Never understood this jackhammer thing. I've been playing for years and I just come faster and faster! Can't imagine loosing sensation. Bummer.

For GROAN :
It sounds like the same thing I had, bear in mind, I am not a doctor, so see one.

As orgasm approached, the pain would rise until it negated the pleasure. Doctor stuck his finger up and said prostate was fine, but essentially it seemed that I had strained it somehow. I held off sex and masturbation for three weeks and then it was fine again, just like any muscle strain. That was more than a decade ago and nothing since.

HAMMERED-- You've either asked the wrong question, or you've skipped a question. You make it sound like it's a choice between either your boyfriend learns to come in a different way or you keep feeling like an inflatable doll who can't walk or ride a bike the next day. Come on HAMMERED and all the other women I'm suddenly hearing about: Sex is not supposed to hurt! (Unless you want it to and it's doing something for you, but that's another story and another letter.) Your question is (or should be) Do I have to put up with this? Hint: NO! Sure you love him, and sure you have sympathy for him, but you're making your (solved) difficulty coming sound like it's equivalent with his. It's not! Your difficulties didn't involve inflicting pain on your partner that took a day to get over. It never occurred to you to wonder about a guy who's okay with putting you through that? And more than once? Yes, Dan's advice about retraining this guy's dick is good, but the first thing, the absolute first thing, is that until he gets around to retraining, he does not get to pound you vaginally. That's the rule to enforce. His orgasm does not take precedence over your health and comfort. Dan's retraining is something your boyfriend can think about, but in the mean time, when he's with you, it's his fist or your fist or nothing. I'm not given to using this many exclamations, but I feel like shaking some sense into you. The last generation of women did not start a feminist movement so younger folks could convince themselves that what you're doing is sexual freedom.

Hammered - echoing Crinoline - discomfort? maybe sometimes. Pain? No.
JAGG - you are worried that your bi boyfriend could turn straight. And he could. Some people's orientations shift over time. But forbidding him hookups with women won't prevent that change, if it's coming. I think your best option is trusting him to be as ethical as he has up to now, and keeping lines of communication open.
LID - four years seems like a long time to have a FWB arrangement without it turning into something else or ending. So it's turning into something else. You don't have to play by anybody's rulebook - do what feels comfortable to both of you!

@4 Couldn't JAGG's bi boyfriend fall in love with a woman and dump JAGG without turning straight? In fact JAGG's bi boyfriend could fall in love with a woman and dump JAGG even without having explicit permission to start having sex with women. Nothing more common.

JAGG, let your boyfriend do what he wants to do; let him be himself. Trust that you are resilient and whatever happens, you will be able to find joy in life. "Perfect" people are over-rated anyway.

What jumped out at me from L1: [For what it's worth, about half the time he just lets me come buckets and then gives up on himself.] While I agree with Ms Crinoline's main points, for most of the rest my touristy observation is that the framework that He's Doing Sex Wrong will poison the relationship whether she succeeds in *retraining* him or not. The contempt is already there.

Ms Thinking - That might have been highly plausible for an FF couple if we reverse all the genders. There are a number of explanations that spring to mind:

a) JAGG really doesn't want to partner a Boinker of Women, but is too passive-aggressive to admit this is a dealbreaker for him.

b) JAGG is afraid BF will gain the ascendancy in the relationship because he'll have much higher OS sexual market value than he does SS.

c) JAGG is afraid BF will "pay him back" for the twelve years of monogamy, especially if the monogamous period was primarily JAGG's doing.

d) JAGG is afraid BF will try to make him compete with the massive societal advantage of OS relationships.

The letter does seem as if there's some sort of projection, but in which direction?

Ms Erica - You got off to such a good start. But "nothing more common"? That sounds as if you could break up a dozen MM couples by teatime tomorrow if you felt so inclined.

LW comes across as being about as resilient as a burnt cookie, poor man.

I wonder if there is a word or a term of some sort that refers to the sexual act also known as "Putting me in four-point restraint, masturbating me, then tickling me post-orgasm."

Lets come up with something. Maybe a committee headed by Hunter could give us couple starters.

in the meantime, PM4MT anyone?

vennominon @8, I think that EricaP was referring not to MM couples specifically but to "fall[ing] in love with a woman and dump[ing your spouse] even without having explicit permission to start having sex with women" -- that does indeed happen a lot, though it would perhaps still be difficult for one woman to break up a dozen couples by teatime tomorrow (charmingly put, by the way).

LW1. Oh, the old jackhammer sex.. Jack Jack Jack hammer hammer hammer..
You do sound like you are a little over this boy, you sure you want to stay with him? Hard to imagine you guys can find a place of joy in your sex life..
Have you thought to play a bit more with each other. Set up erotic scenarios, where he might be so turned on, just a minimum of thrusts are needed for him to come?

HAMMERED: Thank you for writing in, if nothing else to dispel the theory some men have that "sex for hours" is what women want. No, it's really not. Good for HAMMERED for hanging in there until her boyfriend comes (half the time); the other half the time, maybe she could stop him when she's starting to get sore, and either she or he could jack him off? That's an option in case the retraining doesn't work.

Re JAGG: I think this is the most bi-positive response I have ever read in a Savage Love column. Thank you, Dan!

JAGG. Jealousy, it's a bitch, isn't it? Of course you should be worried. Those pesky women will surely want to snatch that perfect man right out of your hands.
Your partner can't be perfect. Such creatures do not exist. Take those rose coloured glasses off and see clearly. See? Just a man, just a person..
If you trusted him with other men why the jealousy over a woman? What he has with a woman, he can't have with you, so what's to be jealous of?
Relax. Trust he loves you and wants to be with you.

Ms Manx - Thanks; it was a tiny joke. I'm older than Mr Savage and I live not far from Provincetown, though truthfully I'd have never attended a "tea dance" unless they'd actually served real tea.

I'll let myself tease you just a little and say in a mildly prickly tone, "a woman?" mainly because it seems an amusing cross-examination to ask if you seriously contend that women constitute superiour-to-men lures away from partners of fifteen years, orientation being leveled.

Seriously, though, while Mr Savage is right in what he says, he's a little too post-gay on this one. There are elements to crossing the divide in basically any direction that don't apply to outside partners in the same frame. Plenty of people don't entirely respect (or worse) partnerships from which they would be excluded. And, although I know Ms Cute thinks the concern extreme, there's the dreaded P-word in this case. Besides the condom failure rate (probably too high for my chips if the gamble were to be regularly ongoing), it's one thing to trust in one's own ability to determine that a casual hook-up isn't out to trap oneself, and a whole other layer to trust that someone one will never meet is out to trap one's partner. Yes, the percentage of deceitful people is very low, but it only takes one, and the branching out proposed to LW is upping the ante. And there is a danger that congress with women might lead out of BF some desire to sire that might have slumbered safely away otherwise.

The funny thing is that I could see this LW in a poly/open relationship in which BF acquired a secondary (F) partner while LW continued with outside M adventures more easily than I can see him embracing casual F hook-ups. I'm not sure why, but think that's because I can't settle on what LW is projecting.

One serious thing to recommend is a trial period. LW could well be worried that saying yes will constitute a permanent and irrevocable permission slip, or signing on to a whole new life he may not like in a way their deciding to allow other men didn't. I'm not expert enough to suggest any set period of time, but it seems more manageable if this has to be renewed affirmatively with joint approval every so often, at least for a while.

LW 1 - Dude must have a really killer personality and/or you're a way better person than I. There is no way in hell I could sustain a relationship with the kind of sex you describe. Long-term, good love tends to sour under the taint of bad sex. Maybe you guys just aren't right for each other. Sexual compatibility is a real thing.

