Savage Love

Losing Out



@100 WA-HOOOOOOOOO!!!! Hearty congratulations, to fubar @99, on scoring this week's Big Hunsky honors. Savor in pissing off alfreschetta (@84) and bask in the delectable numerical glory found only here in Savage Love Land. :)


@96 griz
"Dan has shown no signs of annoyance about the Lucky Numbers game"

Dan has PLAYED it multiple times!


@102 curious2: My point exactly. Thank you. :)


@87, agree, dropout, LW1 should end things now, before the heartache begins. Her gf wants to explore her new found self with other women, men too. There’s physical distance between them, and chances this woman won’t fall for her new lovers is slim. Best part now, before other lovers take her heart.
Dropout @88, what minions? Easily amused then, if these language discussions get you laughing.


I’ve seen Dan play it once, he went for @69, and not the mountain/ beach man, I noticed. As if Dan would give a stuff/ damn about a numbers’ game.
I don’t go for @1, because I never remember how you spell the corrupt version. Seems important to some, and the silent majority don’t have to get up here and entertain said SM, so they can shut it.


That’s your problem right there, @84. Lurkers are not encouraged.


Now there’s a word, lurking. Starts with the same letter as judging. Don’t these people realize how hard we sweat over these question? And with no pay, just our commitment to the cause of a great World Wide SavageLove Land.


J looks like an L to some. My point stays, give us a break. It’s a bit of Play, which you my dear @84, could perhaps indulge in some of.


I’m not sure LW1 should end her relationship now. A guaranteed preemptive heartache right now in order to maybe avoid one in the future seems like an odd reasoning.
Yes, she is moving into uncharted territory and there are plenty challenges ahead. Yet this is also an opportunity to grow and figure things out. No guarantee of a happy ending, but at the very least she will likely gain some experience and confidence which will help her in future navigations.


Fubar @89, I imagine it would depend on the partner's reaction. If the partner, too, were inclined to want the variety of an open relationship, no rationale on the part of the requester would be necessary.

Aurora @90, exactly. Oxytocin is a thing. People do normally feel some affection towards people they're having sex with. So you'd have to limit the outside sex to one-night stands -- also impossible to police in a DADT, and unfair to the other partners -- or accept that feelings will happen and are okay.

Venn @91: "there was presumably a reason why the relationship was exclusive in the first place." Not necessarily. This is still overwhelmingly the default arrangement in a relationship. It's likely most exclusive couples have not made a decision to be exclusive, as presumed that any "serious" relationship is closed and not considered other options.

Nocute @94, eh, it's much easier to make a decision about whether one wants to put one's naughty bits against someone else's than about whether one is compatible enough with a someone to commit to them for life. I agree that usually, making this decision too young is more likely to result in a decision that does not hold as people mature and change, but of course there are exceptions.

Lava @105, I remember when Dan scored the 69. From his perspective, the more comments, the more ad revenue, so I'm sure he's happy enough with whatever direction this forum takes.

I do know a couple that has been long distance due to citizenship issues, after a long battle with immigration she is finally here in the country and they seem happy. Although this guy has a history of terminating engagements, but that has nothing directly to do with the long distance aspect.


It’s a different heartache though, CMD. If LW1 ends it now, it’s a level playing field, emotionally. Neither has ventured out.
The writer is obviously dragging her feet over this, so why go ahead when it’s not coming from her desires.


CMD @109, I agree with you. If she breaks up now, the relationship ends, and Ms FEARS is left hurt because she brought up her needs/desires and got dumped for them. If she says no to the open relationship, she risks that Ms FEARS will decide that, particularly as FEARS is not in proximity, her need for a sex life is more important than this relationship and dumps FEARS. But if she and Ms FEARS work out a framework for openness, there is a strong chance that it could work out. FEARS has said she is philosophically not opposed to monogamishamy, and understands Ms FEARS's reasons for wanting it, which as Ensign says, are good signs. Of course the prospect of actual monogamishamy is different than the abstract concept, and of course FEARS has worries, that's only human. Ethical non-monogamy recognises that insecurity, jealousy and other negative feelings happen and that they must be communicated about. It seems like these two are good communicators. I would rate their chances of success higher than average. Unlike some pessimists in this forum.


