He Asked His Girlfriend to Cheat on Him and She Did but She Did It All Wrong

Savage Love Letter of the Day



hmm, I had a similar problem, except I was very clear about my limits and my husband and friend didn't 'take me seriously'. I was good with the three of us fucking around, but didn't want them to sext, just the two of them (she lives out of town). So of course, they did anyway. Now I am left feeling betrayed - was it really that hard not to sext, or maybe even talk to me about it some more when they wanted to? - and also pissed because I was really enjoying our adventures, and now I can't trust either them. I wrote all this to Dan, and would still really like his advice, because I have no idea how to move forward with this.


I also have a similar situation as Liz and the writer. We had agreed that we open up the relationship as long as there was open communication and we let the other know beforehand when we might hook up with someone. I've had multiple partners beforehand, I am her first. She met a guy, told me about it, later found that he was too clingy and I told her that it was far too much of a red flag to pursue it. She ends up sleeping with him, having a terrible time, without letting me know beforehand and instead gives me a call at 1 am. Neither of us had fun, neither of us enjoyed the naughtiness of it, and I have no idea how to proceed. I don't want her to have another shitty experience, I also want it shared, and it seems like we've taken two steps back from opening the relationship.


Cuckolding turns him on. Betrayal turns him on.

Maybe he's getting what his dick really wants - actual cheating - by being unclear? Instead of settling for honest, pretend "cuckolding", if he's been unclear enough in his communications, he gets actual "cheating" - if you call GF trying to follow such obfuscation is cheating. He clearly thinks it's cheating. Win-win (for his dick, but not his ego).

Cause "cuckolding" with permission beforehand isn't cuckolding - it's hot-wifing.


@1 and @2: This seems to come up all the time. Maybe Dan should do a column, chapter or whole book about it: give and inch and they take a mile. Especially in these arenas that are fraught with excitement, risk, arousal, and shame.

There should be a board game in which you deal out cards "you may fool around", "only with guys", "if you don't tell me", "if you do tell me", "before", "after", etc, and you trade cards back and forth until you are both happy with the plan.

And then (and this is the important part), you open up the expansion set with cards like, "but he met someone on a trip and didn't tell you in advance", "something/someone went in her vagina", "condoms weren't used", etc. and as much as you wish there were cards for "divorce!", "cut his fucking dick off", and "shoot her lover", there aren't. You have to respond with "three month hiatus", "does all the dishes for a year", or "that freedom I wanted? Now I get it."

And until you have some comfort and skill with that expansion set, you don't play the original cards IRL.


@4 Lol, perhaps. We've been discussing it for a few years, pretty much playing the game you described, and to me this was more of a slip-up. I wasn't particularly mad and more concerned about her bad experience. Had she loved it, I think it would've been less disturbing to me. Again, I was her first in every way, she's naive, ignored red flags, and I'm more worried that she will continue to have shitty experiences.

Then again, as a side note, we've agreed that we'll be looking out for and vetting a partner on Fetlife to ensure they're well-endowed, experienced, respectful, and into a threesome.


For your future live events, have you considered "judging" relationship problems like John Hodgman does? Get these two people to explain their positions and issue a ruling. I predict hilarity and life/sex lessons.


CUCK, These do seem like relatively normal screw ups of the newly nonmonogamous. Even with explicit permission, not everyone has the heart to tell their beloved about that good dick they just caught. At the same time, this is a referenda on your relationship. Do you feel like your partner respects you and will prioritize your relationship? If yes, give her all the benefit of the doubt in the world. If not, move on, you can never win respect back regardless of why you lost it.


Concur that LW is into hotwifing, not cuckholding. And it kind of sounds like LW's GF likes the reality of cuckholding far more than LW does, which thus sounds like a problem.

And...it sounds like time to close the relationship for a while, while he sorts out his feelings, she sorts out what she wants out of this, and they both sort out what they want to do going ahead. It doesn't need to be forever, or it can be forever to preserve the relationship, or it can be forever in the sense that they break up. Until they've had a bit of time to sort that out, though, take a step from the varsity back to the JV league.



Your cheating partners cheated in their cheating?
We're shocked....SHOCKED!