I actually understand JAGGs trepidation and I don't think it should be so summarily dismissed.

Yes, of course, his partner could leave him for another guy. But the odds differ.

The simple truth is that a woman can offer things another guy can't. Social acceptance, welcoming into almost every religious community, children that are biologically both of theirs...

Screwing around with other guys there are no inherent benefits over what he has at home.

Screwing around with women, well, that's different. When he is in public with her and gets approval rather than disdain. When he realizes he can be part of pretty much any religious community with her on his arm. When he starts to think about having kids and realizes how much easier it is with this woman rather than his boyfriend.

Sure, anyone can leave anyone else at any time. But a woman has things to offer a bi guy that another guy can't. And lets be real, it is far easier for a guy to get some guy action on the side. There are no shortages of gay and bi guys out there who have no issue at all with sleeping around with a guy with a girlfriend or wife. It could be a much easier set up for him, and at some point he is going to realize that.

And then there is, as Vennominon mentioned, the chance of accidental pregnancy, and him being on the hook financially for the next 18 years for someone else's child.

So no, his boyfriend having a relationship with a woman is not just the same as having a relationship with another guy. Sure, in either case he may leave him for someone else, but the things that factor into it are not equal in both situations.

I appreciate Fortunate's reasoning @18 that JAGG has some reason for trepidation. I still think there's no upside to being the partner who says, no, you can't have the sex you're obsessing about.

Re Mr. Venn's concerns about my flippant remark, thanks, ManxsomeFoe, for your clarification. I'll add, @16, that I didn't even mean that women are better "lures," just that people who don't have permission to have outside sex still often fall in love with other people and dump their longtime partners for the new attraction.

@16 et al: Good points about opposite-sex privilege, and the possibility that JAGG's partner could get a woman pregnant. Perhaps a vasectomy might be a condition for his sleeping with women?
What I'd say in response to the first concern is, if JAGG's boyfriend did want to claim opposite-sex privilege, he had 15 years in which to do it, and he didn't. That'd be reassurance enough for me.

"I still think there's no upside to being the partner who says, no, you can't have the sex you're obsessing about."

Unless that sex is a deal breaker for you. I think in all the discussions of open relationships it is often forgotten that people feel how they feel. If JAGG simply can't accept his partner having sex with women then not saying no isn't necessarily the solution. Eventually it will eat away at things and what could have been a mutual parting of the ways can become a messy break up.

Because let's go back and see what he said. His partner isn't really putting this up for discussion. Although he says his partner wouldn't cheat he also is going to have sex with women no matter what JAGG thinks or wants.

How is that not cheating? Just because he is telling him about it doesn't make it not cheating. It is only not cheating when it is with permission.

So really each individual in this relationship has to determine for themselves where their line is. And so there can be an upside to being the partner who says no. Either the other partner can decide not to do what you don't want them to do, or they end a relationship that isn't right for them any longer.

The only other options are 1)that the partner cheats. But that is going to happen anyway according to what has been presented. JAGG is just being generous and not calling it cheating. 2) JAGG pretends he is OK with it and is unhappy in the situation until he can't take it any longer and things blow up.

Personally I consider those to be far worse outcomes than JAGG just being honest and saying "No, this is not going to work for me".

" if JAGG's boyfriend did want to claim opposite-sex privilege, he had 15 years in which to do it, and he didn't. That'd be reassurance enough for me.'

Unless he never really thought about it before. It's one thing as a concept. It's another when you actually start to experience it. And I'm not saying he will, but that the concern is valid. The idea that when he is actually out with women, and being treated very differently because of it, and when those options are realities not just in theory but right there in front of him, easy to just accept and go with, that can put a spin on things and give a real cause for concern.

Fortunate @21, I think JAGG should accept that his bf is going to have sex with women. If that's completely unacceptable, then in my view JAGG should leave now.

I disagree with you about whether adults are "cheating" when they unilaterally change the rules of an existing relationship. If A made B promise that they would live in NYC, and now B is openly planning to move to Chicago, that's not cheating. If A made B promise they would start trying to get pregnant within two years, and now B openly refuses to follow through, that's not cheating.

One partner saying the existing rules are unacceptable -- that's not cheating. It may end the relationship, but it's not cheating, and the only reason for calling it cheating is to gain access to the social support that comes from our society's mono-normativity and slut-shaming.

Ms Fan - That was my less serious suggestion, which I left out of my long post because it seemed long enough as it was. It does seem as if nothing would be so reassuring of Mr Bi's commitment to his BF than accompanying the relation of a desire for women with the offer to get the snip first. It does not seem the most reasonable ask, though.

Ms Erica - Agreed that JAGG's saying No to the idea does not increase the chance of the couple's ongoing coupledom. It may be his least bad of several horrible options, though. The letter is so irritating; I can come up with far too many plausible pictures of the couple and too few probable ones.

Vennominon commented about 'deceitful people' meaning to 'trap' -- I believe referring specifically to pregnancy -- in @16, and I wonder if that mightn't be a big part of the LW's fears? There's a strong cultural narrative that straight women exchange sex for relationships, for security. We're all aware of it here, but if the LW is in a bit of a bubble, he might never have analyzed that narrative or recognized it as bullshit. He may be subconsciously assuming women aren't really interested in hookups and will try to 'steal' his man. If so, he needs to deprogram so he can recognize that yes, there are women who just want to fuck a hottie, because many women like sex.

Fortunate, you forgot to mention that JAGG's bf may be wanting to go with a woman because she has pussy.
If he's that superficial that being socially more accepted will trump his commitment to JAGG, then the latter would be better off without him.
And yes Fez, my thoughts as well. Women are not some group of conniving
People, trying to trap unsuspecting , innocent men into a life of servitude to the Almighty goddess and her womb.
I think JAGG needs to address his
Idolising of his bf. That can't pissible allow for an equal relationship.
And no Fan and Venn, he shouldn't have to take the snip first. That is seriously a big choice for anyone to make. And he should make it himself not be blackmailed to do it.

HAMMER--When you start getting sore, let him know and he will pull out if he's a decent person, then one of you can finish him off. But more importantly, please write a guide on How to Train Your Pussy. Thanks!

Jackhammering is fun for three minutes - in fact it's usually what makes me come - but if it goes on longer than that, or if it happens every day for three days running, it will reliably produce a herpes outbreak and/or a urinary tract infection. And that will put PIV sex off the table entirely for at least a week. Appeal to his self interest - when you are left sore and raw, tell him no more PIV until you are completely healed. And suggest that next time, he can fuck you nicely for a while, and then when he wants to get off, jackhammer his hand while he goes down on you. That's what you call a win/win.

One possibility I haven't seen mentioned is that the partner has already decided to end things and this is a convenient pressure point that can be used to shirk the blame. It just strikes me as strange that after 15 years, and 3 of those open, all of a sudden it's of vital importance. To take the really negative view, he may already have met a woman he'd be open to leaving LW for and has found himself in something of a win-win situation. Or, to take a more positive view, it might simply have blossomed into a bone of contention or issue of principle, following from LW's intransigence. The lack of detail in the letter is also somewhat perplexing considering how delicate the situation is. A 'no fucking the same person twice' rule, a no romance rule, or any number of other constraints could go a long way to alleviating LW's concern.