Pessimists or realists. I don’t read any enthusiasm in this woman’s letter, Fan, to venture into open relationship territory, whether with her current gf or anyone else. Why put herself thru the pain when she doesn’t seem to desire the experience of living in an open relationship. If the desire had some traction thru out the letter, I’d say go for it. As it is, I see a woman being lead where she doesn’t really want to go.


I agree with Lava in that FEARS needs to double check if she wants to do this. When there's this much focus on as Harriet noted seemingly incompatible rules (DADT but those delicious untold details better not include "dates"), it's not really a sign that all participants are really on board. FEARS, if you think you want to try doing this, I would encourage you to think less about the specific hoops your gf has to jump (what's a date and what's not a date) and think more about if you can scrounge up some happiness FOR her (that she's getting to have fun, that she's learning about herself). Try working on accepting not being in control of this. You're not. You're only in control of what you choose to do. How you treat her in texts and weekly netflix zooms, and the occasional in person weekend. You can't control her time when she's not with you. You can control how you treat her (and yourself) when she is. You seem to like rules: A rule framework that might be supportive might include how much of her time and in what formats you need for this to work. (But what happens if those needs aren't met? It's ok to think about this.)
If you decide this isn't for you, that's fair. Either one of you can decide what your price of admission is. If it's monogamy for you, that's ok, maybe she can work with that. Maybe not. You get to draw your lines in the sand. So does she.
Good luck.


Ms Fan - Eh, when I was socially active, even the DS couples at least acknowledged exclusivity at some point if wasn't a formally worked out agreement. Too many people perhaps had experienced previous kerfuffles when A had assumed exclusivity before B. And in gay/SS circles, besides having a lot less of that default, it would have been generally considered rude to presume that a new partner hadn't any other irons in the fire - unless close friends suddenly started dating, which did happen, but then they tended to start with insight into each other's views. Things may well have changed as people have become more isolated. But even someone drifting into a default presumption has, when proposing opening, a case to make for wanting to move into a state of boinking multiple people.


Lava @113, then she doesn't have to go there. It's rare, admittedly, but some people are OK with their partners sleeping with others but have no desire to do so themselves. DADT relationships work for some. It's a risk to be sure, but not a foregone conclusion.

Venn @115: "Too many people perhaps had experienced previous kerfuffles when A had assumed exclusivity -before- B." But both A and B expected exclusivity at some point, correct? The only question being whether the relationship had got there yet, not whether exclusivity, ultimately, was optional. The presumption is that sure, while one may be "dating around," when one meets someone one feels serious about to the point of making it "Facebook official" (or, for us oldies, calling someone girlfriend or boyfriend), they stop dating others. That may not be the case for SS but it certainly is for DS.


Great post Luluisme @114, you have given our LW good advice. Think thru consequences, and to be happy when her gf is happy. That is love in it’s true sense, to want others to be happy.
Fan @116, by the sound of this young woman, I sense a big vulnerability, and she needs to protect that as yes as CMD points out, in her life learning.
At this point, this woman has a choice, cut her losses now, not expending all that ‘ where is she tonight?’ Energy, say a tearful goodbye and wish gf well, then grieve, and off she goes again. Being careful next time re her boundaries, etc .
Or, she says yes, here’s my list of conditions, and goes from there.


Opening up a relationship involves all parties, doesn’t matter the structure. It’s an adventure all should embark on with enthusiasm. Different if children involved, more complex then, that’s not an issue here. Either way, pain is ahead for FEARS, depends which pain she chooses. Pleasure too, because it is empowering to stay one’s boundaries, not fear being alone to recover and reflect.
Fan, you and others make poly sound easy breezy, yet it’s like the swans, looking so graceful on the surface, yet paddling is going on underwater.
Opening sexually is a big thing, does involve lots of talking thru, work to some of us lesser beings. I could handle such an arrangement now, no way do I want responsibility for a whole man. Back then, as a young fertile woman, I had no wish for dealing with that. Takes ‘adults’ to do that well, or too much chance for multi people drama.