Poly is an inherently flawed social model that inevitably damages and harms.
It is only a matter of how
and how soon
and how much
and how much is your capacity to endure pain before you start to squeal.

Dan and The Left like to imagine they invented sanctioned cheating but it is just regular old cheating with some lipstick slapped on and it is a hallmark of every failing society since we crawled out of caves.
Please, don't whine, or act surprised.


Slue@9 ~ "...Poly is an inherently flawed social model..."
Of course! Because monogamy has such a stellar track record.


As I interpret this letter, CUCK is into the idea of cuckolding as an erotic concept, but when translating his fantasy into practice, he and his girlfriend agreed upon a set of rules that opened the relationship to them both. It also appears that CUCK was operating under the assumption that Ms. Cuck agreed to tell CUCK about her dates beforehand. When she didn't that turned "cheating" into cheating, at least in his mind. Does this mean that Ms. Cuck cannot be trusted to follow the rules of their open relationship? Perhaps, or it may be that she understood their rules differently, but I wouldn't suggest anyone (including CUCK and Ms. Cuck) getting caught up in this point. It seems to me that CUCK would have agreed to Ms. Cuck seeing her lover ex ante, he should retroactively bless her sexual encounter ex post, and discuss their mutual expectations regarding the degree of freedom they each have with arranging sexual encounters. In my estimation, things have actually worked out quite well for CUCK thus far. He's found a woman who is willing to satisfy his cuckold fetish mostly on his terms, and the hiccup this relationship encountered is fairly minor. CUCK should see if Ms. Cuck is willing to agree to the more precise conditions he would like, and if not, whether he can live with the terms she would like. Only if she is unable to abide by their rules thereafter should CUCK end this relationship.


I see that Seattle Slue is a 2018 account which had never posted before 6 comments since yesterday.

Check out this similarly-formatted one: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/22/28047642/the-worst-president/comments/15

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Slew was a horse that won the Triple Crown in 1977.

According to https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=slue regarding "slue...Its meaning is not precisely clear; it may have referred to a morally loose female".


@1, I'll pass along the advice Dan gave to me when I found out my primary had lied to me about outside sex: "Well, now you know something you didn't know before. It's up to you to decide what to do with that information."

What I did was accept that adults are going to do what they want to do, rules be damned. I'm more interested in finding out what people sincerely want to do, and seeing if I can live with that, than in restricting people from doing what they want to do.

@2 -- you were her first. Adults become adults by having a mixture of shitty and fun experiences and learning what they like from those experiences. I would try to provide a supportive environment for her exploration, rather than trying to keep her safe and caged.


Amazingly, I agree with Sportlandia @7. Girlfriend could have very reasonably interpreted permission to fuck OKCupid Guy as permission to fuck OKCupid Guy repeatedly, instead of having to ask for permission again for each fuck. I hope CUCK forgave her and they went back to the communicating board regarding the rules of their relationship. (FWIW, if CUCK finds a partner who's up for more than a one-off, I suspect he'll find it a drag having to ask permission for every time he has sex with her. And so will Ms Cuck.)

Curious2 @12: Seattle Slue is Commentor Commentatus, back yet again. Ignore.


Lizvocal @1: I'm not Dan, but my advice is that the more reasonable and sensible your rules are, the more likely it is that they'll be followed. You're okay with your husband fucking other people, but not sexting? Really?

It sounds like your situation ISN'T similar to the letter writer's, because yours was not an open relationship, it was a triad -- you were seeing your friend together, not separately. So your situation was that you wanted to always be included, and they didn't include you. Their separate sexting made the triad unequal, which of course made you feel insecure. You may make more progress with your husband if you couch it in these terms instead of "you broke a rule which you probably thought was quite silly." Sounds to me like the husband and the friend wanted to have an affair and brought you along for the ride. I'd be hurt too and I hope you can sort this out.

Bloated @2: I would call your story "a learning experience." Your neophyte girlfriend learned the hard way a lesson that you already had learned -- trust your instincts. This is a mistake that with any luck she won't make again. But she'll make others -- and so will you, so I think what you two should do is bear in mind that people with good intentions make mistakes, particularly when they are horny, and be compassionate with each other.


