@81. Lava. Oh, taking 'feminism' to mean all those who subscribe to /some/ form of feminism, the ones I disagree with as well as the ones I agree with, the ones who deplore me, too, but are still recognisably feminist, feminism is still a lot more fun than the manosphere.

The manosphere, that's a barrel of laughs. Man, oh ...

@85. Dadddy. But the lw is unsettled to think that she might be sharing in, might have embodied in the past, any so-called patriarchal gaze. The person who is apparently secure in their personal morality is the gf....

@89. CMD. I have no issue whatsoever with the brand of feminism that says ' 'don't have sex' or 'think twice about having sex' of the kind that would make you a 'bad' feminist'.

Well, what's it's to do with me, who vanishingly rarely has sex with cishet female feminists? Have sex or don't have sex--your choice. Our emphasis as feminists, allies and just trying-to-be-good people should be on helping (young) people to have good sex, great sex. To live the best, most noble lives they can, with the most integral and happy love lives. Not to get lost in debating how politically compromised sex has to be before it becomes, on balance, sex not worth having.

I would also hope that Lava has abjured transphobia.

@76. Bi. It's not rare, I hope, for me to change my position and acknowledge I was wrongheaded when I change my mind (and, I would hope, to move thanks to the people who righted me, here you, nocute and ankyl). The other times, that is, I think you're just wrong ;)

I was saying ITALIANE was probably American by nationality. It's likely she's Italian-American. The nationality issue would make it more likely for me to say 'she's American'. One might say, of a Korean-American, 'she's American' in the context of nationality, and 'she's Korean' in the context of family culture or race. For a white or Caucausian Italian-American, the clear topic would have to be culture or ethnicity for someone to say, 'she's Italian', I think (none of this is trying to be contentious).

@97. SarahTheUnstoppable. I agree with you that what seems to SHHDS like a shortfall of desire could easily be a circumspection, or anxiety, over fixing to have a different kind of sex. Or even a familiar (to the law) D/s kind of sex, but with a different-feeling SS dynamic. But my read is that her gf is not anticipating this, and would be happy with less sex or only gentle sex.

BiDanFan @100: Congrats on the hunsky!

Re. Hex @98: minor point: dropout did indeed call ITALIANE a "psycho" @29, in addition to insulting SHDDS @29, and Fichu @78. One can safely assume that Hex doesn't realized that dropout is a nasty, bitter troll that should be ignored.

Ms Fichu - I might think that if they were mainly libertarian, but most of the PGA players are fairly hardcore evangelicals, something that seems to have at least intensified in the last thirty or forty years or so.

Of course, I doubt the left would claim many tennis players (except perhaps Mrs King); leftist near-total ignorance of tennis puzzled me for a bit until it seemed that the left probably sneers at the emphasis on social issues that would seem to make tennis nearly the ideal (white) feminist pursuit.

Harriet @103: "@85. Dadddy. But the lw is unsettled to think that she might be sharing in, might have embodied in the past, any so-called patriarchal gaze. The person who is apparently secure in their personal morality is the gf...."
Exactly. My turn to agree with you 100%.

"@89. CMD. I have no issue whatsoever with the brand of feminism that says ' 'don't have sex' or 'think twice about having sex' of the kind that would make you a 'bad' feminist'."
I do. I absolutely take issue with anyone, regardless of their gender or reasons, judging other people's sex lives (so long as they involve only consenting adults), whether they be religious extremists or anti sex feminists. As Lava says, surely feminism is about affirming women's choices. Being submissive does not make one a "bad feminist," nor being asexual, nor being a sex worker. True feminism would respect all of these paths and defend them against criticism from those who judge.

Re ITALIANE, her nationality is not mentioned by her nor is it important, so I will decline to speculate further. Savage Love is internationally syndicated, so there is no reason to think she is one particular nationality or any other.

Dadddy @104, you've misread the letter. SHDDS is not "somebody who really needs to be seen as Good." She is somebody who has had a conflicted sexual past and is now being influenced by someone who appears to have all the answers, but while those answers may make sense the way Ms SHDDS has explained them to her, they are at odds with her own latent desires. That's the core of the problem, not whether she desires her partner. As to why she doesn't, my guess is either that, underneath her desire to be rescued from a life of being objectified by men, she's actually straight, or Ms SHDDS has rejected her (vanilla or otherwise) advances enough times that she has shut down her instinct to try. Which, if the partner is asexual/greysexual, IS a good thing for the partner, but not for SHDDS.

Thanks, Fubar @105! I think I earned it, having resisted the call of the @69 ;)
Ah, I never read Phil's posts, since I do know he's a nasty, bitter troll and ignored him. Mostly. ;) Surprised you haven't added him to your magical commenter-blocking app? Let me know when/if you have a version for Chrome.

