Columns Nov 21, 2012 at 4:00 am

Busted

Comments

104
Someone may have already brought this up, but actually studies of natural levels of vasopressin/oxytocin in male mammals (first studied were prairie voles) do in fact show that monogamous/polygamous tendencies are at least partially dependent on a specific genetic variation. As far as I know, such studies have not yet been done in men, but in several other species male sexual behavior is quite strongly influenced by how many copies of a particular gene they have. Also, poly males can be made into mono males by the administration of oxytocin.

I think it is more likely than not that men also have varying levels of monogamy-tolernace (so to speak) and that some men are much more naturally mono than others. That said, men are not prairie voles and have conscious control over their sexual behavior. And that includes consciously not being a dick by pressuring your girlfriend who has made it clear she isn't into being in a poly relationship.
105
Sorry for the double post. System said I couldn't log in, then magically posted it anyway.

@103, yes, you're quite right. I was just a little put off by Dan's immediate, unquestioning identification of a sexual component from the start.
106
Dan, I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with your assertion that "poly" (as short for polyamorous) is not an orientation, but rather a behavior. I was more than a little surprised by it, actually, because it is exactly the same rhetoric that has been used as an argument for the repression of gay and lesbian sexuality for years!

I identify as polyamorous. I cannot imagine not falling "in love" or being attracted to someone simply because I am already "in love" with someone else at the time. Yet, I have often (and am currently) CHOOSING to be sexually exclusive with my primary partner. That doesn't change my sexual/affectional orientation any more than conversion therapy changes gay men into straight ones.

So while your advice to Polyamorous Polymath was mostly sound (he does have to decide if this is for him) I wish you hadn't taken the effort to marginalize him; he was asking if he could hope to be happy with a "monoamorous" partner, not about your prejudices toward his sexual identity.

That said, my experience is that a "poly" can be happy with a "mono" as long as there is clear communication, trust, and mutual agreement on the expectations everyone is holding. I have one long-term partner with whom I am sexually active and another equally long-term partner with whom I am not. I love them both, and consider myself to be in relationship with both, even though I'm only sexual with one.

PP should take some time to explore his needs with a therapist who is poly-friendly. Then he can discuss them with his partner(s) and decide, together, if their relationship can accommodate everyone.

Finally, I acknowledge that much of the controversy here is based on language and personal definition. My primary partner identifies as monogamous and bristles when I say that we are not. Her definition of monogamy is based on sexual activity alone, and she found it pretty easy to accept my needs for multiple partners (emotional/affectional) as long as I accepted her limits (sexual exclusivity). I've had partners in the past who were open to multiple sexual relationships but found it unacceptable to be "in love" with more than one person. Whatever the definition, I've found what works for me.
107
@106:
What has the ability to fall in love with someone while being in love with someone else to do with identifying as polyamorous?

I am monogamous but I sometimes fall in love with more than one person at a time; lusting after several people at a time is even easier. But I will not have more than one relationship at a time. I choose not to because it feels too emotionally difficult for me.

Being monogamous is not an orientation for me, it is a choice (however, an easy one).
108
@Crinoline: "Her other options come down to...Become a prostitute..."

This is exactly my point about the problem of an overly broad term like "sex work". No one has asked her to become a "prostitute" in the sense that the term is typically used. She has been asked to kick a guy (whom she knows very well) in the nuts as part of an odd Kung Fu ritual (see @60), which bears little resemblance to what prostitutes do with complete strangers. I believe the differences between these scenarios are more significant than the similarities.

That said - I get the hysteria. People imagine themselves in the situation and they react, not unlike how boys (both straight and closeted) reacted to the idea of homosexuality back when I was growing up. That disgust is then channeled as moral outrage towards the source, whether it's the nanny's former employer or the gays. I long ago stopped reacting that way to the idea of two men butt-fucking, and I'm a better person for it.

I'm not picking up anything in the letter to suggest this guy is the demon that Dan and the commenters have made him out to be. LW's reaction, as best as I can tell, is a mix of ambivalence and curiosity, not disgust.

Also keep in mind that the kind of shit a young person will do for money (in my case, washing dishes, working in a car wash, 12 hour days of hard physical labor, dealing weed, donating sperm) might seem horrific to that same person 20 years later.

As for reading this as being primarily a story of manipulation, that would require me to reduce both the man and LW to unflattering (and frankly boring) stereotypes - Snidely Whiplash vs. helpless damsel in distress (who's name no one can remember) - with we, the readers, presuming the role of Dudley Do-Right swooping in to save the day. I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to male/female interactions, I'm biased towards more original and adventurous narratives.
109
I have never met anyone who was poly after meeting someone they actually wanted to be exclusive with, and for whom they felt it was worth it to be exclusive.

Polyamory and monogamy are way more than sexual behaviours. There's a lot of other factors invovled. I've said before Mister Husband and I used to be monogamish, but quit. No we weren't jealous or felt guilt or anything but it's too much of a PITA with kids and work and lives to have enough time to devote to *everyone* properly. If he had time to have sex, it needed to be with me and if I was satisfied then fine he could fuck others but no there was no going out for sex and cocktails in the afternoon with the secretary bullshit when I was home wishing he would take ME out for that. And no I wasn't fat and frumpy and out of shape and/or whining or not interested or vanilla in bed.

We enjoyed it while we did it but finally putting up with scheduling and dealing with other people's bullshit was too much. We have enough problems managing just our own connection and making sure our communication is good to drag in dealing with someone else's issues as well. Just not worth the bother.
110
Polyamorous Polymath, aka "Drama Queen":

No, she is not asking you to "betray your sexual identity." (That is the phrase that earned you the new moniker.) She is stating the price of admission for a relationship that will make her happy. The happiness of your partner is (theoretically) important to you, right? Well, those are the terms she needs to be happy. If her terms do not also make you happy, then simply recognize that you two are incompatible. (This is, by the way, exactly what she is doing, but what you are apparently too immature to do yourself.)

Trying to argue that her price of admission is somehow unfair compared to yours because it is not exactly equivalent to your price of admission is bullshit. Her price of admission is what she needs. Have the balls to admit that you are simply unwilling to pay her price of admission -- more accurately, unwilling to keep paying it; I notice you agreed to her price of admission readily enough when it was getting you laid back in the beginning -- admit that the two of you are fundamentally incompatible, and split up, rather than trying to force her off her position. (Which would be, according to your definition, asking her to betray her sexual identity.)

Your comparison about "I am not asking the same of her: She does not have to sleep with other people to keep me in her life." is a particularly stupid false equivalence. Not getting all the goodies that you want is not the same thing as being made to do something you have no interest in and would hate if forced to participate. You are trying a draw an equivalence between not having access to the whole candy store versus being made to eat turds out the toilet.

You sound like a selfish, spoiled little boy.
111
108: Except you're not required to reduce them to villain and damsel-in-distress stereotypes to view this as manipulation. You just have to be capable of recognizing manipulative behavior (and you have to stop acting like "being manipulative" is some unspeakable accusation to levy against someone). If this guy wants to get his rocks off, he should be honest about it. Trying to frame it as "training" or a "competition" so that she doesn't necessarily know exactly what his motivations are is creepy. Not panic-worthy, not Snidely Wiplash levels of evil, and not any other disingenuous exaggeration of "creepy" that you can come up with. Just creepy. Like a guy who stares at you nonstop from across the coffee shop: you don't have to successfully convince anyone that he's a skinsuit-wearing cereal killer in order to justifiably call him creepy. No damsel-in-distress narrative required.

She can still go for it, of course, if she wants the money. It's just a few kicks to the balls. But obviously she requested Dan's advice for a reason; it's probably important to her to know whether or not he's getting sexual pleasure from this rather than just learning how to defend his balls from a kick. And if that's the case, she might be resentful that he wasn't upfront with her from the start, or at least didn't become so later on. She has a right to hold him to that standard if that's the case.

This viewpoint might not be "original," but originality isn't everything. Being a 44-year-old who still believes in Santa Claus would be perfectly "original," after all.

And you might disagree that what he's doing is creepy, manipulative, or disrespectful. But you'd still have to admit that finding it so doesn't require one to be a simple-minded, alarmist puritan; there's enough there for a reasonable person to be a bit creeped out. It's not like he simply asked her to coffee and she's flipping out.
112
So let me get this straight. You sexually identify as gay, but PP doesn't get to sexually identify the way he feels, that's a choice. Back up the fucking horse a little bit-- you don't get to make that determination any more than the Catholic church gets to make judgements about your sexual identity.

Some people are poly, some people are monogamous.

