Firdt?

"I would really like to talk this out with Roger"
There's nothing to Talk Out. You can't talk him into being in love with you. He has been clear how he feels and what he wants, and it's not what you want. It's not what your husband and his husband want.
And ffs, you know "which it was" because he told you, and it's neither of your unnecessarily dramatic options "nothing mattered!!!" and "in love but torn apart!!!!"

Mr Savage's last thought was my first - that there are four people involved here. Whatever LW1 may or may not say to Roger and/or Mr Roger, a conversation is certainly in order with H1 about how much the friend group matters to him.

If Roger's walkback is being driven by a change in the dynamic between Roger and Mr Roger, then that's something over which neither LW1 nor H1 has any say. There are six one-to-one dynamics in a grouping of four, a change in any one of which could influence the interactions of the whole.

Houseplants was rather good.

@1 fubar: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Major congratulatioins on scoring this week's Savage Love: Roger That FIRDT Award honors! Savor the glory of being first commenter and bask in the glory of leading the thread. :)

"Talk with someone who can give you the tools to better handle conflict."

Yes -- and better handle hearing no. That's a necessary skill for dating.

So reading back through LW1's letter...

Roger wanted to slow things down.
LW1 felt insecure about this and showed a bad side of himself.
Roger took him aside eventually (which makes it sound like this bad side was showing for a while) and explained that he wanted to be just friends who occasionally have sex.
LW1 and Roger got drunk at the birthday party and while under the influence had a heart to heart where they said they loved each other.
Once sober in the cold light of the next day, Roger stated he was not in love with LW1.

The message from Roger is clear and you obviously have some good ability to reflect on yourself and admit to your not so great side.
It can be terribly hard when you have strong feelings for someone and it seemed like they felt the same way but then it turns out that they don't after all. It will feel a lot worse though if you screw up these relationships with Roger and his husband and all the new friends and potentially make your husband upset and angry as well.

Really you are so lucky to have had such a wonderful time, with extra exciting lovers in your life, and also have a husband of your own that's down with everything, plus a bonus large friend group. There are millions of people that never get to experience anything like as good as this in their whole life. When you're used to having good things and good times whenever you want it's certainly hard to give it up and refrain from wanting more more more of that thing you love so much, but don't push it to the point where you blow it all to pieces. If you can manage to calm yourself and accept the situation, like Dan says you could go on to have some more awesome foursomes in the future and retain all of the other wonderful things about your current life.

Roger probably does love you on some level as a result of your previous intense connection and perhaps that's why it came out when he was drunk, but clearly it isn't the same as the 'in love' feeling you have. It hurts of course but if you can be strong with yourself, hopefully you'll be able to let the feelings go gradually and retain all the benefits in time.

TITQ: Sounds like Roger isn't into polyamory. Which, given time, maybe you could talk him around on, eventually. But you aren't going to talk him around on it if you refuse to respect the boundaries he's set. That said, given that all these heart-to-hearts have been one-on-one with Roger, perhaps he's under the impression that you aren't looking for poly so much as looking to have an affair with Roger that doesn't involve the husbands.

LIME: If he has a Madonna-whore complex, then it's clear you could only ever keep him as a fuck bud. But if he's against having threesomes with you because of the inevitable issues it brings up between you two, then he clearly has a point. Due to feelings of insecurity and jealousy, and poor communication skills, threesomes don't seem like a good idea with you two, at least in the context of you two dating. Perhaps those issues would clear up if you stopped dating and kept things going only as fuck buds. Or, as Dan suggested, if you two stopped having threesomes together and only dirty talked about.

TITQ: "Were we a fun sexy fling and nothing about the last two years mattered?" Oh please. Fun sexy flings matter! Friends with benefits matter! Friends, good ones, love each other. You are clearly special to the Rogers, someone(s) they want to have in their lives. A four-way "marriage" was clearly too much for them. You understand what happened here: the "honeymoon phase" ended, but they stuck around as FWBs for another year and a half, right? You can either be melodramatic about this and lose them or enjoy what you have. You're lucky to have THREE men in your life who care about you. The last two years matter. Appreciate them for what they are, don't try to have three husbands.

Dan seems to have read the letter as Roger pulling the plug on the sex, which I don't see. It read to me as if they are still FWBs, that the sometime sex is continuing. TITQ just wants declarations of lurrve as the cherry on top of this sundae. TITQ, many folks would envy what you and your husband and the Rogers have. Can you find it in yourself to see that it -is- a relationship that matters?