I completely disagreed with Dan about ITALINE. I agree that many people use "trust issues" to excuse terrible behavior. I just don't see any evidence of her "terrible behavior”. I think the key to judging whether it was "terrible" to visit him at work, is whether bf worked at a public amenity or private workplace. If he worked as a hotel desk clerk and said that he didn’t mind if she dropped by, he exhibited “terrible behavior” by getting upset when she dropped by. I don’t agree that it is “terrible behavior” to insist on meeting any exes still in your partner’s life. It seems less demanding than insisting upon monogamy, which is normalized. She did not hide her trust issues, but he hid something very important to their relationship. I don’t believe that “trust issues” is a dtmfa offense any more than depression is a dtmfa offense, what matters is that it’s being treated, that she sees her responsibility as trying to find ways to trust her partner, and if she can’t and wants to give up trying, then she should set him free to find someone who is more into him and can properly appreciate him. It’s not clear she is taking full responsibility for her mental problems, she possibly seems to expect him to solve her issues and “make” her trust him. She shouldn’t feel ashamed of trust issues, it’s not uncommon to develop them IMO, it just seems to be less diagnosed and treated. Don’t trust blindly, and accept that you will not be able to trust one person in all ways, you can only trust people to keep doing what they do, unless they show evidence of change. She can’t trust him to be honest about this ex, at least, and if she needs to meet the ex to feel comfortable with him and he refuses, then I think she should dump him rather than trying to “make” him introduce her to his coworkers. I don’t see why he would refuse except he’s just not that into her, or prepared to deal with her inconvenient feelings, so if she cares about herself I think she should leave him, but not hold it against him that he wasn’t that into her.

I would rather be a partner verbally acknowledge their trust issues than deal with extreme jealousy that they feel is justified. Although if Dan’s suspicious/ critical guess was accurate, that she was suspicious or critical or angry as a result of her trust issues, that is bad behavior she should apologize for.

SHDDS- I think it is extremely terrible behavior to encourage someone to move for a relationship while hiding their reluctance about the relationship. Either be honest about those uncomfortable feelings or tell her you can’t handle the relationship anymore.

If “she was suspicious or critical or angry as a result of her trust issues, that is bad behavior she should apologize for.”

That was maybe unclear. Feeling overly suspicious is a symptom of trust issues, I don’t think she should beat herself up for having relationship trauma/trust issues. Acting suspicious of your partner, or as if they are going to lie about or hide things they have not lied about or hidden in the past, is bad behavior. Refusing to give them chances to prove that they have changed to become more trustworthy, if they say are trying, is bad behavior in a relationship. It’s responsible to dump people that you want to mistreat before you end up mistreating them.

Phi @109: I enjoy the compassion with which you so often write your comments. A couple of thoughts on this one:

"I don’t agree that it is 'terrible behavior' to insist on meeting any exes still in your partner’s life." It may not be 'terrible behavior', but it would be relationship-ending behaviour for me. I'm not open to having my friendships curated; nor do I feel obligated to enumerate the friends I might have previously fucked.

And regarding "I would rather be a partner verbally acknowledge their trust issues than deal with extreme jealousy that they feel is justified", ITALIENE came across as solidly justified with words like "He kept this little 'detail' to himself" and "I no longer trust him" / "He accused me of not trusting him!".

She certainly shouldn't feel shame over her relationship trauma, but she also needs to know that acting out on it is not okay.

ITALIENE's boyfriend may be exacerbating her trauma, and he may be the wrong man for her. I certainly would be.

@69 Harriet_by_the_Bulrushes: WA_HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Congrats on scoring this week's Lucky @69 Award! Savor the delectably decadent honors and bask in the glory. :)

@100 BiDanFan: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Congratulations on scoring tis week's Big hunsky (@100) honors! Savor the good fortune and bask in the envied riches found only here in Savage Love Land. :)

Fubar, Thanks for the compliment, it means a lot from you. I want to be compassionate but it's a struggle to get right in practice.

I think it's normal for my partner to meet my friends, or to drop by my job if I work in a public place. I shared a cabin one weekend with my partner's friends, only to be told later that one was his ex and first lover, and I felt very deceived and embarrassed about it.. so she doesn't sound that weird to me. I also acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own standards, and can refuse monogamy, or insist on much separation of partner from friends, or upon secrecy about which friends are also exes, or complete separation of partner from (public) workplace. I wouldn't call this normal or standard or best practice, though.. I think it would be best to be very clear and consistent if you desired these standards, and not hold it against anyone who doesn't want to participate..

I think it's abusive to encourage someone to abandon their friends. But I don't think that's relevant to the letter.. She just asked to meet the ex.

I do agree that she should break up if she can't act like she can trust him anymore. If she's given up, she should be honest with him. I also thought "I don't trust him" was the worst part of her letter, especially coupled with the offense she seemed to take that he wanted her to trust him. I hope she can learn to see it as bad behavior to act suspicious of a partner (if she feels suspicious, she should investigate her feelings, and break up if she can't reassure herself or believe his reassurance or find a therapist who can help.. but never ever accuse him of being untrustworthy unless he's demonstrated a breach of trust).

But I would also consider it a breach of trust that he kept that little detail to himself when he knew it was important to her. Better just to break up with her if he didn't want to be honest about the stuff important to her. Arranging a brief introduction seems like a small effort to show his repentance. Both seemed to have stayed in the relationship even though they were uncomfortable with their partners standards and refused to address the problem or negotiate a mutually happy compromise. Maybe they are well matched?

Phi @113: I'm reminded of the "relationship escalator", where being in an intimate relationship brings the expectation of various entitlements over time. I prefer a bespoke, negotiated approach.