The fact that we have the country's leading sex columnist calling my sexual identity a 'lifestyle choice' is chilling.
113
So let me get this straight. You sexually identify as gay, but PP doesn't get to sexually identify the way he feels, that's a "choice?" Back up the fucking horse a little bit-- you don't get to make that determination any more than the Catholic church gets to make judgements about your sexual identity.

Some people are poly, some people are monogamous. Some are somewhere in the middle.

The fact that we have the country's leading sex columnist calling my sexual identity a 'lifestyle choice' is chilling. Happy Thanksgiving.
114
@avast/110

I agreed with every single word of that. Yes.
115
vennominon, i am not disagreeing with you at all. i thought that was an obvious conclusion and didn't need explicitly stating. i think that negotiating a cross-species relationship, whether it's orientation, gender, or poly-ness... is difficult; and it requires compassion, respect, honesty, and a shit load of maturity. which the LW is not exhibiting. he is treating a relationship, with a person he claims to love(and therefore value as an entity in her own right) as a commercial exchange. he is, from that position, attempting to manipulate the situation to his advantage. i'm aware that this is a common approach in america(i'm presuming most of you are from america...) but from my cultural perspective, it is an abhorrent dehumanising view, and she should dump his arse. not for being poly, but for not valuing her as a human being.
clear enough? :-)

for what it's worth, i don't view poly as having anything to do with the number of partners. it's more about the shape of the relationships. i guess that's why i think you can be poly as a person, and still only have one partner. it's about remaining autonomous as an individual within that/those relationship/s. this does not mean it's not a 'real' relationship - but simply that the connection between the people is deeper, and more than simply whether or not they fuck / live together / share the bills.
116
@91: Try the I, Anon column. That usually contains an ample supply of nothing.
117
As I get to know the cast of regulars who post to this column, I usually pay more attention to writing style to distinguish one from another. For the first time, I'm looking at the opinions offered in terms of whose male and whose female. Am I right that everyone who told WKBFM some variation of keep-away-from-him is female and everyone who said this-could-work is male? Put me in a switchover category since I started in 12 by saying that there were considerations if she wanted to do it for the money, then changed in 30 to saying that I'd advise her not to have anything further to do with Creep.

There was a first impression that I didn't write earlier but would like to tell WKBFM now: Listen to your gut in matters of sexual activity. If you were hiring someone for a job, didn't like an applicant personally, but knew s/he was qualified according to every criteria mapped out ahead of time, it would be wrong to discriminate on the basis of an unarticulated feeling. Same goes for any number of interactions with strangers. If you don't have a reason to be afraid, don't be prejudiced. In those situations, I see nothing wrong with getting legalistic with yourself. You say to yourself "there's really nothing wrong with this person's work or habits, so I'm not going to hold anything against him/her for being weird."

But that's what I hear you doing in your letter to Dan about a sexual activity. You're arguing with yourself probably in an effort to think of yourself as a good person for not being prejudiced. You describe a creepy situation (the blindfold), the quick tell yourself (and us) that he never touched you inappropriately. You describe the nut kicking business deal and then quick tell yourself that it's not sex work because you'll be fully clothed. It's like you're trying to talk yourself out of what you already know.

I've certainly never been in the situation you describe, but I have tons of experience with trying to convince myself to ignore my gut because there was nothing technically wrong with a sexual situation that I felt intuitively was very wrong. It was like I was trying so hard to see the manipulative creep's point of view that I paid no attention to my own. The creep may really believe that it's not rape if he doesn't enter her or that it's really only self defense training or that he only wants to cuddle naked or that the dirty joke wasn't designed to make her uncomfortable or any of a thousand other lines or excuses.

I imagine the women here who told WKBFM to run could add to the list, and we feel intuitively that this is a manipulative situation because we have experience with this manipulative situations. I imagine the the men who are taking the position that WKBFM could turn this to her advantage are engaging in wishful thinking or projection. ("I still don't think it's rape." Yeah, right. "It's not a sexual act if she doesn't know I'm getting off on it." Give me a break.)
118
I don't think Dan's take is completely right here. I don't think the rich guy is necessarily manipulating the former baby sitter. I think the "bet" arrangement is just a face saving device for both of them so that he can pay her the $150, but neither one of them has to admit to an illegal prostitution arrangement. There is no way this guy is going to "win" the bet, make her pay $20, and risk never getting his balls kicked by her again. I think many young women, even those thinking about such a tempting $150 "bet", would balk if they had to come out an propose an out and out sex work arrangement.

If she's interested, I think she should definitely up the price (soak the rich!) and set firm limits on what she will do, and tell him if he starts getting pervy on her, it's over.

If he hasn't "touched her inappropriately" or exposed himself or jacked off yet, after all these encounters they already had, I doubt he intends to. I think he wants to keep his fancy house and "normal" life, and just wants his balls busted by a pretty young woman. He may not even be getting off on the pain while she is there.
It just might be something that turns him on so much he doesn't even need an erection or orgasm. And if he does jack off, it might be before or after, when he's alone and thinking about it happening in the future or past.
119
@ Crinoline

I'm female and think she should cash in (as long as she's careful) - and if he's rich she can easily make way more than he's offering.

Get it, girl.
120
@110 avast2006

'Your comparison about "I am not asking the same of her: She does not have to sleep with other people to keep me in her life." is a particularly stupid false equivalence. Not getting all the goodies that you want is not the same thing as being made to do something you have no interest in and would hate if forced to participate.'

Thank you for your clarity.
121
WKBFM

I'm assuming you have a smartphone.

On my iPhone, theres's a Voice Memo app. Don't talk about any 'contract'. Just show up at the next appointment, with your cell in your back pocket, microphone up and Voice Memo ON before he opens the door. That way, you can conduct your 'paperless' negotiation (no touching / no dicks out / what happens if you land in ER?). Then you have it all recorded, if there are any shenanigans and / or mishaps.

And, up your rate. Considerably.

Dude would have to hire a pro and a hotel room. Do the math.
122
@114 mydriasis: Agreement, us two? Who'd a thunk? :) Happy Thanksgiving.

Gotta admit, both of them are out of line here, not just him. There is something deeply illogical about friends-with-benefits demanding exclusivity. That's like saying "I won't actually commit to you -- in fact I want to continue to treat you in a very casual way -- but I want you to take yourself off the market as if I had committed." In other words, pay the emotional and social price for a real relationship without actually getting one. In my book, that kind of stinks, and she had no business asking for that.
123
@avast

Okay stop it, you're freaking me out now.
Haha for real, I was thinking the same thing when he mentioned that.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too!
124
WKBFM

I don't buy any of it. Read between the lines and I get: "blindfolded, wrestle my way out of it, found it unsettling, balls"...

The wife doesn't know anything about this. Did he only say she knows? Was she even in the house/has she watched?

I had a disturbing thought that he is training his balls and pain threshold to withstand ball-kicking in the event that it actually happens in a non-consensual "wrestling my way out of it" scenario. Stay away from him so you don't wind up missing. (Then again I've been watching too much Forbrydelsen)
125
DrReality - I'm hoping to gain some insight from you if possible. I am that mono woman, currently involved with a poly man. He hasn't come out and said that he's poly, but he's hesitant to commit to me fully, and has a couple close female friends that he goes out with, and sometimes "snuggles" with. When we're together, everything is fun and frolic, but when he's out with them, I'm full of doubts. I feel like I'm not enough, or that I'm just being held in reserve until something better comes along. Are these issues that you had to deal with? If so, how did you get past it?
126
@117 Crinoline: I definitely fall into the category of "wary female sensing a rich, older creep manipulating a younger ex-babysitter into sex work she won't want to do after a while, no matter how much more than $150 he offers her". But that's me, not WKBFM.

WKBFM already KNOWS this guy (whereas I don't). She's worked for him and his wife before, taking care of their kids. At this point, if WKBFM were to ask for my advice, I'd tell her to trust her gut. What in this scenario screams out the loudest to her--yes, (it's a go), or no, (eeeewwww, this is getting too weird)? If what you're really feeling deep down is the latter, then bail.
@121 albeit: I like your smartphone idea for WKBFM.
127
@angrypolyguy

I agree. It IS chilling. It just shows me people's infinite capability to legitimize their own identity while stomping on the identities of others.

I already have my mom telling me that being poly is just a choice, I don't fucking need Dan Savage to do it too.
128
Ms Sappho - Your second paragraph definitely makes sense; I was just grabbing for a term, and welcome refinement of it, especially from an experienced source.