Merriam Webster says cum (vulgar) dates to 1869:

And I think pre-cum looks tastier than pre-come.


And, cumming allows a delicious precision in written language. e.g. The doorbell rang, I saw it was the UPS person. I yelled "I'm coming."

If you always spell cum with a "u" as a noun and a verb, then, you know the author does not mean "I'm cumming" and is not having a #metoo moment with the package delivery service rep.

But spelled come, it's ambiguous what a character in a written story is saying to the UPS person! (LOL. I know, context would give it away. Just kidding.)


Griz @101: It's kind of you to bequeath the Big Hunsky honours to me, on account of your having already hit the Lucky @69, but I scored the FIRDT this week, so it's numerical hacky sack... I'll punt to curious2 @102. Bask in the delectable numerical glory, curious!


delta35 @119: Not to split hairs, but Merriam Webster says cum (often vulgar). One doesn't have to necessarily be vulgar when it comes to cum.


@114 Luluisme: I agree with LavaGirl (@117). SO well said regarding FEARS! Agreed, seconded, and I nominate you for the WIN for the FEARS thread. Bravo and well done. :)

@121 fubar: Oh, that's right. It wasn't until after I had posted my comment @101 that I noticed you had scored this week's FIRDT! honors already. It is as you wish--I am passing this week's Big Hunsky honors on to curious2. :)

@102 curious2: WA-HOOOOOOOO!!! Major congratulations to you on scoring this week's Big Hunsky honors (@100)! Bask in the glory and savor the envied riches. :)

@108 LavaGirl: It looks like alfreschetta (@84) left the conversation. No such lurk here.
Ba doom tish!. :)

And Griz smacks it out of the park again! lol :)

@122 fubar: Indeed. I do have to admit I got a chuckle out of Dan's new term, "cumblebrag". :)


I think Luluisme @ 114 is indeed insightful. I would still urge LW1 to give it a try and see how it goes. Backing up at this point seems like a sure way to shut the door forever and may also come across as an ultimatum. If gf backs up as a result it is likely to be an issue that will simmer for years to come, and not in a positive manner.

I would still recommend LW to go along. She should certainly voice her own reservations and anxieties, tell the gf it may not be for her, yet willing to give it a try.
Even if breaking up gf will appreciate her attempt to accommodate her. Maybe they’ll remain friends or even get back together at some point in the future.

There may be some other issues involved here. The “where is she tonight” vibe that Lava speculated about is not limited to open relationships and can also manifest itself in many different ways while monogamous. If this is something LW has already experienced while they were together then she needs to look where it comes from and acquire tools to deal with it. While we all have our insecurities, constant suspicion and fear may allude to other issues that can hurt all kinds of relationships.


@122 fubar - vulgar better for sexy times. Consider the following whispered into your ear after an evening out:

[A]. Would you kindly consider me laterally displacing my oral filiform papillae and associated lingual structures across your vulval protuberances and internal urethral sponge / across your frenulum, glans and urethral meatus?

[B]. I wanna eat your pussy / suck your cock!


@43 nocutename said: "The word "cum," spelled that way, evokes images of a sticky floor in an old x-rated movie theater or those old coin-fed movie booths in decrepit "adult bookstores" to me: I get a visceral reaction to seeing it, and it is evocative of everything seamy and dirty (in a pathogen and disease-spready kind of way, not a sexual way), and sad, lonely, and gross."

I disagree with you but that is the best worded, most evocative image I've read on SLOG all year! Wow! There should be a literary award at the Stranger for best comment - and you'd win 2020's!


@126: Thank you, delta35, I would happily accept such an award.

