payoff is less obvious: you pick up a guy in a bar and he says “It’s ok babe, I’m on the Pill” ... you gonna believe him?

For SDCS...

No ID? No PIV.

It's a simple and effective safety strategy... Take a pic of dude's current, government issued ID, email it to yourself or a friend, and make sure he knows exactly what you're doing. If he isn't willing to show you his ID or doesn't want you to take a picture of it? Ditch the bitch.

If a guy is willing to show his ID to a stranger to get a drink in a bar, he should be willing to show his ID to you so that you feel safe. If he isn't, he's either too selfish or too inexperienced to have decent anonymous sex with anyway.

Also a decent way to keep track of who's who if you're a bit forgetful like me.

For HERMAN, would finding a swinging couple be an acceptable compromise or half-way point? You get to have sex with the woman from the other couple, the man gets to have sex with your partner, that provides limits as well as engagement for you with your partner's open relationship?

I think the answer to HERMAN about being jealous is "how do you think she feels?" I think part of the whole one-penis policy for OS couples is that (1) the man maybe doesn't feel threatened by the female partners because sexism tends to see those sexual and emotional relationships as less "legit" and serious (I've experienced that enough as a bi girl with my same sex relationships being seen as less serious and it is so frustrating) and (2) the man doesn't have to compare himself to the female partners in the same way. It'll be less obvious if they're more attractive or better lovers or more charismatic. But right now his female partner has to compare herself to his potential partners.

I wonder if he's been in an open relationship before and if it had the same terms. If he was in a relationship with a straight poly woman, would he be comfortable with her sleeping with the only gender she found attractive? If not, I'm not sure if he's really up to an open relationship (or at least one opened up by him- I'm not sure if he requested this one to be open or if she did).

Ms Cummins/Mr Monic - I'd like to Poll the Mailbag on that one - give some of the TSARY something useful to do compiling the data.

Ms Merchant - Did you make a point of dumping all those men for women?

I think one penis/pussy policies are a shitty shitty way to attempt to keep a person's (your own) jealousy in check. Couples can of course agree to whatever they want, but it seems these types of rules usually backfire if they do not get renegotiated. Despite what Allison #6 wrote they are looked down on in every poly community that I know of.

I knew of one MF couple in which the bi woman seemed to think it was fair to limit her straight husband to seeing men, as she was only interested in seeing other women (he was fine with her seeing people of any gender, btw).... So, she gets what she wants and he gets what? Oh yeah a big fat nothing. Also, when he did explore a little and play around a bit with a guy, she was decidedly NOT ok with it....

For the OP, how to get over your jealousy, well there are lots of books on that very topic. I like " More Than Two" and have heard good things about "Opening Up". I could not, however, get through "Ethical Slut" and personally do not recommend it

It doesn't really say, but I get a sense that the one-penis-policy was the spoonful of sugar LW's girlfriend used to help the "open relationship" medicine go down, which makes the "renegotiation" (if it was a negotiation, what did he get in return?) look kind of bad.

If your spouse agreed to marry you on the condition that you'd have children and you much later decide that you won't have children with her, that isn't really a "negotiation" if the outcome is that one of you gives up what they wanted and the other person doesn't.

Negotiation involves offering something, and it doesn't sound like LW's getting anything out of this deal other than being publicly shamed for displaying insecurity. What a surprise.

@45 Alison. Since when did a condom interfere with a man's internal body workings?
Good on you Alison. You talk to the troll, and leave the rest of us having to skip miles of words.

Today we learned: LavaGirl's never heard of RISUG. Or is pretending not to have.

I'm not sure, has RISUG really matched the hype? Perhaps I'm confusing it with a similar but more quacky procedure, but I don't recall the confidence matching the actual promise.

@47. Are you saying Alison, that all men are liars?
@46. Right. So for the rest of time only women get to have their bodies messed up, maybe their fertility damaged so they have to try for a baby thru years and years of IVF.
I'm not saying that is the only cause of women's infertity when they want to procreate, I do believe it is one of them for some women.

@43, Venn. Was it a non gendered discussion on Sean's part? I didn't read it that way. I pointed out, then Alison did, that the LWs partner had to confront her jealousy when he got with women. Alison brought in the notion of balance.. Then Sean said being able to choose from both sexes for a lover was unbalanced for the non bi person.
Would he have had such a forlorn look if the LW was a woman? We will never know.