I'm also confused about the timeline. "Right after the COVID19 lockdown started" this drunken I-love-you conversation happened. That's over six months ago; what has happened since? Have they all not got together because of the restrictions/risk? Is TITQ wanting to resume their physical relationship now? Why now, why -only- now? Why is TITQ hanging onto these hurt feelings this long after the fact? TITQ seems to have a skewed sense of perspective. That, plus his hints at anger and/or abandonment issues makes me think he might be better off seeing a therapist than another couple.

LIME, Dan came to the same conclusion as me -- see other women on your own. My instinct, though, is that he will feel jealous of this as well. He basically slut-shamed you, didn't he? Why do you want to keep this guy?

One word comes to mind when reading about the man who wants Roger’s love: Needy.
It ooozes off the page. If that’s what I’m getting just as a casual reader, Roger is probably completely overwhelmed. That’s why he’s shut down.

The drunken confession wasn’t about what Roger was feeling. He was being compassionate to LW who was expressing true vulnerability. He then dialed it back the next day b/c he realized that compassion could harm LW by creating unreasonable expectations. Roger sounds like a mensch.

LW, it’s sooooo easy to confuse love with need. They often spring from the same source. But, to me, you can’t really “be in love” with someone if they don’t reciprocate it.

Nursing unrequited love only leads to obsession and self-destruction. Don’t feed and water that seed. It’s poisonous.

LW, if you read this, I say with compassion: dial it back. If you can’t dial it back you will never get what you want. You took it too far with someone who did not, and likely will never, feel the same way.

Tamp on the breaks, stop the car, get out, and go for a long, reflective walk before you crash.

You have to be clear with yourself whether what you want is sex with other people or deep emotional connection with other people or approval and attention from other people. You can’t get any of those things unless the other people are all willing to give them. No matter how badly you desire them!

You also probably need to find an older gay man who has successfully navigated these waters to talk to. You need someone who can objectively tell you when you are overstepping. Putting this on your husband or others in your circle is unfair. You need someone to have a drink with and unburden these emotions. You need a mentor in the gay poly lifestyle.

Like so many people who finally get what they want sexually and relationally, you got over-excited and over-reacted and scared the stuffing out of the other persons involved. That’s understandable. But if you can’t see that, you will never have what you want.

Also, it’s sometimes difficult to see when we are treating other people like characters in a drama in which we star instead of other people with their own wants and needs. You are doing the former. You can’t see it now. If you never see it, you will implode all the good you have around you now. Good on Dan for calling you out on that.

We all can be selfish and reductive at times. That’s human. If you are playing in “varsity level” sex and relationship league, you have to be better than that. The risks and blow-back are too great.

Do some real self-reflection on why you need Roger to love you so badly. Why him? Why is his lack of reciprocity in depth of feeling so deeply wounding to you? If you can’t figure that out, you will only repeat this pattern with the next Roger. You may also blow up your marriage in the process. Hint: It’s not about Roger. It’s about you. You need this for some reason unrelated to who Roger actually is as a person.

FTR, I hope you can figure this out, readjust your expectations and behavior, and work toward the life you want. I hope you some day find it. I just don’t think it will be with Roger and his husband. I hope it is with yours.

Your only hope with Roger and his husband is to completely stop expressing your need AT him - no matter how much that aches. Then to evaluate why you need this so badly. Then work slowly with your husband toward trying to build the life you want. Slowly. With your husband as a co-pilot.

I’m sure this hurts deeply now. I’m sure you are in a lot of pain. I want that to ease for you. But it will only get worse if you keep on the path you are on.

“ you aren't looking for poly so much as looking to have an affair with Roger that doesn't involve the husbands.”

I wondered that as well. Why the obsession with Roger?

I don’t know if LW really wants a 4-way poly relationship or if he wants Roger. Those are two different things.

Gold star for slowpokey @9. Excellent comment, right on the money.

Thanks Ciods.

We’ve all been where LW is in terms of over investing in one person/one job/one thing. The characters and plot may differ, but the failing LW has made is entirely too human and too familiar.

I also always think that if the majority of this community thinks “WHAO!” wrt to some action, the LW should really do some self-reflection. This is, after all, likely the most sexually-open and accepting commentariat on the web. If we are seeing cause for concern, the people in LW’s life are likely seeing a lot more.

I don’t have time to post here as much as I’d like, but something in the LW’s plaintive cri de coeur struck a chord, so I tried to balance sympathy with harsh truth.

