HUSBAND: It's just sex. They're already friends. Would you be upset if they went out for dinner or a walk or something but it was platonic? I didn't think so. He's married. His wife is cool with it. The only thing to look into is whether HIS relationship is on the rocks and this is a backdoor way to check out his next relationship. If they're cool, then be cool jule.

LW1: I agree with @10 on the "blanket consent" idea—if we're sexual partners and I'm under the blanket with you, you can assume I consent unless told otherwise.

LW3: I think people have a prejudice towards monogamy that leads to blind spots. I agree with @8 and disagree with the Statler Brothers—no reason not to have your Kate and Edith too!

https://qz.com/938084/the-idea-of-monoga…

@EricaP: I'm sorry; I misunderstood and I misspoke about how you view your submissiveness and how it plays out in your relationships.

I do stand by my characterization of an unhappy or unhealthy power imbalance in relationships as described by WoofCandy. It sounds as if the women his friend goes out with fall more in love with the friend than he does with them. This gives him a leverage over them which he uses. They are constantly trying to win his love, and he is always understood to be willing to withdraw his affection entirely. The women live in a constant state of insecurity. I don't see that as mutually fulfilling in the same way that your D/s relationships are.

@EricaP: "There are plenty of real power imbalances in life which are not thereby unhappy or unethically exploitative. Employer/employee, for instance, is a real power imbalance which is not inherently unstable, unhappy, or unethical."

I guess the thing is that the power imbalance inherent in employer/employee or police officer/citizen are understood to be inevitable and fairly necessary, whereas the kind of power imbalance in a D/s couple is not necessary for couplehood to exist in theory, and is far from inevitable. The individuals involved may inhabit those roles completely, and at all times, and feel them to be their natural states of being, but it still seems to me to be roles that are often not necessarily enacted in the other areas of life, but are reserved for sexual/romantic partnerships, and enacted more privately. For instance, I know a couple that has a FemmeDomme (or however it's spelled) relationship: he is subservient to her domestically and sexually. But in the outside world, she works for him (or she worked for him directly once; now she works for a company that is a client of the company he is the Vice President of). So in that context, she is subordinate to him. And when they go out and socialize, to the ballet, to a football game, at a fundraising function, what-have-you involving kids (they don't have children together, but each has children from previous marriages), they present as egalitarian. Obviously, there are Master/slave relationships that operate full-time, but I think there are far more egalitarian-seeming relationships that revert to D/s privately, or only where sex is involved.

And again, those are roles or positions knowingly and consensually undertaken for the mutual benefit of the members of the couple.

I know you are a sub and your husband is your Dom, but is that obvious to the other parents of your kids' club sports team? If your husband wanted to buy, say, a boat, would your opinion on the purchase hold as much weight as his? If you objected, would he listen to your objection and not buy the boat? Or if he went ahead and overrode your objections and bought the boat anyway, would you feel justified in being angry? Would you feel that you had no right to object?

Sorry about coming so late to the party (not really funny under the circumstances) So many questions, so many variables. Thank who or whatever that there are no children involved. Does HUSBAND have anyone he can talk to about this? Does he have a support system (family, friends)? Most importantly what is their financial situation and does either of them have financial leverage over the other. What is the power dynamic in the marriage and what are their personalities like? Best guess the Friend is an alpha male and the husband is a beta male. HUSBAND would not be writing to Dan for advice or be this torn up emotionally if he was an alpha male. Giving any advice without this information is premature. In cold blooded economic terms, what is the wife risking (it would be "nice" to know what the stakes are). Marriages and relationships (monogamous, poly, whatever) do not exist in a vacuum (DUH). The totality of the relationship needs to be considered, not just the sexual/emotional component. The relative socioeconomic status and condition of the HUSBAND and Friend need to be factored in. A beta male will always lose to an alpha male who has the same or higher socioeconomic status. However, an alpha male is a fool to challenge a higher status beta male. The beta male can always hire alpha males (lawyers and such) to deal with challenging alpha males. Mrs. Husband is not Husband's property or a second class citizen (at least not in the civilized world, Kansas, Texas etc are not part of the civilized world) She has free will and can exercise it. My point is that there is not enough (gross understatement) information to even begin to consider giving advice. To do so invites disaster and tragedy (as often happens) by well meaning strangers (me included) who lack information. Give me a simple, straight forward CPOS/DTMFA situation any day over a complex and messy relationship (aren't they all). As the song says "somebody is going to get hurt tonight" Well that boat has sailed. Sexual satisfaction is important, but it doesn't trump (ITMFA) everything else. An interesting question is what would Mrs. Husband do if she understood the emotional pain and turmoil she has inflicted on her husband?

OK so I didn't read everything here.

I'd bet that in real life, people don't usually decide to be poly in a monogamous relationship. They meet someone they love, they love their partner, and so they suggest having both. I don't know why it makes her dubious or bitchy to realize she cares about her friend, finds him sexually attractive, also cares about her husband, and so asks if they can make this work. If it's problematic for the husband and she gives him an ultimatum, that's shitty. But if she's just fallen for her friend and asks her husband if they can make it work, what the fuck is wrong with that? Real life isn't neat. We tend to fall for people we know; she is being honest with her husband about it. I agree with CMD and BDF that it might be better to go slow and make sure the husband has some incentive as well.

BUT I'm way more interested in the sleep sex. I agree with @10. Ask the partner ahead of time if all is well asleep that is well awake, then don't worry anymore. But it sounds like the LW might be concerned that they are doing things they normally wouldn't. I don't suppose it's too hard to wake someone up, right? So if the boyfriend were troubled by the sudden sleep-rimming, he'd just shake him awake right? I can see how this would be very problematic with a new partner or someone you didn't really trust, but if it's with someone you love and plan to marry and trust and can talk with while awake, etc, then I'd say set some boundaries when you are awake and otherwise let it be what it is. This is really fascinating to me because it's pretty common to start to initiate things while asleep, but to actually go through and carry out a time-consuming sex act without any memory at all- that's something I've never heard of. Amazing. The brain is a weird place.

a skeptic @70, probably a little late to the game here, but I'd direct you to my latter correction @51

OK so I've read all the comments now and I don't have anything to add. I think BDF has made really great points.

I have a question though. How many of you have been in really long term relationships? I mean, decades? Because it sounds like you guys are all outraged that anyone would develop crushes, even loving relationships, with people other than your partner? I mean, what world are you people in? If you are a social person, if you tend to get to know people, that happens. You fall for people. You crush on people. There is no such thing as a soul mate, you know. It's a combination of love, life choices and shared experiences that make one person more "partner" than another. So she has fallen for her friend. That's absolutely normal. The next step is deciding what to do about it. A shitty thing to do would be to lie- to yourself, to your partner- and carry on some lying affair. We can all agree that fucking the friend behind the partner's back is shitty.
So... Ethical possibilities include: A) ending your marriage because you want to fuck your friend (rather stupid if the marriage is happy otherwise), B) sucking it up and keeping your feelings to yourself, maintaining both the friendship and the marriage, C) ending the friendship b/c you can't do B and you want to maintain the marriage, D) honestly discussing your feelings with your partner to see how he'd feel about it.