P.S. @125: I'm in favor of "I wanna eat your pussy/suck your cock." I'm not trying to sound musty and old-fashioned. When I SAY the word "come," no one can tell that I'm not saying "cum." And given the circumstances, everyone knows what's meant.

But I do want to point out that "eat" used in "eat your pussy" isn't the same "eat" as in "eat dinner"--no food is being consumed. There's no biting, no chewing, no swallowing (not really the same kind as when actual food is being eaten). So maybe we should spell "eat" "eet" when we're talking about cunnilingus. (That was Dan's spelling. More to follow.)

And "pussy" could refer to a cat or a coward, so maybe we should spell it "pussee," in order to make it clear that it's a vulva we're talking about--lest no one get confused that someone is talking about eating cats or taking bites out of, chewing, and swallowing cowards.

And then of course, "cock" could be referring to a rooster, and it could be very confusing, assuming someone wants to suck on a rooster, so perhaps let's spell it "cok," when we're talking about a penis. But then again, "suck" doesn't really convey what's happening in a blowjob, since there's some licking and maybe nibbling involved, not to mention the occasional face-fuck, so let's go ahead and spell that "suk," just so we're clear.

It all sounds exactly the same, anyway.


Slang is often the use of an existing word or phrase to refer to something other than its original denotative meaning. A dude used to be a city-dweller who wanted to pretend to be a cowboy; now it's just a person (or more: I call my cat "dude" at times, as in "dude, you're really under foot now"). We don't change the spelling so we know the difference.

"Chick," "broad," "skirt," and the like have been used to refer to women. How should we spell "chick" so it's clear we mean a woman or girl as opposed to a young chicken? We can't write "chic," because that's already a word, pronounced differently, to refer to a sense of smart style and flair. We never think that the odious company Chick-fil-A is serving battered and fried women--and any company that slaughtered the word "fillet" that way could easily have decided to spell "chick" as "chik"--it would have been more in keeping with their brand. We see "chick" and we understand whether a young fowl or a woman is being referred to immediately, as long as we're familiar with the slang as slang.
We don't need to spell "broad" differently to realize that a woman is being talked about, rather than a description of a plank of wood. Come to think of it, "wood," as in "morning wood" is similar.

As are so many phrases and words. Back in the 80's, the phrase, "gag me with a spoon," was briefly popular--it's like the progenitor of Mr. Ven's LMB. Everyone who heard or read it understood that it indicated the speaker was disgusted in a contemptuous way--you could almost hear the eye roll inherent in it. No one thought that the speaker/writer was literally asking someone else to shove a spoon down their throat, inducing vomiting. And no one who wrote it had to spell it "gagg me with a spune" so we knew that they meant to convey teenage "ugh."
Why does only the word "come/cum" get such treatment?


Nocturnename your examples have an original meaning and a slang/sexual meaning. Come/cum is different because the spelling distinguishes semen from orgasm not slang from original. Unlike your example cock, pussy, wood... I like orgasm for orgasm, jizz for semen.


@129: wafflesandchicken (love that name), I have conceded the "come to describe the action of orgasming and cum as the word for semen" a long time ago. Not that it matters, as my word is not a legal decree. But the argument here is not about having a word for semen, it's about spelling the verb "come" as "cum." That's why the cringeworthy "cummed" was in Dan's letter in the first place.


As I understand the reason for arguing for the different spelling of the verb or noun is because they describe two different things (semen, orgasm) not because these things are distinct from nonslang/nonsexual meaning as is case in your examples (eat, eet, pussy, pussee). I don't have preference at all only saying this is why it's treated different from your other examples. A cock is a rooster or a penis, a pussy is a cat or a vagina, the slang meanings do not also describe sexual actions.


@131: But people also use the spelling "cum" to refer to the act of orgasming. They write "I love to watch him cum," or "I'm cumming," or (shudder) "I cummed so hard." That's a verb, that's an action, that's a reference to orgasming, not jizz. That's how this started, that's what Dan was talking about, and that's my issue.

