Why not a threesome? Tag team the shy girl?

Yup. This one's too easy.

Why is it so much more difficult to get any in Denmark than in the States? This perplexes me. I can't think of a place that has a higher percentage of stunning looking, casual about nudity guys than Scandinavia...what's the deal? Is letter writer studying at Danske Bible College??

Yes, fair and good advice, I agree.

That said, I hate reading things like this because they always remind me of how selfish and hurtful and primitive and unevolved human beings are.

I wish I'd been born as a kinder lifeform. A shark or wolverine or something.

Franco-American relations need all the bolstering they can get.
Go diplomacy!
Go hot, hard, sweaty, diplomacy!

Why do people with questions like this one even write you? Validation?

Why is the "I'm attractive" bit relevant to this scenario?

@6: Nailed it.

I know Dan loves the open relationships, and I'm with him in theory. This letter makes me wonder how it would work in practice. If I were involved with someone and they referred to someone else as the crowning achievement of their sexual existence, how could I see that as anything but an indication that our sexual relationship is at least partially a compromise? And doesn't that intrinsically break down the intimacy in the primary relationship? I don't see how it couldn't unbalance things, even if everything from an emotional perspective were perfect. It takes a kind of emotional abstraction that would pervert the entire relationship, which would be fine as long as it's a casual relationship. Compared to maintaining a serious long-term committed relationship without sexual exclusivity, true monogamy - investing all your emotional and sexual energy exclusively in one other person - seems like a cakewalk. To me anyway.

All of which is beside the point in this situation. The friend is a prude AND immature. Do the dude.

@6: Bragging.

@3 I'm guessing it has little to do with Denmark, and a lot more to do with "I'm completely new here and haven't developed a strong social circle". Unlike BF, who is back home and presumably can draw on pre-existing friends as well as his familiarity with the culture and city, she just landed in a foreign land and is starting from zero.

@7: Why do Slog commenters cry about it every time?

3/Canuck: Why is it so much more difficult to get any in Denmark than in the States? This perplexes me.

My thought as well. Since when did a "straight, attractive woman" have trouble getting any (pretty much) anywhere?

Language and cultural barriers, plus being in a completely new place and making new contacts? C'mon, I'm working on it myself here, and I (well sort of) even speak the language :) But it takes time to develop a new circle of friends and contacts.

Anyway, yeah I say jump on it, and draw the shy girl in as well (type on amazing, amazingly there, BTW).

Argh! TypO on amazing, amazingly, there. Last para.

Damn, I hate it when I typo on a typo correction...

Doesn't "not that kind of girl" know that if she's studying in one of those nightmare socialist hells without the supervision of her close male relatives instead of having been married off and bred repeatedly six months after onset of menses, she IS that kind of girl?

Fuck the false fucking modesty out of the bitch!

Hope her names not Amanda...

I recently got back from Denmark, and I can tell you: it's hard for Americans to get laid there because Danes are absolutely gorgeous, that's why, and American women are internationally considered the second-least attractive in the world. First was British women. (Didn't stop me, but I didn't sleep with a Dane.)

Before reading, lemme guess: "Fuck your friend (figuratively), and fuck the guy (literally)." Now on to reading the response...

Yes! I even came close to the specific language! :)))

@3: Language and other cultural barriers, plus not having an in-place friend whose social group she can access?

Never mind, looks like BEG beat me to it.

@3 I've studied in Sweden, and it would be harder to get some because assuming you're not just planning on internet hookups (which I could have easily arranged there - they're still gay guys), it's harder to meet people in a new city and a different culture and a different language. Well, they all pretty much speak English, but just because they speak it doesn't mean it's not more awkward for them (they're all capable of basic conversation, but skill levels do vary quite a bit).

Also, you think Scandinavians are casual about nudity? Do you realize what the temperature is there?!

Of course, I'm sure they're much more casual than Americans (and they show more of it on TV), but I don't actually have a lot to go on, as I did not see any naked guys randomly walking around at any point. And well, having a Swedish mother, I can say that my parents were more casual about nudity than a lot of American families when I was little. But that's all I can say.

@19 we're gonna lose track of who is channeling who ;-)

As an aside, I really hope she hasn't reached the pinnacle of her sexual experience already at 22. That should be another case of it gets better... and better... and better...

All over at 22? Yikes ;-)

Wonderful advice. If she's in the trophy-hunting mode she'd best go for it. Level UP!

@20, etc., but she's a student! When in your life have you been around *more* same age, generally hot to trot young people than college? And she's in Denmark, not Svalbard...no, I didn't mean people walk around naked, more's the pity, I meant they aren't uptight in general, and seem to have fairly relaxed attitudes toward sex and nudity in general. But, it may be that she's not all that comfortable around new people, and that certainly makes sense. I guess I just remember being well in touch with my inner slut back in the day... :)

That's the biggest problem with Dan style LD open relationships- lack of equal opportunity. I went on an exchange to Japan last year, and not a single female exchange student got laid the ENTIRE YEAR. Well, except me, but that's only because I flew to another continent to visit my boyfriend on school break. There were several girls in 'open relationships', but they all got jealous by the end of the year of all the exploits their guys were having at home, and the total lack of booty they got in Japan. They would obsess over facebook updates or broken skype dates, and eventually out of about 15 girls who were previously involved, only two of us stayed with our original partner. Japan (and maybe Denmark, too) is not the land of opportunity for the single girls. We were all sitting around, sex-starved, wondering why we didn't choose to go to Korea/Italy/Spain instead.

Do it like an american. Get fu ckin shitfaced, pull on his clothes all night have him vim on your face then after a few minutes go pike. Then come back and be cool and drunk and nasty fall asleep then in the morning make him vim in your ass. Maybe that's implied though I don't know. The danish girl would probably just lie deadfish missionary. Don't talk about having his babies until after the first week and never mention your family like you don't have one. Frech guy will let you suck his balls anytime

Vim- cum pike- puke. . Fcjk autocorrect

This one is so easy. Why did this one get picked?