In the kink scene, as in the gay life, I'm told, everyone has dated almost everyone else at some point, so there's really no room to get all EJP about past partners. My current partner has mentioned a couple of her ex's, but their names didn't stick. I have no idea if she had played with people I know, and we know quite a few people in common. I find it takes deliberation and a great deal of energy to focus on such things. At the same time, she knows a few of the people with whom I've played in the past. I haven't mentioned that fact to her, and don't know if she knows. Either way, should she learn that I'd spanked and fucked this or that subby girl, I'd expect it not to matter a whit. (I have asked her, while discussing this week's column, and she seems to agree.)

All that said, I have been in relationships, long ago, in which I felt insecure and jealous. In every case, I was involved with people who were unclear and evasive, and probably not that into me, or at least not on the same page. Eventually, I learned to speak up, and to walk away. Neither ITALIENE nor her current boyfriend have learned that yet.

I'm not sure that ITALIENE "just asked to meet the ex." Indeed, she "repeatedly asked him to let [her] meet her in person, at the very least, but it didn’t happen" which sounds a bit evasive with regard to his response to that proposal. Regardless, she wrote about "agonizing non-stop about this" and "struggling to curb [her] anxiety".

My take on the "I don't trust him" part of her letter was not that she doesn't trust him not to fuck his co-worker, but rather she doesn't trust him to divulge everything and let her micromanage his life. She brought that expectation, and now doesn't trust him to deliver on it. It's not clear that he aware of the expectation, but it's entirely possible he knew and chose to evade it.

I agree with your last point about the two of them probably being well matched. Hopefully, they're just young and inexperienced.

If C1 are well matched, it's in a CMY version. I may even make it CCMY, the original C standing for Companionate, although I'm not sure whether that shouldn't be implied by wanting two people to be in a covenant marriage in the first place.
xxx
LW2 is getting the after-effects from her New Ideology Energy's wearing off.
xxx
It's not just Mr Nicklaus. Add Nancy Lopez to the Trumpie list. For the young and/or non-golfers, Ms Lopez is a somewhat more accomplished female (and non-white) version of Phil Mickelson or Sam Snead - not quite in the GOAT conversation but more charismatic than most peers who are, and never won the US Open.

Fubar, “I prefer a bespoke, negotiated approach.”
I hold this in high esteem. Both that you are able to discuss emotional, especially uncomfortable topics calmly, and communicate your feelings openly and non-defensively and respectfully. And that you seem to value your partner’s feelings proactively: “ I have asked her, while discussing this week's column, and she seems to agree.”

I hope the first LW reads your comments and learns to do what you do.

“ My take on the "I don't trust him" part of her letter was not that she doesn't trust him not to fuck his co-worker, but rather she doesn't trust him to divulge everything and let her micromanage his life.”
Although this could certainly be true, it seems to me that people with trust issues are chasing a common romantic ideal which is highly unrealistic, that there exists a partner who is perfectly trustworthy, the “right one”. So any breach of trust is catastrophic feeling, evidence that the relationship is fundamentally “wrong”. But everyone has made mistakes and has hurt their partner accidentally, if she thinks about her own behavior critically she should see this is just as true of herself as for all her exes and current bf. The trick is to accept another’s mistakes as well as strengths, to be able to maintain general poise despite any mistakes or tragedies, and learn to protect ourselves and still be good to our partner, in my perspective. Breaches of trust are mistakes or maybe a relationship tragedy, but not evidence of a “bad person“ or a reason to mistreat anyone.. Rather a reason to attempt to protect ourselves better. Maybe by breaking up or giving up, but often we can adapt and learn to live well with other human’s flaws.. it all depends on what you want, how attached you feel.. I think it’s hard to feel attached to someone who is really hurting your life, like making mistakes gambling away a lot of your money or getting hooked on heroin or habitually cheating or starting to run with a gang or something.. some flaws are harder to deal with than others. But we can’t spend our lives worrying about the bad stuff that might happen, just trust that we’ve thought about it enough and can protect ourself well enough that we will make the right decisions if it happens.. that’s what we NEED to trust, to maintain our own emotional stability.

Maybe we are saying the same thing. We think LW wants something impossible, for her bf to make her feel comfortable with his humanity and inconvenient feelings and lifestyle and never hurt her even accidentally, while it’s her responsibility to accept human differences and mistakes and learn to protect herself without mistreating others.

I loved an early piece of advice from lizardliz, “ In my experience, if you say to your partner "I'm feeling jealous, and I'm having trouble working through this emotion on my own. Would you be willing to help me move through it?" you will tend to get good results. However, if you are using anger to manipulate your partner's behavior, you are sowing the seeds of your relationship's destruction.”

It used to be cliché to say, “you can’t change people”. You can ask people to change, but if they don’t, they don’t. The only thing left to figure out is how you plan to deal with the non ideal world. But my president habitually uses force and manipulation rather than requests. So I’m not sure this is a current cliché anymore..

Phi @109-@110, wow, that's a lot to digest.
Dan did not state that ITALIANE has engaged in "terrible behaviour" so I'm not sure where you got that from. Asking, even repeatedly, to meet the co-worker, I agree, is not "terrible behaviour." Showing up at his workplace after notifying him in advance of her intention is also probably not "terrible behaviour," depending, as you say, on whether his workplace is someplace where members of the public can just show up. But nobody accused her of engaging in "terrible behaviour" so I'm not sure what need there is to debate it. Was the boyfriend's behaviour in freaking out when she showed up "terrible"? It depends. It seems like if it wasn't appropriate for members of the public to show up, he had no reason to freak out, but listen to this woman's own description of herself. How likely is it that she showed up with a face like thunder, demanding he fetch and introduce the co-worker? I'd say it's likely and I'd say freaking out would be a reasonable reaction to that.