I don't love the spelling "cum" to refer to semen, but it's very clear to me that spelling it "come" can indeed cause confusion, mostly because a verb is being used to refer to an action. So though I would probably not write it because for me, "cum" is the Latin word "with" as in "magna cum laude" (with great honors) or it indicates a combination: I'm writing this from "my kitchen-cum-workshop-cum-office," I don't balk at it used that way.

I'll SAY "cum/come" to refer to semen, but I tend to WRITE "semen" or "jizz" or whatever, because I don't like to use the spelling "cum" that way, but I understand that seeing "come" doesn't immediately make semen leap to mind.


No cute name, sorry.


Only answering your wuestion gives this word treatment your other many slang examples do not. It's because no other slang word has two distinct slang meanings in addition to the original meaning.

More... there are many homophones and homonyms in english, also many with slang meanings in common usage. Many words with strong emotional connotations, some with contrived spellings, some examples of words that mean different things when used as noun or verb, and there are English words from lots of different languages that sound ugly or confusing but how many other words have all these annoying things in one and also refer to a thing that is funny, gross or sexy in different cirCUMstances?


@133, 134: wafflesandchicken, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.


When I was a teenager, there was a local radio station with the call letters KOME. They had lots of innuendo-laden tagline phrases like:

Don't touch that dial, it has KOME on it
K-O-M-E all over your radio dial
You've got KOME... oozing out of your speakers
Wake up with KOME in your ear
The KOME spot on your radio dial

(Wikipedia helped me remember some of these.)

Anyway, an alternative spelling option if anyone is looking for yet another debate.


Kevin @136: There's also WCUM AM 1450, coming to you from Bridgeport, CT.


No big deal! I was saying sorry for addressing you as nocturne name at first and correcting. Then I answered your question why "come" gets "different treatment" to other slang words you named. Because its noun and verb meaning are different (unlike your other examples), people made up two different spellings. Most people use one without thinking on it but that's why the different spellings exist, like it or not, the letter is a not and argues against it. More people have opinions about it than other slang because of its annoying features (contrived spelling, the unrelated latin "cum") and confusing features (homonym or homophones depending on how it's used). All this accounts for it's different treatment than pussy broad eat all others you listed. Clear as mud this time!


@138: Thanks for clearing that up, wafflesandchicken. I did understand it this time.

@Kevion_BGFH, I just looked up KOME, and found that its name has been changed to KUFX, which is also pretty funny.


Apologies to this week’s letter writers, your concerns obviously pale next to the struggle of authors who stubbornly insist on spelling words in an unacceptable way.

I say this in a wry way... I’m often amused at what sparks the Commentariat on any given week.


@140 DonnyKlicious: Uh-oh. Are we Savage Love commenters in for a comeuppance?
Aack--oop! :)

Anyone for kumquats? :)

Sorry---now Griz can't stop.......


LW3; there is no linguistic confusion. Some spell it one way, and some the other. Not really an issue to get your boxers/ knickers/ other in a knot about.
Just let it be known, though, to all those who are linguistically confused and you’ve got their numbers, that much is riding on each person’s choice, with some out in the world.
I call it giving a powerful experience it’s due by NOT giving it a word, which normally, would fall over if other words didn’t prop it up. You do the math.
No more confusion, and please tell the others, so no one ever writes in again.


@51, haha, oh no
@52, just meant... as far as current usage, the cum cat is out of the bag, so it genuinely strikes me weird to see 'come' in print

on letter2, i tend to agree that she should hold off. hindsight isn't, actually, 20 20. her renewed interest coincides with his unavailability - that might be honest, unfortunate timing, or might be a case of adding value to something that now looks out of reach. either way, he's not the only quasi available dude around, seems best to give it time and avoid burning a bridge in that community


Lava @118, when did I imply poly was easy? I've never implied that. I've said that it is risky and that there needs to be a lot of communication, that there will be jealousy and insecurity and worry, that rules may be unworkable. I'm just comparing it to the alternative, which in this situation is the relationship ending, and stating that if the relationship is as good as FEARS describes it may be worth taking a chance that monogamishamy can work, as it has for thousands or even millions of couples before her. Your attitude is don't even bother to try it, which is defeatist. Everyone who moves from monogamy to non- has concerns. Non-monogamy works for some people, not others, and we don't know which camp FEARS will fall into.