I do always like it when 22 year olds talk about the crowning achievement of their sexual experience.

honey, fuck the french guy, and realize that by the time you are my advanced age, you will not even remember it, as there will be far more entertaining and crowning sexual achievements to come.

as to the friend. be nice to her, but girls who live in glass chastity belts do not get to throw stones at your tramp stamp. or something like that.

Speaking completely anecdotally, based on my distant relatives' experiences, Danes settle down early. WAY early. They don't get married 'til late, but they settle down with a significant other in their late teens/early 20s, have kids, and then get married. I'm not surprised the letter writer is having trouble getting laid.

@3, 11, 24 etc. It's also got to do with us Scandinavian being less social in general (Danes are better than Swedes, but not nearly as open as Americans). She's probably trying to chat people up, which would work with French dude but not the locals. Drunked hookups is the favored method of meeting people for this reason. Let's see if I can find the link... Here http://kathaisverige.blogspot.com/2009/0… Poking fun, but also true.

@9 - it looks like she and the back-home BF have a sort of DADT arrangement, whereby he never needs to know that he's only 7th best.

@Caralain
Oh man do I hear you. I did JET for a year, and while I was in a very rocky closed relationship at the time, even if I HAD wanted to, the opportunities would have been zero. Japanese guys feared even making EYE contact with me, let alone other types of contact.

Seems to be a Western-female thing only though; my then-bf, now-ex followed me the next year, and had random Japanese women running up to him and yelling "I la-va you!"

Lastly, LW, be gently on your prudish friend. I throw up my prude shield as a reaction to jealousy and rejection. Doesn't mean YOU can't have some fun, just remember the empathy for the chick who can't let her guard down even in her OWN culture...

Vini, vidi, vici!

@9, her relationship has only existed for a year, and now she's away for a year and they're opening it up. No way the relationship lasts more than six months after she gets back. But that's okay, they're very young and should be getting to know themselves and how they relate to different partners.

Don't extrapolate from this to how a twenty-year marriage can be opened up and not (necessarily) fall apart. I do think you're right that broadcasting the thing-on-the-side as the crowning achievement of one's sexual existence is going to hurt the primary relationship (unless both partners agree that this one thing-on-the-side is just spectacularly hot and fantasy-stoking, and could not be turned down under any circumstance.)

@25 and 33, re Japanese guys not being open to sex with Western women. My experience (from friends who lived there) is that you have to go for married Japanese guys. They love fucking American women.

I'm Dutch and have been to Denmark a few times. While we northern Euro trash tend to be very casual about nudity, sex etc... We actually don't fuck around all that much. Americans fuck around more than anybody else in the west I know. (That includes your 'christians'. Just like Americans smoke more dope, get drunk more etc...) I had had a few girlfriends (both casual and serious) before I moved to the states and then proceeded to have sex with more people in the first three months I was here than in the previous five years. It was fun and I have no regrets, but it was also a little bit empty on a satisfaction level. It's like tiramisu, which I love, but I wouldn't want it more than once every few weeks. It wouldn't be very good when eaten more than that.

Personally I'm all for casual wild sex if that's your thing (same thing with the dope, drinking etc...) but it isn't the thing for me. (Nor is it my wife's thing for me... ;-) ) I don't have the answers as to why, but in most European countries people are less driven to be as excessive as Americans

@34: Veni, vidi, vici.
How does she know this guy is her 'crowning glory' when she hasn't slept with him yet?
Fifty bucks says he's a lousy and inconsiderate lay.

@38, that's all right, she is too.

Caralain@25: Japan is sort of the worst case scenario for a western woman looking to do a little catting around. You've got all the usual double-standards of a highly patriarchal and hierarchical society to deal with (and they really don't come much more patriarchal or hierarchical than Japan), plus the fact that it's a very, very, very different culture than ours, despite whatever superficial similarities seem to have been imposed on it by first occupation and then globalization. It's a lock that probably several or even many of the Japanese men you met were into you, that at least a few of them tried to show it, and that you didn't see their actions as indicating interest.

A good friend of mine lives in Kyoto, and has complained about this to me at length: and she's not only fluent in Japanese but even reads and writes it. I can't imagine how difficult getting laid would be for a western woman who's working on, at best, a few years of college-course verbal Japanese language skills.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is, if you want to get laid, spend your next year abroad in europe or south america.

Better hope BF doesn't read SLOG. Your particulars aren't so generic as to make for comfortable reading back home.

After that comment about "crowning achievement," good luck persuading him that he is anything other than a convenience to you by comparison. If friends get wind of it and figure you out by your details, and he has face to lose with his buds, you can pretty much count on your key not working when you get back.

@41, she'd trade that key for a night with "PHENOMENALLY handsome French hot horny guy," without blinking an eye.

Like, I'm a ditz, and like, I wanna screw this French guy, and, like, he's h-a-w-t, and like, this girl likes him too, and, like I dunno what to do! Dan, like, what should I do?

Dan: "Go get yourself a case of crabs girlie."

Dan -- taler du dansk? :-)

@9, 41:

I've never understood this point of view. Of course any sexual relationship is going to be at least partly a compromise, which is just another way of saying that no one is perfect. There will always be hotter people than your significant other, and pretending this isn't the case doesn't do anyone any favors. And if your emotional intimacy is destroyed by admitting that your partner isn't perfect, and other people have some qualities you like and wish your partner had, then I don't think it was ever very deep in the first place.

Whereas, if you can admit that as much as you like your partner, there are hotter people out there that you want to fuck sometimes, but you still value the connection you have with your partner and want to keep it, you can have the best of both worlds. Not that this is easy to hear, or deal with, since humans are jealous and insecure creatures. But at least to me, it seems way easier than staying completely monogamous and pretending your partner is your perfect Disney soulmate.