So her behaviour isn't "terrible" but her attitude and her expectations are. She's using her trust issues to justify being an EJP, which is not reasonable. That she can't trust him to work with a casual ex is her problem, not his, but she is making it his problem. That is not reasonable. The next concept I'd like to get rid of is that of good and bad people. The human race is not binary this way. Having trust issues doesn't make one a bad person because there's no such thing. When I hear "issues," what I hear is that the person has experienced trauma that has negatively impacted their ability to navigate relationships in a healthy way. Is that their fault, no, but it is their responsibility to own these issues, accept that they are negatively impact their relationships, and do the work necessary to, if not get past them, at least adjust for them. Example, when she found out that the boyfriend hadn't mentioned that he works with his ex, accept that the reason he didn't tell was not because he's inherently dishonest but because he feared her reaction, and that that WAS in fact reasonable behaviour on his part. It was his response to her "trust issues" and her inability to deal with them well.

"Acting suspicious of your partner, or as if they are going to lie about or hide things they have not lied about or hidden in the past, is bad behavior." And that's what she's doing, is it not? She's acting suspicious of him. She can't accept a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he didn't tell her before -- that this relationship is over, he has no feelings for her, he didn't tell her because he feared her reaction -- and move on, ie, trust him. She says she can't trust him, then she gets mad at him for picking up on her lack of trust. It is not enough to "verbally acknowledge" one's trust issues; she has expected him to be the one to adjust his behaviour -- to adjust his past! -- to accommodate them, rather than her being the one to work on them, and that's where she is in the wrong.

To tie this set comments to a previous letter, your defense of this LW coupled with your previous assertion that snooping is preferable to having a conversation with someone you suspect of cheating, I would encourage anyone who dates you to have very, very strong passwords to all their social media accounts.

But I do agree that if ITALIANE cannot cope with her trust issues without making them her boyfriend's problem, it's better to dump him, or better still, not date anyone until she can be sure she has the psychological tools to handle the idea of someone having a past, or friends of the opposite gender, or attractive co-workers, or... see the problem? To an EJP anything could appear a threat, and there will always be something, because this reaction is irrational, so no matter what the partner does or does not do they will always be able to fabricate something to be jealous about.

Phi @113, I agree that it seems dishonest not to tell someone they're going to be on vacation with, in close quarters, that they used to be involved, but that's not the situation here. We have no reason to believe ITALIANE would ever meet the co-worker.
"I would also consider it a breach of trust that he kept that little detail to himself when he knew it was important to her." How was he to know it was important to her? I think he also has an obligation to the co-worker to protect her from unnecessary drama. The boyfriend's explanation that he didn't want to worry her for no reason makes sense and she should forgive him for not sharing information with someone who would not have taken it well.

“It hurt me that you didn’t tell me that you worked with your ex for so long. When I told you that I am an EJP, I meant that I would like a lot of honesty about your romantic feelings and experiences with others. It confuses me when you say that you have no feelings for your ex anymore. Does that mean that you sleep with people that you’re not attracted to, or that something happened which made her less attractive to you? I don’t want white lies, for you to pretend that you are not attracted to anyone but me, I need a lot of honesty in this area. It’s hard to know that you spend time with other people that you are or were attracted to, but if you are honest and calm about it, I think I can learn to better trust that you can spend time with other attractive people without acting on your attraction. What goes through your mind when you have an opportunity to cheat, but stay faithful? Why is monogamy important to you? I value monogamy because ???, that’s what I think about when I am fascinated by another person, or if a friendly ex would hit on me, that’s why I don’t act on my feelings of attraction to others. It’s not that I want to hear about every person that you find attractive, more that I am looking for ways to trust you to be faithful to me, the reasons that are important to you to stay faithful, because since ??? happened, I have trust issues.”

BDF, “ How likely is it that she showed up with a face like thunder, demanding he fetch and introduce the co-worker? I'd say it's likely and I'd say freaking out would be a reasonable reaction to that.”
She seemed to be honest about her unattractive qualities, so I would consider it unlikely that she left her angry words and demands, her bad behavior, out.

“So her behaviour isn't "terrible" but her attitude and her expectations are.”
I agree, only so far as saying that she doesn’t trust her bf is terrible, and taking offense that he wants her to trust him, those seem to be her only real mistakes. Her trust issues are terrible, but she isn’t as responsible for her feelings as for her actions. She doesn’t seem to be mistreating him, except when she got angry rather than reassuring him that she was trying to trust him.. but it is very easy for someone with trust issues to mistreat their partner, so she has a responsibility to try to “treat” her trust issues, but she seems to be acting responsibly by writing to Dan.. finding a therapist would be even more responsible..

“ She's using her trust issues to justify being an EJP”
I disagree that she wants to be an EJP or that she enjoys being an EJP, I concluded the opposite.

“ Having trust issues doesn't make one a bad person because there's no such thing.”
This is marvelous, I agree, but it is still common to label people assholes, or say they are “wrong” rather than “wrong for you”, so I think that dichotomy is unfortunately common.