Griz @123, thirded on awarding Luluisme a gold star for her stellar comment.
Cumblebrag must be spelled that way to get the pun across. Comeblebrag isn't obvious.

CMD @124, indeed, what does she have to lose by giving it a try? Worst case, they break up, which is what Lava is advising she do anyway. Best case, it works out well and they have many happy non-monogamous years ahead of them. Seems obvious to take the chance.


I'd suggest (if we accept that LW1 is really best suited to monogamy, about which I am not entirely sure, but I'll play it out anyway) best case would be GF1's trying other women and deciding after experience that LW1 is (as some bridge players call their favourite bidding conventions) "da bomb". They could then spend the next few decades running a bed and breakfast on the border of Massachusetts and Maine, where scheming suitors of all genders or none would aspire to GF1's hand and various other parts, but ever would they fail.


Venn @145, yes, that is a possibility. Once Ms FEARS has sex with some other women, to make up for lost time, she may feel better about settling down to a life of monogamy. I would say that FEARS should not expect this as an outcome, though, rather a pleasant surprise if it does happen. The ironic possibility, of course, is that FEARS agrees to be monogamish, hooks up with another woman herself, realises it's not just possible but wonderful to have more than one person in her life that she loves, and Ms FEARS, having converted our heroine, decides that being monogamish isn't for her after all.


What does LW1 have to lose by giving it a try? Self respect for one, because this is not a path she is choosing from her own side, instead being pulled into a relationship structure not of her liking, hence her ‘rules.’
No dating? How long before the gf breaks that one, so then the lies start.
What’s she’s got to lose is her head and heart as she deals with all these emotions around ‘sharing,’ when she isn’t choosing to share herself.
Fine taking on difficult emotions if one is willing to risk because the gain is favourable. This woman sees no gain except to hang onto her gf, of eighteen months, as she fades off into other relationships.
Ok for CMD to say, it’s not his heart in play here.


correction; * Their heart in play.


Lava @147, it's not your heart in play either. CMD and I are also coming at this from a place of compassion, which you seem to be ignoring.
Multiple commenters have raised the issue that "no dating" is not workable nor compatible with DADT. Hopefully she will take that on board in negotiating her agreements with her girlfriend. In a DADT there is no lying, because there is no asking.
If FEARS had said she could never see herself in a monogamish relationship, then I would side with you in calling this a dealbreaker. But that's not what she said. She said that in the abstract, she is OK with the idea of a monogamish relationship. Can she be OK with it in reality? The jury is out. Ms FEARS may not fade into the other relationships. Indeed, she may be so happy that FEARS has given her the gift of freedom that it strengthens this relationship. Of course she could choose to take your path and throw away all possibilities but breaking up. As you say, it's her heart she needs to follow.


FEARS - Physical distance seems much more threatening to a romance than talking about opening the relationship, to me. I find a dearth of sex to be more threatening than my partner having extra sex. It's weird that you thought you'd be able to enjoy an open relationship until gf asked for one, like your gut instinct is that the request is a rejection... If you can't see it as a way to strengthen your relationship, then don't do it. And if you've discovered that real open relationships make you jealous, please be honest and tell lovers that you require monogamy, up front. Maybe you could handle monogamishamy better in a strong, local relationship, but if you've never tried it before, it's probably because you're just not into it! It's ok just be honest!