Importantly, "bi" as a label is extraordinarily vague. It could mean homoromantic and only marginally bisexual, or on the flipside it could (and often does, or is at least claimed) to mean heteromantic and only marginally bisexual, and naturally any balance of attractions in between. Clearly the LW has more reason to be concerned if his BF is innately 'more straight than gay', especially if he feels that his 'luck' might be running out and the natural probabilities are going to reassert themselves. This would, incidentally, explain any lack of jealousy with other men: the LW already knows the BF can be in a SS LTR with him, and if he knows that to be less likely, all things equal, to happen with another man then that takes the edge off being able to fuck other men. Considering the LW doesn't go into any detail, I wonder how free and open the communication has been, here, if the LW doesn't think to elaborate on his partner's SO considering its centrality to the question. I'll assume, for the following, that the partner is a 50-50 right down the middle bisexual. I'm also going to leave aside the 'rational' issues (pregnancy, etc) and focus on the emotional or instinctual.

So, LW is anxious about his partner potentially leaving him for a woman. This seems to be a common anxiety of gay men vis-a-vis bi-identified men. It's pretty glib to dismiss it as identical to the concern that he might leave for another man, both qualitatively (the emotions are different, and are wrapped up in all sorts of social, religious, familial, etc issues and pressures) and quantitatively (purely on a gender basis there are far more women out there 'competing' for the partner than there are other men doing the same). After the fact, yes it makes sense to argue that being left for a woman maybe should feel no different than being left for a man. Before the fact, it's nonsense to suggest that the relative odds shouldn't factor into how much anxiety they cause. "You'll feel just as bad either way" isn't persuasive when one of the ways is causing you more agita in the here and now for the simple reason (among others) that it is more likely to happen than the other way.

There's also the fact that, were it to happen, you'd never know for the rest of your life whether it was a garden variety breakup, or if the lure of heteronormativity and straight privilege just proved too great. Leaving for another dude doesn't entail a rejection on so fundamental a level. There's an element of powerlessness, and indeed victimization if the chance to 'be normal' greased the skids towards a breakup. Furthermore, even if that's not the case, there's an 'on the outside looking in' factor, where the one left behind is still gay, now 15 years older and back on the market, and the one who has left gets an express ticket to straightness. There's also an imbalance here, the LW gets other men, and the partner gets those same other man PLUS women. That's to no one's discredit, but it is an important dynamic.

I say let him fuck women, but only on the same terms as other men. That means no wining and dining for 4 dates to get in their pants, if men don't get the same investment. If your emotional exposure when dealing with other men is minimized, so should his emotional exposure to women. This should probably include some limits on seeing the same partners multiple times, for both genders. Another possibility is exploring some sort of swinger/cuckold situation, where the partner could fuck women in an arrangement where everyone is consenting and agreeable, but where the risk of emotional attachment is much lessened. The wrong thing to do is bury the anxiety and let it come out as jealousy, or passive aggressiveness. Be open about the anxiety, find ways to limit the downsides, and take it one day at a time. It may be that simply relieving the pressure of not being allowed to do it will partially resolve the urgency the partner feels. He might do it once, and find that after 15 years it's not what he's been building up in his mind during all of this. Making the partner not-bi is not a possibility, so both have to take measures to ensure this new aspect of their open relationship remains compatible with their relationship, full stop.

I also want to add that, in the same vein as the "you'll feel bad either way" approach to being left for a woman, is the sort of thinking that "even if you avoid [x], he could still just meet someone at the gym despite your efforts." This reminds me of the guy who claimed the odds of the Large Hadron Collider destroying the Earth as 50%: either it will, or it won't. Reducing one's exposure to risk isn't pointless, simply because it can't be reduced to 0. No one is perfect, or saintly, and it behooves both partners to avoid entanglements that increase the risk of their relationship ending for avoidable reasons. When you "fall in love" on that 5th date, the fact that 3 dates ago you thought your primary relationship is so ironclad you didn't have to worry is probably not going to win the day, in the end.

The word Endash (and those of you) seem to be breathlessly struggling to find in describing said bi boyfriend's yearnings for more than one sex partner in a current relationship is "POLY".

You're all welcome.

@ctownchick1 I don't see how that's relevant to either of my comments, nor do I see in the original letter any solid indication that the partner wants a girlfriend. I often see self-identified bisexuals finding marginal reasons to label a straight or gay identified person as 'really bi', and increasingly I see the same inclination to find reasons, despite lack of evidence, for calling 'poly' among that set. The fact is, we just don't know a lot of things from the letter that are really important. I think, though, that the BF being open about wanting a poly relationship would have warranted a mention, even to so parsimonious a LW as JAGG.

Endash. Good points.
So you saying women are more prone to " stealing", LWs boyfriend than other men are? If the bf is so perfect, I would assume other men would be looking to steal him as well. I don't believe women are more likely to want a LTR with the boyfriend than other men would be- especially if this guy is so so perfect.
Agree LW should express his anxiety, yet not dwell on it. And that he should encourage the BF to follow rules re any involvements with women, same as with men.
A little bit of dining might be needed though. Cause, you know, women are Not men. We like to pretend it's not just the sex we are after.

@24, Oh, I agree that he has to accept that his boyfriend is going to sleep with women. I think he needs to be realistic about if he can deal with that or not. My point was simply that him agreeing to it isn't necessarily the answer if he can't honestly be OK with it. Pretending to be OK with it is only delaying the inevitable. The way I see it the relationship is doomed.

I don't think you can compare those other examples with dating or sleep with other people. Cheating is specifically something we reference in relationships regarding sex and romance. If they had an agreement regarding who they could sleep and date and one breaks that agreement without the consent of the other that is pretty much the definition of cheating.

But even in the other examples you gave, if we didn't call that cheating we would still consider it wrong and unfair of someone to break the agreement and unilaterally make alterations that the other doesn't like.

The idea that calling it cheating is only to get the social support I don't think is fair. After all, isn't doing something you know is going to drive your partner away just away of ending the relationship by getting them to dump you so that you can play the victim? That's just as valid an interpretation.

If he feels the current rules are unacceptable and his partner isn't open to changing them then he should end it himself and be honest about it, not just do what he wants forcing his partner to end it and become the bad guy.

@28, I'm not making any assumptions about why JAGGs partner is going to sleep with women. I am saying that JAGG has reason to be concerned regardless of the reason. You can call it superficial to leave someone for someone else who can give them something they can't otherwise get, but it happens all the time. To suggest he should just not worry about it until it happens isn't realistic. That's not how peoples' minds work.

And it doesn't have to be a case of a woman trying to trap a man. But accidents happen. An accident with a woman that results in pregnancy means this woman is now a permanent part of both their lives if they stay together, and it means a financial obligation for at least 18 years. That's a pretty big consequence and I think a perfectly valid thing for JAGG to be concerned with if it is something in the back of his mind.

@LavaGirl No, I'm saying there are simply more of them. The chance that a specific woman might steal the partner away isn't necessarily any higher or lower than a man. However, the chance, however big or small, of "partner leaves for women" is potentially 5-10 times greater than "partner leaves for a man," simply because there are far more straight women than gay or bi identified men. You might say, well when the time comes to fuck we're talking about individual women, who as I agree aren't necessarily individually more or less likely to steal the partner away. But it's all that leads up to that... the initial contact, flirting, probably at least one date, etc that necessarily selects for women with a higher likelihood of being able to tempt the partner away. It's also a broader population in more subtle ways... chance meetings at a bar, a gym, or the store all are more likely to happen with women simply because there are more of them.

@LavaGirl Whoops. I also want to say that the fact that "wining and dining" might be required in order to be able to have sex with women in the first place is problematic. It might be the price of admission for a lot of women, but it comes at the cost of exposing the primary relationship to a greater risk. If the LW is limited to one-night stands with men, and the partner gets one night stands with men and has carte blanche to do what is necessary in order to actually land women, then that's patently unfair and problematic. It might be that the partner mostly meets women who insist on being, at least, in an established if not primary relationship. Simply because that's the price of admission for the women doesn't mean any cost is to be born. The partner needs to accept that he's getting "something extra" on top of what the LW is getting, and needs to meet the LW halfway, even if that means getting pussy is more difficult.

