I'm getting the feeling that some folks feel like being monogamish is like getting Advanced Placement status in Relationship College. It's not a requirement and I don't think Dan Savage is keeping a list of those who have attained this higher plane of being. If you want to try it, go there, but if you have to put in so many brakes to prevent your heart from seizing up in betrayal (or to make sure you still feel like you're in control of your partner), it's not for you at this moment.

Yes yes. I comment too much, next week I'll back off, promise. @1. Like they were off camping together! And he just disappears, and takes 45 minutes to finish a fuck. A fuck she walks in on, and says she is not happy about. How humiliating all round for the poor woman.
You are way generous Dan. I'd give this guy the flick, now.
Or just let the whole idea of being monogamish, with this man, go. If he can't see how fucked his behaviour that whole Fun Camping weekend was, I wouldn't trust him to suddenly know in the future.

I can see why LW thought Dan might not take her side, based on his response to the July 21 letter. I think his answers are inconsistent. In both cases the LW's are testing the waters of non-monogamy. In both cases the rules were broken. Dan agrees with LW2, but not LW1 because he thinks her rules were arbitrary and unworkable, and she wasn't "emotionally ready for an open relationship."

But if her partner was emotionally ready, he would have tried to renegotiate the rule when he found it wasn't feasible instead of continuing to break it. Their unworkable stipulation is an agreement between two people, and both are culpable of unreadiness. I don't think this means they shouldn't have an open relationship, it just means they're new at. Old pro's at non-monogamy often forget how uncomfortably insecure it feels in the beginning, and how hard it is to balance the feelings of the new partner when the heat is on with those of your primary. I think the problems of both LW's are similar enough to get the same response- If the rule doesn't work, change it together. Until then, it's still a rule.

You are far more tolerant than I am. I would tell the LW to not give this guy a second chance. Not because he ignored the rules but because he's trying to guilt trip her into feeling like SHE is wrong for asking he stick by the rules. What bothers me is this My partner thinks I'm the one who handled it poorly and cannot be monogamish due to jealously. That's more than ignoring the rules or even being a dick by "finishing up" when she had clearly said no. That's attacking her by stating that her reasons for being angry are a defect in character. She's asking for different actions to make this work. He's calling her a jealous witch for holding him to the rules. To me that's manipulative and a warning sign that monogamy aside, this could easily become a bad controlling relationship. Find someone who is willing to abide by the established rules and who, if they break them, doesn't say that you have no right to be upset about it. Find someone who wants to be monogamish AND will take responsibility for his actions if he screws up.

DTMFA, LW. There is no hope for this dude. Less because of him making you an unwanted third for a whole day, or to sneaking out to have sex with her, or to pretend he misunderstood your thumb down signal, although any of those assholery acts should be enough to seriously question whether this is someone you want to be with. Kick him out for making you feel your concerns are not legitimate, and your feelings don't need to be respected because he doesn't agree with them. So let's recap: he mean-girled you on Saturday, pretended to listen to your concerns on Sunday; sneaked out and fucked other girl Monday, got caught, asked if you were ok with it; ignored your thumbs down and let you sit waiting for him for 45 MINUTES (!!!) getting more and more upset. Then tried to make you feel you were irrational to be angry. That, LW, is ABUSE!

YOU deserve better. RUN, change the locks, get a new phone number, tell the people at your job he is persona non grata. RUN NOW, it will only get worse. Go before thus sack of shit destroy your self esteem and give you VD. He doesn't love you, there is no love without respect. Dump the manipulative creep.

While LW could well fit Ms(?) Kuda's description, my first thought is that he ought to be rather alarmed that his partner is more concerned about making an anonymous woman feel less awkward and empathizing with her unhappiness. [aside to Ms Erica - this may be the letter with the most unexpected July depth to it; don't you think?]

He says he was trying to make her feel less awkward and empathized with her feelings of unhappiness.

I want to high five that man.

Totally agree with @5, couldn't have said it better. Boyfriend's total disregard for LW's feelings and boundaries do NOT bode well for this relationship. DTMFA.

DTMFA.

I don't know why (because there is no logic to it), but sometimes I feel that gay men are just better at open relationships. I don't have a lot of anecdotal evidence, and at least 25% of it could be considered object lessons on what not to do, but I guess I'm just feeling superior today. I mean, really, I live in Austin, where a drunken gay guy just beat his drunken gay boyfriend to death over suspected cheating jealousy (even going so far as to try and kill the boyfriend's dog as well), so I really shouldn't be gloating about it at all. (But really, 18 and 20 years old and drunk in a state where the drinking age is 21? Something is not right in the gay "community" here.)

That said, I am in full agreement that somebody is not ready for an open relationship, because the expectation is for some kind of "hall pass," and that's a completely different protocol as consensual non-monogamy goes.

Let's rewrite the letter from his POV, while granting that everything the LW has written is true. But let's make it a shorter letter than hers.

"My partner and I consider ourselves to be open. We hadn't had sex with anyone else until recently. My partner handled it poorly and apparently cannot be monogamish due to her jealousy.

We went to a fun camping event this past weekend and I met someone. When my GF felt like I was ignoring her, I blew off my new friend and we spent time together on Sunday.

My GF gave me permission to make out with the woman I had met. On Monday morning, I was making out with her and my GF walked up as things were starting to heat up. I thought everything was cool - we'd agreed I could. I gave her the "thumbs up, thumbs side, thumbs down signal," and she thumbed down. I stopped the sex and she told him we needed to talk. We agreed we should meet back at camp and I went to talk to her as soon as I'd wrapped things up with the new friend.

This feels like a 100% betrayal to her. While I'm wondering what part of "open" didn't she understand? If she had some line in the sand - no naked play, no PIV, or no orgasm, whatever - she could have just told me in advance. Or even in the moment. What's so hard about that? "Take your hand off her breast" or "Don't fuck her." But apparently her hand sign meant I should run screaming from my encounter like the new lady had the plague. Isn't it obvious that you should roll our your hard-and-fast limits in advance? Unless really what she wants is to micro-manage me during a fling?

Now she presents it as cheating, when we'd agreed TO BE OPEN in advance. I know what you're going to say, Dan: DTMFA - she's not ready to be in an open relationship.

But I really like her, I thought we were getting along great as a couple and was thrilled that we were like-minded about having an open relationship. Is there any hope for her to learn how to lay out her rules in advance instead of springing them on me during a hook-up? Or she just a "controlling bitch" like you've identified other letter writers and, really, being in an "open relationship" was only appealing to her because she'd get to jerk me around like this?"