“ accept that the reason he didn't tell was not because he's inherently dishonest but because he feared her reaction, and that that WAS in fact reasonable behaviour on his part.”
This is where I strongly disagree. If he felt that she was too fragile or broken to be honest with and treat well, he should have broken up with her before trying to misguidedly protect her or himself with secrecy. Break up before mistreating your partner.

“ She's acting suspicious of him.”
She has not accused him of cheating even though she is feeling suspicious. If she said that she dropped by because she wanted to make sure he wasn’t cheating, then you would be correct. I was under the impression that she stopped by because she wanted to meet the person he was secretive about, which is reasonable and not accusing him of anything he didn’t do.

“How was he to know it was important to her?”
I agree that it would be in her best interest to forgive him if he said that he didn’t mention it because he didn’t realize it would be important to her. But it seems like he tried to justify his secrecy by blaming her, that he was afraid to tell her because he didn’t trust her to have a calm reasonable reaction. But if he can’t act like he trusts her, he should just break up with her IMO, rather than using it as an excuse to be secretive or dishonest.

In my experience, I have never entered someone else’s account. I have forgiven others when they scooped on my email. Your offensive guess about me was incorrect.

Oh no. I did enter an ex’s college account a long time ago.. I found his password, he left it sort of visible on my computer.. he was hosting a site with information for his students, and I changed the background and changed the links to things like farm sex sites.. that was really bad even though I told him right afterwards. I was a dumb teenager in a lot of ways.. he was a TA not a prof..

BDF, It does seem that when a guy shows “trust issues”, they are much less likely to be labeled as crazy, or an asshole, or dump-worthy, than when a woman shows trust issues. At least in this particular commentariat. I’ve said that this woman and that man (who was equally anxious that his partner was cheating because she didn’t always tell him where she was) had mental issues that would benefit from therapy, but that neither this woman or that man is a bad person or asshole or deserves to be dumped.

I’ve said that investigating suspicions is good, because reasonably it should calm suspicions when no proof of bad behavior is found, (unless bad behavior is found and addressed as is functionally why we worry about possible bad behavior), but that it’s terrible behavior to accuse people of behaving badly without proof or otherwise let ourselves bother/mistreat others with our defense mechanisms. I have never argued that it’s good to break into someone’s account.

Perhaps it’s not my inconsistency that you are noticing.

With you United States, nail biting time for the world as well.

Good one Mr Venn, @115. ‘New Ideology Energy wearing off’, indeed. I remember listening to the radical lesbian separatists at the many Women’s meetings/ conferences of the early ‘70s, and thinking, hang about.. I like men, so thanks for your take on the situation, but I’ll pass on hating all Men and seeing all men as the only ones carrying around patriarchal ideology.

Re @122, I mean the rest of the world, those not grieving. We need a big group hug, yes, even you Dan Savage. Sometimes touching other bodies is the only way to deal.

A virtual group hug I mean, it’s COVID safe.
Breathe, remember to breathe, in thru the nose and out thru the mouth, hold in chest for five counts. This helps calm anxiety.

@104. Dadddy. She wants to be a good person, sure--including not being complicit in sexism.

It's almost as if the implication of your post is that sex is that place in life where we most easily go against our public morality--wanting to have sex with the dangerous, questionable person; the scoundrel; the femme fatale. In sex, this line of thinking goes, our morals are milquetoast, and our desires real and urgent. But I don't really see this any of this. If a person wants to hang out with good people, be friends with good people, why should she so imperatively want to date someone awful?

@108. Bi. I see something like a generational divide between older sex-positive feminists and younger sex-negative feminists.

In the #metoo era, for some younger feminists, sex is just too fraught not to be implicitly policed with guidelines, and is often (one gets the feeling) just too much trouble. But there are only ever going to be differences of emphasis, not absolute differences, between the two groups. The sex-positive people are certainly going to agree, 'don't have sex that utterly compromises and diminishes you--even if, as such, sex is a good thing and one that blows apart typical rules'. And the sex-negative people will agree with 'sometimes the best is the enemy of the good in dating, and even to get laid you will have to close half an eye to some features of your partner's morals, political views, behavior, etc.'. Indeed, the phrase 'bad feminist', as proposed by the second group, grants that feminism often seems to hold women to exactingly high-minded standards, which it's OK to fall short of sometimes.

Creating the best possible world, for any sort of feminism, will have the agreeable knock-on effect of increasing the number of politically acceptable partners.

But my instinct is not to deplore anything more strident or sex-negative than me, just because my disposition runs in the other direction.

@109. Philophile. But what is the reason for wanting to meet any exes still in a partner's life? It seems to be to ensure they're still not having sex with their ex. Can't someone take a bf's word for it? And how likely is this to be an across-the-board successful strategy for preventing a bf (or gf) from straying? I don't think it is likely to be successful; someone who wants to have sex with more than a main partner will just take more precautions to get away with it. Yes?

@122, @124, and @125 LavaGirl: Sending a big virtual hug, positrons, and VW beeps right back atcha! :)

Thanks my dear sweet sister Grizelda, super tight squeeze hugs to you.
Good point, Harriet @126; every one of my lovers, and I had my share of random on the spur of the moment moments, were sexual gentleman. Since my marriage ended and the few real men / as opposed to the ones in my head/ I’ve been with, pulling out porn moves five minutes in. An aspect of the intimacy is lost when it’s pre scripted, and some where over the last several decades, behaviour has become more gross across the board.
On the other hand, those men who have listened and grown are multiple, and sound fuller in ways to the men if my youth.
Second wave (?) feminist men were kind lovers, to me, they still bumbled hearts with the rush of available birth control for women.

