NoCute, your accounts of having good conversations with your Other but not being able to share them with your Original, is exactly the reason why we felt like it needed to be an open relationship on our part. I could not handle the disconnect, having to lie & cover my tracks with my wife, watching our relationship atrophy while developing a deep connection with someone else.

I agree with you Erica, men should have a say in all this.
Then I ask myself, why, men with big jobs are so timid to speak up with their wives. Maybe cause they are caught by something. The wife/ whore routine.
Yet, a woman can be a wife/ whore, the man has to help her find it. Does it suit them though, for her to find it? A nicely behaved housewife, much more predictable than a wife who takes the kids to school, sans knickers.

I wish to apologize for something I said way up thread, re good sex workers. I should not have used that word.
I meant, many sex workers would be very meticulous re avoiding infections. That they would keep themselves, very clean.
All sex workers are good.

@110 "men with big jobs are so timid to speak up with their wives"

That's where Eudaemonic has really educated me. Men are taught (at least in the US) to silence their feelings generally -- and they are taught specifically that their sexual needs are unimportant.

US culture jokes about sex all the time, but gives people very little serious support in finding a good sexual companion, and almost no support in how to develop their sexualities together, changing over time, to try to last happily for decades.

Do any of you remember the thread from early in the year written by BIBFAULT?

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…

She was essentially asking if she should cheat.... for lots of the reasons brought up by these AM letters....

@73 nocutename: I'm really sorry.
Sending big hugs your way.

LavaGirl, @108 you said: "You can't hide the energy from children. The words, yes, not the emotional tone of their family. Until they become independent, they are dependent on their parents, so they are very aware of where their parents are, emotionally. Maybe they are doing this all unconsciously, but they are doing it." I respectfully disagree. My children had no idea I was unhappy in my marriage until near the very end, when they caught my husband and I discussing splitting up. My dissatisfaction was very specific, not generalized at all, and since my sexual life didn't spill into my maternal life in any way, I am positive that they didn't pick up on any emotional dissonance. We still held hands, cuddled on the couch, kissed hello and goodbye. The kids wouldn't have been able to tell anything was amiss. Hell, my husband didn't seem to notice--or at least he didn't seem to care. When we told the kids we were divorcing, our oldest said: "But why? You and Daddy like each other." (Broke my heart, but that's another story.)

@109: JohnnyRhythm, it's funny: atrophy was exactly the word I used to describe what happened to my relationship when I was talking about with friends at the time and since. I've said that by the time the divorce came, the loss of the marriage was like the amputation of a limb that had been tourniquetted for a long time--totally bloodless. Whereas the end of that affair, and another breakup, have felt like big bloody messes, even though ostensibly the marriage meant more.

@112 EricaP: I agree. Everything in our culture paints men as sex-crazed beasts and women as rational gatekeepers. The men become buffoons or whiny children of a sort, while the women take on the role of mother as well as wife. I have no problem understanding why a man who's not a brute, even if he is successful and powerful professionally, can't just tell his wife that "this is how it's going to be" in marriage.

Lastly, thank you, auntie griz @114, for your concern.

@113 ChairmanOfTheBored: I honestly don't remember BIBFAULT's question to Dan. Shame on me. Thanks for the link--I'll check it out. Dan has openly given reasons in SL in support of cheating, though (elaborating further in his c. 2012 book, American Savage).

@43: "A cheater is prioritizing their children's happiness above their own. A person seeking divorce over sexual incompatibility is doing the opposite."

That's some next-level projection right there.

@113 ChairmanOfTheBored: Okay. SL from February 2015. Now I remember. I'm once again veering a bit off-topic to this week's comment thread, but......while I DID read BIBFAULT's letter as well as Dan's response back then, I was busily applying for what I had mistakenly considered practically a foregone pursuit (a good friend and fellow alumna of my university also felt I was a shoo-in, 7 years after earning my BA): a master's degree in my educational and professional field. So instead, I am looking to stay musically active performing and composing (my grad adviser pointed out that my alma mater isn't the only university, but I love where I live and for economic as well as regional location reasons don't want to move--or have to relocate any time soon). I guess the big, looming question for me now is: can I feasibly live well enough--enjoying my life and remaining grateful for my many blessings as they are---without a master's degree in my chosen community? On the other side of the coin, I have seen less fortunate people with master's degrees and doctorates, who are married with children to put through college, yet economically forced to settle for managerial positions at McDonald's and / or juggling multiple part-time jobs because that's the best they can find.

Okay--Chairman, Dan and everybody: please forgive my ambling yet again. I am far from having all the answers and don't claim to. Griz is just thinking out loud and humbly counting her blessings here.

@115, nocute. Like I said, it may be unconscious.
Children are emotional sponges, till they get to adolescence.. Then they just feel self. Before that, It all goes in.
As I've stated here and on the other thread, I'm ok with my father's cheating. I can see how it can become a real option to not make everyone dirt poor.
He was of a different time, my dad.
He died in '67, what a year to go out.
Relationships now, there should be room for truth..
Not much has really changed, in all these years.

How easily I forget my own history as the other woman. Got with a married man in my early 20s, he and his wife parted.. I moved into the house. She got on with one of their friends, who I later got on with.. After all other pairings finished.
It was the 70s..
The second guy was the love of my mental life, loved his mind. And he got me to the therapist who helped heal my father wounds.
The original pair were not suited at all, they had a daughter. Both went on to other stories and babies.
So, me also guilty of voluntarily joining the sin club.

Messrs Horton/Finch - I can accommodate a cheater who goes into cheating accepting that (s)he is deliberately robbing the partner of agency and taking full responsibility for being right and who, if later found out, simply admits to being caught bang to rights. What boils my turnip are the cheaters who get found out and then try to negotiate from the strong or even favourable position they had before they started.

