Happy Chrisanukkah!

I guess BBB intended us to infer that he is also bi-romantic, but it's a good example of it being unhelpful to conflate bisexual and bi-romantic into the umbrella term 'bi'. Maybe Dan can improve this linguistic dysfunction.

Happy Holidays all!

I wonder if there is also a historical basis for the common fear that bi men would leave their women for men? Closeted gay men who were caught with men would then claim to be bisexual to try not to lose their female companion, but then later leave the woman for a man?

A joyous Festivus to all!
I wish to air a grievance.

I am so very, very over the "-something" thing. Twentysomething, thirtysomething, fortysomething. It was only barely amusing when the Boomers started it in the 80s, and only in context of hating how "old" they had become, and even then only in context of one particular dramedy.

STOP IT.

You're not "twentysomething." You have an actual age. And if It embarrasses you that much, then you are "in your twenties." For letter writers and callers, "early" or "late" might be useful context.

But enough with the goddamn "-something" nonsense already.

(Thank you, please resume standard comment procedure.)

@3. As with most pernicious stereotypes, that one undoubtedly has some grain of basis in fact. People have heard stories of closeted gay men forced by societal expectations in to opposite-sex relationships, later end those relationships when they realize they can no longer stay in the closet.

And yes, some mostly or entirely gay people pretend to be bi as a way of maintaining some degree of societal or relationship safety.

But it's rare, and the irrational fears of its occurrence are purely rooted in homophobia. In this case, I'm fascinated that the girlfriend is less concerned about L-dubs leaving her for another woman than for another man. There seems to be a notion that casual sex with a woman is more likely to stay casual, but casual sex with a man might unleash his inner fabulousness. (And his being secretly gay it could mean very painful things for her sense of identity and judgment. Again, stupid social messaging causing unnecessary pain. )

To OPENS and all other people stuck in relationships that aren’t working. Challenges and how you deal with them are an important indicator of whether or not you should “stay together”. If you can’t come to a mutually acceptable agreement about important issues, or if you are constantly struggling with points of differences, Give it the old college try and then HANG IT UP and move on. Look for a better fit. ESPECIALLY if you are in your 20s. Life is too short to try changing a puzzle picture of cuddly kittens into a view of the Grand Canyon. It is what it is.

Eeek! Dan said "shitshow". Well I never! Oh wait, that was covered last week's roundup. Never mind.

I agree with the advice that Dan dispensed, but OPENS has bent over backward to maintain this relationship, and people being what they are, there's a good chance he won't take it until he arrives at the ultimate depths of relationship hell. So what advice would allow him to make the best of the shitshow?

Good advice to LIMP too. In particular, I'd add a butt plug to foreplay so that his wife can get used to the gates being open (I like that euphemism). Once they're open, they don't tend to slam shut. Don't spare the lube, and keep a towel handy. If all else fails, pop half a Viagara to help get over the confidence implosion. After a couple of successes, you won't need it any more.

BBB's wife doesn't want him playing with other men. OPENS doesn't want his girlfriend fucking other men either. In both cases, it seems the irresistible lure of "other cock" is the problem. There's something to ponder in this.

Happy Holidays everyone. Thanks for the virtual camaraderie. Love to all!

Weren't we just discussing a little while ago the phenomenon that both men and women are afraid their bi partners of both genders will leave them for a man? Speak of the devil and he shall appear... (Or, as the Germans say, "Write the devil's name on the wall and he shall appear.")

I'm a fiftysomething straight woman and I just don't get attitudes like the one that BBB's girlfriend has. I suppose it's rooted in homophobia and the fact that a lot of closeted gay men used to say they were bi when they really weren't (some may still do this), or came out as bi as a sort of stepping stone to coming "all the way out" as gay.

But the "one penis policy" also seems rooted in misogyny, as in, no vagina could ever compete with a penis, which extends to "no woman could ever be preferable to a man," which is horseshit of the deepest dye. As a straight 50something woman, I imagine I'd feel more threatened by other women that my (hypothetical bi boyfriend) wants to have sex with than I would a man. After all, the man is providing something I simply cannot, whereas theoretically, there is nothing--at least anatomically--that a woman can bring to the table, er, bedroom, that I don't also have to offer.

But of course, the real issues are always about insecurity and fear. What if your partner leaves you for the other person they have permission to have sex with? What if your partner leaves you for someone they're cheating on you with? What if your partner simply leaves you, not for someone else, whether allowed or not, but just because they don't love you or want to be with you anymore? That's the risk of being in a relationship. I haven't been in many open relationships, and for some reason, though those relationships have been open for both of us, the men in all (3) of them were more naturally monogamous, or didn't have as much extra-relationshipal sex as I did, but in the ones I've had, my boyfriends have known beyond a shadow of a doubt how I feel about them, and the other men I've had sex with have all either been partnered, too, in quite serious relationships, or practice solo poly. They are all long, long-term fwbs of mine, who in almost all cases have predated my boyfriend(s) and I haven't searched for new partners while in a relationship (granted, as I've said, I haven't been in many open relationships, and none have lasted more than 2 years, so perhaps that would have changed with time). I've introduced them to boyfriends, or at least told boyfriends about them, to help keep feelings of jealousy down.

And while I've never been in an open relationship with a bi man, whether a thirtysomething, fortysomething, or fiftysomething one, I can't imagine that I'd be more anxious if my imaginary bi boyfriend with whom I'm in an open relationship wanted to date/sleep with a man than I would be if he wanted to date/sleep with another woman--which is, I'd need to feel reassured of his affection for me.

Happy Everything, Everyone! I hope you all get what you want for your holiday (if Mitch McConnell suddenly drops dead, you'll know Santa got me my heart's desire). And here's to looking forward to a better 2020.

nocutename @10 Instead of the somewhat awkward "extra-relationshipal sex," might I suggest the biological term "extra-pair copulation" for non-emotional hookups outside the main relationship? Humans are, after all, merely very very smart animals. If it's called extra-pair copulation when pair-bonded non-human animals do it, why not us?

And "copulation" doesn't necessarily mean male-penetrating-female, penis/fallic-structure-in-vagina/cloaca colpulatory behavior, it is defined simply as "sexual intercourse," so same-sex animal pairs (human or non-human) can perform in-pair and extra-pair copulation as well.

*copulatory

Kerfrozen @1 Don't you mean Chrismahanukwanzakah?

@11: Thanks for the correction to my clunky appellation. But to clarify: in my case, these aren't hookups and they're not "non-emotional." On the contrary, the sex is in the context of ongoing, long-term, close friendships. There is indeed love there, just not romantic love. BUT, I'm not opposed to non-emotional hookups, whether or not I'm in a serious relationship. Bring on the extra-pair copulation (if ever 'm part of a pair again)!

Although, I guess Kwanzaa starts tomorrow, so today is just Chrismukkah.

@15 The only reason I specified "non-emotional" was because I was afraid someone would take offense to terms from the study of animal behavior being used to describe sex within a human romantic relationship. Extra-pair copulation can, indeed, mean any copulation outside the pair, if everyone is okay with that definition.