Apologies for any typos in post @117, I was interrupted and had to finish up quickly.

Phi @119, being honest about one's unattractive qualities is not the same thing as not having unattractive qualities. We know she is unreasonable; we have no reason to think he is unreasonable; so if one person behaved unreasonably at the encounter at work, odds are it was her. Or, even if she didn't, he had good reason to fear she would, and to pre-emptively react the way he pre-emptively kept this provocative bit of information from her.

I agree with Dan that there is no reason to disclose absolutely everything about one's past to a current partner. To him this relationship was not important. He was under no obligation to tell her about it. Though indeed, it may have been wise because now the situation is probably worse than if he'd mentioned it to begin with.

@120, case rested. And just because you haven't done something (yet) doesn't mean you wouldn't, as you've said now repeatedly that you think it's OK. Perhaps you just haven't (yet) been in a situation where you suspected someone was cheating. FWIW I don't think you are an EJP, so perhaps your partners are mostly safe, unless they do behave in a way that a reasonable person might find suspicious. I don't think it's offensive to suggest that a person who thinks snooping is acceptable is likely to snoop.

Re @121, don't go down this Sportlandia road of debating whether women and men with similar issues are treated differently, because no two letters yet have been identical bar the gender involved. To compare with the previous letter, which is here: https://www.thestranger.com/savage-love/2020/09/15/44479399/savage-love
I recommended that ITALIANE get therapy or talk to friends about her trust issues because, one, she mentioned that she has trust issues, and two, she said she has had panic attacks. TAG's letter, by contrast, seemed like it was written by a rational person who had simply leapt to a flawed conclusion, and therefore did not need a therapist to point out his error. Sure, it's possible that TAG is just as irrational as ITALIANE and hid it better, but there's no way to definitively conclude that from what he wrote. If men and women are being reacted to differently, that's because they are expressing themselves differently. But we can only react to information we have, and we have no information that TAG is in panic-level distress about his suspicions, whereas we know ITALIANE is with hers. However, if he'd said he was having panic attacks, he might have been urged more strongly to break up with her, because the odds are higher, as discussed on a previous page, that an EJP man would physically harm his partner. That's a gender difference I would accept as being supported by facts and not bias.

Harriet @126, I would agree that a common theme between both sex-positive and sex-negative feminists is that all sex should be consensual sex. So that would indeed include a view even among the sex positive that one should not engage in sex that makes one feel degraded, etc. The difference is a default belief that sex is good versus bad, or that consent is present versus absent. SWERFs believe, for instance, that sex work is inherently non-consensual, while sex positive feminists want to work toward keeping the sex work but removing the elements that impede consent. Unlike you, I believe my view is the correct one. :)

I agree with you re Phi's view of wanting to meet one's partner's exes. Indeed, what purpose would it serve? Either you trust that they are no longer sleeping together or you don't. If the ex is still an important person in their life, then surely that would fall under a less sinister "I would like to get to know the people who are important to you," which would apply whether they'd ever had a sexual relationship or not. That does not seem to be the case here. I'd argue that an EJP's motivation in this regard would be to compare herself to the ex, make a judgement about which of them is more attractive. Perhaps the ex is attractive and the boyfriend knows this will just inflame her jealousy further. I'm trusting his instincts in not wanting to make the introduction. Either she accepts that things are over and she can trust his word on that, or she doesn't trust him in which case she should break up.

Lava @128, have I read you right? You've been with men who put porn on five minutes into getting amorous with you??

Ms Lava - Yes; after a youthful blunder or two, I stopped committing prematurely to new ideologies, and it did seem somewhat parallel to relationships.
xxx
For the second consecutive day here, we have sun but very high wind, and it has reminded me of The Mikado. Thinking about people who may have to be queueing for hours in weather like this has not only made me nearly as solicitous for their health as Mr Woodhouse (with his terrible fear of drafts) would be, and set me to wondering what a suitable punishment (hence the Mikado, with his song Let the Punishment Fit the Crime) might be for the practitioners of voter suppression should their efforts contribute greatly to illness among voters they fail to discourage.

Lava, “breathe in, breathe out”
I just watched the karate kid sequel too! My favorite part is “best defense, no be there”

Harriet, “But what is the reason for wanting to meet any exes still in a partner's life? It seems to be to ensure they're still not having sex with their ex.”
As a mate guarding strategy, I imagine the reasoning is that most of us want to think we are good judges of character, and maybe able to tell when someone is trying to deceive us. I think it’s easier to treat others badly when you don’t know them or interact with them, so she might feel safer from being cheated on with this particular person after meeting her. But with this particular LW, I’d guess that she has been cheated on before (the root of most trust issues IMO), can’t really verbalize her ideas of monogamy, wants to talk about it to understand how it is working in her relationship better so she might be able to gain confidence in his faithfulness or prevent being cheated on, and wants to see how it works with her bf and his ex, how he deals with his feelings of attraction towards others.

