Dan blew this.

You should just do it and then lose his number.

@1 that wouldn't have addressed their concerns

What happens if they both decide to leave each other for Andy?

Why not arrange a non-sexual get together in a friendly fashion?

Go out for dinner, have a dinner party, arrange a movie date for all 4 of you, or something. His reaction to such a plan will give you a good idea of whether he has been truthful with his wife (and you!) about his relationships.

@4 I came to say the same thing... happy hour or a movie would be perfect and as shuvoff said, his reaction will likely tell you all you need to know

Too complicated.

Ah the interesting dilema of experiencing a double standard. She would be upset if someone checked in with her husband but she wants to check in with a man's wife and feels no guilt over this. That's fine with me too, men and women do indeed have double standards and this is one. Go ahead and check on this guy while demanding that nobody does the same to you but at least open your eyes a little to how fucked up that is.

@7, then it's Andy's job to explain to his wife that he would very much appreciate it if she could bend that rule a little bit, to keep him happily involved with this couple. If she won't bend the rule and is unwilling to do anything to demonstrate to CIC that she's okay with it, then they will be justified in assuming she's not okay with it. If it walks like a duck...

I agree with Dan: CIC implies that asking other people's permission is somehow done in a context of slavery. It isn't. Making sure that Andy's wife is OK with Andy having sex with CIC and her husbnad is not simply about Andy's right to his body or a 'permission to fuck' from his wife and owner: it's about being sure that you know where you are going. It's about being sure that Andy, no matter how nice he is, is not lying.

This happens, you know.

I understand you assume the best of everybody. But since in this world the best is often not what we meet, some dilligence is indeed necessary.

If the wife is OK with it as Andy says, why can't you people meet her and establish that for yourselves? Again, it's not about the wive's releasing her husband for the shackles of marriage monogamy: it's about being sure that she is not being hurt by this. It's about being sure that Andy is not, well, like the traditional stereotype, cheating on his wife.

If it's important to you that this not be the case -- if you don't want to run the risk of Andy not being as truthful as he looks; then you'll need to investigate. Not 'ask for permission', but investigate. And you can do it in a nice way: as others said, ask to meet the wife. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Naw, I'm with Dan. You do have to verify this at this point, I think. I say this, having found myself in something sorta similar and it turned out the other spouse was NOT okay, did not even know anything was going on.

@4 has it. Put together some safe activity -- dinner out at a nice restaurant's good, or even a cafe, somewhere safely public -- and invite both Andy and his wife. Either the shit will hit the fan then, or you will have your verification. This is what I do, actually -- at the start of a relationship. If someone bails at that point, then so do I.

@9 true but that's not the actual standard at work here. The standard is you show me mine, and I'll show you hers. Andy knows her spouse is OK with the extra curricular activity, but she does not know Andy's spouse is, and that's actually what they need to focus on. The permission thing is a false comparison, as not all else (spousal knowledge) is actually equal in CIC's case.

dammit, no way to edit. "...and I'll show you *mine*". *sigh*

@9: you misread the OP really atrociously. Direct quote: "we find the concept of seeking "proof" or the "permission" of his wife to be somewhat repugnant. I would, after all, be insulted if someone sought my husband's consent or permission to engage in sexual activities with me, my body being my own and not a prize to be given or withheld on the whim of another."

In fact she's trying to *eliminate*, rather than perpetuate, a possible double standard. Read carefully.

@9: you misread the OP really atrociously. Direct quote: "we find the concept of seeking "proof" or the "permission" of his wife to be somewhat repugnant. I would, after all, be insulted if someone sought my husband's consent or permission to engage in sexual activities with me, my body being my own and not a prize to be given or withheld on the whim of another."

In fact she's trying to *eliminate*, rather than perpetuate, a possible double standard. Read carefully.

Perhaps another question they need answered is - what's the best way of asking someone if they're lying without offending them?

Well said, Dan.

However, I do think CIC and her husband need to decide what to do about the case the significant other has given permission, but doesn't want to know. Is it acceptable for their third to be in an arrangement like that? I wouldn't want to date someone like that myself... it feels too close to lying for me.

I would not want to be in a situation that was providing the boyfriend and me with pleasure at the expense of another human being, even if we didn't know her and even though she might be several degrees separated from our relationship with the husband.

Plus. Oh my god. I have had married guys try to do this, like, a HUNDRED times. And they always say the wife is OK with it, but then they get weird and deceptive at the most innocent of questions.