So it's reasonable for the first LW to have a one penis policy, but not the second? Sorry, but no. In both cases, the policy is based on the theory that a penis is so magic that someone will be inclined to leave the relationship for another penis, but not for someone without a penis. Which is pretty insulting to women generally, and to lesbians in particular.

CalliopeMuse
@11
"might I suggest the biological term "extra-pair copulation" for non-emotional hookups outside the main relationship?"

Was that a joke suggestion?

"Humans are, after all, merely very very smart animals. If it's called extra-pair copulation when pair-bonded non-human animals do it, why not us?"
@17
"I was afraid someone would take offense to terms from the study of animal behavior being used to describe sex within a human romantic relationship."

I'm not offended, and yes we are animals too. But we are also animals with vast potential to rise above our most base instincts. Maybe if I hadn't heard the academic term "extra-pair copulation used before I'd be fine with exporting it from biology, but because I have it feels to me unfortunately sterile and objectifying in our context of discussing human relationships.

Guve us our correct title, please. BabyBoomers it is and it’s comforting the further one gets from being a baby. Also @4, in the 80s, we weren’t that old. Don’t know what you’re on about.
LW3, as a cis/ straight woman I do feel this stereotype re bi men going off with men, has got substance.
We live in a patriarchy. A straight woman, she knows soon enough, what the rules are, generally, for getting along and getting some of what she wants with straight men, a bi man can go be with other men and together their energy taps into power, the power us women have no access to. We know how to compete with other women, early training is done here. It’s not even competition if a man is involved, because of unequal power.
It can be, for some straight/ cis women, LW, so internalised, and caught up in our ‘from birth training’ in a patriarchal culture, that rooting it out will only come from it being disproved.
Stand your ground, and insist on the relationship being open fully for both of you, which includes you being free to go with men, or it’s not open at all.

Happy holidays, Joe Newton. Great graphic.

And happy whatever holiday everyone! I'd like to share Ma-oz Tzur, my favorite Hannukah song in the spirit of the season and love of music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBvaHKfrhhc

Ma'oz tzur yeshu'ati,
Lecha na'eh leshabe-ach.

Tikon beit tefilati
Vesham todah nezabe-ach.

Le'eit tachin matbe-ach,
Mitzar ham'nabe-ach

Az egmor beshir mizmor
Chanukat hamizbe-ach
Az egmor beshir mizmor
Chanukat hamizbe-ach

Rock of Ages let our song
Praise thy saving power

Thou amidst the raging foes
Wast our sheltering tower.

Furious, they assailed us,
But thine armour veiled us.

And thy word broke their sword
When our own strength failed us.
And thy word broke their sword
When our own strength failed us.

LIMP: Use toys for now, play with butt plugs and dildos. Start with your wife controlling the motion, which could mean it's in her hand, or it's suction cupped to the floor or wall and she moves her body, or it's in your hand and you keep it still while she moves. Next up would be strapping it on - yes, people with penises can use strap-ons with delightful effect. After you've all had various fun experiences and are familiar with the gates while your dick's hardness didn't matter, it might be easier to stay hard during the process when you move to bio-dick.

Can we please change this:
"All bisexual men are not secretly gay..."
to this:
"Not all bisexual men are secretly gay."
The two are not equivalent; the placement of the negation with respect to the quantifier ("all") matters.

Signed,
your local token logic geek.

@7. Fubar. I think his wife is used to the gates being open. I'd hazard she's an experienced bottom. The problem is the physiological one, with him. Dan's advice is good. Be a prong for a while.

I think his being able to top her is probably psychologically important for them both. As a mostly female-identified GQ person with male reproductive anatomy, I'm a bit 'ho-hum' about anything genital-anal that's not going to lead to assfucking: it can be fine, but what I want isn't something that plays with my gender ambiguity, that seems as if I might be a fetish for someone else. Getting taken up the ass is feminising for me (though it's not for all gay male bottoms); it's uncomplicated; it can be rough and self-forgetful and affirm a partnership. This is an important thing for this couple to work on.

/break/
I'm not quite sure what's going through OPEN's gf 's head. She's proposed opening the relationship, but has also mooted marriage--in which she will be monogamous? Is the talk of 'open' a gambit by which she thinks she will entice him into wedlock? And ... what's going through his head? Why does he give her, and her contradictory proposals and demands, so much headspace? It would also seem to me that the relationship has run its course. Perhaps he could just ask her, straight-out: 'what do you want?'. Does she want to fuck around while he's monogamously attached to her? Which of course wouldn't be sustainable.... And she must know this, and be reaching out for marriage. Is there an intervention he can stage to put their relationship on more of an even keel?

OPEN: Maya Angelou was pithier - "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

@24: Gods bless you not only understanding the difference but insisting that it's important, ciods!

Oh, the notion that everything will be fixed and changed once and for all once I start dating/getting married/having kids and all the shortcomings, or whatever one may view as such, will magically disappear.

Lava @ 20
Not to discount patriarchy, I suspect this is not the issue that scares bbb’s girlfriend. As others pointed out it is probably the assumption that b3 is a closet case.
I would also like to point out that mm relations in most cases is not multiplying the male dominance but rather viewed as weakness, mostly by men but also by women.
One of the main reasons male homosexuals and trans women of any shade are so often reviled and attacked is because they are viewed as men who willingly gave up their male privileges, hence deserve to be ridiculed and reviled.

Ms Mooz @ 22
Hanukkah is indeed about religious freedom, yet the translation you provided aims to convey that while ignoring the original text.
The first two lines are more or less accurate, but the rest of the song repeatedly mentions rebuilding an altar and sacrificing something, assuming a goat as Jews aren’t known for slaughtering virgins, as gratitude.
One of the lines can also have an accidental unintended joyful sexual connotation in modern Hebrew, coming while signing, tied to the dedication, Hanukkah in Hebrew, of the new and improved altar.
Happy holidays to all.

My opinion CMD. Yes, it’s easier to believe it’s because a woman fears her bi bf is gay.
Why do you think so many straight men have no fear their bi gf will go off with a woman, yet it’s a fear of many straight women that their bi bfs will go off with a man. It’s a deeper issue as I see it than biphobia.

Lava-because they acknowledge that a relationship with a woman is something they can’t provide, and/or hope to land a ffm action of some sort, and/or hope they will also get a permission to date other women.
Again, for a man to date another man is often a step down in the patriarchy ladder.

Depends which side you’re on CMD. As a straight cis woman, I’m offering other ways to view this. It’s never occurred to me that a man being with a man is a step down. That’s how you read it.
Before this LW gets lost in his anger, and a male way of viewing this, all biphobia.. dumb woman.. she’ll come round... I’m suggesting it’s more complex than that. And I’m talking as a cis straight woman, yet you jump in and tell me my perceptions are wrong. Patriarchy is all around and weaving between, CMD.