@14 - The only people that I met in Denmark that didn't speak English perfectly were those that grew up when learning English wasn't required by the school system. Now all students are required to take SEVEN YEARS of English language. And people think socialism is bad.

Besides, how much English do you need to relate, "I want to fuck you?" I bet even the old guys who run the hot dog stands can get that across.

@42: Yeah, I see it pretty much that way too. They've only been apart, what, a couple of months or so, and she's completely gaga over this guy. I predict a whole lot of New Relationship Energy in Europe, a whole lot of benign neglect aimed homewards, and a boyfriend back home who either loses patience for being made the de-facto secondary, or who is actively engaged in finding his own "crowning achievement as a sexual being, " just like Letter Writer is doing, with similarly predictable results when he too falls hard for the new hotness.

@45: Frankly, yes, as my partner you do have to want me more than anybody else. It's one thing to want other people, even enough to actually fuck them. It's another to value them way, way more than your primary partner. I didn't choose my spouse for being sufficient and expedient when nothing better was available. What I said at my wedding was "I do," not "You'll do."

And yes, I do demand that you maintain the pleasant fiction that I'm the best thing that ever happened to you. If someone else is the best thing that ever happened to you, you should be with them -- and frankly, they can put in the work to deal with your high-maintenance ass. (When comparing an actual relationship to a fling, everybody is high-maintenance.). I had better be my spouse's "crowning achievement" in a hell of a lot more than just being the guy who dependably picks up the credit card bills. (Been there, done that. Wanna see my scars?)

I do not understand how you have not found an eager Dane! I studied abroad in Denmark (LOVED IT) and I was not at my most attractive during that time and yet still got hit on constantly because I was American. I always felt like I was taking crazy pills because god damn those girls and boys are hot there. I am pretty sure every Danish girl was hotter than me and it didn't matter because I was different-- awesome!

Some advice to this girl and others living there: You're almost surely be in Copenhagen. Obviously the city folk are going to be more jaded when it comes to foreigners. Take the metro out a few stops and go to a neighborhood bar, chat with the bartender, and you'll be surrounded by dudes who think you are fascinating. They don't get many Americans in those areas, and they're not at all hillbilly or anything-- they're smart and great at English and they'll be super excited to ask you questions. I lived in Vanløse and it was pretty great like that. The whole bar would switch to English when I was there!

re japan: people don't make a lot of eye contact here, but that doesn't mean dudes aren't into you. it can be hard to get laid even if you are fluent in Japanese though (depending on the region. osaka is much better for getting laid than tokyo) just because courting behavior is more complex.

@45 and @47

Hey guys, I think we've been over this ground before... even in this forum.

BlackRose, you're a free spirit, and (if I am misrepresenting your view, please correct me) believe in true polyamory in which one's partner, though s/he may be called primary, has to accept that s/he is just one valuable intimate partner, of possibly many, and jealousy is just a problem to be worked out.

Avast, you basically favor "monogamy-plus", where the primary is always placed ahead of other possible sexual desires or romantic involvements, and extracurricular sex/love only occurs when both partners are totally OK with it. Each makes the other his/her "greatest achievement", even if that is, as you called it, a polite fiction.

Personally, I tend to lean towards Avast's model myself. I think that we should "round up to perfect" when we make a commitment to someone, and let them feel that they are the one we want to be with, ON THE WHOLE, more than anyone else, no matter how hot those tempting morsels might be. I happen to think that this system leads to more stable relationships, but that's sort of circular logic, since when someone is willing to deny themselves maximal individual fulfillment for the sake of a relationship, of course they'll tend to stay in the relationship. Doesn't mean it's a superior way of doing it, or that this leads to greater happiness overall, just that it's the way to go if you value relationship stability above personal freedom.

I think, more and more as I talk this sort of stuff out with my friends (many of whom are non-monogamous in a variety of arrangements), that the key is not to try to mix the two types of people in one relationship. Sometimes it all gets lumped together as non-monogamy, but people have different ideas about what that means and how it works, and that's when people really get hurt.

@50:

Note the emphasis on "on the whole." I guess I read the LW's "crowning achievement" comment as an exaggerated way of describing how hot she thought the guy was, just in the way he looked, say, not a denial that her BF was still the one she wanted to be with on the whole. That is, he could be a crowning sexual achievement without her wanting to trade her BF for him.

I think I lean toward the model you attribute to me, but I can appreciate the one you attribute to Avast as well. What I can't seem to get is the pretense that your partner is perfect for you in every way and has everything you want in a person. Why couldn't you be in a "monogamy-plus" type relationship, want to be with your partner more than anyone else on the whole, but still crave and think of other people as crowning sexual achievements, because they have something else you drool over? They might be better looking, be a different race, have better abs, be taller, have a more symmetrical face, be younger, be more musically talented, have an accent, or whatever.

Even in the monogamy-plus model, isn't it still a given that no one is perfect? That there are things about your partner you wish you could change? That there are hotter people out there? I guess I don't understand how to do this: would you only sleep with people you found less attractive than your partner, for instance? Would you forget about and not think about those other qualities, the ones you really think are hot but that your partner doesn't have? I guess I can see the advantages of this, and I would probably have more stable relationships that way, but how do the details play out?

@51
BlackRose, you make excellent points, and I am going to have to think about how to answer. I have a strong feeling about this... why it is that I think it's important that I make my partner feel that she is my "crowning sexual achievement" no matter how hot and exciting some specific features of another person might be... why I think that I have to believe that myself (perhaps partly to convince her)... but I can't quite formulate it clearly yet. It has something to do with a sort of "golden rule" approach to life and relationships - how would I want my partner to behave towards me? - but I haven't worked it out well enough to spell it out.

Thanks for bringing it up and making me think about it. I have to run off now to do professional things, but I will ponder and try to clarify later. If any of the other SLOG readers are still reading this thread, think along the same lines I do, and are more extemporaneously eloquent, please give it a shot.