I hope it works out for you. A yummy third that you both like is a precious thing indeed.

seeing more of a guy to me indicates more than sex with Andy. they are pursuing more of a relationship with him. and I think it is natural to want to clarify things with a person I am getting deeper involved with.

Communication with Andy is key. I say a lovely little tryst for TALKING is in order. They dont even know if Andy's wife would say no to a deeper relationship or that Andy and wife's rules allow for that kind of thing.

Its time to lesbian up and sit down to talk and process, kids. CIC and her man need to talk about what they mean INTERNAL to their relationship as to 'more involved' means and they need to talk to Andy.

Perhaps I'm the puritan here, but considering a spouse's feelings "the whim of another" really put me off on this letter writer.

In my case, the multiple comma-spliced run-together sentences sent me over the edge.
Dan, can't you please edit the letters and make the writers at least *sound* intelligent?

I'm guessing CIC and her husband are split about this issue. One of them is more into Andy, and wants to continue even at the risk of hurting his wife if she ever finds out; the other is more into honesty and less into Andy.

@20 "Plus. Oh my god. I have had married guys try to do this, like, a HUNDRED times. And they always say the wife is OK with it, but then they get weird and deceptive at the most innocent of questions."

Word. That's the problem. Seen that WAY too many times, too. Married guys (okay, everyone, but *especially* men) who are poly -- you MUST address this shit up front right away to avoid this problem.

She sparkles (how pleasant), she twitters (my word), she floats (isn't that alarming? what is she, a bird?)

First, the "you can cheat on me, just don't let me know about it" situation is not a place of happy nonmonogamy. It's usually a compromise that erodes, since you can't help but notice the side-effects of an affair. So you're either dating a cheater, or someone in a situation that can blow up in very much the same way.

Second, CIC's husband should get out now. If you are seriously involved with somebody - if your physical and emotional health are highly intertwined - your duty as a decent person is to let them know whose emotional energies and bodily fluids you'll be exposing yourself to. Somebody who considers a basic heads up to be an unacceptable breach of their sexual autonomy is bound to be one of those asshole "selfishness is a virtue" type people, and is bound to show it more and more as time goes on. These setups will hurt you unless you deliberately want that vibe. Which resembles hippie love-in polyamory about as much as I resemble Donald Duck.

DTMFA is reserved for people who continue relationships with others who have proven to be king-size douches (or worse). This guy seems OK - I mean, you want more time with him, right?

So the question should be: Should we proceed or let him go? There's no motherfucker to dump, is there? Just sayin'.

"Plus. Oh my god. I have had married guys try to do this, like, a HUNDRED times. And they always say the wife is OK with it, but then they get weird and deceptive at the most innocent of questions."

I've had a married guy actually ask me to pretend to be his wife. Fake ring and all. That's some serious dedication to get laid.
I said no.

And really, regardless of how special and wonderful he seems to be, if he's cheating and lying about it, he's still a motherfucker.

My rule for dating married people is to meet the spouse BEFORE screwing. Always. End of story.

It hasn't steered me wrong so far. After all, if they have nothing to hide... well, there's no motivation for hiding, right? On the other hand, there is motivation for meeting. It eases the mind of the person who wants to know for sure that there's no cheating going on. If they insist on hiding, well then they do have something to hide.

If you ask to meet his wife, you don't have to look at it as "seeking proof" or "checking up" on him. Just tell him you'd like for him to be a deeper part of your life, and you'd like to meet his wife. If he declines letting you meet his wife... he's declining being a bigger part of your life, anyway. There's no way for him to be a deeply involved part of your life if he won't let you meet the person he's promised to spend his life with. He's cutting you off from an entire part of himself.

I can't imagine ever having the energy for all the communication and openness this shit requires.

Hot, hot, hot...

@30 These two pieces of advice are not in conflict at all. CIC says that she and her husband do not want to fuck a cheater. A man in a sexless marriage who chooses to stay with his wife and get sex elsewhere could hire a pro or fuck someone else who is cool with the situation.

Would you say that because I personally do not want to fuck fat people, for example, that therefore fat people should never get laid? Yeesh.

Oh, @9. There's poor reading comprehension and then there's just making up what you wanted someone to have said so you can act self-righteous toward them. Like a common Republican.

Here's the thing that many of you people are overlooking.

Someone might be in an open relationship but they don't-ask-don't-tell. Or they do ask and do tell, but that doesn't mean that they're gonna want to go bowling with the folks their spouse is banging.

Don't get involved with married people.