You raise a great point that we can’t 100% protect ourselves from being cheated on. But lots of people are never cheated on. I think she has been, so is looking for ways to do it differently. Lots of things might help, she could try to date guys who take a lot of pride in being faithful and monogamous; she should look for signs of pride of monogamy and not signs of offense at suggestion that they might cheat, which is nearly universal. Part of having a faithful partner is choosing the right person, but part is being the sort of person who would react to cheating well, by taking distance from a cheating partner or breaking up with a cheating partner, but otherwise treating her partner very well. She seems to be working on communicating her strong desire for monogamy, and she should continue to develop that skill so that she can communicate that desire without letting fear or her past trauma bother her bf.. instead of describing herself as an EJP, she could say something like “I care a lot about monogamy, and I like to talk about it a lot, since I couldn’t speak about it well with the guy who cheated on me”, or something more specific to her circumstances, so that she is not confused with the type of EJP who would prevent her bfs from having girl friends, or would react angrily that he was attracted to others while being faithful to her.

BDF, I’m not sure why you are convinced that I’ve snooped on people or that I would, and don’t seem to care that accusing me of something that I didn’t do offends me. Again, even when I had an ex’s password, I didn’t read his email, I played a poor teenage prank as a reminder to keep his info more secure. Again, I have never argued that it’s good to break into someone’s privacy. Again, I have forgiven those who snooped and invaded my privacy because I think it’s impolite and needs forgiving, but less impolite than attacking others with accusations of things they’ve never done. It seems to me that you’re illustrating my point. But I guess you don’t have to believe that you’ve really offended me if you don’t want, you can believe that launching false accusations against people helps your relationships rather than hurt them, if that’s what you need to believe to survive in this world.

All Trump had to do was launch some false accusations against immigrants and he can lock them up and take away their kids. But I guess some people think that’s ok.

Phi @131, I am sorry to have offended you. I don't intend on offending anyone, and I didn't accuse you of anything, just said that it seems you would be -capable- of snooping since you seem to think it's acceptable to do so in certain circumstances. I understand now that what you mean is that you would find it easy to forgive someone who snooped on you, not that you would snoop on someone yourself. But I would still consider this a red flag, or at least a sign of incompatibility, if someone I was dating told me they found snooping more acceptable than having a conversation if they suspected cheating. I would not trust that person to respect my privacy should any suspicions arise. I hope you can see my point? But there's no snooping involved here so I think we can drop the subject if it's causing you distress to discuss it.

I would find this LW more sympathetic if she had said, "I have huge trust issues because a previous partner cheated on me with a co-worker." That would, I feel, justify a higher level of due diligence with the co-workers of future partners. Even if this were the case, however, it is still up to the person who was cheated on to try to come to terms with the fact that not everyone is going to cheat on you before going back into the dating pool. I just didn't like her attitude that she is an EJP with huge trust issues, of unspecified origin, and that means she gets to act paranoid and make unreasonable demands and her partners need to accept that as a price of admission. On the contrary, it means that, knowing this is her inclination, she needs to be on the alert for unreasonable expectations and behaviours in herself and apologise when she gives in to her jealousy. And indeed get help if it's to the point of obsession.

Yes Philo.. so much of Eastern spiritual philosophy is poetry and wisdom combined.

Living around little people again, as I am since my daughter and family moved here, I watch and see that jealousy is fed or tamed if the care givers are super fair. No favourite child, etc. They watch very closely, children, to make sure they get their share.
If jealousy is fed by the care givers, then that’s what they take to adulthood. That childish tantrum.
I get amazed hearing of people who don’t get jealous, or the little they feel they can throw off.

cocky @137: I guess I missed the memo about required disclosure when one is dating someone new. Presumably, it included a schedule of what needs to be disclosed at which relationship milestone, along with examples of such.

@129. Bi. 'Porn moves', not 'porn movies'. I got the impression these unexpected lovers did not pull off porn moves i.e. they were real people, not fantasy projections; and that in the event they proved sensitive lovers. But I don't know if I read that right.

Re sex-positive and sex-negative feminism, the defaults would seem to be:
Sex-positive: sex skews towards being good
Sex-negative: sex skews towards being morally and politically compromised

I can accept both as being true. Or true for different people. If a woman really feels compromised--feels as if she's betraying her values or identity--in e.g. doing it doggy-style, surely the answer is for her not to do it doggy-style.

Incidentally, I'm very depressed about the unfurling results of the election. Even if Biden wins in enough outstanding counts, Trump has strongly outperformed his polls, suggesting there are a large contingent of people we're never aware of except when they appear to vote against us. They don't speak to us; they don't speak to anyone who speaks to us (pollsters, journalists). Surely any plan to bring the country together has to engage these shy 'values' or 'pocketbook' voters more.

@131. Philophile. What you say about ITALIANE's motivation makes sense. She might feel she would get a read on whether her bf was cheating if she met his ex (and current colleague). The thing is, she hasn't been able to make this case calmly. She hasn't come out with, 'I've been cheated on in the past and am hyper-sensitive about being cheated on now. Without getting angry or making accusations I might regret, that might turn out to be baseless, I have to say I genuinely don't know whether you're two-timing me. It would help me make this decision, it would provide reassurance, if--calmly--you set up a meeting for both of us and your ex'.

She hasn't done that yet, as far as I can see; she's acted intemperately, turning up at work and threatening to make a scene. And I still think she's distracting herself with her jealousy. They've been together a year. If she doesn't want to be with him long-term, she should give herself some space to discover that. If she does, her jealousy is inhibiting an expression of her love.