As for the first part, I didn't think we disagreed, but so many people have a sense of Team Spirit and defend those of a matching identity that the underline seemed reasonable.
129
I just reread WKBFM's letter for the third time. She finds the man's behavior "unsettling;"he is "anxious" to move to the self defense portion of the training; his wife only knows about the regular workouts part; even though she hasn't been back for six months, he's been "pestering" her to return and bust his balls--and keep it secret from his wife.

Nowhere does she suggest she enjoys anything about this activity. She is wondering whether there's a sexual component to it, and then implies that as long as she can pretend to herself there's not really a sexual element (i.e. she and he stay fully clothed), she'll bust his balls because she needs the money, and $150 is a lot of cash.

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not the guy's a creep, or whether his requests will escalate, or whether at $150 per ball-busting "self defense" session she's being underpaid, or who could take legal action against whom later.

Here's the thing. She's uncomfortable. She's uncomfortable enough to have avoided him for six months despite his pestering her, and uncomfortable enough to write to a sex advice columnist. She wants to know whether there is a sexual element of this set-up, and it seems that if she thinks there is, she doesn't want to do it. I think she does want to trust her gut but the lure of $150 is pretty strong.

All she wants to know is whether or not this is a sexual thing. It is. This is what he masturbates about later. And he doesn't want his wife to know about the "self defense" because the wife would see it as a sexual act or as fodder for sexual release. That's it.
130
@123 myd: My wife pointed out a scenario where friends-with-benefits-but-still-exclusive would not be emotional hypocrisy. The one where the person making the demand does not want to deal with potential STD transmission during a period of multiple partners. In essence, "Your next clean STD report qualifies you as a born-again virgin, STD-wise, and so far as we are both partnerless for the time being, that makes us both STD-safe. I am happy to have casual sex with you indefinitely once that report arrives, but if you subsequently find someone else that you want to have sex with, your first sexual encounter with them marks the end of our arrangement." That seems logical to me.

Can't tell from the letter whether that was the deal she struck with him. Also can't tell whether he has found someone else he wants to go have fun with, or is just getting cold feet contemplating the rest of his life with one person, having fallen hard for her bringing the issue into sharp focus. In any case it looks like he is trying to pressure her off her stance using "sexual identity" as a some sort of self-righteous lever. This is not cool of him, because it implies he has a bigger right to his own sexual behaviors than she does.
131
@130 - That's exactly the kind of arrangement that I've had with previous FWB. We're attracted to each other, but don't see enough compatibility to become a solid relationship. If either one of us met up with someone that we felt it could become serious with, then we broke things off. It's worked perfectly well so far.
132
Long-time reader, because I truly enjoy the wit and wisdom (and occasional foolishness) I find here.

However, I tend to disagree, Dan, about the poly-as-choice thing. I am pretty sure that the monogamous people I know aren't generally monogamous because they "made a lifestyle choice." They're not going to be happy in any other way. They're not (necessarily) insecure, they may have feelings of jealousy or territoriality, or they may have an inherent emotional need to have one person they're involved with.

Likewise, the folks I know who are poly (especially the subset of those people who are in committed relationships with one, or more people), tell me that they wouldn't be happy any other way, either. Perhaps due to temperament and personality, or because they get some emotional as well as physical satisfaction from various sorts of non-monogamous lifestyle.

There are indeed poly people. And we won't generally be as satisfied and fulfilled if we have only one partner forever, just as monogamous people aren't going to be thrilled if their partner want's another partner.

Different people work these things out in different ways, some more successful than others. It's possible for a poly person to not cheat on their monogamous spouse. It's possible, sometimes, for a monogamous person to not go straight up a wall if their partner has a fling.

I can't say whethere there's any particular switch or genetic trait, or developmental experience that causes some people to be the monogamous type, versus the polyamorous type.

My loose criteria is, if you are a certain way, and you didn't choose to be that way, it's not a lifestyle choice. It's the way you are, and you need to factor it into your choices, and your relationships.

Having someone tell you "Oh, that's not real, there's no such thing, you can just decide to be some other way," when they're talking about you, _to_ you, can be pretty hurtful and aggravating, just so you know. Heck - even if it _is_ a choice, it's still hurtful and aggravating, and implies that our feelings and choices are somehow not justified.

This almost sounds like:
"Some folks are just plain horn-dogs and barn-cats, and just want to have multiple sexual partners without real commitment or respecting their partner. They're just saying they're poly to excuse their desire to sleep around."

You don't have to excuse your desires, and I don't know if it can be done. You can take responsibility for actions and choices.

I've seen several couples go through all sorts of painful relationship stuff because, while they truly felt for one another, one was monogamous by nature, and the other wasn't. And when one of the couple was upset or unfulfilled, because they loved each other, neither was happy. Sometimes, though not always, this involved breakups. I'd say, at least from the people I've personally observed, that it's at least as much stress on a relationship as when one person has a high sex drive, and the other has a favorite chair. It can be overcome, but not ignored as an issue.

You often give people advice on when it's okay to cheat. And while I'm pretty fussy on the whole "you shouldn't be lying to or cheating on your partner" idea, I believe that sometimes that really is the best advice.

But maybe there would be some cheating that never had to happen if more people really factored in to their decisions of who makes a good partner, whether they were similar on the "monogamy versus want to have multiple partners" scale - whatever we'd call such a thing.

My husband and I have sex, or engage in sexual play with some of our close friends from time to time - mostly other married couples, who are extremely dear to us. Neither of us was ever happy in monogamous relationships, but we're happy with our polyamorous, polyfidelitous, whatever it's called relationship. One of the conscious choices we made was to be in a relationship where our partner was compatible in that way. Going into this relationship, this was one of the things we talked about.

And heck, even if there is someone who "just wants to play around and doesnt' want to commit to a monogamous relationship," why would you try to inflict that person on someone who _does_ want one. Or inflict monogamy on someone who doesn't want it?
133
Ank-- I can't tell if we just disagree (in which case there's no point in my repeating myself or if you've misunderstood my position (in which case I'll try to explain better). This post is for the latter possibility.

In 98, you sound exactly like the sort of manipulative bastard I'm trying to warn WKBFM against. This is the sort of guy who puts a younger, more vulnerable woman into a situation where he knows she's uncomfortable and tries to explain away her discomfort by telling her that she shouldn't be uncomfortable-- according to his criteria for what shouldn't make her uncomfortable. She tries to voice her fears, but he talks over her. She explains herself again, but no matter what objection she raises from her heart, he's got an answer, an answer that's based on her ignoring what her gut is telling her and that benefits him.

Let's take the classic scenario where he enters her despite her only being comfortable with petting until that point. Let's say she feels deeply distressed by the experience. She's afraid of pregnancy, relieved when she gets her period. She's also afraid of having contracted an STD and relieved when the tests come back clear. But more than all that, she's mad at herself for doing something sexually she didn't want to. She cries herself to sleep for a month, keeps cringing at the thought of what she agreed to, plays the scene over in her mind wishing she'd walked home in the cold instead of staying, and recoils the next time a guy wants to touch her. Finally, she gets some therapy and gets the nerve to confront her attacker.

"Hey, you didn't get pregnant or an STD. I didn't hurt you," he says disingenuously. "What's the big deal? There was nothing to be afraid of." "It's not like I'm some sort of serial killer," he says further invalidating her feelings. "What were you afraid of," he continues with the same lines he's used on countless young women. "Hey, do you want money?" he says in a last ditch effort to make it clear that he thinks of every woman as a prostitute and sex as a commodity. Once he starts from that position, everything else is a negotiation over price.

Maybe you still don't get it. I'm worried when you say her feeling of unsettling is from fears that aren't really real. I assure you that ALL fear is real. You may not believe there's anything to be afraid of, but the very fact of going through with something she's unsettled about is in itself something to be afraid of. The bad thing that could happen is that she could engage in a sex act (kicking him in the nuts) that makes her feel icky all over. End of story.
135
@Hunter
"She knows this man is attracted to her. There's some reciprocation, otherwise she wouldn't have played the martial arts game so long."

I think that is the most fundamental misunderstanding between women and men. A lot of women go along with something to keep the peace despite feeling creeped out/ pushed by someone/ something. Even self-assured strong women do that on occasion.

This young, slightly naive young woman has tried to avoid this guy for the last six months. She might be interested in the money and in self-defense training, but she did not reciprocate!
136
@6 - just because I've never dated two men at once doesn't mean I'm too "closed-minded" or "inexperienced" to know that I would not handle polyamorous relationships well, or enjoy them. I don't want to share my man. I don't want to deal with STDs, or "scheduling conflicts" or potential unplanned offspring he would have to (had better) step up financially for.