Mr Finch makes a good point about the faithful but checked-out, who deserve to get what rather nasty fate is due to them. I want to see them divorced for cause. Okay, I'll accept that people have the right not to divorce such partners for cause. But I am resolute in thinking that at least 90% of all marriages don't deserve to be saved, and if they persevere it's usually just luck rather than virtue - and then they try to cloak themselves in a mantle of virtue! Anyone who wishes to do so is free to save a crack house from destruction, but I won't be giving them credit for saving an Historic Home (I live within fifteen minutes of about half a dozen old homes of people in history books.)

I freely admit that I have seen this issue most often from the point of view of the faithful and trying, and that most of the people I've seen divorce have taken to the state in true Anne of Cleves fashion, usually after fighting the idea of divorce for years. And then they emerged as thriving as the former Msr Cute. Because I want there to be either a great deal less marriage than there is, or a great many more divorces than there are, what I want is for divorce to be something that doesn't take the faithful and trying partners a decade to work themselves into the Anne of Cleves mind set. Very likely it's an unattainable goal. But don't be misled by my adopting Mary Crawford's manner. If anything, I really ought to have said 95% rather than 90%, and even that strikes me as being on the generous side.

My one point of disagreement with Ms Cute she already knows; it concerns the character of Mrs Ex. In my experience, people in Mrs Ex's position tend to be conservative think tankers or supporters of the same, blissfully bashing people who don't live up to their standards whether or not they have any suspicion that their own spouses don't live up to the standards they're so proud to impose on others, sometimes bashing all the harder because they do suspect on some level. There are exceptions, but I wouldn't bet on this Mrs Ex being one.

Would we (here at SL that is) consider it "cheating" if it were completely honest?

Say someone (A) goes to their spouse and says "i'm going to open my side of the marriage. You are welcome to open yours too if you choose. You don't have to tell me a single thing about it either." And the spouse (B) says "no. I don't accept that." And A replies "I understand. But i am doing it anyway. Divorce is also on the table if you prefer". And B says "i refuse to get divorced".

What is supposed to happen next? Its a pretty impossible situation for either party... and yet the general consensus is that the more virtuous of the two is the one who says no...but won't offer up any alternatives.

I know this is not the most common of scenarios...but it's one that a friend of mine went through a few years ago. Eventually, she "cheated" -by his stance and most of the people she knows (not me)....but never lied about it.

It is too bad that we don't have a marriage "walkabout" (to borrow a term from Lava's country) as part of the marriage "contract". A no strings attached one or two year hiatus to the monogamy commitment that was actually culturally accepted. As though someone could've actually SEEN nocute with her guy and asked her husband about it..and he could've simply replied "oh..yeah..she's on walkabout" and have the conversation move on to other things as naturally as if they were discussing her being off at college.

Mr. Ven: Wait--who's Mrs. Ex?

@122, Chairman.. Yes, some sort of release valve needs to be put in place, from the beginning. Yet, who looks forward when starry eyed?
I think in your original example, your friend perfectly legit to open the marriage. She had stated her case, there was the divorce option..
Is it variety that is the issue? So it doesn't matter how tuned in and turned on a couple are, someone always wants more.
And why.. Just nature exerting herself? Other luscious bodies, everywhere.
The married guy I got with, he and his wife reared their child together, as co parents, after the split. She grew up fine.
My take on Tim acting out this fantasy, is he might find himself with two pretty irate women, then his troubles would really start.

I'm off this week, love you all.

I feel incredibly unqualified to contribute meaningfully to this conversation, but I very much appreciate the candor of those who have shared their stories.

Chairman, I like how Dan talks of his notion of monogamy with flair marriage, is to just give a little wiggle room.
The main partner is always the main partner, shared lives.. Yet each can go and indulge a bit of action somewhere else, when they need to.. No need for deceit.

Ms Cute - The widow. You'll recall that we've had this difference before, when a LW (I think he was cheating or contemplating cheating) wrote that it would be impossible to tell his wife the truth, as she was the sort of person with an extremely low opinion of non-monogamy and all those who sailed in it while being proud to express that view to all and sundry and inflict any negative consequences in her power on those who, in her view, deserved it.

Mr Finch makes a good point about the faithful but checked-out, who deserve to get what rather nasty fate is due to them. I want to see them divorced for cause. Okay, I'll accept that people have the right not to divorce such partners for cause. But I am resolute in thinking that at least 90% of all marriages don't deserve to be saved, and if they persevere it's usually just luck rather than virtue - and then they try to cloak themselves in a mantle of virtue!

I actually tend to agree with you, despite going to the mat in a bunch of these threads to fight back against the simplistic and equally flawed view of The.Church.of.Truth, I have to agree that in 90% of the cases, the marriage should end, so that both partners have an opportunity to find someone who fulfills them. There is an old saying in science: you have to do the experiment to figure out how to do the experiment. This shows up in the "starter marriage" cliche. There is a dump truck load of cultural dross pasted up in a collage pistache ala pinterest plastered all over people's expectations of what marriage is, should be or what they should be seeking in a partner. There is really no way in the world - nobody can really know what goes on inside of other people's marriages (including parents - see the AM SLLOTD from the child this week) - to understand what it is like to be married until you are married. So, ray-rah-shish-boom-bah for starter marriages: get married in your mid-late twenties, don't have kids, figure out where you fucked up in choosing a partner (not where your partner is fucked up), get a divorce, do it right the 2nd time and then have kids.

The problem is that all too often there are complicating, extenuating circumstances. Indeed, in downtown Baltimore, there are some absolutely fantastic examples of Beaux Arts, belle-epoque brownstones, which are absolutely worthy of restoration, and historic designation, which are presently mis-allocated as crack-houses.

Some of those extenuating circumstances are shared resources (this is generally money, but can be things like insurance) to be divided. There are children. Sometimes, it's better for the kids (forget the parents' well-being) if the parents divorce. Toxic marriages - DV or not - are an awful environment to grow up in. They don't benefit the kids. As Lava notes: kids will pick up on the energy. You cannot hide it from them. Other times, particularly if the parents parent well together (even if they're not good romantic partners), and aren't toxic, it's better for the kids if they stay together. It's generally better for the kids if neither parent is impoverished by a divorce because the child' standard of living (school district, opportunities, etc, all of which play a huge role in lifetime success) remains higher. It's easy to imagine a couple staying together until the proverbial empty nest, both discreetly getting their needs met elsewhere in an ethical or transparent (between them) way, or perhaps even not, and then parting.