From what I hear RISUG might not match the hype, or it might just not be in the interests of the companies who'd be responsible for it, for the same reason that a cure for diabetes that cost $5 would probably never be approved by the FDA.

My guess? A little of column A, a little of column B. But it's ridiculous to claim men don't want it.

@36 LavaGirl: I second the nomination for nocutename: All hail Drcute!
and @41 LavaGirl, @45 Alison Cummins, and @46 undead ayn rand:
While there is no male BCP available, there are spermicidal condoms. But even vasectomies have a failure rate: I'm living proof. My parents, after believing they were done with having kids by 1963, should have named me Houdini.
@39 vennominon: Thank you, venn---I have some wonderful projects and an encouraging outlook on 2016. My second symphony is literally underway, I'm halfway complete with a flute choir & piano series, and more pit orchestra / jazz ensemble possibilities in the near future.
Wishing you and everyone all the best and a Happy 2016, too.
@58: I agree, Lava. It really does suck for women that our monthly bleeding bodies change forever upon conception, pregnancy, labor and childbirth, whereas a man can simply ejaculate, shoot his load, and walk away physically unscathed. The cost of heterosexual activity and (if there is no safeguarding contraceptive use in place) physical reproductive responsibility is 99.9% on the woman's shoulders.
Before Griz says anything more, guys--I'm not male-bashing any of you here. Honestly, evolutionally speaking, this really is an unfair imbalance of mammalian reproductive nature, being what it is, and only reaffirms my many reasons to happily remain childless.
But that's just me. Okay--Griz is shutting up now.

@Auntie
Thanks for the good wishes! All the best to my fellow readers/contributors! 2016 should be an exciting year!
RE: One penis policy.
The lovely Miss N. claims that "men are dogs: women can get laid any time they want" I believe was her expression. This came when I had voiced the possibility of us AS A COUPLE opening up our relationship. Then she said further: "I am not sharing you with anybody".
I suppose this was intended to make me feel wanted but the truth is, as I have said here in the past, (but was unspoken at the time):.. "but not wanted very often, then" .
I will keep doing what I am doing and make observations from time to time which I can report to you, my dear electronic friends. Bless us all this year!

Ms Lava - It seems more of a stretch to me to pin YGB on #9 than to pin YGG on #14. #19 clarified that #14 was not YGG with respect to the situation of the letter. I suppose it's possible to read Dr Sean's posts with the thought that he presents the YGB viewpoint unless he specifies otherwise, but there are very few posters I read with such an approach. As we have less chance of agreeing than Mr and Mrs Bennet, I have no quarrel with this variance.

*****

Ms Grizelda - I don't think you're bashing anyone. (Now, if you and Ms Lava were to hire a car and drive all over the country shooting men whenever either of you felt the urge, chances are I'd find that objectionable, though I don't think that acknowledging the occasional thought that such an activity is not without appeal to constitute bashing either.) I still maintain that, in a just world, I'd receive a generous stipend for not reproducing from a grateful government as well as almost the entirety of my acquaintance; on this matter I applaud your sense and taste.

As for Ms Cute, I expect that she is technically entitled to the Dr honourific, but chooses not to use it.

. You just don't see with a woman's eyes and ears, Venn. Not your fault. Nature's design.
Happy New Year to you too, Sb53.

"Maybe he could ask her to set up a three-way with a man they both like so he can face the dragon, so to speak. See if the flip side of his fear..."

Well Ryan just lost any respect I might have had. 'Sex at Dawn' does a nice job of deflating evo-psych claims for 'natural' monogamy, and then uses identical shoddy reasoning to plug HIS notion of poly 'naturalism.'

Still HERMAN is a straight man. Even if he wasn't, to put the burden on his spouse to magically 'arrange' for a male unicorn, one who wants to get it on with a straight guy, because Ryan doesn't think HERMAN's hesitations aren't about Ryan's sexual notions?

HERMAN does sound like an ass. Does he consider his partner's others as interchangeable 'chicks on the side,' while a second penis would be a 'real' relationship?

I'm not suggesting that a 'one penis' policy MIGHT not be reasonable for some couples, but it clearly isn't for this one.

auntie grizelda, Thank you for extending the honorific, but Mr. Ven is right. I much prefer to be just nocutename or related nicknames hereabouts, except for the "Ms. Cute" that Mr. Ven has bestowed on me. I suspect that several of us are technically entitled to use "Dr." but this hardly seems the place for it.