Sharing your life and compromising your life movements with one person is tough enough. Including others (that aren't your offspring) in the mix is just not something I'm wired or willing to deal with.
137
@135 migrationist

'I think that is the most fundamental misunderstanding between women and men. A lot of women go along with something to keep the peace despite feeling creeped out/ pushed by someone/ something. Even self-assured strong women do that on occasion.'

Thank you. The person that said 'trusting your gut' is wrong is a fucking idiot. Women are constantly assessing and gaging situations of their relative safety. They will keep the peace until they have a time to get away. Clearly the man that says you should deny your 'gut feelings', which in fact are warning signs of danger, has never talked to a woman who has been raped or sexually assaulted. If he talked to only one rape survivor, he would realize his idiotic myopic thinking of 'surrendering to stage fright' and 'denying new paths' is insulting to women everywhere.

I cringe for the women in his life.
138
WKBFM

You could really end up injuring this guy. Unless he's just messing with you and he's wearing a cup, it sounds like neither of you are experienced in this sort of S&M play. He would be better off hiring his beatings from a pro. And you don't sound like you have the whole boundaries thing figured out yet.

All this aside, if you do end up injuring him, it is going to affect his relationship with his wife. And possibly his marriage as well. It is unlikely that the wife could or would get civil damages from you for rendering her husband sexually non-functional. But you have to ask yourself if that is something you want on your conscience.
139
Good! Another round of the Semantic Olympics.

Re Poly, game on: Is is possible to be non-monogamous without being a 'poly'? Gave it a try while married, tried it while single, and I just don't feel monogamous. Right now I am, but not out of any conviction; I just happen to be involved with only one person at the present, but if another relationship came around I'd have no ethical or moral problem with it.

This is distinct from many, many guys whose behavior is non-monogamous, but who nonetheless believe in monogamy as a spiritual rule, a social convention, or a personal value.

It's also distinct from the polyamory, which seems to suggest you should adopt this as an overall identity or lifestyle, what with going to certain clubs to practice it and all.

What's wrong with calling it just good old-fashioned guilt-free sleeping around? Why do we need to build a brand statement around it?

140
@135, 137: Exactly. And Crinoline, in post #133 is right on, too. I don't think that all men are necessarily incapable of understanding this and that Hunter's and Ankylosaur's responses are typical of all men's. But women, especially young women, are socialized to not make a scene, to minimize their own objections, to get argued into going along with something they don't want.
This letter writer doesn't want to broaden her sexual horizons; she wants to make the money, but she's uncomfortable with the idea that she is being somehow sexually exploited. Her gut told her she was and she sought confirmation. The suggestion to override her gut reaction is similar to the reasoning that Avast delineated in response to the poly guy's line of reasoning: because they would like to think it is okay, they are trying to talk her into ignoring her own feelings under the guise of "broadening her horizons." Hunter seems particularly tone deaf in this case, when he goes on to suggest, despite the letter writer's explicit statements that she would only consider busting this guy's balls if she can stay fully clothed, that she could make more money if she were to bust his balls while naked.

But I hesitate to turn this disagreement into a battle of the sexes.

Several years ago a *female* friend came to me with the suggestion that I have sex with a wealthy friend of hers who is much older than I am as a way of helping me with my financial difficulties. I was 45 at the time; he was 75. When I said I didn't want to, she said, seemingly genuinely perplexed: "but why not? You love sex; he isn't getting any and wants to; you are broke; he has lots of money." I said: "I. Don't. Ever. Want. To. Have. Sex. With. Someone. I'm. Not. Attracted. To. Ever. Again."
141
"Poly is not a sexual identity, PP, it's not a sexual orientation. It's not something you are, it's something you do. There's no such thing as a person who is "a poly," just as there's no such thing as a person who is "a monogamous.""

Oh, Dan. You're so certain, so emphatic, so wrong.

Many people do in fact identify as polyamorous, in the same way they identify as gay or bi. For many people, it is not simply a lifestyle choice. Personally, there is no way I could be monogamous because that's not what I am.

I can't cite studies to support this point, but I know of at least one currently underway that asks respondents whether being poly is an identity issue for them, rather than a lifestyle choice. Clearly, people are at least investigating this question.

And, just my two cents: based on my personal experience watching friends and acquaintances, it almost never works when a person who identifies as polyamorous tries to commit to a monogamous relationship. It's a core compatability issue.
143
Hunter, I don't think that sex work is dishonorable work. I have two friends who are sex workers, and oftentimes, I see what they're doing as compassionate and kind. They provide a valuable service. They are mature women who made the decision to go into sex work consciously, and get well paid for the work they do (and one of them even swears she has regular orgasms with her clients), not young women, coerced into doing something.

This letter writer doesn't want to do sex work, which is why she's anxious to define what the man is asking of her. The money is the lure, but if it was interesting to her, she would have taken him up on his "pestering" long before now in the six months since her ball-busting session. If she could be convinced that this was not somehow sexual in nature, she would do it, but it seems pretty clear that she doesn't want to be a sex worker--now, at any rate.

She may decide ON HER OWN later that she wants to pursue this line of work. But there's a difference between Savage Love readers being accepting of sex work and trying to goad a young woman into it.
144
Let's keep going with the roller coaster analogy in 98. A kid in elementary school is afraid of going on a roller coaster. Intellectually, he knows he's not likely to die on it, but the speed and drops make him uncomfortable. He decides to go because his friends are going. He gets on, and the experience is horrifying. Even while his knuckles are white gripping the cross-handle, he knows that he's not really going to be catapulted to his death, but that's what it feels like in the pit of his stomach. The sharp free-fall drops are worse. His stomach is in his throat, and all he can do is wait for it to be over. His friends squeal and scream and seem to be enduring it. He endures. At the end, he exits the ride. He's shaken. He knows he's alive, but he never wants to do that again.

Ank would argue that he's unhurt so what's the big deal. I would argue that the simple matter of being through the experience is a sort of harm. No, it's not murder, but it was unpleasant for him. His life would have been just fine without going ahead. And while we can argue whether there was harm, there certainly was no benefit. It's not like he's learned anything that will make future amusement park rides better. There, in itself, is the bogeyman.
145
@139

Just calling it sleeping around is BS in the way that calling bi "non-picky" would be BS.

I don't sleep around. I am in serious committed relationships with more than one person.

There's nothing wrong with sleeping around, but that isn't what poly is.

"Sleeping around" is about sex.

For me, poly is about relationships.
146
Why do people even think poly is just about sex?

It reminds me of how many people think being gay is a sexual kink instead of a full romantic preference.
147
@Hyacinth

I'm mongamous (when in a relationship) and I don't think poly is just about sex.
148
@ 58

I totally agree with you. "Poly" is being a complete mainpulator by claiming his partner is oppressing him and not letting him be his "sexual orientation". How extremely open-minded of him to continue to let his partner practice monogamy and not oppress her. What a douche.
149
@mydriasis

Thank you.

I feel really disheartened that everyone here finds a creepy guy wanting his balls kicked more compelling than the fact that Dan just stomped all over who I am with all the introspection of a slug, as far as I can tell.

I'm sorry if I'm being crabby. It hurts. I'm sure I'm being rude and mean, but it's painful to hear that this essential thing about me is a choice.

Is it a choice for me to act on this essential thing about who I am? I guess, sure. Is it a choice to actually be this way? No.

No.
150
I've been ignoring Poly's letter because I think Dan got it right. Not the part about whether being a poly or a mono is an orientation or a choice (I don't have enough information about that to have an opinion), but the part about how it's Poly's call as to what he's capable of and wants to do. The thing that impressed me about Dan more than anything was when I heard him at a talk to college students saying "marry someone who does." I don't even remember what he was talking about specifically, but it struck me as genius. Whatever it is you want, find someone who wants the same thing with you. You might not find it, or you might not find it in someone who has the rest of the traits you're looking for, but at least look.

I can't really see that deciding whether poly or mono are orientations or choices matters much in this case. Let's say they're orientations as the LW would have us believe. That doesn't make his girlfriend a rat for making monogamy a condition of her marriage. It just means that if her boyfriend really has that orientation, it doesn't match hers, and they should both keep looking for the relationship(s) that will make them happy.

I'm more interested in the next questions. What might Poly do to help him decide? He has a legitimate question in wondering whether he'll be capable of marriage on his girlfriend's terms. He has a legitimate question in wondering if he'll ever find someone else he loves as well and who also tells him it's fine for him have sex with others. We all wonder what it takes to make relationships work under our specific set of circumstances.