It just gets to be very very complicated very quickly; there are multiple variables in the equation and each is on a subjective spectrum. This is the problem with The.Church.of.Truth an the "just get a divorce" solution: it is an attempt to force the rhetorical tool - and logically fallacy - of "the horns of the dilemma" (a false dichotomy).

I completely agree with you that there's nothing more offensive than fairy-tail hagiography: "mantle[s] of virtue". The same part of me which argues against the false dichotomy also argues against simple morality plays. Although (having just named Finch, Jr - and all: there is a huge hint there in the nom-d'poste) after the protagonist of To Kill a Mockingbird, that character is two-dimensional in many respects: the new version's internal contradictions and cognitive dissonance are much more appealing. And so I would say to you - another lover of complex literary characters - that you have to recognize that marriages are made up of complex people who are both good and bad at the same time, to each other and outsiders. It's very hard to have these absolute rules. I think the letters Dan posts all get to this point.

Mr. Ven: Thank you. I thought you might mean the widow. But since the only way she's an "ex" is by virtue of her husband's dying, I didn't think the nickname applied.

Well, I guess I don't really know how she'd react if he was honest; and really, neither did Other (I like JohnnyRhythm's designation of Other and Original, and it saves me from having to use the dreaded "Lover," so that's what I'm going to go with from here on). But he had a pretty damn good idea, having known her as long and as intimately as he had, and I not only trusted that his read was accurate, but I have also known many other people with the same mindset and convictions (my ex-husband, or Original among them), all of which leads me to believe that my estimation of her reaction is correct. Anyway, it's all too late now to be proven or disproven. I'll never get that phone call I've been sort of subconsciously waiting/hoping for, saying he's free to see me again. I had kind of clung to an illusion of sometime "way down the line" as old people, being able to laugh together again and then to have whatever kind of geriatric sex we would be able to muster up. I hadn't realized how much that fantasy was lurking deep in the background until I howled with grief, snot running down my face, that it was never going to be able to happen now.
He was definitely the Fabrice to my Linda (for many reasons), even though, like you, I sometimes think I might actually be a Bolter.

I once wrote a long musing thing on the ending of The Pursuit of Love, a passage from The Good Soldier, by Ford Maddox Ford (have you read that? If not, you should--and I'm just getting ready to teach it), with a dash of Romeo and Juliet thrown in, and the end of my affair or my Other's sacrifice. If you have read The Good Soldier and would care to read it, give me an email address and I'll send it along. If you don't want to, don't worry about offending me.

Ms Cute - It sounds quite interesting; I'll consider breaking my fragmentation rule.

You remind me of how, my Unhusband's being a smoker, I got into the habit of keeping his most recently used ashtray as it was, and then how distraught I was a few years after he died when the final one I was keeping broke.

@93 Chairman -- Thanks for the kind words. I was thinking mostly of Tim Horton's situation when I wrote my comments because I think he is in a bit of a catch-22 regarding open marriage. If he were married to the kind of woman who would be intrigued by the idea of open marriage, he probably wouldn't need an open marriage. I don't know that for sure, being unacquainted, I'm just speculating based on my own experience and what he himself has said about his situation.

Just another reason that open marriage should probably only be attempted by those in a healthy, trusting marriage, and more as a way of deepening an already existing trust than as a fix for dissatisfaction. To those that have shall be given.

Also, I meant to say congratulations on creating the post of vice-chairman. Missed my chance the other day.

Then, Dan is talking of a coupling with another man, no woman in that story.
Women, are a complex breed. Even as one of them, I can still see the mystery they can generate. Wild and complex creatures.
congrats Finch on baby milestone. The naming. Always helps, having a handle. And a Jr you say? Nice. I quite like that American tradition. Not something done here. The dad either stays or he don't, giving the kid his name won't change that. It's the sun that does it.

It may be very old fashioned of me, you guys not heard of wooing? It's what you were so skilful at doing way back when.
Yes it's effort, running an affair takes effort, too.
What's so hard about getting the kids off for the night, have a meal well catered for, get a good music playlist ready for dinner and the evening. Request your wife wear a sexy dress, with or without panties.
Is it so hard.

"Is it so hard?" she asked. Haw. Hee hee. So then he says, "Why yes." Hyuk. Snarf. "Yes it is. That's exactly the problem!" Waaaahahaha.

A man who wants to seduce a woman, knows the moves, yes? Some skilful boys out there. You too, inside. Just pretend she is some strange woman you've come across in your house. New housekeeper, childminder.. Ohh Nanny, that's got a dirty ring to it.
Organize all the stuff behind her back, then hit her with it. Or rather, hit her as the nanny with it.

The women, obviously need a hit of relearning. So, my suggestion for women whose men aren't satisfied with their performance, just take it on the chin, and go do some retraining.
Take a holiday alone each year, with the express purpose of having a discreet liaison with a fellow holidaymaker, or the wine staff.. Whoever. The training is in kicking those erotic buttons along, so the dirtier the liaison the better.
Return to husband, and he senses a revitalised wife. Win. Win.

So uh...I guess we don't do double entendres in Oz then.

I'm a proponent of going to counseling or discussing opening the marriage before jumping to the option of divorce in marriages that are generally happy but have sexual incompatibility and/or a desire by one or both partners to move to a non-monogamous model. I'm also a proponent of trying to work things out after the discovery of an affair if there is mutual desire, adequate trust remaining to effectively do so, and the possibility of a new agreement that works for both people. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

I do not appreciate the approach of secrecy and unilateral non-monogamy unless the partner is unable to consent for some reason. As Dark Horse has expressed, it robs the partner of agency. Also, if the affair is related to a relationship conflict, the cheating only provides a temporary band-aid while adding more risk. Finally, if an affair is exposed after a pattern of lies has been observed, it makes the trek back more difficult for both partners.