Mmm, yeah, I agree with Dan on this one. This is an ethical open couple who want to be assured that they are not being accomplices to cheating. They are currently not feeling assured that they are not accomplices to cheating. If they can't be assured, that's a major issue.

The fact that the letter-writer apparently has an arrangement where neither has to ask the other for specific permission is a red herring here. Someone who decides to sleep with this woman on the basis of her assurance that she and her husband have an open relationship, without meeting the husband, is making his own choice on the basis of his own moral calculus. That doesn't mean that this couple has to trust Andy not to be a cheater in the same way the woman's fuck buddies trust her not to be a cheater. Maybe it does mean that the letter writer needs to think about her knee-jerk insulted reaction to a sex partner asking about whether her husband is ok with what they're doing, though - maybe now she can understand that position a little better due to the situation with Andy?

Same deal with the idea that maybe Andy is allowed to stray but his wife wants to be left out of the loop on his sexual activities, or never wants to meet the people he's involved with. Just because Andy is ALLOWED to fuck them without his wife being involved in any way doesn't mean that they have to accommodate that type of arrangement. Especially not if they're looking to deepen their emotional intimacy with someone whose don't ask don't tell arrangement seems to likely be only about NSA sex.

Bottom line, this couple's been neglecting their principles a bit in deference to hot hot Andy action. Now the sex-induced cognitive dissonance is wearing off, and something's gotta give. If Andy can't convince them (and yes, if they want to take their intimacy with Andy to a deeper place "in and out of the bedroom" it seems to me that it's time to meet his wife) then they should cut him loose.

I agree that Andy's wife might not have the slightest bit of interest in meeting the fun couple her husband is sleeping with, and may actually want to avoid being confronted by her husband's extracurriculars.

What I find interesting is CIC's choice of the word "unfortunate" to describe Andy's marital status. CIC and her husband want to expand their claim on Andy's time both in and out of the bedroom; have they even asked Andy if he wanted this? And it seems pretty selfish on their part to want to take away from the time he spends with his wife, even if they say they want to make sure the wife knows about the relationship.

Yeah, do Andy a favor and dump him, CIC.

@18 Ah, that's one of the great mysteries of life, isn't it? If you ever figure that one out, let me know...

Yeah, I feel like Dan missed something big here. Andy assures the couple that his wife is fine with the arrangement: take him at his word or not, whatever you're comfortable with. The bigger issue is that the couple seems to want to start dating Andy, which is something with which the wife might not be okay even if she is okay with the sex. The dating seems less-functional with respect to a DADT policy (if that's what Andy and his wife have with respect to outside sex), as questions like "What did you do with your day?" become unanswerable. If they DON'T have a DADT policy, then checking-in should be fine. And if they don't have ANY arrangement and Andy's just "cheating", then poly bi couple clearly want to not be part of that, so they should check with the wife. It's time to check in with the wife, period.

@16, 35,
I don't find @9's reaction that odd. I mean, CIC is saying "we shouldn't need to get Andy's wife's permission, because that would be insulting to Andy... however, his wife's permission is what we want, and if we don't get it, well then we'll dump him."

I mean, that's pretty clearly what CIC is saying, right? I don't think there's a problem with her getting Andy's wife's explicit permission, but if that's what she does, or if she drops Andy for lack of his wife's explicit permission, then CIC should really drop the hypocritical "I wish everyone was as honest and free as I am" bit.

Send his wife a fruit basket. "Hey, thanks for providing us with your husbands fine ass!" That will settle things one way or another with pretty absolute certainty.

white folks are funny

Who the hell has time for this kind of shenanigans? Having a partner, a job and a social life is enough for most people....wow.

@32, I hear you, Dwight, it's hard enough just communicating with one partner, I don't know where these kids get the energy!

Invite her to dinner. Andy's reaction will tell you all you need to know, whether the dinner actually happens or not.

@ 40 - Yes, I also noticed "unfortunate" and there being no mention of whether Andy wanted to see more of the couple or not. But that would solve this situation with a whimper rather than a bang if they proposed spending more time with him and taking it out of the bedroom and he departed before they could even bring up their concern about his wife.

Interesting also that CIC refers to Andy's wife as his primary partner. I suppose it's a reasonable assumption even if it hasn't been specifically spelled out to be so, but I can't help wondering how much the couple and Andy are really all on the same page.

CIC's body being hers and hers only to bestow is all well and good as far as her own autonymy goes, as long as her being insulted isn't used in an assault on someone else's autonymy. Once mutual attraction is admitted, some people do belittle a potential partner's reservations. There could be a more benign explanation; the insult could be that CIC would already have made it clear to a potential partner that her extramarital adventures had her husband's blessing and that it would show insufficient trust in her for a partner to insist on verification.

