So I have an ongoing casual kinky hookup. We’re both in open marriages and have both been open with each other about that from the start. We met on Feeld. It is nothing more than a shared kink, but it is also one of the most honest, decent relationships I have ever had. His ability to demonstrate from the very start that he is safe, sane, cares about my well-being, and is capable of honesty lets me trust him with all kinds of kinky shenanigans where I would be much less comfortable going if the other person were raising any red flags. And the kind of dishonesty required to cover up something as significant as a marriage would be a big old red flag for me. I say disclose, not as some conceited “you can’t fall for me” line, but just as the kind of thing an ongoing sex partner probably ought to know.

No, Dan, hiding the fact that you're married is not included in what "casual" means, if you're actually hooking up at a hotel or at his place. There are NO apps which are exclusively for no-strings anonymous hookups - just some where that's what often happens.

If the two of you will just be fucking behind the bins at a park somewhere for 10 minutes, and not exchanging names - Dan's right, no need to say anything about your husband. But if you're talking with each other and hooking up, getting naked and exploring things, if it's a more involved hookup with an implied "we can do it again if it's fun this time", yes, you need to mention it.

You don't need to be dramatic or overly serious - mention that your DADT agreement with your husband works well, or just mention your husband in passing (my husband's mom is coming to vist, she's a hoot) or something like that. But yes, do be sure he knows you're married. Hiding your marriage is being an asshole, in the bad kind of way.

A further comment: Dan says "But if he seems to be crushing on you after repeated kinky hookups—if you even begin to suspect that he might be hoping these hookups lead to something more—then you should tell him you're married."

That's just the kind of assholery that spoils the whole hookup world. Withholding a critical piece of information until revealing it will hurt someone is NOT ok. No, don't wait until the other person is getting emotionally involved - mention your husband up front. If the other person bows out at that point, it's to protect themselves from the kind of emotional harm Dan seems to think is just fine.

@4 I think that married man, monogamish, Dan's definition of "casual" is self-serving, and lets him be an asshole to hookups while saying "but everyone agrees this is what casual means". It's the worst advice I've seen him give. I hope he starts treating other men better.

If I give Mr Savage the benefit of the doubt, I can think that "disclose" was a red herring and that a "disclosure" would likely be tone-deaf. As LW and Mr Kinky Match have been chatting, there have probably been multiple ways marital status could have been mentioned without its being An Official Disclosure.

Now, it may depend on the particular kink, but some assumptions are more plausible than others, and some things it may be simple good manners to mention early. The example that comes to mind first is cross-orientation.

Why not put "NSA / FWBs only not avail or interested in a LTR" in your profile. Dating app, hookup app or kink app, this says it all without saying anything.

Could be you are busy, don't like LTRs, married, whevs.

Later, you can disclose if you've become FWBs, and you avoid the guys like @2 @5 and @8 who take offense to those who are turned off by those who are open about having an open marriage.

@5 "entrapped" by guys who don't disclose they are partnered, "repulsed" by those who do disclose? Gosh. 75% of gay partnered guys are open at some point, and many of of the 25% who aren't ethically open cheat. If you are hooking up, chances are very high you are having sex w/ partnered guys!

@10 You have no understanding of open relationships.

It's interesting to me that everyone assumes the LW is married to a man. He could have a wife, we don't really know for sure. Partner could mean any gender.

@11, the way I’m reading @10s response is that she doesn’t want to be the 3rd- that’s not a misunderstanding of what open relationships are, it’s that she doesn’t want to be in one. So withholding the nature of the connection would snag her into without her consent.

@9 I'm pretty adamant that if you're married, you should let that be known by a casual mention, at least, if you're hookup is more than a truly anonymous quickie. How hard is it to say "I can't get together Wednesday, my husband invited a co-worker to dinner, but I can get together Thursday or Friday"?

I'm not at all opposed to hooking up with married men, for no strings or lightly stringed or substantially connected sex. Some of my favorite long term FWBs have been married to other people. I've just heard too many men over the years (and I'm certain it happens to women too) talk about getting emotionally attached to someone they were hooking up with regularly only to find out he was married, and not available - after the attachment had formed. They would either have not gotten involved, or would have kept their emotional distance, if they'd known the actual situation.

Dan and other are constantly (and rightly) saying that consent is essential before getting sexually involved with someone. This relationship status disclosure is also a consent issue - if you never mention a spouse, most people will assume that you don't have one, since a spouse is so central to most married people's lives. You can't just say "I never said I was single" after spending many hours with someone over weeks or months - that's deception by omission. And since being married limits and alters one's availability for friendships and all other kinds of relationships, not just romantic relationships, you need to at least mention it in passing, so that it's a known constraint.

What do you think your obligations are in this situation, LW? Has he mentioned his status?
If this man is reticent to get with you if he knows you are married, which is what you seem to be worried about, then it’s more honest to him, to be upfront.
The very least, be clear it’s a nsa get together.