FWIW, both of my grandmothers DTMFA'd the bio fathers of their offspring after discovering they had been unfaithful and otherwise neglectful during (in one case) pregnancy and (in other case) infant rearing. Both women ultimately found lasting and fulfilling partnerships with men who cared a great deal for them and their children. The children (my parents) were well loved by their stepfathers. It is true that some stepfathers are abusive, as Tim H. mentioned. In the case of both my parents, they felt more bonded to the stepfathers than the bio fathers. (I realize this is not an argument that will positively influence bio fathers, but it was the experience of both my parents and I'm trying to take the clueless cheated upon spouses' futures into account, as well).

It is also a leap to assume that all cheaters are being neglected in some way. I think this assumption may sometimes be at the root of the "I'd rather not know" preference as there is shame attached, the assumption being that the partner is not fulfilling needs. Sometimes that's true, sometimes not. People cheat for various reasons, some related to the primary partner, some not.

So, so hard.

*snicker*

@139, Late.. What did I miss?
I'm sure they do double whatever.. In Oz, just not on my street.
You know what gets a woman's juices going? In the real world.. Surprise moves.
And how does a man produce surprise moves, with the woman he thinks he knows inside out.. He pretends she's someone else. You try it, see what happens with your wife, when in your mind you see this woman as a stranger.
Play. Play. Play.. That's all I got for marriages in dry dock. Oh, and the holiday idea for women.
Think that's a bit of a winner.

Future, all true. Some people, like Late's wife.. Don't want to cop opening the marriage.
And if a partner consistently refuses to hear a partner's plea for more exciting sex, then is their agency being violated by an affair? A divorce over this.. When the rest of the story functions well.
Each person in a marriage has some responsibility for keeping the sex story vibrant, I believe. If they don't, then they telling their partners in a way that the sex isn't that big a deal for them.
And if the sex isn't that big a deal, what's wrong with the partner who wants some more passion, finding it elsewhere?
I'm not talking about when a woman is pregnant and breastfeeding.
Talk about it. For how long and in how many ways before any spark is sort of snuffed out. Talk. Talk. Talk.
How many wives, when they see their husbands at night.. Offer him some sexual, physical contact? Or husbands with wives..
If the sex isn't fed in a marriage, it dries up. The end.
Then it's just sort of this shared workload with a mate, which is fine. Valid occupations together.. Just where did the marriage go?

@lava 142

Double entendre:
Is it so hard? (the process of wooing and seducing a wife who is not into it)
Is it so hard? (the husband's cock)

@145: And the answers are:
1) Yes
2) No. Because of #1

...in short, all you missed was my adolescent sense of humor, Lava. Thanks for the comments. :)

Here's something a bit more cheerful(?) to contemplate: in the upcoming second season of Vicious, Freddie and Stuart (Ian McKellan and Derek Jacobi) will be getting married, or at least planning to do so, after half a century together. Of course, now that I'm in the mood to burn down the house of matrimony and rebuild from scratch, I'll have to sit with that for a while. I expect Freddie would find AM rather an amateur enterprise.

@140 futurecatlady: "It [cheating] robs the partner of agency." You list other strong reasons for not cheating, but on this point wouldn't you agree that refusing to invest interest or energy into improving a declining shared sex life, refusing to acknowledge or deal in good faith with a partner's dissatisfactions, and refusing to allow outside partners, taken together also rob a partner of agency?

I guess you still have the option of divorce or not, but that's not much of a choice and nocute has vividly explained why. And while cheating may rob the partner of agency, what of all the chances the partner had before being cheated on to listen to their partner and improve the situation? Wasn't the partner granted all sorts of agency beforehand, and chose not to act?

@149 LateBloomer - Wasn't the partner granted all sorts of agency beforehand, and chose not to act?

I've commented on other threads and don't want to beat a dead horse but I do want to respond to your specific questions. During the "beforehand" time you referenced, when efforts were made to change things or when one partner was unwilling to participate in efforts to change things, If the higher libido partner ultimately stated they were unwilling to sacrifice their own needs on an ongoing basis and would instead seek outside partners, even if the lower libido partner responded negatively to that, I would consider the lower libido partner informed of the higher libido partner's intentions. To me, that's not robbing anyone of agency.

OTOH, if you're asking me if I think the lower libido partner forfeits their right to know whether their relationship is monogamous as a result of the partners having mismatched libidos over an extended period of time, my answer would be no. The fact that one partner (in the sample scenario you provided) doesn't show willingness to cooperate in changing things is certainly a complicating factor and perhaps makes them less sympathetic, but the fact is that sex does generally get less exciting in LRTs over time and libidos are often mismatched at different points in the LRT, so it's possible the partners are seeing it from different perspectives. To use Tim H. as an example, he feels his needs aren't being met while his wife thinks their sex life is typical and he has unrealistic expectations. In such a case, the low libido spouse may need the extra push of hearing it is a deal breaker of sorts to understand the severity of the incompatibility or the importance of working together to improve the situation.

Regarding one of your other posts, I'm sorry to hear the open marriage didn't work out. I agree with you that it is not a solution for everyone. I sympathize with your situation. Has Mrs. Bloomer seen a sex therapist? Might she be open to doing so? If "hunky new boyfriend" didn't turn on her light, maybe she needs to focus more on getting in touch with her own sexuality? Or maybe there is a physical issue? Has she seen a doctor about it?