Great post, Slowpokey @10.

Regarding LIME:

Dan: "...I can understand why you might want to keep seeing this guy. (COVID-19 is making it hard to find new partners.)"

I feel like anyone who's willing to take the risk of bringing special guest stars into their relationship for sex during COVID-19 (which the LW clearly is) can probably also work on finding a better/more supportive partner during COVID-19.

To me, Dan's lengthy advice to LW1 is superfluous and pointless. He's a married man and he's drowning in despair because he's in love with someone else? Does he not give a damn about his own husband, his own marriage? If he's obsessed with someone else, this marriage stinks, and his husband should get a divorce and look for a better life with a better partner.

What a bunch of drama queens these l-dubs are this week. None of the parties involved sound mature enough to handle any of the cans of worms they feel entitled to open up all over themselves, their partners and their (un)special guest stars.

Time to grow up l-dubs! It's never too late to learn you can't have everything you want in life. But... the earlier the better!

L-dub 1, listen to slowpokey @9. They've got you diagnosed to a T. That's like 6 months of really good therapy revelations right there. Save the money and just internalize that shit.

@9 Slowpokey. “Like so many people who finally get what they want sexually and relationally, you got over-excited and over-reacted and scared the stuffing out of the other persons involved.”
Very much this. For both LW’s, the objects of their affection were “firsts.” TITQ noted that Roger and hub were their first outside partners as a couple. Similarly, LIME says that current partner was the first to which she has come out as bi. I wonder how much of their difficulty in regulating their emotions in their relationships stem from the added stakes that these “firsts” bring to their romantic and sexual lives?

Ens @18, good point. "Firsts" do tend to lead to the catching of feelings more intense than one would have experienced otherwise. LIME should realise that there is no shortage of guys out there who find willingness to have threesomes more reason to love a partner, not less. I can't speak from direct experience to TITQ, but I bet there are other fish in their sea as well. If TITQ can't dial back his feelings to a FWB level, they should let this couple go, talk a lot, then perhaps dip their toes back into the sea of non-monogamy.

both LWs are having multiple partners now? They're talking like covid is over. They're either not in the US or have drunk the trumpaide

@20: funny award, for sure!

miko @20: There's no place that the Covid is over.

@9: "Nursing unrequited love only leads to obsession and self destruction. Don't feed and water that seed. It's poisonous." Ain't THAT the gospel truth! Someone I know (I won't elaborate much further here because I went into greater detail in a recent SL column comment thread) nearly lost my friendship after 21 years of acquaintance upon trying to make into someone I'm clearly not, to his bitter disappointment. I nominate slowpokey for the WIN re the TITQ thread!

@22 fubar: Here's hoping that the TRUMPVID-19 pandemic ends officially as of January 18, 2021, if not sooner.

Yeah, I'm surprised Dan didn't advise LIME to put the brakes on seeking new partners. The Rogers may be within TITQ's bubble or they may not have seen each other since lockdown started. LIME, keep seeing the guy (for now) and your therapist; keep the extracurriculars in your fantasies too, for now.

The feeling I have is that TITQ's love for Roger, together with Roger's love / affection / strength of feeling for him, imbalanced the quad. This was possibly why the other couple pulled back, although the reason could have been as simple as the first flush of an exciting fling fading.

Roger (and his partner) are still offering TITQ (and his) a lot, relatively speaking: friendship; uncompromised access to lots of interesting new people; occasional foursomes. Roger has not withdrawn his friendship; he's just suggested the lw cool his jets on the romance. It's of course down to TITQ to accept it or not. It would seem a sweet deal for his husband, if not for TITQ. TITQ asks what the last two years were for Roger--what Roger felt--but it wasn't crystal-clear to me what he wanted himself. He loves Roger ... and wants to be in a quad with him? It would seem that the arrangement the lw has with his husband is that they have sex with other people together. But it seems to have worked out, too, that one of the three other people in the quad--Roger--means a lot more than anyone else to the lw in terms of the four's sexual relationship or dating. Obviously that will create problems, be difficult to sustain?

I think LIME only has to read her own letter back to see where she went wrong. She is 'depressed' and has 'spent years in therapy'. Her bf has told her he can't have threesomes with a woman he feels connected to emotionally. The threesomes make both 'uncomfortable'. Yet she thought it would be 'fun' to 'reconnect' through offering the guy threeways. Why did she think that? I guess she's only joining the dots after the event.