"I understand that, as a woman, I'll never be able to give her what she might get from a man sexually and that sometimes she’ll want that, so there's also that."
Everyone has to restrain themselves to be monogamous, not just bi people. If you are monogamous with a blonde, that means no more red heads, no matter how appealing you find some red heads.. and people still deal. If one is monogamous with a thin penis, that means no more sex with thick, filling penises.. and people still deal. If a man is monogamous with a woman who can't come from piv, that means they're never going to feel a pussy grab their dick without external stimulation, and they still deal. If one is monogamous with someone with IBS or an old fissure, they're not going to give anal sex anymore ever, and people still deal.. If one is monogamous with someone with an erectile dysfunction, they're not going to get sex with a hard penis ever! If one is monogamous with someone who has vaginismus, they might not have sex inside a vagina ever! Yet people still deal. This doesn't mean that polyamory is more correct. It means that some people want monogamy enough to accept the restrictions. (And some people don't.)

Bi people don't need male and female lovers, they are simply interested in male and female lovers, and are just as capable as monosexuals at forsaking all attractive people except for one lover. Bi poly people will not forsake all others. It's not the bisexual part, it's the poly part. This sort of sentiment, that bi people REQUIRE male and female lovers, is really unfair to bi monogamous people. Bisexuality is not a lack of discretion or restraint, like nymphomania. Real bisexuals are attracted to particular people of both genders, not everyone. And they can restrain themselves from having sex like other healthy people. They are not attracted to everyone or everything and incapable of restraint, that sounds like nymphomania.

"Do you have any advice?"
Be honest. Don't be open if you're not comfortable with it, let your gf go if she does not want what you want anymore. Apologize if you said you were open to monogamishamy, but are actually uncomfortable with it. Be kind and true to yourself and others.

HRNTHP- You missed your chance, and every time you feel bad, you should remind yourself to be open and honest about your feelings immediately next time, rather than compounding your mistake. If your feelings grew after you learned about his gf, that's not really love with his best interest in mind, more like possessiveness or controlling feelings, that's not something socially healthy to indulge.


Sorry Fan, ‘nothing to lose’, doesn’t ring with compassion to me.
Compromise, break up for a month or two and then meet up again, see how gf likes freedom to choose. Meanwhile, our LW, checks inside what she really wants to experience, sexually, for herself. Sometimes it takes time for an idea to take hold, takes some solitude and reflection. Not this knee jerk response she’s written, out of desperation to hang onto someone.


It’s not about compassion anyway, I don’t doubt all here come from there. It’s about empathy. This young woman needs to listen to herself first, or where does it end? Women pushed along by forces, rather than actively choosing.


Lava @ 152
In some of my recent posts I suggested giving Dan and readers details about gender and orientations of those involved in the letters, making responses and suggestions more suitable for a specific situation rather than attempting to guess who they are and speculating on different outcomes for A, B, Q, or whatever.

A sentence like, “Women pushed along by forces, rather than actively choosing” sounds a bit out of context in our case. FEARS is living her life openly, her coming out already indicate both strength and an ability to listen to herself.
She is not pushed to try threesomes or join a swingers club by a man she is with, but rather another woman who also wants to be “actively choosing” and asking to try new things due to differing experiences and a relationship turned long distance recently.


Lava @152, perhaps you should employ more compassion and less so-called empathy. You are just thinking that YOU would not like this arrangement, so SHE should end her relationship, no other options are possible in your mind. SHE is not you. I have compassion for both these people, I think that they have a good chance that this could work out. And I already offered a compromise position of they see other people until they are living in the same town, then close it off once they can regularly have sex with each other.

I don't see a "knee jerk" reaction, I see someone doing her best to see this from all the angles. To have compassion for her partner and take her needs into account. This is a woman who has empathy, unlike some. And this is why I think she is mature enough to handle a monogamish relationship, or to come back and address it if she finds it's not working for her.

"Women pushed along by forces" -- how ironic, given how hard you're pushing her to take the road of your choosing.