I couldn't come up with anything. I toyed with suggesting that he and his girlfriend might take a year apart with no sexual relationships, then discarded it as a lame idea that wouldn't likely work.
152
So you get to self identify your sexual orientation, you don't want anyone to do it for you, but this guy's self description is unacceptable? I don't think so. We're all saying we don't want to be put in a box by others. I'm monogamous (yes really, since 1983). I think she is, but who ever really knows? I'm straight-ish, but accepting of others all the way to both ends of the spectrum. This fellow want to say he's poly, just be cool with it and answer his question.

Here's my advice to him:

Tell her straight up who you are. The sooner the better. Honesty is the only way out of this. Write it down if you don't think you can say it or she won't be able to hear it. You can tell her you love her, want a lasting relationship, think it will be a lifetime commitment, but that you are oriented to a different sexual identity and sooner or later it will find an outlet. That you will be crushed by the attempt to deny your identity and know that trying will eventually lead to lies and betrayal of the vows so you are choosing to truth from the start.

Then accept her response. If it's a deal breaker, so be it. Take the lesson and move on, find new relationships and learn what this lesson offers. If you had been more honest from the start, both with her and yourself, you wouldn't be at this point now, asking an advice columnist if you should try honesty or be silent about who you are.
153
PP: I've been there a few times. It hurts like hell.

The "uninformed" thing does carry considerable weight. Most people who ask for (er, demand) monogamous behavior have never given an equal chance to poly, and simply ask for monogamy because of cultural conditioning and fear of the unconventional or unknown... So, yes, most people who ask for monogamy are ignorant by any definition of that word.

But some aren't. There are a few people out there who have tried various points along the continuum without bringing their socially inflicted prejudices along with them, gathered the experience they needed, and decided that monogamy is right for them. That's not easy, and anyone who has done so has my utmost respect.

Anyone who can't do this but who is willing to demand that I change behaviour is going to be problematic for me, because I only appreciate self-righteousness of the well-informed ;) For you? You could treat it as a red flag, for sure, but is it a red flag that points to real problems with insecurity/ignorance that could lead to further trouble?

It's also possible that she demands monogamy now, but if you agree to it, she'll re-evaluate when she is completely secure in your relationship. You probably won't be able to argue her into poly, unless she's spectacularly logical and has too much free time. She'll have to come by it without your input, by exposure to independent sources. And it may well never happen.

Long-term relationships among humans tend to last 7-ish years (not by coincidence, that's approximately long enough to raise kids to the point at which they can be well taken care of by the tribe). Marriage artificially extends that, especially as our lifespans increase far beyond what they were when marriage was invented. You could try committing to a 7-year marriage to her, and re-evaluate at the end.

Not that "commitment" is ever binding. You could also fall in love with a woman who likes poly, at which point you'll be hard-pressed to stay with the one who wants to own your sexuality (and dumping a girl you love because she would keep you from another girl you love is the worst. thing. ever.). But signing up for "commitment" (whatever that means to you two) for a finite time may be something to think about.
154
Dan--stick to advice about sexual positions and gay youth suicide. You're good with that. But you do NOT know a damn thing about Polyamory. So until you educate yourself some more on that, STOP giving out advice about it! You are clueless as hell. Polyamory may not be a sexual orientation but it IS a Relationship Orientation and some people DO embrace it as an Identity. So shut up until you learn a bit more about it. Geez.
155
it is also very true that being 'poly' or 'mono' means different things to different people. it is always useful to have a conversation where you leave the labels (and identity politics) behind, and talk specifically about what each person 'needs', 'wants', and 'can't deal with'.... with compassion and honesty / acceptance.... often i've seen people who think they are incompatible, find that the specifics of their relationship needs are actually quite workable.
156
Is there really a point in posting this late in the game? Is anyone really going to read comment #154? Just in case....

I'm not so sure about the whole poly monogamous thing not being a part of the fiber of someone's being. I have always been aware since high school (now being 37) that I could easily love more than one person. That's not as in sleeping around with a bunch of people, but just a matter of feeling very comfortable with more than one equally cared for and respected partner, or dating someone else with several respected partners, where as most others are very uncomfortable with it.

It just feels natural to me, and the people I know are generally prefacing it with "I think it's fine, it's just not for me" which makes me think that it's more a matter of not feeling natural to them than it is a social behavior that they can't wrap their heads around.
157
I've been poly for years, and for me, it's definitely a choice/behavior, not an orientation. While I may not have had a choice about being attracted to multiple people, it was certainly a choice to actually pursue multiple relationships in an ethical way. I hate when people call poly a sexual orientation, because it's not necessarily sexual. It's about relationships and honesty, which is a choice for everyone.

Further thoughts at
158
@153: People are not required to test-drive (multiple times, with continual variations) every possible career, or hobby, or sport, or drug, or relationship model, or anything else to satisfy the judgey that they are not into something from a sufficiently informed position. They can just not be into it. No means no, drop it and move on. (For example, I assume that most of the men commenting are allowed to state "ball busting: not my thing" without trying it multiple times in multiple permutations. They can just look at it in the abstract and decide it's not their thing.)

For PP, that would mean that if poly is his essence-of-being thing that no one can ask him to live without, he should have said no back when she first asked.

And the seven year thing? Myth. Also the four year thing. Pretty much every culture came up with the idea of marriage as a lifelong bond. With varying details, including how much sexual and emotional and financial monogamy is expected from each party. PP's answer is not a "for seven years, and then we'll see if you're willing to try swinging" marriage. It's to decide this woman is worth giving up something important (which she was when it was just short-term sex) or not. Not is a perfectly okay answer. Take it and skip the whining that the vast majority of the attractive partners in the world are not actually into the same things you are, whether that's poly or foot fetish or seeing each other more than once every two weeks.
159
@158 - objection. it is not a cross-cultural thing. please do your research. many cultures view the idea of a 'life-bond' as anathema: deeply disrespectful/ equivalent to slavery. others view it as a weird, aberrant and irrelevant idea. others may life-bond, but don't do monogamy. my culture doesn't assume exclusivity, and the request for a life-bond commitment would be viewed with suspicion. compared to the other cultural demographics in my country, we have very low 'legal marriage' statistics, because it's just not that relevant to us.
just because the colonial british spread their cultural expectations across the globe, doesn't mean that the other cultures cease to exist.
160
Letters aside, as a poly woman I wanted to chime in on this debate. I do not believe that being poly is a sexual orientation, nor do I believe that it is a choice. Sexual orientation is defined by what people you are attracted to, not how many of them there are.

That being said, it isn't exactly a choice to be this way. I did not one day decide, "You know what? Loving and engaging in relationships with multiple people sounds nice. I'm going to do that instead." I have never understood monogamy. I do not understand why "the nuclear family" is THE family to have. I've certainly never been happy in monogamy.

I think being poly IS an identity, much in the same way we have cultural identities. Matter of fact, I think poly IS a cultural identity. This sounds strange to say, as most poly people I know do not come from poly backgrounds. They were not raised around anything similar. How could such a firmly established culture come from completely different cultures? I don't know. But it fits.

Perhaps we will find it has something to do with genetics?

I don't have all the answers. All I know is that it is not just a choice. I do not want to hear it called this, because frankly, this statement is followed by slut shaming. Is it orientation? No. Is it a choice? To act on it? Yes.

Yes, I know people are attracted to multiple people. Fucking multiple people does to make you poly, even if its honest and everyone knows.

What makes you poly is engaging in sustainable relationships with multiple people. Requiring a network of support like a non-traditional family. It feels natural to do this.

Can someone become poly, having not been previously? Yes. People change all the time. Again, it feels more like a change of culture though. Like someone moving from Mongolia to Ireland because Mongolian culture has puzzled them their entire lives, but knowing Ireland has got it exactly how you want it!

I don't know where the definition lies in this, but its more than just a, "Man, I think flying kites is cool. I'm gonna go fly kites." It's like having kite arms. "It's my choice to fly my kite-arms, but I did not choose to have kite-arms."
161
mimsy-monster - beautifully put.
162
@158: You could post the links to the descriptions of cultures in which there is no tradition of a lifebond with a partner, and such is viewed as anathema and enslavement.

I deliberately chose the phrasing "pretty much every culture" because I assume with enough samples someone might do it. But every time I encounter "four years is the natural length" or "seven years is the natural length" no one can ever point to the traditional cultures that have formalized this allegedly natural rule for relationships. When it should be how virtually all your hunter-gatherers set things up, if it's so damn natural and instinctive. We seem to do much closer to what the other pair-bonding species do: for life, even without offspring, and with sexual infidelity in various allowed and not-allowed-but-happening permutations.

