Slog
News & ArtsFriday, February 17, 2012
Savage Love SL Letter of the Day: Lying Liars
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:59 PM
My boyfriend and I have been going out for close to five years. About a year ago, I went to study abroad for a year and told him that while I was gone, he could sleep with other people and I told him to never tell me about it. He told me that he couldn't imagine sleeping with other people and also said that he would be uncomfortable with me sleeping with other guys. Fast forward to me coming back for summer
break and I casually ask him if he's slept with anyone and he says yes, then proceeds to lie to me about what happened, and after some snooping (yes, I know it's bad but I was so paranoid), he comes out and tells me that he slept with three women, one of whom is now our mutual friend and knows basically everyone in the city we live in. He brought two of the women back to our house and had sex in our bed and
the third I see every week at a bar we would always go to. I also found out that he created several online accounts with dating/sex websites, responded to numerous craigslist ads, and also found online chats with our mutual friends where he basically bragged about who he was going to hook up with that week. I freaked out at all of this and have become that crazy psycho bitch that is paranoid about everything he does. Before this he never gave any sign suggesting he wanted to sleep with other people and so this seemed to be way out of character for him. Now I'm wondering if it's worth staying with him and figuring things out or just dumping his sorry ass and moving on. He tells me he loves me and wants to spend the rest of his life with me, but now I wonder if he's lying and if he's just using me. Please help me out!Confused
My response after the jump...
··················
And ladies? Any guy who tells you he "couldn't imagine sleeping with other people" is lying to you. Maybe he's telling you that lie because he's believes he must. Or maybe you've said and done things that have convinced him that telling that lie is the price of admission to be with you. Or maybe he's telling you that lie because—like C's boyfriend here—he doesn't want you imagining what it might be like to sleep with other guys while he fucks around behind your back. But all guys imagine sleeping with other people all the time—actually going through with the shit we imagine doing is another story—and any guy who tells you that he couldn't imagine sleeping with other people is a lying liar who shouldn't be trusted.
And guys? A girl who tells you she couldn't imagine sleeping with other people? Also a liar.
2
Dan, hate to do it, but disagree on this one.
They were made for each other.
Can't wait for them to procreate.
They were made for each other.
Can't wait for them to procreate.
3
"He told me that he couldn't imagine sleeping with other people and also said that he would be uncomfortable with me sleeping with other guys"
So, yes, he lied to you, as Dan pointed out. But, it's important to note that not only did he lie to you, but he also wanted to make sure you didn't sleep with anyone else while you were abroad. So, he gets to have fun, but he wants to make sure that you don't (or, if you do, you feel guilty about it). So, he's a liar and he's controlling. Yeah, DTMFA.
4
wait, i'm hung up on the part where confused says, "while I was gone, he could sleep with other people and I told him to never tell me about it." doesn't that part of "never tell me about it" imply lying and hiding all the evidence and then she goes & snoops to find it out.
so to me, she 1) gave him permission to fuck around - no conditions like don't fuck our mutual friends. 2) told him to lie to her about doing so - don't ever tell me what you did. then 3) she busts his ass for pretty much doing exactly what he wanted and what she told him to do - cheat on her & lie about it / try to hide it.
confused's bf should dtmcpb
so to me, she 1) gave him permission to fuck around - no conditions like don't fuck our mutual friends. 2) told him to lie to her about doing so - don't ever tell me what you did. then 3) she busts his ass for pretty much doing exactly what he wanted and what she told him to do - cheat on her & lie about it / try to hide it.
confused's bf should dtmcpb
5
She told him to sleep with other people, and then was shocked and horrified when he did. I kinda feel like he should be dumping her instead of the other way around.
6
Although i don't think there's a compelling reason for you to stay together based on your info, C, i don't really understand your problem. Your boyfriend did more or less exactly what you asked him to do, at which point you seem to have gone out of your way to make it a problem.
Don't tell your boyfriend you're okay with him sleeping arounf if you are not, in fact, okay with it.
And Dan, there's a difference between fantasizing about sleeping with people, and imagining it as an actual possibility. It's unfair to take the former as basis for saying people are lying about the latter.
Don't tell your boyfriend you're okay with him sleeping arounf if you are not, in fact, okay with it.
And Dan, there's a difference between fantasizing about sleeping with people, and imagining it as an actual possibility. It's unfair to take the former as basis for saying people are lying about the latter.
7
It seems that he's only a MF if he agreed to her condition not to tell her about whom he slept with.
We shouldn't blame her for her feelings, because we can't always predict what we will feel, but she did give him permission.
And what were the conditions for her? Was she required not to sleep with anyone? Did she agree? And did she honor the agreement?
We shouldn't blame her for her feelings, because we can't always predict what we will feel, but she did give him permission.
And what were the conditions for her? Was she required not to sleep with anyone? Did she agree? And did she honor the agreement?
8
I'm with @5. She's the liar: she told him he could sleep with people, but she didn't mean it. Also, she told him not to tell her about it, but then point-blank asked him about it. How did she think that was going to play out? Unicorns and rainbows? We need to resurrect "don't ask, don't tell" but this time it applies to immature people.
9
You are both screwed up. You gave him permission to sleep with other women, he gave you a "aw shucks" attitude to make you feel better rather than say, great, I'm not going to have to be celibate while you're gone. Points to him.
Then you come back mid-year and ask him if he's slept with other women, even though you told him to never tell you about it. He decides not to be a lying douchebag, and tells you yes. Then, it sounds like you became a total bitch until he admitted three encounters with you. So he gets points for not lying about it.
You however, have been trying to be manipulative and controlling of him from Day 1. Maybe he could have been more open: Yes, honey, I'm going to sleep with every girl I can while you're gone BECAUSE YOU GAVE ME PERMISSION.
Don't make him the bad guy in all this, oh, wait, you already have. Just walk away from all this drama you have caused, Drama Queen, and go talk to a professional so you don't act this way in your next relationship.
Then you come back mid-year and ask him if he's slept with other women, even though you told him to never tell you about it. He decides not to be a lying douchebag, and tells you yes. Then, it sounds like you became a total bitch until he admitted three encounters with you. So he gets points for not lying about it.
You however, have been trying to be manipulative and controlling of him from Day 1. Maybe he could have been more open: Yes, honey, I'm going to sleep with every girl I can while you're gone BECAUSE YOU GAVE ME PERMISSION.
Don't make him the bad guy in all this, oh, wait, you already have. Just walk away from all this drama you have caused, Drama Queen, and go talk to a professional so you don't act this way in your next relationship.
10
What am I missing here? She told him to mess around while she was gone and that she didn't want to hear about it. He messed around, and she flipped out because she asked about it (the thing she said she didn't want to know about)? She's the one with the problem and he's the one who should be doing the dumping.
And there's no lie here. Telling your girlfriend "I could never imagine sleeping with anyone else" isn't a lie, it's called pillow talk, baby. He never even told her not to sleep around, only that he was uncomfortable with it. This is called honesty. You know, the same honesty that the girlfriend should have had before giving the boyfriend permission to do something she wasn't actually cool with him doing.
And there's no lie here. Telling your girlfriend "I could never imagine sleeping with anyone else" isn't a lie, it's called pillow talk, baby. He never even told her not to sleep around, only that he was uncomfortable with it. This is called honesty. You know, the same honesty that the girlfriend should have had before giving the boyfriend permission to do something she wasn't actually cool with him doing.
12
I knew the maturity in this letter would sink to a deep hole when the writer claims she and her boyfriend have been "going out" for five years. Going out? Are you still in middle school?
13
Sorry Dan - I usually agree with your advice - but I don't imagine sleeping with other people....and I'm not a liar.
14
Lesson for next time for C:
"About a year ago, I went to study abroad for a year and told him to masturbate in front of the computer all he wanted while I was gone."
Problem solved.
"About a year ago, I went to study abroad for a year and told him to masturbate in front of the computer all he wanted while I was gone."
Problem solved.
15
obviously he took her up on her offer to an extreme, and he was likely intending to do exactly that while telling her he couldn't imagine it, but the basic facts are that she said he could fuck around and asked him not to tell her about it. so he did, and now she's pissed. that's unfair.
it is totally understandable for her to be pissed about the degree of it, pissed that he didn't grant her the same permission, and pissed that he involved their friends.
i agree he behaved really badly, took full advantage of the situation without any consideration for the fallout. but it looks to me like she's angry at him for breaking rules that were never set in the first place. i suppose maybe she thought such obvious things need not be spelled out, but that just means she gave her boyfriend too much credit. they're both at fault.
it is totally understandable for her to be pissed about the degree of it, pissed that he didn't grant her the same permission, and pissed that he involved their friends.
i agree he behaved really badly, took full advantage of the situation without any consideration for the fallout. but it looks to me like she's angry at him for breaking rules that were never set in the first place. i suppose maybe she thought such obvious things need not be spelled out, but that just means she gave her boyfriend too much credit. they're both at fault.
16
Hmm. I read the first part of her letter to mean that he said something like "no, I'm not going to sleep with other people, and you shouldn't either." And then he went and slept with other people. Which would have been fine if he had said "okay, that sounds like a good arrangement." If he had said "okay" and Confused went and snooped and found all this info, then I would be saying, tough luck, what did you expect? But he didn't.
17
@5 Yeah, seriously.
"he could sleep with other people and I told him to never tell me about it"
...
"I casually ask him if he's slept with anyone and he says yes, then proceeds to lie to me about hat happened"
She did play headgames from the beginning, but they should still break up regardless.
"he could sleep with other people and I told him to never tell me about it"
...
"I casually ask him if he's slept with anyone and he says yes, then proceeds to lie to me about hat happened"
She did play headgames from the beginning, but they should still break up regardless.
18
Hold up. As I understand the letter, C started a negotiation with "you can sleep with other people, but don't tell me about it" and he countered with "no". I don't think he can justify his actions under supposed rules that were not completely negotiated.
19
This could be the best thing that ever happened to this couple.
She had a clue that he might want sex while she was gone; hence she gave him permission. Now she sees what that looks like (OMG, he slept with people we know! and tried to meet people we don't know! and did sexy chat!). To a woman seeing that for the first time, I grant that it can be a bit shocking. But now she knows. There's not likely to be other awful things to find out -- sounds like she's snooped enough to understand his sexual preferences.
So, sit down, Confused, and decide if you still like him, the real him, who you now know a bit better.
But don't "dump his sorry ass and move on," thinking you're going to find some guy who does like sex with you and yet doesn't want sex with anyone else. Guys who like sex, like sex. Generally speaking. So - how's your sex life? Does he blow your mind? Does he make you come gangbusters? Then keep him around! Or does he complain about your body, compare you to other women in bed, and generally make your life miserable? Then leave.
In other words, the lies were totally normal during the weird circumstances you two were going through (and, as others have pointed out, given your request that he lie to you). So don't judge him on the lies, but on whether the rest of your life together is fun sexy times, or kind of a drag.
She had a clue that he might want sex while she was gone; hence she gave him permission. Now she sees what that looks like (OMG, he slept with people we know! and tried to meet people we don't know! and did sexy chat!). To a woman seeing that for the first time, I grant that it can be a bit shocking. But now she knows. There's not likely to be other awful things to find out -- sounds like she's snooped enough to understand his sexual preferences.
So, sit down, Confused, and decide if you still like him, the real him, who you now know a bit better.
But don't "dump his sorry ass and move on," thinking you're going to find some guy who does like sex with you and yet doesn't want sex with anyone else. Guys who like sex, like sex. Generally speaking. So - how's your sex life? Does he blow your mind? Does he make you come gangbusters? Then keep him around! Or does he complain about your body, compare you to other women in bed, and generally make your life miserable? Then leave.
In other words, the lies were totally normal during the weird circumstances you two were going through (and, as others have pointed out, given your request that he lie to you). So don't judge him on the lies, but on whether the rest of your life together is fun sexy times, or kind of a drag.
20
@4 Except that he declined the deal and said he did not want to sleep with other people or have her sleep with other people.
You don't get to decline an offer and then surreptitiously reap the benefits.
Had he said sure and then she asked and got mad that would be one thing.
You don't get to decline an offer and then surreptitiously reap the benefits.
Had he said sure and then she asked and got mad that would be one thing.
22
I don't know why she's being judged so harshly. She seems a little bit naive, and I bet this is the first time she's had to deal with a situation like this. Also, I doubt that his behavior would have been any different had she not tried to give him permission and talk things out with him.
23
Put me in the "he did what you gave him permission to do and his only mistake was telling you about it when you asked, which you shouldn't have, so it is your fault" group. You do come across as manipulative and controlling.
If you are given the benefit of the doubt, it just means that you now find it emotionally difficult dealing with the reality of what you were okay with in the abstract while ignorant of the details of its execution. Fine. But your emotional difficulties are not his fault; they are yours. Accept responsibility for your dsisatisfaction, your paranoia, your crazy psycho freaking out. He is not a sorry ass. You are.
This relationship ought to be over. So end it. If he's not going to dump you (and you deserve it) then you should dump him so he can find a better girlfriend.
And please, people, don't ask goddamn questions with respect to which the possible answer is something you absolutely don't want to hear! "I casually ask him if he's slept with anyone . . . " Why in the hell would you do that? Are you a moron?
If you are given the benefit of the doubt, it just means that you now find it emotionally difficult dealing with the reality of what you were okay with in the abstract while ignorant of the details of its execution. Fine. But your emotional difficulties are not his fault; they are yours. Accept responsibility for your dsisatisfaction, your paranoia, your crazy psycho freaking out. He is not a sorry ass. You are.
This relationship ought to be over. So end it. If he's not going to dump you (and you deserve it) then you should dump him so he can find a better girlfriend.
And please, people, don't ask goddamn questions with respect to which the possible answer is something you absolutely don't want to hear! "I casually ask him if he's slept with anyone . . . " Why in the hell would you do that? Are you a moron?
24
Wait. She gives him permission to fuck around, with the instruction "never tell me about it", then comes home and asks about it? OF COURSE he didn't explain the whole thing. THAT WOULD BE VIOLATING HER INSTRUCTIONS.
Fuck her. She should get dumped herself for this shameful reversal.
Fuck her. She should get dumped herself for this shameful reversal.
25
I don't know... I agree with what Dan said about men, although I'm willing to believe there are a few exceptions here and there. Women, however, I really believe are differently wired. Of course there is a wide spectrum of libidos in each sex, but I think there are a lot more women who really don't imagine sleeping with other men.
I've been married ten years and we still have sex four times a week or more, and before I was married I fucked almost anything that moved... but I'm not lying when I say the thought of sleeping with other men crosses my mind about twice a year. It's not low libido, because my husband gets me hot and bothered all the time. I just don't seem to notice other guys anymore. Enough of my other female friends say the same thing so I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
I know my husband fantasizes about other women, and that doesn't bother me, because I know it's pretty much universal for guys. But I think Dan might not want to admit that it really isn't universal for women, because Dan tends to normalize male sexuality while marginalizing female sexuality. Dan wants everyone to believe that typical male sexuality such as desire for promiscuity is "normal" and ought to be accommodated, while typical female sexuality such as desire for monogamy and emotional commitment isn't and shouldn't.
Dan talks an awful lot about being GGG in terms of being sexually adventurous (which I am all for) even to the point of allowing straying, but precious little about being GGG in terms of meeting more typical female needs for security and faithfulness.
Before everyone jumps down my throat, let me repeat that there is a wide overlap between the sexes and that I know many, many women are just as promiscuous in their desires as most men are. I just think that if you were to plot it on a graph, you would find a lot more men clustered at the "slutty" end of the spectrum and a lot more women clustered at the "boring" end. What I object to is the characterization of one end of this spectrum as normal and healthy and the other end as constricting and castrating.
More...
I've been married ten years and we still have sex four times a week or more, and before I was married I fucked almost anything that moved... but I'm not lying when I say the thought of sleeping with other men crosses my mind about twice a year. It's not low libido, because my husband gets me hot and bothered all the time. I just don't seem to notice other guys anymore. Enough of my other female friends say the same thing so I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
I know my husband fantasizes about other women, and that doesn't bother me, because I know it's pretty much universal for guys. But I think Dan might not want to admit that it really isn't universal for women, because Dan tends to normalize male sexuality while marginalizing female sexuality. Dan wants everyone to believe that typical male sexuality such as desire for promiscuity is "normal" and ought to be accommodated, while typical female sexuality such as desire for monogamy and emotional commitment isn't and shouldn't.
Dan talks an awful lot about being GGG in terms of being sexually adventurous (which I am all for) even to the point of allowing straying, but precious little about being GGG in terms of meeting more typical female needs for security and faithfulness.
Before everyone jumps down my throat, let me repeat that there is a wide overlap between the sexes and that I know many, many women are just as promiscuous in their desires as most men are. I just think that if you were to plot it on a graph, you would find a lot more men clustered at the "slutty" end of the spectrum and a lot more women clustered at the "boring" end. What I object to is the characterization of one end of this spectrum as normal and healthy and the other end as constricting and castrating.
26
Totally agree with @5. She told him to sleep with other people, and he did.
Curiously missing from the letter: whether Confused agreed not to sleep with anyone while she was abroad. Whether Confused slept with anyone while she was abroad.
I also note that her objections seem curiously targeted toward other people in their social circle knowing about his actions, and not about him actually fucking someone else. If one were looking for a bullshit way to distinguish her own fucking-while-abroad from his fucking-while-home, that would be it.
Curiously missing from the letter: whether Confused agreed not to sleep with anyone while she was abroad. Whether Confused slept with anyone while she was abroad.
I also note that her objections seem curiously targeted toward other people in their social circle knowing about his actions, and not about him actually fucking someone else. If one were looking for a bullshit way to distinguish her own fucking-while-abroad from his fucking-while-home, that would be it.
27
I agree with the advice that this relationship should end. But like others I don't see how this is entirely the guy's fault.
He said he couldn't imagine sleeping with someone else. Lets assume he meant in reality and not fantasy, because it is one thing to think about knowing that it is a fantasy that will never happen, and a very different thing to actually contemplate going out in the real world and doing it. So he may not have been lying about that if he sees a difference between having fantasies about fooling around with other women and actually planning to go out and sleep with other women.
She doesn't say if he actually said he wouldn't, however. He said he would be uncomfortable with her sleeping with other guys, but she doesn't say that he made her promise not to or gave her some kind of ultimatum.
He did what she said he could do. Yes, he made some bad choices doing it. Clearly he should have had his fun a little more removed from home and friends. She perhaps has reason to be critical of his poor judgment. But he did what she said he could and what, as far as we know, he never actually said he wouldn't.
She, however, broke her promise about never asking about it. Then went all psycho girlfriend and actively dug up details when he didn't reveal the truth that he had been told he would never have to reveal in the first place.
I don't blame her for not reacting to the details the way she thought she would, and for being upset. But she is upset because she didn't keep her own promise.
They both screwed up. She screwed up more. She needs to accept her part in all this, learn from it, and they both need to move on.