Why is it so much more difficult to get any in Denmark than in the States? This perplexes me. I can't think of a place that has a higher percentage of stunning looking, casual about nudity guys than Scandinavia...what's the deal? Is letter writer studying at Danske Bible College??

Part anti-American sentiment, part due to the fact that American women sound highpitched, infantile and generally annoying.

And this guy would be, to put it bluntly, the crowning achievement of my sexual existence. What should I do?

Be ready to be single again when you pour that pitcher of piss into your boyfriend's cornflakes.

Canuck (always a sensible contributor) @3:

Why is it so much more difficult to get any in Denmark than in the States? This perplexes me.

I'm guessing that it has something to do with the fact that when we're new to someone we tend to judge them buy, amongst other things, how they treat people who are already in their lives. And if this woman is as open with them as she has been with, say, the thousands of Savage's readers in dismissing her bf's qualities by contemptuous comparison to her hoped-for French toy then they might be asking them themselves whether they want to be around her.

Here's a clue, poly types: If you can't be poly without dissing your primary then other people are better off without you.

Can you buy me a plane ticket?

There is nothing like a Dane.

Nothing in the world....

i'll say again: and i can't convince one person to fuck me.

@55:

It's really not a "diss" to say that you find someone else incredibly attractive, even more attractive than your partner, especially when you've agreed to open your relationship. It happens sometimes and it doesn't need to take away from your connection.

@25, 33, 36 re: Japanese guys -- I bet it has to do with the fact that it's still basically a patrilocal culture. A Japanese guy who might otherwise fuck an American chick is, should he fall in love with/marry her, going to have to bring her home to the folks, and he's gonna have to hear (or risk having to hear, at least) about how she's not good enough and his kids are half-breeds* every fucking day until his parents die; whereas a Japanese chick screwing a white guy wouldn't run that risk.

*I do know that this doesn't happen to every Japanese guy who marries a white woman; for example, my uncle's mother has two sons, one of whom married my aunt (who is, like me, whitey whitey white white white), and the other of whom married a Korean woman, and she adores both her daughters-in-law. But that family is, as I understand it, something of an exception to the rule.

@60:
If we take what you say as written, you are correct.
Unfortunately, we're dealing with what the LW has written, which is totally different. Describing somebody other than him as her "crowning achievement" -- to thousands of readers no less, in a venue which may get back to him -- is a diss, pure and simple.

"1. increased/better communication, 2. no asking or telling about what we get on the side"

Wait, how is that supposed to work?

@62:

I really don't see how it's totally different. Of course everyone wants to be their partner's crowning achievement, but let's be realistic. There's always someone cooler than you. If you can't handle the fact that your partner might find someone else their crowning achievement sexually, you probably can't handle a relationship, monogamous or not.

Or you can look at it the other way: say you have an amazing, hot partner. Do you really think you'll never run into anyone else who would be way more of an achievement to fuck, with all the people out there? Someone you could brag (even to yourself) about fucking even more? I know, for myself, no matter who I date, I will always run into a girl who would be even more of a crowning achievement.

And this venue is anonymous, so I don't know how it could get back to him (and keep in mind, he's probably fucking hotter girls while she's away).

"If you can't handle the fact that your partner might find someone else their crowning achievement sexually, you probably can't handle a relationship, monogamous or not."

Dude. Married twenty one years and counting. You're talking out your ass. We don't all work the same way you do. For some of us, what you are painting as a character weakness is what makes our marriages work well. "Different" is not synonymous with "broken."

By my lights (though not by yours, obviously), if you are describing other people in ridiculously glowing superlatives, and you aren't using the same sort of appreciative language about your partner, it is painfully (and publicly) apparent that you don't actually hold your partner in all that high a regard, compared to the rest of the world. That you are with your partner not by choice, but by default, just so long as nothing better is available at the moment. In short, that you are taking the relationship for granted. Now _that_ is what I would call no basis for a long-term relationship.

As to whether "crowning achievement," said about someone else in front of thousands of people, constitutes a diss to the boyfriend or not, I'd say that is the boyfriend's call. Maybe he's someone like you, for whom that would be a non-issue, in which case more power to him. But if he chose to interpret it as per my previous paragraph, I can't say I would hold it against him.

@65:

I'm really not trying to insult you. I'm really trying to understand. So you object to saying and writing a glowing description of someone else, not to thinking it? Or it bothers you to just think it?

So how do you deal with seeing someone hotter than your wife? Someone way sexier than anyone you've ever had sex with? Don't you ever, just for a moment, think or fantasize that having sex with someone else would be a moment of glory? Not that you would do it, if you're in a monogamous relationship, and not that you'd leave your partner for someone else... but how do you handle it?

@66: But would you then turn to your wife and say, "Wow, honey, she sure is way hotter than you ever were, and that's before gravity got ahold of your ass." No? Ask yourself why. It's not the thought that is insulting, it's the broadcasting.

@67: Yes, I understand that... but the LW didn't tell her boyfriend, she wrote anonymously to a sex column for the purpose of asking a different question.

@3 I was an exchange student in Denmark in high school, and the girls there were constantly complaining about how shy Danish boys are. Those girls had to make it happen, if there was to be any happening at all.

66: Whatever I might think to myself -- and yes, despite any idle pornographic daydreams, I would not in fact consider this person someone as a better sexual partner for me than my wife, let alone a "crowning achievement" that leaves her in the dust -- I certainly would not say it out loud in any fashion where it might reach my wife's ears. From my perspective, it's disrespectful on the part of the speaker, and humiliating on the part of the target, to be told in front of others, "Gosh, she's WAY hotter than you."

If you are going to be publicly describing other people with such enthusiasm, you should be at pains to publicly describe your partner equally enthusiastically, lest the public get the idea that the person you supposedly care about more than anybody in the world doesn't actually thrill you all that much. And the category of sex partner is particularly sensitive in this regard. Most people have a lot of emotion and self-worth bound up in being the person that thrills their spouse. You mentioned being realistic about it. Being realistic includes taking that fact -- that is to say, your partner's feelings -- into account.