Before someone goes mad at me, the last sentence @35, was tongue in cheek.
I'm sure there are many women happy to fuck, no strings attached.
Maybe there is an age issue between LW and bf. As in bf might be a lot younger than LW. This could make LW that much more anxious if the case.

@37: There may be more women-who-like-men around. But there are not necessarily more women-who-like-bi-men-who-are-already-in-a-gay-relationship around. With that as JAGG's BF's price of admission, that's going to narrow the field quite a bit. He's probably limited to poly women, that is if he does want to preserve his current relationship, which he clearly does (or he'd just quietly run off with one of these women). And poly women are much less inclined to "steal" someone than to continue to share them (though it does happen). That may reassure JAGG.

@28: "Blackmail"? Wow. Where did you get that word? JAGG's letter didn't say anything about wanting kids in the future, but if JAGG's boyfriend does not, then taking the step (VOLUNTARILY) of permanent birth control as a safeguard to their relationship seems like something they could consider.

Just because having no-strings, low-friction casual sex with gay men is far easier than finding the same or nearly the same with women is not itself a justification for "doing what it takes" in order to get the pussy the partner craves, especially considering the partner still gets that same no-strings, low-friction casual sex. That does mean that the partner should be expected to accept the fact that finding sex with women MIGHT be harder and/or happen less frequently, in order to do so on terms compatible with his relationship with the LW. It's possible that this is a case of requiring a minimum amount of pussy, regardless of the effort or risk of attachment, as a condition of continuing the relationship. Isn't that the sort of perception people have of bisexuality that bi-identified folks get worked up about?

@BiDanFan agreed that's definitely a consideration which both evens the odds and should quell some of the anxiety. It's also the sort of uncomfortable truth that one hates to rely on as something in your favour, but the world is what it is: having been in a SS relationship (and remaining in one) for 15 years will definitely cut down on the number of interested women.

Fan. If LW puts any pressure on bf re having the snip- then that could be seen as blackmail. As we've seen from
Alison C's ( hi Alison), partner.. Sometimes that proceedure can go very wrong.

What a man thinks makes a perfect man may follow different criteria to what is perfection for a woman. Like, how good is this guy at giving foot massages?

Ms Fez - Perhaps LW has stumbled on one of the spermjacking stories making the rounds (largely/mostly but not entirely distorted).

It's not so much about "needing to deprogram" as it is about having to trust BF at a time when BF is taking a disturbing (to LW) new direction. It would be one thing if LW were picking BF's putative women; he could weed out any in whom he detected intentions he didn't like. But BF will be selecting the partners, and BF (at least in LW's view) might not be so unswervingly in line at the moment with what constitutes unwanted intentions. It's possible (in LW's thinking) that what might be anathema to LW might be something BF secretly wouldn't really mind but won't admit.

Ms Lava - I agree that LW's idolization (I use zeds largely in honour of Morse) of BF is a serious concern.

I'll go a little farther than Mr(?) Dash - there are many reasons someone might want to poach BF that aren't specific to gender, but also a handful that are. Some women think male homosexuality = gynophobia, some think bi men can and should choose to live "straight", etc.

I framed the snip as a reassuring offer and said that it didn't seem something for which one could ask, which also covers trying to pressure BF into it.

I could have added an e) to my original assessment along the line of Mr(?) Dash's suggestion in his long post that they get into some sort of swinging/cuckolding situation; it's possible that their outside M encounters have such an element of being shared between them afterwards, but that it would be a distinct turn-off in the case of BF's outside F encounters.

Quite a bit to think about, but for now, I'd just comment that many women-interested-in-men would not find a bi man in a 15-year SS relationship, that has been open to other men for three years, to be a "perfect" catch. They would likely have all kinds of concerns - physical, emotional and mental. I'd estimate the LW's boyfriend's pool of potential female partners to be fairly limited.

Venn, I like to use Z as well. It's such a great letter.
You know, though, these phones throw up the proper spelling, and I'm trying to be good.

Gee, these fuckers push it. During the week , as well as the weekend. I mean, don't they know their words are wasted.

I wonder if JAGG would be happier if his bf had sex with a woman who was a sex worker, and therefore not a threat. I wonder if the bf would accept that compromise.

Fortunate @36 "isn't doing something you know is going to drive your partner away just a way of ending the relationship by getting them to dump you?"

If you state that you love your partner and would like to continue the relationship, but your needs have unfortunately changed, that's not cheating and it's not evil. That's renegotiating based on new information (your changed needs). Your partner isn't a bad guy for not accepting your new offer. Neither of you is bad; neither of you is a victim, except a victim of circumstances beyond anyone's control.

@43: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Blackmail" is coercing someone to do something by threats of revealing a secret.
What I think you mean is that getting a vasectomy is too high a price of admission. Which, to JAGG's partner, it may be. I know several poly men who have voluntarily had the snip because they do not want, under ANY circumstance, to get a casual partner pregnant. I also have a close friend whose primary partner did get a secondary partner pregnant, and she ended up pressuring him (some might say blackmailing him) to leave my friend and form a monogamous relationship with her to raise the child. I remember Dan recently ran a letter from a man in a similar situation. So it's not, IMO, an unreasonable ask, and JAGG's partner owes it to JAGG to seriously consider it, particularly when the payoff is worry-free pussy for them both. (Of course, if after serious thought Mr JAGG doesn't want to go through with it, that should end the discussion.)

@50: I like the letter Z too, grew up with it, but now I live in a country where S is the correct spelling. Can't out myself as an uneducated Yank ;)

Ms Fan/Ms Lava - It's not that simple, apparently. The OED backs the zed. This came up before, and somebody else living in the UK told us that apparently Oxford is on its own, and other authorities all backed the ess. I preferred the ess as less American until I saw Ghost in the Machine, in which Morse knew as soon as he saw the suicide letter that it was not written by an Oxford professor.

Anyway, I don't think one can just call an Oxford-backed spelling "incorrect".

@52,
This isn't a renegotation. That would mean that sit together and try to come to a compromise they both can live with. You are right that if needs change and a renegotiation is in order that isn't cheating. But that isn't what has happened here.

JAGG has stated clearly he doesn't like it but his partner is going to do it anyway. No negotiation, he has made the unilateral decission that he doesn't need to honor his agreement. That's NOT renegotiation.

They had an agreement and JAGG's partner is going to break that agreement without JAGGs consent. That's cheating.

HAMMERED should have been told that sex should be fun not painful. If your boyfriend needs painful things to get off, it's usually easier to find another partner for good sex instead of try to retrain. The first time she gritted her teeth and accepted painful sex started decreasing her libido- she started associating sex with pain and I bet she'll get sick of sex altogether if she keeps it up. Or maybe develop some sadism or masochism fetish. I suppose that is sexual freedom, like it's freedom to be permitted suicide. Not exactly admirable or anything. Most guys don't require pain in trade for buckets of orgasms. My only novel idea is to let him jackhammer a fleshlight while you're in bed together, using dirty talk and fantasy to pretend he's damaging your vagina instead.