163
@Mimsy_Monster, you explained it really beautifully.

Thank you.
164
well, i'm maori, from nz. so i can speak directly about my own cultural perspective.

while jealousy and drama still happens, in any relationship set-up, there is no assumption of exclusivity - especially over the long-term. a guy might get upset if his partner is having another relationship, and he may even get some sympathy, but there is no idea that the woman is not totally entitled to do so - and if he makes a scene, he's a bit of a jerk.

family and tribe connections are much more important than 'relationships', irrelevant of whether it's been six months or twenty years; the relationship is only relevant if there are children from it. responsibility for the support and raising of children is an extended family thing - the 'nuclear family' is not really a thing - it's not all that common for people to even live 'two parents plus kids'. most people have children with more than one person across their lifetime, and will co-parent irrelevant of living situations, non-biological parents being more like aunts and uncles. also, if there are children, or if you were together for a long while, you are family to each other, even if there is no longer a 'relationship', so there is no idea that a new relationship ends the claims/responsibilities of previous relationships....

marriage: i think, off the top of my head, i've heard that about 30% of maori marry, at all, ever... to try to bind someone for life is in direct violation of concepts of mana ake (inviolable/intrinsic personal worth) and tino rangatiratanga (self-determination). these, together with the primary claim of family, and genealogical identity, form the basic principles of our culture and social structure.

there is, of course, a significant impact on all this from the british culture and colonial process - there has been a lot of... confusion, both about family structures and about gender roles. on the other hand, there seems to be an equal influence in the other direction. someone i know (non-maori, with non-maori community) went to england and married someone over there, had a kid, then came back home... when she picked up another lover the culture gap became really clear. he kept expecting people to think she had done something wrong, but mostly people were just a bit bemused that he thought this meant their relationship had changed. i mean: she wanted to stay with him, she still loved him, there had been no 'break-up', and they had a kid. so... where was the issue?

also... i know there is a cultural group in china, somewhere, where the authorities have been trying to persuade them for decades that 'couples' and 'marriage' are a great idea, despite these being foreign concepts, and them having their own system that has worked just fine for their entire remembered/recorded history, without any kind of sexual 'relationship' recognition at all.
i know there are others, and logically, there must be others. you could try reading sex at dawn - to be honest i found it terribly patronising and sentimental, but it does talk about different family structures in different cultures, at some point.
165
@153: I had nonmonogamy inflicted on me by a girlfriend once, a long time back. Even though I had never tried it, I knew going in that it was not something that would suit me emotionally, and wonder of wonders, it was hell to live through. Gee, just maybe I know MYSELF well enough that I don't have to intimately investigate the ins and outs of nonmonogamy in order to be able to say it's not my thing.

Frankly your talk about the self-righteously uninformed sounds suspiciously similar to the arguments my girlfriend used to manipulate me into trying it and struggling to accept it despite how miserable it made me. The whole thing devolved into one long exercise in manipulativeness on her part and delegitimization of my core self. Just go find people who are actually interested in trying it out for themselves. Don't try to turn people who are resistant, and don't look down on them for feeling differently, if you don't want to be looked down on by them.

Your whole "utmost respect" thing begs the question that your respect on this issue is actually worth having. If you were to take that attitude towards, say, skydiving -- that you didn't respect someone who turned it down without having jumped out of at least a couple of planes, so they would be sufficiently "qualified" in your eyes to say it wasn't their thing -- people would quite rightly dismiss you as an idiot.
166
While I agree that poly orientation is not on par with (and should not be confused with) sexual orientation, the word "orientation" itself speaks to being oriented toward, or aligned with, a direction or state.

It's really important that LGBT rights are understood to be predicated upon an understanding that one's sexual orientation is *not* a choice. While "being poly" is more choice-oriented, I think, there certainly seem to be people who have more of a natural alignment--and others who find themselves in polyamorous relationships and situations (when said people may not have chosen or do not feel automatically oriented to that lifestyle.)
167
@135 and @137: Bless you BOTH!

@151 Hunter78: You need a nap.
168
Okay, this is off topic, but am I the only one creeped out by the red penis in the Smitten Kitten ad?
169
@auntie grizelda:

I don't know if you are the only one. Personally, I find it quite titillating.

@Sappho:
Thank you for a very different perspective.
It makes it sound like monogamy and polygamy/polyandry are indeed mainly culturally determined.

I don't believe that being able to love more than one person at a time is something only polyamorous people are capable of. Maintaining more than one meaningful ralationship at once, however, takes a lot of work. And many people don't think that the benefits of more than one relationship are worth the amount of extra work needed.
170
@sappho:
Thank you for that example. I tried Sex at Dawn and immediately had "but what exactly is your data" response--I can believe that a WW2 fighter pilot group engaged in wife-swapping, but it read as though he talked to one person who said this happened in his unit and decided it must have happened in all the units. If he had any quantitative data like "at least half" that sure didn't come across in the piece. (For anyone reading sociology, it's instructive to read something about your particular group. The sort of simplifications and exaggerations that make for funny satire from someone in your group make for aggravating over-simplistic cultural analysis from someone outside, who seems to buy into every stereotype and ignore all the nuances in ways people differ from the stereotypes. And then keep that in mind when reading 'this is how these people all work' studies of any other group.)

I am mainly pushing back against the "it's natural to bond for 7 (or 4 or 3) years monogamously then break apart" myth. People bond monogamously, or nonmonogamously, for much shorter and longer time spans. Expectations of exclusivity are very culturally dependent, though the existence of jealousy even when nonexclusivity is allowed suggests some underlying hardwiring that various social forms grow up to address.
171
@169 migrationist: I don't know---I guess because it's a glaring red?
172
@171 auntie grizelda:
Much more enticing than purple or hot pink!
173
Savage speaks a lot about "rounding up" in his columns. In fact, he makes mention of it in this very column. So my question is whether polyamory can be "rounded up" to an orientation?

First, the hard truth:the sexual aspect of polyamory isn’t exclusive to the polyamorous. When it comes to the actual sex that we want to have, I’d imagine poly people and monogamous people are pretty much the same. People pursuing monogamous relationships don't go through their lives not being attracted to anyone until they meet the one person they are supposed to be with and they don't stop being attracted to other people after they find them.

BUT...whatever it is about polyamory that works for the polyamorous, it clearly confounds legions of the monogamous. They understand the "pro" side, of course: more partners means more sex, more variety, more connections. What they often fail to understand is the absence of a "con" side. “How can you be okay with your partner being with someone else?” is the question that gets asked. And the answers are often maddeningly glib and revolve around how their partner is an autonomous person, not their property, etc. I say “maddeningly” because these kinds of answers imply that the sexual dynamics of committed monogamous couples must be...well, awful. That the decision to refrain from being with other people is driven by fear and anxiety, not love.

And, well, maybe it is. But human beings are fearful, anxious animals, poly and monogamous alike. Maybe Dan is right and what separates the monogamous from the polyamorous is not intrinsic the way heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are.

But the fact of the matter is that poly people don't get to live openly as poly people without social and professional consequences. Many people wring their hands over what kind of parents poly people make and what kind of example they set for their children. Polyamory is something that consenting adults do and that wigs the hell out of a lot of people. The easy approach when it comes to polyamory is to be open about it when you're in the company of other poly or poly-friendly people and to keep it to yourself when you're around people who aren't. Especially if those people sign your paycheck or sit on the board of your PTA.

If polyamory isn't an orientation, it sure as hell makes the polyamorous act as though it were.
174
@173 - from (my) poly perspective...
on the pro side:
- it's like having more than one sibling(maybe there's a research opportunity there): when your pissed off with one person there is someone else you still get on with, who will prob talk you down off your high horse. in some ways, this means less drama, and issues sooner mended.
- you can appreciate a person for who they are, rather that what you want from them, because that is your own responsibility. and you don't feel like you have to be something other than who you are - no 'gap-filling', if they need something that they don't get from you, they'll just get it elsewhere.
- you never need to wonder, do they really want me? do they really want to be here, with me, right now? you know that they have other options, and they made the effort to be there because that is really what they want.
- there is just more energy to go around. and it's the best thing for kids. looking after toddlers and small kids is soo much easier when there are three or four parents: there is always someone to stop and listen/ play with kids; there are more chances to have that important personal discussion with your lover / co-parent; there are more chances to grab that nap you need; it's more likely that someone else will be making dinner... and as they get older, there are different perspectives to draw on, for advice on surviving being a teenager, more shoulders to lean on.
- you're less likely to get that social isolation people talk about when they are in a couple, esp once there are small kids.

honestly (while i know that many people don't have or want kids) the moment you have children, most of the best things about being poly have nothing to do with sex.

so, the cons of poly... are dire...
...yes, it can be complicated, and it requires honesty and an open heart... but the main issues come down to these two things:
- every person who is loved, by someone you love, you end up loving(or, occasionally, hating). it can't be helped. and you end up with mad crushes on people you are never going to sleep with, because you are just sooo incompatible. but, hey, you get to cook dinner together and wash nappies together and hold them when they are crying over your mutual lover being such a bastard...
- you can't fix other people's relationships. when someone you have loved deeply, for years, is breaking up with someone else you love deeply... there is nothing you can do about it. other than hold people, and try not to break your own heart, too. and if they decide they are staying away for a few months or years, this means you will probably not see them either.
175
you polyfuckers are sure thin-skinned.
176
Nightsinge@166: It's really important that LGBT rights are understood to be predicated upon an understanding that one's sexual orientation is *not* a choice.