As she presents herself, she's acting desperately, with little sense of self-worth or self-belief; she's baiting a guy who's losing interest in her with the kind of sex men are reputed to go wild for. But he isn't living up to stereotype: he doesn't like this kind of sex. So stop offering it to him. She could ask herself, too, whether he's right for her, anyways: if he's gone cool, isn't it his loss? Especially since she seems to have no trouble finding people--in this case, women--to have a probably-harder-than-one-on-one sex to broker?

@9. slowpokey. "Like so many people who finally get what they want sexually and relationally, you got over-excited and over-reacted and scared the stuffing out of the other persons involved".

Yes, this is exactly what happened. You're right, too, that TITQ shouldn't place any weight on what he thinks Roger said to him at the drunken birthday party. It's very possible that TITQ said e.g. 'but I thought that for the last two years you loved me / you loved us!' and that Roger just soothingly said, 'I did'. It's also possible that Roger confessed he had a one-on-one thing for TITQ; and that this was nipped in the bud because it would cause problems for Roger's marriage/LTR. But the point is that which of these it is (and it's more likely to be the first) doesn't matter: the upshot is the same. Roger and his husband want to dial it down and just be friends that have sex.

@18. Ensign. Yes, I picked out just the same key quote from slowpokey's post. One aspect of the 'first' experience that hasn't been dwelled on is that Roger and his husband give access to TITQ and his partner to a circle of personally ad culturally attractive gay men, who would seem more romantically and erotically sophisticated than the lw. (The 'both in our thirties' type of remark, I'd say, is often misleading, masking the differences in life-experience of a seasoned 39yo and less experienced 30yo). The risk is that TITQ's acting-out, his potentially blowing everything up, queers the pitch for his partner, as well as for him, with this friendship group. The only sex TITQ has spoken about is the foursomes (he says nothing even about his sex, maintenance or otherwise, with his long-term partner). But it's not impossible that Mr TITQ has sex with guys introduced to him through the Rogers. If TITQ gets a reputation as a brat, as immature, as untrustworthy or not-yet-ready for Varsity-level fucking in a friendship group, that could have consequences for his partner's love- and sex-life and wellbeing.

Other than a possible query over athari's use of the word 'polyamory', this thread was a pleasure to read up to @15, slowpokey's compassionate, insightful contributions esp.

I'm generally confused by couples who engage in random three ways, and even more confused by couples who get in long term FWB situations without some guardrails.
Dude in the LW2 scenario is simply not in to / equipped for MFF three ways. Accept that fact.
The dudes in LW1 scenario signed up for ongoing sex, and three of the four just want to bone. Number four got some feelings that he should have processed on his own, but has chosen to add drama to everyone else's life. Ugh.

Reading TITQ's complaint, a line from The Life of Brian came to mind: "Welease Woger!"

Get over Roger and move on. And no need to DTMFA as Roger hasn't done anything wrong.

This is like any break-up. Take some time away from Roger's orbit, and later rejoin the social circle and see if a friendship works. Pursuing a FWB arrangement is only going to stoke the feels, so don't do it.

Both LW’s are not listening to other people’s boundaries.
Roger seems to have been more than clear about his, LW1, and generous in that he didn’t stop all connections when you threw a hissy fit because you didn’t get what you want. He sounds like he does care for you, and if you were wise, you’d hear him and back off accordingly.

Harriet @26, I'm wondering where she's finding all these unicorns (especially during a pandemic) and whether she'd care to share the secrets of her success!

Harriet @27: "It's very possible that TITQ said e.g. 'but I thought that for the last two years you loved me / you loved us!' and that Roger just soothingly said, 'I did'." I thought it more possible that the words were more along the lines of "I love you, man / I love you too, man!" Roger meant it in a drunkenly affectionate way and had to clarify later, after realising TITQ meant something rather more profound. Indeed, TITQ has to take Roger at his sober word instead of holding him to a statement made while intoxicated.

Harriet @28, about what are you querying the use of the term polyamory? It seemed to me to accurately convey that Roger does not want multiple romantic connections, just FWBs, which could be described as non-monogamy but not polyamory by its literal definition, "many loves."

Fubar @30: "No need to DTMFA as Roger hasn't done anything wrong." Good point; TITQ seems to be using the term to just mean "break up," which I would agree is a misuse. It may be wise to terminate this relationship, but there is no MF here. Unless it's TITQ.