He said he couldn't imagine sleeping with someone else. Lets assume he meant in reality and not fantasy, because it is one thing to think about knowing that it is a fantasy that will never happen, and a very different thing to actually contemplate going out in the real world and doing it. So he may not have been lying about that if he sees a difference between having fantasies about fooling around with other women and actually planning to go out and sleep with other women.
She doesn't say if he actually said he wouldn't, however. He said he would be uncomfortable with her sleeping with other guys, but she doesn't say that he made her promise not to or gave her some kind of ultimatum.
He did what she said he could do. Yes, he made some bad choices doing it. Clearly he should have had his fun a little more removed from home and friends. She perhaps has reason to be critical of his poor judgment. But he did what she said he could and what, as far as we know, he never actually said he wouldn't.
She, however, broke her promise about never asking about it. Then went all psycho girlfriend and actively dug up details when he didn't reveal the truth that he had been told he would never have to reveal in the first place.
I don't blame her for not reacting to the details the way she thought she would, and for being upset. But she is upset because she didn't keep her own promise.
They both screwed up. She screwed up more. She needs to accept her part in all this, learn from it, and they both need to move on.
28
@5, et al.: Correct. She gave him permission then freaked out when he did what she gave him permission to do. He should DTMFA. And she wasted a whole year abroad not getting laid? Idiot.
29
If you interpret "I can't imagine sleeping with anyone else" to mean, "I am unable to use my imaginative faculties to visually picture a scenario in which I am in bed with someone else", then well, yes the person is probably lying.
But a more reasonable interpretation is probably something like, "I will never sleep with someone else" or "My sleeping with someone else is so unlikely that I doubt it will ever happen". In that case, whether it is true depends on who's saying it. Some are telling the truth; Some people will never actually sleep around, (as I'm sure Dan would agree), even if they are perfectly capable of IMAGINING it (and some of them may never cheat even if they OFTEN imagine it, say, when masturbating).
Compare: "I can't imagine ever throwing my cat off the Space Needle." Really? You can't IMAGINE it? I bet you're imagining it right now. But we understand what you mean: you'd never do it. (I hope.)
But a more reasonable interpretation is probably something like, "I will never sleep with someone else" or "My sleeping with someone else is so unlikely that I doubt it will ever happen". In that case, whether it is true depends on who's saying it. Some are telling the truth; Some people will never actually sleep around, (as I'm sure Dan would agree), even if they are perfectly capable of IMAGINING it (and some of them may never cheat even if they OFTEN imagine it, say, when masturbating).
Compare: "I can't imagine ever throwing my cat off the Space Needle." Really? You can't IMAGINE it? I bet you're imagining it right now. But we understand what you mean: you'd never do it. (I hope.)
30
I guess I got the impression from the letter that she wanted to open up the relationship, and he denied it, thus the sentence about how he didn't want her sleeping with other guys. He then turns around and does it anyway, while ensuring that his girlfriend stays monogamous.
31
He turned down her offer in order to get her to agree not to sleep with other guys, and then he slept with other women. Yeah, DTMFA.
32
This is one of those cases where the infidelity is not the problem (she tried to give him permission, after all). The lying POS part is the problem. He lied about not wanting to sleep with other people, tried to prevent her from sleeping with other people, and then he had a jolly good time sleeping with other people. Manipulative, lying douchebaggery. Misogynist hypocrisy (he can sleep around, but she can't). Definitely, DTMFA.
33
What about the silly bitch who says "never tell me about it" then "casually" asks him if he did or not? That's ridiculous. Both of these people need to grow the hell up. Maybe they'll be worthwhile people someday, maybe they won't -- but not with each other.
34
Am I the only one who noted that SHE told him it was OK to sleep with other people, told him NOT to tell her about it, then proceeded to ask once she returned? Ugh.
36
20-year-old-I-will-always-love-you-but-not-really-high-school-soap-opera-I-created-my-own-personal-drama-please-post-it-to-validate-my-stupidity: the letter. Jeez Dan, pick something hard. You've been pretty scarce around here, at least toss out a letter that isn't eye-rollingly cloying and obvious.
37
I don't buy that he actually agreed not to or that he made her promise not to.
If that had been the case why would he have told her the truth when she asked? It sounds to me like she left it with him having permission, so that when she asked he thought it was alright to tell her. If they had left with the understanding they wouldn't sleep with other people then he would have lied when she brought it up.
That he didn't give her permission to sleep around doesn't mean that she agreed not to. There is way too much information missing from her account, but from what I can infer from what she did say I don't buy that either of them left with the impression that they were both going to monogamous to each other for the next year.
If that had been the case why would he have told her the truth when she asked? It sounds to me like she left it with him having permission, so that when she asked he thought it was alright to tell her. If they had left with the understanding they wouldn't sleep with other people then he would have lied when she brought it up.
That he didn't give her permission to sleep around doesn't mean that she agreed not to. There is way too much information missing from her account, but from what I can infer from what she did say I don't buy that either of them left with the impression that they were both going to monogamous to each other for the next year.
39
@20: "Except that he declined the deal and said he did not want to sleep with other people or have her sleep with other people.
You don't get to decline an offer and then surreptitiously reap the benefits.
Had he said sure and then she asked and got mad that would be one thing."
You don't immediately start naming off all the people you're going to screw, for goodness' sake. He may have initially thought that, but she was gone for a year. She didn't change the terms with him.
You don't get to decline an offer and then surreptitiously reap the benefits.
Had he said sure and then she asked and got mad that would be one thing."
You don't immediately start naming off all the people you're going to screw, for goodness' sake. He may have initially thought that, but she was gone for a year. She didn't change the terms with him.
40
Sounds like they probably do not communicate very well. He probably gave her a knee-jerk answer you supposedly have to give the little woman (a la "Do I look fat in these jeans?") and they probably left it at that so that the deal was not officially rescinded but the whole thing was made unclear.
And in any case she didn't communicate her true conditions (no one I know, I actually will look for details, etc.) so she has no one to blame but herself on that front.
@25: Totally agree. My BF tells me like 10 times a week how it would make his millenium if I wanted to be with another woman and I kinda feel non-GGG for never ever wanting to do so.
@29: Good call on the willful misinterpretation of "can't imagine".
And in any case she didn't communicate her true conditions (no one I know, I actually will look for details, etc.) so she has no one to blame but herself on that front.
@25: Totally agree. My BF tells me like 10 times a week how it would make his millenium if I wanted to be with another woman and I kinda feel non-GGG for never ever wanting to do so.
@29: Good call on the willful misinterpretation of "can't imagine".
42
Agree that w/everyone that she gave him permission and then freaked when he took her up on it. And agree that his "softening the blow" reaction to her permission wasn't a good idea on his part. However, I think one thing that is obviously bothering this girl is that he slept with a friend. I think she's embarrassed that she agreed to be cheated on, essentially. And she doesn't like that he had sex with others in their bed. She sounds young and this sounds like an exercise in being explicit. The rules need to be laid down very clearly. It's not, "You can sleep with people while I'm gone." It's "You can sleep with people while I'm gone, just not in our bed, and no one we know." She assumed he would know that -- she was wrong.
43
@40, if your BF tells you 10 times a week that he wants you to sleep with a woman, you might want to take the issue more seriously. First off, if you're not interested in women, I don't think you have to do women in order to be GGG. I doubt Dan would do a woman to please Terry, and surely Dan sees himself as GGG :-)
How does your boyfriend feel about you sleeping with a guy?
Maybe (since he asks about it so much) your boyfriend is the one who wants to get busy with another woman? Maybe you guys would have more fun with another couple, than with another woman? Anyway, this should give you something to talk about when he keeps bringing it up...
How does your boyfriend feel about you sleeping with a guy?
Maybe (since he asks about it so much) your boyfriend is the one who wants to get busy with another woman? Maybe you guys would have more fun with another couple, than with another woman? Anyway, this should give you something to talk about when he keeps bringing it up...
44
Wait, who is the liar, again?
Letter Writer told her boyfriend it was okay to sleep with other women (Lie #1), and that she never wanted to know about it (Lie #2) Then the first thing she did when she got back was ASK HIM about that thing she said she never wanted to know about, and then FREAK about that thing she originally said was fine with her.
Basically both of you said something that you thought was true in the moment, but felt differently about later when circumstances changed. "I could never imagine sleeping with someone else" is an exaggeration of the fact that right now, while you two are still in physical proximity and he feels very bonded with you, he does not feel like breaching that bond by sleeping around. Likewise at that moment he probably felt like you were basically saying you intended to sleep with others while you were away, never a terribly comfortable thing to hear. Later, when he was feeling lonely -- and remembering that you explicitly gave him a free pass, and figuring you were probably making good on your implicit intention to do the same -- he changed his mind.
He didn't do anything wrong, you idiot. You gave him permission to do what he did.
Letter Writer told her boyfriend it was okay to sleep with other women (Lie #1), and that she never wanted to know about it (Lie #2) Then the first thing she did when she got back was ASK HIM about that thing she said she never wanted to know about, and then FREAK about that thing she originally said was fine with her.
Basically both of you said something that you thought was true in the moment, but felt differently about later when circumstances changed. "I could never imagine sleeping with someone else" is an exaggeration of the fact that right now, while you two are still in physical proximity and he feels very bonded with you, he does not feel like breaching that bond by sleeping around. Likewise at that moment he probably felt like you were basically saying you intended to sleep with others while you were away, never a terribly comfortable thing to hear. Later, when he was feeling lonely -- and remembering that you explicitly gave him a free pass, and figuring you were probably making good on your implicit intention to do the same -- he changed his mind.
He didn't do anything wrong, you idiot. You gave him permission to do what he did.
45
DTMFA.
If you passed up hot sex out of loyalty to him, find a particularly cruel way to dump him.
If you passed up hot sex out of loyalty to him, find a particularly cruel way to dump him.
46
A girl who tells you she couldn't imagine sleeping with other people? Also a liar.
I've never used this line before, but I've heard this line from ladies. Curious whether the ladies agree with Dan here.
I've never used this line before, but I've heard this line from ladies. Curious whether the ladies agree with Dan here.
47
I'm with the majority. C said he could, said not to tell her, then asked about it anyway and was shocked when he told her what happened? She's an idiot and should be dumped.
48
Oh, right, good point #4: She tells him to never tell him about it, and then when he does exactly that, she characterizes his not giving her a full confession as hiding things from her and making her snoop!
Textbook batshit-crazy.
Textbook batshit-crazy.
49
She didn't freak out because he slept with other women, she freaked out because she did not get any warning. She tried to have an honest discussion about sexual fidelity and he responded with a lie meant to lull her into a false sense of security. How is that not wrong?
Maybe C was a bit immature to "freak out," but she deserves credit for being upfront about the fact that she would freak the fuck out. Hence her request to not be told about it. "Don't tell me about it" is not the same as "you have permission to lie about everything you do." There is nothing wrong with wanting some predictability in life.
Maybe C was a bit immature to "freak out," but she deserves credit for being upfront about the fact that she would freak the fuck out. Hence her request to not be told about it. "Don't tell me about it" is not the same as "you have permission to lie about everything you do." There is nothing wrong with wanting some predictability in life.
50
@43: Thanks for the response Erica. I have always been honest about not being at all into 3-ways, be it MFM or FMF, or non-monogamy. Not sure how seriously he took me or how thoroughly he thought that through before we got serious, but what can you do?
Does a thirtysomething hetero man "imagine" sex with other women? Would he consider it if his arm was twisted real hard? Does the pope wear a funny hat and super-cute shoes?
But, respectfully, what does that have to do with me? I was honest and I keep him good and laid. It's just his misfortune to have gotten involved with a boring woman who won't throw a hot bi girl at him. We all have our crosses to bear. (Mine being to kinda feel kinda, but not really, non-ggg sometimes.)
My only real dilemma is whether to ask him to knock it off with the "subtle" hints or just allow him to express it as a fantasy?
Does a thirtysomething hetero man "imagine" sex with other women? Would he consider it if his arm was twisted real hard? Does the pope wear a funny hat and super-cute shoes?
But, respectfully, what does that have to do with me? I was honest and I keep him good and laid. It's just his misfortune to have gotten involved with a boring woman who won't throw a hot bi girl at him. We all have our crosses to bear. (Mine being to kinda feel kinda, but not really, non-ggg sometimes.)
My only real dilemma is whether to ask him to knock it off with the "subtle" hints or just allow him to express it as a fantasy?
51
Just to weigh in on the "do women also think about sleeping with other men" issue, for me it's a resounding yes. My husband and I have sex about 3 times a week, which is about right for both of us since we also both masturbate at around the same frequency.
I think about sleeping with other people on a daily basis, and he knows it. Both men and women, and sometimes it's fleeting and halfhearted (a few seconds wondering what someone would be like in bed) and sometimes it's an intense crush that goes on for months on end and that person stars in most of my fantasies. And I don't now, nor have I ever, considered myself particularly sex-crazy, just in possession of a healthy libido.
I think about sleeping with other people on a daily basis, and he knows it. Both men and women, and sometimes it's fleeting and halfhearted (a few seconds wondering what someone would be like in bed) and sometimes it's an intense crush that goes on for months on end and that person stars in most of my fantasies. And I don't now, nor have I ever, considered myself particularly sex-crazy, just in possession of a healthy libido.
52
Another red flag is the fact that he said he "loves her" and wants to spend the rest of his life with her. What he SHOULD be saying is he is sorry for anything he has done to upset her and he wants to talk through any misunderstandings. Sounds like C's boyfriend is the type of guy who tries to silence his girlfriend's complaints with emotional appeals. "I love you" isn't a good response to your girlfriend accusing you of being a slut, just as "I can't imagine sleeping around" isn't a good response to your girlfriend giving you permission to sleep around.
53
What (almost) everyone in the comments seems to ignore is that she might not have wanted to give him the permissen out of the sheer goodness of her heart, but because she wanted to fuck other people too, but when he seemed so averse to it she decided that she could go without for him. -- So him turning around and fucking lots of other people while she abstained is a very good reason to be pissed.
Also, she obviously didn't want to make their somewhat open arrangement public so him picking the women from their mutual circle of friends AND bragging to all his friends about it is more than a bit douchey -- also a very good reason to be pissed at him.
I mean if basically everyone in their circle of friends (and as implied lots of people in town) knows about his flings, how long until she would have learned it?
Even if it was weird of her to ask him when she came back, he didn't know that she would when he initiated these flings that would have definitely gotten back to her sooner or later.
Also is it really a crime to change your mind about wanting to know or not.
A last aside and probably not the case, but could 'ask him casually' maybe even interpretated as 'kind of jokingly, not totally serious (since he said he wouldn't)?'
Also, she obviously didn't want to make their somewhat open arrangement public so him picking the women from their mutual circle of friends AND bragging to all his friends about it is more than a bit douchey -- also a very good reason to be pissed at him.
I mean if basically everyone in their circle of friends (and as implied lots of people in town) knows about his flings, how long until she would have learned it?
Even if it was weird of her to ask him when she came back, he didn't know that she would when he initiated these flings that would have definitely gotten back to her sooner or later.
Also is it really a crime to change your mind about wanting to know or not.
A last aside and probably not the case, but could 'ask him casually' maybe even interpretated as 'kind of jokingly, not totally serious (since he said he wouldn't)?'
54
Come now, can't we assume that "couldn't imagine sleeping with other people" has an implicity "actually" it? As in, "I can't imagine actually sleeping with other people." Of course you can imagine it. I can LITTERALLY imagine going to the moon, but I can't imagine (implicit "actually") going to the moon!
56
@50, "Not sure ...how thoroughly he thought that through before we got serious, but what can you do?" A relationship isn't a fixed thing. Even though you were honest, and even though he may have thought he could deal with that, life gets in the way sometimes. If he really brings it up every time you have sex, then it sounds like he is itching for something to change. Just saying...
57
Ms Squared @2 - Neatly observed. Who would wish either of these two on anybody else?
Regarding the spelling posts, this reminds me that recently I saw a post elsewhere from someone who could not remember whether the spelling "womyn" was singular or plural. I posted a recollection from the early days of lesbian presses that "womyn" was the singular of "wymyn". But apparently it now appears that "wymyn" has basically gone out of fashion, while "womyn" is not only used as both singular and plural but has even gained acceptance in that holy of holies, playability in Scrabble. Does anyone know how this happened? Why toss a perfectly good plural and make the singular ambiguous?
And that reminds me that I have seen several feminists lately using "women" as a singular. Assuming that this is a deliberate choice, does anyone know how this recent trend started? It's quite new - if it really is a trend.
Regarding the spelling posts, this reminds me that recently I saw a post elsewhere from someone who could not remember whether the spelling "womyn" was singular or plural. I posted a recollection from the early days of lesbian presses that "womyn" was the singular of "wymyn". But apparently it now appears that "wymyn" has basically gone out of fashion, while "womyn" is not only used as both singular and plural but has even gained acceptance in that holy of holies, playability in Scrabble. Does anyone know how this happened? Why toss a perfectly good plural and make the singular ambiguous?
And that reminds me that I have seen several feminists lately using "women" as a singular. Assuming that this is a deliberate choice, does anyone know how this recent trend started? It's quite new - if it really is a trend.
58
They're both insecure and have clearly not internalized the whole honesty in open relationships philosophy. I think he fed her that "can't imagine sleeping with anyone else" line because 1) he was very anxious about missing her if she left, which can be a sign of immature codependence, and 2) he felt like that's what he was supposed to say, because of social expectations.
It can't have helped that she told him explicitly that she wasn't really okay with it and didn't want to know. And then she asked? They're both kinda pieces of work and they need to break up.
It can't have helped that she told him explicitly that she wasn't really okay with it and didn't want to know. And then she asked? They're both kinda pieces of work and they need to break up.
59
This letter isn't super clear on details, which I have a feeling is the root of the problem. She threw out, "Hey, I'm cool if you sleep with other people while I'm gone." He says "I can't imagine doing that and I'm uncomfortable with you sleeping with other guys." What we're missing is what on earth she said BACK to that. Did she say, "Okay, then we've agreed that neither of us will sleep with other people?" Or did she say "Well, the offer still stands if you change your mind"? In either case, I don't think he should've gone forward with sleeping with other people without reopening the conversation with her first, in which she could've talked about limits that would make her comfortable- for example, she clearly didn't want all of their friends to know about it, which I totally understand. Seriously, what kind of douchebag tells all his friends who are also friends with his girlfriend about the girls he's going to hook up with while she's gone? ESPECIALLY if she doesn't want to know anything about it? It puts the friends in an incredibly awkward position and increases the likelihood that the girlfriend is going to hear way more details than she wants to know. In any case, if she said the offer was still on the table, I think that he's just a doofus with little tact and bad communication skills. If she wants to stay with him, they really need to work on that. If he let her leave with the impression that both of them were going to remain monogamous, however, there's absolutely nothing worth saving IMO.