@10 watch yourself, monogamy has a very stellar track records. they've basically taken over the entire world, not one non-monogamous society is represented in the UN. Of all the various social innovations in human history, it compares pretty well to "written language".


@16 Sportlandia
I'm not sure exactly what, but I think something is wrong with that reasoning.

Perhaps archaic societal pressures (like women being unable to work and own/inherit property, and a lack of DNA testing making males afraid the babies weren't theirs) imposed monogamous norms, instead of societies with monogamous norms supplanting non-monogamous societies.

Perhaps in the past most people simply hadn't achieved a level of personal development to navigate non-monogamy.

Plus, if all societies have racist pig bigot and murders, does that make those things successful social innovations too?


@16 except if you mean by not one is non-monogamous is that you totally ignore Arabic countries which allow you to have multiple wives. Oh and can't forget that the husband just might have a mistress or three. Altho by a strict reading of the word one you have a point as it is more than just one.

And monogamy does NOT have a stellar track record, Monogamous marriages where one or the other cheats seems to win at the track more often than not. Then when you add in poly and non-monogamy the record just gets worse. I won't even pretend that I'm monogamous since my wife liked my last girlfriend enough that she gave the GF a laptop as a gift.


@16 and if you ignore that for much of the time that Europe ruled the world, much of Europe, especially the people who were doing the actual "ruling the world" part, was monogamous in name only. Successful men have routinely had mistresses, pretty openly, and rich and high born women weren't far behind, though if things went wrong they paid a higher price for it. (Caroline Matilda of Denmark comes to mind.)


@15, Fan. Yes that would be where I'd baulk, if a marriage is open to having sex with others, how that sexual connection is expressed has to be allowed room. I remember a coupla yrs back when EricaP .. who is offering some great advice lately imo.. shared with us how her husband was off spending Valentine's Day with his gf. She knew and we knew, this was one of the experiences of living in an open marriage, being poly, you accept going thru.


Whoops, should have read all of your comment Fan. I still think @1 should relax a bit, as well as telling her husband and friend how she feels.
Once the sex door is open between people, things happen. Stop everything and talk @1, that's my advice.


For LW, this seems like a reasonable bump in the road, and probably something you could work out.

LW 1, no one likes a FOMO spouse. 3rds (like most other people) want to be liked for who they are. Your "only when I'm around" rule implies that you don't actually like her for her, and you're just dog-in-the-manger sitting in on their sexual encounters to make sure she understands that you are Head Wife and she is Low Status Concubine. Outside of having some Handmaiden Roleplay kink, why would the third be interested in having you around if that's how you're going to act? Why wouldn't she prefer someone who actually is attracted to her and wants to be with her?

You shouldn't make yourself the unwanted "price of admission" that the other woman has to pay in order to get the actual sex she wants. If you only want 3somes, then you shouldn't go for repeats or any situation where there's any other relationship with the 3rd: strictly "fuck us, then fuck off." Otherwise, close the relationship or accept that there's going to be actual relationships with the 3rds - and find your own 3rd that you actually like.


Traffic @22: See, I read it the opposite way. It sounds like this couple are NOT open; that they brought Friend in as a unicorn. Then Husband and Friend started behaving as if they were in a non-primary relationship with each other, which excluded the wife. Wives also want to be liked for who they are! Why would the third like having Wife around? Because presumably Couple approached her to be their unicorn and she agreed. It's Husband and Friend who are being callous of Wife's feelings by excluding Wife from the triad. Friend isn't Low Status Concubine, she's Special Guest Star. If Friend only agreed to sex with both of them as a roundabout way to get to the husband, SHE is the asshole. Lizvocal is the primary partner here -- she's the one Husband made a lifelong commitment to, for pete's sake -- and she IS therefore entitled to more consideration than a special guest star. Wife IS attracted to Friend and wants to be with Friend, but it sounds less than mutual. I think you're confused about the meaning of the word "third" when you say "find your own third." A third is a shared partner, not a secondary partner. The question isn't "why would the third be interested in having Lizvocal around," it's "why would this couple be interested in having this third around, if she's not going to show them equal attention."