Of course not everyone is Angelina Jolie. It's still rude to rub your partner's nose in it.

68: Yes, but that was my original conjecture: whether the details in the letter were sufficient that Boyfriend might identify the situation as his own. IF (emphasis on IF) that happens, then she has broadcast something very rude, even if unintentionally, and may find herself with some serious explaining to do.

FWIW, the fact that they seem to have DADT in place may help to disguise it.

70: I agree and understand about taking your partner's feelings into consideration and not disrespecting and humiliating him/her, especially in front of others.

I do think it can be exciting and liberating for some couples to free themselves to talk about their fantasies about other people, if done in a sensitive way. I realize this isn't for everyone.

Given the context here, I don't think anything the LW said or did was disrespectful. The context is that they both agreed to be open for a specific time, the letter was written without many identifying details, and it was written for the purpose of seeking advice on another issue. It would seem silly to me to go out of your way to talk about how great your boyfriend is when it's not really relevant to the letter. (Or maybe she did and it got cut.) Even if by some chance he sees the letter and recognized her in the details, well, it's not like she rubbed his nose in it.

What I'd really like to know, though, is: how can no one be hotter to you or a more crowning achievement to you than your wife? Not saying they'd be a better sex partner for the long term, but still, I'm honestly baffled as to how that works. No matter what their age, height, weight, fame, literary skills, body modifications, skill in bed, face shape, creative talents, career, hair, fetishes, or past experiences?

I can't imagine being in that situation and I'm curious what that feels like and how you got there. Is it something you force yourself into for the sake of your relationship lasting? (And it just occurred to me that she might be reading this and you might be being careful what you say and taking your own advice...)

71: I think the phrase "crowning achievement" means something fundamentally different to me than it does to you.

I'm with avast2006 on this one, and I think, Black Rose (and I say so politely and without rancour) that you are missing the point. You are talking about what the person feels and, yes, others may meet or exceed the, um, skills shown by others in our life, past or present. But avast2006 is talking about what one communicates: tact, decency, respect, call it what you will.

Of course, a great deal turns on how likely the bf is to find out about her wording. Fine. If he hates Savage and the gf knows he never reads him, then no harm no foul, probably. But given that they're both poly and given that she gave out enough information to at least minimally identify her to him if he does read Savage, then she probably adjust to being single, if he isn't a doormat.

This couple does not have, I repeat does not have an open relationship. What they have agreed upon is a non-monogamous relationship during a specific time frame and under a specific set of circumstances. What is unclear is whether her statement "Also, this would probably not be a one time deal; my boyfriend and I have not excluded regular hook-ups or casual dating." applies just while she is studying abroad or is a general statement that will apply once she returns home. Saying that they have not excluded something is not the same as saying they have agreed to allow something. The first part of the letter would seem to indicate that this is something to be discussed once she returns not something that was actively engaged in before she left. Otherwise she should have stated that they already had an open relationship.

Frankly, I think their relationship is doomed given the glowing terms she uses to describe the French guy. Given the general attitude of french and western european men towards sexual fidelity (or lack thereof to be more precise), I hope she doesn't believe that the French guy thinks that she is special or unique, when he is probably just trying to get laid. If it happens, it happens, if it doesn't, it doesn't. Ce la vie. She may be better off in the long run, if her experience with the french guy turns out to be less thrilling, so she doesn't return home with unrealistic expectations with respect to regular hook-ups/casual dating. Or that there would be any long term future in a relationship with the French guy (they take the concept of FWB to the far extreme of the relationship spectrum).
Attractive does not equal hot, stunning, or phenomenally handsome (pretty is not beautiful). I would wonder what the attraction for the French guy is beyond casual sex (getting as much as he can, as often as he can, for as many as he can).

As with all things in the life and relationships, it is more likely than not that they come away with different attitudes/expectations during this period of not being monagomous since their experiences and reactions are unlikely to be the same, if only because the experiences will not have been shared.

Her language seems to indicate more than casual interest in a particular (exotic) person and we have no indication of the extent of the BFs interest in any person.

This couple does not have, I repeat does not have an open relationship. What they have agreed upon is a non-monogamous relationship during a specific time frame and under a specific set of circumstances. What is unclear is whether her statement "Also, this would probably not be a one time deal; my boyfriend and I have not excluded regular hook-ups or casual dating." applies just while she is studying abroad or is a general statement that will apply once she returns home. Saying that they have not excluded something is not the same as saying they have agreed to allow something. The first part of the letter would seem to indicate that this is something to be discussed once she returns not something that was actively engaged in before she left. Otherwise she should have stated that they already had an open relationship.

Frankly, I think their relationship is doomed given the glowing terms she uses to describe the French guy. Given the general attitude of french and western european men towards sexual fidelity (or lack thereof to be more precise), I hope she doesn't believe that the French guy thinks that she is special or unique, when he is probably just trying to get laid. If it happens, it happens, if it doesn't, it doesn't. Ce la vie. She may be better off in the long run, if her experience with the french guy turns out to be less thrilling, so she doesn't return home with unrealistic expectations with respect to regular hook-ups/casual dating. Or that there would be any long term future in a relationship with the French guy (they take the concept of FWB to the far extreme of the relationship spectrum).
Attractive does not equal hot, stunning, or phenomenally handsome (pretty is not beautiful). I would wonder what the attraction for the French guy is beyond casual sex (getting as much as he can, as often as he can, for as many as he can).

As with all things in the life and relationships, it is more likely than not that they come away with different attitudes/expectations during this period of not being monagomous since their experiences and reactions are unlikely to be the same, if only because the experiences will not have been shared.

Her language seems to indicate more than casual interest in a particular (exotic) person and we have no indication of the extent of the BFs interest in any person.