@32. Bi. I was querying the expression 'seems Roger is not into polyamory'. He could well be into polyamory; he just does not want to be in a quad, maybe esp. a quad with TITQ and his husband.

Even aside from the unicorns, too many things in LIME's letter are saving face for me to get a sense of what actually went on e.g. the suggestion they agreed to prioritise their careers, or that she has a good enough career to prioritise (she may have, of course), when he just said that to get some distance from her. She comes over to us maybe a bit like TITQ does to the Rogers' circle: as an unhappy, unsophisticated person not owning her loneliness or neediness.

If she found someone who was into her, a lot, maybe all, of this loneliness and need would be assuaged.

Incidentally, I'm not 100% he's slut-shaming her for saying he can't have MFFs with someone he respects. I agree it's borderline. It sounds more to me like a clumsy attempt to extricate himself from her.

I think the comments have dried up because we are all in agreement.

Regarding LW2, I am honestly surprised that Dan did Not call out the boyfriend's manipulative BS. I was thinking DTMFA about a paragraph in. These two people are Not compatible. Not sexually, Not socially, Not emotionally. He makes her "insecure and depressed"- in other words, miserable, by "acting like an asshole". Classic abusive behavior. And yet, he is still happy to have her act as his pimp to have her bring in a constant stream of hot women that he then later shames her for? Dan, I have BEEN in relationships with men like this. They claim that they think non monogamy is immoral, and that they are only doing it "to appease the GF/ BF/ enbyfriend" then use that as leverage in a relationship long game of manipulation and control in order to further escalate from emotional abuse to even worse forms. LW, you are already miserable and depressed? How much worse will it be when you are financially dependent on him? When you live together? When you have pets together? When you have kids?

DTMFA and run for the hills, NOW!!!

TITQ - Were you really together with this other couple almost every night at first? Because if you wanted to form a quad/polycule and all move in together, it seems like that would have been the best time to initiate that discussion.

"This isn't what I want. I am in love with Roger and his husband. I don't want to be “friends who have sex sometimes.”"
What do you want, if you don't want to have sex with them sometimes? If you want to move in together, or have commitment ceremonies, you can't expect them to figure it out unless you ask. Asking is a good way to get used to handling "no" when you hear it. If you can only try to get what you want nonverbally, you'll have little incentive to stop being manipulative and indirect until the other person completely leaves.

You seem very unhappy with the situation, but instead of trying to figure out what changes that you could ask for to make you happier, you seem to expect Roger to solve your unhappiness. Poor guy. And I don't know how your husband fits in, if he was just enjoying the sex, or was interested in moving in together and commitment ceremonies with the Rogers.. you made it sound like his only interest was in the expanded friend group of the Rogers..

"The first six months were hot and heavy."
"After the “honeymoon phase” ended [...] Roger and I had some conflict"
"For almost two years, we've been seeing another pair of married gay men"
It sounds like there's been conflict for the last 3/4 of the time you've been seeing each other? That doesn't sound fun. I'm surprised that your husband doesn't want to dump them.. because of their friend group. Are you two perhaps using your conflict with this other couple to avoid some marital conflict?

LIME - It sounds like you're too scared to have sex with a woman bi yourself. And he's too scared to dump you completely so he's still seeing you once in awhile to help you have sex with women. Are you capable of loving or committing to a woman, or are you just heteroflexible and into high conflict relationships?

The big question here seems to be, "Why do you choose to pursue a man who has told you that he doesn't respect you?" Why are you wallowing in unrequited love rather than trying to find mutual love?

I usually pay more attention to what someone chooses to do rather than chooses to say. But when they say "I don't like you, I didn't love you, I don't respect you, I don't want to be with you, this isn't right for me, this isn't what I want etc", I think it's really important to respect a "no" about the relationship, even if their actions conflict and they are still hanging around.

Harriet @33, the word "seems" is subjective, and the conclusion that Roger wants sex on the side rather than multiple love relationships seems (see what I did there) borne out by the evidence, so I have no quibble with "seems Roger is not into polyamory."
Indeed, Roger may be into polyamory but not with someone as needy as TITQ. Another reasonable interpretation. The difference is academic from TITQ's perspective: Roger does not want a polyamorous relationship with him. But he may feel better if he views it as Roger not wanting more than one serious partner, rather than Roger not wanting him.

Any man who says he can't "respect" a woman for engaging in sex acts he doesn't lose self-respect for engaging in is a slut-shaming, double-standard-wielding hypocrite. LIME deserves better.

I agree there's not much to be disputed in this week's column.