Managing one's partner's jealousy is a very important part of polyamory. Lizvocal and her husband are newly open*, and Mr Lizvocal is not managing her jealousy well. That's a great way to get one's relationship back to being closed.

*I am assuming they are newly open from the way the post reads. If they are not, they should be secure enough by now that sexts wouldn't bother her. If they've been open for a while and the sexts are an issue, then either Lizvocal really isn't cut out for non-monogamy, or there is some issue particular to this friend -- perhaps Lizvocal has a sneaking suspicion that Friend would happily steal Husband for herself if she had a chance.


@18 Romial
And in the US state of Utah the practice of multiple wives was only let go so it could join the US.

Though permitting husbands multiple wives but not permitting wives multiple husbands is terribly unequitable, and historically often the result of dysfunctional male cult leaders (including Joseph Smith) seeking to fulfill their own wishes purely selfishly.


BiDanFan@23: Guest Stars show up for one episode and then leave. She can't be a "guest star" if she's a friend and already around all the time - that's a secondary character. Also, the way it was phrased as "nothing when I'm not around" implies that she doesn't really want the 3rd and wouldn't pursue her of her own volition.

I mean, yeah, maybe hubby and third are being jerks about this, but it seemed that the wife sorta set herself up for failure by trying to get someone who's already friends with them to upgrade to a sexual relationship - but only strictly when both of them are around. So now (even if she's not a FOMO Spouse) best case scenario we have a [friends with both independently of each other] box, then a [sex with both but only jointly] box. That was bound to start blurring messily. If she wants to have "only with us both" sexual encounters, she should have picked someone where sex was the only encountering that they had with the 3rd.

I mean, unicorns are rare enough as is for one-night-stands - once you add a preexisting relationship to it, it's practically guaranteed that the third is going to prefer one person over the other.


@16 Sorry-not-sorry to join the pile-on, but, as others have pointed out, "monogamy" is successful only if you count all the cheating as part and parcel. And, I'd add, where women are concerned monogamy is still enforced with the threat of brutal punishment in many countries, which does not speak particularly well for its universal attractiveness.


Traffic @26: I think the key question is, what is Friend's sexual orientation? If Friend is straight, then of course she's not going to be as interested in Wife as in Husband. If they picked a straight gal to be their unicorn, then I agree they set themselves up for failure. I think asking a -bisexual- woman if she'd like to be an ongoing third would be far more likely to result in the equilateral relationship Lizvocal wants. I can't see that Lizvocal wouldn't have pursued Friend on her own -- unless, of course, she is indeed straight, or if Lizvocal is among the legions of women who are too shy to pursue other women and need the man to take the lead. It looks to me as if the parameters of their openness are "we only play together." They should amend them to "we only play together, and only with women who are into both of us."

I think Special Guest Stars can recur. They certainly did on The Muppet Show! This one lives out of town so she isn't "around all the time." I agree, a regular Special Guest Star arrangement may rise to the level of "triad" or, cringe, "throuple."

As awful as You Me Her was, you should probably watch it if you think it's "practically guaranteed" that a unicorn will prefer one half of a couple to the other. Women who are happy to treat a couple as a package deal are out there.


@17 etc: Syphilis imposed monogamous norms. There's no need to hypothesize about "archaic social pressures." It's hard for modern people to imagine just how bad syphilis was before the discovery of antibiotics. Imagine an AIDS epidemic that lasted for 450 years and impacted heterosexuals as much as gays.


Why would anyone want to read books written two thousand yrs ago, by men no less. Or if I did read such texts, it wouldn't be the dribble the Christians put out. Buddhism I have found is a much more intelligent path.
And nobody is defending cheating, and for one so keen to study old ways, look up a few books about cultures thru the ages which have been non monogamous.


Happy Pride March, Seattle.