On a personal note, the fiancee of one of my brother's best friends went to England to study for a semester, they were supposed to get married when she returned. She met an englishman, dumped her fiance, married the englishman, and brought him home to the States. She didn't bother to tell her fiance anything and he didn't receive the bad news until he went to meet her at the airport (she had always seemed to be a such nice person, but then appearances can horribly de3ceiving). KARMA can be a real, nasty bitch. He was devasted and became an alcoholic air traffic controller. Her marriage didn't last six months after she returned to the States and reality set in. She was a college graduate married to a working class loser (soccer holligan). She wound up ostracized (by family and friends) and died alone of breast cancer a decade later. Not that any of this is necessarily relevant, but it is a cautionary tale of misadventures far from home.

One of the things that I really like about Dan's letter choices and replies is his ability to read between the lines, make an assumption, and run with it. Can a 500 word letter accurately characterize a sexual/romantic situation? Hell no. Does that make responses to 500 word letters futile or flawed? Well shit - we're here, so i guess not. Ever sent an email after a drink or 2 and kicked yourself the next day for an ambiguous sentence, unfortunate implication, or even a weird mispelling? I'm guessing this girl wishes she'd have been a little more delicate with her wording, now that she's international news.

All of which means that beating the hell out of comments in letters like "I'm hot" or "Doing this would be X" where X isn't very precise, seems totally besides the point, and more than a little useless. Sure, a comment of "I'm hot" could well imply "I'm self-centered", both of which may imply "I'm good at getting laid at bars because I know I'm the shit, and I'm capable of convincing others of this." So? What's the point? The letter still stands. Does omission of "I'm hot" imply "I'm not hot", or "I'm not self-centered"? In either case, getting nailed in a foreign country might be a little harder, which __could__ warrant a different reply...

Finally, I'm so, so very tired of hearing "this relationship is doomed based on X". As Dan points out, most relationships are doomed. In the middle of a very satisfying poly relationship, a relative told me, "that kind of thing never works out", and I still bristle at the self-righteousness of the comment. The relationship ended after a whole lot of fun, feelings were hurt for a time, lessons were learned, and everyone moved on and grew from it. Just like all the other satisfying, non-poly relationships that i've had.

@50 - FWIW, I translate the "free spirit vs. monogamy plus" as "prefers flux vs. stability".

@74, re: likelihood of maintaining anonymity, see comment #17.

@78: I read that as a reference to the Amanda Knox case.

@73:

Thanks a lot for your post! As is usual with your posts, it cleared a lot of things up for me. So, if I understand correctly, your (and Avast's and others') position is: If you want your main relationship to last, make sure to put your partner first, and the best way to do this is to *think* of your partner as your crowning achievement because of all the good things about him/her. Even if another partner is hotter in some superficial sense, reframe the issue for yourself and remind yourself that what you really care about is the long-term relationship. Avast does this in post 70 by thinking of hotter partners as "idle pornographic daydreams," thus making them seem trivial in comparison with the main relationship.

So it seems like a lot of the objection to the original letter, other than her possibly being insensitive if her boyfriend reads this, is that the author isn't thinking this way. My main problem with this is that, for all we know, the boyfriend is also going after his own "crowning achievements," and they're both thinking like this just for the short time they're apart, knowing that none of the "crowning achievements" will last. Maybe he feels the same way about some girl he hooked up with.

Also, while I'd like an open long-term relationship where we both put each other first, and took care to make each other feel wanted, I would also want it to be based on the understanding that the relationship would be open and we would be fucking other people. Given that, while I'd want my partner to value and care about me, I'd feel a little insulted if they lied, or toned down, how excited they were about a new partner, or pretended that I was the hottest person in the entire world always. (I'm just in the top 100.) New partners are supposed to be exciting and hot, for both people, and one of the best things about an open relationship is that you can have your cake and eat it too, and join in each other's excitement about new "crowning achievements." Also, like Avast says in #72, there are different ways of interpreting that phrase: to me it was just an exaggerated way of saying "super hot guy I could have a fun fling with."

Or to put it another way, I wouldn't want my partner to never again have someone hotter than me, I wouldn't want to never again have someone hotter than my partner, and I'd want us to stay together and share that excitement with each other. #77 talks about flux vs. stability: ideally you'd have both: stability in staying together, flux in the excitement of new partners coming and going.

79: Interesting. The news cycle for that passed me by completely.

80: That's more or less right. By way of analogy, amusement parks are objectively more fun than my house, but I wouldn't want to live at one. Nor is there anything particularly honorable or noteworthy about going to one a couple of times a year -- compared to, say, providing a home for my family.

By way not of analogy but example: If I'm thinking (hypothetically, here; I'm not actually in an open marriage) about some fun NSA sex with a hottie, compared to twenty years of undiminished love with the woman I married, it shouldn't be too hard to guess which of those I am more proud of, and thus which one is worthy of the title of "crowning achievement.".

How can they _not_ be trivial in comparison to that? They are supposed to be trivial. Surely they aren't more important than the primary relationship? If my wife were to be more proud of her one-night-stand with a George Clooney lookalike than she was of our marriage (and yes, me as her lover), the sheer difference in scale between those would make me think she was taking the last twenty years obscenely for granted, and that in her estimation I ranked somewhere near "mediocre." Who would want to make a life with someone with those as the ground rules?

Actually, I don't know if the letter writer is thinking that way or not. She may well be using "crowning achivement" the way that you suggest. I'm just saying that her boyfriend might interpret her words in that light.

Probably a dead thread, but BlackRose at 80 doesn't understand me correctly: I made no commentary on others being objectively better or more fun (I like the amusement park metaphor from avast @81) ... I just said that even if she does feel that way she should STFU about it in any public forum especially on the damned internet. Secrets simply aren't as easy to keep as she thinks they are. She might, for example, mention the Savage Love letter to a friend, who mentions it to the bf. In my case, for example, I've run into people that I didn't even know who knew who I was and about my ex-wife and when I was divorced simply because of chat amongst friends. The LW might be changing the background (she might be in, say, Sweden and not Denmark and fixated on a Spanish guy so she has deniability) but the letter doesn't read that way.

