report this user
Aug 6 avast2006 commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Punting.
Seems to me the biggest difference between this letter and Sugar's narrative is not how abjectly contrite Mr. Sugar was, but that there is no evidence in Sugar's story about an agreement to practice nonmonogamy in the first place.

I get that he broke an agreement. I get that he stood her up and couldn't even be bothered to contact her. I get that he lied about it both by omission and to her face, for a whole long day, and thereby revealed himself to be capable of that: a lying liar who lies. I get that he used being drunk as an excuse, which it is not. If he were the one who wrote in, I would be more than happy to berate him at length over all of the above. At the same time, however, I have limited patience for her butthurt about, "ZOMG, now I can't help imagining him doing that thing with this woman, that thing he has total permission to do as long as I am out of state."

The obsession over the hickeys, along with "though imagining my partner having sex with someone else isn't too fun," speaks volumes to me. Letter Writer wants permission to be nonmonogamous, while pretending all the while that it isn't really happening. She engages in it herself, but if she sees evidence that he is doing what she herself does, it throws her into a tailspin.

What it sounds like to me is that she engineered the rules to promote the impression that she is Absolute Number One Priority in his life, and did it via this set of rules that de-facto imposes more limitations on him than it does on her. He ran up against those limitations (probably more than once), rebelled against them (this time), and as a result she has to look at something -- that he fucks other people -- that she would prefer not to look at because it feels threatening.

My impression is that neither of them is ready to practice honest nonmonogamy.
Aug 6 avast2006 commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Punting.
There are things about this agreement that look less than fair to me:

LW stipulates that when they are home together, no side action. Okay. But _she_is the one who travels all the time. So she is in control not only of when she sleeps around, but when he does. Sounds like she gets that itch scratched by hooking up with randos while traveling. But he has to pursue nonmonogamy in his home territory, unless he makes an effort to prowl the whole state while she's away. Meaning that the available pool of dates is way more limited (by geography) for him than it is for her.

It also means he has to cut off contact the moment LW gets home. Putting myself in the shoes of his dates, I would get sick of that pretty quickly. I don't think it requires sexist assumptions to conclude she has a better shot at getting as much side action as she wants than he does.

That does not excuse him from breaking the agreement, nor of the things he did wrong in the course of breaking it (radio silence, lying his ass off). But LW should take some responsibility for the rules turning into an inherently unbalanced situation. They need to start from scratch, and reset the rules more in depth, as well as negotiate some of the sticking points to be more equitable.
Jul 30 avast2006 commented on SL Letter of the Day: In Demand.
Dang it, I missed that this was a repeat.

LW wrote in that time, and said they were open to both partners having other partners too. So it isn't the unbalanced agreement that I had mistaken it for (twice now).
Jul 30 avast2006 commented on SL Letter of the Day: In Demand.
"I want to be in a romantic, sexually committed relationship with a man and a woman at the same time."

Not to nitpick, but I think what you want is to be in TWO romantic, sexually committed relationshipS, with a man and a woman, at the same time. That's a pretty significant difference.

"This could possibly involve three-way sex, but probably not."

Like I said, two relationships. Even if you formed a triad, what would you do, only allow one partner in the bed with you at a time?

"It is more about sharing my life intimately with both a man and a woman."

Or more accurately, sharing HALF your life with both a man and a woman, each. Time is a finite resource and is not elastic.

You might want to re-examine what "sexually committed" means to you, too. If you are sexually committed to one person, then that person is sexually committed to you, which under the default definition implies monogamy. So you have two people, each "sexually committed" to you, while you are sexually committed to that person, but also to someone else at the same time. That doesn't strike you as an unbalanced agreement? If they are as free to have a relationship other than with you as you are with them, what does their commitment to that other person unconnected you mean to your definition of "sexually committed?"

I just get the impression you haven't thought this through as much as you need to.