I'm surprised at how useful some of the advice here is! To LavaGirl and BiDanFan, thanks! Just some quick follow up:. I'm bi and friend is someone I had a causal sexual relationship with a long time ago and one of my closest friends; as we were negotiating, she said I was an exemption to her regular straight orientation. We all understood that this was just for fun, and not going to be a poly relationship. For me, I wanted this to be fun, and also strengthen my primary relationship by having adventures together. After the first time, I felt insecure about their having a sexual connection outside of the threesome. That's why I asked for no sexting. It came from a place of insecurity, as I explained at the time, and neither person objected or expressed that it was too burdensome an ask. Then a week later, they started sexting anyway, and didn't have the guts or honesty to tell me about it. So, what I feared came to pass anyway. It isn't the sexting I object to by itself, it is the breaking of trust and promises, done so cavalierly, that I find hard to get past. I can't find a way to forgive the broken trust.


Slue/Commie@30 ~ Why, yes, Moses WAS an epidemiologist, as is clearly evidenced in this hieroglyphic panel (https://depositphotos.com/114347692/stock-photo-egyptian-hieroglyphs-on-the-wall.html) roughly translated as, “Therefore, upon satisfactory completion of required courses (and extramural distinction in snake charming) the University of Alexandria does hereby confer on Moses (the suspected Israelite) the degree of Master of Epidemiology.”


Moron @ 30 - The lesson medecine taught us in the 80s was: use condoms. They work. I'm the living, highly promiscuous, HIV- proof of that, and so are many others.


@33: lizvocal. Getting the trust back.. change the conditions. close the whole thing down and talk with your husband about the boundaries you expect him to respect and why has he ignored your request by sexting the other woman.
I'd give her the flick as well, not much of s friend, then you and your husband hammer it out. Opening one's marriage is not some game, whole people are involved here and it sounds like you have been as cavalier about this arrangement, as they have.


Lizvocal @33 another option is to work on yourself; accept that you can't control other people and accept that sometimes you'll feel hurt. Overall, do you enjoy your relationship with your husband? Does he treat you well, day to day? If so, then really consider if you want to try to shut down his sexuality and whether you want to end up where that leads in the long run. There are worse things in life than ending up with someone who is kind, loving, and expresses sexual desire for other people.


@29 Won’t somebody please think of the heterosexuals!


@lizvocal. Yeah, ok, they were jerks for going against the boundaries that you created, but in all fairness, they were very impractical boundaries for the situation you set up. Since it seems what you want sexually is a very strict "fuck us then fuck off" situation, you should keep it to one-night-stands where there's no follow-up, or only follow up through a single joint email address/facebook account/whatever that you and your husband share. You want a 3rd that isn't a friend and that doesn't interact with you or your husband for any reason other than showing up specifically for your joint sexytimes (maybe even a professional sex worker).

What you're trying to get is all the intimacy and comfort of a long-standing relationship from your third, but also have her abide by the strict boundaries of a NSA one-night-stand. You're gonna have to pick one.


Lava @31, don't feed the troll!

Lizvocal @33: Thanks for joining in and for the background. Sometimes it sucks being right. At least Friend lives out of town and won't be around. I'm sorry she thought so little of your long term friendship. I don't think you can get the trust back, not with these two anyway; I think you should ask Husband to cut off contact with her, and neither of you should get sexual with her again. Perhaps in the distant future you'll be able to be friends with her again.

Commie @37: Two aliases on the same thread? What part of "fuck off, no one wants you here" do you not understand?

EricaP @38: I don't think having an arrangement where a couple only plays with other people together is "shutting down his sexuality." Wow. Perhaps Husband wants a relationship that is more open on both sides, and perhaps it's only this friend who caused Lizvocal's jealousy meter to go off, but that's for them to negotiate. I don't think it's fair to guilt Lizvocal into agreeing to a relationship style she's not comfortable with because "he treats her well, day to day."

Traffic @40: I agree partially, that they should have possibly picked someone from the internet instead of a long-time friend, because now Lizvocal has lost a friendship. But again, I disagree that the only choices are one night stands or 100% openness. (I do agree that if all they can offer is "fuck us then fuck off" they should hire a sex worker; any non-professional would find that attitude rude, and I find that recommendation strange given how focused you've been on the needs and desires of the third.) If you and husband agree that only playing together is how you want to be open, get him back on side, set up a joint profile seeking openly bi women only, and YOU take the lead on communicating with your unicorns. Good luck.