@144 BiDanFan: Agreed re Luluisme's stellar comment (@114).
Unfortunately, now with the mass of "come" or "cum" related puns saturating the comment I can't stop (see @141). So much for come-edy. lol :)

Is anyone hungry for the Double Whammy (@169--Lucky @69 + Big Hunsky @100 = @169)?


@155 Didn't see THAT comin', didja?


Ms Fan @146 - Yes; rather O Henry-ish.


Phi @150, thank you for making the point that Ms FEARS will not necessarily want to have sex with men outside the relationship. FEARS is being considerate to think of this, but Ms FEARS said she wanted other women, not men. She does, however, want non-monogamy. And a non-monogamous bisexual is unlikely to restrict themself, over the long haul, to one gender, just as a non-monogamous straight person wouldn't restrict themself to just blonds or brunettes. So yes, while assuming bi people can't be monogamous is unfair to the monogamous bisexuals out there, Ms FEARS isn't one of them. Another question they need to discuss, since Ms FEARS has only asked to sleep with other women and might happily agree to a "women only" rule to make it fair for her lesbian partner.


@114. Lulu. I would ask myself, in trying to give FEARS advice, 'what is her genuine question?'. What does she want of the advice-giver? Here, it's plausible that she wants to be given permission to have the courage to say, 'I'm not comfortable with your having sex with other people. I know that I implied I was in theory, that (for instance) I may have been critical of possessiveness in relationships [this is a notional example]; but now that it's about us, I find I can't do it'. Well--if this is what's in her heart, it's what she should say.

It's also plausible that she wants reassurance that her gf isn't just going to run away. If this is the case, then what Dan said is right. There's no circumstance in the letter that dooms her to being left. Not the long distance, not her gf's inexperience with women, not her gf's having proposed openness ... none of these things mean the couple are time-limited. If you put the last two together, you could even think that her gf wants to be committed and long-term, and is dealing with a reservation in her mind that might prevent them settling.

Every consideration the commenters have turned over will also have been turned over--extensively, maybe even exhaustively--by FEARS. Part of the reason for her to write in, I would think, would be to focus her mind on what she's actually worried about, or cares about, perhaps in response to Dan and the commenters.


@140. Donny. Yes, I don't know why this word-use matters either.

Maybe it could be argued at one remove by saying that the language for sex has to be as correct as the language e.g. describing group identity or e.g. transacting legal contracts; but I don't see people arguing that--I see them as saying 'ick' or 'yum/yee-haa!' over 'cum'.

@147. Lava. FEARS will not be losing self-respect in at least considering poly, in that she's already granted she approves of it in principle.

@149. Bi. Very clearly enunciated point about the incompatibility of the 'no-dates' rule and dadt. FEARS may not have thought this through. Thinking the two might go together suggests, to me, someone who wants to 'do poly' minimally: who does not want to stand in her partner's way when it comes to her having sex with others, but who quails at the idea, or finds it potentially painful, and wants to be as little emotionally engaged as possible with metamours. Well, what is painful about the idea for FEARS? Is she vulnerable to jealousy or to fears of abandonment? And how far can they be dissociated?

I think the couple, and both people as individuals, have lots of options. One is doing nothing until they are living together, then negotiating groundrules. They could then both go poly, or be one-sided poly; they could have a strict format, in terms of routine or scheduling, or not; they could date together or apart. Or they could agree a relationship hiatus until they can live together, which would mean FEARS's taking on the risk that her gf never comes back. FEARS could accept a secondary, for her partner, who meets certain conditions e.g. his or her being married to or living with another partner, or e.g. coparenting with another partner. There's little or nothing in FEARS's letter about the value of a poly community to her--a network she might be able to access for resources of advice or practical help, whether she's having sex with zero, one, two, three people. Newcomers to poly sometimes conceive it in terms of desire--something in their pants--not a whole 24-hour way of living.

But I agree with you that the tone of the board has been unduly pessimistic as to whether the couple can make it work.


"He was trying to be more in the beginning but I missed some very obvious signs."

How do you miss erections at a nudist resort of all places?