I'm not sure why JAGG is more threatened by women.. could be pregnancy, or strongly preferring to socialize queer over straight, or dislike of competing with women. The first and third are pretty straightforward. Negotiate comfortable pregnancy risks (No PIV probably won't work, but perhaps condoms, vasectomy, finishing outside the vagina, only dating post menopausal women). You should have accepted that your partner's dating pool included women, making them your competition, when he said he was bi; that's something to accept about your boyfriend or dump him because you can't accept what he likes. The second problem, preferring exclusively queer culture, seems like it could be stunted personal growth. I have gay friends, both men and women, so I know queer/straight friendships can be very close as long as you don't insult each others' preferences.

Also he might think he is afraid of other women's intentions, but that assumes that a woman can change what his partner wants. That doesn't make sense to me; people want what they want. If he says he wants a SS relationship with occasional OS action, that's probably what he wants. Basically you're calling him a liar (really OS but pretending SS) or you believe that women have the super power to change someone's orientation, by worrying about the women. You're most likely truly worried about your boyfriend's commitment to you. Maybe time to take stock of the ways he's been reliable vs the ways he's let you down in the past, to judge his commitment.

Last idea is that he is just squicked by a dick that has been in a pussy. And that's something for him to decide, whether his partner is worth putting up with that discomfort.

LID seems confused by the new labels; I'd guess that her partner asked for the labels, so she should ask her new boyfriend what these labels mean to him. If she asked for the labels and he misunderstood "boyfriend/girlfriend" to mean that he had to set up nice dates with her to keep having sex, she should clear that up. I don't see why they're agreeing to do things that they find mutually awkward/unfun. Boyfriend/girlfriend just means more agreements on top of casual sex; agreeing to forgoe or announce other partners, maybe, or working toward a mutual goal like living together or building a family, etc.

I'd like to hear more about the fourth letter. My ab muscles are fundamental for my orgasms. Can you give yourself a hernia with a great orgasm?

And re cheating:
Breaking relationship agreements is usually called cheating when done on the down low, and "pushing the relationship self destruct button" when done above board. The latter is also called manipulation, as it's preferable to leave the relationship when the agreements no longer satisfy both.

Fortunate @56 "JAGG's partner is going to break that agreement without JAGGs consent."
Philophile @58 "it's preferable to leave the relationship when the agreements no longer satisfy both"

I just don't see why it's the BF's obligation to end the relationship, rather than to state his new needs clearly and be supportive if JAGG decides to end the relationship over it. People change over time. It's part of life. There is no bad person here, and I don't see why it's helpful to label JAGG's BF a cheater. In fact, I'd be surprised if he ever promised JAGG he'd stick to men the rest of his life. I bet he made no such promise.

Philophile @57 "You should have accepted that your partner's dating pool included women... when he said he was bi"

Yes, exactly.

@59,
Because he is the one trashing the agreement. It would be best if they could be willing to talk and then decide together if they want it to end. But what he is doing is saying "Fuck our agreement. I'm doing what I want and if you want to leave then go".

And that's fucked up. He is trying to make JAGG the bad guy for not giving in to his desires. It would be best if the ending was mutual, but JAGGs partner is being a selfish prick by putting the responsibility (and blame) for it ending on him.

And sorry, it doesn't have to be a promise for life. But this isn't court or 3rd grade. You make a promise, if you don't want to keep it you renegotiate. You don't simply unilaterally change things. Trying to do that puts him in the wrong. They pretty clearly had an understanding of what was permissible and what wasn't. Yes, things change, but for one to dictate the change without consideration for the other is just flat out wrong.

And saying he is bi doesn't mean anything in terms of the dating pool. I'm gay but my dating pool includes only one person, my partner. That I am gay doesn't mean my partner should just assume or accept that I will date even just other guys. Because we have an agreement to be monogamous. And if I am going to change that I need to discuss it with him. And if he doesn't agree then I have to decide if I want to stay in the relationship or not. To just say, "hell with what you want, I'm going to do it and you stay or go as you please", would make me a total asshole.

Yes, if I want to change the parameters from what we agreed on, and he isn't open to that, then it is on ME to end things. Otherwise I am just breaking the promise and he is keeping it.

It has nothing to do with slut shaming or any other such BS. Open relationships are good for some people, but not for others. I don't get to decide what is good for my partner, only myself, but I have to bear the responsibility if I am going to be the one to change things. You make a commitment, you either keep it or you accept responsibility for breaking it.

@60 - It's possible that EricaP's own relationship history is perhaps slanting her view here. For what it's worth, I agree with you except for one caveat. The relationship between JAGG and his BF isn't strictly monogamous. He references it having been an open relationship for three years. The BF just wants to expand his horizons a bit, and Dan's right - if JAGG trusts the BF to come home to him after getting some strange dick, how can he not trust him to come home to him after getting some strange pussy? It ultimately all comes down to trusting his BF to do right by him, and if he's so perfectly perfect, then of course he will, right?

Ms Erica - Agreed on the reasonableness of presenting a case that the Rules no longer work and Party A would like to continue the relationship under altered rules. Not sure about what happens regarding responsibility when A and B can't agree about rule alterations, as there are other factors such as compromises offered; my starting guess would be that it shifts a few percentage points of responsibility into A's column, but that it's reversible under certain circumstances. Disagree that BF had to promise to stick to men for the rest of his life; agreeing to men only when the relationship opened (if not to monogamy when it began) was certainly at least agreeing to men only for the duration of the relationship (or at least until the next change of rules).

Ms Sang - You're being post-gay; like Mr Savage what you're saying isn't wrong, but it isn't complete.

You're indirectly on to something; we have no clear idea how the negotiations about opening the relationship went, which partner was the primary mover, whether one or the other was accommodated somewhat more and which one or whether it came out even.

What's bothering me today is the combination of LW's not seeming entirely reliable with BF's apparently not having put any sort of offer on the table to help LW gain any sort of comfort with what BF wants to be the new regime. There are far too many ways this can spin itself. Either of the two could be the flaming MF in DTMFA, or there could be no bad person here.

"He is perfect in every facet of his life. A perfect person and a gift to the world"

I have no idea what this actually means in practice, but it strikes me as an indication of something being *majorly* off-kilter.
[backs away slowly, avoiding eye contact]

Ms Phile - I'll assume you aren't trying to sneakily up the ante by upgrading hooking up to dating.

I'll agree with BF's wanting what he wants to an extent. For one thing, there's always A Fairly Honourable Defeat. For another, this could be a gateway to things he might never had realized he wanted or thought to consider had he not started down the path.

Maybe your conclusion is the second-best outcome, to ensure a thoroughly equal parting.

As for socializing, with all due respect, stunted personal growth in my experience is much more likely to apply to those unstraight people who socialize almost exclusively with straight people - and there are quite a lot of them in this far too post-gay world, where we even have serious proposals to preserve gay culture by expanding the definition to let in [turn it over to] straight people (of the right ilk, of course, but still). Maybe my little joke about a Gay Community Centre where one can find any sort of programme except anything at all MM-related isn't so far-fetched after all. But thank you for expressing your thought, which has given me further insight into the idea of men deriving greater benefit than women from social interactions between the sexes.

Being blinded to the other's imperfections- it's all the fault of having sex with them. Blinds one to their imperfections. Not called the glue for nothing.

I imagine that JAGG, the gay LW scared his bi partner will be swept away by a woman, is vastly overestimating the degree of perfection a heterosexual woman will see in a bi man in a committed gay relationship.

Venn - I'll assume you aren't trying to sneakily up the ante by upgrading hooking up to dating.
Well you did cast me as a manipulative little witch. That's about all I know of Downton Abbey from a quick google. Actually, I see little difference between the different labels of casual sex: FWB, NSA, hooking up and dating seem similar if you like your partner. I didn't mean dating with the express purpose to commit, I meant going on several dates, my usage may be wrong.