BDF, Thank you for explaining that you weren't trying to offend me, I appreciate it. I've never said that invading another's privacy was acceptable or ok or appropriate or good. There seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere, since you have been claiming the opposite. I understand that you didn't mean to be dishonest about me or to disparage me now, so who cares..

I do think I'm capable of snooping if I wanted, I can be pretty inventive and also have decent research skills. I doubt I'd try it though, it wasn't appealing to try at all when I accidentally found a password, and I just can't see why I'd have some desperate reason to do it. Maybe I'd think it was interesting to obtain a password, especially if it was very secured, but weak and boring to use it to snoop or for money or to pointlessly or vengefully or suspiciously mess with someone.. A truly harmless prank if one is negligent about security still sort of appeals to me, I feel bad that my prank could have harmed my ex..

It wasn't hard for me to forgive, because it seemed to clearly come from a place of fear, and I learned more about Windows security from it.. No one ever snooped me and then used that private info against me.. I'm not that fearful of being mistreated behind my back, I get really defensive about being mistreated directly, I'm just different.

Harriet, "She hasn't done that yet, as far as I can see; she's acted intemperately, turning up at work and threatening to make a scene"
I thought that she said she wanted to meet the ex bc she was unsettled that he hid that info, and bf agreed in words, but did not follow through in action. So she said she wanted to stop by his work, and he agreed in words, then got upset when she did it. I'm not sure what was intemperate or inappropriate on her part about these events, or why you judge that she made a scene when she stopped by his workplace..

She has described high anxiety, and people seem to be attacking her feelings, rather than her actions.

We don't know why she thinks she has trust issues, trust issues seem to come from a feeling of abandonment or deep betrayal at some point (usually cheating I think, if parents were untrustworthy that is more often called abandonment issues, I think).. She hasn't told us about it, but I assumed she told bf.. If she had not explained why she believes she has trust issues to bf, then I agree that is indeed poor communication.

I disagree that she should tell her bf that she suspects him of cheating, that is unfair to him if he is not cheating. I think the only thing she should say is that she wants to trust him, if he asks about her fears or mistrust. When people are worried about their partner's attraction to others, I assume it's because so many people cheat, but healthy people should want to trust their partner anyway, or at least not bother them with unproven fears about their character..

cbu @140 There is no mention in the letter of how recent the ex is.

Cocky, I like the way Fubar has no relationship standards that he claims are universal, except to accept his partner's feelings and insist on his own personal standards in his own relationships. When you say that some standard is universal, it hurts the people who don't believe in that standard. Whether that standards is having sex on the third date, or monogamy, or waiting for marriage or a certain age to have sex, or disclosing which friends are exes.. There are people who don't care about that standard, whose feelings are just as important as the majority's feelings.

I do agree that it's best practice to be very clear about any unusual standards in our relationships. But he's explained that he has been, that his partner doesn't care which friends were exes.

And my condolences, if one of your partners knew that you cared about this topic and still refused to disclose which friends were exes. I think that's very rude.

@142. Philophile. True that she gives him some sort of notice before turning up at his workplace, although he may not have green-lighted her as clearly as she suggests:

"So one night, after giving him a heads-up, I showed up at their workplace. He had said it would be ok for me to stop by sometime but once I got there he freaked out [...] My question: Am I being crazy and overreacting—I’ll admit I’ve been agonizing non-stop about this—or is he acting like an asshole with something to hide?"

I think, as the last question implies, she's writing to Dan rather in the genre of the reddit thread 'am I the asshole?'. She thinks she's not the asshole because the real asshol-ish thing is that he did not disclose the apparently casual sex he had with his continuing workmate. I would disagree with this. There may have been nothing to disclose in that this past sex posed no threat to the future of her relationship with him. He may have supposed that revealing it would only have caused her unnecessary anxiety. He could just have wanted to spare himself a certain amount of acting-out or indignation on her part. I would not think that, in staying schtum, he violated an inarguable relationship norm.

So if the question is, 'who's the bad person' of the two of them, I'd have no hesitation in saying it was her. Of course, she is not obviously a 'bad person'--and no one is, maybe; and the compassionate course is to try to help her get a grip on her jealousy and find some way of opening her panicky feelings with her bf in such a way as (should he want to go on with the relationship) prompt him to offer some genuine reassurance.

Shouldn't she feel herself that she is wasting time and energy on her jealousy she could do other things with?

“Who’s the asshole?” implies that one person is wrong and the other is right.. an illogical assumption. I prefer questions like “where is the harm?” and “what do you want?”

“ Shouldn't she feel herself that she is wasting time and energy on her jealousy she could do other things with?”
I don’t think that people choose to feel uncomfortable. I think it’s uncomfortable to feel jealous, frustrated, disappointed, angry.. or even bored.. it seems to me that people try to make choices that will quell their uncomfortable feelings. So I hear “how can I stop being jealous?” and “I’m terrified that I haven’t been able to stop my uncomfortable feelings”.

cocky @140: Nowhere in the letter does it say she is a "recent" ex, nor that he sees her every workday; simply that they work together.

In the spirit of your comment @141, I'll suggest that inventing and spinning "facts" is exactly the kind of nonsense that jealous, controlling people seem to feel entitled to pull.

Personally, I prefer open, honest communication about expectations and boundaries, but hey: you do you. Maybe disclose early, though, that you have unspoken expectations you deem to be "standard".