I don't get the outrage here. It sounds like you guys are freaking out that the woman has fallen in love with her friend. Guess what? That's TOTALLY NORMAL. It's super rare that you will meet your one and only true and special whatever. What's important is how you act about it. And the first step to acting well is being honest with yourself and everyone else involved.

If Husband responds that he's not down with this at all and the wife prioritizes the poly friend over her marriage- well that's shit and we should call her on it and offer the husband good advice to move on. But that's not what happened here. So why the outrage?

You're a bit late to the outrage party Emma Liz. I've found something else to be outraged about.

EricaP @94

But the short response is, no, it's not pretend and I can't turn it off, any more than I can shut off the power imbalance between myself and a police officer, or between myself and a longtime mentee.

But I assume you could leave the relationship if you so desire, correct? So the choice is between "no relationship [with mr. P]" or "D/s relationship with me in the 's' role". In other words, you can't turn off the power imbalance within the relationship but you can turn off the relationship itself.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

@106: Only fools use the terms "alpha male" and "beta male."

My husband has had sexomnia forever--- he first found out in college when he was sleeping next to a platonic female friend and started groping her in his sleep. He is a very quiet, respectful, introverted person and was absolutely horrified.

When we started dating he warned me about this behavior right away-- and it did happen from time to time, maybe once a month or so. Sometimes it was just intense making out, sometimes he was a raging animal (not the norm), and I've always really enjoyed it. But I'm regards to the "secret desires" the poster asks about-- I don't think he's too far off base.

As our relationship progressed, as we got more comfortable and far kinkier, the sexomnia slowed way down. Fast forward four years in, we are 24/7 D/s and he hasn't sleep-fucked me in at least six months. I actually miss it.

@EmmaLiz @107: I doubt it's all that easy to wake someone up in the midst of sleep-sex. I had one partner who engaged in sleep-sex, and despite quite interactive sessions (much more so than just shaking someone) he never woke up, nor did he remember it in the morning. I assume it's like sleep-walking, which I did as a child, and people had entire conversations with me that I never remembered. The only thing that ever woke me up was falling from a two-story window into rose bushes. I opened the window and removed the screen myself in my sleep. True story.

EmmaLiz @ 109
As others have already articulated, much of the rage is due to the somewhat ultimatum-sounding request, as well as the connection she wants to have with a longtime friend of theirs which looks like an added value anxiety to hubby.

While acknowledging the oversight of my original suggestion I now see it as a possible part of the moving slowly approach. I think both of them meeting with strangers first will give them an idea of what opening the marriage might entail without the commitment, awkwardness, and jealousy that dating an old friend may come with.

Yes, this is not what she asked for, but starting with a “dry run” of some sort is likely to make it easier to sort things out in the future.

ciods @96 – thank you!

WoofCandy @ 100 & Registered European @111:

I can't withdraw my consent and I can't leave. I got into this by choice, which is why I think of our relationship as consensual. But leaving or ending the D/s aspect is not up to me. On the other hand, my belief is that Mr. P. would have no interest in staying married to someone who cries herself to sleep every night. I can't initiate divorce, but I believe he would end the relationship if he thought we had become incompatible.

It's power not "power" because I actually feel the weight of his control in my life.

nocutename @105 -- Mr. P. picked the house we bought and the cars we bought, yes. The car I drive is getting old, now. I get to express a preference as far as the car that replaces it, but I don't get to make the decision.

You suggest I might be able to dissuade him from buying a boat, and yet he went ahead with non-monogamy despite my (initial) unhappiness. So, no, he would get the boat if he wanted it. I get to have my feelings. I can be angry if I like. But I can't do anything about it except tell him my feelings and trust his judgment. He has always been right about what is good for our relationship – and I've known him almost thirty years now, since we were friends long before we started dating.

As for our kids and their friends' parents – I think they see me as someone easy going and who likes other people to make the decisions. But my deference to Mr. P's wishes happens mostly out of sight. It's our kink, and we don't make it obvious to the world. That doesn't mean it's not real.

nocutename, you say you think there are "far more egalitarian-seeming relationships that revert to D/s privately, or only where sex is involved." – it's impossible to know the numbers. But I think there are also a lot of happy relationships which are nominally egalitarian (to the eyes of the world) but where one person actually makes most of the decisions. The couple may not see themselves as D/s, but the power imbalance is real and doesn't bother either person. Of course there are plenty of situations where power is abused -- that doesn't mean that power has to be abusive to be real.

"And when they go out and socialize, to the ballet, to a football game, at a fundraising function...they present as egalitarian."

When I run into my boss at a fundraising function -- we also present as egalitarian. Doesn't mean that either of us forgets about the real power imbalance between us.

@CMD, @LavaGirl, and @sb53: Please email me soon. I could use some family-related advice and it's off topic here in SL.

@112 BiDanFan (re @102): And it sounds so RepubliKKKan frat-boyish, too.

EricaP @116

I can't withdraw my consent and I can't leave.

Thank for the correction and explanation. I can't say that I "understand" your relationship, I will admit that it's completely incomprehensible to me. But I hope you are happy. Hugs.

The power imbalance between say a police person and a civilian is physical as well as psychological. That is a very different dynamic to a D/s relationship where the power imbalance is psychological only.

@122 oh, it's physical here too. He uses every tool he has to make me feel firmly under his thumb. His height, his voice, his strength, his willingness to throw me around. And he's in charge of our finances, and our calendar, and my outfits, and our sex life, and what topic we're going to discuss next. It's a whole package. Luckily I thrive with him in control.

Say what, Erica? He throws you around.
But he can't throw you in jail.

@123 EricaP
It sounds like you are in an abusive relationship. I've read your posts for years. You always seemed stronger, although happily in a D/s sexual relationship.
Tell me I'm wrong.

Amos, @105 -- I'm in a relationship which is well-suited to my kinky needs. It would be abusive except for the fact that I want this, sought it out, and am happily enjoying myself. Is the military abusive, just because people agree to give up certain rights?

What would concern me Erica, if I ever entered such a complete D/s dynamic is not being able to cope if the D left me. Do you ever worry about how you'd cope if this happened to you?
Grief after a marriage break up when both parties are in an equal relationship is hard enough.

BiDanFan @112 Leaving aside the implied insult, your comment "Only fools use the terms "alpha male" and "beta male" displays not only bias, but ignorance. In making that statement you are calling the entire academic/professional community fools. A simple Google search will disabuse of your ignorance. I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong or ignorant. I don't even mind being insulted by informed individuals, but before you use pejorative language make sure that you know what you are talking about. Such a benighted statement calls in to question any comment you make, even when you are entirely correct. This the type of comment I would expect from the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania (ITMFA), I expect more of you.