In my opinion and experience, the people who shout their PhD the loudest and call attention to it and insist on it's use are the most insecure or the biggest douchenozzles. I exempt seandr from that category, because even though he may be some sort of "Dr." (whether medical or otherwise), I have always read his Slog name as "sea-and-air," and prefer to think of him as either a sailor/pilot, or as someone who like both the sea and the sky. Apologies, seandr, if you're a douchenozzle milking your medical license or doctoral degree.

@67: edit: "its," not "it's." See, maybe this is why this English professor doesn't want to throw around the letters Dr. or PhD!

I disagree Nocute. If one has put all that work in to achieve, then I feel using the title Dr, is just showing that.

Ricardo, Happy New Year to you.
I hope you're doing fine.

I'm with NCN on the screaming one's PhD issue. You know what's the worst? When people somehow manage to advertise their MD or PhD on the vanity plates on their cars. Don't do it. Makes you look like a wanker.

Ms Lava - Well, not an Australian woman, at any rate, as my hemisphere is upside down. I do better at English and Scottish women.

I rather think I'd do the same as Ms Cute in her position, as there are some prime villains in California using their Dr titles for nefarious purposes.

I'd really wish Herman had said more about the decision to open the relationship. From the tone of his letter I don't believe that he initiated the discussion. If he had then he should have resolved any emotion issues at that time.

Furthermore, the fact that his partner was bi would have been irrelevant to the decision. A relationship is either open or closed. Granting the right to have sex with members of the same sex is not in fact an agreement to open the relationship. An open relationship grants the right to fuck someone else.

If he had been the one proposing that they open the relationship in order to fuck other women, he would have been a real douche bag to limit the sex of individual that his partner could fuck.

It is more believable that his partner wanted to the right to fuck other women. She is bi and wasn't satisfying her need for sex with both sexes and that is exactly how she framed the discussion. That she missed having sex with other women was most likely how she sold the idea to Herman. She tossed in the right for Herman to have sex with other women as an inducement to "open" the relationship.

I will not ascribe deviousness or duplicity on her part, that would make her a really cold calculating bitch. I will grant that her original intent was just to have the right to have sex with other women.

However, over time she likely began to resent not having a truly open relationship. Why should he have the right to fuck other women and she not have the right to fuck other men. She is now trying to use fairness in order to guilt trip him into agreeing to really open the relationship. I believe that is called manipulation, something that is not conducive to having a good relationship.

This is pure speculation on my part, but it is consistent with human behavior. In any event, he will be better off dumping her now before he is more invested in the relationship.

@72: The more times I read the letter, the more I agree with your and Eud's characterization of this being a case of camel's-nose-in-the-tent .

On the surface, it seems a fairly straightforward objection on grounds of reciprocity: Why is it that you get to fuck potentially all of the people you are attracted to, while I only get to fuck potentially half of the ones I am attracted to?

However, if you look at it from the perspective that maybe he wasn't the one wanting to open things in the first place, and that she only offered no-other-men as a reassurance against his pre-existing discomfort with the whole scene, then it looks less defensible. If she gave that to you to make you comfortable, and now wants to take it back because she's feeling confined by it, that means your comfort just lost out to her sexual appetites. She probably already has someone specific of the male persuasion in mind, or else she wouldn't be pushing back so hard for backsies on something that she gave you in order to ease your troubled mind. (Which to my mind is reminiscent of the sort of reneging around promises like "Yes, he and I will be having sex, but I promise he and I will never do it in 'your and my' bed." )

Maybe, Letter Writer, the truth of the matter is that you lean too hard towards monogamy to be pursuing this relationship in the first place, because your girlfriend is clearly into a more radical form of nonmonogamy than you are comfortable with.

Sean @9/12: The conclusion from your comments seems to be that a straight/bi open relationship is inherently unbalanced, and in a way, yes it is. The only way to correct it would appear to be, break up, and the bisexual can date another bisexual and the straight person another straight person. If they don't want to do this, then I don't see how "she gets to shag whoever she wants and so does he" is unfair. To take it even further, every OS relationship is "imbalanced" because he has a different set of genitals than she does. Are only SS relationships between two gay people OK, then, in your view?

Addressing the original column, I think that advice is terrible. A threesome with a man when HERMAN has no interest in fucking a man? Watching his partner shag a dude when even watching her kiss one makes him uneasy? What a pile of rubbish!