@3 Not all rules are created equal. I've known of polyamorous (not monogamish, supposedly into multiple loving relationships) people who've had a 'no kissing' rule; and I've known people whose only rule was 'not in my bed unless I'm involved'. Are those strictures the same, because they are both describable as 'rules'? I think Dan's advice is nuanced, and the situations -- and nonmonogamy in general -- deserve nuance.

DAVIDinKENAI @12, that is a nice way to turn it around. Particularly the part where it says "I'd wrapped things up with the new friend" instead of saying "I fucked her then went to talk to my girlfriend". Although I think the whole thing is really weird. I probably have limited life experience, but why would a third want to be with someone who is taking moments away to consult with his girlfriend?
This and other recent letters are the main reasons I won't take the plunge into non-monogamy. It just sounds like a whole world of hard work. That and I'd always rather go on a date with my husband than anyone else.

This guy is a douche. He had no concern for his primary and was only interested in his own pleasure. This situation could have been a great moment to work out further openness, and instead he just dropped a bomb on the whole thing. He isn't trustworthy, and the LW should renegotiate the rules. Mainly by stating he can go fuck anyone he wants because she's not going to be with him anymore. As we have all heard time and time again, communication is the key to monogamish relationship. When one party postpones communication to finish fucking the person he stated he would only make out with, he showed that his primary wasn't his main concern. Deal breaker to me.

The main thing these letters have in common is their focus on the boyfriend doing specific things with someone else. I think that's quite a good clue - if you don't trust that your partner won't establish a threatening intimacy with someone else - through kissing, fucking, or whatever - perhaps your relationship is not yet strong enough to open up.

In this case, the boyfriend has shown such incredible and repeated selfishness, to the point of putting all the blame on the LW, that he is clearly horrible relationship material anyway. He seems more suited to a friends with benefits situation than a trusting relationship, although hopefully only with a friend as shallow as he is.

David @12. Interesting to read your take on the man's version.
Still. Insensitive or what? He doesn't show much feeling for who this woman is.

Aah, this makes my head hurt.

@12, let's see, he basically abandoned her for a day, had empathy for the new woman but not for her and actually continued the fucking when his gf was clearly upset? And then he blamed all that on her jealousy? That's some crazy insensitivity.

All that said, this must be the worst way to open up a relationship. Watching your partner with someone else is not the same as letting them have a date with someone away from you.

My rules for open relationships (the only kind I wish to have):

Always use condoms.
Sleep at home.

If your rules are in any way more elaborate than this, I'd say you're not ready for an open relationship. Or maybe it's just not for you. Both are totally ok, but you should know yourself well enough not to even think about trying it. It's called an "open" relationship. Trying to limit what your partner does with thirds means it's not really open.

That said, concerning this particular situation: she shouldn't have gone looking for him that morning, as she already knew by then what she would find. She should just have packed up her stuff and left. Even without the "finishing up" bit, he'd already treated her badly enough on the first day for her to decide to dump him right then and there. Coz if you make your partner feel like shit, like a hindrance, you're not ready for an open relationship either.

This seemed like an obvious DTMFA. Really surprised you have him so much leeway. This was no miscommunication. He chose to ignore her direct wishes and then expected it to blow over.

If I were Dan, I'd be embarrassed that this dude was a long- time reader. Clearly he didn't imbibe the main message of monogamishhood.

@ Jude, I actually can't wait for the dude to show up here or in a follow up letter.

@ Ricardo, well, my partner finds that "sleep at home" is already too strong of a limit, so there you go. But yeah, here it's less about activities anyway than priorities and time management. The basic fear is always that the new person will be prioritized - and lo and behold - he immediately prioritizes the new person. After she told him she was bothered, he should have just stayed with her the rest of the weekend instead of treating it like the-most-important-thing-ever. Sadly I had somewhat similar experiences and can say it feels crushing.

Not to mention that even if she was just his friend, this would have still been pretty shitty behavior.

dtmfa. HARD.

Dan would give him a second chance but not a third. This is why you get to have nice relationships. Everything in moderation, even forgiveness. I love you. I hope he wakes up to appreciating you, lw. Keep talking realistically with each other about your feelings.

@ 21 - "Sadly I had somewhat similar experiences and can say it feels crushing"

So have I. Hence the sleep at home rule. To me, that's the least amount of consideration I feel I can ask for, and if my partner isn't able to grant me that, then what can I expect from him?

I must say that "crushing" is somewhat too strong a word for me, though (admittedly, it takes an awful lot to crush my ego). But I did find it extremely disappointing, and I should have known that was the beginning of the end. Now I do.

@ Ricardo

Yeah, I'm not as assertive. If they won't sleep at home, I'll try to invent some other rule ("come back home early next morning?" "call me?" "don't take them to that one place in town that is "ours"?") to get at least some feeling of security. Sadly, I found that my partner doesn't know anything about the "default" amount of consideration I expected going into this, hence I had to recourse to rules. I know that women often get blamed for expecting men to be psychic, but seriously, some things seem just obvious. Like, don't act like this guy and abandon your partner at an event for someone you just met. Or stop the sex if your partner is clearly upset.

I've never heard of people in monogamous relationships making any sort of analogous rules. You just learn what things in life matter to your partner, and your behavior will demonstrate the degree to which you care about that person. What you don't do is get bogged down in litigating rules.

Perhaps that's my age speaking. Human events appear marked by brighter, less variable lines in one's youth.

The LW didn't close him down, after the saturday. so, both of them have erred.
I agree Ricardo. She should have not gone looking for him. She knew darn well where he was. Oh to be a woman with that sort of strength.
Then I'd never get myself in that situation in the first place. None of the men I have been with, I'd trust to play an open marriage where they stayed aware of where I was at. Certainly not my husband, he was wayward enough. And we had children to rear.

If LW's man does read here, then I feel he has to stop and ask himself, how much of a friend he is to LW. Because I assume, a good caring friendship needs to be in place, before opening up a relationship. You know, you got her back.
And she's got yours.
If you don't have that feeling, then you got to be honest with yourself. And with her. That scene though, a little wild. Maybe those experienced enough could get off on that play, for you guys- new to the story- too much. So go fight it out amongst yourselves. Just be honest with each other.
A clear way forward will come to you, if you are kind and honest with each other.