BiDanFan @112 Leaving aside the implied insult, your comment "Only fools use the terms "alpha male" and "beta male" displays not only bias, but ignorance. In making that statement you are calling the entire academic/professional community fools. A simple Google search will disabuse of your ignorance. I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong or ignorant. I don't even mind being insulted by informed individuals, but before you use pejorative language make sure that you know what you are talking about. Such a benighted statement calls in to question any comment you make, even when you are entirely correct. This the type of comment I would expect from the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania (ITMFA), I expect much more of you.

@EricaP: I'm going to echo Reg Eur's response. I don't understand it at all, but I'm glad it's working so well for you and Mr. P.

As an aside, I wonder if your general submission overall, which I believe sounds as if it was already an ingrained part of you before you and Mr. P. became a couple, and your having acceded all decisions to Mr. P made it more likely that you took his unilateral decision to open your marriage in stride. Maybe that's overstating it, but I'm thinking about your willingness to consider something you've said before that you had not thought about or were interested in--non monogamy--because it was he got exactly what he wanted or he'd walk out.

Because I've seen you suggest that other people open up their marriages, using your own happy example as a demonstration of how well this can work. But if one of the main reasons for it working is that as an extreme 24/7 submissive, who can't withdraw your consent and can't leave, you have to let your husband have his way no matter what that means, then I don't think you can expect that other people, not bound by those same limitations, would necessarily be able to do what you did (i.e. stay and put up with whatever Mr. P. was doing).

I think everyone is forgetting what the LW chose to use title his plea. HUSBAND (Help Understand Spouse's Blunt And New Demand. If " Blunt And New Demand" doesn't sound like an ultimatum what would. It also succinctly expresses his true feelings about it.

At least in his mind, his wife is demanding, not asking

My response to such a would be DTMFA, but HUSBAND

the poor sod probably won't. I'm interested he calls this a new demand. Were there previous one and if so, what were they

@131 Dan (or his elves) frequently or always writes those cute signoffs, not the letter writer. And I'm sure the "New" is here to make the acronym work. So don't overread those particular tea leaves!

@EricaP, thanks for explaining how things are for you. It's kind of hard for me to face, but that makes it mind-stretching.

The one word that I keep coming back to is "luckily [you] thrive with him in control." Now maybe I'm putting too much on that work, maybe that's luck in a sense like you're lucky to have found someone you thrive with. But if it's luck directly about the fact of thriving, meaning you could have rolled the dice, not thrived, and you'd still be locked in from your position (assuming he didn't choose to release you then, which I get makes it a whole different picture), then... I don't know.

Sublime @87: Aha. So in other words, you're inserting facts not in evidence in order to come to your conclusion that Wife has been dishonest.

The letter reads: "Recently, my wife said she would like us to be able to date others, have sex, romance, etc., but still remain a married couple. She specifically wants to date her friend." Not, "Recently, my wife said she would like us to be able to date others, have sex, romance, etc., but still remain a married couple. She eventually confessed that she specifically wants to date her friend."

I agree -- as does Cat_in_Fez -- that the situation would in fact be significantly different if your twist on the facts were accurate. And since Wife's forthrightness or lack thereof is integral to the situation, I can't help but think that if it had happened the way you postulate, LW would have said so. But he didn't. There's nothing but your imagination to suggest a dishonest delay. Anyone can use their flights of fancy to twist the situation into anything they choose. I could, for instance, theorise that Wife only became interested in Friend because Husband's libido had dropped and he was denying her sex most times she asked for it. But there's no evidence of that, just as there's no evidence Wife was anything less than forthright in talking to Husband about her desires.

And regardless -- even if Wife had decided to approach the situation gently by first suggesting polyamory and then saying she already had a partner in mind -- she has now laid all the cards on the table for Husband to make an informed decision.

CMD @115: I have to disagree. Wife does not want to "start by fucking random strangers," even if Husband might find that less threatening than her having an emotional connection with a close friend. Let's say the LW was a young person wondering whether they were ready to have sex with their partner for the first time. The advice would not be for them to go fuck some randos first. I don't see why "fuck someone you don't want to fuck, then fuck the person you do" is good advice here either.

I think the "moving slowly approach" should involve Husband getting to know Friend better, getting to know Mr and Mrs Friend as a couple better, going to poly groups, and getting to know other poly couples and individuals and learn from their experience and advice. Perhaps Wife could go on platonic dates with Friend, then progress to only kissing, before jumping into bed with him. Definitely Husband should have the opportunity to go on dates as well, so things are more fair. But Wife doesn't want to fuck randos, so I don't see how that's a good "first step" towards her getting what she does want.

Hunter @138: And "frequently" is true. The point is we cannot assume that the LW has chosen the acronym (having written to Dan, let me tell you that this can be a lot harder than one might think). And the acronyms can indeed be prejudicial. Remember IAMHORNYDAN? She was adamant that she didn't pick her signoff, that I was an "idiot" for thinking she might have done, and that she was not in fact as horny, Dan, as her signoff implied. If we're using the acronyms to help paint a picture, we have to accept that that picture may in fact not be accurate.

Omly @128: I have replied to your thrice-repeated question where I first saw it, on the boner pills thread.

EricaP @126
"Stockholm syndrome is a condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors as a survival strategy during captivity. These feelings, resulting from a bond formed between captor and captives during intimate time spent together, are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims. Generally speaking, Stockholm syndrome consists of "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.""

I hope you are happy and not just deluding yourself.

Many years ago I wrote to Dan, and without thinking, signed my full name. When my letter appeared (in actual print, that's how long ago this was), a nice, appropriate sign off had been created for me. It wasn't one that came with a cute acronym, though.

Years later I wrote something and when it got posted, it said "sent from the Savage Love app on my iPhone" which was emphatically not true. I didn't own an iPhone, and I never post from my phone, only from a laptop. I was kind of steamed that my letter had been modified in a way that turned it into an ad for Apple, and said so. Ultimately Dan chimed in, apologized and that was the end of that. But I remember that when I initially joined the comment thread to point out the addition of the ad, a lot of commentors were falling over themselves trying to figure out how that could have happened without intervention at The Stranger.

Back to HUSBAND (regardless of who created his signoff): here's what we know from his letter:
"My wife has a very close male friend who happens to be in a poly marriage. Recently, my wife said she would like us to be able to date others, have sex, romance, etc., but still remain a married couple. She specifically wants to date her friend. I am struggling. I am not closed off to having a conversation about nonmonogamy, but I struggle with the thought of her having a boyfriend."

Here's what we don't know:
1. How long the wife and the lw have been married and what the state of their marriage/sex life has been like lately.
2. How long the wife and her friend have known each other or been close.
3. How long the friend has been in a poly marriage and how much he talks about that marriage to others. Is he merely open about his marriage or is he trying to recruit other people into it?
4. What the lw's wife really wants. She may want to be part of a poly relationship (perhaps a harem) that her friend is in; she may harbor a hope that once she and her crush get to have their fling, he will want to be only with her. She may want her husband the lw to get to date and fall in love with someone else, too, or she may be upset if he ends up catching feelings for someone he has sex with; she may, despite her statement about "us" being able to date others, not really want her husband to date others, after all; she may not think he would really have a relationship with someone else, even with permission, and so it's an empty gesture of equality.