I guess that I think he's a douchebag because he basically made it impossible for her to not find out by blabbing to all their mutual friends and sleeping with people she sees all the time when her main stipulation for the situation was that she not find out. Even if they had worked it out so that they could both sleep with other people, his indiscreet choices at best indicate obliviousness and lack of tact and at worst are just totally douchey. If they came to an agreement that they could sleep with other people, then I do agree that it was bad of her to go digging on his computer, but what exactly prompted her "casual" question? Was she getting weird vibes from one of her friends whenever he came up in conversation? Or was it really a casual question that made her go crazy?
Basically, my conclusion is that he's either insanely tactless and/or douchey, but the extent of her own douchiness is mysterious.
More...
I guess that I think he's a douchebag because he basically made it impossible for her to not find out by blabbing to all their mutual friends and sleeping with people she sees all the time when her main stipulation for the situation was that she not find out. Even if they had worked it out so that they could both sleep with other people, his indiscreet choices at best indicate obliviousness and lack of tact and at worst are just totally douchey. If they came to an agreement that they could sleep with other people, then I do agree that it was bad of her to go digging on his computer, but what exactly prompted her "casual" question? Was she getting weird vibes from one of her friends whenever he came up in conversation? Or was it really a casual question that made her go crazy?
Basically, my conclusion is that he's either insanely tactless and/or douchey, but the extent of her own douchiness is mysterious.
60
@ 46 (seandr),
It depends on what Dan means by "imagine". Can I see a beautiful man and imagine having a relationship? Sure. It happens and I tell my husband about it. Can I imagine actually having, doing, a relationship with another man. No.
I may or may not be a liar with regard to Dan's proclaimation.
It depends on what Dan means by "imagine". Can I see a beautiful man and imagine having a relationship? Sure. It happens and I tell my husband about it. Can I imagine actually having, doing, a relationship with another man. No.
I may or may not be a liar with regard to Dan's proclaimation.
61
the lady should sleep with some other men in the very near future, and see if she still wants to be with/dump the guy. these seem like young people anyway (studying abraod- in college?), and probably shouldnt be settling on one person.
they've been together for 5 yrs?? obviously he wants more variety.
they've been together for 5 yrs?? obviously he wants more variety.
62
Take it from me: run, run, RUN! I fell for the BS and married a guy just like that. Still paying for it.
Look up antisocial personality disorder. There might be red flags in other areas of the guy's life.
Look up antisocial personality disorder. There might be red flags in other areas of the guy's life.
63
Hmm - I read this as the guy saying no to opening up the relationship when she asked, then going ahead and sleeping around anyways. This way, she'd feel guilty about dating/fucking guys while she's away.
He's the asshole for going behind her back when he had it offered on a silver platter.
He's the asshole for going behind her back when he had it offered on a silver platter.
64
kim @60:
I think I understood it to mean that imagining fucking other guys wasn't something she did or would enjoy doing. I can almost see this being true for someone with a low libido. Otherwise, probably not so much.
I think I understood it to mean that imagining fucking other guys wasn't something she did or would enjoy doing. I can almost see this being true for someone with a low libido. Otherwise, probably not so much.
65
Those of you in the "he should dump her" camp: can you please address the fact that he fucking LIED to her face and she relied on that lie, putting her pussy in a lock-box while he was out having fun, putting the LIE to his lie but not telling her during the period when she could have been having fun also? Please. This was strategic on his part.
66
seandr@ 64,
Could be. If imagine=fantasy, then a person who says they can't imagine sleeping with another could have a low libido, be asexual, have some past experience that makes them hesitant to acknowledge sexual feelings within themselves, religious expectation... Anyway, I thought you were asking about Dan's statement and how I received it. Personally I don't think myself capable or telling another person how they feel, so I take Dan's omniscient statements with a grain of salt. More along the lines of true for many, but not truth for all.
Take care.
Could be. If imagine=fantasy, then a person who says they can't imagine sleeping with another could have a low libido, be asexual, have some past experience that makes them hesitant to acknowledge sexual feelings within themselves, religious expectation... Anyway, I thought you were asking about Dan's statement and how I received it. Personally I don't think myself capable or telling another person how they feel, so I take Dan's omniscient statements with a grain of salt. More along the lines of true for many, but not truth for all.
Take care.
67
I'm surprised so many people are against the LW here. I think it's pretty clear that she offered to open things up while she was away, he turned down the offer to keep her from sleeping with other guys during her trip, and then he cheated. (And I use the word "cheated" because he turned down the agreement.) It's not even so much the cheating that's so wrong--it's messing up her chance to also get laid. He's totally manipulative and needs to get dumped hard and f
69
@56: I agree Erica, I have no idea what the future holds. Right now, he also tells me multiple times a week that I give the most amazing blowjobs ever and that he's terrified that I'll leave him and he won't get them anymore. So I guess he feels pretty well rewarded for my "price of admission". But you're right, I wouldn't pretend it might not be a big issue some day. Hence the obsessing on the internet.
70
They both played head games with each other. They are both immature. They should break up permanently and try again with new people. Including a couple of shrinks wouldnt hurt either.
Don't play drama games. Be honest. Accept that people generally think about having sex with other people. Own your desires: if you say you are ok with your partner boinking other people, and you desire the same, state it and stand firm. Good luck.
Don't play drama games. Be honest. Accept that people generally think about having sex with other people. Own your desires: if you say you are ok with your partner boinking other people, and you desire the same, state it and stand firm. Good luck.
71
Oh what-the-fuck-ever. She said she didn't care if he fucked other girls, and even if he initially said he didn't want to, she made it clear that monogamy is not that important to her. So what did she expect? Yes, her boyfriend was not 100% forthcoming about his own expectations, but when you give someone permission to fuck other people don't be shocked when they go ahead and do it.
72
@65 Okay. I think you are unfairly interpreting his actions as malicious and manipulative without evidence. He didn't turn down an offer. He just said he couldn't imagine doing it. We can never know, but my bets are that he really meant that when he said it. It is a big stretch, and probably an unwarranted one, to assume that he manipulated her into celibacy with the intent of going out and plowing the fields himself. But as the weeks of her absence continued, he got lonely, he got horny, a he started to think about it. Then he looked on the net. Then he started setting things up. he didn't see his words as a promise not to do anything, he remembered he had permission, and the only rule was not to tell her. So he went out and did it. And got a bit crazy and indiscreet.
People who are quick to cry liar are often both unsophisticated and mistrustful of other people's emotions and motivations. In my profession (the legal field) I see people call each other liars very often. But generally, the their motivation is not intentionally stating a falsehood, but results from a more human, more complicated, subtle and subjective mix of recollection, perception, and emotion.
People who are quick to cry liar are often both unsophisticated and mistrustful of other people's emotions and motivations. In my profession (the legal field) I see people call each other liars very often. But generally, the their motivation is not intentionally stating a falsehood, but results from a more human, more complicated, subtle and subjective mix of recollection, perception, and emotion.
73
I dunno, I think he's pretty much the dickhead in this scenario. He turned down her open relationship plan and made it sound like he couldn't imagine such a scenario. Then he goes and fucks around (and does it messily) in their own backyard while she's away (and presumably not fucking anyone else). Who knows why she asked if he slept with anyone while she was gone - could it be she sensed something was off when she got back? Yeah, I'd freak out too I think. He comes off as a pretty manipulative shit - not to mention selfish and deceitful. Why on earth would she want to stay with him?
74
He also messed up her opportunity to live it up during her year abroad just to fool around with some local bar girls he could have nailed any time. I guess I think he's extra shitty just because her opportunity cost ended up being so much greater.
76
@72
Well said. In Dan Savage's world there is no room for morally ambiguity. Every conflict is at its root caused by at least one party who is a nefarious LIAR or ASSHOLE. No further discussion of motivations is required.
The suspense of every column is in finding out where Dan's mighty ax of judgement falls. Is it the advice seeker's subject of ire who is the true villain, or is it the advice seeker himself?
Well said. In Dan Savage's world there is no room for morally ambiguity. Every conflict is at its root caused by at least one party who is a nefarious LIAR or ASSHOLE. No further discussion of motivations is required.
The suspense of every column is in finding out where Dan's mighty ax of judgement falls. Is it the advice seeker's subject of ire who is the true villain, or is it the advice seeker himself?
77
65 & 67, I think 59 makes a great point--we don't know what she said after he initially turned it down. Did she say, No let's keep that option open. Or did she say OK, we'll be celibate while we're apart.
He didn't necessarily lie in that conversation. Maybe he couldn't, at that moment, honestly picture putting out the effort, flirting, inviting someone back, and actually having sex. Two months later . . .
62, I'm not sure I'm seeing APD here. Immaturity, yes. Possibly even dishonesty, although that's not yet settled to my satisfaction. But not sociopathy.
He didn't necessarily lie in that conversation. Maybe he couldn't, at that moment, honestly picture putting out the effort, flirting, inviting someone back, and actually having sex. Two months later . . .
62, I'm not sure I'm seeing APD here. Immaturity, yes. Possibly even dishonesty, although that's not yet settled to my satisfaction. But not sociopathy.
79
@25 Your experience != all women's experiences. Please do not turn anecdotes into gender essentialism.
80
@69 Yay for giving great enthusiastic blow-jobs that are well appreciated! Does he satisfy you in return? If so, reminding him of his mad skillz may alleviate his fear of you leaving.
@72 thank you - well said.
@76 that cracked me up. You're right -- Dan certainly knows how to play to his audience :-)
@72 thank you - well said.
@76 that cracked me up. You're right -- Dan certainly knows how to play to his audience :-)
82
My first thought on this (like so many others) is you don't get to say "Fuck other women, don't tell me" and then ASK about it, however casually. The man's fucked regardless at that point--should he lie and say oh no baby, I didn't fuck anyone, or acknowledge that he did exactly what she told him he could do? As to the 'in my bed' outrage--she moved out to go abroad for a year. Seems like it was his bed at that point. And regardless, I'm sure he changed the sheets before she came back. Was he supposed to fuck other women (with her permission) on the floor next to the bed? Was he supposed to limit the other women fucking to only women that she would never meet or see or know in any context? As a couple, attracted to each other, they likely similarly gravitate to the same type of people.
He should be the one dumping her. Mindfuck-ing little twat.
On Dan's statement that anyone who claims not to think about fucking other people is a liar, I'm torn. I don't like to generalize so broadly. But as a woman who has been married forever, who haas sex 5 or more times a week with her spouse, and masturbates daily, I will say that I think about having sex with other people constantly. Every person that I meet has an element of sexual posibility, a sense of who are you when you're not under scrutiny, not in the public eye.
He should be the one dumping her. Mindfuck-ing little twat.
On Dan's statement that anyone who claims not to think about fucking other people is a liar, I'm torn. I don't like to generalize so broadly. But as a woman who has been married forever, who haas sex 5 or more times a week with her spouse, and masturbates daily, I will say that I think about having sex with other people constantly. Every person that I meet has an element of sexual posibility, a sense of who are you when you're not under scrutiny, not in the public eye.
83
@82, my guess is that if you're orgasming during sex 5 times or more a week, and also masturbating daily, then your testosterone levels are likely to be higher than the average woman's. So the fact that you think constantly about sex doesn't go to show that most women do. For me, it comes and goes; some days hardly at all, some days quite a bit.
84
@72: Maybe, always hard to say without knowing anything else about the relationship.
I've been pushing for an open relationship for a while, but wifey isn't into it so our relationship is closed. If I suddenly found out my wife was shagging other people while I was, on her behalf, refraining from doing the same, I'd move out the next day. That kind of manipulativeness strikes me as quasi-psychopathic.
And that's my understanding of what played out in this letter.
I've been pushing for an open relationship for a while, but wifey isn't into it so our relationship is closed. If I suddenly found out my wife was shagging other people while I was, on her behalf, refraining from doing the same, I'd move out the next day. That kind of manipulativeness strikes me as quasi-psychopathic.
And that's my understanding of what played out in this letter.
85
@64 Not just low libido. Really firm monogamy can affect a person's imaginings, too. I virtually never imagine MYSELF being sexual with anyone other than my husband, because within that scenario I'd be breaking the terms of our agreement. Those kinds of fantasies make me feel awkward and a little guilty. Luckily, imagining OTHER women having sex with, say, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine doesn't trigger any of that guilt/betrayal stuff.
86
Well, he wasn't supposed to tell her about it, so I guess the only thing he did wrong was tell her about it. Probably should have stayed away from mutual friends if the idea was secrecy.
Not sure about the idea that he turned down the offer and couldn't claim it, since immediately telling her "I wouldn't want to do that" would be exactly what she told him to do. NOT TELL HER ABOUT IT. He's obviously not the most subtle operator and could have done a better job, but letter writer screwed up more.
Not sure about the idea that he turned down the offer and couldn't claim it, since immediately telling her "I wouldn't want to do that" would be exactly what she told him to do. NOT TELL HER ABOUT IT. He's obviously not the most subtle operator and could have done a better job, but letter writer screwed up more.
87
@69: Nearly all men have those kind of fantasies. The fact that he feels comfortable enough to share them with you and even ask you if you'll realize them is a good thing - it's good communication, he'll feel closer to you, he'll feel understood by you, and he's less likely to feel resentment that they aren't going to come true. Just be careful not to give him false hopes.
A woman can get a lot of mileage from a man if she's attentive and generous with her blow jobs. If he starts pouting about no three ways, sounds like you know how to cheer him up. If three-ways are out, maybe think of something racy that you would be willing to do to make him feel like he's "livin' the dream."
A woman can get a lot of mileage from a man if she's attentive and generous with her blow jobs. If he starts pouting about no three ways, sounds like you know how to cheer him up. If three-ways are out, maybe think of something racy that you would be willing to do to make him feel like he's "livin' the dream."
88
83
she didn't say that she was orgasming during sex 5 times or more a week, just that he was humping her 5 times or more; hence the daily masturbating....
she didn't say that she was orgasming during sex 5 times or more a week, just that he was humping her 5 times or more; hence the daily masturbating....
89
@87: Thanks for the input. I do want him to feel he can share with me, even if at times it's a bit of an "overshare" for me. And I am basically up for anything else so I guess that makes me as GGG as I'm gonna get!
@80: Yes my man has truly magical fingers that blow the Rabbit out of the water and I let him know it. Neither of us is perfect but I guess it's working for now!
@80: Yes my man has truly magical fingers that blow the Rabbit out of the water and I let him know it. Neither of us is perfect but I guess it's working for now!
90
The other day, my partner brought up the subject of seeing other people. I panicked a little, talked it over with my friends, and then decided that I'd probably be okay with it enough to stay, if not overjoyed... and then when I brought it up with my partner, it turned out that it was a joke all along.
"You can see other people" or "I want to see other people" are things that nobody really expects to come from out of the blue. Most people kind of assume it's impossible, whether or not they'd like it to happen. Because of that, you can't be sure about how they're going to interpret it! It's possible he's a controlling douche who wanted to sleep with other people without giving you a free pass. It's also possible that they didn't talk about it very much, and after she was gone he realized he did have a free pass and set out to use it.
This is why people need to talk about these things in detail to make sure that everyone's okay.
"You can see other people" or "I want to see other people" are things that nobody really expects to come from out of the blue. Most people kind of assume it's impossible, whether or not they'd like it to happen. Because of that, you can't be sure about how they're going to interpret it! It's possible he's a controlling douche who wanted to sleep with other people without giving you a free pass. It's also possible that they didn't talk about it very much, and after she was gone he realized he did have a free pass and set out to use it.
This is why people need to talk about these things in detail to make sure that everyone's okay.
91
Given the way that things played out, I find it hard to believe that when he said he was uncomfortable with the idea, she responded by actually retracting the offer and saying that fine, in that case monogamy was still in force and expected.
If you give me permission to do something, if I first say I don't imagine myself ever doing that,, but I eventually decide do it after all, I simply changed my mind. I didn't lie, and I didn't break any rules, and treating me like a lying, untrustworthy rule-breaker is fucking insane.
If she abstained on her own purely because of what he said that he thought that he felt, and is mad because she passed on the opportunity to bang her hottie lab partner in Caracas while he was boinking up a storm back home, that still isn't his fault. It's hers for not resetting expectations after explicitly telling him the opposite.
If you give me permission to do something, if I first say I don't imagine myself ever doing that,, but I eventually decide do it after all, I simply changed my mind. I didn't lie, and I didn't break any rules, and treating me like a lying, untrustworthy rule-breaker is fucking insane.
If she abstained on her own purely because of what he said that he thought that he felt, and is mad because she passed on the opportunity to bang her hottie lab partner in Caracas while he was boinking up a storm back home, that still isn't his fault. It's hers for not resetting expectations after explicitly telling him the opposite.
92
"I casually ask him if he's slept with anyone"
I bet she didn't *casually* ask him.
I'm not saying she's in the wrong here, but I don't think this part is true.
I bet she didn't *casually* ask him.
I'm not saying she's in the wrong here, but I don't think this part is true.
93
Dan is 100% right, because he actually read the letter. Most of you, it seems, did not. "He told me that he couldn't imagine sleeping with other people and also said that he would be uncomfortable with me sleeping with other guys." That response does not mean that he is unusually incapable of having a fantasy life; it means he is turning down her request, partly because he can't imagine doing it, and partly because he is uncomfortable with granting her the same options. Now, he has arranged it such that she isn't going to sleep around on him.
However, not only does he sleep around on her, but he makes it completely public among their mutual acquaintances, thus making the whole "don't tell me about it" line completely useless. He won't have to tell her; all their damn friends already know, and some of the mutual acquaintances are the very people he's fucking! Yep, he's the soul of discretion all right, and the big problem here is that she casually asked about it.
Now, use the reading comprehension again here and tell me how we go from a 5 year committed relationship (presumably supposed-to-be monogamous, given her rebuffed efforts to temporarily open the relationship during the absence) immediately to posting numerous ads on dating/sex websites, responding to numerous Craigslist ads, and bragging online about the weekly hookup? That isn't "okay, I guess you gave me permission, so I'll fool around". That's the mark of someone who probably has been doing it all along, for whom it's easy, and who doesn't give a shit how the girlfriend is going to feel about it later.
And what of the girl, who is being called every rude name in the book in this thread, because she did the Dan-Savage-approved bigger person thing and openly offered to let him sleep with other people? She's the one worried about being the psycho bitch. Those are HER words. She doesn't want to be the psycho bitch, but now she's paranoid because she found out that her guy will pretend he doesn't want anyone else even as he's boning whoever he can find on Cragislist!
Again, read the letter: He's the one wants business as usual to continue--obviously, he's shedding no tears about her terrible, controlling, manipulative behavior, so maybe all the reader concerns for his tender soul are a bit misplaced. She's the one who is now "paranoid" and feels bad about it. She's probably wondering how he goes so quickly from 0 - 60 and back to 0 again, even as he pretends not to want to and definitely doesn't want HER to do it. I would wonder too... no, actually, I'd take Dan's excellent advice and DTMFA! He sees all of this, that everyone seems to be totally missing. There's a much bigger dynamic at play.
More...
However, not only does he sleep around on her, but he makes it completely public among their mutual acquaintances, thus making the whole "don't tell me about it" line completely useless. He won't have to tell her; all their damn friends already know, and some of the mutual acquaintances are the very people he's fucking! Yep, he's the soul of discretion all right, and the big problem here is that she casually asked about it.