Personality problems can come in many forms. I agree that both extremes of socializing only with those who are "different" can be as bad as socializing only with those who are "like you". Not sure if it's worse. If you're doing it because you're unhappy with a part of yourself/similar people, that's bad... it could also be novelty seeking to an unhealthy extreme. But xenophobia is also a bad thing, I think it can have just as adverse affects, but maybe closeted/self hating is more common than being insular/hating differences.

Also, I can imagine a gay person having trouble figuring out that they wanted gay relationships for many years, I've heard that happen. I'd think the opposite; realizing you were straight and truly wanted to be with OS only and be mistaken for a straight person would be less common after embracing queer culture. If it's tough to be gay, then why be gay for decades before trying straight hood?

@61, yes indeed. It isn't monogamous. However it apparently did have some understood rules. To get back to my original point I was making, just because they were already monogamous doesn't mean that JAGGs boyfriend getting involved with a woman doesn't have specific risks that are not either a factor or as much of a factor with other men.

I think we have to remember that despite that Dan correctly points out that biologically monogamy may not natural, and that certain segments of society are starting to see them in a more normalized light, that they are still an issue for a vast majority of people, and that expecting people to just get over it, and just not be jealous about it isn't an answer.

JAGG IS worried about it. And his partner just saying "I'm going to do this without or without your consent, so get over it" is pretty much the opposite of trying to help him not be worried about it.

Open relationships aren't for everyone. Maybe this is as far as JAGG is ever going to be comfortable going. I can say its much farther than I would consider going already.

I think that if we are going to try to move to a place where we don't make people who want an open relationship out to be selfish monsters then we have to make sure we do the same for people who don't. And the attitude that if you just trust your partner it shouldn't matter is not helpful in that. Some people can only go so far. As a person with very clearly defined limits I won't go beyond I can appreciate JAGGs reluctance.

Oops I meant, if it's tough to be queer, why date SS for decades before trying straight culture? Sorry for bi erasure.

It's an asshole move to break relationship agreements without coming out and breaking the relationship off. Fine to ask for renegotiation; shitty to demand changes. If I told someone that I was going to do what I wanted regardless of their feelings and they stayed with me, I'd assume they had no respect for themselves and I find that unattractive/unromantic. I'd rather give my regrets that the old rules don't suit me any longer and ask my partner for new rules before giving up our agreements altogether.

I don't see why it makes one an asshole to say:

"I'm sorry, I now have new needs. A new price of admission. I know that sucks, I know that's not what you were expecting, and I'm sorry. But I love you and I want you in my life if you can consider accepting these new needs. So I'm not going to end the relationship on your behalf, although of course I understand if you decide to end the relationship and I'll do my best to communicate to our friends & family that my choices caused the relationship to end."

Ms Phile - I put dating as definitely at least one step above the others, as it pretty much requires Appearing in Public, and there is (generally? often? usually?) some "acting couple-ish". "Hooking up" would strike me as below FWB, as it does not require the same level of acquaintance.

Xenophobia may be bad, but you seem to be looking at this through an OS lens. Even with all the assimilation of recent years, same-sexers still have to work harder to be straight-excluding than straight people have to work not to be queer-excluding. I'm not going to tell anyone on Team Homo who claims to have more than enough relations, co-workers and acquaintances of the straight persuasion to know more than (s)he'll ever need to know about the straight experience and perspective that (s)he needs a more diverse group of friends.

The output of the the Jack hammering is that HAMMERED "Cum[s] buckets", and doesn't seem to mind if he doesn't get off. It seems likely that he thinks he's doing what his girlfriend wants and isn't trying to be selfish. Better communication likely.

@GROAN - that same thing happens to me sometimes. I finally realized it's an internal muscle cramp, down the left side of my abdomen - I'd never experienced a cramp anywhere near that painful before this started, but that's what it is. And it's totally unfair that it happens at orgasm time, when I'm not thinking clearly.

What I've learned to do is to bend in the opposite direction, and stretch whatever muscle (or set of muscles) is cramping - so I'll arch my back at the first indication that it's happening again, to keep it stretched and stop its cramping. That works pretty well, and doesn't bring the event to an unwelcome halt.

Philo. People change, over time. Surely two adults know that when they set boundaries, that over time those boundaries may need to shift.
It's a work in progress, a relationship. And if no children are involved, then the boundaries can move to wherever, as long as both people can move. If they can't, then there's a problem.

I'm with @37, @48 and @67, I suspect the number of women interested in JAGG's boyfriend is likely to be quite limited. Bi women in F/F relationships would seem to be the most obvious options for him. I also suspect that few sane women think that "have casual sex with a bi guy in a M-M relationship, then seduce him into leaving his boyfriend" is a great path to a LTR. Babyproofing, by one means or another, seems prudent. That's another reason why a FWB relationship with a woman with a primary partner (and who understands the "rules") might be a better move than simply trolling for women at hotel bars.

While I understand that OS relationships carry certain social privileges, I would think that if JAGG's BF was craving those, he would leave the relationship entirely and start dating women (which he could have done at any time during the past 15 years). It mostly sounds like he's craving pussy. From my limited knowledge, pussy-craving bi guys in M-M relationships usually (1) watch straight porn or (2) arrange the occasional MMF threesome, especially if both partners are at least somewhat bi.

I can sympathize with JAGG in that his BF is threatening to cheat on him., which is a jerk move. But that might also be a way to get him to understand the intensity of his partner's need. I could see how, after three years of openness to men, he feels that he has earned the right to indulge his hetero desires. JAGG is perfectly entitled to refuse this request, although it also sounds like that might lead to the end of the relationship.

To me, "cheating" implies dishonesty. If I tell my partner that I'm not going to sleep with anyone else, and then I do sleep with someone else, I was lying, and therefore cheating. If I tell my partner I'm going to sleep with other people and then I do it, that may be unilaterally redefining the terms of the relationship, but it's not cheating, because I didn't lie at any point.

Mr Hummus - I'm prepared to allow that a higher percentage of OS women than of SS men will reject BF out of hand because of his circumstances. But he'll still have a larger pool. And we are backing into something new here - thus far, people have only seen the length of the relationship as a sign of how long he's either been at least okay if not fine and dandy with an all-male repertoire, or suffered terribly through having had to deprive himself (for those posters or lurkers who have been restraining themselves from congratulating BF on a perceived improvement in taste). But fifteen years would mean that BF is at least in his mid-thirties if not pushing forty, a time of life when certain types have greatly higher OS SMV than SS.

I'm inclined to agree that BF isn't consciously craving OS privilege at this time. But you have likely noticed how at least one woman (even discounting Ms Phile) has tried sneakily to upgrade hooking up into dating; unless there's a firm one-time-only rule, this could well lead in that direction. As for paths to an LTR, while there may not be a great many women who would set out to choose such a course, some might not turn away once they find themselves at the beginning. In addition to those who are just natural poachers, there are those who wouldn't steal from their own kind but have no such compunctions otherwise.

My natural response to the idea of "earning" the "right" to indulge is LMB, but I'll hold off for now.

Ms Erica @72 - A minor tweak: "...if you'd rather end the relationship..." suits my ear a little better than "if you decide to end the relationship..." as being slightly more in tune with X's willingness to communicate that his choices brought about the end. I think that such a sentiment voiced by X would allow Y the agency to term the parting either Y breaking up with X or X initiating what led to the XY breakup.

@72, it doesn't. But lets be honest, that's not how it is going down. And lets also be honest, if the partner knows that this is a no go for JAGG then insisting on it IS ending the relationship.