It's impossible to know. We also don't know if they have children, if the male friend in the poly marriage has children, or whether the poly friend introduced the idea of dating the wife or the wife has come up with it on her own.
All these things factor into this lw's dilemma.

Here's what we do know:
The idea of being polyamorous is her idea, not the lw's. She has someone lined-up and waiting in the wings, and the lw does not. It's typically easier for an honest straight married woman to find a willing sexual partner than it is for an ethically non-monogamous straight married man to find find a willing sexual partner.
HUSBAND say he is "not closed-off to having a conversation about nonmonogamy," which sounds like a very basic starting point. He also is not okay with his wife having "a boyfriend," and I take that to mean any boyfriend, including one currently unknown who might come along at a later date, not just this man that the wife already has a crush on.

I think the wife is being honest, and I think it's only human to still love your partner and develop a crush on someone else. I think it's also completely possible to love more than one person at the same time. I believe that the wife may not want to leave her husband the lw for this new man, and I see nothing to suggest that she is merely hoping to keep the husband around as an emotional fall-back. I think if we're all honest with ourselves, we'd admit that we all want to be able to have our cake and eat it, too. Most of us don't get to do that and we find ways to cope with it. I don't think she's necessarily already cheating on her husband with this guy. I think she is trying to be ethical and above-board and honest about what kind of relationship model she wants. Perhaps she had never considered such a model before hearing about how it works for her friend, but that doesn't mean much: we all are introduced to something non-standard at some point.

However, HUSBAND isn't excited about this plan; all it brings him is angst and unhappiness. He used the word "struggle" twice in two consecutive sentences. He is not ready to move to nonmonogamy and may never want it, although he might be able to consider opening up the marriage within certain parameters and following specific rules. He is certainly not ready to consider true polyamory. He doesn't want to be one of multiple men that the wife loves. He has every right to tell his wife this. He says, "I want to be able to give this to her, but I feel like my mind and body are not letting me," which suggests that he loves her and that he's trying to give her what she wants, but he shouldn't have to do that at the expense of his emotional and psychological health.

If his wife decides that the ability to be with her friend is more important than staying in her marriage, so be it. She gets to make that decision. If the lw decides that he doesn't want to be in a poly relationship or be monogamous himself with someone who is poly, that's his right, too. He gets to make that decision.

LG @127 – I have a solid support system in the kink community. Some day my relationship with Mr. P. will end, whether by him releasing me or by one of us dying. I'll be sad, but I'll survive. Being polyamorous has taught me that I am capable of having other loving relationships in addition to the strong enduring one with Mr. P. I'm confident than any future relationship I have would also be D/s. That's how my sexuality works.

nocutename @130 – yes, absolutely, D/s made it much easier for me to accept non-monogamy than a similar person without that toolkit. I don't say everyone is suited to non-monogamy. If someone knows it's not right for them, they shouldn't go down that path. I simply encourage people who are unsure (and worried non-monogamy might be emotionally painful) to give it a try for a few months. Either the hard stuff will get easier, or it won't, and then the couple will have more information as they decide whether or not to end their relationship.

Mtn. Beaver @136 – yes, I feel lucky to have found partners who are so well-matched with my kinks. And, yes, some people looking for D/s get abuse instead, but then some people looking for a fulfilling vanilla relationship get abuse instead too. There's no evidence that D/s increases the odds of a relationship being abusive. And, finally, yes, knowing (as much as one can know anything) that Mr. P. wants me happy gives me confidence that if things went to hell he wouldn't keep me an unhappy prisoner here.

Amos @141, any happiness which lasts for decades is either authentic happiness or a damn fine simulation. If it's the latter, I hope to continue being deluded as long as I live. Generally speaking something is only a psychological disorder if it interferes with living the life you want. That's not the case here, since I very much want this life and derive satisfaction and joy from it. People who don't have a kink often have trouble understanding why anyone would put up with getting beaten, tied up, pissed on, called names, or told what to do. But there are lot of us out here with various kinks, and other people just have to trust that if someone says consistently that they're happy indulging in their kink, that's their business and not anyone else's (assuming the kink doesn't harm another person).

BDF @ 137
You are way more poly experienced than myself and as such your advice to have both couples hang around for some time before any action takes place is sound and reasonable.
My take on this particular case comes mostly from HUSBAND’s perspective, after all his letter is all we know. I sense his insecurity about the whole thing and the likelihood that Ms. H had already made up her mind. If that’s true I wonder if SHE would be willing to take any of those baby steps.

Most important though, we beat Arsenal earlier today with two goals in one minute during the second half. Some signs held by the fans read, “North London is ours,” and “Mind the gap.”

@141 Amos101: Is a delusion of happiness different than happiness?

@CMD: Go Spurs!

I've been thinking a bit about EricaP's situation (so far as I understand it, which is certainly quite limited) and after the initial reaction, generally along the "that's scary!" line, I tried to really think about what that would be like, and I came up with...relaxing. Well, maybe not relaxing, but something that surprised me with its positive affect. Americans certainly value their individual freedoms, but plenty of studies have shown that increased choice is negatively correlated with happiness. To trust someone that deeply, to know they have your happiness in mind, and to be relieved of those choices--well, I probably wouldn't choose that myself (ha) but it definitely doesn't sound all bad to me.

In fact, I should run it by Mr. Ods (to use a venn-style attribution) and see if he's up for a day-long version ;)

(EricaP, I apologize for discussing your life like you're an example in a textbook; I don't mean to be obnoxious. I've just never thought about something like that before.)

ciods: you probably would have enjoyed the '50s then. Men controlled the finances, had affairs when they wanted too ( asking the wife is a step above), etc.

@149 - They didn't usually flog their wives, though. Or email their wives sexy fantasies during the day. Or send their wives off cheerfully to visit their boyfriends. Or care whether their wives felt fulfilled.

I'm sure quite a few of them flogged their wives Erica. How can a woman feel fulfilled if the man decides her clothes her topics of conversations with him and her social outings? Sounds like a pretty low bar for fulfilment.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, LavaGirl, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I'm glad you're feeling fulfilled enough these days to feel qualified to assess how other people find fulfillment.

How do we even know these are your words here? That your husband isn't dictating what you have to say. Absolute power corrupts.
Yes, it's your trip and yet you say you have no choice, not even to leave. So even if you didn't feel fulfilled, you can't go anywhere.

One mistake I think we all make, especially when we're young or kinky, is to think that never before in the history of humankind did people feel the way we do now/love like we love/behave as we do.

So although I can see that you're irritated with or frustrated by LG's comments, EricaP, I think when you said @150, "They didn't usually flog their wives, though. Or email their wives sexy fantasies during the day. Or send their wives off cheerfully to visit their boyfriends. Or care whether their wives felt fulfilled," that you were falling into that trap.