Now, use the reading comprehension again here and tell me how we go from a 5 year committed relationship (presumably supposed-to-be monogamous, given her rebuffed efforts to temporarily open the relationship during the absence) immediately to posting numerous ads on dating/sex websites, responding to numerous Craigslist ads, and bragging online about the weekly hookup? That isn't "okay, I guess you gave me permission, so I'll fool around". That's the mark of someone who probably has been doing it all along, for whom it's easy, and who doesn't give a shit how the girlfriend is going to feel about it later.
And what of the girl, who is being called every rude name in the book in this thread, because she did the Dan-Savage-approved bigger person thing and openly offered to let him sleep with other people? She's the one worried about being the psycho bitch. Those are HER words. She doesn't want to be the psycho bitch, but now she's paranoid because she found out that her guy will pretend he doesn't want anyone else even as he's boning whoever he can find on Cragislist!
Again, read the letter: He's the one wants business as usual to continue--obviously, he's shedding no tears about her terrible, controlling, manipulative behavior, so maybe all the reader concerns for his tender soul are a bit misplaced. She's the one who is now "paranoid" and feels bad about it. She's probably wondering how he goes so quickly from 0 - 60 and back to 0 again, even as he pretends not to want to and definitely doesn't want HER to do it. I would wonder too... no, actually, I'd take Dan's excellent advice and DTMFA! He sees all of this, that everyone seems to be totally missing. There's a much bigger dynamic at play.
94
72: spoken like a true lawyer. You might have a case, counselor, had he decided to tell her that she was free to fool around once he had his late-breaking epiphany, suddenly and out of nowhere discovering that the unthinkable had become the amenable. But he didn't. You are picking your facts very carefully in order to maintain the ability to see his actions as innocent.
95
hmm. My husband brought up me sleeping with other guys a few times. And I told him I couldn't do it. I fantasied, sure. But actually doing it? No. They smell different then him and the idea of actually touching another guy just wigged me out. Then he left me for a 22 yoa. And I responded with sleeping with several men. So maybe you can mean it at the time? I honestly think I could have lived the rest of my life only sleeping with him and been perfectly happy. (No, I wasn't a virgin when we got together or anything)
96
"Now, he has arranged it such that she isn't going to sleep around on him."
No, he hasn't. What he has done is say basically "WTF?" when initially confronted with her basically saying that she intends to sleep around on him while out of the country. "Fast forward to me coming back for summer break and I casually ask him if he's slept with anyone" very strongly implies that the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell rule has been in force over the semester. If she/they had arranged that the rule would remain monogamy after all, "Have you slept with anyone?" wouldn't be a casual inquiry, it would be the opening salvo in a huge-fucking-deal interrogation because she suspected he had been breaking the rules.
Basic reading comprehension does require the ability to read for context.
I will agree that his idea of discretion is completely useless. Also agree that the big problem is that she specifically asked him about that thing that she said she never wanted to hear about. At the moment she asked, he is basically caught in a trap. What is he supposed to say? "You said you didn't want to know about that?" That is for all intents and purposes identical to "Yes I fucked people, but I refuse to discuss it." Sure, that one would go over real well.
"That's the mark of someone who probably has been doing it all along, for whom it's easy, and who doesn't give a shit how the girlfriend is going to feel about it later."
OR it's the mark of someone who is pretty sure that his girlfriend is doing the exact same thing over in Osaka, because that's the rule she set up, and she didn't rescind the offer when he said "Whoa, what?"
It's not rocket science. If you aren't okay with your partner sleeping around on you while you are away, don't fucking offer it as an option. At least that way, if he does it anyway, there will be no question that he is breaking the rules. Instead, you have a situation where he followed the rules -- admittedly pretty ham-handedly, but he didn't actually break them -- and she's pissed because he took her at her word, while she, on the other hand, did exactly the opposite of what she said she wanted.
"He's the one wants business as usual to continue--obviously, he's shedding no tears
He didn't write in to Dan. We have no idea whatsoever how he feels about the whole thing. You have just crossed over into making shit up. When it comes to reading between the lines, interpolate, yes, extrapolate, no. (I really, really want to know whether she stayed monogamous while out of the country, and if so, why. But I'm not going to make something up on her behalf.)
More...
No, he hasn't. What he has done is say basically "WTF?" when initially confronted with her basically saying that she intends to sleep around on him while out of the country. "Fast forward to me coming back for summer break and I casually ask him if he's slept with anyone" very strongly implies that the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell rule has been in force over the semester. If she/they had arranged that the rule would remain monogamy after all, "Have you slept with anyone?" wouldn't be a casual inquiry, it would be the opening salvo in a huge-fucking-deal interrogation because she suspected he had been breaking the rules.
Basic reading comprehension does require the ability to read for context.
I will agree that his idea of discretion is completely useless. Also agree that the big problem is that she specifically asked him about that thing that she said she never wanted to hear about. At the moment she asked, he is basically caught in a trap. What is he supposed to say? "You said you didn't want to know about that?" That is for all intents and purposes identical to "Yes I fucked people, but I refuse to discuss it." Sure, that one would go over real well.
"That's the mark of someone who probably has been doing it all along, for whom it's easy, and who doesn't give a shit how the girlfriend is going to feel about it later."
OR it's the mark of someone who is pretty sure that his girlfriend is doing the exact same thing over in Osaka, because that's the rule she set up, and she didn't rescind the offer when he said "Whoa, what?"
It's not rocket science. If you aren't okay with your partner sleeping around on you while you are away, don't fucking offer it as an option. At least that way, if he does it anyway, there will be no question that he is breaking the rules. Instead, you have a situation where he followed the rules -- admittedly pretty ham-handedly, but he didn't actually break them -- and she's pissed because he took her at her word, while she, on the other hand, did exactly the opposite of what she said she wanted.
"He's the one wants business as usual to continue--obviously, he's shedding no tears
He didn't write in to Dan. We have no idea whatsoever how he feels about the whole thing. You have just crossed over into making shit up. When it comes to reading between the lines, interpolate, yes, extrapolate, no. (I really, really want to know whether she stayed monogamous while out of the country, and if so, why. But I'm not going to make something up on her behalf.)
97
Thank you Dan!
I used to feel so guilty because I love my boyfriend, but frequently imagine what it would be like to sleep with other people. I would never act upon those thoughts for numerous reasons, but it's fun to imagine. Now I know this isn't something only guys are supposed to do. I feel a lot better that you acknowledged this. I thought I was a pervert.
Thanks again!
I used to feel so guilty because I love my boyfriend, but frequently imagine what it would be like to sleep with other people. I would never act upon those thoughts for numerous reasons, but it's fun to imagine. Now I know this isn't something only guys are supposed to do. I feel a lot better that you acknowledged this. I thought I was a pervert.
Thanks again!
98
@94: "You might have a case, counselor, had he decided to tell her that she was free to fool around once he had his late-breaking epiphany, suddenly and out of nowhere discovering that the unthinkable had become the amenable."
Your interpretation (that he has to specifically tell her she is now free to fool around) requires that at the outset they had left the arrangement that she would remain monogamous but he was free to fuck around in her absence. Somehow (to borrow a phrase), I "just can't imagine" that being the truth of how they arranged it.
Well, okay, I can "imagine" how that might have happened, but it would been a really dumb way to do it. If she had decided she should abstain in order to spare his feelings, surely the simplest thing would have been for her to say, "Okay, never mind" and call the whole don't-ask-don't-tell scenario off. But for her to quietly elect to remain monogamous, but still give him permission when she obviously didn't feel too good about him fooling around? That's facepalm-stupid.
Your interpretation (that he has to specifically tell her she is now free to fool around) requires that at the outset they had left the arrangement that she would remain monogamous but he was free to fuck around in her absence. Somehow (to borrow a phrase), I "just can't imagine" that being the truth of how they arranged it.
Well, okay, I can "imagine" how that might have happened, but it would been a really dumb way to do it. If she had decided she should abstain in order to spare his feelings, surely the simplest thing would have been for her to say, "Okay, never mind" and call the whole don't-ask-don't-tell scenario off. But for her to quietly elect to remain monogamous, but still give him permission when she obviously didn't feel too good about him fooling around? That's facepalm-stupid.
99
Yes, I don't like the chemistry that this letter suggests exists between these two. Maybe they'll be both better away from each other.
C, you're writing as someone who is very angry -- all full of "his sorry ass", etc. I think you should calm down and think carefully about your relationship with him. What exactly do you like about him? And what is it that you don't like about him?
And I especially mean: in the 'sexual realm' (as Bill Maher was saying the other day).
By all means have the sex talk. Monogamy, 'monogamishy', open relation, how open? What are his needs, what are your needs, how are they going to be met? How do you feel about each other? What does this incident of lots of sex mean (given that you gave him permission)?
Reading your letter, it sounds as if you're almost more offended and who he chose to have sex with (people you know! a woman you meet every time you go to the bar!) than at the fact that he had sex with someone else. Is that so? So if he had chosen someone else, someone you don't know or wouldn't be likely to meet, it would have been OK?
After weighing the pros and cons, make your decision. Then live with it.
(By the way: did you have sex with other people while you were away? He said he "wouldn't be comfortable", which may or may not be a veto -- was it? And if so, did you obey it? I suppose this is also important data for you to decide what your needs are and how they are going to be met.)
C, you're writing as someone who is very angry -- all full of "his sorry ass", etc. I think you should calm down and think carefully about your relationship with him. What exactly do you like about him? And what is it that you don't like about him?
And I especially mean: in the 'sexual realm' (as Bill Maher was saying the other day).
By all means have the sex talk. Monogamy, 'monogamishy', open relation, how open? What are his needs, what are your needs, how are they going to be met? How do you feel about each other? What does this incident of lots of sex mean (given that you gave him permission)?
Reading your letter, it sounds as if you're almost more offended and who he chose to have sex with (people you know! a woman you meet every time you go to the bar!) than at the fact that he had sex with someone else. Is that so? So if he had chosen someone else, someone you don't know or wouldn't be likely to meet, it would have been OK?
After weighing the pros and cons, make your decision. Then live with it.
(By the way: did you have sex with other people while you were away? He said he "wouldn't be comfortable", which may or may not be a veto -- was it? And if so, did you obey it? I suppose this is also important data for you to decide what your needs are and how they are going to be met.)
100
lizdini @95, this is so totally none of my business, but: have you stayed in touch with your ex enough to know if he's happy with his girlfriend? Was everything else in your marriage good, except for his sexual obsessions? If you aren't too angry at him and if you do miss him, you might consider dating him again. Now that you know that you can have sex with other men (and even enjoy it?), could you restart your relationship with your ex, but with added sexual excitement? Of course that may not be possible if the whole abandonment thing drove too much of a wedge between you... Feel free to ignore this post for being way too out of line...
101
So....LW tells boyfriend she wants to go ope while she's away, and that she doesn't want to know anything about what he does.
His whole "I'd be uncomfortable" bit remains a bit inconclusive, as @99 pointed out. How did that conversation end? Did you both decide not to? Or did you decide to go forward with it? Also, did LW sleep with other men while she was away? She never mentions any of this. I don't like how those very important details are being completely omitted...
Then, when she returns the first thing she does is ask him about it, when she told him that she rather not know about it, and then flips the fuck out when he did? I'm fucking lost. Unless Dan has some unpublished part of this letter, I don't see how the fuck you end up with DTMFA.
I really feel like the LW is leaving out some important information to get her negative feelings about a can of worms that she opened validated, and I don't like it.
His whole "I'd be uncomfortable" bit remains a bit inconclusive, as @99 pointed out. How did that conversation end? Did you both decide not to? Or did you decide to go forward with it? Also, did LW sleep with other men while she was away? She never mentions any of this. I don't like how those very important details are being completely omitted...
Then, when she returns the first thing she does is ask him about it, when she told him that she rather not know about it, and then flips the fuck out when he did? I'm fucking lost. Unless Dan has some unpublished part of this letter, I don't see how the fuck you end up with DTMFA.
I really feel like the LW is leaving out some important information to get her negative feelings about a can of worms that she opened validated, and I don't like it.
102
At least C admits to being a psycho bitch girlfriend...
But seriously, WHY DO COLLEGE AGED COUPLES TRY MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WHILE THEY SPEND A YEAR APART? Dan, you need a catch-all rule for this, something like "Any couples under 30 who spend more than 30 days apart -let alone year- MUST ASSUME/ALLOW/NOT GET FREAKED OUT when one/both has sex with other people during said time."
Seriously, kids, what are you, new? Have you never read Dan Savage before? This has to be in his top 5 most common asked question, after "my wife and I no longer have sex, what can we do?" and "is my fetish weird".
Ugh. Kids, they get all this wonderful time with beautiful people, and they fuck it up with their immaturity and emotional insecurities. Yet another example of youth being waste on the young.
But seriously, WHY DO COLLEGE AGED COUPLES TRY MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WHILE THEY SPEND A YEAR APART? Dan, you need a catch-all rule for this, something like "Any couples under 30 who spend more than 30 days apart -let alone year- MUST ASSUME/ALLOW/NOT GET FREAKED OUT when one/both has sex with other people during said time."
Seriously, kids, what are you, new? Have you never read Dan Savage before? This has to be in his top 5 most common asked question, after "my wife and I no longer have sex, what can we do?" and "is my fetish weird".
Ugh. Kids, they get all this wonderful time with beautiful people, and they fuck it up with their immaturity and emotional insecurities. Yet another example of youth being waste on the young.
103
I think this is a simple case of saying one thing, believing it, and then finding out later that you no longer felt that way once time passed. Both of them made the same mistake, and I think if they both want to salvage the relationship, it will just require some honest communication. I really do think this is salvageable if they both chill out, see each other's point of view, and forgive each other.
When he said he couldn't imagine fucking other people, that did not mean he couldn't imagine it in terms of picturing it. Of course he could do that. It meant he couldn't see himself actually doing it. Context is important. He couldn't picture himself doing it while he was still with his super cool girlfriend who he loved. On the other hand, after a few weeks or months of not being in her presence, it all of a sudden occurred to him that not only had she given him permission to slut around, it was a lot easier to picture now that he was not with her all the time.
In her case, she gave him permission to go act like a man because she was respecting his manhood, and frankly, because she didn't really appreciate how depraved men really are. She did realize she didn't want to know about it though. So time passes, and later she realizes that while she meant it when she said it, the lack of knowledge is eating at her. She opens pandora's box both by asking about something she knew she didn't want to know about, and then by snooping. Then she found out "holy shit, THAT is what unsupervised men are like? Gross!!"
I don't think that either party here is really so bad. She meant it when she said he could fuck around. He meant it when he said he didn't think he would. Both people changed their minds as their circumstances changed. This happens all the time. A little talking, a little crying, a little forgiving, is all that is required here. If they can't do that now, they won't be able to do it in the future when other circumstances require it. If they can do it now, it will make their relationship stronger for when it will be again required for other reasons.
Breaking up this relationship is not going to spare either them the pain of dealing with the essential nature of the other gender. He should consider himself lucky enough to have a woman who could make the offer in the first place, even if it did not turn out perfectly. She should consider herself lucky enough to have a guy who could initially turn down the offer even if it turned out he was incapable of leaving a deal like that on the table indefinitely.
Go talk, cry, and forgive. If you don't do it with this one, you will have to do it with someone else. Might as well get it out of the way.
More...
When he said he couldn't imagine fucking other people, that did not mean he couldn't imagine it in terms of picturing it. Of course he could do that. It meant he couldn't see himself actually doing it. Context is important. He couldn't picture himself doing it while he was still with his super cool girlfriend who he loved. On the other hand, after a few weeks or months of not being in her presence, it all of a sudden occurred to him that not only had she given him permission to slut around, it was a lot easier to picture now that he was not with her all the time.
In her case, she gave him permission to go act like a man because she was respecting his manhood, and frankly, because she didn't really appreciate how depraved men really are. She did realize she didn't want to know about it though. So time passes, and later she realizes that while she meant it when she said it, the lack of knowledge is eating at her. She opens pandora's box both by asking about something she knew she didn't want to know about, and then by snooping. Then she found out "holy shit, THAT is what unsupervised men are like? Gross!!"
I don't think that either party here is really so bad. She meant it when she said he could fuck around. He meant it when he said he didn't think he would. Both people changed their minds as their circumstances changed. This happens all the time. A little talking, a little crying, a little forgiving, is all that is required here. If they can't do that now, they won't be able to do it in the future when other circumstances require it. If they can do it now, it will make their relationship stronger for when it will be again required for other reasons.
Breaking up this relationship is not going to spare either them the pain of dealing with the essential nature of the other gender. He should consider himself lucky enough to have a woman who could make the offer in the first place, even if it did not turn out perfectly. She should consider herself lucky enough to have a guy who could initially turn down the offer even if it turned out he was incapable of leaving a deal like that on the table indefinitely.
Go talk, cry, and forgive. If you don't do it with this one, you will have to do it with someone else. Might as well get it out of the way.
104
Well if you're going to casually give him permission to sleep around, don't be upset when he uh, sleeps around.
Of course, the LW should have had a more in depth talk -- including boundaries (no one in our social circle and no dating profiles, k?) and equal permission. (It's always a big red flag when somebody asks for permission to do something they wouldn't let you do. Although of course in this case the LW gave him permission, the fact that he wasn't comfortable extending the same right should have meant that he would not take advantage of her generosity.)
I feel sorry for her, though. It is an easy mistake to think that there is an understood implication that he would not do such things -- I don't mean the sleeping around, perhaps, but the particularly horndog way in which he did so, presumably pretending to be single on dating websites and sleeping with her friends.
It reminds me of taarof, an Iranian custom. You're supposed to offer another person anything they want, including things like a necklace they might have complimented. You're supposed to do so, insistently. However there is an understanding that the other person will not accept the "gift" and so no one loses a necklace over this bit of social waltz. I think the LW knows that it's normal to sleep with other people, but that we maintain the polite facade of not wanting to do so. To her, letting him know he could sleep with other people was an offhand bit of taarof, not a sincere offer he was meant to take advantage of, anymore than the taarof'er means for someone else to take their necklace.
Of course, I could be misinterpreting things but I think people are being too harsh on her, calling her a crazy psycho bitch. She made a mistake and then realized the awful consequences of jealousy, but that does not make her "psycho". Still, it seems like she should dump him since clearly they have deep communication issues, and trust issues.
More...
Of course, the LW should have had a more in depth talk -- including boundaries (no one in our social circle and no dating profiles, k?) and equal permission. (It's always a big red flag when somebody asks for permission to do something they wouldn't let you do. Although of course in this case the LW gave him permission, the fact that he wasn't comfortable extending the same right should have meant that he would not take advantage of her generosity.)
I feel sorry for her, though. It is an easy mistake to think that there is an understood implication that he would not do such things -- I don't mean the sleeping around, perhaps, but the particularly horndog way in which he did so, presumably pretending to be single on dating websites and sleeping with her friends.