I never said JAGGs partner can't renegotiate the relationship. What I said is that if JAGGs partner unilaterally redefines the relationship and then makes JAGG be the one who has to take responsibility for ending it then that is a shity thing to do.

He needs to take responsibility for ending it if he is going to push it in a direction he knows will end it. I never said he can't end it, or that he would be wrong to. I am saying that if he makes the decision to change the parameters of the relationship to something that he knows doesn't work for JAGG then he IS ending it, no matter how he terms it.

And lets also be real, the likelihood that he, or anyone in that situation, will go around letting friends and family know that it was his decisions that prompted JAGG to end it is pretty slim.

Why can't they attempt a renegotiation, and if they can't come to an agreement then mutually end it? That is the best approach.

That is the difference between "lets talk about this and see if we can't find some middle ground where we can both be happy before we end it" and "this is going to happen if you like it or not, so it's up to you if you want to end it."

@78, we will just have to disagree on that point. To me cheating is breaking the rules for your own benefit. Renegotiating the rules is fine, but when you have set parameters that govern some agreed upon aspect of your life together and one person breaks them, they are still breaking the rule no matter how up front they are. If I tell you I am going to cheat you at cards, and I do break the rules of the game to win, then I have still cheated you at cards even though I told you I was going to do it.

From the letter, here's what we know about JAGG's boyfriend, besides that he's "perfect" (no one is, but whatever):
-- He's bisexual. Seems like the LW has known about this for a long time.
-- He's been in a happy homo relationship for 15 years.
-- It has been open to men for three years. There is no discussion about what "open" means -- threesomes, only sex with non-friends, FWB relationships but no dating, casual dating but no secondary relationships? We don't know.
-- He wants to have sex with women. It sounds like this is a pretty strong desire on his part.

I suspect that, from the BF's perspective, he feels that any "philosophical" issues with openness have been resolved -- there's no "principled" objection to his having sex with women -- only a "pragmatic" objection (that women can get pregnant, are generally less open to casual sex, etc.). They've already crossed the non-monogamy bridge. So why shouldn't he have sex with women if he wants? I doubt that he can only have sex with men that JAGG does / does not find attractive.

So what are the BF's options?

A. Do what he is doing -- issue an ultimatum. Perhaps if JAGG rejects the ultimatum, the relationship is over.
B. Make his desires clear, but negotiate the situation with JAGG. Maybe they could agree to some ground rules: babyproofing, sex only with women in primary relationships. (Maybe a threesome with a MF couple?) As I stated before, I doubt that a large number of women will be beating a path to the BF's door. Or perhaps there are no conditions that could make the LW comfortable.
C. Find some nonthreatening means of fulfilling his hetero desires: sex workers, watching straight porn when JAGG is away.
D. Suppress his depraved desires for the rest of his life, and never speak of this again.

B and C seem most appropriate to me. But what would you do if you were in the BF's shoes?

Unlike Dan, I think HAMMER's boyfriend should stop masturbating for awhile, and he should accept that a period of adjustment may result in fewer orgasms. I would encourage Ms. HAMMER and and Mr. HAMMER to work on retraining his cock together. Ms. HAMMER's hands are likely smaller and less powerful, she should try some getting him off manually, with more a more gentle touch. Ms. HAMMER and Mr. HAMMER can also try a lot of oral sex in a 69 position. Finally, Ms. and Mr. HAMMER should only start vaginal sex, after a lot of foreplay (when Mr. HAMMER may be closer to climaxing), and should only use a slow and gentle approach. Should Ms. HAMMER starts feeling sore, the vaginal sex stops, and she can try getting him off orally or manually if she'd like.

When Mr. HAMMER goes back to masturbation, he should only use his non-dominant hand and should use lot of lube.

Ok, the jackhammering. She's not into him sexually but wants to blame him for her dissatisfaction. Someone else out there does want a jackhammer. She has communicated and he has responded.

On the new bisexual tendencies. He's curious and our society is set up to pair men and women whenever possible. You will lose him as a result. But hey, don't blame it on women, blame your partner for caving into the demands of society. It's not necessarily 'homophobic', but society does prefer straights thereby relegating gays to simply being a new, albeit straight variable, sexual position. And is he really bI? Hmmm.

@84, if the BF isn't bi, what is he? He has been in a homo relationship, and now wants sex with women. How is he "caving into the demands of society?" Should he just repress his desires for women?

@85, if he is newly bi, that is as catastrophic to his relationship as a straight man coming out to his wife. There's a double standard whether you admit it or not. I think some selfless compassion is in order, not jumping the bones of a woman simply because you discover you can, or feel the subconscious pressure that straight sex makes you a real person with power.

I'm a straight woman and I would date a bi guy if he was cool. One data point.

@72 EricaP - I think I would call that quote "renegotiation". If you changed the ending to reflect the man in the letter, it would be So I'm not going to end the relationship on your behalf, although of course I understand if you decide to end the relationship. Until you decide, I'll be operating under my own rules and ignoring our relationship rules... but we can still call ourselves boyfriends if you'd like in the meantime. And I'll do my best to communicate to our friends & family that I decided I couldn't be happy with our agreements but couldn't leave until you dumped me if that's what you decide."

The key difference is whether you decide to leave the relationship when you can't keep your relationship responsibilities and can't renegotiate, or choosing what your partner finds emotionally unacceptable. Shunting the responsibility for saying "This is too painful we have to break up" to your partner. Rather than say it yourself, just check out of the relationship contract but still keep the labels. Ignore someone's feelings but say they are important to you. Doesn't make sense to me. It might not technically be cheating, it's more straightforward manipulation, but it's still an attempt to ditch the responsibilities but keep all the rights. With great power comes great responsibility... or "Every right implies a responsibility; Every opportunity, an obligation, Every possession, a duty." I do think that the one common thread of happy romantic relationships is that you prioritize your partner's feelings, it seems universal in a way that even regular sex is not.

Venn - I generally agree with your usage. But I don't think there's a huge difference between hook ups and dates. Please stop calling women 'sneaky'.

Xenophobia may be bad, but you seem to be looking at this through an OS lens
Actually, the analogy I had in mind was racial, through a white lens. I can sympathize more with a black person who refused to hang out with white people than a white person refusing to hang out with black people. But they are both character flaws to me. I doubt JAGG's partner is bigoted against straights or women, but I think it's one possibility for more jealousy of women than men, I listed every one I could think of.

@86, so for the sake of the relationship, you think the BF should refrain from acting on his desires for women? Even if the relationship is open to men? If I was the BF, I wouldn't think that was fair. Do you think that social pressure is making him desire women?

It also appears that JAGG has long known and accepted that his BF is bisexual, so this is not a "coming out" situation. He's just uncomfortable with him acting on his desires.

Do you think that a bisexual person can be in a relationship with a monosexual? As far as I can tell, many bi's are.

On reread, it sounds like the guy only said that he is getting to the point where it might happen and break them up, and he's worried about that. He's not telling JAGG that he must tolerate it and stay with him. My bad.

Fortunate @81
"He needs to take responsibility for ending it if he is going to push it in a direction he knows will end it"

But he doesn't know it will end it. How can he know the future? He only knows that JAGG says he's not happy at the idea of the bi BF having sex with women. But maybe JAGG will change his mind. How will the BF know for sure that JAGG couldn't get his head around it and will never change his mind? Because JAGG ends the relationship. That's how the information about the future is conveyed.

Until JAGG ends the relationship over this issue, I think it's reasonable of the BF to continue trying to see if there is some way they can both be happy. I still wonder if a sex worker might provide that solution.