Plume @34, LIME has spent years in therapy. Her depression and insecurity predated this man; he did not cause them. Her issues may have led her to make a bad choice in him. He "acts like an asshole" when they have conflicts. But she may as well. They should clearly move on, but I think you are projecting by painting him as a villain who's the cause of all her problems. It's statistically very unlikely this man is one of the men you dated, and what's with the "whens" when she gave no indication they were planning to escalate the relationship? Are you seeing a therapist? Sounds like there are some things you may need some help working through.

For LIME, I think she knows she's already been demoted from girlfriend to FWB. Does she realize that?

If she loves MFF threesomes and is this good at landing unicorns, she should probably call some of those women back and propose being a guest star in their MFF threesomes. Keep the lady(ies), change the guy, and have some more threesomes.

LW2, is more complex.. and yes, I agree with others, lose the bf, or as Adam above has correctly pointed out, lose the FWB.

Not sure if FWB argue though, do they? It’s a mongrel relationship then. But if this and that.
Why you keep trying the threesomes with this man, LW2, when he said he didn’t enjoy them and you all have big arguments later.
Make up fantasies to share, because real life isn’t giving you the fodder.

Q; Why is Griz smiling?
A: Donald Jackass Trump tested positive for COVID-19. FINALLY.
May the Trump / Pence GOP Evil Empire go down in flames.

Has anyone heard from nocutename in the last two weeks? The last post I see from her was September 16th.

Nocutename, if you're reading along -- sending you good wishes!

@nocutename: I hope all is well your way, and share EricaP's concerns.

@38 cont.. Yes, LW2, threesomes do feed fantasy for you two, yet at what cost? All that drama.
He’s told you he thought you moved too fast because of COVID, start by hearing that, and feed the relationship where there’s minimal drama. Ie: drop the threesomes. Share fantasy instead, and give it some time.

@35. Philophile. I suspect you've hit the nail on the head in suggesting LIME is apprehensive about dating or having sex with women by herself.

'I found us some hot girls' is what she says. It doesn't sound an emotionally invested way to describe one's first sexual experiences with a sex to which one has long been attracted. But perhaps, like Hamlet's mother, she protests a bit too much in being sassy about these encounters.

@36. Bi. We agree, really; and there's no point in seeming to disagree even if I'm moved to return to stand on small points of order. LIME's boyfriend said he couldn't have threesomes with anyone he cared for. But it's rank hypocrisy, as you imply, to carry on having the threesomes without making plain the basis on which they're doing it: that they're blowing-off-steam sex for him (or whatever), but they're no longer in a relationship, and he wouldn't do it with anyone with whom he was in a relationship.

I think 'seems [proposition]' can mean 'turns out [proposition]' e.g. 'seems masks are a reasonable precaution at all public events', with a side of irony. I did not take it in context as a dubiety-indicator. But of course either the 'doesn't want a quad' / 'doesn't want polyamory' interpretation could be right.

The bf has withdrawn, and redrawn the relationship’s boundaries. The arguments seem to indicate both are still emotionally attached to each other, and if LW2 is serious about keeping this already slim pickings story, then she needs to change how they spend time together.
Or, end things now. Because he’s heading out the door under these arrangements.

LW2, it’s great you’ve come out to this man, and be thankful he has tried to share in this part of you. It seems though you’ve been blinkered to how it’s been for others involved. The girls would have picked up the tension between you two, no fun for them. Then all the explosions after with your bf. Take a step back, and rather than bulldozing thru, honour this newly expressed part of yourself, and find other ways to explore it.

Harriet @45, that is a good theory. However, what LIME says is "The man I’m seeing is the first person I ever opened up to about my bisexuality." She does not say, "Prior to this relationship I had no experience with women." It is possible she was having sexual experiences with women, on the down low, but never told any of her friends or partners about them. Indeed it's also possible that she didn't feel confident enough to explore this side of herself without a wingman, so to speak. But the ease with which she's found unicorns suggests that she may not have been an absolute beginner to sapphic pleasure.

@3 venn, My head hurts from the math. I think it's a lot more than 6 one-way relationships though. Call the first couple L,H1 (letter writer, hoouseplant-1) and the second is R,H2 (Roger, houseplant-2). You've got 8 "one-way" feelings ->
L->H1, R->H2, L->R, L->H2, R->H1, L->H1+H2, R->H1+H2, L-> R+H1+H2

The feelings H1 for L may be different than L's for H1. So each one-way is actually two relationships. So 64 combos? 128?