Oops , not sure why it reappeared. Anyway, not saying your point isn’t valid just expressing mine, as opposed to “jumping in.
Happy holidays to you too. Hope you get some rain soon, it’s raining terribly where I am right now, roads flooded and all, and a 3 hour drive to my next destination.

@4 > You're not "twentysomething." You have an actual age.

As someone who is someplace in their first century, I agree with you.

Especially in the 20s: twenty and a quarter is very different from 29.

Ms Ods - I salute you. That people reading this in a column of Mr Savage's wouldn't pick it up strikes me as hilarious - and not in the funny way.

Ms Lava - I have a guess for your question in #29, but don't want to mansplain or gaysplain.

OPENS-- Dan is entirely right that you need to end this relationship, not open it and that your girlfriend isn't going to suddenly become monogamous once married. Now let me give you some advice on HOW to end this relationship. You say you've broken up twice so here are some specifics to help it stick this time.

Talk to her about what marriage to each other would look like. Ask her her opinions on where you would live (her overseas place, your place where you're writing the letter from), how you'd support each other financially (who would work at what jobs for how much money), how many children you'd have, who would take care of them, what your vision for your future children is (what sort of school, what sort of parenting style), what role your families would play in terms of responsibility for aging parents, etc. Realize that you're on different pages as far as all of this. (I am positive this will be the case.) Tell her what you think about all of the above, and let her come to the conclusion that while compromise is important in all marriages, you're not starting from a foundation of having anything much in common to build a compromise on. (I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that she thinks decisions about where to live will magically work itself out once you're married. My guess is that she hasn't thought about anything long term either for herself or with a partner.)

Once you've got her thinking about how wrong you are for each other, the break-up will come easier.

Now look at this: "When I confided in her recently that I had developed romantic feelings for another person, she asked me to choose between her and them, and so I aborted this burgeoning connection."

Damn straight it's unfair. The wild thing to me is that you didn't reference that in your 3 questions. One of your questions should have been: How is it that her rules for an open relationship include her having sex with pretty-much anyone she wants but my not being allowed to have sex with someone I want? Granted she did say she'd put aside her thing for other women, but given that you say you're male and straight, it seems obvious to me that the "another person" you wanted to have sex with wasn't a man. Her rules are that you get to have sex with no one but her. And you didn't seem to notice this. Run!!

First LW: Your girlfriend has already cheated on you umpteen times.

BBB - gf's fear that you might leave for another man might not be accurate, but it's at least honest. I'm not sure I understand what is hurtful about her fears?

@24: Thank you, ciods. The distinction is important.

Side note: is a 1PP open relationship more or less misogynistic then an enforced closed relationship when it's a straight man / bi women? I've done the 1PP thing before under the impression that I was making a compromise on my GFs behalf, since she'd real the benefits of an open relationship significantly more than I would. While 1pp being "misogynistic" makes a certain academic sense, I suspect the real world it represents a strict increase in sexual opportunities for women.

"@24: Thank you, ciods. The distinction is important."

Indeed, it's SO important that no one who can't write well enough to make it should ever post on this forum.

@40: "I suspect the real world [one penis policy] represents a strict increase in sexual opportunities for women."
Only if the woman is interested in having sex with other women.

@41 p.s.
Wait I'm sure such people can contribute usefully here.

But they absolutely infuriate me, since they usually can't think well enough to have a rational discussion, and as such I hate when they think themselves capable of discussing anything, so I wish they would not do so with me.

A new column on Xmas Day!?
OPENS, yeah, neither of you two is ready to be in an open relationship. Or any serious relationship, it sounds like. Break up, go discover who you (plural) are and what you (plural) want, then find someone who wants the same thing.
A few asides:
Ms OPENS, no, you're not going to be able to put your desire to explore same-sex experiences aside if you get married. You'll only resent him for depriving you of this part of yourself. It sounds like you want openness AND marriage. Hold out for someone else who wants both these things. They're not incompatible. It's called polyamory.
OPENS, many think it's a double standard to be OK with your girlfriend/wife shagging women but not men, but other bisexual women appreciate this view, so long as you apply it to yourself as well (as in, don't claim a right to fuck other women because you're OK with her doing it).
OPENS, your girlfriend sounds like a selfish drama queen. Run away!

LIMP, ever heard of toys? If your dick won't stay hard for as much time as it takes for your wife's anus to relax, try something that's hard all the time. Use your fingers, go slowly and patiently, and don't "push" anything. Use butt plugs or dildos, and continue making out, then substitute your cock. If you're doing all that and you still have a mental block, try Viagra. Once you've succeeded a few times, you'll have the confidence you need to do it without a little blue helper. Good luck.

BBB, your girlfriend has told you who she is: a person with irrational prejudices against bi men. You're a bi man. Why do you want to stay with her? If you were a black man, would you stay with a partner you learned was a racist? She's told you she can't get over it, but you need to tell her that either she gets over her bigotry or she gets over you. DTMFA.

@42 a safe assumption when it comes to bi women in hetero relationships who want open relationships. I suppose there are some bi women in hetero relationships who request open relationships only for the purposes of having hetero sex with even more partners, but id guess that's a minority.

@45: Well, yes, if the women are bi and in hetero relationships. But the way you worded it in #40 made it sound as if all women are bi. And that's not the case.

Curious @2, I would go with an approach of presuming bisexual implies biromantic unless otherwise specified.

Andros @5, so would you say that Ms BBB's fears are both biphobic and homophobic? Hmm...
(Apologies, but your comment echoes one that I was called out for last week, I hope the caller-outer is reading.)

Fubar @7, Dan said the relationship is a shitshow, he didn't call someone a shitshow. Though if he'd called the girlfriend a shitshow I don't think many would have disagreed.

Nocute @10, welcome back.
As a onetime twentysomething bicurious monogamous woman, I shared your attitude. I would have found a male partner's interest in other women far more threatening than an interest in men, because the answer to "what's he got that I haven't got" is obvious, whereas any answer to "what's she got that I haven't got" could be a fundamental inadequacy on my own part. Thank you for echoing this view as a heterosexual.

Calliope @11-@12, sorry, but I don't like the phrase "extra-pair copulation." To me, both the terms copulation and sexual intercourse mean PIV, meaning that if I have a secondary girlfriend there is no extra-pair copulation going on.
It also sounds a bit too clinical for my taste. Hey baby, wanna copulate? Ugh, no thanks.

FreeSpirit @18, Ms BBB is seeking a no-penis policy for her partner. I agree that both partners seem more threatened by outside cock, which does seem pretty dismissive of vagina havers.

Ciods @24, indeed.

Lava @29: My guess is because there is more stigma against being a gay man than there is against being a gay woman, therefore the chances are higher that a man will fear being outed so much that he hides in a relationship with a woman, than that a lesbian will hide in a relationship with a man rather than just be single and risk people figuring it out. The woman fears that her "bisexual" partner is really gay, because this is in fact a thing that sometimes happens. Whereas women don't as often identify as bisexual before realising they are lesbian. It is far more common for women who identify as bisexual to give up on the highly challenging endeavour of pursuing women and settle down with men, so the men who date them aren't, in general, as worried.