It reminds me of taarof, an Iranian custom. You're supposed to offer another person anything they want, including things like a necklace they might have complimented. You're supposed to do so, insistently. However there is an understanding that the other person will not accept the "gift" and so no one loses a necklace over this bit of social waltz. I think the LW knows that it's normal to sleep with other people, but that we maintain the polite facade of not wanting to do so. To her, letting him know he could sleep with other people was an offhand bit of taarof, not a sincere offer he was meant to take advantage of, anymore than the taarof'er means for someone else to take their necklace.
Of course, I could be misinterpreting things but I think people are being too harsh on her, calling her a crazy psycho bitch. She made a mistake and then realized the awful consequences of jealousy, but that does not make her "psycho". Still, it seems like she should dump him since clearly they have deep communication issues, and trust issues.
105
Thank you 103 (Learned Hand) and 104 (shurenka) for bringing a clear and compassionate eye to this letter. These seem more insightful and I have a feeling that between you you've probably gotten a better handle on the situation and even suggest a way for these two to get past it.
106
"In her case, she gave him permission to go act like a man because she was respecting his manhood, and frankly, because she didn't really appreciate how depraved men really are."
Says who? Maybe she wanted to be free to fully enjoy her year abroad.
I have to agree with #102, at least when it comes to college kids. She would have been so much better off if she had just dumped him before the trip. Why go through these charades? What were they going to do--get married? Ridiculous.
Says who? Maybe she wanted to be free to fully enjoy her year abroad.
I have to agree with #102, at least when it comes to college kids. She would have been so much better off if she had just dumped him before the trip. Why go through these charades? What were they going to do--get married? Ridiculous.
107
I am a very high libido-having lady and I genuinely could not imagine sleeping with anyone else than my boyfriend. I don't even think I could physically do it.
But, this relationship is the first one where I could honestly say that.
But, this relationship is the first one where I could honestly say that.
108
I think people are missing Dan's oh-so-crucial point here: this dude is a liar! Or do you want us to believe that one day, a guy says "oh, I couldn't even imagine sleeping with anyone besides my girlfriend of 5 years! And I sure don't want her to sleep with anyone else either!", and then as soon as girlfriend goes, he's having sex with every Jill, Jane, and Sally, including some they both know, including some he met with his "numerous" online ads, and including the weekly hookups he's bragging about to his friends. You can't tell me that a person can't imagine straying, and then suddenly goes out and becomes hot slut of the year (no offense to hot sluts intended, btw, I'm all for that). To keep up the d-listed talk here, something in the milk ain't clean.
Yes, he's the one saying he loves her and wants to spend the rest of his life with her. I imagine she's still wondering who this guy even is. First, he was a 5-year boyfriend for whom all of this seemed out of character. Then, he was the guy who didn't want to open the relationship (couldn't imagine wanting it for himself, and didn't want her to do it either). Now, he's the guy who brought other women back to the bed they shared, put all of this out there publicly for their friends, and so on. I don't think you just go from one extreme to the other and back again so quickly. It's an Occam's razor situation. Much, much more likely that he's just a liar who was totally unconcerned about the repercussions his actions were going to have on this 5 year relationship.
Yes, he's the one saying he loves her and wants to spend the rest of his life with her. I imagine she's still wondering who this guy even is. First, he was a 5-year boyfriend for whom all of this seemed out of character. Then, he was the guy who didn't want to open the relationship (couldn't imagine wanting it for himself, and didn't want her to do it either). Now, he's the guy who brought other women back to the bed they shared, put all of this out there publicly for their friends, and so on. I don't think you just go from one extreme to the other and back again so quickly. It's an Occam's razor situation. Much, much more likely that he's just a liar who was totally unconcerned about the repercussions his actions were going to have on this 5 year relationship.
109
@108: " You can't tell me that a person can't imagine straying, and then suddenly goes out and becomes hot slut of the year"
Of course we can. The phrase "out of sight, out of mind" didn't spring up from nowhere.
Of course we can. The phrase "out of sight, out of mind" didn't spring up from nowhere.
110
OK, unless she was doing her year abroad in, say, rural Somalia or the highlands of Papua New Guinea, they must have had AN INTERNET CONNECTION. So, if this guy initially thought that he wouldn't want to sleep with anyone, then changed his mind, he could have told her that he was reconsidering her offer and asked to negotiate the ground rules aside from "don't tell me," thereby making it clear that if the gander was stepping out of the yard, then the goose could, too. And yes, I realize that she said "Don't tell me, I don't want to know about it," but I don't think that would also mean, "If you change your mind about opening up the relationship, just go ahead and don't tell me." I think that she could have handled this better, but I think he is the douchebag.
111
Wrong, Dan.
I never imagine sleeping with other women.
Maybe I'm 'emotionally immature', or maybe I'm just a rare and beautiful snowflake, but I consider sex a sacred expression of love. It would be impossible for me to have a purely physical relationship with anyone. And as sex has a way of kindling feelings of love—they don't call it 'making love' for nothing—I would never even think to jump into bed with someone while in a committed relationship.
I'm monogamous to the core, and view the promiscuous behavior of the animal world as evidence of our species' glorious evolution beyond beastly urges, rather than as an excuse for moral failure.
Or maybe I'm just lucky, because I just don't feel the spark. When I see a beautiful woman, I don't look at her as an opportunity, but as a sort of living statue; a masterfully hewn form to be appreciated but never touched.
Which is rough, because my wife and I are in a long-term, long-distance situation. Over the last six years, my right hand has been my best friend. But what makes it extra difficult is that my wife has taken a lover, whom she refuses to give up. The two of them have naturally formed a bond that is by now nearly as strong as ours once was. Heartbroken, I can't even turn to my right hand for support any more. My sexual bond is with my wife, and if I think of her, then I think of them, and the urge immediately turns to revulsion.
I know our relationship is doomed, and friends already press me to start dating, but I think it will be a long time before I can look at another woman sexually.
I never imagine sleeping with other women.
Maybe I'm 'emotionally immature', or maybe I'm just a rare and beautiful snowflake, but I consider sex a sacred expression of love. It would be impossible for me to have a purely physical relationship with anyone. And as sex has a way of kindling feelings of love—they don't call it 'making love' for nothing—I would never even think to jump into bed with someone while in a committed relationship.
I'm monogamous to the core, and view the promiscuous behavior of the animal world as evidence of our species' glorious evolution beyond beastly urges, rather than as an excuse for moral failure.
Or maybe I'm just lucky, because I just don't feel the spark. When I see a beautiful woman, I don't look at her as an opportunity, but as a sort of living statue; a masterfully hewn form to be appreciated but never touched.
Which is rough, because my wife and I are in a long-term, long-distance situation. Over the last six years, my right hand has been my best friend. But what makes it extra difficult is that my wife has taken a lover, whom she refuses to give up. The two of them have naturally formed a bond that is by now nearly as strong as ours once was. Heartbroken, I can't even turn to my right hand for support any more. My sexual bond is with my wife, and if I think of her, then I think of them, and the urge immediately turns to revulsion.
I know our relationship is doomed, and friends already press me to start dating, but I think it will be a long time before I can look at another woman sexually.
112
@111, the existence of exceptions does not invalidate the rule, since the rule is statistical.
Don't take a claim like Dan's as an immediate denial of you being who you are. After all, there are men who are asexual and never think of having sex with any woman, even the ones they might be romantically attracted to -- which goes even further than you, right?
Most men do think about having sex with other women. If you don't, OK, but this doesn't change the fact.
Don't take a claim like Dan's as an immediate denial of you being who you are. After all, there are men who are asexual and never think of having sex with any woman, even the ones they might be romantically attracted to -- which goes even further than you, right?
Most men do think about having sex with other women. If you don't, OK, but this doesn't change the fact.
113
@Suzy, that's actually a very good point. But I think the only way she could find out 'who this guy is' is to have the sex'n'relationship conversation with him for real, and evaluate the answers and his behavior.
If he's lying/manipulative, this will become obvious not only in the 'sexual realm', but elsewhere. Con artists tend to manipulate for anything they want, not just sex.
For the time being, he could still claim he thought he wouldn't want to sleep with other women, but since she gave him the permission he tried and found out he liked it. It might even conceivably be true that he was surprised at first.
All in all, I don't see much future in this relationship, but I think they should sincerely tell each other what they want and see if they can or can't work with that.
If he's lying/manipulative, this will become obvious not only in the 'sexual realm', but elsewhere. Con artists tend to manipulate for anything they want, not just sex.
For the time being, he could still claim he thought he wouldn't want to sleep with other women, but since she gave him the permission he tried and found out he liked it. It might even conceivably be true that he was surprised at first.
All in all, I don't see much future in this relationship, but I think they should sincerely tell each other what they want and see if they can or can't work with that.
114
@108. We aren't missing it. We just disagree with it. And with you.
Your need to exaggerate his actions, such as referring to the three women he had sex with as "EVERY Jill, Jane and Sally", and your unwarranted characterizations of his actions as "suddenly" and "as soon as girlfriend goes" as if he is posting his internet ads as soon as he gets back from dropping her off at the airport when the letter doesn't actually provide evidence of that timeline suggests a personal bias or lack of objectivity that makes your facile conclusion that he is a liar questionable.
Your need to exaggerate his actions, such as referring to the three women he had sex with as "EVERY Jill, Jane and Sally", and your unwarranted characterizations of his actions as "suddenly" and "as soon as girlfriend goes" as if he is posting his internet ads as soon as he gets back from dropping her off at the airport when the letter doesn't actually provide evidence of that timeline suggests a personal bias or lack of objectivity that makes your facile conclusion that he is a liar questionable.
115
@111: My sympathies for going through such a rough time. I hope you come to resolution and peace soon, but know that it may take a while. For now, maybe a good idea to give both your right hand and your imagination a little break.
116
@113: It's not just that he's lying, it's that she's deliberately putting him in situations where she's setting him up to fail.
Why extend this any further than it needs to be? He needs to start over, and she does too.
Why extend this any further than it needs to be? He needs to start over, and she does too.
117
So may people are blaming the girlfriend. Has anybody actually considered it likely she wouldn't even have asked if he slept around if he wouldn't have given the impression of it being not even remotely possible first? Since he broke the expectation I can't really blame her for snooping around after either. It's also likely she would have gone more into detail about conditions about sleeping with other people but since he said it couldn't happen she didn't.
He really shouldn't have said what he said and done what he did. He was either really stupid to think his actions wouldn't have made themselves known eventually or he was incredibly reckless or has horrible impulse control when he's on his own. Neither of it makes him good boyfriend material.
The girl could have been more suspicious about his bold statement but his sins are clearly bigger.
He really shouldn't have said what he said and done what he did. He was either really stupid to think his actions wouldn't have made themselves known eventually or he was incredibly reckless or has horrible impulse control when he's on his own. Neither of it makes him good boyfriend material.
The girl could have been more suspicious about his bold statement but his sins are clearly bigger.
118
@111 Do you think your religious beliefs have anything to do with your strict monogamy? I am assuming you are religious because you use words like "sacred" and "glorious."
Have you always thought of your wife/whoever your partner was at the time when you masturbate? No exceptions?
Have you always thought of your wife/whoever your partner was at the time when you masturbate? No exceptions?
119
Fuck that. Seriously, fuck that. These two are textbook bad communicators and bad planners and then when bad results come along from these failings they are surprised. In the end, though, far more blame ascribes to her. (a) She gave him permission, and then was pissed when he used it. (b) She told him not to tell her, then demanded answers and snooped until she found out. (c) She set no parameters on whom and where, and then got pissed off at the whom and where. I can't help but wonder if she gave him permission because she was certain he couldn't get laid rather than he wouldn't try: she is pissed off in part because that was a wrong guess. And trust me, there's nothing more filled with pissed off rage than a psycho partner who gets a guess wrong: it's always your fault, not theirs.
Further, people who are wrongfully blaming him for applying a different standard to her, two things: (1) Asymetrical deals happen all the time in relationships. Maybe she wanted him to have his flings before they settled down, and maybe she didn't want to. I don't know. It's not our place to impose our own standards of matching permissions. (2) He didn't ban her from doing the same herself, there was no "deal". Even in her pissed off ''woe is me'' mode she makes it clear that his wording was "prefer", which is a statement of preference, not prohibition.
More...
What he SHOULD be saying is he is sorry for anything he has done to upset her and he wants to talk through any misunderstandings.It never, ever ceases to fucking amaze me how many people make that their starting point: no matter who is wrong or who is right, no matter what the scale of wrongdoing on either side, Step One Must Be That The Man Apologizes, and only then can progress be made.
Fuck that. Seriously, fuck that. These two are textbook bad communicators and bad planners and then when bad results come along from these failings they are surprised. In the end, though, far more blame ascribes to her. (a) She gave him permission, and then was pissed when he used it. (b) She told him not to tell her, then demanded answers and snooped until she found out. (c) She set no parameters on whom and where, and then got pissed off at the whom and where. I can't help but wonder if she gave him permission because she was certain he couldn't get laid rather than he wouldn't try: she is pissed off in part because that was a wrong guess. And trust me, there's nothing more filled with pissed off rage than a psycho partner who gets a guess wrong: it's always your fault, not theirs.
Further, people who are wrongfully blaming him for applying a different standard to her, two things: (1) Asymetrical deals happen all the time in relationships. Maybe she wanted him to have his flings before they settled down, and maybe she didn't want to. I don't know. It's not our place to impose our own standards of matching permissions. (2) He didn't ban her from doing the same herself, there was no "deal". Even in her pissed off ''woe is me'' mode she makes it clear that his wording was "prefer", which is a statement of preference, not prohibition.
120
Let's look at the dog that didn't bark, okay? She never said she didn't sleep around on him. She fast-forwarded past that, noting only his preference that she didn't. Read the letter, read both what she says about herself and how she says it. It is obvious and undeniable if she had been celibate she would have said so, and pointed to the fact that she adapted to his preference: if she had had that arrow in her quiver it would have been out and fired. But it wasn't, so we can assume that she did get some action wherever she was, and she's pissed that he did too. I agree with the commenter upthread (number lost) that she probably distinguishes between fucks outside of the relationship that mutual acquaintances know about, and those that they don't. In her mind, fucking some guy on the other side of the world isn't cheating, but him fucking a girl in their social circle is, even when she said he could fuck when she was gone.
The more I think about it the more I'm sure that this is about her certain belief that he wouldn't get any action, and now he did, and she has to face the people he banged, or people who knows he banged away while she was gone. This is about Face, and she's furious.
The more I think about it the more I'm sure that this is about her certain belief that he wouldn't get any action, and now he did, and she has to face the people he banged, or people who knows he banged away while she was gone. This is about Face, and she's furious.
121
@111 Gaspar,
I'm sorry for your heartbreak.
Personally, I couldn't survive being in a long distance relationship anymore.
Peace.
I'm sorry for your heartbreak.
Personally, I couldn't survive being in a long distance relationship anymore.
Peace.
122
@111: "Or maybe I'm just lucky, because I just don't feel the spark. When I see a beautiful woman, I don't look at her as an opportunity, but as a sort of living statue; a masterfully hewn form to be appreciated but never touched."
Oh god, are you a teenager? Seriously?
www.heartless-bitches.com / rants/ niceguys/ niceguys.shtml
Seriously, your flowery prose just made me vomit.
Oh god, are you a teenager? Seriously?
www.heartless-bitches.com / rants/ niceguys/ niceguys.shtml
Seriously, your flowery prose just made me vomit.
123
@119 I don't think it is always the man's job to apologize. Believe it or not my comment is a response to this specific situation. My comment does not reflect some kind of grand scheme for how I believe men and women should always act in every situation.
I think it would be perfectly okay if the woman in this situation apologized for being vague or whatever and offerred to talk through any misunderstandings. The reason I suggested that the man apologize in this situation is because apologizing is a good alternative to saying I LOVE YOU. If we switched the gender roles in this situation, I'd say the same thing. Suppose a woman starts sleeping around and a man freaks out and feels as if his trust has been betrayed. Should the woman respond by saying "I love you and I want to be with your for the rest of my life?" Hell no. That's a diversion, not an honest attempt to solve anything. When mistakes have been made they need to be discussed. Life is not a 90s sitcom.
Of course, this is all extrapolation from some person's letter. We don't know how the conversation went down in real life. Maybe it is not like I imagined. What we DO know, is that the letter writer is a young college aged girl who has been in a relationship for 5 years. She is unhappy with her boyfriend and her boyfriend is unhappy with her. We also know the basic rules of supply and demand. Girls who would even consider the possibility of an open relationship are in short supply and high demand, so maybe this guy should have treated the situation with a little more delicacy and care.
The guy the letter writer described is the kind of guy who is capable of sleeping with several woman and bragging about it. I would be surprised if a guy like that was so socially awkward that he is not capable of having a serious conversation about monogamy with a girl who he has known for at least 5 years. If he somehow IS that awkward, he is obviously out of this girls league or just stupid, so screw it.
More...
I think it would be perfectly okay if the woman in this situation apologized for being vague or whatever and offerred to talk through any misunderstandings. The reason I suggested that the man apologize in this situation is because apologizing is a good alternative to saying I LOVE YOU. If we switched the gender roles in this situation, I'd say the same thing. Suppose a woman starts sleeping around and a man freaks out and feels as if his trust has been betrayed. Should the woman respond by saying "I love you and I want to be with your for the rest of my life?" Hell no. That's a diversion, not an honest attempt to solve anything. When mistakes have been made they need to be discussed. Life is not a 90s sitcom.
Of course, this is all extrapolation from some person's letter. We don't know how the conversation went down in real life. Maybe it is not like I imagined. What we DO know, is that the letter writer is a young college aged girl who has been in a relationship for 5 years. She is unhappy with her boyfriend and her boyfriend is unhappy with her. We also know the basic rules of supply and demand. Girls who would even consider the possibility of an open relationship are in short supply and high demand, so maybe this guy should have treated the situation with a little more delicacy and care.
The guy the letter writer described is the kind of guy who is capable of sleeping with several woman and bragging about it. I would be surprised if a guy like that was so socially awkward that he is not capable of having a serious conversation about monogamy with a girl who he has known for at least 5 years. If he somehow IS that awkward, he is obviously out of this girls league or just stupid, so screw it.
124
@123, two points.
I was speaking to the concept of how amazed I am at how often people default to the starting point that the man should apologize. I didn't say you were generalizing: I was recounting my own observations, and you were a data point in favour of my assertion.
Here, we have a woman who broke the deal three times: on the right to other partners, on receiving the data, and by retroactively setting parameters. (Leave aside her snooping on something that she had told him she didn't want to know.) He, on the other hand, has been douchy in his bragging. So, three really bad breaches of faith on her part, and one bit of uber-tacky on his. And, in your view, he should be the one taken to task to apologize. You are a data point in favour of my assertion.
I was speaking to the concept of how amazed I am at how often people default to the starting point that the man should apologize. I didn't say you were generalizing: I was recounting my own observations, and you were a data point in favour of my assertion.