It sounds to me like the LW has already been a bit deceptive if he has been chatting with this guy for a while and he still does not know LW is married. In my experience (as someone in an open relationship of 7 years also on the “apps”) usually one’s relationship status comes out pretty quickly unless it is intentionally concealed.

If the LW is afraid that the guy will stop chatting with him if he discovers LW is married then maybe it’s not the right match, even for casual sex. LW needs to embody one “G” of GGG and needs to “give” more and that includes disclosing his relationship status. Who knows, maybe the guy will not care, maybe he will find it hot. But he should have the right to know. Otherwise the relationship, even casual, isn’t getting off on the right foot.

My rule of thumb was always that if you have conversations in which you notice you are avoiding certain topics or unnaturally talking in such a way as to hide the partnership, then you've already past the point that you should have told. Bring it up the moment it comes up- even if that's something as simple as "gosh I'm hungry, I haven't eaten since breakfast (with my partner)". But if it's explicitly NSA and non personal, then there is no need to go out of your way to reveal anything (so long as your spouse is cool with it) since it's irrelevant, but don't lie when asked. In the LW's case, I'd say that mean he should disclose since it sounds like he's looking more for a casual FWB thing than an NSA thing (chatting first, then hooking up later) and also sounds like he's open to potentially meeting up more than once. He likewise has no idea if the other dude is partnered. Mention it casually and mention that your arrangement is DADT in the same breath, and then drop it unless the other guy asks about it.

I get confused about the rules which go with different hook up situations. The LW says they are not looking for anything substantial with this man, emotionally, so why do they have to disclose anything except any STI’s they might have.
NSA means ‘you are not invited into my private life’ and what we have is not more than this time we share, doesn’t it?

Why does attachment come into such an arrangement, the NSA one.
FWB is different, because you are friends as well, and are in each other’s lives.
NSA people need to guard against attachment, because that is the deal made, no strings means no attachment.

The LW could say they are not available for anything beyond nsa, and the man can interpret it as he wishes.

"My question is, if the intention is just to chat and maybe hook up at some point . . . ." DADT, to be clear, you have stated your intention, but it is not clear that you have correctly identified your potential sex partner's intention, and tellingly, you use the passive voice, which elides that fact. That is central to your need to disclose.

"I feel a little weird about potentially deceiving him if he thinks I'm single—and I don't know why he'd assume otherwise at this point . . . . " "Should I disclose to this guy that I'm married?" DADT, when you reorder your thoughts a bit, the answers is obvious. You understand that this man is approaching this potential hookup with certain reasonable assumptions in mind, and those "little weird" feelings you have are your conscious telling you that failing to tell this guy you are married is leading him on, and is wrong.

My view is that if you are having to ask yourself whether to disclose some information to a new or potential partner, you should probably err on the side of disclosing, and let them decide whether this information means they do not want to continue seeing you. All these situations boil down to the reality that there is some fact that a person does not want to disclose because they think that fact is significant, and they worry that their partner or potential partner will not want to continue dating or fucking them after the discloure. We have seen the same non-disclosures and rationalizations from letter writers engaging in sex work who would rather not disclose that fact to their romantic partners.

@17/EmmaLiz has a reasonable rule of thumb, which one can use to check their behavior, but I think the reality is that people like DADT know those facts that they want to avoid disclosing and consciously work to rationalize their failure to disclose.

I have posted multiple times that I think people spend a lot of time worrying about cheating when they should be worried about other shit. But I also think that the person with whom you are cheating has to be able to make that choice as well. So I am almost all the way with LavaGirl: NSA means something. Still, I think that other person needs to understand why to some degree. Of course, there is something extremely ironic that I'm cool with some level of honesty with a hookup when that honesty doesn't exist with one's partner. But the main reason for this is preventing the hookup from showing up at the doorstep or office or wherever. If the hookup knows the situation then they can decide if that's going to work. If not, fuck it, move on.

"I don't want to turn him off at the outset or end something that could be really fun before it even starts." Translation: I'm selfish and I want to fuck this guy, even if I have to deceive him to do it. No. Tell him. Certainly before any physical contact occurs. Dan, think of it this way -- if this guy DOES only want casual, which is the only way this can proceed, yes?, then knowing DADT is married will be a RELIEF, not a dealbreaker.
Tell him casually. Drop "my husband" into conversation. If he freaks out, you've dodged a bullet.

Jodo @11: That's rude. Cocky is entitled to his preference. I've been poly for a long time now, I have a thorough understanding of open relationships, and I understand that it is indeed a drag to ask a primary-partnered person if they're free on X date and have the answer inevitably be "Let me check with Primary" (particularly when you have no primary of your own).

Glad some of the gay men on the board are in agreement with me here.