In addition to how H1 feels about L+R, there's how L feels about H1's feelings! So 512 combinations? Thousands?

Cue math-is-hard Barbie.

I've tried poly and it has its pros. It can get complex but what isn't?

@49 delta35 (re @3 vennominon): Cue math is hard Griz. Yikes! With a conductor's score maybe I'll figure it out. Now I must return to music playing and writing. It's the only math I know, aside from balancing my checkbook.

@49delta35, no, venn is correct, at least the way I interpret it. He says there are “six one-to-one dynamics” in a two couple group, meaning each relationship (dynamic) has only two people. Just because two people in a relationship feel differently, doesn’t make it two relationships (perhaps that’s why he used the term dynamic). I wish I could draw a diagram, but I don’t know how using this format. Actually, only four couplings are necessary for everyone to participate in some kind of a swap- each couple has an internal sexual relationship, then each member of a couple has one sex partner from the other couple.

OK, here’s my inelegant diagram of the couplings between A,B,C,and D:

A. 6. 6. 6 6 6 6. C
1 2. 3 4
1 2. 3. 4
1 2.3. 4
1 3 2 4
1 3 2 4
1 3 2. 4
B 5 5 5 5 5. 5 D

Sorry, it didn’t copy the way the preview said. There were supposed to be diagonal lines in the middle and more spacing. I give up.

LW1, has caught the love bug, and yes it hurts.. if he waits a while, and as others have said keep some distance from his person of fixation, his feelings will change, and he’ll see the benefits of a casual grouping and the wider group of friends. Win Win.

I correct myself, LW1, your feelings could change. It’s up to you, and sublimating feelings is what we do all the time to keep some semblance of cultural order going. If having sex with this man is too hard on your heart, close down the sex for a few months while you adjust to what Roger is offering.

Who's game for this week's Lucky @69 Award? Tick...tick...tick...

It’s Daniel’s Bday coming up, have to stick around for that.

@57 LavaGirl: Yep. We'll have to revel on behalf of Dan the Man next Wednesday, in the upcoming SL column. Thanks for the reminder. :)

@delta, @subhubby

Venn is correct, there are six one-to-one relationships in a set of four people:
(A, B), (A, C), (A, D), (B, C), (B, D), (C, D).
If you want to count all the different relationships--including not just pairs, but also trios and the quad as whole, then you get five additional relationships:
(A, B, C), (A, B, D), (A, C, D), (B, C, D), (A, B, C, D)
for a total of eleven; that's assuming you aren't counting each person's relationship with self, which would bring it up to a nice fifteen.

Compare that eleven to the one relationship you have in a pair, and the four you have in a trio. Shit gets complicated fast.

The sequence goes 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, etc. The most interesting practical application for bridge players would involve a mixed group of six divided 4-2 between types A and B. Of the fifteen different individual pairs from a group of six, there would be eight AB pairs, six AA and one BB.

Mr Balls - You indirectly raise the point that LW1 struck me as someone who likely uses his emotional needs as a weapon. Roger does not seem like a dream either, but, on the admitted facts, LW1 is leading in the Bad Karma stakes. Perhaps he should try befriending last week's LW2 and then see what his perspective is about friends.

@62 vennominon: Oh--I get it---I think----- is the sequence 1+2+3+4+5+6+7......etc., etc.?
Math. And Griz GETS IT......??..........whoaaaaaaaaaaaa......

cbu @58, I don’t see where Roger has gaslighted LW1.
Roger said he wasn’t in love with the LW, not that he didn’t love him.

I just can't seem to get enough of Regan McNeil (Linda Blair in The Exorcist) and Carrie White (Sissy Spacek in the title role of Carrie) lately. Let the gluten free chocolate cake and Cabernet Sauvignon keep on comin'! I guess I love hating evil Stephen King book characters.......

@65: Although The Exorcist was the work of William Peter Blatty, who won the Oscar for Best Screenplay for 1973 based on his novel. Look quickly and you will see Blatty himself in a brief cameo in the film during a film shooting scene of Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) early on in The Exorcist.

It's happened again. GF cake and red wine---and zero typos.

griz @63: Yes, you've got it. Every time you add another person into the set, you have all the same (pairwise) relationships you already had, plus the new pairs consisting of that new person and each of the other people.