Here, we have a woman who broke the deal three times: on the right to other partners, on receiving the data, and by retroactively setting parameters. (Leave aside her snooping on something that she had told him she didn't want to know.) He, on the other hand, has been douchy in his bragging. So, three really bad breaches of faith on her part, and one bit of uber-tacky on his. And, in your view, he should be the one taken to task to apologize. You are a data point in favour of my assertion.
125
apologizing is a good alternative to saying I LOVE YOUHow 'bout we save apologizing for when we've done something wrong, and "I love you" for where the speaker loves the person? Is that too much to ask?
126
@124 You quoted something I wrote and said "fuck that attitude." Naturally I assumed you were responding to something I said. But now I find out you don't think it even matters if the attitude you claim to have found in my comment is an attitude that I actually support or not, it's just a data point.
It sucks that the closest thing you could find to somebody who thinks men are perpetually at fault and women are forever without flaw is what I said. That means that the attitude you want to condemn so badly is actually not very popular. Or at least, it's not popular among Savage readers. There is not a lot of man-hate among this crowd.
"And, in your view, he should be the one taken to task to apologize. You are a data point in favour of my assertion." Well this is a shock... apparently my words are slightly more than a data point because you still think I find men to be disproportionately at fault. I can only assume that you still think my attitude should be fucked. Okay...
I'll say this again because I guess I didn't make it clear enough. I DO NOT CARE WHO APOLOGIZES FIRST. The girl in this situation could say "I'm sorry for being an unclear psycho bitch" and that would be FINE. All I am trying to say is that SOMEBODY in this two-person relationship should be making an effort to have a deep soul-searching conversation that goes beyond stupid romantic platitudes like "I can never imagine being with anyone else" and "I love you always and forever and ever." You removed what I said from the context in which I said it, but context matters.
I would also like to point out that I never said he should apologize for cheating. I said he should apologize for any hurt he may have caused and offer to talk through misunderstandings. That sort of apology is ridiculously vague and if he said it he wouldn't really be condemning himself as the villain in this situation. He would simply be expressing some concern for her emotional well-being and opening up the possibility of real conversation. Not every apology is an admission of absolute guilt.
More...
It sucks that the closest thing you could find to somebody who thinks men are perpetually at fault and women are forever without flaw is what I said. That means that the attitude you want to condemn so badly is actually not very popular. Or at least, it's not popular among Savage readers. There is not a lot of man-hate among this crowd.
"And, in your view, he should be the one taken to task to apologize. You are a data point in favour of my assertion." Well this is a shock... apparently my words are slightly more than a data point because you still think I find men to be disproportionately at fault. I can only assume that you still think my attitude should be fucked. Okay...
I'll say this again because I guess I didn't make it clear enough. I DO NOT CARE WHO APOLOGIZES FIRST. The girl in this situation could say "I'm sorry for being an unclear psycho bitch" and that would be FINE. All I am trying to say is that SOMEBODY in this two-person relationship should be making an effort to have a deep soul-searching conversation that goes beyond stupid romantic platitudes like "I can never imagine being with anyone else" and "I love you always and forever and ever." You removed what I said from the context in which I said it, but context matters.
I would also like to point out that I never said he should apologize for cheating. I said he should apologize for any hurt he may have caused and offer to talk through misunderstandings. That sort of apology is ridiculously vague and if he said it he wouldn't really be condemning himself as the villain in this situation. He would simply be expressing some concern for her emotional well-being and opening up the possibility of real conversation. Not every apology is an admission of absolute guilt.
127
@125 You are assuming he said that because he genuinely loves her. Sadly, a lot of men (and women) use statements like "I love you" to avoid discussing things honestly. A lot of young people think if they claim to love each other hard enough, their professed love will solve all problems.
More importantly, a lot of young men will tell their girlfriend he is in love with her as a means of control. Of course not every young man who says that is a controlling asshole, but it is a genuine danger to watch out for. There are men who claim to be "in love" simply because they do not want the girlfriend to leave.
To be fair, a there are also plenty of girls who use apologies as a means of control as well. There are girls who demand that their boyfriends apologize for everything and they never take responsibility for their own insecurities.
More importantly, a lot of young men will tell their girlfriend he is in love with her as a means of control. Of course not every young man who says that is a controlling asshole, but it is a genuine danger to watch out for. There are men who claim to be "in love" simply because they do not want the girlfriend to leave.
To be fair, a there are also plenty of girls who use apologies as a means of control as well. There are girls who demand that their boyfriends apologize for everything and they never take responsibility for their own insecurities.
128
@126: "I'll say this again because I guess I didn't make it clear enough. I DO NOT CARE WHO APOLOGIZES FIRST. The girl in this situation could say "I'm sorry for being an unclear psycho bitch" and that would be FINE. All I am trying to say is that SOMEBODY in this two-person relationship should be making an effort to have a deep soul-searching conversation that goes beyond stupid romantic platitudes like "I can never imagine being with anyone else" and "I love you always and forever and ever."
And your mistake is thinking anyone needs to apologize, rather than moving on with their lives anew.
And your mistake is thinking anyone needs to apologize, rather than moving on with their lives anew.
129
@128 That is fine. I don't think there is anything wrong with them moving on. I only brought up apologizing as a hypothetical alternative to declaring everlasting love. Of course nobody NEEDS to apologize. An incinere apology would not be worth anything anyway. I'm just trying to defend what I wrote against somebody who interpreted what I said as some kind of declaration that men are always wrong about everything.
130
@25 -- I'm in the same camp 100%.
@79 -- @25 actually said that she realizes her experience DOESN'T apply to all women. Read the comment again. I'm a woman who happens to feel the same, and I resent Dan's insistence that a person like me must be a liar when I'm in an honest marriage with a guy who admits to wanting to sleep with other people. I have no reason to lie about something like that.
Regarding the letter, both of them made mistakes, but the guy made more and is the bigger jerk. She screwed up by asking him if he'd slept with anyone else after making it clear that she'd never want to know about it. He lied about not being able to imagine sleeping with anyone else, disallowed her from being nonmonogamous before cheating on her, behaved super indiscreetly -- sleeping with mutual friends, bragging to mutual friends -- and created a situation she could have easily found out about even without making the mistake of asking him. She's not without blame, but he's the bigger douche by far and should be dumped.
@79 -- @25 actually said that she realizes her experience DOESN'T apply to all women. Read the comment again. I'm a woman who happens to feel the same, and I resent Dan's insistence that a person like me must be a liar when I'm in an honest marriage with a guy who admits to wanting to sleep with other people. I have no reason to lie about something like that.
Regarding the letter, both of them made mistakes, but the guy made more and is the bigger jerk. She screwed up by asking him if he'd slept with anyone else after making it clear that she'd never want to know about it. He lied about not being able to imagine sleeping with anyone else, disallowed her from being nonmonogamous before cheating on her, behaved super indiscreetly -- sleeping with mutual friends, bragging to mutual friends -- and created a situation she could have easily found out about even without making the mistake of asking him. She's not without blame, but he's the bigger douche by far and should be dumped.
131
> But all guys imagine sleeping with other people all the time
At best presumptuous cynicism, at worst complete and utter bullshit. It might make 'sex positive' people feel better to believe everyone else is always thinking about fucking, but it's just not true.
At best presumptuous cynicism, at worst complete and utter bullshit. It might make 'sex positive' people feel better to believe everyone else is always thinking about fucking, but it's just not true.
132
@130/131: I think that really, it's more of a thing that goes through someone's head rather than specifically plotting anything out, any serious intent, or anything too detailed.
I don't see what's so intensely offensive about the possibility (outside of religious beliefs) that would force others to underplay any naughty thoughts ever occurring.
Yes, your minds are pristine and perfect, always and ever, for the rest of your lives. You will never, ever think of anything but your partner. Ok.
I don't see what's so intensely offensive about the possibility (outside of religious beliefs) that would force others to underplay any naughty thoughts ever occurring.
Yes, your minds are pristine and perfect, always and ever, for the rest of your lives. You will never, ever think of anything but your partner. Ok.
133
@131: "It might make 'sex positive' people feel better to believe everyone else is always thinking about fucking"
And really? The idea that someone will never ever think about being with someone else (no matter how long and serious the relationship) is just as absurd as your other silly belief that people are thinking about fucking 24/7.
And really? The idea that someone will never ever think about being with someone else (no matter how long and serious the relationship) is just as absurd as your other silly belief that people are thinking about fucking 24/7.
134
Um, am I misunderstanding? She offered an open relationship, and he said no. Then he had one.
Why is everyone jumping on her because he did what she wanted? That isn't what happened.
She offered a relationship in which they could both do what he wanted. He said no, SHE shouldn't sleep around. Then he did. He's dishonest.
Why is everyone jumping on her because he did what she wanted? That isn't what happened.
She offered a relationship in which they could both do what he wanted. He said no, SHE shouldn't sleep around. Then he did. He's dishonest.
135
@131/33 - For fuck's sake, can't you read? Since when did NOT "all the time" become "never?" Pull your head out.
136
@132 -- Again, I don't think there's anything "intensely offensive" about being in a committed relationship and thinking about sleeping with other people, I just don't have any real desire to sleep with other people and it's not something I think about. My husband does, and I'm fine with it. And I never claimed by mind was perfect or pristine. If other people want to refuse to believe me in order to feel better about their own thoughts and desires, that's their issue.
137
@134: I think you need to read the letter again. He didn't turn it down, he stated his uncertainty that he would/could see somebody else (which may be why she made the offer, but's that's merely an experience-based speculation on my part). He didn't do what he said he wouldn't do; he did did what he thought he couldn't do and what she said he could, and that's a very sizable difference. Note, too, that despite being quick to tell us even about specific emails that she found she is carefully silent about what she did while she was gone. It's inferentially clear from the letter that she gave him permission so that she could have permission, and since she wants us to condemn him for his actions she "fast forwards" [her own phrase] completely past her own. If the LW had been celibate based on his reply then she would have told us; she hasn't because she wasn't, and she knows that getting us to agree with her that he done wrong will be impossible if her letter is "I got laid pursuant to my suggested deal, and so did he, but he's wrong and I'm not".
Look, if she did a dozen guys while she was gone then I hope she had a great time; she was no more in the wrong than he, and he isn't in the wrong. This isn't about the other partners; this is about him getting some when she was sure that he wouldn't or couldn't, and so felt betrayed, and about the "some" being people she has to face from week to week. She made a deal, she didn't set parameters, and now she wants us to turn to him and validate the anger she feels at her own misjudgments and mistakes. There's an old lawyer's expression that the law doesn't exist to protect you from bad deals, only unlawful or unjust ones. He didn't break any rules, but she wants us to point and say that he did so that she can feel better.
If nothing else this LW stands as a picture-perfect example of the importance of indispensibles that the poly type here frequently remind us of: (1) clear communication; (2) clear boundaries. I'd only add that "no backsies!" should be in there as well.
More...
Look, if she did a dozen guys while she was gone then I hope she had a great time; she was no more in the wrong than he, and he isn't in the wrong. This isn't about the other partners; this is about him getting some when she was sure that he wouldn't or couldn't, and so felt betrayed, and about the "some" being people she has to face from week to week. She made a deal, she didn't set parameters, and now she wants us to turn to him and validate the anger she feels at her own misjudgments and mistakes. There's an old lawyer's expression that the law doesn't exist to protect you from bad deals, only unlawful or unjust ones. He didn't break any rules, but she wants us to point and say that he did so that she can feel better.
If nothing else this LW stands as a picture-perfect example of the importance of indispensibles that the poly type here frequently remind us of: (1) clear communication; (2) clear boundaries. I'd only add that "no backsies!" should be in there as well.
138
I think he should dump her. She said: sleep with other people and then lie about it to me. He did just that. Then she went psycho - in HER own words.
Yea... he should get out of that.
Yea... he should get out of that.
139
@137 if "no backsies!" means you don't get to act shocked when someone goes ahead and does something you talked about in the abstract -- I agree.
But if "no backsies!" means that you can't renegotiate with your partner and ask to change things back to the way they were -- then I disagree.
You can always ask for what you need. Of course you are not guaranteed to get it. But you can ask.
But if "no backsies!" means that you can't renegotiate with your partner and ask to change things back to the way they were -- then I disagree.
You can always ask for what you need. Of course you are not guaranteed to get it. But you can ask.
140
Erica, I'm wary of vague language like "in the abstract". I've seen it used too many times for people to weasel out of things that they agreed to, or retroactively change the parameters of agreements. Here the LW'd be saying, in effect, "sure, I told [you] that while I was gone, [you] could sleep with other people and I told [you] to never tell me about it, but, sweetie, that was in the abstract, and now that you've done what I told you to do you are so in shit with me and maybe Dan Savage, too!" ;)
No backsies simply means, to me and joking aside, you can't change a deal retroactively. I agree that you can change the deal going forward.
No backsies simply means, to me and joking aside, you can't change a deal retroactively. I agree that you can change the deal going forward.
141
A plea to the Letter Writer, if you are reading the comments, to clarify two critical points. (Feeling brave?)
1) Did you take back the offer of non-monogamy while you were apart? Or did you go into the separation with that offer still in place?
2) Did you sleep with anybody else while you were away?
1) Did you take back the offer of non-monogamy while you were apart? Or did you go into the separation with that offer still in place?
2) Did you sleep with anybody else while you were away?
142
@139 Erica: She didn't talk about it "in the abstract" (i.e. "how would you feel about...") She gave him permission. Permission cannot be in the abstract, otherwise it is meaningless.
Sure, she can revoke permission going forward. She can look inside herself and discover she isn't okay with the idea after all, and therefore needs him to not do it after all -- or to stop doing it if he has already started doing it. Similarly, he can discover that the thing he originally thought he never could imagine going through with turns out to be not so inconceivable after all when presented with an actual opportunity. (And hey, he has explicit permission to do it.)
Either of those are called "changing your mind," not "lying."
But you cannot revoke permission retroactively. To say that permission is granted, then later say that no, it never was, now that would indeed be a lie.
Sure, she can revoke permission going forward. She can look inside herself and discover she isn't okay with the idea after all, and therefore needs him to not do it after all -- or to stop doing it if he has already started doing it. Similarly, he can discover that the thing he originally thought he never could imagine going through with turns out to be not so inconceivable after all when presented with an actual opportunity. (And hey, he has explicit permission to do it.)
Either of those are called "changing your mind," not "lying."
But you cannot revoke permission retroactively. To say that permission is granted, then later say that no, it never was, now that would indeed be a lie.
143
@142: And the guy, while definitely dumb and inartful in trying to convince her that he couldn't think of having sex with anybody else may not have been "lying", certainly. He couldn't at the time. People change. People certainly change in LTRs, when given express permission.
144
I wondered why the LW's attitude seemed so familiar, then I remembered that I had run into it in a romantic relationship (gone south) about seven years ago, and had noted the effect for UrbanDictionary:
paradox cramp
In human males, the intellectual or emotional stabbing pain created by the seemingly irreconcilable contradictions in human female statements, behaviour, responses or expectations. Paradox cramps are usually but not exclusively experienced in heterosexual romantic relationship interdynamics.
Human Female: [...] “Yes, I know I told you to do it, and you did it right away. That’s why I am angry at you.”
Human male: “Understood. Apropos of nothing at all, where do you keep your Tylenol 3s / bourbon?”[...]
145
@143: I agree that Boyfriend did some things that he ought to have been smart enough to realize would be hurtful to Letter Writer. And at the same time, there's something distinctly asymmetrical about the situation, if he reduces each of his options to cater to her every insecurity.
-- Bringing someone home to sleep in "their" bed: Sure, I could see her finding that hurtful. And at the same time, that would mean he has to basically give up his home base, as it were. Does Boyfriend only get to sleep with other people away from his own bed? Does Girlfriend have the same restriction? Does she never bring people back to her apartment in Singapore?
-- Sleeping with mutual friends: sure, that's going to be embarrassing to have to face them. And at the same time, that means he only gets to have meaningless sex with strangers? What about her? Presumably she is friends with the hottie Parisian lab assistant that she works with every day and plays with out on the town in the evenings?
-- Bragging online: Okay, that one was just tacky. No defense of that from me. Show a little discretion, ya lout.
-- Bringing someone home to sleep in "their" bed: Sure, I could see her finding that hurtful. And at the same time, that would mean he has to basically give up his home base, as it were. Does Boyfriend only get to sleep with other people away from his own bed? Does Girlfriend have the same restriction? Does she never bring people back to her apartment in Singapore?
-- Sleeping with mutual friends: sure, that's going to be embarrassing to have to face them. And at the same time, that means he only gets to have meaningless sex with strangers? What about her? Presumably she is friends with the hottie Parisian lab assistant that she works with every day and plays with out on the town in the evenings?
-- Bragging online: Okay, that one was just tacky. No defense of that from me. Show a little discretion, ya lout.
146
@140/142 "in the abstract" means that neither one had any experience with what they were discussing. And when I said "in the abstract," I didn't say that it gave her any right to say he was Evil if he went ahead and did what they agreed to "in the abstract." But it does give her the right to be upset, since she didn't know how she would feel if/when she found out.
And we always have the right to have our feelings.
seeker wrote: "now that you've done what I told you to do you are so in shit with me," as if that's illegitimate when someone says that.
I don't know what "you are so in shit with me" means. If it means: "you did what I told you to do, but not what I wanted you to do, so you're Evil," then she's out of line.
But if it means: "I am miserable and am breaking up with you," that's a perfectly reasonable position.
Non-monogamy is not an easy relationship path. If he wanted to do it without risking his relationship, he needed to put more work in to discussing their expectations. The way he did it, maybe he doesn't have to think of himself as a shit, but she's entitled to her feelings, and she's certainly entitled to walk away from the relationship.
And we always have the right to have our feelings.
seeker wrote: "now that you've done what I told you to do you are so in shit with me," as if that's illegitimate when someone says that.
I don't know what "you are so in shit with me" means. If it means: "you did what I told you to do, but not what I wanted you to do, so you're Evil," then she's out of line.
But if it means: "I am miserable and am breaking up with you," that's a perfectly reasonable position.
Non-monogamy is not an easy relationship path. If he wanted to do it without risking his relationship, he needed to put more work in to discussing their expectations. The way he did it, maybe he doesn't have to think of himself as a shit, but she's entitled to her feelings, and she's certainly entitled to walk away from the relationship.
147
@146: Read her letter again, and ask yourself which of those two positions you think she is taking. (Do I need to point out the telling phrases like "his sorry ass" "he's just using me"?)
"If he wanted to do it without risking his relationship, he needed to put more work in to discussing their expectations."
Well, yeah, but so did she -- especially considering that she was the one who brought up the proposition that they both be free to sleep around while separated in the first place.
"If he wanted to do it without risking his relationship, he needed to put more work in to discussing their expectations."
Well, yeah, but so did she -- especially considering that she was the one who brought up the proposition that they both be free to sleep around while separated in the first place.
148
EricaP:
I'm also wary of the whole "I'm entitled to my feelings" thang, at least in practice rather than theory. True, everybody is so entitled, but how that right is used is often the problem. LW does have the right to feel shitty. She does not, for example, have the right to slag him directly or indirectly for his conduct. I have seen people make their "right to express my feelings without condemning you" indistinguishable from "tearing you a new one for doing wrong".