It's hard to be too hopeful for any relationship when the letter writer brings up DTMFA as an option, even if in this case it would apply instead of SYNAM.

This is a difficult call, but I think your need to act ethically is important to honor ... I agree that suggesting a nice brunch with the wife will probably answer your questions.

I have two somewhat contradictory responses to this letter:

1) Sigh. Polyamory just sounds like so much work!

2) I live in Chicago. Why don't I meet people like this?

@32...so true. Every time I read one of these letters I thank my lucky stars that I'm such a bore.

Something like this happened to me. I was seeing a woman briefly who said her husband knew that she was bi, and he was okay with it. So about a three weeks in, I call her up to ask her a question about something I was cooking because she was a chef. She answers her phone and tells me I have the wrong number.

I thought, "How odd? She knows it's me. It's a CELL PHONE. She has caller ID!" So I email her the next day to ask her what was up with that. She said she was sorry, that her husband was sitting right there. I said that I thought that her husband knew. She told me that things were "more complicated" than she originally told me.

I dumped her on the spot for lying to me.

Ever since then, I ALWAYS verify. It's not about permission (although sometimes it is). It's that I can't stand the idea of being party to hurting another person, whether I know them or not.

@37 has it. This is so so too much drama for just a bit of sex.

Ah yes, another language-based idealogue whose commitment to certain descriptions outweighs a pragmatic understanding of the situation.

You, as a sovereign being, have an absolute right to dispense sexual favors as you see fit. That much is an open-and-shut case.

I, however, as your (hypothetical) spouse, have an equally absolute right to INFORMED CONSENT as to whether to continue a relationship with you, should you choose to dispense sexual favors in a way that is incompatible with my happiness, peace of mind, or safety to my physical health. That, too, is indisputable.

If you choose to take my feelings, as your hypothetical spouse, into consideration when exercising your right to dispense sexual favors elsewhere, that is for all intents and purposes asking for my "permission." (Or presuming that my "permission" isn't granted, if you simply withhold your sexual favors without asking me.)

From the other perspective, I, as your hypothetical outside lover, have an equally absolute right to INFORMED CONSENT as to whether to participate in your sexual favors, knowing that to do so is to potentially invite relationship-damaging drama between you and your spouse. My going to him to find out his feelings is pragmatically indistinguishable from asking his permission to fuck you.

Your problem isn't that you are "confused," it's that your definitions are excessively bright-line.

So, having cleared that up, the question is: what is it really that you find repugnant about involving Andy's wife in the decision?

Is it that you are uncomfortable bringing up, however gingerly and diplomatically, the idea that Andy may have been dishonest with you?

Or is it really that you are indignant about the idea that she might have veto power? That her influence as WIFE might trump your role as fuck-buddy?

"Let me get my hat and my knife!"

Come on! Where are all the follow-up Sondheim jokes?

"Let me get my hat and my knife!"

Come on, people! Where are all the follow-up Sondheim jokes?

@22: Amen.

@57 Thank you!

It's not like "A Little Night Music," is from the fucking stone age.

Poly couples run into this unfortunately frequently - a play partner who swears up and down that their spouse is "okay" with it, but maybe they have a DADT relationship. In every case I've personally been involved in, the person is simply cheating. It becomes pretty obvious when they can only see you at really odd times, they don't want you to call them, they can't IM in the evenings, etc., etc.

Cheating and assuming your spouse is okay with it is not an open marriage, nor is it any form of ethical non-monogamy or polyamory. It's just cheating. Ethical non-monogamy means you DISCUSS these things and NEGOTIATE these things.

And I won't be involved with anyone if I can't meet their primary, or if they don't want to meet my husband.

Soooo not missing my poly days.

I just realized that the reason why my bf and I don't have an open relationship (it could best be described as "not closed") is because other people are so tiring.

1) While the wife may be okay with Andy having extra-marital sex, she may be absolutely to opposed to any form of poly relationship. Nothing CIC wrote indicates that Andy said his wife was okay with a poly relationship. A relationship implies a right to time, resources, emotion, and commitment that belong to the wife. A zero sum game with limited resources etc.

2) CIC needs to live in the real world. Why would any sane person get involved with just her without making sure her husband wouldn't go apeshit if he found out and wasn't okay with it? I don't care how good someone is in bed, I want to know what risks I am exposed to by being involved with them.