@31 Wow, that explains why Scandinavian women were so easy. When I was over there, I was so happy to meet someone who spoke fluent English that I'd talk to them for as long as possible. I thought that they considered me charming, but it looks like I was able to get laid through the ability to show open interest. Either way, it was fun.

As far as the whole "He'd be the crowning achievement of my sexual life" thing is concerned, I defy anyone on this page who's involved in a current relationship to tell me that there isn't a celebrity (athlete, actor, musician or other) who they'd just loooooove to wake up beside on a warm summer day. I have a deal with my current FWB: If Gabrielle Union ever crosses my path, she steps aside and let's me take my chances and if Edward Norton crosses her path, I grab his attention and whisper a couple of the things that she likes into his ear before stepping aside. If that makes either one of us a bad person, then I'll have to be bad.

P.S.-Getting laid in Europe is easy. Two simple rules: be on your best behaviour when visiting business/tourism-focused cities, be from another country when visiting non-business/tourism-focused cities. Hell, in the more rural areas you'll find people who'll happily fuck you for the story (one of the biggest reasons why most of the on-base black women refused to travel past the gates.) In my experience, there's nothing that the average non-metropolitan European seems to find more attractive than fresh blood. An unwary American in the countryside is very likely to wake up with a hangover, sticky genitalia and a pair of warm things pressing against his back/a solid arm resting across her chest if they don't monitor their alcohol consumption.

As far as Japanese guys are concerned, follow these simple rules: glance then turn away, close some distance, glance then turn away, repeat until he's within arm's length.

@82:

I hope this thread isn't dead. I'm enjoying it a lot. My post about others being more fun was more a response to Avast and Neuromancer... as far as the part about her boyfriend reading the letter, a lot depends on how they left it. Granted she maybe could have been a little more diplomatic, but I'd hope they had an understanding that they could go ahead and chase after really hot people, "amusement park" people (I like that analogy too) knowing they'd come back for each other. I mean, come on, don't you think he's going after some exciting rides himself, knowing he'll still be with her long-term when she gets back?

BlackRose, I think in partly conceding my point ("she maybe couldd have been a little more diplomatic") you've moved to where there's next to no light between us. However, where we still differ is in what I feel to be a key detail: silence. Your post infers that she should/could say the same thing, but with more tact. My position is that the ONLY diplomatic or tactful thing is utter silence. Anything else is potentially hurtful to both the feelings of the primary and potentially to the relationship itself.

Count me in, though, with those here who think they're on borrowed time anyways.

@85:

Well, what if they had agreed to each other: "Hey, let's bang other really hot people while we're apart and try to go after some of those hotties who we've been drooling over, ones who are way out of our league"? Given that sort of agreement, but still with the understanding that they wouldn't discuss the details of what they did with each other, would you still object?

Or would you be ok with it if she changed some of the details, and didn't tell anyone about the letter appearing here? A lot of people read Savage, but how many read through every Letter of the Day on the website?

BlackRose, we can assume hypotheticals all day. I think that we're stuck with the letter "as is" and an "all other things being equal" starting point: unless the letter said that such things were okay and agreed between them (and it doesn't) then saying such things makes you a dick towards the feelings of your partner. We know that if people have anything to write which makes their position look more reasonable then they trot it forward, and she didn't.

I don't see why you're so terribly, terribly troubled by using, as a basic starting point between two people who purport to care for each other, a rule that says "don't rub their noses in the fact that they may be second best at something". I've had girlfriends smarter than me, and girlfriends where I was the smarter party, for example. In none of those cases did I or the gf extol our intellectual superiority.

What's so hard about "don't piss on your partner's feelings". Really?

@87:

I think we can all agree with "don't piss on your partner's feelings" and "don't rub their noses in the fact that they may be second best." I'm not troubled by those guidelines at all, but I don't see how they apply here.

Thing is, this discussion we're having is completely tangential to the letter. The letter is not about her boyfriend at all. It's about her female friend in Denmark. So it's not as if she's stating a position about their relationship. What she does say is "we wanted to be able to have some fun and intimacy despite the distance." Which sounds to me like they did discuss it, and banging hotties was ok and agreed upon between them. I don't know why you think they will break up soon: she says things are good between them.

You use terms like "piss on his feelings" and "rub his nose in it," terms which usually suggest an extremely hostile act. These terms don't seem to fit the act of her writing the letter. What she writes in an anonymous letter, with a very slim chance of being published, about a completely different subject, in which she mentions that things are great between the two of them, is not rubbing anything in her boyfriend's face. It's not to him. It's not about him. It has nothing to do with him. She could even deny that she wrote that letter, if he saw it. There was no hostile intent, nothing that makes him look bad, no reason to think he would ever see the letter or know about it. It seems unreasonable for him to freak out about such a minor thing as her writing this letter. Would it upset you if you were in the BF's position and you read this? Why?

The more interesting question, though, and the one Neuromancer and Avast were addressing, was whether she should make the effort to think of this guy even to herself as "a fun fling, but not as great as my long term BF" instead of "crowning achievement." I can see the case for doing so, and it's something worth discussing in any relationship. Even in a monogamous relationship, there's the question of how to deal with having a crush on someone else. How do you think about it? It might help to, as Avast suggests, concentrate on the time you've been together and the relationship you've built up. Still, that just seems wrong to me; I wouldn't want someone I was dating to feel the need to do it.

BlackRose @88: Maybe not casual dating, no, but serious dating yes, and a spouse, absolutely.