@16. Sportlandia. You mean monogamy-plus-cheating. Some people getting away with what they can and deceiving or dominating their partners. Some people cheating and feeling guilty. Some getting found out with consequences for their marriages, and some wanting more or different sex than they're having (& some wanting less). It’s like saying that domination or hierarchy has been a lasting model of social organisation.

In the case of this letter, CUCK wants to know about his gf's outside liaisons, which are partly conducted for his benefit, while he has sex or relationships on the side privately. There is nothing inherently unequal or slanted in this arrangement--as long as his partner consents to it, as long as it is discussed in terms that note and deal with that basic asymmetry. But CUCK's letter presents the deal--the cucking on her side for the openness on his (really on 'theirs', the openness per se) as a quid pro quo. This is confusing. He also sounds like he thinks he's conceding something and then getting something back. No. Most people would think he's lucky to have found someone to accommodate this set-up. Dan's advice is right. He needs to separate the cuck arrangement and the openness in his mind. Each menu item has to be indiviidually negotiated. He (and his partner) don't want to be monogamous. Fine. Now do your homework. Don't conflate models or be hazy about expectations or boundaries---or put the upset down to your not doing the work--your thinking, in a bien-pensant way you're admirable for being unfettered--onto your partner.


@28. Bi. Yes, Miss Piggy kept welcoming them back with open arms! (Hmmm. I'm not sure what that comment meant). Lizvocal's motivation for having her old lover join them as a third was (in part) to 'have adventures' with her partner. This is not what's happening with the texting. I don't think her partner shares her mindset. There's something in how he wants to have sex in this arrangement that turns away from her--that looks for someone else, enjoys being with someone else. Their motivations seem incompatible. It doesn't sound to me as if the throuple or two-plus-one--their dating her--is going to work out.


@BiDanFan: I agree that anyone other that a sex worker (or very clear NSA partner) would find that attitude rude - which is why at this point, Liz should stick to NSA or sex workers until she changes what she wants from her open relationship (or maybe she could try a swingers' club and find another couple that wants something similar). Because at the end of the day "a couple" is not actually the same thing as "a person" (unless you've mastered that DragonBallZ fusion technique). So when you're saying "you can only interact with us as a couple, no private conversations, texts, dates, or anything," you're essentially saying "you can't interact with us, your sex partners, as individual people."

And if that's the boundaries she needs in order to feel comfortable with this, fine. People can have NSA sexual encounters with very restrictive boundaries. However, if she wants to throw feelings into the mix (and yes, friendship, and familiarity are feelings) she needs to be ok with the 3rd actually interacting with them both separately as individual people on some level. They're both fine options, she just has to pick one.

To use the food metaphor, she said "hey, wanna go halfies on a sandwich with me, but actually only have 3 fries?" and then got upset when the other person took more than 3 fries. Yeah, the other chick should have either refused to pay for half on those terms, or agreed and not eaten more than the permitted 3 fries, but... like, that setup was almost bound to fail.


@ 37 - "Whom, exactly, are the morons"?

You have your answer right there in that very sentence.

Also: anyone who tries to reconcile religious teachings with science. Ever wonder why almost all of the world's leading scientists are at the very least non-religious? Their intelligence is not in doubt; yours is.

"And you tell us all it takes is condom use to vanquish the nasties?"

The rise in syphilis cases is directly linked to the growing popularity of bareback sex, itself brought on by advances in HIV treatment. You failed to mention that the prevalence of STIs had diminished tremendously during the era of safe-sex, proof that you're only good at cherry-picking statistics, not at understanding them.

So yes, condoms are the answer.

Finally, when the only relationship you've ever had is with your hand, your empty proclamations in favour of monogamy don't have much value. And you don't even have statistics to back them up - funny, that! Perhaps is it because all statistics on adherence to monogamy would be... self-reported?


BiDanFan @41, I'm not trying to guilt Lizvocal into anything; I'm speaking my truth based on my experiences. Non-monogamy was challenging for me at first, and it got easier when I figured out how to let my partners be themselves, sexually and otherwise, instead of expecting them to fill the roles I imagined for them.

If you have seen positive outcomes from negotiating mutual restrictions on each other's sex lives, then that's awesome. Still doesn't change what I've experienced and can speak to.