"Unfortunately, I don't know if I will ever find that perfect balance because so far all my potential serious partners have been turned off by the idea that I want to be with two people and believed that I should "get over it" and just be in a monogamous relationship with them—straight or gay."

Thought so. They go in expecting a monogamous commitment. Your phrasing suggests you expect the same FROM them but don't want to give it TO them. Or at least they think that's what you want, if you are using terms like "sexually committed" with them.

"Should I keep searching? Is what I want as valid as what other people want?"

If what you want is as valid as what other people want, then what other people want is as valid as what you want. This means you had better do your best to find people who want the same thing you do. So yes, keep searching.
Jul 27 avast2006 commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: My Loving Wife, The Dicktease.
If you want an honest communication with her, I would suggest that every time she does one of those dicktease moves, act pleased and attempt to take her up on it. When she turns you down, ask her, "Why did you do that?" Every single time. Get her to examine her behavior.
Jul 27 avast2006 commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: My Loving Wife, The Dicktease.
@3: "She wants to be desired and she wants to be seen as sexual but she may or may not actually want to fuck you (and if you think about it... that's ok). "

No, actually, that isn't okay at all. It's using you. Would it be okay for you to want to be seen as a great chef, to make a point of creating elaborate feasts, sitting her down before a steaming plate, taking a photo of her and her meal (for the benefit of all your Facebook friends) and then 9 times out of 10 whisking away the plates before she could take a bite? And let her go hungry? Perhaps tell her she's welcome to get herself a bowl of cold cereal afterwards? You'd be a fucking psychopath.

"Let her know - or smile and pretend very convincingly (for months if you must) that she is turning you on and that you like the dick teasing. If you don't come to like it, you can stop."

Wrong. You never, ever train someone to do something to you that you actually don't like. What does that get you? Lots and lots of the activity that you don't even like, when they could be spending that same time actually pleasing you. That, and a confused spouse who doesn't understand when you finally come clean about hating it, after encouraging it for months. You have just admitted to lying to them, and they will lose trust in your word. But at least it explains the constant shitty mood that you aren't actually quite good enough of an actor to conceal.

I notice you aren't in that relationship any more.
Jul 20 avast2006 commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Different Day, Different Couple, Same Issues, Same Advice.
""I am the man here, you need to ask my permission for things, but I don't need to ask you."

That should earn him a derisive laugh and a "Srsly? Get out. Grow up. Come back after you've grown up."
Jul 14 avast2006 commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Crazy Soon-To-Be-Ex-Girlfriend.
Tell her that she makes a way better ex-girlfriend than Ex does.
Jul 7 avast2006 commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Two Dicks, One Girl (Who Happens To Be Engaged to Someone Else).
re: 83 -- and yes, I did read where Fiance is very conservative and monogamous, in which case I call the above "at very least" in the sense that more than "least" would involve a DTMFA and three previously working friendships and a potential marriage destroyed.
Jul 7 avast2006 commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Two Dicks, One Girl (Who Happens To Be Engaged to Someone Else).
"Our girlfriend did say that she can now tick off "threesome" off her list of life goals and that she would happily marry her boyfriend now that it's done."

You say that like you think it's a mitigating factor. It isn't.

Not only did she cheat on her fiance with you two in order to do this thing she's been pining after, now that she's had her cake, she intends to wall off all the hotness from the man she's marrying. What a nice way to (de-)prioritize the person whose sexuality she supposedly is binding to her and noone else for the rest of his natural life. By getting her rocks off clandestinely, and then putting that possibility up on the shelf, out of reach, for the rest of time. What a piece of shit she is. I truly hope Fiance reads Dan and recognizes his situation.

AT VERY LEAST she does not get to check "threesome" off her bucket list just yet, because now she owes Fiance one, with the hot girl of his choice, and maybe, if she's lucky, herself as Particpant #3. If she's not lucky, she gets to wait at home while he goes out and fulfills his fantasy with two other women, neither of them her, just like she did to him.