I can't agree with that at all. LGBT rights are simply basic legal rights. The point is that you shouldn't LOSE any of your legal rights by being LGBT. It doesn't matter a damn WHY you're LGBT.
177
hehe... i just want to point out that homo-, bi-, and heterosexuality being viewed as "identities" is a pretty new concept. They were all just something people DID, not who they WERE. By "new concept" I mean that in the span of time we've had these words in our language, they've mostly been used solely to describe actions. For shorthand in clinical descriptions, ANYONE who performed a homosexual act was called homosexual (no "a"), much like nowadays when someone engages in poly acts we call them polyamorous.

I came to this article from a conservative link bemoaning the hypocrisy of "liberals"... they kind of have a point for Dan to not see his own history repeating. I will leave whether it's a good idea in general to turn *behaviors* into *identities* for another time ;-)
178
@160 - That is extremely, extremely well put. Thanks for saying it so well.
179
@ Polyamorous Polymath:

Start dancing Argentine tango. Done well, it goes a long way to getting that intense emotional connection with another person, and you get to do it with 20 different people in a night.
Plus you'll learn a new life skill that will help stave off dementia :-p
180
@sappho

It seems to me that the pros have nothing to do with being poly

1. when your pissed off with one person there is someone else you still get on with, who will prob talk you down off your high horse.

Um, friends fill this role quite nicely.

2. and you don't feel like you have to be something other than who you are - no 'gap-filling', if they need something that they don't get from you, they'll just get it elsewhere.

This doesn't appeal to me at all. Basically it's like instead of having one person who's got it all going for them, you have a bunch of people who are only somewhat appealing?

3. looking after toddlers and small kids is soo much easier when there are three or four parents

This is legit - but again not exclusive to poly. A handful of monogamous couples living together could acheive the exact same thing, or even an especially close knit group of adults that assume responsbility for eachother's childen.

4. you're less likely to get that social isolation people talk about when they are in a couple, esp once there are small kids.

Again, this just comes down to equating monogamy with being a nuclear family that has no outside friends or interests. That's not what it's about at all.

Sure, some people do monogamy that way, but not all of us.
181
@ migrationist

"It makes it sound like monogamy and polygamy/polyandry are indeed mainly culturally determined."

Sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine. Polygamy is not the gendered opposity of polyandry. Polygyny is. I know that polygamy usually means multiple women but it isn't inherently gendered.
182
@mydriasis:

Sorry, my bad. That happens when I try to be extra PC.
183
@Bonefish @111: And you might disagree that what he's doing is creepy, manipulative, or disrespectful.

I'm not picking up anything in LWs letter to suggest she finds this guy "creepy, manipulative, or disrespectful." If I did, I'd take her word for it given that she's worked for him for years. If she was creeped out by this guy, she wouldn't be writing to Dan for advice.

My objection is to the commenters reading their own tired stereotypes into this letter based on a disappointingly narrow-minded, anxiety-ridden, and phallophobic point of view.

Read the letter again. LW didn't ask anyone whether she should or should not do this. She quite deliberately has kept that decision to herself. She simply asked about his intentions, presumably so she can make her own informed decision.

And, as I think about it, I'm pretty certain this is not about a guy getting off on having his balls kicked. This guy doesn't want to pay her for sex. I think he's into her, and he is trying (in his own odd way) to seduce her (an act which often *requires* a man to mask his intentions, at least in the beginning).

If he succeeds, good for both of them - I know a couple of women who, in their youth, had relationships with powerful older men. They both benefited enormously from them. If he doesn't, so it goes.
184
To PP: Ever try asking for a compromise? Sex with someone else once a year/month/decade, or only in x/y/z situations?
185
Poly only works if both people are okay with the arrangement AND if ground rules are set AND lived by. My ex-husband is poly and I'm so not. But, when he told me if I couldn't accept it, he'd leave, I decided, for the kids to try and make it work. One of the ground rules was that our bed was our bed and his other girlfriend(s) couldn't share it; a week in, I was on the couch and she was in our bed. It ended up being the best thing for us when I realized after nearly ten years what an emotionally abusive prick he is and divorced him. Now, the kids and I are happy with my boyfriend and we hardly ever talk to or see the ex.
186
185- Finally Happy-- Yeah, maybe I haven't been reading this column long enough, but for right now, I think I have trouble distinguishing between "poly" and "lying, cheating, manipulative asshole."
187
My take on it is that it's most likely to work in triads/quads/etc where everyone loves and is committed to the whole group ("all for one and one for all" so to speak), and the group shares living arrangements, so that they are basically one big happy family, all putting their resources into making life good at home for everyone.

The situation where it's a couple where one or both have outside lovers...well, I won't say that it _can't_ work, but there is a distinct risk that the "home" relationship will slowly become the dull, boring, place where the drudgery of daily life must be hammered out day after day, while the lover is where you go when you want pleasure and excitement. Whoever gets left home tending the laundry and kids most often is going to start feeling seriously devalued and taken advantage of. (Can you tell that's what happened with that girlfriend I mentioned earlier?) The outside lover has an unfair advantage, in that they are always the one who gets excited about that expensive dinner date, and never the one who has to look at the finance ledger and say "honey, we can't afford that right now."

@185: Yes, exactly. When the girlfriend did that, first thing she did was set out a series of safety nets/boundaries, supposedly to make me feel comfortable, then systematically disregarded each and every one, including the one where our bed was OUR bed. Poly may not inherently mean "eat your cake and have it too" but it sure attracts a lot of people who treat it as exactly that.
188
Wow, so many nuances to the response to LW2. All I will go on record about is that it is Not Fair for anyone to tie up a woman's heart in her peak child bearing years if they aren't in it for the long run.
For LW2, I actually see very little downside in a young woman getting very, very good at kicking some creep in the 'nads!
189
finallyhappy@185, I'm glad you ended up better off, but it doesn't seem like poly was the issue in that relationship. Personally, I'd amend your first sentence:
"Poly only works if all participants are okay with the arrangement AND continue to extend each other basic courtesy and consideration."

avast@187, it is indeed crucial to be aware of that danger and plan fun date nights for the "home" relationship so they don't just feel like parents & roommates. It helps to be aware of the concept of "New Relationship Energy," which means that the new partner looks extra shiny and appealing for six months or so. After a while, though, the comfort of the old relationship often trumps the excitement of the not-so-new. It also helps to be aware that relationships change and sometimes end, and that a desire for poly may be just a symptom of the underlying need for change.
190
Maybe Dan can enlighten us further as to why poly is not an orientation. It seemed that his answer was very similar to what people have said for centuries about homo and bisexuality. It seems quite legitimate to say that that the vast majority of people seem to be wired for monogamy but some simply are not. Many polies suppress their sexuality to conform to social norms just as many homosexuals used to - and still do - suppress their sexuality to conform to social norms. Maybe there is a distinction but I'm not there yet.
191
@172 migrationist: That would be pretty wild, indeed.
192
@mydriasis - point two might be a primary difference point? i find, for myself, the idea of being someone's only lover a real challenge, claustrophobic and dehumanising. i realise that that's my insecurities, to some point, and it's not ok to require others to have multiple partners... but there is no appeal for me in the 'all in one person' thing. it feels very disrespectful. and very unstable. someone said security / safety was their main monogamy motivation, for me mono seems unsafe, insecure... and to be honest, temporary. i'm not that keen on something that might founder over what feels like minor stuff. relationships are, for me, more about building a family than about anything else. whether or not the relationship includes sex is not the defining point.
also... i could never choose. that is also dehumanising, disrespectful. how could i? what right does anyone have to try to interfere / control another persons relationships? it would be like choosing one friend over all others, or only one child. it is just incomprehensible to me. the 'primary relationship' thing is also incomprehensible to me.... that seems like monogamy-shape relationship, with slightly different rules.
re the kids, and parenting. there is a huge difference between 'adults who help out with each others kids', and 'parents'. we have both kinds, and there is a massive difference. it's about the level of responsibility, and also about the relationship between adult and child.
193
@190 GQbd: I love your Opus icon!
194
WKBFM, you asked a simple question (sexual component), and I agree with Dan’s answer (yes), but he and other commenters are a bit light on one dimension.