This situation seems to me like it went to a really damaging place, and put the boyfriend in a really shitty no-win position, because of poorly-formulated rules. That doesn't mean he's completely exculpated, but it does mean that by the time the shit hit the fan he didn't have a way out and I don't think continuing with the other woman was really the offense here.

Here's the thing: that other woman? She is not an object or a concept. She does not represent some abstraction of him breaking the rules; she's a person. She has a right to expect decent treatment and decent treatment does not include coitus interruptus because you walked up and couldn't respect their privacy. You will never have healthy open relationships if you can't accept that your partner's relationships with other people are real too. Even swingers with strict no-romance rules have to respect friendships and the basic human dignity of the other people they interact with.

Yes, your boyfriend broke the rules. His real infraction was not talking to you about his desires and expectations up front, and taking your limited permission and extending it in his mind, perhaps unconsciously, to include stuff he wanted to do but probably wasn't comfortable talking to you about. He's gonna have to get over that, or this is never going to work. But do try to keep your focus on that, too. Don't fixate on uncomfortable mental images. Don't fixate on the specifics of his behavior once he was already in a no-win situation and trying to make the best of it.

I'm sorry you had to go through this, CETI. It does suck. It hurts, and awkward sex-related feelings can touch off really deep, distressing reactions of disgust and betrayal. For your own sake, though, try as hard as you can not to get wrapped up in those. You can ask your boyfriend for validation and comfort regarding the feelings you're struggling with, but when it comes to negotiation, and to making the decision of whether or not you can stay together, remember that the problem here was a lack of communication. As the partner who was actively engaging in activities with someone else, the onus for that does fall somewhat more on him, but you also cannot reasonably expect him to respect boundaries that you don't make clear to him, or to attend to needs you haven't asked him for. Y'all have got to get comfortable talking in as much detail as is necessary to establish boundaries that work for you both, and you have got to make sure that you either voice any expectations you have of your partner, or be prepared to accept that if you don't, they will not always meet your expectations. In this case, unless you discussed in advance that you wanted to spend the whole weekend together, it is reasonable to expect that you're both adults and quite capable of entertaining yourselves; his "ignoring" you on Saturday could very easily have been avoided had you brought it up earlier, or even at the time, instead of waiting to pick a fight about it on Sunday.

You'll have a lot easier time getting over this if you look at it as a misstep during the learning period of your newly open relationship, rather than as a sin against you that rests on some deep character flaw in your boyfriend. Even if he did wrong, you can still choose how you react to it, and it'll be better for you in the long run if you choose a way that leaves you less angry and hurt, no matter how it goes between you and him.

Good luck.

@27, well, they sure do have some rules, they are just more often left unspoken. "Don't fuck other people" is one. Sometimes it's also "don't flirt with other people", "don't watch porn" and "don't have too much contact with your exes". Since open relationships is a less chartered territory, more explicit discussion of rules is needed. Although in my case I guess they are more requests than rules.

@30 The other woman is a person too, but he really didn't need to have sex with her on the same weekend after he already hurt his girlfriend. Nobody "put the boyfriend in a really shitty no-win position", he did it himself. He could have gotten the woman's contacts or whatever and waited until a better time.
Instead he clearly prioritized himself first and the new woman second, with the girlfriend coming in last. Everybody is entitled to expect decent treatment from their partner without having to spell out everything, and what he did was really not decent treatment.

Is it me or does Dan not have any memory of what it's like to be in a monogamous relationship?

@30. Spoken like a man, I assume. Really, good perspective.
Not talking for all women ever, I waited for men to read my mind.
Stupid, Eh?
LW, speak up. And be clear with your boundaries. Loud and clear.
He can take them or leave them, you got to be prepared to let him go, though.

CETI (the camping LW) can dump the BF, since anyone can leave a relationship at any time. (And, yes, Mr. Venn, it's interesting to read the letter picturing CETI as a guy.)

But I stand by my advice from the other thread: people should not be surprised when relationship rules get broken. Rather than ending the relationship on the spot, they should use those rule-breaking incidents to see where their hot issues are, in order to discuss those issues and figure out if they're compatible for the long run.

It's not clear if the BF knew that the thumbs-down signal meant "stop sexual activity" versus "I need to talk to you when you're done." In any case, I think it's wrong to give a partner permission to veto a sex act in progress with a third person. That's treating the third person as a sex toy. In my view the BF was right to finish whatever intimate act was in progress before leaving to talk to CETI.

CETI should evaluate whether the BF generally (90% of the time) makes CETI's happiness a priority and shows himself to be a caring, respectful partner. If so, then work on the communication issues which came up on this camping trip. Discuss your needs and what you each hope to get out of monogamishamy.

Or if you already didn't think much of your BF, CETI, then walk away and don't bother hashing this out.

I just can't imagine being the boyfriend who supposedly cares about his GF and acting this way. He seems either stupid or selfish and neither one is really good for loving.

I should have refreshed before posting; balderdash said it better @30.

@32, @34, yes, spoken like a man, but one who has more experience being in CETI's position than the boyfriend's. I try to speak from my own mistakes.

And if you take a look at what I said, @32, I deliberately did not blame anyone for either person's actions once the situation had already become become complicated and there was no way out of it without hurt feelings. Again, my primary point was that the failure here was one of communication, and focusing on that, rather than on the fallout after it, is the best way forward for all concerned.

Ginnie @26. You saying the same.
A guy at a local market said to me once, while he was getting my food.
" Men are simple creatures. They think about their stomachs and their dicks".
Came from a man's mouth, so don't go blaming me.
Men are far more complex, we all know that. They can't read our minds though, that's a fairy tale. Made up by a woman perhaps, imagining a perfect world.

@32, sorry, I don't mean to pick on you, but I also have to ask if you've ever had anyone walk out on you because their partner demanded it. It's not a good feeling. It's dehumanizing. You, and a lot of others, assume the boyfriend stayed and finished with the other girl purely out of his own cock-forward selfishness, but up and ditching someone in the middle of an encounter so you can go pay attention to someone else is in its own way at least as cruel and selfish as making the girlfriend wait a little while to talk. Assuming he only stayed to get himself off is either objectifying the other woman in exactly the way I was warning about, or, at best, assuming some pretty ugly things about the boyfriend's character and mental state.

@40. After his woman showed her displeasure over Saturday's behaviour, he then goes and fucks the other woman?
I'd take a while to come back from that one. A woman wants to be heard, the first time.