@24
Although sloppy writing, the original text is OK.

The pervasive but incorrect meme is: All bisexual men are secretly gay.
"All bisexual men are not secretly gay" negates the meme because not all are.

A better wording of the meme would be: All bi-identified [or supposedly bi] men are secretly gay. This is still untrue because of the word all. But if we take the original words at their face value, a bisexual man is bisexual, not gay. Therefore the meme is false for all.

Yes, it is true that not all bisexual (identified) men are secretly gay, but Dan's contributor is trying to point out the invalidity of the meme.

@46 No it doesn't.

"when it's a straight man / bi women?". There's no way to debate that implies "all women are bi".

Just be honest that all you did was skim the comment and inserted what you assumed was said and replied to that.

Thanks, BiDanFan.

I have been thinking about the homophobia implicit in the one-penis policy or the fact that women --whether straight or bi--with bi boyfriends/husbands get so threatened by the idea of their partner having sex with a man, and I'm not even sure that the fear is that the partner will leave her for a man. It seems to be of a piece with all those straight women who worry that if their boyfriend want to penetrate them (the women) anally, that that means the boyfriend is secretly gay or if their boyfriend wants his prostate stimulated, or just the feeling/thought of being penetrated either via a butt plug or by being pegged, that that means the boyfriend is secretly gay. Dan apparently gets a lot of letters like this.

Does all this fear that the boyfriend/husband is actually, secretly gay boil down to a fear of being left by said boyfriend for a man?

Or is it more homophobic in general? (I always dislike the "phobia" part of homophobia--it's not fear, it's hatred. The words should be "homohatred," or "homohating.")

Because that's what it seems is at the bottom of these fears and that's what at the bottom of the one-penis policy, when it comes from a woman. When that policy comes from the man involved with a bi woman, it does seem more about insecurity, as if he won't measure up; as if once his woman gets a better dicking (from a possibly bettier--i.e. bigger dick), she'll realize how inadequate he is and either leave him for the man who provided the superior dick or just leave him in search of the better dick.

OR there's just homophobia in a man's one-penis policy as well, in that he doesn't find the idea of his partner having sex with another man a turn on to HIM, in the same way that he gets off on the thought/idea/mental image of his female partner having sex with another woman. In this case, the implication is that there has to be something in it--his partner's having sex with someone besides himself--for HIM. It's not about compersion, it's about what excites him. And if he can't feel aroused by what she does, even without him, it's off-limits. I realize that this is not a charitable motive I'm assigning, and I want to reiterate that this is a #notallmen thing.

But that comes down to a privileging of the man's desires over the woman's which is, you guessed it, the good old patriarchy again--hi there, Hunter.

So either way the one-penis policy is indicative that the man is a dick. If he's homohating, it's true DTMF territory. Why would you want to be in a relationship with someone that bigoted? If it's more of an insecurity thing, it's time for reassurance; if it's that he doesn't find the idea of "his woman" having sex with another man sexy for his own imagination's sake, it might be a teachable moment.

@Sportlandia, I didn't skim your comment @40; I read it. Here it is in its entirety:
"Side note: is a 1PP open relationship more or less misogynistic then an enforced closed relationship when it's a straight man / bi women? I've done the 1PP thing before under the impression that I was making a compromise on my GFs behalf, since she'd real the benefits of an open relationship significantly more than I would. While 1pp being "misogynistic" makes a certain academic sense, I suspect the real world it represents a strict increase in sexual opportunities for women."

I was responding to that last bit: "While 1pp being "misogynistic" makes a certain academic sense, I suspect the real world it represents a strict increase in sexual opportunities for women." I didn't realize that you were only referring to bi women with that sentence.

And I'm not trying to beef with you. I was trying to engage in conversation. If I misread you, you can correct me without resorting to insinuating that I have an agenda I was trying to twist your post to fit.

Nocute, you may have missed this recent letter, as a result of which there was much discussion of the reasons why straight women would reject bi men:
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/12/17/42310828/woman-into-bisexual-guys-nearly-wrings-her-hands-off

We are not talking the general population here, with all their homo/ trans/ bi/ phobias.
This couple knows, that’s why this man is so surprised. He’s not even that fussed to go with men, his beef is her closing it down, as even an option. And the LW’s response is justifiable.
The woman isn’t phobic, she accepts he’s bi, she doesn’t want him to act on it. She is an aware woman with a blind spot. The cause of which is not one dimensional.

Good to see you back, nocute.
An aside to some younger women with their noses in the air about Boomers. We were the vanguard in dealing with hard core habits the men had learnt. They didn’t arrive re constituted. We have reared our sons so you lot get more developed young men.
American/ US women were the best sisters and teachers to the rest of us.
Show some Respect.

@51 it's worse that you read it and still somehow thought I was implying "all women are bi".

Firstly, that concept is directly refuted in the first sentence.
Secondly, who in their right mind would ever posit that all women are bi?

So, how did you come to that thought? If you read the first sentence, how did you possibly ever suspect that I meant "all women are bi"? Is that just how your brain works? Is this like one of those moments where I realize that I'm dealing with someone with a basic misunderstanding of words and thoughts, like when BiDanFan asserted that 2/3rds of some group wasn't enough to be referred to as "most" and that somehow "soooooooo many" was meant to refer to a lesser number and left more room for individual possibility?

Like, seriously, if you're trying to "engage in conversation", you could at least start by not reading things 180 degrees opposite of what was written, especially when it's so straightforward a 2nd grader could understand it. I gently reminded you the first time but apparently that wasn't enough, so seriously, if 2 opportunities to get it right isn't enough, go fuck yourself and remind yourself that you're not capable of 'engaging in conversation' on anything resembling an honest level. If you want to engage, engage with what I wrote, not some fantasy version of what I wrote that only exists in your head.

Regarding BBB: Her fear is not irrational or necessarily indictive of biphobia. Insecurity yes, biphobia maybe not. It is not irrational because it happens often enough that it isn't just a stereotype. It is a concern whenever there is an open or cheating relationship, losing one's partner. However, when one or more bi people it adds the concern that one's person is getting something (pussy or cock) that the primary partner can't give provide. To state the obvious, a person's sex desires/needs change over time. Just because it wasn't a risk in the past is no guaranty that it won't be a risk in the future. Insecurity arising out of fear of inadequacy is common regardless of sexual orientation. Can the bf state unequivocally that he wouldn't have a similar concern if his gf was bi. If he is honest with himself, then the answer is no. That assumes he cares if his gf is sexually satisfied.

Jeez, Sportlandia! What an overreaction to an innocent misreading! Have a lovely rest of your day.

@57 such an innocent misreading you denied copping to it twice. Fuck you and fuck your day.

@48 @vab251:
"Although sloppy writing, the original text is OK."
No; sorry, but it's not.