As a very wise person once said, "People think poly means you don't get jealous. That's bullshit; of COURSE you get jealous. You just work through it because it's worth it." If HERMAN wants to be able to get other pussy, the price of that liberty is allowing his partner the freedom to get other dick. From his letter, he's realised and accepted that, and just wants tips on how to deal with the feelings of jealousy. Tip 1: Communicate, communicate, communicate. Tip 2: Believe her when she says her attraction to other men doesn't mean she's no longer attracted to you. Tip 3: Negotiate rules that are sensible and apply equitably. Sounds like a "no making out with other people in front of me" would be a good rule for them -- possibly to be revisited once they have actually had some experience with actual fucking of other people. Tip 4: Be considerate. If you're getting other action and your partner isn't, be honest, but do your best not to rub their face in it. Tip 5: Decide what's more important to you, this relationship or fucking other people. You may have to choose between them.

I wish both of them good luck. It's a journey that is often challenging but that can be very, very rewarding, if the jealousy issues can be worked out.

DOM: "Is this something I should talk with the other Dom about beforehand or should I just do it and see what happens?"

Is this even a serious question? Yeah, let's set up a scene with three people and not even tell one of them what's going on. What could possibly go wrong. *headdesk*

SDCS: I know your hotel is probably more comfortable and you won't have to do the walk of shame, but I've heard it's safer to go to your casual partner's place, because they're less likely to kill someone and have to dispose of a body in their own home.

Nocute @28: Or ChrisRyan.com and @ChrisRyan were already taken.

Venn @43: HERMAN's letter is an excellent example of one of the differences between dating bi men and straight men. If HERMAN were bi, they would not be having this problem. They'd either have opened the relationship to women for her and men for him, which should fit Dr Sean's craving for balance as well as providing something both partners actually want, or they'd have opened the relationship to all genders for both of them, and HERMAN wouldn't have this double standard of jealousy when it came to male vs female partners.

"You just work through it because it's worth it."

It's pretty clearly not worth it for him; he's not getting any outside partners. All he's getting out of it is dating someone who prioritizes her sexual appetites over his comfort.

And that's never a good idea.

Happy New Year.. It's 2016 down under.
You'd think even the trolls would read the letters. Far as I can tell, neither partner has had sex with any one else yet re LW1. The woman has kissed a co worker.
To repeat, cause some people seem to not have very good reading comprehension.
If he goes with another woman, his partner will probably feel jealous, just like he will feel jealous if she goes with another man.
Blimey. Why do I bother.

I agree with Eud that an opposite-sex open relationship is inherently imbalanced, as sex is much more available to the woman. I think she should accept restrictions, but she didn't write in. She seems thoughtless of his feelings; LW, is that a fair statement?

Wtf @72 and avast. You are both projecting so much onto this letter.
These guys have been together a year. This is not a long term thing. They both decided early on to open the relationship, yes, at first allowing both of them to be with other women. No risk really here for him to have to confront his sexual competition with her other( in the future) partners.
She then realizes that she is being limited, to serve his fear of His jealousy,
and she pushes to open to include her fucking whomever she is attracted to. Just like she gave him, initially.
It's early days in their relationship, it often can take a while to realize for both parties that their wants are not being covered.
At any time he can leave, he can ask to close the relationship. As can she.

HERMAN - I thought this was a weird one for Dan to outsource. But good advice. HERMAN sounds too attracted to either monogamy or skewed power dynamics for this particular woman.

I think that DOM was considering dominating the other dom by surprise. Which doesn't seem to be likely to work well for them. I agree with laying out the details in advance, not only a pic of the scene, but the requirement to stop immediately upon return.

SDCS - That sounds like an awesome app! Not between strangers, but as a security service. You wouldn't even need real people to call, just an automated call that would send a prerecorded message to 911 or other custom emergency numbers if there were no answer after a couple calls. Do it yourself and bank subscriptions.

@82, milkshake. Say what? No one has put a gun to either of their heads. They both decided to have an open relationship.
Inherently unbalanced, how? We don't know if LW's gf is also having to deal with jealous feelings once he goes with another woman.
He knew she was bi when they got together.
If opposite sex partners having a open relationship is inherently unbalanced, then why does anyone bother doing it? Your post makes no sense.

As Dan has said before, it's a wonder that women ever feel free to sleep around, since the fear of being murdered is very real. How can you get turned on when you don't feel safe? I say this as a woman who does sleep around. I guess I'm often a bit drunk when it happens, so maybe I don't think about it.