@41, granted, and I may be underemphasizing the boyfriend's insensitivity and, at best, wishful thinking in my effort to present a perspective that isn't exclusively focused on those failings.

@40 The gf left to let him "smooth thing over." He could have apologized profusely and left. For that matter, I can't even imagine continuing to have sex with someone after their upset partner just walked on us, but YMMV. But like I said, he shouldn't have been fucking her at all, therefore the whole fallout is *entirely* his fault.

@38 Also I don't really see the failure of communication you keep talking about. She said, "you can make out with her." What exactly is cryptic about this?

@44 We do not have transcripts of their conversations. We only have what CETI reported about her expectations and feelings. I am generally assuming that everyone involved was attempting to act in good faith and made mistakes. If anyone - as you suggest, the boyfriend - was simply willfully breaking clearly stated rules, then what is there for Dan to answer? Why write in at all? I'm not answering the hypothetical in which the boyfriend is a colossal dick, because plenty of people have already said DTMFA and I don't really need to repeat it. This situation reads to me like they came away from their conversation about boundaries and "making out" with very different impressions of what was allowed.

@45 I think she wrote to Dan because the boyfriend blamed her and because she read the previous SLLOTD about open relationships, which made her feel uncertain. Sadly this is what can happen if you always try to look at everything from the other person's perspective - you tend to forget about your own. I already said that I would like to hear what the bf has to say, since he's a reader, but for now I'm taking the LW's account at face value. And I'm so adamant about this because I know what it feels like when someone acts like that. What helped me was not to supress my feelings of hurt and anger but to actually talk to people here and then go talk to my partner about it and calmly defend *my* feelings. And next time he actually treated me with consideration.

balderdash, are you the boyfriend in question? The LW seemed to give a fairly balanced account of the weekend. If what she wrote is close to what happened her BF is a selfish toolbox. A clear no fucking rule was violated, he treated both women like shit, and he's blaming his girlfriend for her very justified feelings? Fuck that noise, DTMFA.

eh... this is one of the reasons I think the whole "veto rule" thing is such a minefield for new people trying out open relationships. There they are happily depending on their perceived power to end anything that makes them uncomfortable, and then the moment they get uncomfortable their actual power over the situation (not much) is put into extremely strong and unpleasant relief. Basically, you've put the person who's least uncomfortable (the one having a good time) in the position of having to do the hard thing (pull the plug on the good time and/or be an ass to the person they've been spending time with). And then everyone is surprised and upset when it doesn't work out very well. fwiw, for those contemplating jumping into open relationships, I don't recommend thinking you can veto someone. Either you're in or out. If you can't be comfortable with your partner fucking someone else, just ya know, stick with monogamy. Rules are fine, but coping strategies are better. Choose things to do that will support you when things are hard, not make things harder. Ricardo's rules seem reasonable. A variation I like on the sleeping arrangements is "give me 24 hours warning if you're not sleeping at home". I also like to differentiate between hard and soft rules. Dealbreakers vs preferences. This thing over here will end our relationship. This thing over there might make me sad and we'll have to talk about it.

Related: this whole thumbs-up/thumbs-down non-verbal cue thing CETI and bf have somehow pre-arranged they're allowed to do to/at each other and the other person? I'm not sure I can adequately express how utterly revolting I find that practice. I am hoping a certain amount of discretion is engaged here, but I'm guessing the third will notice some of the time. What an awful thing to do to someone.

Luluisme @48 "I don't recommend thinking you can veto someone."

Yes, this. Instead of a veto, agree to take each other's concerns seriously. And then, if your partner doesn't take your concerns seriously, you can consider leaving the relationship over that. Rather than because he didn't dump someone the instant you said to.

I really don't understand why people seem to think that more, faster, is a good approach to opening up relationships. Hey, boyfriend, there are about 3.5 billion other women on the planet - maybe if you don't get to fuck this one, today, it might not be the end of the world? If you value the relationship you're in, making sure boundaries are clear and avoiding hurting your partner should be your top priority. If you don't like or can't abide by any restrictions, maybe you should be single. Being open is hard work sometimes.

And those saying the other women is a person, yes. Yes, she is. But she doesn't have a right to fuck this person's partner. She knows this person exists, and if she had any respect or sense, she'd back way the fuck away from a man she's just met who has a clearly upset partner. Finishing a fuck is not reason enough to contribute to shitty feelings between partners. I HAVE been that woman, and I'm pissed at the bf for putting her in that situation. "She's not ok with this? Get the fuck out of my tent!" If he's gonna be shitty to his partner, why would I want him?

And don't pull that bs "I didn't know!" As Dan said, a thumbs down is not ambiguous.

Also, Ricardo, what if your partner doesn't go to sleep all night? Therefore, he didn't sleep over with his other partner? Or, what if he came home at 5am and then slept? Noon? Or brought his other partner home, and they both slept there. Would any of those violate your rules? Because I have a feeling that there are plenty of things that might upset you without violating those specific stated rules.

A good barometer for me is: would this upset my partner? Is it important to me? If the answers are yes and yes - discussion. Not do it anyway.

secretagent @50 "I really don't understand why people seem to think that more, faster, is a good approach to opening up relationships. "
This, so much.

And luluisme @48, I don't really see what's so bad about this gesture. They have to communicate in some way? You all acting as if the third is a victim here is confusing. I cannot imagine meeting a couple at an event, then spending a whole day (!) hanging out with just the bf without feeling at least somewhat concerned about the gf. And then I can't imagine being walked in on by said upset gf and actually continuing to have sex, gesture or no gesture.

Also, @ 48 "Either you're in or out. If you can't be comfortable with your partner fucking someone else, just ya know, stick with monogamy. "

How about those couples that only allow kissing others? The point is, you can do it slowly. Once you see your partner isn't a dick when he's with someone else, it's less scary next time and you can have fewer restrictions. Of course, this requires the partner to not be a dick.

I know that my questions are not entirely germane, but there are somethings I'm curious about. First, I would think that in an open/monogamish/poly relationship, the first thing to be decided is the safe sex question. Second is fucking someone without their informed consent rape (specifically, can sex be consensual if there is material information withheld that would change the consent to have sex) Realistically, does giving someone the right to make out automatically confer the right to engage in sex? With two adults, does making out constitute foreplay and is foreplay a sex act in and of itself? Does a specific veto have to be explicit or is what a reasonable person would expect sufficient? Does violation of a specific veto automatically suspend all previous permissions.