That all depends on how JAGG has conveyed his feelings on the matter. If he told him then he knows. If he didn't then he doesn't. We are all making assumptions about these things because we don't have all the information. If he did let his partner know then his partner knows, and trying to say he doesn't know until it happens is kind of a cop out in my opinion. If he really doesn't know then JAGG needs to express how he feels about it better, but at that point then he knows.

But I think from what WE have from JAGG it is safe to say the partner knows JAGG isn't happy about it, and that being the case the only truly appropriate move forward is to talk about it and try to find a resolution, not just unilaterally do it without his consent.

Yes, the partner should try to see if there is some way they can both be happy, but it sounds from JAGG that the partner has already made up his mind that he is just going to go ahead and do what he wants, so that isn't happening, and that is where I am having the issue with his behavior.

So I'll say it again, they need to talk and see if they can come to some resolution, and if they can't it should be a mutual agreement to end it. If the partner makes a unilateral decision about it without JAGGs consent then he needs to be willing to bear responsibility for what happens because he is the one violating the established parameters.

On a personal aside I don't think that wanting something gives you an automatic right to go for it. Even Dan has told a number of people that if your partner has agreed to an open relationship but has put limits and restrictions on it then you should follow them. That if you do show you can follow them maybe the partner will loose them up, but either way that is the price of admission for having an open relationship.

That they have opened it up for a while now under limited circumstances in no way means that JAGG has some obligation to either accept or expect it to open even more. Eventually JAGG will have to make a decision on what he will do if his partner goes ahead and has sex with other people without his permission, and if that is that it will end the relationship then his partner has to either accept that is the price of admission or he has to accept that his violating those limits is going to end the relationship.

I will also say, this discussion has started to turn me off to open relationships. The main fear that people tend to have is that if they open it up a little it will eventually change into something completely different. Maybe not always, but apparently enough people think that being bisexual and having been open with other men means there is some kind of inherent right to include women no matter if both parties don't agree tells me opening a relationship has a real potential to introduce more issues than it solves. This scenario and the attitudes towards it is why I feel apprehension about the idea of both open relationships and dating bisexuals. But I digress.

People don't owe each other. Yes, Philo,
And others- shit move after 15 years.
I'm guessing though, men to men rules are different to men to women
rules.
Which is probably what has really got JAGG's red flags rising.
Still. People don't owe each other.

It is of course own/. and own each other.

Although owe works too. People don't owe each other. The past was shared. Great, by the sound of JAGG. I wouldn't mind 15 yrs with the perfect man.

On a personal aside I don't think that wanting something gives you an automatic right to go for it.
Disagree.

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness

Before you pillar me Venn, I don't feel/ think SS LTRs rules are any less emotionally charged than OS LTRs are.
The sex though. M to M, very different charge to it. Of course.

Yes Philo. Happiness. Gotta find it within. Looking for it outside, like chasing butterflies.

@95. Sign a contract and then break it because you want to something else and the courts will most likely disagree with you. If I want your property I think you would disagree I have a right to try and take it. All rights have limits.

But I wasn't necessarily talking legal rights in this situation, but moral rights. I don't believe that the pursuit of happiness at the expense of the well being of others is always moral, and often is not (bankers getting customers to sign on to loans they can't afford, for instance, is not moral).

And I think that callously hurting someone who has given you over a decade of their life is moral. I think that it at the least requires an attempt to prevent hurting them. You legally can, but that doesn't make it right.

*** that should have been "And I DON'T think that callously hurting someone who has given you over a decade of their life is moral."

I would phrase this caveat as "everyone besides me has the right to pursue happiness as well". Or "your right to swing your fists around ends at my nose." Yes, hurting other people is wrong. But hurting yourself is wrong too. And not going for what you want, being depressed in behavior, is hurting yourself. Both are important, the pursuit of happiness, and not hurting other people. JAGG and his partner want different things. Neither is right or wrong. If JAGG's partner expects him to stick around while he refuses to talk about possible ways of satisfying both parties, that is wrong. But the phrase was "he says he would never cheat on me, but he's getting to the point where he is gonna hook up with women, whether I am okay with it or not". I don't think that "okay with it" meant consenting to it, I think "I am okay with it" meant "I will stay with him". Specifically, ""he says he would never cheat on me, but he's getting to the point where he is gonna hook up with women, whether I stay with him or not". I think it's most likely that JAGG is more jealous of women than men because it's turned out to be a deal breaker for his partner, maybe he just resents this new change... or maybe he's being strong armed by a cake eater. That doesn't jibe with the most perfect man ever description idk.

Callously hurting someone, who has given you over a decade of their life is moral.. Cmon. Nobody has given anybody their life. They shared their lives.
Bf has been bi all along. JAGG knew this, it hasn't been suddenly sprung on him.

Ms Phile - I'll consider altering terminology in response to the polite request, but do not concede the point that saying that "at least one woman (even discounting Ms Phile) has tried sneakily to upgrade hooking up into dating" equates to calling women sneaky. (My earlier reference was also using the word as an adverb, and adverbs are not adjectives.) Had I wanted to do so, I'd have said, "at least one sneaky woman".

I still see a big divide between hooking up and dating. Plenty of people would allow one but not the other, depending on their personal squicks. A common downside to dating could be that "people we know will see you in public with X" which might create greater difficulties than meeting privately for sex.

Race certainly also works, probably in a somewhat different way. By the way, you began with [strongly preferring to socialize queer over straight]; I don't think "refusing to hang out with" people in a different group is the same thing or that my responses to the first remark apply equally to the second remark. I'm focused here on with whom one affirmatively seeks to socialize. Here's a hunch - gay people with larger than average birth families might form social circles with a higher non-straight content.

It's been a while since we've read a breathless, verging-on-panic-mode letter. I wish we were still in that blissfull reprieve but JAGG shattered it. He knew what he was getting into when he began a relationship with a bi man. However, I believe he managed to lull himself into a sense of security when one year morphed into two, and so on, thinking that his partner would never want or need to seek out a woman for intimacy. Or perhaps JAGG interpreted his partner's bi-ness as just a stepping-stone on the way to a completely gay identity.

JAGG seems also easily deluded, thinking that his "perfect" partner would be someone ANY woman would snatch up. Uh ... JAGG, for a one-night stand or a fling, NSA, sure. But what woman would be so bedazzled by the bf's presence that she'd overlook the uninterrupted length of his sexual and relational history because she wanted him all for her own? Listen, JAGG. Bi men are just like straight or gay men. Some are perfect, some are average, and some are assholes. Hmm, I think I've slept with both bookends!

If JAGG's bf seems desperate to have sex with a woman after so many years, he might be questioning whether he wants to remain in an exclusively gay relationship. Perhaps he's hearing a biological clock ticking and would like to have a child or two and doesn't know how you'd feel about it. I don't believe he's wanting to acquire straight privilege. A decade or two ago, perhaps; but, with ever-changing attitudes and greater acceptance, I don't think that's why he's seeking a woman.

Have you considered sitting down, tucking your jealousy into a time-out corner, and talking about it in a rational way. Then you can find out whether it's just a physical itch he'd like to scratch. If so, then a sex worker would be the least awkward route because – after all – it's been at least 15 years (or more) since he's been with a woman. If it's any other motivation, then you can discuss it. But, please, rid yourself of that idea that your partner is the most shiny, sparkly pony whom every woman would grab. He may be "perfect" (if slightly tarnished after this revelation) for you, but that's your POV exclusively.

At last. A dictionary has begun. Thanks for your take, Hunter. Succinct.

Helenka. Great post. I too thought this guy might be a little out of practice after so long.
JAGG needs to just not freak out about this, it will only alienate his bf, and it may just be a wish to re taste that pleasure. Not throw himself into it.