Lava, from your vehement tone I can only conclude this, like seasons and how the toilet water spins, is opposite in the Southern Hemisphere. Up here, a woman can find sex much more readily than a man can. Do you recall handsome, personable Lars, who wrote in about how since opening their marriage, his wife had a date every night if she wanted it, and he hadn't had a nibble? That's the imbalance.

Then milkshake, a man would be a fool to open any relationship, wouldn't he?
Yet they seem too. And I assume those that do somehow manage to find a woman or women who are ok to join him in his story.
Can't see the Southern Hemisphere would be any different to the Northern one.
And finding a man to fuck might be easier for a woman, than it is for a man to find a woman to fuck.
Is that what is being talked of in open relationships? Just finding a fuck. Or is it finding other relationships.

@BiDanFan: The conclusion from your comments seems to be that a straight/bi open relationship is inherently unbalanced

I think sexual balance is difficult to find and sustain in any m/f relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is open or either party is bisexual (think of all the monogamous relationships with libido mismatches.) That certainly doesn't mean all men and women have to break up right this instant, but I'd say a healthy relationship is one in which both parties acknowledge the imbalance exists, and the one with more power doesn't completely disregard his/her partner's feelings. There are ways this issue can be dealt with if both parties are negotiating in good faith.

@nocute: As it turns out, I do have a PhD, but like you, I would never refer to myself as "doctor", and the inclusion of "dr" in my handle had nothing to do with my degree or doctors in general. (All that said, venn isn't the first one to nickname me "Dr Sean").

I wouldn't want to disabuse you of your reading of my handle, although if you're going for realism you'd probably need to bring mountains into the equation somewhere.

@83: LavaGirl, a relationship of one year is generally considered a long-term one. It's true that there are relationships of much longer duration (my grandparents were married for 68 years), but long terms need to start somewhere--and the phrase may also be indicative of the depth of feeling or intimacy the couple share, as well as the intent to stay together and the belief that they will stay together for a long term.

Also, @88 you asked: “Is that what is being talked of in open relationships? Just finding a fuck. Or is it finding other relationships.”

Well, it depends. It can be either of those things. It can be both of those things.
Opening a relationship means it is no longer monogamous or that monogamy is no longer the expectation between the participants. All sorts of variations are possible after that: one-night stands, only sex while out-of-town, DADT, threesomes, couple-swaps, orgies, cuckold or hotwife scenarios, dating with the intention of racking up multiple sex partners, dating with the intention of looking for serial pieces on the side, dating with the intention of finding a second (and/or third, fourth, etc.) serious relationship in addition to the primary one.

@nocute: I'll second your experience that people actively touting Ph.D.s tend to be douchebags. Although I have seen some exceptions. Sometimes a Ph.D. on someone who was the first in their family to go to college, for instance, will be used because it's still a point of pride and unusual from their point of view. Similarly, I think you're more likely to see the Dr. being used at a community college, or a teaching school with a growing-but-small research program--because in those communities plenty of people *don't* have Ph.D.s, and so there's a real distinction being made (whether needlessly or not). Whereas at a research-one school or a big state school (such as Berkeley), everyone's got one, so there's hardly any point in mentioning it.

I had a colleague who managed to work into every conversation that her Ph.D. was from Harvard. On the one hand: good for you! Nice work. On the other hand: everyone here has a Ph.D. from somewhere; your insistence on bringing yours up repeatedly is irritating. I couldn't tell if she was insecure, and brought it up to prove herself, or if she was really arrogant, and brought it up (thinking) to put other people down (and failing).

I like the "sea-and-air" reading of seandr's handle! I'm going to start reading it that way. And I like the mountains, too, so maybe I'll say "sea-and-air-and-mountains."

BiDanFan, Yes, it's possible that ChrisRyan was already taken as a Twitter address or whatever, but there are lots of other things he could do to make sure that mail gets to him. Having a .com after your own name, liking to be a guest expert on all things pertaining to non-monogamy, conveniently not correcting Dan that you're the coauthor of a book or acknowledging your co-author, all of it leads me to the possibly incorrect assumption that Chris Ryan didn't simply choose to ad PhD after his name as an alternate to 1234 or ChrisWRyan or @CristopherSRyan or something. Ryan just doesn't strike me as a modest guy who was casting about for a Twitter handle that wasn't already taken.