@54. Say what? That all sounds very complex.
I'd be cross if I could make out with someone, and not be able to have sex.
Though I can see, maybe, the need for baby steps rules.
Is making out foreplay, I'd say yes once it goes past kissing. Is foreplay a sex act? I'd say yes.
You know, if it has to get so detailed, it must lose some of the fun.

@54. Didn't want to answer the rape question, without more infomation re what was with held.

I still don't understand this... If I was out somewhere with just a *friend*, I wouldn't dump them for a whole day to be with someone else. And if somebody walked in on me having sex and looked distressed -- be it my partner, the other person's partner, a friend or even just a roommate -- I can't imagine just going on with the sex. That would be somehow ... sociopathic.

Ginnie, this one seems to have got you going.
There's too many variables in this story that we don't know.
How old are these two. What sort of weekend was it. A weekend music festival, drugs there. Did these two give each other permission before going that they could go off with someone if they wanted to.
Expecting the fuck to finish once it had started, was naive of this woman.
The other woman, what did bf tell her?
Obviously they had a strong attraction for each other and followed it thru.
Whatever, it's done now- and it's what the LW and her bf learn from it that is important now.

Sex is not an unstoppable event, you know.

@57, it doesn't sound like CETI walked in and started screaming or crying right there in the tent. CETI's BF looked up, asked with his thumb if she/he was okay, and CETI gave a thumbs down signal. The BF finished up what he was doing and went to check on his partner. None of that sounds sociopathic to me.

The only thing that is relevant is that they went to a fun event "together". Unless the fun event is explicitly sexual like a swap party, then there is a reasonable expectation that you remain together for the duration of the event. Primary relationship means exactly that. Furthermore, you do not disrespect someone you are with as a couple (or even on a date) by going off with someone else (unless the person gives explicit consent). Beyond that, any reasonable person should know that if your partner reacts negatively in no uncertain terms to something on Sunday that is the end of it. When it is further reinforced with a negative response on Monday the sole concern is for his partner. He does not spend 45 minutes consoling/fucking the other woman. Provided the other woman is aware that the BF is in a relationship with some one (see previous comment on informed consent) and that some one is present, the other woman backs off unless she is a FPOS. It is already established that BF by his actions that is a FPOS.

@56 Maybe rape is too strong a word, perhaps fraud would have been a better choice of words. Although sex without consent is generally considered to be rape. Then what my question devolves to is, would the other person consent to sex if they knew the person was in a relationship or had herpes.

@56 I think I found my answer. It appears that regardless of what anyone here may think to the contrary, under law, obtaining consent to sex though fraud is rape. It is the same thing as no meaning no.

@54: "Realistically, does giving someone the right to make out automatically confer the right to engage in sex?"

Never, though I wonder how learning these objective facts will revise your perspective of the situation. If a person doesn't already know this

What's going to change their mind?

@63: If you mean that telling someone you're single when you're not, or telling someone you're an astronaut when you're not, and using that to get laid is rape--well, no one's prosecuting cases like that as sexual assault. It's unseemly, and deceptive, and wrong--but I don't think it's criminal.

@60: The boyfriend knew damn good and well that LW wasn't okay with him having sex with the woman. He fucked her anyway, and then tried to make it seem like LW was being unreasonable. At the very least, he didn't err on the side of caution with regards to her feelings. He cheated.

If he's going to place Camping Woman's feelings above those of his girlfriend's ("How would you feel if someone just ran out after their GF right before they were going to fuck you?"), then he can continue to do so, but LW won't be his girlfriend anymore.

It sounds like there's a lot of "let's figure it out as we go along" happening in this relationship vs. "let's talk about what we would do if we met someone cute this weekend, when sex is / isn't okay, how much time i expect to spend with you at the event, what the process is when something happens that makes either of us feel uncomfortable or scared", etc. etc.

check out the book "opening up" and talk through various possible scenarios and which would be happy & sexy vs. scary or lonely. it isn't clear to me whether this is DTMFA because i don't feel like there's enough information about her boyfriend's motivations, emotions, his understanding of what was / wasn't okay to do -- which to me indicates that there probably hasn't been enough communication about those topics. it definitely sounds like a painful situation but it could be equally painful for him at some point in the future if they aren't on the same page about expectations.

Aw yiss, propelled this motherfucker to #1 most commented.

Ginnie, of course sex is not unstoppable.
Fire, flood, earthquake.

If it was me in the bf's shoes, I'd want to finish the fuck. It was all too late by then.
Personally, I don't feel a big connection in this relationship. He behaved like a man who doesn't really care how the LW feels. Doesn't care.
If I was her, I'd move on.

Damned@62. Obviously if the person had herpes and didn't tell you, that's a shit shit act. If they were in a relationship again a shit act.
It's not rape, though.
The behaviour of an arsehole.

@63. Should have kept reading. Interesting that it's rape in law.

@66 7/27/2010

Last week, an Arab Israeli man was sentenced to prison for telling a woman in Jerusalem he was a Jewish bachelor in order to get her to sleep with him. He was convicted on a charge of “rape by deception.”

Many States have rape by fraud laws, but there is no consensus among legal experts. Case law is not consistent between the various States. Prosecution often depends seriousness/materiality of the deception. It is often easier to prove/convict by fraud without addressing the question of whether it was or wasn't rape. The victim is more likely pursue a civil lawsuit rather than criminal prosecution. The burden of prove is less for a civil lawsuit then with criminal prosecution. Best example: O J Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial, but lost the civil lawsuit.

@60: The BF finished up what he was doing and went to check on his partner. None of that sounds sociopathic to me.

Seriously? "What he was doing" was not dumping icewater out of the cooler or washing up after cooking or packing the tent or anything innocuous like that. You conveniently elide the fact that he was fucking someone else - something his girlfriend had never consented to and explicitly objected to in the moment. I mean, I know you have issues identifying boundary violations, but this is unbelievable. You're like a case of Stockholm Syndrome just waiting to happen.

Boyfriend is an asshole. I can't believe there's any debate about this.

"If you want to make out with someone else that's ok."
"How about if I have sex with this girl, that cool?"
"No."
"OK, I'm gonna finish fucking her, because I don't want to hurt her feelings, and then I'll come talk to you about your jealousy problem."

How the fuck is any of that normal considerate behavior?

DTMFA.

@75: Seriously. It sounds ice-cold and without emotion, as described.