As LavaGirl pointed out, plenty of men in the 1950s (and earlier) flogged their wives. And yes, the act was probably also sexually arousing--even mutually so--for some of those people.
In fact, with the exception of your email example, I'd imagine that as long as there have been humans, and certainly since the 1950s, there have been couples in which the man let his partner know his sexy fantasies when possible, through whatever media was available, before they could act on those fantasies as a way of building excitement. If there are cuckold fetishists or hotwife fetishits or poly people experiencing compersion today, I'm certain that their counterparts existed in the past. And as far as caring whether their wives felt fulfilled--do you really believe that no husband in the 1950s or at any other time, whether vanilla or kinky, cared whether his wife was fulfilled?

@LavaGirl: How do any of us know that anything anyone here says is true? How do we know who is really writing these comments?
I'm pretty sure that Cat in fez isn't an actual cat, just as I doubt you're really covered in lava. At some point, you just have to take this stuff on faith. And if it turns out that Mr. P killed Erica many years ago and has been posting comments in her voice under her name, I don't think the fake postings are the worst thing about the man!

Ciods @ 148
“To trust someone that deeply, to know they have your happiness in mind, and to be relieved of those choices--well, I probably wouldn't choose that myself (ha) but it definitely doesn't sound all bad to me.”
This is what people on both sides of the aisle often say to some degree or another.
A piece about an ongoing women-dominant event in London:
http://www.clubpedestal.com/GraziaPress.…

Lava @ 149
Most kinks and some times even lifestyles should be exempted from our politically correct tax code.

nocutename @154 I was address LG's snide comment @149 that in some 1950s marriages men controlled the finances by default and had affairs behind their wives' backs. Without judging the accuracy of her stereotype, I was distinguishing between that and a self-consciously poly D/s relationship today.

I'm sure people were kinky and kind in the past, yes. But not the people LG was referencing @149. Or if she meant to refer to them as kinky and kind, and as wonderful partners for their kinky, kind, compatible spouses, she didn't express that very coherently.

@155 I do claim that I am not a cat. Whether I am in a fez I refuse to disclose: it is my feminine mystery. =^.^=

Mtn Beaver, if Dan or his elves chose this "cute" signoff then they should have thought it through. I take Blunt and Demand to mean ultimatum, not request. If you read the letter as an ultimatum, then the Spouse comes off a really insensitive douche bag. Another possibility is that Dan edited the letter and the LW provided information that supported the choice of HUSBAND as the signoff. In this case Dan or his elves should have went with the generic "no cute name" since there is nothing cute about this situation. An attempt at levity is nekulturny.

soulcrusader @102 We don't know if Friend's wife is cool with or if she is even aware of it. We know nothing about Friend's marriage (its status or condition, what ground rules are in place) Granted this is supposition on my part, but I suspect that LW's wife has given him repeated assurances over years that her very close friendship was no threat (apparently it is) and he should not be concerned. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't expect such assurances if your spouse had a very close friendship with someone of the opposite sex? I would, Or are you so naïve and trusting that you wouldn't need reassurance? As far as LW knew (inferred) he was in a stable monogamous marriage with his wife. So we come to the crux of the matter. Provided my supposition is correct, then LW is probably going to have serious trust issues with his wife. (the old fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me) As far as I know, with a (straight) monogamous marriage it is expected that each spouse will distance themselves from opposite sex friendships. ( that forsaking all others bit) A person has a right to expect they won't have to compete with someone else for their spouse (any competition should have been resolved prior to the marriage (usually prior to the engagement. Absent that you would entering into a poly/polyamorous marriage from the start. How many people would marry someone that they don't/can't trust? It isn't just sex, it is broken trust.

In these circumstances, does anyone really believe that for the time being, maybe forever, LW's marriage will be still be the primary relationship for his wife. After all, she has shown such concern for his feelings. Won't he have to accept that

asaac @160

As far as I know, with a (straight) monogamous marriage it is expected that each spouse will distance themselves from opposite sex friendships.

That sounds a bit extreme. Distance themselves from romantic relationships with others, OK, but friendships?

@159: Any time an acronym for the signature spells an actual word, I think that people come up with the acronym first and then force the sign-off to create it. This works whether that person is the letter writer him/herself or Dan or someone on The Stranger's staff. My point is that I wouldn't spend a lot of time parsing the subtleties of nuance in the sign-off in order to look for hidden clues that aren't in the letter itself.

Lava @149: If it makes you feel better, the plan definitely includes a day where *I'm* totally in charge of *his* life, too...thankfully, this isn't the 50s, so the idea doesn't have to be gendered.

Nocute @143: Gold stars aplenty for your thorough analysis of the letter. If only you'd been Comment #1, there would have been nothing more for the rest of us to add.

Lava @149: The point being that in the 1950s, wives did NOT have a choice. They were in EricaP's position, whether they liked it or not. That's very different from choosing a subservient role. Sounds awful to me too, but I'm not judging -- what I want and what others want can be very different, and neither is "wrong."

Skeptic @159: As the letter contains very little information, if you read it as an ultimatum, that is a choice you have made based on your pre-existing prejudices. There is no requirement to read it as an ultimatum. Just as there is no requirement to read it as, "well if he were fulfilling her sexually, then she wouldn't be interested in this other guy." Another option for prejudiced reading which could potentially be true, but is not supported by the meagre facts presented in the letter. "Blunt" and "demand" do not appear in the letter.

Skeptic @161: "does anyone really believe that for the time being, maybe forever, LW's marriage will be still be the primary relationship for his wife"

Will be? I don't have a crystal ball. Could be? Yes. What's my evidence for concluding so? The fact that the friend is married and poly, ie that he is already in a primary relationship, and does not have that role open to offer to Wife, even if Wife wanted it.

Is it possible that Wife and Friend will both dump their spouses? Yes. Is it possible that Wife and Friend will begin a sexual relationship, discover they are incompatible, and go back to being just friends? Yes. Is it possible that Husband will begin his foray into polyamory by meeting another woman whom he falls in love with? Yes. Anything is possible. The people involved can't predict their own future; we don't even know them, so we certainly cannot.

RE @162: Indeed. In some heterosexual relationships, it is expected that the partners will distance themselves from opposite-sex friendships. Those types of heterosexual relationships are generally viewed as abusive. Or Mike Pence's.