Not to say that doctors are always helpful. When I was entering menopause and my libido took a dive, it immediately strained my marriage. I had already consulted my regular doctor who was not helpful at all about what to expect, so I consulted friends who'd already experienced this change and they mostly told me their libidos dropped but returned within a year. Considering how much strain was created in just weeks, I sought out a specialist who advised me against hormones but suggested some other lifestyle changes which turned out to be helpful. However, her overall message was that I should just explain to my (now ex) husband that this was a normal and temporary stage of life but that was meaningless to him. In working together, my (ex) husband and I were able to dramatically improve the situation, but all the external messages I received were along the lines of asking him to be understanding and patient. Had he not been open with me that he was beginning to feel unwanted and like he was suppressing his needs, I would likely have just waited it out, initiating sex less frequently than he desired, expecting him to be patient. I would've just lumped it in with all the various sexual and non-sexual sacrifices husbands and wives make for each other over the course of a long relationship. I needed to understand the seriousness of the situation from his side.

Chairman, thanks. Good one, Late.

Still, having an affair has got to be seen for the danger it could bring. It's a tough one, I can see that. Morally, if a woman is really dismissive of a man's needs, I can see going outside for a little sexual danger, a reasonable option. If he has really tried, and failed repeatedly to get his feelings heard.
I'd also go with a sex worker, for that.
An affair is involving another person's heart. Going to a sex worker, the transaction is clear.

A man could always go on strike, till his demands are taken seriously.
I read once where a group of women, in a Latin country, withheld sex, until some demand was given hearing room.
Not on strike round the work with the kids, some other area, where only his wife is effected.
People can get deaf in a marriage. I know I did, looking back. You hear the same old record, and get deaf to it.
So, the protest has to come from a different behaviour. Like, getting kids to bed.. Then heading out for a late night drink, alone. Suddenly, husband not there for the post putting kids to
bed, " family" talk. He's out for a bit.
Wife will notice, and a little pang of something hits her brain. Oh, that's right.. My husband is a man. A good looking one. Their are women at those bars. I'm not saying, her mind will jump there.. Just that's the direction it will go in, over time, as husband takes his leave.
Not every night, hello. Just one night to start.
Depends if the man wants his marriage, it just needs a few screws loosened. So, he plays for keeps.. As in he wants what he wants, and feels it's a god damn valid wish.. He also plays. Gives his wife a chance to see there's been a shift. Talking has got him no where, so..

I wonder if I had an easier time of accepting the open marriage proposal because Mr. P. wasn't complaining about our marital sex at all. He never said he wanted more frequent sex, for me to initiate more, or for me to indulge unwanted kinks (though I now realize that he did want those things and was keeping quiet about that) -- instead he phrased it entirely as "Our sex life is GREAT. I just need some strange. I screwed up and did that without talking to you, but the urge isn't going away, so let's talk about how I can get some strange."

Put in those terms, I didn't feel attacked and I didn't get defensive. I did have to adjust my expectations for what a happy marriage looked like, but then ours already was abnormal due to the D/s, so this was just another way our marriage would be unconventional.

I think it really helped smooth our transition to open marriage that we did not have any history of arguing about sex, and that he maintained his stance that sex with me was wonderful throughout everything.

Not sure how that would help anyone else, but it certainly helped me keep a positive attitude about our sex life regardless of what else we were dealing with.

Good story, Erica. I feel Mr P is a poster by proxy on here. Hi Mr P.

My relationship with my wife lasted nearly 20 years, most of that married. We didn't open the marriage, although that might have saved it, because she refused to do so. I never cheated, although I'm an every day frequency kind of guy. I haven't had sex in years. That sucks. Our divorce was made final recently. So everything is great, right? Now I'm so burned I don't give a shit if I never have another relationship. All you AM haters got that? Who won?

@153 EricaP - Very interesting. Do you think this would also be true in the reverse? In other words, when I asked my (ex) husband if he wanted to consider open marriage, it was part of a conversation in which we were discussing his concerns about his needs not being met. I've considered different reasons as to why he said he wasn't interested in open marriage, considering I later learned he was already having extramarital sex at that time and had been for a while, but I never factored in that he might have just felt defensive, or thought I might feel defensive, in the context of a conversation about needs not being met.

Pretty hot stuff happening at the other thread--the one called "SLLOTD-the End of Week Ashley Madison Letters."

futurecatlady, I appreciate the moral distinction, but "If our sex life doesn't pick up I am going to start seeing other people whether you like it or not" is a non-starter. Marriages and sexual connections don't respond well to threats. You might as well just skip that part and go straight to the divorce. It's a nice option to think of, but not a realistic one.

EricaP, that's a good point you make, and I'm pretty sure the reason Mrs. B was okay with open marriage in the first place was that I pitched it encouragingly. I think I was clear that it was not a reflection on the quality of the sex we enjoy (true! then and now). She was not at all keen on the idea to begin with, and she gets total props for fighting her natural aversion and being GGG on that score.

But however intellectually she understood that open marriage was not about rejecting her, and however much she enjoyed her own trysts (she was first out of the starting blocks by a wide margin), when I finally did end up with a girlfriend her emotions never let her get free of that feeling. And no, I don't think it was caused by my being a dink. I think I was pretty considerate and well-behaved, but who knows, doubtless Mrs. B has her own version of events. Neither of us has any regrets about the couple years we were open--we've talked about it--and on balance we feel that it was worth doing. But whereas I feel it is a good fit for my personality, Mrs. B doesn't just suspect but knows now for sure that it is not for her. She would prefer divorce.

(Again, not looking for advice or sympathy, just offering my situation as a case study. I think female posters on here self-select for an interest in sex, and aren't in touch with the vast swaths of females in N America who can take it or leave it.)

Ms. Future @156, maybe? Kinda depends on the tone of those conversations about his unmet needs. But in the end you decided there were lots of secrets and contempt, right? I don't know at what point he stopped being your friend, but by the time you were discussing open marriage it may have been too late already?

The one thing I definitely agree with here is that sexual rejection is dangerous. Rejecting your spouse but leaving them no recourse, or rejecting your spouse for sex with another.