"The pervasive but incorrect meme is: All bisexual men are secretly gay.
"All bisexual men are not secretly gay" negates the meme because not all are."

I understand that that's the trope. However, the negation of that trope sentence is not the sentence given. More explicitly:
NOT (all bisexual men are secretly gay)
is the same as:
Not all bisexual men are secretly gay
is the same as:
There are some bisexual men who are not secretly gay.

(Note that moving a negation (not) past a quantifier (all) changes the quantifier. This is key. You can't leave the "all" as "all" when you shift the "not.")

None of those three sentences are equivalent to the sentence in the column:
All bisexual men are not secretly gay
which is itself equivalent to
No bisexual men are secretly gay.

If we go ahead and assume bisexual is shorthand for "claiming to be bisexual" (otherwise, as you point out, the whole thing is nonsense), then that last statement is clearly false. Some (claiming to be) bisexual men are gay.

"Yes, it is true that not all bisexual (identified) men are secretly gay, but Dan's contributor is trying to point out the invalidity of the meme."

Yes, and I'm trying to point out the invalidity of their (attempted) negation.

I sometimes see cars with bumper stickers which say "All that glitters is not gold," and I always want to go thwomp those people. First off, if it's a Tolkien reference (which I tend to assume), it's misquoted, as the line about Aragorn goes "All that is gold does not glitter." Second, even if that's not the reference, the statement as made is wrong. Gold does glitter.

@59: ciods, the very old folk expression, "all that glitters is not gold" (also "all that glistens is not gold" also "all that glisters is not gold") is so common and of such longstanding use, that it's really not attributable to anyone, though some say Shakespeare because (a) he wrote it and (b) so many phrases or words are attributable to him.

My favorite usage is in this poem by Thomas Gray, in 1774, supposedly based on a real incident:

Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat Drowned in a Tub of Goldfishes
BY THOMAS GRAY

’Twas on a lofty vase’s side,
Where China’s gayest art had dyed
The azure flowers that blow;
Demurest of the tabby kind,
The pensive Selima, reclined,
Gazed on the lake below.

Her conscious tail her joy declared;
The fair round face, the snowy beard,
The velvet of her paws,
Her coat, that with the tortoise vies,
Her ears of jet, and emerald eyes,
She saw; and purred applause.

Still had she gazed; but ’midst the tide
Two angel forms were seen to glide,
The genii of the stream;
Their scaly armour’s Tyrian hue
Through richest purple to the view
Betrayed a golden gleam.

The hapless nymph with wonder saw;
A whisker first and then a claw,
With many an ardent wish,
She stretched in vain to reach the prize.
What female heart can gold despise?
What cat’s averse to fish?

Presumptuous maid! with looks intent
Again she stretch’d, again she bent,
Nor knew the gulf between.
(Malignant Fate sat by, and smiled)
The slippery verge her feet beguiled,
She tumbled headlong in.
Eight times emerging from the flood
She mewed to every watery god,
Some speedy aid to send.
No dolphin came, no Nereid stirred;
Nor cruel Tom, nor Susan heard;
A Favourite has no friend!

From hence, ye beauties, undeceived,
Know, one false step is ne’er retrieved,
And be with caution bold.
Not all that tempts your wandering eyes
And heedless hearts, is lawful prize;
Nor all that glisters, gold.

Ah, but you see, in the poem, he's got it right: "Not all that glisters is gold" (which is how the line translates, when you take out the in-between stuff) is just fine. It's "All that glisters is not gold" that's wrong.

Even if Shakespeare said it. ;)

That said, I much enjoyed the poem, thank you!

@61: I remember as a child seeing a piece of "real" gold!!! So exciting! But it wasn't glittery at all. It was so dull and disappointing. I much preferred pyrite, which is called "fools' gold" for good reason.

Related side note: Fran Lebowitz said in 2016 that Donald Trump was "a poor person's idea of a rich person." It's that difference between nouveau riche gaudiness and show, and old money's relative shabbiness, its not needing to prove itself by being conspicuous. In most ways, I dislike flash and show and gaudiness, and would rather have the good-but-faded-slightly-shabby-but actually-priceless-because-old-and-also-impecably-made-Persian rug than whatever shiny new flooring made by the scoeching-hot designer is all the rage in Milan right now. But I am still a sucker for the fools' gold, and still find a nugget of gold to be meh,

You are of course correct, in that Gray's usage is different and more accurate than the traditional usage.

A fun game is to place the word "only" anywhere in this sentence:

"She told him that she loved him."

Loving the illustration today.

@47 BDF
"Andros @5, so would you say that Ms BBB's fears are both biphobic and homophobic?"

I don't think I'd say that, necessarily. But I think they might be rooted, at least in part, in societal bi erasure and homophobia. I guess I struggle to understand why else LW would be afraid of her man finding a magic penis that would cause him to leave her, but not afraid of his finding a similarly magic vagina.

Given how much use I've gotten out of the gold casket, I feel honour bound to defend it at least to a point, though I shall not quarrel with Ms Cute's outside preference. Speaking as someone who once crammed a quintuple negative into a line of eleven syllables, I can see why Mr S went for the less accurate version (although Ms Ods' lack of familiarity with Merchant is highly disappointing).

As Ms Cute obviously recalls, the line appears in the little poem read by the Prince of Morocco when he has incorrectly chosen the gold casket. The poems in the three caskets essentially follow the pattern of seven-syllable lines with accents on the odd syllables. Some lines have an eighth syllable that gets swallowed up (Ma[ny a] man his life has sold / Sev[en times] tried that judgement is / [And claim] her with a loving kiss). The obvious line would be "Not all glister comes from gold," but I haven't found any way with the better framing including the word "that". As the second line is "Often have you heard that told," I could take either of two briefs with some comfort - either that the phrase was already common enough by Shakespearean times, or that it's a subtle hint of there being something off with the puzzle setter, whose puzzle, after all, ended up being solved by the right man but going down a red herring path.

@nocute @62: I should have added that Shakespeare presumably prioritized metrical considerations, as well as those of sound, over logical ones. As is correct when writing verse.

I agree with you on old-but-cool versus new-and-shiny. Your example reminds me of a similar thing which happens in language usage, where those who aspire to move up, socially, often dress up their language so as to seem higher class. Whereas the true higher classes tend not to. (Consider "chauffeur" vs. "driver," or "expecting" vs. "pregnant.")

Gold can be pretty glimmery, if ya buff it up real good. I agree I don't really think of it as glittering. But that may reflect a change in the usage of "glitter" more than anything.

Ah, venn, our posts crossed. I'm sorry my Shakespeare knowledge is so full of holes; my Tolkien is much more solid. I bed pardon on grounds of STEM-geekery. (Although I probably would have thought of the Tolkien first in any case, since his line is logically correct.)

Ms Cute on "should -phobia be -hatred"? - That is an excellent question. "Homohating" would seem quite in the spirit of my thinking that "anti-gay" is sufficient condemnation without something having to rise to the level of homophobia.