@30: This is possibly the most contorted, disingenuous piece of victim blaming I've ever seen on Slog.

What's not clear about "I had given him permission on Saturday…to make out with the woman we had met" and "We had not discussed sex at all, and when he gave me the "thumbs up, thumbs side, thumbs down signal," I thumbed down"?

Making out: okay. Having sex: clearly NOT okay.

"you also cannot reasonably expect him to respect boundaries that you don't make clear to him" - more accurately, the LW cannot reasonably expect him to respect boundaries even after she makes them clear to him.

The boyfriend wasn't in a "no-win position". He had an obvious way out: don't have sex with the girl you clearly didn't have permission to have sex with. If saving face with this person is really so important, you can say "sorry, I had a misunderstanding with my partner about our agreement, I have to stop now. It's not your fault, it's my fault." But this guy never takes responsibility for anything. Was he helpless? Was his dick trapped? Are you seriously arguing that once someone starts having sex they can't stop for any reason without violating some bullshit poly ethical code? Or that the new girl had a right to have sex with this guy but no responsibility to respect his existing relationships or agreements? What if the LW had said "hey, I'm having a seizure, I need you to get me to a hospital"? Continuing to have sex with her was not some high-minded act of sacrifice or empathy, it was pure self-gratification wrapped up in dishonest rationalization.

His real infraction was not talking to you about his desires and expectations up front, and taking your limited permission and extending it in his mind, perhaps unconsciously, to include stuff he wanted to do but probably wasn't comfortable talking to you about.

Yeah. That's a pretty serious and deliberate infraction, not some minor misstep. It's like Upton Sinclair almost said - it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his getting laid depends on his not understanding it.

She said making out was cool. She did not say having sex was cool, and when he asked for clarification, she said no. You want to talk about healthy open relationships? You communicate and you listen to what your partner communicates. She communicated: "yes to making out, no to sex" and he not only didn't listen, he disregarded what she told him and then tried to blame it on her for being "jealous". He wasn't being inconsiderate, see, he didn't really want to keep having sex but he had no choice because he's a sensitive nice guy who was being considerate of this new person and her inalienable right to his cock, this person who he had only known for two days, whose delicate feelings both you and he seem to believe were more important than his partner's.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that the LW is also "not an object or a concept" but also a person, and also has "a right to expect decent treatment". Like not being gaslighted when she expresses a boundary - first by her boyfriend, and now by you. You accuse the LW of treating the other girl like an "object or a concept", something she never actually does - if anything, she's the one who's been treated this way.

The problem was not a "lack of communication". She fucking communicated. The problem was her asshole boyfriend's refusal to pay attention to her communication, followed by trying to put the blame on her. Which you're now perpetuating by attacking her for violating the other girl's "privacy" and right to not experience "coitus interruptus" (which amendment is that, btw?). The LW didn't violate any agreement by walking in on them - she never consented to them having sex. Ever, at any point, in any frame of reality.

And if you're going to take her to task for not explicitly outlining exactly what her boundaries and expectations for the weekend were, in detail, in advance, why is the boyfriend not responsible for doing the same? It's "reasonable to expect that you're both adults and quite capable of entertaining yourselves" - how is it unreasonable that if you go on a camping trip with someone, who is your romantic partner and not just a rideshare, that you expect to spend a fair amount of time together and don't want to just be abandoned or ignored without explanation? Which of those positions is closer to the default assumption for most people?

You know what's not reasonable? Expecting her to anticipate her boyfriend's intentions ahead of time, with no warning from him. When she realized what was going on she told him: "I felt like he was prioritizing her over me and that it did not make me feel happy and was hurting me." That's clear communication. She didn't write in to say "hey, my boyfriend ignored me all day Saturday, and I think he should have known that was hurtful without me telling him." She didn't wait until the ride home to confront him about it. She addressed it within a reasonable amount of time, like people are supposed to do when something unexpected comes up (if she had interrupted them on Saturday, I'm sure you'd be blaming her for that - other girl has a right to have conversations not be interrupted).

But he never said "hey, I know you want to spend time with me, but I'd really like to see this other girl again before we leave"? He never said "hey, you said it was okay to make out, but I'd like to have sex with her too, how do you feel about that"? He never said "hey, you've told me what you're comfortable or uncomfortable with, but this is what I would like out of this weekend"?

How come she has to communicate - and when she does, it's still not good enough - but he doesn't have to say anything and it's still her fault?

Actually healthy ethical people don't need to spell out every expectation in legalistic detail, because actually healthy ethical people pay attention to their partners, communicate, ask questions, and when in doubt act with consideration, because actually healthy ethical people care about their partners, not just their own self-gratification. And when actually healthy ethical people who are worth dating fuck up, they own it and say something like "I'm sorry, I was thinking with my dick and not being considerate of you. I should have told you what I wanted to do. I fucked up." If he had taken responsibility for his behavior instead of trying to put the blame on her, this might be worth saving. But he didn't.

It's only self-serving opportunists and sociopaths posing as sensitive hippies who operate from the assumption that there are zero default rules or assumptions in any relationship unless explicitly stated.

IOW, motherfuckers who deserve to be dumped.

@70: I know, right? That's basically what I said to the earlier letter too. Everyone acting like you slide straight from kissing into full-on fucking someone you basically just met and you're not allowed to back down at any point is kinda nuts.
Add me to the people who find Dan's position a little inconsistent. The only real difference seems to be how far it went.
And as someone mentioned earlier, I seem to remember Dan almost encouraging quasi-arbitrary rules and taking things very slowly to begin with (I think mostly in a threesome situation).

And since we already brought the R word into the thread do we really want to say "You're not allowed to stop once you start"?
Sounds pretty close to "She got that boy all worked up what did she expect- get half naked and then just walk away?!?"

@78. LW doesn't say where these two were up to, my guess is it was onto the main game.
Of course sex can be stopped, if people doing it want to stop it. Kids walking into the bedroom, stopping is instantaneous.
This guy snuck out of bed while LW was still sleeping. He didn't want to ask permission, he knew he wouldn't get it. Fucking this other woman is what he wanted to do, and fuck her is what he did.
Why though? Why did he risk his relationship so blantently, unless maybe he wants out. And he's angry about something. Can't cop to stupid, because he's a long term SL reader.
His point of view would be interesting to hear.

The boyfriend is a shitty person who uses monogamish as an excuse to be a hurtful shitty asshole. Dump his ungrateful inconsiderate ass.