Pretending to be monogamous is disrespectful to your partner(s). Telling your partner that you can't be satisfied with sex with them anymore (in a way that cannot be mistaken for a joke) is putting the divorce/open relationship decision into their court. I don't think that it reflects well on a person to choose divorce over an open relationship if their spouse would suffer more with divorce. I also don't think it reflects well on a person when they decide that they need significantly more or less sex than they did when they walked down the aisle. The first appears vengeful, but I'm not sure what causes the second, a mismatch to appear. Lava's ideas make sense to me, how libidos die when they aren't fed. I'm not sure what causes a hunger for more than your partner has ever provided. That sounds like boredom, like feeding your partner's libido could be a fix for that as well. I'd like to hear NoCute and Horton's ideas if their spouse changed, or if they grew hungry for more than they signed up for, for some reason. I think LB said that his spouse's libido decreased, beyond the low energy of parenting, so she expected him to sacrifice and deal with less sex too. It makes sense that she agreed to an open marriage in this case, although it seems cold that she closed it without negotiation.

I wish that people were told that marrying without a mutually satisfying sex life was as dangerous as marrying without a mutually satisfying living situation, or agreeing about having children. But it's still Victorian age taboo in a lot of places.

And I think that adult kids of parents who have had affairs, would be the best judge if they would have preferred a divorce before the affair or not, if your decision is based on the welfare of your children. It seems the adult kids always wish their parents would have divorced. The few who find out about the affairs later in life also seem to say the same.

I never got around to addressing this a couple weeks ago:
"Marco Rubio said that women impregnated by rapists should not be allowed to get abortions"

I want to see a crackhead stand up and ask Rubio if he'd really be kind enough to raise his crack baby, should he manage to rape Rubio's wife. Poor Mrs. Rubio.

@158 Late Bloomer - That's definitely not the wording I would choose. What I can tell you is that while I strongly preferred to be monogamous for a variety of reasons, I knew that being monogamous was a factor in my having less spontaneous desire years into the relationship. I can also tell you my openness to open marriage changed over time. There's no way I would've considered it when my child was an infant or toddler. I would've felt abandoned and threatened while already feeling stretched too thin. But later, when I entered menopause and took another libido hit and it became apparent to me that it could actually threaten the marriage, absolutely I would've been open to trying it, though probably not if stated with the words you used above. The distinction I'm making is that I had to understand it was a threat to the marriage to adequately weigh options.

EricaP - Our relationship went through a few different phases. Matched libido for several years, mismatched libido for infant and toddler years, adequate but not perfect match for another several years (meaning my max desire coincided his his min desire), then a super mismatch for several weeks at onset of menopause, then back to matched libido until we broke up. The years with the mismatched libidos definitely strained our partnership, though I thought we had fully recovered from that later. He also stated that he felt we had recovered from that but that he felt the urge and just didn't think he'd get caught. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident, this was a long-term situation with all the lies that go along with that. I could not get beyond that, even though I was very, very sad about our marriage ending.

Philo - I agree with you that people should be more educated going in. Things do change though and that can complicate things. For instance, we agreed on how many kids we wanted but then disagreed about the timing which ultimately was just as important as it dictated how many kids we would have. I deferred to him on that and it was very painful but I eventually got over it. Years later, he regretted his stance on that. Whether with sex or kids or whatever, sometimes you don't realize until later how much you are asking the other person to sacrifice. We are sacrificing all the time, just sometimes not realizing which sacrifices are most valuable or damaging.

Late@158. Self select for an interest in sex..interesting description.
I don't know if I would have been brave enough to open my marriage. All that talking and feeling.. I was all felt out, with children.
I think you are wrong about all those Nth American women. They the ones who read 50 Shades.. So, a lot of them fantasize about a little action.

There have been some amazing personal stories and contributions to these threads, and I just wanted to say thanks, to nocutename, DarkHorseRising, JohnnyRhythm, AFinch, ChairmanOfTheBored and others (no slight meant, I know I didn't pick up on all the names). I had some opinions but you've all given me enough uncertainty around things that I don't have anything left to say.

@119 LavaGirl: I'm sorry to read about the loss of your father in '67. I can relate.
Big kahuna hugs your way.
@162 LavaGirl: So----is reading 50 Shades (for me) a waste of time, then? I haven't read it yet.

Sorry, Dan, and everybody, about my last ramble (@118). I really was blogging out loud.

I've considered different reasons as to why he said he wasn't interested in open marriage, considering I later learned he was already having extramarital sex at that time and had been for a while

First thing that comes to mind: he didn't want you to have extramarital sex.

50 Shades, Grizelda, is terrible writing so don't bother.

Ghost, sorry you feel
So burned. Not sure how AM people are in any way involved. But if it helps.
in time, when the wound not so raw... You may feel different.

oh, you talking to the AM haters, Ghost.
Yes, it all sucks.. The pain of an ending.

I may be bat shit crazy, but no miserable critter like an ex husband, is going to stop me having some fun.
Be glad it's in the past Ghost, and go forth and meet some nice new women. Don't have to marry a one of them. Just take 'em dancing.

@165 Yes. That's my best guess but I'm open to other possibilities.

nocutename - sorry to hear about the loss of your Other - it's hard to grieve a supposedly non-existent loss.

Ouch--Maybe it's a good thing I'm not into AM. I doubt that this makes me an AM hater, though.
@155 Ghost, sorry to read about your painful divorce.

@166 LavaGirl: Thanks for the warning. I have just crossed 50 Shades off my reading list.
I am curious about Sue Grafton's latest Kinsey Milhone crime novel, though. She's up to the letter X in her alphabet series. I wonder what word she'll use for Z.
& @169 LavaGirl: I don't think you're the least bit batshit crazy. My ex was indeed, a miserable critter. Ya got that right, too!

nocutename---I'm sorry to hear that your Significant Other passed away, and the pain you must be feeling (which you've expressed in previous comments).

@172 auntie grizelda

Thanks. The divorce was liberating. It was the marriage that was painful. I just thought someone who didn't cheat should pipe up since that seems to be what AM haters are holding out as some kind of ideal. The ideal would have been to fix the problems and I believe that an affair might help some people. It wasn't useful to me but I'm not about to judge anyone else.