This actually came yesterday in the context of discussing a video in which the presenter thought it would be too divisive to call Ms Rowling a TERF but thought that it could be taken as obvious that she's transphobic. I'm fine with letting trans people decide on the question, but did wonder how similarly the -phobic question operated, and, in a rather pleasant discussion, ended up looking into what pushed something over the anti-gay line into homophobia.

One thing that struck me is that it seems common among the young to think of Truth/Lie as a coin, which erases the sincere inaccuracy. It's in the difference between an untruth and a lie that I was able to pinpoint what often tips the balance for me. The fear route seems to apply mainly to closeted conservatives. The route of extreme animus, except where it reaches a point of consensus that someone is incapable of engaging in a civil discussion, is open to interpretation. But I was able to cite as the reason that the only person on whom I've pinned the scarlet H this year is Mrs Court her history of deliberate and vicious lies.

OPENS's situation reminds me of my last ex, who I was head over heels in love with for years.

She wanted the freedom to do whatever she wanted with whomever, so we were "open". But every time I started getting romantically close to another woman, she'd get incredibly jealous and insecure. She also kept insisting we escalate our relationship, which was, I'm pretty sure, her way of convincing herself she was doing the "real relationship thing".

Yeah, end that train wreck now. And then don't speak to her again for like 10 years.

WOWEE---Griz has major catching up to with reading SL letters to Dan, Dan's responses, and comments!

@1 Kergrozen: WA-HOOOO!! Congrats on scoring the FIRDT honors! Bask in the much coveted SL glory. :)
@69 vennominon: WA-HOOO!!! Congrats on scoring this week's highly sought after Lucky @69 Award! Savor the decadence. :)

So--who's up for a Holiday Hunsky?

@71: Awwwwww, !@#$! I really should drink when typing--it clearly reduces my typos.
@1: Congrats to Kerfrozen, for scoring SL's FIRDT Award. :)

Ms Cute/Ms Fan - I'll consign whether one feels more threatened by Someone Who Can Beat Me At My Own Game or Someone Who Offers Something I Can't to the realm of Admiral Croft's line about one (person's) ways being as good as another's, but we all like our own best.

Although my read is close to Ms Cute's, it emphasizes the negative inference instead of the positive one. Men with straight female partners are presumably just about as likely to fear being left for another man if opening the relationship were the partner's idea, perhaps even more, as there would not be the Sometimes I Need What You Don't Have hook. I arrive at quite a similar answer by looking at why a man would find FF not (or less of) a threat.

Our insecurities are our insecurities. They often arise from irrational depths. The partner’s OPP is not “showing you who they are”. It’s showing you one minuscule detail of who they are, which is irrelevant in every situation except negotiating open-ness. It also shows they are more open-minded about non-monogamy than 95% of the population— take it as a win.

Ms Ods - Well, should I ever require any familiarity with Mr Tolkien, I'll know whom to ask.

My one Tolkien anecdote may amuse people who recall the Jeopardy teen tournament in which a competitor spelled the Emancipation Proclamation with an extra letter ("Emanciptation" and was judged wrong - would they have accepted "Emancipattion"?). Some years before dealing with Mr Labbett's crossing the Atlantic to do the US version of The Chase, Brooke Burns hosted Dog Eat Dog, a show in which six contestants had five rounds of physical or mental challenges. The survivor then got to choose which of the other five players would answer a question in a particular category. If the Dog Pound got three of five questions right, they split $25,000 five ways. If they didn't, the survivor got the whole $25,000. In one episode, the first of the five questions was in the category Books, and the correct answer was Mr Tolkien. While the surname would have been sufficient, the contestant threw in the initials J.R., only for Ms Burns to say that, as his initials were J.R.R., she couldn't accept "J.R. Tolkien" as a correct answer.

Bullseye to Dan the Man on calling OPENS situation: "Shitshow of a relationship", and Joe Newton for another spot on graphic. You both nailed it again. Kudos!
OPENS: End it and go your separate ways, already. Your life sounds like a bad sitcom from the 70s that wouldn't die and the zombie spinoffs just.... keep..... on.....-a'comin'.

I should add that someone else deserves this week's highly coveted SL Big Hunsky Award since I nailed it last week. :)

I'm shocked, he dated a tart and got stuck with a slag.

@54 LavaGirl: You GO, girl!! Keep rocking the house.

@74 joeburner2

Excellent point well made.

Ms Mooz- hope my cross cultural observations didn’t scare you away. Come back, they’re talking Shakespeare here.

ciods @24 Natural language does not consist of predicate logical formulas. If pronounced with the correct intonation, "All bisexual men are not secretly gay" has the intended meaning of "Bisexual men exist who are not secretly gay".

Somehting similar is going on with "I could care less". You can say that that is incorrect and it should be "I couldn't care less". No, because the intonation makes it clear that it's shorthand for "I could care less [but I don't]".

Andros @65: "I guess I struggle to understand why else LW would be afraid of her man finding a magic penis that would cause him to leave her, but not afraid of his finding a similarly magic vagina." Indeed, the only possible explanation is a "he's actually gay, rather than bisexual" fear. I am wondering if BBB has had any experiences with men. If not, Ms BBB's worry that an outside penis may have magical properties seems less irrational. Still though, if BBB is indeed gay and closeted rather than bisexual, he will discover this at some point whether she gives him her blessing to shag men now or not. He might try to argue that it's in both their interests that he finds out his true sexuality now, rather than years down the line after they are more committed. (Note that I am proposing he use this argument, rather than making a claim that he is confused. I am taking his self-identified sexual orientation at face value.) But, I dunno. I'm finding it hard to understand why he didn't jump straight to DTMFA, therefore it's hard for me to project solutions that don't involve BBB telling his partner to shove her stereotypes. BBB, most bi women and 37% of straight ones would be willing in theory to date you. Go find a better one.

Venn @69, congrats on the magic number. I agree that it's homobigotry and bibigotry etc rather than literal phobia, but good luck trying to get these words out of the language.

Venn @73, good point, we're not the same. I recall Harriet's being fine with their partner dating younger people but not people their own age, while I'm the complete opposite.

Joeburner @74, I think non-monogamy would work much better if people admitted they are insecure. It is only human to feel insecure about some things, either rationally or irrationally. When people try to pretend they are immune to insecurities, they screw up open relationships by trying to hide their insecurities behind hypocritical rules like the one-penis policy. At least Ms BBB admitted (after a year!) that her no-penis policy stems from insecurity and prejudice, which should be a good basis for starting a conversation about what BBB can do to reassure her, not an excuse to keep this unfair (in BBB's opinion, the only important one) rule in place. If Ms BBB's attitude is "I'm insecure and prejudiced and you just have to accept that," rather than "I'm insecure, please be patient while I work on myself," she's showing BBB who she is.