@80: "Why though? Why did he risk his relationship so blantently, unless maybe he wants out."

Some people do things simply because they believe they can get away with them.

@ 51 - "what if your partner doesn't go to sleep all night?"

If my hypothetical partner came back home in the morning and went "I didn't sleep at all, so I didn't break the rule", I would know he's an immature jerk who deserves getting dumped. This is a teenage-level, desperately-trying-to-get-away-with-something-you-know-is-not-ok type of argument. Anyone who would come up with such a lame excuse deserves to be flushed out of my existence.

Being an adult and enjoying adult privileges means that you should also act like an adult.

Chase @75, how do you move from "None of that sounds sociopathic to me" to "How the fuck is any of that normal considerate behavior"?

In between "considerate behavior" and "sociopathic behavior," I see plenty of room for "ordinary human screw-ups" and "selfish behavior which often occurs when exploring open relationships."

I'm not saying the BF is a great guy. I'm not saying CETI's feelings are wrong.

I'm saying that CETI should dump BF if this seems like just one of a million examples of BF being selfish, and consider not dumping BF if this seems like an unusual exception from BF's usual kind and considerate behavior.

damned if I know @61, clashfan @67 and chase @77:
Thank you so much.

@ EricaP, in your previous post you seemed to say that the boyfriend did absolutely nothing wrong AND that LW's feelings were wrong. You seemed to say that it was no screwup at all, at least on his part, that the LW was to blame for violating their privacy (WTF?!) and that it was a totally normal situation to make your partner wait for you when they explicitly told you they are NOT okay. Furthermore, I stand by "sociopathic behavior" (which I brought up first). If it was an "ordinary human screw-up" or "selfish behavior which often occurs when exploring open relationships", he would have apologized for acting badly / thoughtlessly instead of blaming the LW for being bad at open relationships. Open relationships are not " anything goes" or "you've got to have sex whenever there's an opportunity."

Ginnie, this guy hasn't killed or raped anyone.
If he was a total arse, the LW wouldn't have bothered to write to Dan. She would have just kicked him to the curve.
Obviously he has no clue how to be open in his relationship, with care. The LW did ok him making out with the other woman, and why would she do that if she expected him to stay with her all the time. Lots of grey areas in this story.

@LavaGirl
Firstly, did I say that he should be tried as a killer or rapist? Don't pervert my words. Most sociopaths are not killers or rapists anyway.

Secondly, sometimes people do stay in relationships for no rational reason whatsoever, especially if they are made to believe that It's All Their Fault, like the LW is. And then they write to Dan because they feel bad.

And lastly, making out doesn't take a whole day LW probably didn't expect him to be with her all the time, but she also clearly didn't expect to be abandoned for the whole day. It was said here many times already that it's a very reasonable expectation that you don't get abandoned by your partner at an event you came to attend TOGETHER, open relationship or no open relationship.

The fact that some people here can't see that this was totally douchey behavior makes me sad. Open relationships are not about displacing the first partner by someone new. If you are in an open relationship you have to consider the needs of all your partners, not just the one who's new and therefore less likely to accept crappy treatment. Open relationships are so hard precisely because of this.

And it's not just the old partner who's supposed to not disregard the new partner's feelings (which the LW totally did, by the way. She left when her boyfriend asked her to, and she didn't come back until her boyfriend joined her. She also didn't say one bad word about her in her letter to Dan). The new partner also has to be considerate both of the old partner as a person and the preexisting relationship.

And what's your problem with me anyway, LavaGirl? A bunch of other people are saying the same thing, why are you picking on me? Is it because I identify with the LW and therefore give off a victim vibe, making it easier for you to argue with me?

Ginnie, You just seem to have become the spokesperson for a certain intensity of response, perhaps.
I'm not arguing with you, am I?
I thought we were looking at the question in ways to help the LW.
It would activate a few of you who have gone thru similar experiences, I assume.
I haven't felt any victim
Vibe coming from you.

@LavaGirl The intensity is in response is to rhe victim blaming that started with comment @30. However, I am not the only person who is not okay with it, and yet you seem to argue just with me.

And if you are not arguing with me, then what does your phrase mean: "Ginnie, this guy hasn't killed or raped anyone." Did you genuinely think I was confused and thought this guy was an actual murderer, and just wanted to clarify that?

@3: I don't think that Dan ever said SFCN's partner was ready and she wasn't. From the facts presented, I don't think either one of them was ready.

Speaking as a victim of actual sexual assault, go fuck yourself. You have no idea of what rape is and your bringing rape into this discussion is a slap in the face to anyone who has experienced it.

@12, nice try. I rather like the lengths you've gone to to twist this into something that's ok from his perspective.

However.

They are NEW to open relationships.
She had given permission to MAKE OUT. Everyone knows that "make out" is a far lower level of physical intimacy than sexual intercourse, whether they believe "make out" can involve (clothed) groping or not.
She gave an unambigious thumbs down to the sexual activity.
If he cared about the primary relationship, he'd be more concerned about what he did wrong and how they can fix it next time.
So, no. Guy's an insensitive dick if he's not even apologising for "misinterpreting" her.

@19: My rules are:
Be safe
Be honest
Be respectful.

Rule 3 is possibly the most important one. And LW's boyfriend blew it in spades.

@22: Have you ever heard of the phrase, "ethical non monogamy"?
That's the word that prevents non monogamy from being the self-interested free-for-all being practiced by LW's partner, here. Non monogamy is a privilege, not a right, and like all privileges it shouldn't be abused.

@Ricardo, but I thought "trying to limit what your partner does with thirds makes it not really open"? I think it's rather disingenuous of you to act like she's the stupid one for not immediately dumping him when you would like to have rules that could be purposefully misinterpreted by assholes too. I don't think what "open" means for you is what it means for everyone. Some people practice ethical non-monogamy, which was mentioned up thread, and if they have agreed to rules that work for them, they're just as ready as anyone. No (or barely) holds barred is not the only way to go.