CMD @156: Thank you for the article about Club Pedestal. For the benefit of the readership, I have been to Club Pedestal, and here are my thoughts on the article:

1. Sigh. Even in an article about women being in charge, the subhead refers to "girls" and "men."

2. "a recent Ann Summers survey found that 85 per cent of women feel they relate more to Fifty Shades’ commanding Mr Grey than they do the meek Miss Steele."
Wow. I'm going to have to google this. I can totally see it. So much for the stereotype of every woman wanting to be dominated. A lot of them want to embody male privilege and power. Who'd have thought?
Link is here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/style/shoppi…

3. Funny how Anya, whose day job involves her hitting tough targets, unwinds by hitting tough targets. :-D

SHEETS - My body doing things without my mind being in control is concerning enough, but it feels kinda rapey, since I doubt I'm capable of hearing "no" in this state.
That sucks. I find stuff that sucks about my body as I age too. My clutch foot is going out so I'm going back to an automatic. Maybe you should listen to what your body says and try to have confidence that you'll be able to deal with what it wants pretty ethically for a simple human.. humans seem to naturally hurt others and themselves sometimes, and have to learn not to, but you sound like the sort of thoughtful person who learns well.
I'm worried my body is acting out desires that my conscious mind doesn't want to acknowledge.
Sure maybe you haven't realized or voiced some things you want, maybe you want to top your boyfriend but are refraining because you think it would be unwelcome. Does the thought of asking him to bottom or showing him how you top seem nice? I'm sure you can figure it out if you consider it calmly. If you do want it, can you get it, or can you live happily without it, or find a happy compromise like outsourcing topping? The only way to know is to try.
Is my body doing things that my mind won't admit it wants to do? Is there a way to prevent it from happening?
If I were you, my big fear would be assaulting him in his sleep, and you seem to be similar.. I'd talk to him about the possibility, and ask what he would do if he woke up with something in his butt. If he would dump you, you might want to sleep in separate beds to prevent it from happening. Hopefully sleeping together is not very important to one or both of you. If it is, perhaps physical restraints?

RACK - Get acquainted with booking online:
sfist.com/2015/04/20/rent_your_dungeon_c…

HUSBAND - I am not closed off to having a conversation about nonmonogamy, but I struggle with the thought of her having a boyfriend. I want to be able to give this to her, but I feel like my mind and body are not letting me.
Mixed feelings are tough to deal with. Until you get yours sorted, don't agree to something that you feel bad about. Figure out why you feel bad about it, what your fears are, and talk about what to do to prevent (diminished intimacy/sex/time for your marriage, STIs, extramarital pregnancy, whatever your personal fears are) if you want to do it. Or, if you want to do it for some stupid reason like you feel everyone else is doing it.. face that peer pressure weakness and just admit that you're monogamous (it's really common and ok) and maybe y'all are growing apart. That's scary, but it happens, and it's not necessarily the end marriages survive a bit of extramarital sex and love quite often.

"The 50s" isn't a monolithic thing. Some people had egalitarian marriages in the 1950s, and some don't have them even now, and I'm not talking about D/s dynamics by mutual consent.
Stepahie Koontz has a book called The Way We Never Were, that is a good starting point for the dismantling of that myth.

Skeptic: Why not amend the signoff to "Husband Under Stress By A New Desire" and see if the letter reads differently to you?

I think there has to be a separation between kinks/ life styles by choice, and politically correct or not classifications and judgments.
Is male submissiveness to women more acceptable due to the “affirmative action” nature of the act? Any extra pc points to a white dude serving women of color?

Speaking of Club Pedestal, two more articles from differing female views, the second also touches on race issues and being an “alpha female:”
http://www.clubpedestal.com/ScarletRevie…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-…

@EricaP: There are more things in heaven and Earth...Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Lol, such a perfect quote. As someone who loves having his mind blown, thanks for sharing a few of those things.

And he's in charge of ... my outfits

That's interesting. There are a lot of decisions in my relationship I'm happy to defer, but I'd love to be in charge of what my girlfriend wears. I'm not sure which appeals to me more, the dominance, the sight of her wearing certain outfits, or simply having a creative outlet for my ideas on women's fashion.

@ciods: Is a delusion of happiness different than happiness?

I'm not sure happiness can even exist without delusion.

@173: For the win. Forever.

I really wish HUSBAND had posted an elaboratory comment or better yet entered the discussion. At least he could have cleared up the source (and intent) of the sign off. It would probably be good to have an open, if anonymous, conversation. Some advice might be spot on or nobody may have posted anything of use. It is obvious that he is confused and could use some clarity (re: at least his emotions)

BiDanFan @137 What you suggest seems reasonable or would have been if it had occurred before the current crisis. Would it surprise anyone if HUSBAND had feelings of antipathy towards very close friend (I know, facts not in evidence, but human nature being what it is, HUSBAND is most likely not rationale and may never be towards FRIEND)? There is also the real possibility that HUSBAND already knows FRIEND and wife(s)as a couple. (Again facts not in evidence, but can anyone think of a better way to have diffused any concerns (I can't believe there weren't any, once again human nature) about the very close male friend then to already interact with them as couples. It would be telling if wife had been adamant that their be no such interaction (if that didn't set off alarm bells, what would?) I wonder how his wife would have reacted if HUSBAND had agreed to explore dating as long as very close friend (or any existing friends) was/were off limits. It would really clarify what wife really wants. This become complicated (gross understatement) when an existing network of friendships is involved (stakes increase dramatically if only because there would be pressure on friends and family to take sides).

nocutename @143 Emotions being what they are, I agree that it is possible to love more than one person at the same time (children being the most common example), but is likely that you love them equally or in the same way. Will you agree that someone will probably be hurt (normally the first person since he/she is person that will be impacted). The reality is that life (love) is a zero sum game involving limited resources (time, energy, money, etc.). To love more than one person means that you have to be willing to hurt some you love.

Skeptic @176: I agree that the situation seems like more of a "crisis" (another word never used by the LW) because the intended lover is a close friend. Here's another example where, stereotypically, I would expect the genders to react in an opposite manner. I think a typical wife would be more inclined towards allowing permission for an affair with one close friend than a blanket licence for casual sex with a bunch of randos, whereas the typical man would see things the opposite way round. Personally, if I were Wife, and HUSBAND came back to me and said "yes, let's explore polyamory, but not with the person you want to be poly with," my reaction would be, well what's the point then? Again, I think Wife has clarified what she really wants. She wants a poly relationship in which both individuals choose their partners, not a hotwifing situation.

I agree that HUSBAND probably already knows Friend to some extent, and that a poly network involving close friends is indeed more complicated than a monogamish relationship where close friends are off limits, because if arguments happen, friendships can be lost. But "it's more complicated" isn't sufficient justification on its own to veto this particular relationship. Either he makes the effort to be okay with the sort of polyamory his wife wants -- namely significant relationships with people she cares about -- or they should stay mono. Since neither of them has expressed an interest in shagging randos, why risk the marriage over something neither of them wants?

nocutename @143 Is it possible to love more than one person (children excluded) at the same time without being willing to hurt someone you already love (or are loved by)? Do we control our emotions or are we controlled by our emotions?

Sorry about the multiple (but modified) posts. my first post hadn't been displayed so I posted the second. Having lost comments before they were (while they were posted). I copy before posting so that I won't lose my comment but that can result in multiple posts of the same comment.

Skeptic @177: Wow. "To love more than one person means that you have to be willing to hurt some[one] you love." No no no. To love one person means that you have to be willing to be hurt. Because they may develop feelings for someone else, like Wife has. Because they may lose their feelings for you, without anyone else being involved. Because they may love you, but carelessly or angrily make a comment that haunts you forever. Experiencing feelings for Person B is not an attempt on my part to hurt Person A, good lord.