And I'll note that @1 Lizvocal mentioned wanting Dan's advice, and in my case, Dan did not tell me: "convince your husband to stop lying to you about the outside sex he's having" but rather "figure out whether you can live with the knowledge that your husband is willing to lie to you about outside sex."


@18 fair. But "Non-Monogamy" has a meaning now, and it's not "all forms of relationships that aren't western-style monogamy". While you're right to point out the Arab world where this is/was common are practicing Polygamy, which is not Non-Monogamy. In any case, we've never seen a society which predominantly practices what we'd now call non-monogamy or polyamory.


@42 and yes, cheating is part of Monogamy system. I don't understand why people want to point out that cheating is a thing. Almost all of us grew up in communist households where each earned per their ability and were given according to their need, that doesn't mean we don't live in a Capitalist society.


You can stop arguing with Commie now, he's been kicked off again. Guess he forgot "Seattle Slue's" password ;-)


EricaP @50: But your experiences are not Lizvocal's experiences. If anything, it sounds to me as if Lizvocal is mainly monogamous, but missed sex with women, and suggested threesomes as a way to not have to shut down HER sexuality. Bringing in the friend was for her benefit, not his. She sounds similar to the bi-curious woman whose husband suggested an open relationship so that she could explore her sexuality, but then wanted to have sex with other women too. Lizvocal attempted to reconcile married monogamy with a desire for same-sex "adventures" by sharing her female partner with Mr Lizvocal, but Mr Lizvocal -- and the friend -- proved they weren't so great at sharing. So, if Mr Lizvocal is going to be selfish rather than grateful for the threesomes, and Lizvocal doesn't want to accept the total openness you advocate, she may find strict monogamy preferable. Sometimes it's not possible to have one's cake and eat it, because the cake has its own agenda.


@Lizvocal and @BiDanFan: I've been particularly interested in your side conversation. I was the third for a married couple, except just as @55 describes, I was there for one of them while the other was halfheartedly invited along. We had threesomes in the sense that three of us were participating, and yet it was more like an open V than a triangle because one of them wasn't allowed more than incidental contact with me. It was fun a few times, then I grew frustrated with the arrangement and declined the next invitation. They didn't ask again and I didn't bring it up; maybe they weren't interested anymore either. Several years later we're still friends. I maintain individual friendships with both of them and we're all part of a particular social group too.

I learned I only want to be part of a threesome if there's more freedom, and I'll hesitate to be with people when I'm friends with both partners.


@53. Sportlandia. I would think of monogamy as the predominant mode of sexual relationships as part of a whole package where wealth is inherited by legitimate children. This usually happens from fathers to sons (in patriarchal arrangements) and without the mediation of lawyers, in societies where literacy is spread thin.

The people aiming to practise some sort of nonmonogamy want, among other things, to root out this implicit tendency towards patriarchy in their sex lives. We can agree on that, at least?


@1, Lizvocal, the structure was flawed, given both these people were close to you. And then they wanted to be close to each other. Doesn't excuse their disregard for the boundaries you requested and they agreed to.. then went against their promise. Can you go awol for a few nights, let your husband feel how pissed off you are.
The friend, well.


Ankyl @56: I had an early unfortunate experience with a couple which taught me that yes, a couple IS a unit; if you only fancy one, or fancy one far more than the other, it's not going to work and you should decline their offer. Otherwise, indeed, miscommunication, jealousy, crossed boundaries and hurt feelings are going to be the result. Glad you're still friends with your couple.


Bi @59: You're right about a couple being a unit and I learned I'm not interested if they're not going to be equals. In this case, I fancied both spouses. However, their agreement was that only one of them was allowed to do much of anything with me. Spouse #1 and I could do anything, Spouse #2 could watch us and do whatever with Spouse #1 at the same time, and Spouse #2 and I were supposed to maintain minimal contact (Spouse #2 fancied me as well and agreed to the guidelines because it was better than not being there at all). Eventually I tired of the restrictions and opted out. Hey, good for them for having clear rules and expectations in place rather than getting upset about muddy waters later, like CUCK in this letter.