In this example we generally start with two as our first number (one person has no pairwise relationships, it's not very interesting--what we call a degenerate example). Putting a third person in adds two relationships; a fourth adds three, etc. In other words, on the nth step, you increase your number of pairwise relationships by n-1. So if you know the number of relationships at a given step, you can easily find the number for the next step. That's what's called a recursive formula. Finding the number of relationships between n people without calculating all the answers for the lower steps first is a bit trickier--that's called a closed-form formula.

The formulas for number of total groupings/relationships (not just pairs) are a bit trickier.

@59. cocky. No one's picked up on that because no one else, probably, thinks it. Who knows what Roger said to him when they were both in their cups at that drunken birthday party? Anyway, what you say about the lw managing the headspace he grants Roger would be more appropriate for someone without an existing primary relationship. If Roger is anything like as manipulative as you make out, TITQ should be able just to say to his husband, 'fuck Roger. We'll find someone better'.

You’d think people would grab the chance at a bit of luck.. handing @69 on to next person.
LW1 has got it bad, in love with both Roger and his husband. Maybe the poly life / quad experiences are not for him. The LW’s husband sure is laid back about it all.

I hope you haven’t lost it again, with Roger, LW1.. because the other three seem on the same page, not so emotionally invested as you are.
Nothing to be angry about, though if it’s too hard to be around these other men, for you, then your husband needs to hear that. Maybe put these two on a back burner for a while.

@67 ciods: Thank you for confirming my guess. Wow! Who would have thought self=proclaimed Math phobe Griz would figure it out? Of course, it doesn't mean I'm MENSA or NASA material. :)

@69 LavaGirl: WA-HOOOOOOOOO!!! Their loss is your gain! Congraulations on scoring this week's Lucky @69 Award! Bask in the decadent glory and savor the riches. :)

@71 Aiiiiiiigh! Not again ! Make that:
@69 LavaGirl: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Their loss is your gain! Congratulations on scoring this week's Lucky @69 Award! Bask in the decadent glory and savor the riches. :)

I guess I need more red wine. :)

And that winner is You, Madame Grizelda. I’ll drink a white, though Vodka is my choice. Here’s to You.🍷

Cocky @59, I think your having been in what you see as a similar situation is causing you to read TITQ's letter differently than the rest of us. I don't think Roger is gaslighting TITQ. I think he has been clear. I don't think a drunken "I love you, man" or however it was phrased is evidence of a pattern of mixed signals. I think he's behaved like most reasonable people would have in this situation: getting into a new relationship, wanting to spend loads of time with the new shinies due to NRE, realising six months in that you aren't getting any work done or that you miss chilling in your own space on your own (or your and your husband's own) and verbalising those needs, attempting to smooth things over with someone who took that reasonable request badly, trying to strike a relationship balance that keeps not just two but four people happy. TITQ also sounds like potentially not the most reliable narrator, given his overreactions and hyperbole ("nothing about the last two years mattered"). I maintained a relationship for a year and a half with someone who was more vested than me, and was very good at giving the appearance of getting it every time I had to walk back the relationship and readjust her expectations, but it turned out that in her head nothing had changed. TITQ sounds like this as well and on that basis it's possible he's been the one who's been gaslighting the Rogers about being happy with a FWB relationship when he wasn't. (Or let's say neither of these people is our ex and therefore they both get the benefit of the best-intentions doubt.)

As for "using the Rogers for access to friends," I think Mr TITQ is in a tough spot. Of course one should side with one's spouse, but what if one's spouse is being a drama queen? He doesn't want to lose friends over this, understandably. Perhaps they all just need a "time out" from each other, to let TITQ get some perspective, and yes possibly some therapy, if this is typical of his behaviour.

Congrats on the magic number, Lava @69! Yes, it seems reasonable that it would take a laid-back person to deal with someone like TITQ's melodrama.

@73 LavaGirl: Cheers! Big cyber hugs, positrons, and VW beeps coming back atcha! Happy Springtime Down Under. :)

Thanks Griz.. yes well, spring turns to summer quick round here.
Good summary Fan @74.
If TITQ stopped and felt his grief that his feelings don’t coincide with the others, he could move on. Getting angry is an easy way to mask his sadness. And it is sad when those we love a certain way, don’t shine the love light back on us. It’s such a pretty light to bask in.
I’m kick starting Happy 🎉 Birthday wishes,
to Mr Dan Savage.. as the 7th has dawned here.

I'm early with well wishes back here in the States, but Happy Birthday, Dan the Man! I hope it's a kickass day. :)

LW 2 and her boyfriend deserve either other. Jeez.