I’ve been thinking about the issues raised by this and another couple of recent letters. I’m going to try to articulate my thoughts, but this won’t be short! When we’re talking about sex and relationships, I think that there are 4 types of people:

1) The First Group is made up of the truly sex-negative people: repressed, extremely uptight, censorious, very easily offended and upset by anything sexual. Sex should only take place within marriage though sometimes it’s okay if the couple is engaged. They may not believe that sex is only in the service of procreation, and may allow for family planning, but sex is something that needs to only take place within a spiritual context. Watching porn is an act of infidelity, anal sex is gross, any sort of kink is the sign of a disturbed mind. Some extreme level Ones (think Duggar-level) don’t believe in even kissing before marriage. Duggar-level-Ones take virginity pledges, wear purity rings, and see sex as something that should be tightly controlled and in the service of procreation, though it can be enjoyable, too, and is also an act of spiritual intimacy. If they’re gay, they’re deeply closeted and may be unhappy about it. If any of them are among Dan’s readers, they are reading with a sense of shame-titillation and they may be trolls in the comments.

2) Group Two: The Second Group is somewhat conservative but in general not neurotic about sex: they are strict believers in monogamy, likely to view any act of infidelity as cheating and unable to consider an open relationship. They tend to have very few sexual partners, believe sex should only be part of a long-term committed relationship, and are likely to slut-shame. They may incorporate some mildly kinky sex into their marriages, and are willing to try to “spice things up” with sex toys or by reading 50 Shades out loud to each other (if they’re straight), or watching porn together. Almost anything that deviates from straight vanilla penetration and oral is too wild and often deemed “weird” or perverted, but some of them will try anal sex. If they’re straight, they may or may not be homophobic, but they congratulate themselves on being very open-minded and progressive in not being opposed to same-sex marriage. The men get aroused by the idea of an FFM threesome and may try to talk their girlfriends or wives into having one. Group Twos may read Dan and feel a thrill, but they would never want to actually engage in anything more than what they believe their family, friends, and neighbors are doing and would approve of. I think the vast majority of the western world is in Group Two.

4) The Fourth Group are the anything goes group. They are poly, they are kinky, they like to get their freak on. They may be pansexual or omnisexual, and they almost certainly have at least one bi-sexual experience, regardless of their dominant orientation. They socialize with others like them, know all the jargon, are part of a “play community,” attend sex parties, frequent sex clubs, may be on FetLife or sites like it, and there are very few kinks that are a fetish too far for them. They may go to orgies, attend summer camp for kinksters, work or dabble in porn. They have no difficulty separating sex from love and have it with many partners. They are tolerant of virtually everyone’s sexuality. They are more overtly sexually oriented than many in the mainstream of Group Two are comfortable with. The members of yet-to-be-discussed Group Three are sometimes a bit intimidated by them and occasionally judgmental about them. Group Fours who read Dan occasionally chime in with valuable how-to advice having to do with specific sex acts and kinks and non-monogamy-relationship tips.

3) And here we are at Group Three: that’s many of us here at Savage Loveland. We pride ourselves on being open-minded. Most of us approve of the idea of kink, many, of polyamory (either for others or for ourselves). Some of us are bi, more are bi-curious. Lots of us have had or would like to have threesomes, or sex that is outside the confines of a committed, long-term relationship. Most importantly, we see ourselves and want to be thought of as sex-positive. We don’t slut-shame; we experiment; we are devoted to being ggg. We consider ourselves more enlightened than the members of Groups One and Two. The worst thing we can be called is sex-negative. There are a few “extreme” kinks or fetishes that some of us are bothered by, but we are quickly chastised if we express disapproval of anything besides pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia, or bestiality. Some of us engage in breath-play, sounding, extreme immobilization, knife-play. The rest of us either are able or try to be able to believe a variation of “different strokes for different folks.”

But I think that many of us, in feeling proud of our open-mindedness, in priding ourselves on our distinction from the members of Groups One and Two, in the service of wanting to be seen and wanting to see ourselves as being Sex-Positive, end up being subtly coerced, either from the outside or, more importantly, from within, to be more sexually open than we actually want to be.

There are members of Group Five—people who know this and exploit hesitant or reluctant Group Threes deliberately coercing them into sex that the 5s know the 4s wouldn’t have willingly come to on their own, but most of the pressure comes from those who are just a little more toward the Group Four or are actually members of Group Four, making the Threes feel un-ggg, unenlightened, un-truly-sex-positive if they don’t go “there”—wherever that “there” may be. Sometimes that “there” is a sex act, but oftentimes that “there” appears to be an open relationship. Just look at the language people here in Group Three-and-a-half-Land or Group Four-Land are using in all these letters about people’s attempts to open their relationships and the pain and distress this is causing to the letter writers: the phrase I see most often is that someone isn’t “ready” for non-monogamy. If I parse that wording, I think that this leads a lot of people who want to consider themselves and be considered by others to be enlightened about sex to feel pushed into something they don’t really want.

After all, to be not ready for something suggests that the thing you’re not ready for is a desirable thing. When you’re a child, you’re constantly being told you aren’t old enough or not yet ready for something you want. I also see the word “immature” associated with the inability to do non-monogamy “right.” Sure, there are all the qualifiers, statements from people who are happily practicing non-monogamy saying things like “you don’t have to be open (or poly)” or “it’s fine to be monogamous” but I think that to many of the Group Threes that sounds like “it’s okay if you want to hang back amongst the ranks of the unenlightened.” Although I doubt that it’s meant that way, and I’m not accusing anyone of pushing openness, I think that statements like that come off as condescending to people who want to think of themselves as Sex-Positive and to whom being thought of as in any way “Sex-Negative” is the ultimate insult.

I don’t know what the solution to this situation is. I’m just trying to articulate my thoughts on the issue. Sorry for the long read.

@ 97 - "I think it's rather disingenuous of you to act like she's the stupid one for not immediately dumping him"

I'm sorry, but, where exactly did I even imply that she was stupid?

I wrote "she shouldn't have gone looking for him that morning, as she already knew by then what she would find. She should just have packed up her stuff and left." How did you manage to interpret that as meaning that I find her stupid? Somewhat overly optimistic about her asshole boyfriend, yes (though she probably couldn't have known that beforehand, as asshole boyfriend had not yet displayed his full assholery), but stupid, no way.

And now, to state the obvious: the purpose of having rules that could be misinterpreted by assholes is to make sure that the assholes quickly show their true nature, so you know that you should dump them before you invest too much in the relationship. If you set a minimum amount of minimally-demanding rules and your partner still manages to break them, you know they're not a keeper.

@ 95 - The problem with your rule number 3, as stated (though I agree wholeheartedly with it in essence), is that the definition of being respectful varies with the individual, and assholes, will always try to stretch it beyond what is acceptable.

Very insightful, nocutename.