It is also completely fine to admit that one is too insecure to be in an open relationship -- witness OPENS saying he feels sick thinking about his girlfriend with other men. If that's how you feel, just be monogamous. Non-monogamy isn't for everyone and better to opt out than to make your partners miserable with your badly hidden insecurities, double standards and ever changing rules.

Ms Fan - What did you make of the guest expert? His practical suggestions for what LW should do seemed reasonable enough, but his conclusion seemed gift-wrapped to both sides in the culture war.

["Perhaps I'm giving BBB's girlfriend too much credit, but it sounds to me like she'll come around in time," said Zane. "And while BBB is angry—and validly so—the anger shouldn't be placed on his girlfriend. It should be placed on a society that has ingrained in her the belief that bisexuality isn't valid and that bi men will always leave their wives/girlfriends for another man if given the opportunity."]

As you point out, she hasn't spent the interval since opening their relationship trying to overcome her fears (reasonable negative inference - LW would have mentioned it), which is the only possible thing I could list as even remotely supporting the situation's sounding to the GE as if she'll come around - she hasn't tried yet. But that she hasn't indicts her character. Society attempts to ingrain a lot of things into people that it may not be majorly their fault for taking as true or true-ish at first but that they ought to have questioned and on which come to a better understanding this deep into a relationship. I'll probably keep re-thinking this, but at present I'm rather inclined to go with, Holy Benevolent Sexism, Batman!

If she doesn’t agree to him going with men, then don’t open the relationship. I don’t see this is a DTMFA, because he’s not driven by his desire for men. He’s calling for fairness in the opening of their relationship. She won’t give it, so keep it closed.
This man would know if he was gay, and why try to find words to cover something a majority of women worry about? Is this an issue for gay men.. do they fear their bi bf will go off with a woman? I’ve never read any indication this is a problem.
Do straight men fear their bi gf is going to run off with a woman? Again. I’ve not seen that this is an issue.
So why is it only the straight women fearing their bi bf will go off with a man. They all dumb women who listen to stereotypes.
LW, I don’t know what the guest Dan brought on is implying, by him saying she’ll come around. How would he know how your gf is going to jump? More male assumptions. Talk with her, because her rule can’t stand and you know that.

On the subject of two men in a sexual relationship being a step down on the patriarchy ladder...

Men have used women as props, tools, toys, and shields to prove their worth and status to other men since forever. That the phrases “trophy wife” and “his girl Friday” exist is proof of that (men who are scrubs don’t get a pretty woman to be their fixer). There’s the old trope of two men hiring a stripper so they can pass her between them, which is a way to be sexual with other men without having clothes-off sex with them. Then there’s a long sad tradition of men being cruel or torturing women as social bonding with other men (Kavanaugh).

Men who have sex with men, bi men, and men partnered with queer or trans women upturn that apple cart. It’s not so much that they step off the ladder so much as threaten the structural integrity of some of its rungs. A man whose bi wife bang other men without him, in the eyes of the patriarchy, is Not Acting Like A Man. Straight dudes wanting to bang trans women but not lose face in the eyes of other men are the ur-example with horrifying and lethal consequences. A man whose bi wife bangs other women may or may not get some spank bank fodder out of it...but he WILL get some street cred for that with other men. Same if a straight dude divorces his wife and takes up with a younger woman, yet heaven forfend that Emanuel Macron marry a woman 17 years older. And of course, men having sex with other men breaks the link of what woman you bang determines the amount of prestige you can claim with other men completely.

There’s still plenty of horseshit left to parse out and gay men can still participate in patriarchy and misogyny (the entire concept of a platinum star gay is made of this). That’s why I said damages the structural integrity of some, but not all, rungs without stepping off completely.

And OPENS? How long have you been together? If it’s less than a year, or maybe less than two years, KINDLY break up and move on. What your girlfriend has done is wildly hurtful, and you can find someone else who appreciates the whole you. I can’t quite say DTFMA here, and maybe not Part With Regret, but maybe kindly but firmly break it off and wish her the best in the future.

Venn @83, I too was perplexed by the guespert's comment that "it sounds to me like she'll come around in time." It didn't sound like that to me at all. BBB said, "She says she can't get over it," which sounds completely the opposite of "she'll come around in time." I didn't read any desire to WANT to get over it in BBB's letter. And I think BBB should be angry both at the negative bi stereotypes out there in the world and at his girlfriend for internalising them, dating him anyway (holy hypocrisy, Batman), then asking for an open relationship arrangement where she -- who's already getting dick -- gets more dick, but he -- who isn't getting any dick -- remains deprived of dick. (It's not clear who asked for the open relationship, but it's clear that her condition was that she gets dick and he doesn't.)

Remember, this discussion was only a couple of days ago. She said she can't get over it, but for the past year she hasn't been asked to get over it -- he meekly went along with her condition for openness. Now is the time for him to go back to her and tell her that she has to get over it, that he'll work with her on overcoming her insecurities (Zane's paragraph of suggestions was a good one), but that if she's not willing to try then he will not accept an arrangement where she gets everything she wants while he is restricted by her irrational fears.

LW, if your gf embraces the male with male power, and trusts in your love for her, she can move past this. Her insecurity about your connection to her may be involved here.
Why is your bi sexuality just being discussed now anyway? Front and centre, orientation.
Whatever is feeding into her fear, being angry is not going to help.

Re@87: I mean embrace it mentally, LW. Whatever steps up and down whatever ladder, the power generated by male/ male sex has been honoured since forever. It’s not nothing. So to overcome her fears about this power, she needs to visualise it, maybe watch porn to help her to witness the energy. It’s her attitude which needs to allow it and see it’s not to do with her.
Also, opening the relationship to anyone is risky. Take the risk or don’t.

BiDanFan @82 Are you saying it is the insecure partner’s responsibility to close the relationship, rather than offer openness under irrational conditions? (You say “ever-changing”, but I don’t think that applies to today’s letters... these people seem pretty consistent in their rules.). I would say rather that they are giving their partner an option, which they are free to take or leave. If the partner finds the rules annoying, they are welcome to be monogamous.

CMDwannabe @80 I'm still here! Just working retail during the holidays while simultaneously taking an online Spanish class. Very busy.

I appreciate your analysis of the translation. I think of it more as a corollary to the Hebrew song than a literal translation attempt.

Joeburner @89: No, my reference to ever-changing rules was not based on either of today's letters, just poor coping methods I've seen poly people employ when what they really want to say is "I can't bear you dating other people, please stop."