Again, there's that thing about word meanings. "Crowning" implies (to me) a place at the top -- no, not "a" place the top, "the" place at the top; usually there's room for only one crown. Why would I want to commit myself and my resources to someone who thought of me as second-best? From the other perspective, why would I want to commit myself and my resources to this particular second-rate person when someone better was out there waiting for me?

If I was only as highly regarded as the rest of her friends, and in lower regard on some categories, I wouldn't have married her. I would have remained her friend, just like all her other friends.

My question to you is, why would you even want some random hottie to be more important and more valuable to you than your spouse is?

"My question to you is, why would you even want some random hottie to be more important and more valuable to you than your spouse is?"

I'm amused to see this thread alive, considering the seemingly complete lack of overlap in relationship ideologies.

*Personally*, the idea of a relationship that revolves around "ultimates" sounds pretty claustrophobic. Obviously, it works for other folks, and I'm glad that it does. *Personally*, I go out to lunch with friends, I make new friends; no big deal. I tell a friend they just made the best pizza / have the best haircut ever; no big deal. *Personally*, i have a hard time putting sex and romance in a "just for us" category - to me it seems like, "I make great pizza but only you can eat it. You can tell everyone how great it is, but I don't want you eating other people's pizza, or telling me how you'd like to". It seems to *me* that relationships are more about trust and respect than pizza, metaphorical or otherwise.

That's just me, of course. I like anchovies. Go figure.

That's just me, of course. I like anchovies.

x14n is the worst monster in history.

That fishy thing said, the whole second-best thing is far more important than BlackRose will concede. [Hell, Shakespeare left his wife his "second best bed" and people still think that's a horrible thing four hundred bloody years later! (Hell, "the second best bed" produces 151,000 hits.)] It's not the nothing that you think it is, BlackRose, and that's where there's a gulf between you and me, or avast.

At a more practical and empirical level I can tell you from professional experience that people who place their spouses first tend to have relationships that survive, or they at least work at them very hard. People who place their spouses second tend to have very little compunction about placing them third, then fourth, then fifth, and so on.

BlackRose: Nobody's arguing about the problem she actually wrote in about because it's a no-brainer and nobody disagrees with Dan's take on it.

"x14n is the worst monster in history."

Is hyperbole a professional skill?

Sorry, I didn't actually intend that as an innuendo (though it is a bit rough in the re-reading). I was actually thinking about pizza, as in most people make faces when anchovies are brought up, and I really do love them on pizza. As in, some things that most people dislike can still be very appetizing to some.

I agree with the idea of putting one's partner first in terms of effort and emotional commitment. I'm just not sure how sex and romance ends up in a taboo category. It seems to me that *if* both people are happy with each other, then what they do with other people matters a whole lot less, and can be an enriching experience.

I'll let it rest now.

@89-92:

Ok, I think I see what this is about. It's about how you see sex. If you see sex as just something you like to do, like any other enjoyable activity or pursuit, then "sex with hottie X is the crowning achievement of my sexual existence" is about as threatening as "watching movie X is the crowning achievement of my movie-watching existence" or "eating that meal at restaurant X is the crowning achievement of my dining existence." Or, if you want to bring in another person, "playing one-on-one basketball with person X was the crowning achievement of my basketball-playing existence."

In other words, it's the sex that was the crowning achievement, not the person. The person isn't really that important.

But, if you see sex as fundamentally about the person you're fucking -- that is, in terms of a relationship with someone, not in terms of something you do -- then it becomes more threatening to say that the sex was the crowning achievement of your sexual existence. Then it's like you're putting your significant other second.

I was so confused because I defaulted to the first view. I was thinking, "well, the sex might have been her crowning achievement in terms of sex, but obviously her boyfriend still comes first." But I guess for a lot of people, sex doesn't work that way.

Does that seem right?

"I was thinking, "well, the sex might have been her crowning achievement in terms of sex, but obviously her boyfriend still comes first." But I guess for a lot of people, sex doesn't work that way."

Makes sense to me. The pattern I see often is that the chain of looking at -> talking about -> flirting with -> getting involved -> sleeping with is so often associated in people's minds that the first 2 or 3 in line get lumped in with the last 2 or 3, so that people avoid any of them, or get upset about any of them. "I see you staring at her ass!"

I will say that sex is a pretty high level of involvement. It's a lot easier to walk away from flirting or basketball without feelings getting hurt, infections getting passed, etc.

From the perspective of the letter, it seems almost certain that they'd break up if they didn't open the relationship, whereas now they can see where things go.

The more I think of it, the more I wonder how this "ultimate" thing is a generational gap - the texting/skype-sex/irony generation versus the letter-writing/mix-tape/sentimental generation. I'm still not sure where I fall on that spectrum...

93: Yes, that's it.

The thing is, a lot of people invest a lot of their self-worth in their sexual relationships. It's the same with any activity that one partner invests a lot of self-worth in. Compared to a committed sexual relationship, movie watching is in the minor leagues -- as are most other activities, but let's try an example where someone might have a lot of personal investment.

Imagine a partner who took great pride in being a terrific cook, and who got a lot of fulfillment out of cooking you wonderful things day after day. Now imagine that out of the blue you started extolling the meals that you had started taking at the restaurant around the corner as "the crowning achievement of your dining existence." Imagine also that at the same time the best praise you manage to routinely conjure up for your committed chef is "Thanks, that was (burp) really good." Do you suppose your lover the cook might start feeling taken for granted? Or that maybe you didn't really like his cooking all that much, other than it being a reliable and convenient way to get fed? At which point, why is he putting so much effort into cooking for you, when you are in fact way happier eating elsewhere?

94: I'm willing to entertain that idea about words changing generationally. I'm not sure what I think about it, though. If "ultimate" can be made to mean "yeah, that was a lot of fun, even though you are still my number one, at least once I get home" it seems like "'til death do us part" can equally be made to mean "'til annoyance or boredom prompts me to dump you,", and "love honor and cherish" can be made to mean "in the meantime, you're pretty damned convenient."