If you, like the LW did, told your bf that he was free to do something you have the right to be miserable, but you don't have the right to be miserable to him and call it "just my feelings". Part of being decent to our partners is not loading our own emotional shit on their shoulders and then feeling oh so better about ourselves because we're being so "honest" or "sharing". Touchy-feely language and correctly-placed therapy-speak does not absolve us of owning our own decisions and, sometimes, carrying our own burdens.
I'm also wary of the whole "I'm entitled to my feelings" thang, at least in practice rather than theory. True, everybody is so entitled, but how that right is used is often the problem. LW does have the right to feel shitty. She does not, for example, have the right to slag him directly or indirectly for his conduct. I have seen people make their "right to express my feelings without condemning you" indistinguishable from "tearing you a new one for doing wrong".
If you, like the LW did, told your bf that he was free to do something you have the right to be miserable, but you don't have the right to be miserable to him and call it "just my feelings". Part of being decent to our partners is not loading our own emotional shit on their shoulders and then feeling oh so better about ourselves because we're being so "honest" or "sharing". Touchy-feely language and correctly-placed therapy-speak does not absolve us of owning our own decisions and, sometimes, carrying our own burdens.
149
@147/148 We'll have to agree to disagree.
I think she was trying her best to be a good partner, and he did not consider her feelings the way he would have if he cared about staying with her forever. He didn't commit any crimes, but a reasonable person could have predicted that his actions would end their relationship.
I think referring to his "sorry ass" and saying she feels used is not the same as saying he's Evil. If you read my post @19, I do think they could get past this, but only if they both still value the relationship.
@148, I think I complete disagree with your entire post. Except that I have no idea what your terms mean ('slag', 'tear him a new one', 'be miserable to him'). So: if those refer to yelling, screaming, throwing his belongings on the street, or violence -- then I'll agree that people don't have a right to do that to anyone.
But she has a right to mope, to cry, to tell him what upset her. And to repeat, until it's really annoying to him. We only have to be cheerful and polite if we want to maintain the relationship. If she's ready to move on, she doesn't have to put on a happy face.
I think she was trying her best to be a good partner, and he did not consider her feelings the way he would have if he cared about staying with her forever. He didn't commit any crimes, but a reasonable person could have predicted that his actions would end their relationship.
I think referring to his "sorry ass" and saying she feels used is not the same as saying he's Evil. If you read my post @19, I do think they could get past this, but only if they both still value the relationship.
@148, I think I complete disagree with your entire post. Except that I have no idea what your terms mean ('slag', 'tear him a new one', 'be miserable to him'). So: if those refer to yelling, screaming, throwing his belongings on the street, or violence -- then I'll agree that people don't have a right to do that to anyone.
But she has a right to mope, to cry, to tell him what upset her. And to repeat, until it's really annoying to him. We only have to be cheerful and polite if we want to maintain the relationship. If she's ready to move on, she doesn't have to put on a happy face.
150
EricaP (and specifically in reference to your last para @149): First, think about how that will play. Among their circle of friends he will be double-condemned: she will denigrate him for cheating, and she will denigrate him for dumping her when she complained about it. Dan has noted countless times here that the person who goes outside of the relationship is the one who societally carries the can, no matter who bears the actual responsibility.
Second, are you serious? She has the right to cry and cry and cry until he's annoyed enough to dump her? We do not gain the right to make people miserable just because if they don't like it they can leave. We do not have an obligation only to be nice to people we want to keep around. She made her decisions, and now she has to live with them with courtesy and respect to her bf, as he too owes to her. Your position is, essentially, that whatever the rights of the matter she has the right throw her emotions at him indefinitely until he does something about it. That's a position for a spoiled child, not an adult. Part of being an adult is personal responsibility and emotional control.
Second, are you serious? She has the right to cry and cry and cry until he's annoyed enough to dump her? We do not gain the right to make people miserable just because if they don't like it they can leave. We do not have an obligation only to be nice to people we want to keep around. She made her decisions, and now she has to live with them with courtesy and respect to her bf, as he too owes to her. Your position is, essentially, that whatever the rights of the matter she has the right throw her emotions at him indefinitely until he does something about it. That's a position for a spoiled child, not an adult. Part of being an adult is personal responsibility and emotional control.
151
@149 Erica: "Agree to disagree" looks like what it's going to have to be.
Did anybody notice the third self-contradictory rules? She got mad because he slept within their social circle...but she also got mad because he went looking outside it, with the dating accounts and Craigslist. So, no friends, but no strangers either? What the hell is he supposed to do, light a birthday candle and wish for a one-night stand? I understand that it was about the apparent quantity of effort he put into it, but you can't logically outlaw both sides of the same condition and still call it permission.
It becomes clearer and clearer that she never really wanted him to be able to sleep around at all. Sure, she gave him permission, but with so many (unstated) conditions placed on it as to make it completely unworkable in any practical sense.
@150: I almost wrote the exact same thing as you did about the emotional tantrums (right down to the "are you serious?")
If she's ready to move on, she should dump him and be done with it, not keep him around and make them both miserable until he can't stand it any more.
Did anybody notice the third self-contradictory rules? She got mad because he slept within their social circle...but she also got mad because he went looking outside it, with the dating accounts and Craigslist. So, no friends, but no strangers either? What the hell is he supposed to do, light a birthday candle and wish for a one-night stand? I understand that it was about the apparent quantity of effort he put into it, but you can't logically outlaw both sides of the same condition and still call it permission.
It becomes clearer and clearer that she never really wanted him to be able to sleep around at all. Sure, she gave him permission, but with so many (unstated) conditions placed on it as to make it completely unworkable in any practical sense.
@150: I almost wrote the exact same thing as you did about the emotional tantrums (right down to the "are you serious?")
If she's ready to move on, she should dump him and be done with it, not keep him around and make them both miserable until he can't stand it any more.
152
I missed that, avast2006. Good eye. It does rather parallel Savage's advice on threesomes, i.e. easing in with the acquiescing partner (and not suggesting partner) in control, but that partner can't take "control" to mean "so many prerequisites that it will never happen".
153
I didn't say it was a good idea, but it's not illegal.
If you guys recognize that she never wanted him to have sex with others, then how did he have "permission"? Only in a very legalistic sense. Also, he's not scared of her telling their social circle, since he already spread the word.
If you guys recognize that she never wanted him to have sex with others, then how did he have "permission"? Only in a very legalistic sense. Also, he's not scared of her telling their social circle, since he already spread the word.
154
Re social circle: Moreover, there's a difference between sleeping in your own social circle when people believe that it's okay, and her later saying, "no, that wasn't our agreement".
Re knowing that she didn't mean it: We recognize it with the benefit of hindsight, and her words after all of this has happened, EricaP. He didn't have that advantage. All he had was the original agreement to open up the relationship during her residence abroad.
That said, I noted @120, my own personal take on her permission:
Re knowing that she didn't mean it: We recognize it with the benefit of hindsight, and her words after all of this has happened, EricaP. He didn't have that advantage. All he had was the original agreement to open up the relationship during her residence abroad.
That said, I noted @120, my own personal take on her permission:
I'm sure that this is about her certain belief that he wouldn't get any action, and now he did, and she has to face [that] ... ". In other words, she gave genuine permission, convinced inside that it was an empty promise on her part. Instead, bonkerama.
156
@150 -- So it's the LW's fault that her boyfriend cheated on her with some of their mutual friends, bragged to a bunch of their other friends about it, and now she's not allowed to be upset with him because that would make her a spoiled child? Yeeeeesh. Remind me never to date you.
157
@153: If you guys recognize that she never wanted him to have sex with others, then how did he have "permission"?
Because...that's...what...she...told...him.
Exasperation aside, what seeker said: hindsight.
"Only in a very legalistic sense."
No, in the sense of expressly granted permission, which is a binary; either you have permission or you don't. Permission was expressly granted. I don't see anything weaselly about "I went to study abroad for a year and told him that while I was gone, he could sleep with other people and I told him to never tell me about it." You don't get to say someone has permission but not really mean it.
By contrast, the secretly-hating-the-idea, as far as we can tell, was left unstated, and all the post-hoc conditions, as far as we can tell, were also all left unstated. So she did say he had permission, and she didn't say any of the things that would indicate otherwise. You are verging dangerously close to professing that obnoxious female stereotype that says that men are assholes because they should be mind-readers, and aren't.
"Also, he's not scared of her telling their social circle, since he already spread the word."
Which indicates to me that he was pretty strongly convinced that he had permission the whole time. As I've mentioned before, he did a pretty piss-poor version of discretion. On the other hand, he clearly thought he had nothing to hide, which would not be the case if he thought that permission had been revoked or granted grudgingly. Surely if he thought he had to sneak around, he would have, well...sneaked around?
If it's a matter of thinking he might be worried (now) should she decide to go ballistic and poison the social circle, don't forget they were there while it was happening. Beyond that, I suggest he point any questioners at this column and let them draw their own conclusions.
More...
Because...that's...what...she...told...him.
Exasperation aside, what seeker said: hindsight.
"Only in a very legalistic sense."
No, in the sense of expressly granted permission, which is a binary; either you have permission or you don't. Permission was expressly granted. I don't see anything weaselly about "I went to study abroad for a year and told him that while I was gone, he could sleep with other people and I told him to never tell me about it." You don't get to say someone has permission but not really mean it.
By contrast, the secretly-hating-the-idea, as far as we can tell, was left unstated, and all the post-hoc conditions, as far as we can tell, were also all left unstated. So she did say he had permission, and she didn't say any of the things that would indicate otherwise. You are verging dangerously close to professing that obnoxious female stereotype that says that men are assholes because they should be mind-readers, and aren't.
"Also, he's not scared of her telling their social circle, since he already spread the word."
Which indicates to me that he was pretty strongly convinced that he had permission the whole time. As I've mentioned before, he did a pretty piss-poor version of discretion. On the other hand, he clearly thought he had nothing to hide, which would not be the case if he thought that permission had been revoked or granted grudgingly. Surely if he thought he had to sneak around, he would have, well...sneaked around?
If it's a matter of thinking he might be worried (now) should she decide to go ballistic and poison the social circle, don't forget they were there while it was happening. Beyond that, I suggest he point any questioners at this column and let them draw their own conclusions.
158
Amanda, if you're going to call me a cheater when I acted on your okay to sleep with others and when you were sleeping with others, and if you agree that constantly making me as miserable as you are because I stuck to our agreement and you didn't, well, you'll pardon me if not dating you comes as a relief rather than a disappointment. And, yes, I repeat and reaffirm, making someone else constantly miserable just because you're unhappy -- over something you chose -- IS the act of a spoiled child. Sucking it up and saying, "well, my choice has made me miserable but it's not his fault for doing what I told him to do" is what adults are supposed to do. That they don't -- and have vigorous defenders -- is the result of a culture with more therapists than brain cells.
159
Amanda, EricaP, I honestly think that in your defence of the LW you're coming dangerously close to infantilizing her. She's an adult and she is responsible for her decisions. To shrug it off and to apply a sort of halfassed, "well, it's the guy's fault anyway" sort of reasoning is to deny her own agency. Kids get brushed off and told that "no, it's not your fault" when they tumble due to their own foolishness or mistakes, but adults don't, and shouldn't, male or female.
That's leaving aside the grossly unfair permission you've given her to take out her emotional upset on the bf.
That's leaving aside the grossly unfair permission you've given her to take out her emotional upset on the bf.
160
You are verging dangerously close to professing that obnoxious female stereotype that says that men are assholes because they should be mind-readers, and aren't.Just "close"? I think that avast2006 has disproved the myth that only Oxbridgers can do devastating understatement.
161
seeker6079 -- Like I said in my initial comment, I think both of them are at fault, but I do think the dude made a greater number of poor decisions and deserves to dumped. It also doesn't seem to me that they had an "agreement", since they didn't actually agree to be nonmonogamous. He told her he couldn't imagine sleeping with anyone else and didn't want her sleeping with others. You're assuming she did, I'm just going off the information provided in the letter.
162
No, Amanda, you're not going off the information provided in the letter, you're making a gendered assumption that the man is more at fault. We do know that there was an agreement. First, she told him he could sleep with other people. How often does that have to be repeated before you stop blowing right by that with your fingers in your ears huming "lalalalalalala"? Second, read her letter, and three key points on their deal emerge.
Point the First: At no point does she say directly or inferentially that he broke a deal with her not to sleep with other people. If it had been "I offered, he said no, so that was the deal, and I didn't but he did" she would have said so: timorousness about her personal anger and not being direct about where she thinks she has been wronged are NOT characteristics of the LW.
Point the Second: She is very silent on what she did. As I noted above, if she had been betrayed by a bait and switch and had been celibate, she would have said so, so we can assume that she had sex outside of the relationship, too.
Point the Third: She is quite direct and honest with her furious reaction to the manner of his sleeping with other people. She doesn't bluntly say (as she bluntly says everything else) that he cheated; it's with whom and where and how that drive her anger. Seriously, you have to be old or experienced enough to understand that when people are furious at themselves for permitting something they now realize was a mistake they are all about the How the permitted act was done: the How is merely the vehicle for their rage about the What that they know they can't complain about, but are going to anyways.
Basically , you're in no position to chide me for not reading the letter when it's you that's ignoring what is presented. You're acting like the cliche supportive galpal in a bar who says to her LW buddy, "girl, you are SO right and he is SO wrong" no matter what the objective facts are, and you can't expect me to take your knee-jerk gender solidarity over the facts that we have, as presented by her.
More...
Point the First: At no point does she say directly or inferentially that he broke a deal with her not to sleep with other people. If it had been "I offered, he said no, so that was the deal, and I didn't but he did" she would have said so: timorousness about her personal anger and not being direct about where she thinks she has been wronged are NOT characteristics of the LW.
Point the Second: She is very silent on what she did. As I noted above, if she had been betrayed by a bait and switch and had been celibate, she would have said so, so we can assume that she had sex outside of the relationship, too.
Point the Third: She is quite direct and honest with her furious reaction to the manner of his sleeping with other people. She doesn't bluntly say (as she bluntly says everything else) that he cheated; it's with whom and where and how that drive her anger. Seriously, you have to be old or experienced enough to understand that when people are furious at themselves for permitting something they now realize was a mistake they are all about the How the permitted act was done: the How is merely the vehicle for their rage about the What that they know they can't complain about, but are going to anyways.
Basically , you're in no position to chide me for not reading the letter when it's you that's ignoring what is presented. You're acting like the cliche supportive galpal in a bar who says to her LW buddy, "girl, you are SO right and he is SO wrong" no matter what the objective facts are, and you can't expect me to take your knee-jerk gender solidarity over the facts that we have, as presented by her.
163
One other point: Do you notice that the after-the-fact restrictions that she now has (our city, our circle, our home) can only apply to him? They didn't and wouldn't place any restrictions on her, being in a different country. If he had said, after her return, "I said that you could sleep with other people, but, my god, people I don't know, in a different country? That wasn't the deal!" would Amanda and EricaP be defending him?
164
@163: I notice that, and it's not quite that simple because the situation is not quite symmetric in that way. If the problem is having to face people on a daily basis, that does apply to the friends back home, who will be there when she gets back; but it won't apply to the lovers in Germany, who will be left behind when she leaves. By contrast, it would require some rather interesting justification for him to try to stipulate that sleeping with someone in a foreign country is worse than someone at home.
So, to a certain extent it is legitimate for her to worry about some of these things. Yet at the same time, if you pile all of her concerns together, they amount to a combined set of restrictions that make it impractical for him to try at all. If that is going to be the practical result, it would be more honest of her to just say, "Let's stay monogamous, because having you sleep around is too hard on me."
She has no business trying to open the relationship in such a way that all the restrictions only apply to him. That way the only person who gets to take advantage of it being open is her. That is at best selfish and unfair, and at worst dishonest, manipulative, and unfair.
So, to a certain extent it is legitimate for her to worry about some of these things. Yet at the same time, if you pile all of her concerns together, they amount to a combined set of restrictions that make it impractical for him to try at all. If that is going to be the practical result, it would be more honest of her to just say, "Let's stay monogamous, because having you sleep around is too hard on me."
She has no business trying to open the relationship in such a way that all the restrictions only apply to him. That way the only person who gets to take advantage of it being open is her. That is at best selfish and unfair, and at worst dishonest, manipulative, and unfair.
165
@164. Agreed. And is additionally unacceptable (and which, I confess, irks me a great deal) is her effort to retroactively impose such conditions. Yes, you're right, the conditions are outrageous in that they box him into into inactivity while she is free to do what she wants. But outrageous conditions seem worse when they are laid on after the fact. It's offer-acceptance-contract-performance, not offer-acceptance-contract-performance-oh, by the way, there's all the additional shit that applies only to you. I think that's why Amanda and EricaP's determined defence of her is getting under my skin a little: she broke faith, and she's making him miserable for it: the party with the most responsibility gets, it seems, to lay the blame and take the moral high ground. He was a d-bag in some private online conversations; everything else is on her but she and her defenders want him to carry the can.
166
@161: What the letter actually says:
-- She specifically told him it was okay to sleep with others
-- He responded in the moment by saying he couldn't imagine doing that, and was uncomfortable with the idea
-- Sometime later, he did it after all, flagrantly and with apparent gusto.
-- She asked him "casually" whether he had slept with anyone.
What the letter does NOT say:
-- She retracted the offer of non-monogamy in response to his reluctance
-- She remained monogamous herself
All of the evidence points to the agreement being to open the relationship while apart. Surely if they had agreed to remain monogamous after all, he would have felt the need to sneak rather than brag? Surely she would not have been "casual" about finding out who he had slept with? Surely she would have mentioned in the letter that monogamy had in fact been the agreement, since that's the one thing above all others that would make her case against him airtight?
But no, she doesn't say that he violated their monogamy. She conspicuously never uses the word "cheated." Instead, she says he slept with people (or tried and failed) in a bunch of different ways that she didn't like.
Your interpretation requires not only to downplay what is present in the letter, but the assumption of something that is conspicuous in its absence.
-- She specifically told him it was okay to sleep with others
-- He responded in the moment by saying he couldn't imagine doing that, and was uncomfortable with the idea
-- Sometime later, he did it after all, flagrantly and with apparent gusto.
-- She asked him "casually" whether he had slept with anyone.
What the letter does NOT say:
-- She retracted the offer of non-monogamy in response to his reluctance
-- She remained monogamous herself
All of the evidence points to the agreement being to open the relationship while apart. Surely if they had agreed to remain monogamous after all, he would have felt the need to sneak rather than brag? Surely she would not have been "casual" about finding out who he had slept with? Surely she would have mentioned in the letter that monogamy had in fact been the agreement, since that's the one thing above all others that would make her case against him airtight?
But no, she doesn't say that he violated their monogamy. She conspicuously never uses the word "cheated." Instead, she says he slept with people (or tried and failed) in a bunch of different ways that she didn't like.