Skeptic: Do you have more than one friend? Was your beginning a friendship with Person B an attempt to hurt Person A? See, it doesn't just apply to children.
(I have to run, I look forward to continuing this later.)

BiDanFan @178 I should have been clearer, I was accepting the premise of a bifurcated conversation as has expounded previously with the assumption that there was a time lag between both parts. It seems cruel that the wife would hit HUSBAND with a general request/demand with a specific request/demand at the same time. That is a lot to process at the same time. As is the wife did not give HUSBAND enough time to process the general before hitting him with the specific. As proposed above, If what she really wanted was to date/fuck her very close friend, was it ethical of her to muddy the waters?

BiDanFan @177 Not hurt/harm emotionally (but that is what often/usually? happens), but in the context of limited resources in a socio-economic contract (which until relatively recently in human history is what a was marriage was all about and remains so in most of the world, even to a degree where marriage for love has become common place) I'm probably overly pragmatic in considering the impact on my and/or my spouse's/partner's commitment to the marriage/relationship. Don't women still complain about a man's unwillingness to commit to a marriage/relationship? I know there are many reasons for a marriage/relationship to blowup/fail, but many/most are not the result of a conscious decision (i.e. opening a marriage). To love someone requires that you be, intentionally, emotionally vulnerable, which means you are willing to accept the possibility of being hurt. What are your (general sense) ethical/moral responsibilities when you accept that love? If you know that something you do (not limited to loving someone else) will hurt someone who's love you have accepted, what are you when you go ahead and do it? Again, do we control our emotions or do we allow our emotions to control us? Rationale mind versus animal instinct? It's late at night and I don't know if anything I type makes objective sense I have many questions, but not the answers and if I did they would apply to myself and anyone else's. Universal questions exist, but do universal answers? Sorry about the ramblings of a sleep deprived (insomnia) mind?

BiDanFan Do consider love, hate, friendship part of an emotional spectrum or separate distinct states of being? Isn't there a difference between a conscious (intentional) decision to hurt someone (revenge/hate) and the knowledge that if you do something it will hurt a person you profess to love? We not be able to control our emotions, but we can control whether we choose to act on those emotions. I may hate/loathe someone, but that doesn't mean that I "have" to kill/harm that person. We all have free will even we choose not to exercise it. For every argument, there is a counter argument. I better stop now, I am getting way too philosophical.

Sorry Erica, I shouldn't have been so confronting.

Skeptic @183: I don't think the waters are muddy.

It's interesting that you believe Wife acted wrongly by bringing up the concept of polyamory and the specific partner she had in mind at the same time, when several other commenters believe Wife acted wrongly by bringing up the concept of polyamory separately to the specific partner she had in mind. It just shows that this was never going to be an easy conversation, no matter which approach she chose to take.

Wife could also be seen to have acted wrongly if she had skipped the request to be poly and just asked for permission to get involved with Friend. That would be cuckolding, I hear the anguished cries. In reality what she did by suggesting poly was to propose an equitable solution for her desire to have more than one partner, ie, that they both get to have more than one partner. Surely that's more ethical than a me-me-me-I-want proposal for him to sanction her affair?

You bring up limited time. If that is the case, isn't having a job in essence cheating your spouse out of time you could otherwise be spending with them? What about hobbies? Isn't a wife with a once-a-week bowling league depriving her husband of time, just as she would be if she spent one night per week with her secondary partner? Don't we call relationships where spouses cannot even spend one evening keeping themselves busy with other interests codependent? Might an introvert not thrill to the prospect of having the house to herself while her husband went out now and then?

There is a difference between actions that you know will hurt someone who loves you, actions that may hurt someone who loves you, actions whose importance to you are more important than potential hurt to someone else, and the need for people to live in a world that is sometimes hurtful. If I ask you, "Have I put on weight?" and you know I will be hurt if you truthfully answer, what do you do? If I irrationally expect you to come directly home from work every night and never go out bowling with your friends, and am "hurt" if you want to spend even one evening out, are you obligated to kowtow to my neediness in order to not "hurt" me? "Accepting love" does not obligate a person to act 100% in that person's interests and 0% in their own interests. Things are, as you seem to have realised, more complicated than absolute rules can cover.

If bringing up the concept of polyamory has the potential to cause hurt feelings, do you suggest that polyamory is never ethical?

What about breakups? Breaking up hurts feelings. Should a person stay in a relationship where they are unhappy because the alternative would hurt someone who loves them? Should they admit, "I think your mother is a bad person"? Should they lie about their sexual past if their partner is jealous? Is protecting people from any possible hurt doing them more harm than good? Is a relationship without pain better than a relationship without honesty?

Nope, no universal answers, I think is the point I am trying to make here.

For the record: I, too, am sympathetic to Husband. It IS painful -- even when you are happily poly and have been so for years -- to learn that someone you love is sexually attracted to someone else. But just like dental visits, some things can be both painful and immensely worthwhile. I have stated several times that polyamory is not for everyone and that Husband is perfectly within his rights to say no to his wife's request. I am, in fact, sympathetic to both parties. But I would dispute the conclusion that HUSBAND's marriage is no longer "happy" or that the prior happiness they experienced was an illusion. One can simultaneously be happy in one's relationship and attracted to other people. This also does not mean HUSBAND is "reduced to 2nd dick."

@ a skeptic and a cynic: I don't see love as a zero sum game; I am always surprised at how my capacity for love is seemingly boundless. But I know that in the beginning a new sexual/romantic relationship is temporarily all-consuming, and I agree that people in previous relationships with that person newly infatuated will get less attention. I also think that to some people, love works by shutting the rest of the world out and building a somewhat isolating cocoon of intimacy. So you may see love as an all or nothing proposition, and that's fine. But I don't believe everyone is just the same.

Nocute @190: There's also the possibility that things may work the opposite way. Wife may find herself so grateful to HUSBAND for allowing her the opportunity to explore this exciting new relationship that she finds she loves him more than ever. This was an emotion I was pleasantly surprised to find myself experiencing as a newly poly person. And the NRE she gets from Friend may ramp up her libido, boosting her sex life with her husband as well. (Mileage may as always vary.)

LavaGirl @186: fair enough, thanks.

BiDanFan @188 says >> "Accepting love" does not obligate a person to act 100% in that person's interests and 0% in their own interests. Things are, as you seem to have realised, more complicated.>>

Exactly right. Relationships between compatible people are opportunities to live authentically; if that would mean causing ongoing suffering then maybe the two people aren't compatible.