Plus, I've met more than my share of people who get off on flaunting their degrees and who expect the rest of the world to think they're more special and important because of those degrees than they are. Those kind of people would most definitely be the ones to add "PhD" to their Twitter handles and be @DouchenozzlePhD or DouchenozzlePhD.com.

When you work in an environment in which many people, some of them not really all that smart, have those letters after their names, you stop being automatically impressed by them.

Ah, ciods, our posts crossed! There are some things that never fail to recall to me that the university is a medieval institution (literally). All the insistence on rank--from nameplates on office doors which list the degree(s) to the number of stripes on the sleeve on an academic gown, to the placement of where people stand in processions based on their status as assistant professor to associate professor to full professor to referring to colleagues as "Dr." under certain circumstances--are real remnants of it. I have found that it's those most anxious to establish their right to be at the institution who practice the "Dr.-tude" the most aggressively.

Ms Fan - So far, so good. I think we can really get somewhere here. What would be your instinctive guess, by the way, on Mr Monic's/Ms Cummins' question of whether partial passes among FF couples tend more to allow men or women?

What I can't tell from the letter is how the openness discussion came about, and who asked for what when. Now, you have a more up-to-date perspective than I do. In my time, it was common for the initial request (though this is second-hand) to be for bi accommodation. Originally the Fairness Card was played the other way; I rather like pairing the two and saying that Open to All is no more unfair than Closed to All, and that either LW's original position (given a fair original negotiation) or the bi-accommodation-only position would belong in the Price of Admission box rather than the (possibly problematic) Fairness box. But, being more up-to-date than I, you'd probably be able to make a better-informed guess than I would as to the general manner of their negotiations.

Ms Cute - It sounds like the ideal setting for a modern version of Mary Musgrove.

@nocute, 94: nothing like a full-on academic processional at a graduation or convocation to recall the medieval aspect! I recall having seen in movies set in Cambridge not-all-that-long-ago that even the teaching happened in academic regalia. I have to admit I enjoy those funny outfits at graduation, but I can't imagine wearing them regularly.

Letter 1) I don't see much in the comments about the distinctions between romantic attraction and sexual attraction here - everyone, including the letter writer, seems to be assuming these are aligned. My wife loves to fuck women, but has no interest in falling in love or having a relationship with a women. This made it pretty easy for me to not be threatened romantically (not worried she will leave me for a woman) but left me a little threatened sexually (worried she likes sex with women more than men). If the history and presentation of the partners 'bi-ness' had always been in a 'sex only context' like my wife, she is renegotiating risk into their romantic relationship by asking to also date men, who he knows love is a possibility. If she has been clear that she is bi-romantic, then he should already have adjusted his expectations that some love might be involved, and her seeing another guy should not hurt so much. The overall experience of sex with each gender is pretty damn different - Its one thing to say 'I really love and miss sex with other women' becuase you can't give me that experience.' Its very different to say 'I want a similar experience to sex with you, but different than you do it' - which much more threatening to the ego. Lastly, as a highly protective male, I never ever worry about how my wife will be treated by a woman. I will always worry about how she is treated by a guy, because physical power imbalance and the many women I know who have been raped or simply disrespected. I think the letter writer should talk to his partner and get some clarity in what it is she wants from adding men, and try baby steps where he maintains some degree of control, like dan's proposed MMF threesome.

Add me to the group with a doctorate. I don't tout it and in my line of work, that's considered pretty gauche to do so.

My husband does tout his a bit. I don't blame him. He did it as an adult, working full time, with some significant support from his spouse (me).

Here is the other thing. He's also noticed that when he drops that little honorific professionally, he gets a bit less headwind regarding his recommendations, even from people who've known him longer.

I am in an open-ish relationship. I am bi and allowed to have girlfriends. But I don't really fall in love with women the same way I do with men. On his part, definitely a "one penis policy." And a lot of gals aren't interested in being in the secondary position to a married couple, thus far, so a bit harder to find. Which is fine.

There is a difference in being proud of one's achievements and using those achievements to boost one's ego.
If I had done the work for a PhD, I'd have no problem acknowledging that to the world, just maybe not on my Twitter handle.

@102 LavaGirl: nicely said.

What horsesh*t people dream up for themselves. All of these poor wretches make me SO SO glad I'm old, married, and won't ever have to put up with the idiocy expressed so earnestly here. Vomit!