Your interpretation requires not only to downplay what is present in the letter, but the assumption of something that is conspicuous in its absence.
167
@166 - Another thing the letter says is that he told her he didn't like the idea of her sleeping with other guys. How is that evidence pointing to their supposed agreement to open up the relationship? Unless you're saying they agreed that only he could sleep around and she would remain abstinent during her time away. To me, it doesn't sound like they had a clear agreement. If the dude's initial reaction to her saying he could sleep with other people was that he couldn't imagine doing that and didn't want her doing it either, maybe he could have tried to talk to her and renegotiate the terms of the relationship once he realized he'd completely changed his mind?
168
@156: "her boyfriend cheated on her"
Amanda, her boyfriend changing his mind on the set limits did not invalidate the limits. She did not revoke the "break". He did not ever cheat on her. He slept with people in such a way that it makes getting back together essentially impossible, but in the most positive take, she created an open relationship that he was free to pursue.
@167: So what? He didn't say she couldn't. He didn't want to think about sleeping with other girls, and didn't want to think about her sleeping with other guys. She didn't pursue EITHER subject any further, and left things ambiguous and muddled. She did not clarify, which led to this situation, where she should not be with this boy any further.
There are plenty of ways that this could have worked out better, but we're still left where we are, where they both would be better served trying for a happier relationship.
Amanda, her boyfriend changing his mind on the set limits did not invalidate the limits. She did not revoke the "break". He did not ever cheat on her. He slept with people in such a way that it makes getting back together essentially impossible, but in the most positive take, she created an open relationship that he was free to pursue.
@167: So what? He didn't say she couldn't. He didn't want to think about sleeping with other girls, and didn't want to think about her sleeping with other guys. She didn't pursue EITHER subject any further, and left things ambiguous and muddled. She did not clarify, which led to this situation, where she should not be with this boy any further.
There are plenty of ways that this could have worked out better, but we're still left where we are, where they both would be better served trying for a happier relationship.
169
"maybe he could have tried to talk to her and renegotiate the terms of the relationship once he realized he'd completely changed his mind?"
I believe they both had similar responsibilities to, yes.
I believe they both had similar responsibilities to, yes.
170
@169 -- LW says her boyfriend "said that he would be uncomfortable with [her] sleeping with other guys". And your response is, "So what? He didn't say she couldn't". So because he said he'd be uncomfortable with it rather than explicitly forbidding it, you feel that he was consenting to an open relationship? Wow. Okay.
171
@170: And she said that she'd be comfortable with him sleeping with other women.
What's your point?
What's your point?
172
wow! a lot of responses to basically a college guy screwing around while in a long distance relationship?? mind boggling
173
Sorry for the late response (off skiing)... I stick by what I wrote @146... This is not the way to do non-monogamy if you value your current relationship. Neither one did anything illegal or immoral; they both acted foolishly. And I think plenty of guys sulk when their team loses; plenty of women cry when their relationship is ending. It's called being human.
174
I, for one, am primarily interested in whether the letterwriter remained without sex or romantic attachment while abroad. Avast and Seeker pretty much buried her position and the defenders of it, but the Baptist-Preacher-Caught-at-a-Whorehouse Moment here would be the letterwriter grudgingly admitting that, yeah, she did find sex or love overseas while away.
The letterwriter kind of reminds me of that character in "School Daze", who tells his girlfriend to sleep with someone else, then gets made at her for "failing the test" of her character by following his instructions.
The letterwriter kind of reminds me of that character in "School Daze", who tells his girlfriend to sleep with someone else, then gets made at her for "failing the test" of her character by following his instructions.
175
The only way to sleep with someone else AND know it is okay is to have the person giving permission right there with you when you're sleeping with someone else.
176
@175: "he only way to sleep with someone else AND know it is okay is to have the person giving permission right there with you when you're sleeping with someone else."
Yeah, I've had that not work out as well. People change their mind at any point they wish. There are no guarantees.
Yeah, I've had that not work out as well. People change their mind at any point they wish. There are no guarantees.
177
@176 It's hard to guarantee your partner will be happy that you've just had sex with someone else, especially the first time, when neither of you has experience with this new situation.
But it's pretty easy to guarantee your partner will be unhappy: accept a policy of DADT, and then sleep with people in your social circle.
But it's pretty easy to guarantee your partner will be unhappy: accept a policy of DADT, and then sleep with people in your social circle.
178
I think avast, seeker, EricaP, and amanda can never agree because we don't have enough information for either of the interpretations.
@162: You insist that if she had agreed not to sleep with anyone and if they had agreed to be monogamous while she was away, she would've mentioned it, but how the hell do you know that? Maybe the letter writer thought, like so many people in this thread thought, that it was obvious that she took that to mean she couldn't sleep around. Maybe you're right, but you can't say "She didn't ever say that she didn't sleep with other people so she must have slept with other people" with the confidence you're saying it. Like I said in my post way up thread, we have no idea what she said to "I can't imagine sleeping with other women and I'd be uncomfortable with you sleeping with other men."
@162: You insist that if she had agreed not to sleep with anyone and if they had agreed to be monogamous while she was away, she would've mentioned it, but how the hell do you know that? Maybe the letter writer thought, like so many people in this thread thought, that it was obvious that she took that to mean she couldn't sleep around. Maybe you're right, but you can't say "She didn't ever say that she didn't sleep with other people so she must have slept with other people" with the confidence you're saying it. Like I said in my post way up thread, we have no idea what she said to "I can't imagine sleeping with other women and I'd be uncomfortable with you sleeping with other men."
179
@178: "You insist that if she had agreed not to sleep with anyone and if they had agreed to be monogamous while she was away, she would've mentioned it, but how the hell do you know that?"
Her silence on her business while away speaks volumes.
Her silence on her business while away speaks volumes.
180
@178(alguna_rubia), ¡exacto!
Basically I agree with both seeker and Amanda. And this is indeed possible, because they're both talking about hypotheticals.
Seeker's viewpoint is that the LW and her boyfriend did have an agreement to open the relationship, an agreement which the LW later regretted when she saw how successful he was, and with exactly what people he slept. Then she decided she had the right to get angry. I'd agree this is not fair.
Amanda's viewpoint is that the LW and her boyfriend did not have an agreement to open the relationship -- one was suggested but not accepted, and yet the LW's boyfriend behaved as if said agreement had indeed been accepted and was valid. And he knocked himself out. That, I'd agree, is certainly not fair.
And your point -- with which I agree -- is that we don't really know which hypothetical here is true. Seeker does mention that "the LW would have mentioned it more clearly" if there had been no agreement and if she hadn't slept with other guys, "because it's the kind of thing she wouldn't forge to mention." Maybe. I've seen people who would indeed behave like that. But I don't know the LW that well, and I can imagine there might be other reasons (writing too quickly, assuming certain things were obvious that really weren't) that led her to write an ambiguous letter. I could imagine her coming up here and writing "Sorry, that's not how it happened. I can see how you could think so based on what I wrote, but that's not right. What really happened was..."
Similarly, Amanda thinks that the boyfriend's answer is equivalent to a refusal, so that "obviously" no agreement to open the relationship was made. And again, I could imagine this boyfriend coming here and writing, "oh, I can see how you'd think that from what my gf wrote, but that's not what I said; really, what happened was..."
Basically, people often give ambiguous renderings of situations because they don't think ahead when they write their descriptions. So unless you talk further to them and clarify the details, you can't know for sure.
So, Amanda and seeker projected different hypotheticals upon the skeleton situation presented by the LW. Since these are different hypotheticals, it's easy for me to say I agree with both of them. If seeker's interpretation of the situation is right, I agree with his conclusions. If Amanda's interpreation of the situation is right, I agree with her conclusions.
And if neither is right... then who knows? :-)
More...
Basically I agree with both seeker and Amanda. And this is indeed possible, because they're both talking about hypotheticals.
Seeker's viewpoint is that the LW and her boyfriend did have an agreement to open the relationship, an agreement which the LW later regretted when she saw how successful he was, and with exactly what people he slept. Then she decided she had the right to get angry. I'd agree this is not fair.
Amanda's viewpoint is that the LW and her boyfriend did not have an agreement to open the relationship -- one was suggested but not accepted, and yet the LW's boyfriend behaved as if said agreement had indeed been accepted and was valid. And he knocked himself out. That, I'd agree, is certainly not fair.
And your point -- with which I agree -- is that we don't really know which hypothetical here is true. Seeker does mention that "the LW would have mentioned it more clearly" if there had been no agreement and if she hadn't slept with other guys, "because it's the kind of thing she wouldn't forge to mention." Maybe. I've seen people who would indeed behave like that. But I don't know the LW that well, and I can imagine there might be other reasons (writing too quickly, assuming certain things were obvious that really weren't) that led her to write an ambiguous letter. I could imagine her coming up here and writing "Sorry, that's not how it happened. I can see how you could think so based on what I wrote, but that's not right. What really happened was..."
Similarly, Amanda thinks that the boyfriend's answer is equivalent to a refusal, so that "obviously" no agreement to open the relationship was made. And again, I could imagine this boyfriend coming here and writing, "oh, I can see how you'd think that from what my gf wrote, but that's not what I said; really, what happened was..."
Basically, people often give ambiguous renderings of situations because they don't think ahead when they write their descriptions. So unless you talk further to them and clarify the details, you can't know for sure.
So, Amanda and seeker projected different hypotheticals upon the skeleton situation presented by the LW. Since these are different hypotheticals, it's easy for me to say I agree with both of them. If seeker's interpretation of the situation is right, I agree with his conclusions. If Amanda's interpreation of the situation is right, I agree with her conclusions.
And if neither is right... then who knows? :-)
181
@180, assuming seeker's hypothetical is right, why is it "not fair" for the LW to be unhappy with the way it played out? Why does she not "have the right to get angry"? She doesn't have the right to hit him, or scream at him, but she has the right to "get angry" if that means the same as "feel angry."
People who want their ventures into non-monogamy to go well, have to do more work than these people did (even assuming seeker is correct in his interpretation). Neither one of them tried hard to preserve the relationship, so it's understandable that it would crumble now.
I truly don't understand this idea (per 150/151) that she is obligated to hide her emotions, even at home, when she is dealing with a situation she had never encountered before and which she finds upsetting.
People who want their ventures into non-monogamy to go well, have to do more work than these people did (even assuming seeker is correct in his interpretation). Neither one of them tried hard to preserve the relationship, so it's understandable that it would crumble now.
I truly don't understand this idea (per 150/151) that she is obligated to hide her emotions, even at home, when she is dealing with a situation she had never encountered before and which she finds upsetting.
182
@181, I think I understand what 150/151 was trying to get at. It's more or less like this: if you agreed with something, then you don't have the right to pretend you didn't agree with it later on. If you having agreed with it led to you feeling unhappy, sure, express this unhappiness -- but you don't get to say that it was simply your partner's fault, as long as you indeed agreed.
I'd say she has the right to feel angry (because there is such a thing as expectations -- if you agree with someone to open the relationship, you may indeed be legitimally surprised, even dismayed, if the person managed to get 10 new sex partners in a week... hey, why don't we start a bit more slowly?). But the point is, she should agree that she herself is part of the reason why she ended up angry and unhappy.
I think 150/151 was a protest against imagining it is all purely the man's fault. This is fueled by the LW's use of expressions like "his sorry ass", in which it would seem (or one might project the hypothetical that...) she's claiming he's the only one to blame for her current feelings. When in fact, if indeed an agreement to open the relationship was accepted, then she herself bears part of the responsibility for her feelings of anger and unhappiness.
In other words: she should feel free to express your feelings, but not pretend that her SO is the (only) culprit. Some of this anger/unhappiness should be directed at herself for proposing/agreeing with opening the relationship without having thought about all possible consequences.
I'd say she has the right to feel angry (because there is such a thing as expectations -- if you agree with someone to open the relationship, you may indeed be legitimally surprised, even dismayed, if the person managed to get 10 new sex partners in a week... hey, why don't we start a bit more slowly?). But the point is, she should agree that she herself is part of the reason why she ended up angry and unhappy.
I think 150/151 was a protest against imagining it is all purely the man's fault. This is fueled by the LW's use of expressions like "his sorry ass", in which it would seem (or one might project the hypothetical that...) she's claiming he's the only one to blame for her current feelings. When in fact, if indeed an agreement to open the relationship was accepted, then she herself bears part of the responsibility for her feelings of anger and unhappiness.
In other words: she should feel free to express your feelings, but not pretend that her SO is the (only) culprit. Some of this anger/unhappiness should be directed at herself for proposing/agreeing with opening the relationship without having thought about all possible consequences.
183
@182, I think it's reasonable of her to cry as much as she likes (it's her home!), and say things like "I don't even know what exactly we agreed to, but I'm upset and I don't know how to feel anything but upset."
I don't think it's reasonable of her to say: "You promised you wouldn't have sex with anyone but me! You're an Evil Cheater!"
Their agreement was anything but crystal clear and a "meeting of the minds" ("when two parties to an agreement (contract) both have the same understanding of the terms of the agreement. Such mutual comprehension is essential to a valid contract.") In the absence of a clear agreement, he shouldn't bear all the the blame for the misunderstanding, no. But she has no obligation to be happy about their current situation.
I don't think it's reasonable of her to say: "You promised you wouldn't have sex with anyone but me! You're an Evil Cheater!"
Their agreement was anything but crystal clear and a "meeting of the minds" ("when two parties to an agreement (contract) both have the same understanding of the terms of the agreement. Such mutual comprehension is essential to a valid contract.") In the absence of a clear agreement, he shouldn't bear all the the blame for the misunderstanding, no. But she has no obligation to be happy about their current situation.
184
@183, indeed, and I would agree with your attitude and expectations here. What's more, I think 150/151 would also, all in all (probably with caveats, but still), agree.
I think 150/151 was concerned with the possibility that the LW wanted to deny any responsibility in what happened (and therefore any responsibility in her own hurt feelings) and throw everything on her boyfriend's shoulder (assuming they indeed had an agreement, even if far from crystal clear). I don't think they'd insist the LW has an obligation to be happy about the situation; I think they only think she can't throw all the blame on his shoulders.
When people have agreements, even clear ones, there always are lots of details that call for discussions and clarification ('is that what you meant when you said X?'). This couple obvioulsy didn't do that, and they should have. The hurt feelings are a result.
I think 150/151 was concerned with the possibility that the LW wanted to deny any responsibility in what happened (and therefore any responsibility in her own hurt feelings) and throw everything on her boyfriend's shoulder (assuming they indeed had an agreement, even if far from crystal clear). I don't think they'd insist the LW has an obligation to be happy about the situation; I think they only think she can't throw all the blame on his shoulders.
When people have agreements, even clear ones, there always are lots of details that call for discussions and clarification ('is that what you meant when you said X?'). This couple obvioulsy didn't do that, and they should have. The hurt feelings are a result.
185
@183, consider the mirror-image situation, often mentioned here: the couple who opens up the relationship because the husband wants to, only to find out that he has a lot more trouble finding willing women than his wife has finding willing men. After a month with perhaps one hook-up, or even none at all, while his wife had half a dozen partners she's obviously enjoying, he (the husband) certainly has the right to feel upset and think it's unfair. And he has the right to express this feeling. And, since his wife should in principle love him and care about his feelings, we'd also expect her to do something about it -- agree to change the rules, or help him find more willing women, etc.
But what shouldn't happen is the husband suddenly claiming it's all his wife's fault ('I didn't expect she'd be such a bitch! What a slut!') either directly or passive-aggressively. He willingly agreed with the deal; now he shouldn't pretend he didn't.
If the deal wasn't clear, then of course both people involved have all the interest in clarifying things. In a perfect world, they would, so that everybody is clear on what is or isn't OK. The way the LW and her boyfriend behaved suggests they were inexperient, and somewhat ashamed about it; maybe they thought everything would sort itself out naturally/automatically/instinctively, without them actually having to do the work.
But what shouldn't happen is the husband suddenly claiming it's all his wife's fault ('I didn't expect she'd be such a bitch! What a slut!') either directly or passive-aggressively. He willingly agreed with the deal; now he shouldn't pretend he didn't.
If the deal wasn't clear, then of course both people involved have all the interest in clarifying things. In a perfect world, they would, so that everybody is clear on what is or isn't OK. The way the LW and her boyfriend behaved suggests they were inexperient, and somewhat ashamed about it; maybe they thought everything would sort itself out naturally/automatically/instinctively, without them actually having to do the work.
186
@185 in your flipping of seeker's view of the situation, I agree the husband shouldn't call his wife a bitch/slut, or put all the blame on her for his unhappiness. But he is not stuck with the situation just by having agreed to it beforehand. As you say, "he has the right to feel upset and think it's unfair."
187
I think Dan is right. I mean if he had said "yeah I might be interested" then confused might have negotiated the terms of the agreement more than just you can sleep with other people but I don't want to know about. Even if she had included an I don't want to know about it unless I ask it still seems like he would have tried to hide his activities.
It also lacks tact to just bang a bunch of mutual acquaintances without giving your partner a head's up about it when they are ready to talk honestly about the whole escapade.
It also lacks tact to just bang a bunch of mutual acquaintances without giving your partner a head's up about it when they are ready to talk honestly about the whole escapade.
188
@181: "I truly don't understand this idea (per 150/151) that she is obligated to hide her emotions, even at home, when she is dealing with a situation she had never encountered before and which she finds upsetting."
In 151, I was objecting specifically to the formulation "if she's ready to move on..." which I took to mean "so upset by this that she considers it a dealbreaker." If it's a dealbreaker, then break the damned deal already. Continuing to stay in the relationship, all the while howling about how the relationship is dead, is illogical and disingenous, and including sentiments about what a horrible "sorry ass" your partner is, is abusive. If you are really that outraged by his behavior, break up with him and be done.
In the more general case, there's a difference between hiding your emotions and not using your partner as an emotional punching bag.
In 151, I was objecting specifically to the formulation "if she's ready to move on..." which I took to mean "so upset by this that she considers it a dealbreaker." If it's a dealbreaker, then break the damned deal already. Continuing to stay in the relationship, all the while howling about how the relationship is dead, is illogical and disingenous, and including sentiments about what a horrible "sorry ass" your partner is, is abusive. If you are really that outraged by his behavior, break up with him and be done.
In the more general case, there's a difference between hiding your emotions and not using your partner as an emotional punching bag.
189
@188, "there's a difference between hiding your emotions and not using your partner as an emotional punching bag."
I doubt there is an objective difference. Imagine 100 men & 100 women tasked with rating videos of people acting upset with their partner. I bet you'd see precious little agreement about which videos crossed the line into "using a partner as an emotional punching bag."
I doubt there is an objective difference. Imagine 100 men & 100 women tasked with rating videos of people acting upset with their partner. I bet you'd see precious little agreement about which videos crossed the line into "using a partner as an emotional punching bag."
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
So I've Got This Baby Bird... by Brendan Kiley
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
War Reporter Michael Hastings, Dead at 33 by Ansel Herz
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (189) RSS