No one can or should close (or open) a relationship unilaterally, so I'm not saying it's the insecure partner's responsibility to close the relationship. It's an insecure person's responsibility to admit to their insecurity and initiate a conversation about it, to adopt whatever strategies they can on their own to analyse their fears, decide whether they are rational or irrational, and deal with them accordingly. It's an insecure person's responsibility to know themself well enough to know whether they can handle their partner having sex and/or relationships with other people. But if they can't, they don't get to unilaterally close a relationship. They can leave a relationship; they can decline all future non-monogamous relationships. They can tell their partner that non-monogamy isn't working for them and offer the person the choice of closing the relationship or ending it. But they shouldn't issue ultimatums. It's difficult; a lot of unexpected emotions come out when a person first explores non-monogamy. And they continue to come out when new circumstances arise. But that is why communication and negotiation are so important. Conditions of openness are not irrational if both people are fine with them -- one example might be a bi couple who are each allowed same-sex partners but not opposite-sex partners, or even a one-penis policy arrangement where the woman involved isn't interested in other men. I would personally give that arrangement the side eye but as someone said upthread, some women might find that an acceptable price of admission if they're not interested in other dudes. I would say that it's both partners' responsibility to manage and mitigate any insecurity. And I would say if one's partner is offering openness under irrational conditions because they are insecure, "close the relationship" might be a worse option than leave the relationship, because that insecurity will probably manifest even if the relationship is monogamous.

I though the -phobia/fear/hatred argument was ceded long ago: We're using -phobia agrammatically to represent any type of non-affirming opinion on any kind of sexual minority. I feel like this was settled in 2001 or so and everyone just said fuck it. I'm happy to accept that the meaning of -phobic has simply changed.

@RE: "ciods @24 Natural language does not consist of predicate logical formulas. If pronounced with the correct intonation, "All bisexual men are not secretly gay" has the intended meaning of "Bisexual men exist who are not secretly gay".

I agree, sort of. I object because first of all, this was written language; no intonation was possible. And although things like "I could care less" are well-entrenched in the language and everyone knows what they mean, I'm in the category of people who think that you might as well say it right unless there are pressing reasons not to, e.g., composing verse, as we mentioned earlier, or established convention, as is the case with "I could care less." In this case no such exception applies, so far as I can see.

Again, you are right that natural language doesn't do logic naturally (heh)--that's why we have mathematics. But that doesn't mean we should be thoughtless with phrasing when confusion could be easily avoided. It does no one any service to conflate the two meanings. I'd like our society to consist of people who are as well-informed and educated as reasonably possible. Sentences like the one I objected to contribute to misunderstandings of basic logic (I taught logic many years, so I can testify to this), hence my comment. (Note @48 if you don't believe me; sorry, vab.)

@93 it sounds fine to say "you might as well say it right unless there are pressing reasons not to" until you broaden the field and look at how this is setting up a hierarchy of how some people normally speak being better than how other people normally speak. Unsurprisingly, it supports existing power structures.

Look at "double negatives". Do we say, why not speak ~logically~, it costs nothing? This has real consequences in education, because what linguists call negative concord is a feature of Black English, like many other languages, though not normative White English.

You might say that falls under "established convention" while this does not. But it operationally is a convention, in that people say "all bisexuals are not..." and other people understand their meaning. You have no actual doubt what it meant, but it bugs you. If you ask a linguist in the area I'm sure they can even give this a name.

I'm not sure what @48 is doing with the "if a man is truly bi, and bi implies not gay, then he is truly not gay", but I don't see how any of it stems from confusion around the ordering of quantification and negation.

Consider whether you might be letting a general idea of "that is illogical and this is illogical" do too much of the implicative work?

@Mtn. Beaver @94: "...how this is setting up a hierarchy of how some people normally speak being better than how other people normally speak"

But some ways are better. That's why we have dictionaries, grammar, usage guides, language blogs, and conversations like this one. That's why people get all in a tuffle over misplaced modifiers, two-way adverbs, and all that jazz. I'm willing to agree that, in any given case, it may be up for debate what is better. Nor do I assert the field is totally ordered (i.e., there's not always a unique "best" way to say something). But some ways of phrasing things are better than others.

Certainly sub-dialects have their own rules, and it's silly to insist on conventions from one dialect when you're speaking another. Agreed! But this column originates in Seattle, and although it has readers all over the world, the dialect in use here is Standard Written American English. I'm not inserting myself into a region where they speak a given sub-dialect and insisting they do it my way.

Biphobia/homophobia or misogyny is an oversimplification to BBB. I'm insecure about my bi husband. I try really, really hard, not to let it ever show, but it scares the hell out of me.I know I would do more damage by not being supportive, so I fake it. I'm scared because he is often self-doubting in many aspects of his life. He tends to over analyze things, tends to question his own motives, experiences self-doubt. Years of parental damage, I don't know- but in most aspects of his life he self questions. This makes ME not confident when he tells me confidently that he is bi, not gay. He is also very much an appearances person. It matters to him what people think of him, (not in a shallow way, just in the way it might of a person who grew up insecure, very poor in a wealthy area, and aware of the judgment of other people. I know for a FACT he would never want his coworkers, employees, family, or 70% of his friends to know he was Bi. THIS makes me nervous. It's so much more nuanced. If it FEELS closeted, if it FEELS like a secret, if it FEELS shameful, it makes me worried it is unexplored, underdeveloped, under-acknowledged. I do feel like I would feel differently if I was dating a fully "out" bi-man. Dating a mostly closeted bi man sometimes does make me worried I'm a cover. But we don't have an open relationship...so... it's quite the cover if that's what it is.

I comfort myself by feeling like he has a very healthy sexual attraction to me/women. As far as I can tell he likes women in porn as much as men, although he prefers anal to vaginal sex to a fetishy degree, but I can't look into that too much without being homophobic either, can I?

The fact of the matter is, the trope exists for a reason. Not all bi men are gay, of course, but some gay men have had wives, fake lives, covers, etc, at enough of a ratio in real life for the trope to be a thing. It is hard. That makes me insecure, but not homophobic. I- I'm merely afraid that HE has internalized his own homophobia enough to not know if he'd actually rather be with me, if it was socially equally as acceptable in our rural area, if there were no perceived consequences to maintaining the appearances of a vanilla life in public, no judgement. If I could get in his brain and hear unequivocally that he was equally attracted to both, truly, I would never think about it again, and if we ever opened our relationship I would open up to men and women, no problem.

But I can't, and so I'm insecure. And I can't talk to him about it without making him feel shitty. So I feel shitty instead, because I love him and I want to believe him. But it is not homophobia, or misogyny.

@98 "tends to question his own motives, experiences self-doubt. Years of parental damage"

It's interesting that - my experience - the only people who consistently examine their own motives tend to have (by American standard) very rough childhoods - parents on drugs or with deep mental health issues; almost all had to kill their inner child at a very young age.

Ironically, this is a trait that is nominally encouraged, but when it manifests in reality, most people find it unfortunate or tragic.

Examining one’s motives is important, Sportlandia. Always second guessing them and constant self blame is unhealthy.

@100 if you aren't questioning your motives when you think you're totally correct, you aren't questioning your motives at all.

Re BBB, who says "At the beginning, we set some ground rules. One of her rules was that I could get together only with women..."

I really want to know their other rules. Is she restricted to women? Or to men? Or in any way at all? If the rules restrict her, he could try negotiating to reduce the restrictions on each of them.

If all the rules restrict him and not her, then it's past time to reassess.

LavaGirl @100 - congrats on the Hunsky!