Wealthy Martial Artist has a paraphilia - a kink. The film critic Noël Burch coined the term “viragophile” for a man aroused by a woman vanquishing a man, not as a muscle babe, but with elegance, through speed and skill, perhaps in white gloves and heels.

Or a leather catsuit. A Welshman I know put it trenchantly: “Diana Rigg turned a whole generation of British men into perverts.” Rigg’s Emma Peel perfectly embodied the archetype, but the archetype crosses all generations and cultures. From Mrs. Peel, dial forward half a century through five incarnations of La Femme Nikita, or back three millenia to Penthesilea fighting the Greeks, and you’ll find the same elegant warrior.

A few things follow about WMA:

1. He doesn’t want to fuck you. Karate isn’t foreplay, it’s the main event.

2. If he’s as expert as you suggest, he’s skilled at not hurting his students and not being hurt by them. You’re pretty safe.

3. His weird contrivances are due to shame. WMA’s kink is mild (especially compared to some of the shit that passes through Dan’s column), does not meet a DSM-V criterion for pathology, nevertheless he, like most of us, has internalized the teaching that if you’re not vanilla, you’re a fucking sicko.

4. The viragophile has a female countertype who digs chop-chop with the boys; Mrs. Peel is as popular among women as among men. WMA, who over many years has come to know you, like you, and trust you, may have detected that latency within you.
195
@51 (re: @22), you know I got to thinking about it after I posted that, and I realized it probably is hard for women to be non-monogamous, for different reasons. I should have known. I know women like that, who would like to be non-monogamous. They have no trouble finding men to have sex with of course. But it is hard for them to find respectful men, and hard to find the solid relationships and emotional bond they still want. And of course they have the extra problem of just being more in danger than men doing the same thing.

I loved the recent This American Life episode where the long-term couple decides to spend a month seeing other people to see what it's like, and the woman heads straight to the bars and starts hooking up with guys she'll never have to care anything about and who don't seem to mind her choices, while the guy has to go through a series of 5-dates and then break up with a girl, and they all get mad at him.

Anyway, thanks for your respectful rejoinder. I think you're right.
196
To the "poly" identified person, I think he should have an open mind. Every relationship is different, and he could at least give it a try and see what happens with his desires.

I thought I was a polyandrous person and decided that was the way to go. Then I met my lover, and honestly after about a year and a half, I have no desire to be with other people. We've talked about it and figured if the opportunity arises we'll discuss it, if not, no problem. So it's important to stay open to this possibility!

Also you never know what can happen in the future with your partner. They could come around to the idea of being in a polyamorous relationship once they feel comfortable with it and secure in the relationship.
197
@22: Gender is one factor on how easy it is for poly people to get partners, but it's far from the only one. There's also personality type (an extroverted man will do better than an introverted woman), social skills, how closely their interests match that of their local community, age, etc.
198
"I am not asking the same of her: She does not have to sleep with other people to keep me in her life."

Oh, come on. That's not polyamory, it's cuckolding. To compare you not wanting to force her into extracurricular sex activities to her request for exclusivity is disingenuous. A request to refrain from an activity one would prefer to engage in is fundamentally different from a request to engage in an activity one would prefer not to engage in.
199
@192 "i find, for myself, the idea of being someone's only lover a real challenge, claustrophobic and dehumanising... there is no appeal for me in the 'all in one person' thing. it feels very disrespectful. and very unstable."

I feel exactly the same way.

I'm a 37-yo poly woman here, and although I have repeatedly tried monogamy, I always get claustrophobic, feel increasingly isolated, and feel guilty that I'm incapable of meeting all my partner's needs. I used to end up cheating just to relieve the pressure. After 13 years of that, I realized that I'm just not suited to monogamy. I don't want to cheat on people, I don't want to hurt people, and I'm miserable in monogamous relationships, so I just don't do them anymore.

Currently I'm in relationships with 2 men, 1 for 2.5 years and 1 for 1.5 years. I also have a new lover (~1 month) who may or may not become something more. But in addition to my lovers, I also get to hang out with their other partners (and some of their partners' partners). I like and respect almost all of them, and I see many of them on a regular basis. Often, a group of us will go on a trip together (no, it doesn't turn into a massive orgy).

Does it always work perfectly? No. Sometimes there is strife, sometimes there is jealousy, and sometimes there are scheduling issues. Relationships end or change, just as monogamous ones do, and that can be difficult for more than just the couple. And of course each individual relationship faces many of the same problems as a monogamous relationship - one partner doesn't communicate well, a death in someone's family or a job loss stresses them out, someone's work gets crazy busy and they neglect their partner(s) for a bit. But when that kind of thing happens, which it inevitably does, we all have a close group of other people to turn to for support and help.

I know poly definitely isn't for everyone, but it certainly is for me, and many of the people I know. Most of us can't or don't want to have monogamous relationships. We're happy for our happily-monogamous friends, but we don't want to join them. Our monogamous friends are equally happy for us. I just wish that wider society could start to treat polyamory as a reasonable identity (I AM poly, rather than choosing to be poly), or relationship/life choice.
200
@192 "i find, for myself, the idea of being someone's only lover a real challenge, claustrophobic and dehumanising... there is no appeal for me in the 'all in one person' thing. it feels very disrespectful. and very unstable."

I feel exactly the same way.

I'm a 37-yo poly woman here, and although I have repeatedly tried monogamy, I always get claustrophobic, feel increasingly isolated, and feel guilty that I'm incapable of meeting all my partner's needs. I used to end up cheating just to relieve the pressure. After 13 years of that, I realized that I'm just not suited to monogamy. I don't want to cheat on people, I don't want to hurt people, and I'm miserable in monogamous relationships, so I just don't do them anymore.

Currently I'm in relationships with 2 men, 1 for 2.5 years and 1 for 1.5 years. I also have a new lover (~1 month) who may or may not become something more. But in addition to my lovers, I also get to hang out with their other partners (and some of their partners' partners). I like and respect almost all of them, and I see many of them on a regular basis. Often, a group of us will go on a trip together (no, it doesn't turn into a massive orgy).

Does it always work perfectly? No. Sometimes there is strife, sometimes there is jealousy, and sometimes there are scheduling issues. Relationships end or change, just as monogamous ones do, and that can be difficult for more than just the couple. And of course each individual relationship faces many of the same problems as a monogamous relationship - one partner doesn't communicate well, a death in someone's family or a job loss stresses them out, someone's work gets crazy busy and they neglect their partner(s) for a bit. But when that kind of thing happens, which it inevitably does, we all have a close group of other people to turn to for support and help.

I know poly definitely isn't for everyone, but it certainly is for me, and many of the people I know. Most of us can't or don't want to have monogamous relationships. We're happy for our happily-monogamous friends, but we don't want to join them. Our monogamous friends are equally happy for us. I just wish that wider society could start to treat polyamory as a reasonable identity (I AM poly, rather than choosing to be poly), or relationship/life choice.
201
To weigh in on "is poly / monogamy an orientation?"

I don't think there is one right answer. As other commenters have said I think it might be a spectrum. I've known people who couldn't be anything other than monogamous, that's how their "wiring" ended up; and I've also known people who have to be in poly arrangements to be happy. But I think a lot of the rest of us are somewhere in between. For myself, I am capable of being in love with two people at the same time - it's happened to me; but because of jealousy issues, the problems of negotiating and scheduling time etc etc... I feel that I have to work at achieving monogamy, but I also would have to work at getting to a workable polyamory situation, and the monogamy end of things is less effort, from where I'm at. So, somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to mono.

and my second point is... reading my lengthy explanation there: for me, which way I end up living my relationships *is* a choice. But I also recognize that for some people, it really, really isn't a choice, it's how they are.
202
If she doesn't have to proofread, I do it for a franklin (I thank that's fifty ho-hum dollars)

Sounds like someone's just pissed off she doesn't buy him a drank

but anywho, on the lighter side it sounds as if the pragmatic dude thinks "no" might actually be a "maybe" or that at least there's no harm in continuing to persuade until it's a no with a swift kick to the balls

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.