Wouldn't it only be equitable, if both of them "wanted" more than one partner (and in this case one specific partner). As far as I can see, there is no way for there to be an equitable solution. Equitable requires that there be the exchange of things (relationships) of comparable value. There is nothing the wife can exchange that is comparable to what she wants (an emotional/sexual/romantic relationship with a specific person) and remain a married couple because there is no way for her to "give" Husband an (actual as opposed to hypothetical) emotional/sexual/romantic relationship with a specific person. HUSBAND apparently wants a mutual monogamous relationship, but is trying to give his wife what she wants (at a great emotional cost/distress). The only obvious thing of comparable emotional cost would be to forgo a relationship with her very close friend. There is no way for them both to be satisfied and happy. Bottom line is that whatever they had is gone for ever. It would best for HUSBAND to accept that and move on now, rather than draw things out or try to patch things up. Even in the best of circumstances, ending a marriage is traumatic/disruptive. We don't have a clue as to what (financial, practical) and whether there are constraints there are to a divorce. It is commendable that husband is trying, but should he have been forced to even try?

@193. Relationships end, S&C. The wife has the right to end it or request for it to be opened up. As does the husband.
She showed him little respect by seemingly sorting it with the other guy first. Emotional betrayal is a good sign the person is not really in the relationship.

Skeptic @193: How is Wife supposed to know whether HUSBAND wants more than one partner unless she brings it up? (If you listen to people like Omly, ALL men want multiple partners to spread their DNA amongst. Perhaps Wife has been reading too many evopsych magazines.)

Comparable value, as I said way back in my first post @8, is subjective. Perhaps HUSBAND does not, in fact, have a not-so-secret crush that's only been waiting for an opportunity; perhaps he has different desires which are similarly incapable of being realised within the confines of a monogamous relationship. And perhaps he doesn't, in which case he can say so.

What did they have that is gone forever? A relationship wherein only one of them knew that Wife had a raging crush on someone else? Can HUSBAND honestly say that he has never been attracted to anyone else during the course of this relationship? Perhaps the answer is yes, but it's unlikely that they will have a 60-year marriage unmarred by outside attractions on either of their parts.

No, HUSBAND shouldn't have been "forced to even try." He wasn't forced. He was asked. Again, being "forced" to face the fact that people can have attractions even when they are married is cruelty? What about telling children there is no Santa Claus?

"There is no way for them both to be satisfied and happy" -- your choice would then be that the unsatisfied, unhappy one be Wife. And would that change given other bits of equally speculative information? What about if Wife has a much higher sex drive than HUSBAND? What about if HUSBAND had cheated in the past? What about if Wife had been through a really difficult time, Friend had been there for her, and HUSBAND had not? What if, what if, what if? We don't know the facts, but you've already determined that whatever those facts may be, Wife is in the wrong.

If HUSBAND agrees with you that their partner having feelings for a third party, whether or not they act on those feelings, is grounds for divorce, may he spend the rest of his life single.

Playing devil's advocate here. Actually, more like just throwing things to discuss. In many instances I can see (argue in favor of) each side of an argument. Pillory me if you want for not being a true believer. I have many questions and very few answers.

Analogy (no pun intended): Polyamory (substitute monogamy or whatever) is like anal sex (substitute kink or sex du jour). Some people are just not into it. No amount of time, soul searching, being GGG, pressure, coercion or advice is going to change that. Everybody here should be okay with that (whatever that is). The same is true about being gay (easiest example) or whatever. Real bad example: it's like trying to "cure" someone of being gay. People can try to and do change. However, trying to be something or someone you aren't, just isn't going to work. A fear inventory can work sometimes (usually for irrational fears), but not when it is a visceral fear (spiders). Or the fear is something real (the possibility exists of what is feared actually happening (should they take the attitude that if it happens, it happens or should they take steps to minimize the risk (in this case not accepting polyamory) [In my mind that effort is futile in this case] not like a asteroid striking the Earth (it has happened many times and will again . A person isn't attracted to someone (as an individual or member of a group: take Trump supporters (please, far far away) for example) Would anyone here suggest that they need to analyze that antipathy? or just accept it and move on. At some point the cost to an individual of conforming (or even trying to conform) to somebody else's norm (or desire) is too high a price to pay. HUSBAND is tearing himself apart trying to give his wife something he just may not be able to. At what point is enough, enough? Should he see a therapist for his "problem"? Is there really anything wrong him? It's not like he isn't making an effort to.

BiDanFan: You are experienced in polyamory. With any new lover, doesn't the existing lover have to accept that his partner is going to be focused on the new lover (it's brain chemistry, the new lover is going to produce more endorphins than the old lover, or NRE if you prefer). Will want to spend as much time as possible with the new lover and resent the time spent with the old lover. It's not just sex involved. Think of it like any other addiction, you crave what you are addicted to and will prioritize it no matter how that affects everything else in their life. Even when you make the effort to not short change the old lover, you are going to be distracted at best. This is what I have observed in the few individuals I know are addicted to NRE.

Your analogy to friends and hobbies is a false one. In a monogamous relationship or marriage the partners/spouses have voluntarily agreed to give each other exclusive right to their romantic/emotional/sexual love (you know what I mean, the love one feels for one's parents, siblings, children is a different type of love) The love in the relationship/marriage is paramount (it's a real problem when they choose their mother/father/whatever over their mate) What was freely given., something that has been relied on, is taken involuntarily from that person and given to someone else. You go from an existence of having a whole to an existence having less than the whole. They can always renegotiate the terms of the relationship/marriage, but both parties have to agree otherwise harm is done to one partner/spouse. If you change or withhold what you have given your partner spouse and they have a right to expect, breaks the covenant/contract and you forfeit your right to what your partner/spouse gave to you. Discussing vanilla monogamy (since that is what HUSBAND and his wife supposedly had, it is complicated by the very close FRIEND, but is doubtful that HUSBAND agreed when they married to any form of poly relationship and his wife was ok with that) This is getting way to frigging complicated to keep track and is as clear as mud.

BiDanFan As I have said repeatedly and I think you agreed with, what was is gone and will never be again. She wants they marriage to continue, but only on her terms (her staying in the marriage seems to be conditional on getting what she wants) If that is correct, then she is blackmailing her husband and if the marriage it is his fault (gas lighting perchance)

muddy the waters was a poor choice of words, change from one state of existence to another may be better

I hope my confusion is apparent. This is a very messy situation. The HUSBAND did nothing maybe/don't know, to deserve this being dumped on him. I know how I would react, how I have reacted. But that doesn't really help HUSBAND.

BiDanFan @178 We have information on only one facet of their marriage/existence. We have no idea how simple or complex it already is. You may be right that it's complicated is not justification for vetoing what has been proposed, then again it's complicated may in fact be all that is necessary to veto the proposal. I'm thinking about how complex my own marriage is. I would be completely justified in vetoing the proposal because it is complicated. It doesn't change one thing, it changes everything. A finely balanced structure that evolved over three decades would fall apart. There are very few things in life that would make the resulting chaos palatable. Even an amicable divorce is not practical, it would be a nightmare. Both of us realize this and work hard to keep our marriage functional. What occurs to me is that HUSBAND's marriage must lack highly valued shared goals.

BiDanFan As presented, the choice appears to be poly or divorce