And since I've gone like 2 or 3 comments without mentioning it, the main problem was that although she loved me, she didn't care very much about me. What she cared most about was her fairy tale and my role as the exclusive partner. So she got her exclusivity for as long as she could. Now she's on to the next, having tossed aside my empty husk.

Mr Bloomer/Ms Future - Maybe it depends on whether "informed agency" is or isn't a tautology. I'd think Mr Bloomer's example of the Immovable Object partner more of a flip side to the partner who deliberately withholds a dealbreaker-level fetish until it's too late.

Ghost, you're funny. Empty husk.
BooHoo.
Get a grip man. Don't let her claim any more of your life. You. Are. Free.

@163 Mtn. Beaver--You're welcome, and thank you, too. I agree... This convo has been very cathartic for me, and given me restored faith in the basic human decency of people... at least Stranger subscribers. ;) I used to comment a lot on the AVClub but got tired of the nastiness of some people (although that group was also a generally enlightened and incredibly intelligent and sometimes hilarious bunch)... so I've been a Stranger reader and comments creeper for years but seldom joined in. I felt the need this time because of my closeness to the subject matter, and am glad I did. My wife even talked about joining in, not sure if she will or not.

NoCuteName, LavaGirl, Venominium, Dark Horse, Chairman, auntiegriz, Late, futurecat, etc., etc.... even those I ostensibly 'disagree' with, like Tim & Timothy... you are all an incredibly intelligent and thoughtful and articulate group, and it's rewarding to get back into the fray. I don't get enough intellectual stimulation in my life these days. So thanks, all of you. :)

Auntie, do NOT bother with 50 Shades. Pee yew. How sad that that was the book that broke through and brought BDSM into popular discussion...

Still Thinking and auntie griz, thank you for the support. It means a lot.

@176
Two years ago my Miss N. started to read 50 Shades and stopped after 4 chapters:....verdict:..... "This is filth". She was VERY upset that some of her fellow book -club members thought it was sexy.
I have not read it but I do enjoy good writing, and especially good sexy writing. I will probably pick it up and make my own judgement, but most reviews of the writing are bad irrespective of how well one enjoys being titillated. (God I love that word.)
@149 "cheating robs her of agency". I have taken to asking questions about my Miss N.'s opinion of sex in marriage after 40 years by disguising my questions as if they were items being discussed here at S.L.
This way I am not the "bad guy" bringing up "SEX" I am simply discussing something I happened to have read. Sometimes I tell Miss N. that the topic appeared in an NYT-online column. The resulting conversations are always instructive, and yet always predictable.
Re AM
In cases where men are living in marriages with very mismatched libidos (and after very painful life experience) my choices were thus:
A Shut up and accept whatever sex was offered
B Have an affair (this option, I have learned, no longer applies to me or anyone I counsel)
C Find (as Dan recommended) a friendly sex worker.
In choosing C I have kept my half of what I have earned in the last 43 years of work, but must accept that most intimate moments will be shared with someone for whom I exist only as a client. Yet, EVEN THIS is better than a similar moment alone aroused only by memories. I can no longer find anger nor blame toward my Miss N.:... she is whom she is. We at least had many good years while they lasted.
One recent topic as regards AM I stated:..."The N.Y.T. says that only 10% of the folks on A.M. were women"
Reply: "Huh! THATS B.S.. Any woman that wants to get laid can find a man to go to bed in about 60 seconds. She Doesn't need A.M. or money"

Thanks Johnny. Can you just drop a line to our boss re that? The pay conditions here are terrible.
Just a joke, joyce.. I agree Johnny, SL is a special place.

@179. No thanks.

Titillated, yes a nice word sb53.
I'm with you. A sex worker is the ethical way to go, if one is to go that way.
If a woman/ wife says no, then that option is fine, by me.
Sex workers, where would the world be, without them.

@173 Ghost: Divorce liberated me, too. I agree with LavaGirl: now is your time to fly and celebrate being free. It may be a long road for a while, but it just gets better. Hang in there.
@176 JohnnyRythym: You are most welcome, and LavaGirl also warned me about 50 Shades being a waste. New question, as long as we're still discussing books---what is your opinion of Harper Lee's long awaited 2nd book (after her Pulitzer Prize winning novel, To Kill a Mockingbird c.1960), Go Set a Watchman? Personally, I am heartbroken to read in a recent critic's review that Atticus Finch is depicted in Watchman as a bigot, although it is reported to have been written prior to Mockingbird, and hidden away lo these many years as an unedited first draft. Mainly, my fond image of Southern lawyer and prominent Maycomb, Alabama father figure, Atticus Finch, brilliantly played by actor Gregory Peck in the Oscar winning 1962 b&w film adaptation has now been sadly tarnished by Lee's latest book review (although I admit I haven't actually read the new book yet).
@176 JohnnyRythym & @180 LavaGirl: Agreed on SL being a special place! I third that.
@177 nocutename: You mean a lot, too.
@179: I'll pass.

Is Hunter on vacation this week? Did I miss his wrap up?

"There's no way to tell the difference between an Ashley Madison member who came to his (or her) senses before cheating, like AMM here, and a member who fucked a dozen other people—or, for that matter, a member who had a good reason for being on the site..."

LOL- someone should have told Josh Duggar that.

It is satisfying to be in a discussion among intelligent, thoughtful people.

@ 180 LavaGirl - tell your boss what, that you are intelligent? Haha. Just have him/her read SL and see your comments. I like how some of your posts are like a haiku poem. I wish I could get to know you better, too bad you're on the other side of the earth.

@ 184 auntiegriz - I am shamefully embarrassed to admit that I have never read TKAM, nor its recent prequel/sequel. I just finished Martin Short's autobiography, maybe that should be next. I have heard many TKAM fans say, "Don't read the new book, it will ruin your life!" Haha. So did Atticus Finch have a change of heart, or was he faking it, or was he just such a good lawyer he was able to look above his racism to prosecute the case? Guess I'll have to read them to find out...

Johnny@188. My ( pretend) Boss here is Dan Savage, it obviously a joke that fell flat. Used to that..

Oh, haha... don't blame yourself. Some of us are just too thick to get the metaphor. ;)

@Tim Horton: ...Privacy is like free speech. It is for everyone, or for no one.

Yes. Privacy is also like free speech in that too many people are willing to giving it up for the sake of their pet cause.

Given how much information is gathered and stored about all of us, I don't think the time is far off when the idea of privacy will seem quaint.

True Sean. Forces us all to clean up our acts and be proud of who we are, at the same time.
Fuck em. I have nothing to hide/ From myself.

And Tim, you've got to be one of the worst at planning a clandestine liaison..
All over the Internet, that plan of yours.

@EricaP: I think you underestimate the ability of children to sense tension in the household

Yes, but let's not forget the ability of a discreet affair to relieve tension in the household.

I'll admit I'm doubtful of anyone who justifies an affair as being somehow for the kids. When people have affairs, they are taking care of themselves.

You're a sweet man, Tim. And if you just blocked your self from certain avenues, cause you have a big mouth.. See it as a sign , that you're not cut out for that path.
Just kick that wife of yours, into the next gear. Get some bondage stuff, take it home, and tie her up. That should get her attention.

@194 -- "When people have affairs, they are taking care of themselves." And, by extension, their kids. The mental game is critical when raising children. You have to be strong in body and mind or they'll eat you for breakfast. You can't let those monsters get the upper hand and the conscientious parent does what it takes, even if it means sacrificing the integrity of their marriage.

It's a heroic move, really.

Grizelda, the 50 shades book, badly written. The movie, that's worth a look.
The actor is sexy and intelligent and
The actress, a dangerous mix of her mother, Melanie Griffith and her father Don / white suit man/ Johnson.. Think I got his name right. The guy who always had a twinkle in his eye.
Pity a good writer didn't crack that outlet first. Still, she's opened the door.

Same goes for you Bloomer. Get some action happening in the bedroom.
Ok. As a woman, I know the wife/ mother/ someone get me outta here, Story. And yes, a Woman forgets her younger self, her free of husband and kids self.. Because, it's fucking gone.
So. Bright lights. Big City. Time to shake out the whatever's, and party.

@188 JohnnyRythym: I just cannot read Go Set a Watchman now--even if that really was Harper Lee's first, long-hidden manuscript. Forgive me--but I refuse to let go of fond memories of actor Gregory Peck, and Lee's Pulitzer Prize winner of 1960.

@191: Sean--glad you're back! Privacy a quaint idea? YIkes! B-but--what if there are parts of me that the rest of the world really wouldn't want to see?
@197 LavaGirl: Now you've gotten me curious about the film version of 50 Shades---the actress is daughter of Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson; then she's also the granddaughter of Tippi Hedren.

OK... I have not mentioned this yet, because I don't want to get flamed. But all this discussion about 'integrity' (maybe that was on the other thread; I've lost track) and statements like "I think you underestimate the ability of children to sense tension in the household" and "When people have affairs, they are taking care of themselves" (and I realize, Sean, you were making the opposite point in your post but just playing the devil's advocate in your own mind)... but I get the distinct impression that I, the CPOS AM user who has been called the 'one-man wrecking ball for relationships' may be perhaps the only person on this thread who has not divorced: I am still married to the same woman I married 26 years ago. And we have both had affairs, with each other's complete knowledge and blessing, in the last 10 years. And you know what? Our kids have turned out fucking great.

Again... I'm not trying to appear smug, or lord anything over anyone. The biggest thing I have learned is that everyone has his own road, his own journey, and yes, I have learned NOT TO JUDGE anyone for anything. And I'm not saying our kids didn't pick up on tension over the years, or that our affairs were 'somehow for the kids.' But I do know that we are happier people after opening our marriage, and that happiness has rubbed off. Our kids are cool, funny, successful people, honor students, talented, etc., etc., brag, brag, brag... and the 5 of us have a great time together.

Now maybe some people would say we should have split up in 1994 when they were toddlers and I tried to have a half-assed 'affiar' which went nowhere, or in 2005 when I joined AM after negotiating an open marriage with my awesome wife. But we didn't, and I have no regrets. I have no idea how they would have turned out if we had split up... maybe they would be 'fine,' by some definition, as so many people have told me they would be if we did. But what I do know is they are better than fine now, and so are we.

Not that we have had a perfect marriage. Our marriage is ragged and torn and bloody, it's been through the fire like nobody's business, but it's still alive. We have talked about divorce NUMEROUS times but always come back to the fact that we love each other and are each other's best friends ever.

As for the people we have cheated with, well... as I've said, they're grownups, they made their decisions, they have their own roads too. If they had not done it with us, they would have been doing it with someone else. It is not my responsibility to judge them... and they have become great friends, some of them, and enriched our lives in ways we could not have expected.

Oh, boy... I have a feeling I'm going to regret this. *click*

On a completely different subject: @199 auntie g: As a former movie critic and Rotten Tomatoes member with 700 movie reviews still on the web, I just checked RT for 50 Shades. I have not seen the movie myself (I read the book and decided, No thanks), but something to note:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fifty_sh…

25% critics' rating; 42% audience rating. You might want to wait until it's on Netflix and even then, don't get your hopes too far up. ;)

@201 JohnnyRhythm: Okay. Thanks for the Rotten Tomatoes food for thought on 50 shades.

@200, not only smug, but also just wrong.

In the spirit of this column, I want to share something I saw on Facebook, purporting to be a letter from an angry wife. It amazed me that the comments were so in favor of this woman, when I'm thinking, "Maybe the reason 'his manhood doesn't work right' is that he's married to an angry controlling bitch...."

http://diply.com/big/an-angry-wife-write…