If you think disclosing your married status may turn him off, you basically have your answer. You shouldn't be hooking up, casually or not, with someone who you've had to knowingly deceive.

I'm just pointing something out.

In previous posts involving men in open relationships having one night stands with women, Dan has insisted on the men's ethical obligation to disclose their relationships. In response, I've argued that, for one night stands, if the man is clear about what he is looking for and does not mislead the other person with the prospect of something more, while it's not okay to lie, he is not obligated to voluntarily divulge his relationship status without prompting.

In response, I was roasted in the comments section. But my position was less extreme than what Dan is saying here. Because one night stands only last one night, and are much less of a commitment than a semi-regular booty call, and in this particular instance (not involving a woman), Dan sees an obligation to disclose only if there's some sign.

@10 I get what you're saying and agree best if people in relationships on dating / hookup apps disclosed in the profile (second best, saying not into LTR as I suggested). Folks like @8 who feel it's a "slap in the face" to singles even on a hookup app is one reason people don't disclose (another is that some people are cheating on their significant, or just looking / getting their flirt on).

Cocky @8: "Lording your partnered status over guys in a singles forum (most of whom not by choice) seems calculated to try to make others feel like shit about their lives."

I don't see it that way, but I DO see it as making it very clear to anyone who might be interested that their "wonderful" partner will always come first in their life; that they are seeking a fuck-buddy rather than someone who could become a second partner. I can see that it would be off-putting but they're doing you the favour of letting you know where you'll stand.

Gay men of the board: Since DADT did not in fact specify the gender of his partner, would it affect your opinions if said partner were in fact female? Would a bisexual married man be a bigger no-no than a gay married one? If so, would disclosing only that he was married constitute hiding material facts?

If it's clear it's casual, I'm not sure there's an obligation to say why it's casual (i.e. 'I'm married'). But the gay men currently having casual hookups would seem to take another view....

@26. pythag. It’s not a casual lover's responsibility to prevent their hookup's catching feelings for them--not the erotically successful, partnered lover's responsibility. This would be an argument of ressentiment (the view equating lack or inferiority with virtue).

It is a semi-regular NSA's hookup's responsibility to be clear it's casual.

Delta @27: The reason I don't think "not into LTR" suffices is that most of the LTRs I've ended up in, I was not looking for at the time. Fuckbuddies often fall in love -- sometimes they get lucky and both of them fall in love -- so it's important that anyone know up front if a person is mono-amorously partnered and therefore this is not a possibility.

Ms Beth - The joke would be that the giveaway was the word "happily". (This is where I'd like a statistician, who could report what proportion of LWs/podcast callers who self-report as "happily" married or partnered are in various combinations, because, while I did just toss that off the top of my head, maybe it is the case that happiness in marriage is - instead of, as Charlotte Lucas tells Elizabeth Bennet, entirely a matter of chance - tilted. Of course, we'd still have the problem that the letters we see are not a random sample.)

When you posted #12, the only commenter who'd mentioned LW's "husband" was Mr Carpenter. He was following Mr Savage's lead, citing Mr Savage's reference to LW's "husband" (in the last paragraph of the answer), and continued to use the word. After post #3, nobody used the H-word, and most of the discussion was about commenters' MM experiences with little mention of LW at all. How did that seem to be "everyone"?

I do think it's the custom to follow Mr Savage's lead, largely for the reason than that we knows the letters are edited, and Mr S has occasionally clarified an unspecified gender.

While "partner" could be a woman, one rarely encounters that word as a descriptor of a woman to whom a man is happily married at present. The use of the word at all suggests either British (possible, though there doesn't seem to be any backup), high dedication to gender-neutral language (dubious) or non-OS-partnered (nod to M?? Harriet). It also intersects with "open since the beginning", which tilts SS as well.

@29 For myself, it doesn't matter if a man is married to another man or to a woman. I treat them the same, but differently than I treat single people.

@30/31 A married person's ability to schedule meetings and, often, to meet up when they have agreed to do so, is seriously modified by their primary relationship. Married people are much more likely to cancel at the last minute or just not show up because their spouse has suddenly changed their mutual schedule at the last minute. And they are just not as physically available, because so much of their time is taken up with their spouse. So even leaving aside the emotional side of regularly hooking up with someone, married people should disclose their married status if it's more than a quick fuck in the bushes because the other person does, I think, need to understand and expect the logistical drawbacks that accompany a married fuck buddy.

Also - NSA sex isn't really completely NSA sex after the first few times with someone else. And even the first time, we're obligated to treat the other person with civility, so there is that common string of being human together. NSA means you don't want to get into a romantic relationship, but it does not mean you necessarily want emotionless sex with interchangeable people. For that, you specify Anonymous, and don't exchange names or otherwise interact with the other person except to get off.

We're humans - emotionless sex is something some christian sects strive for, to take away the "sin", but in real life people develop regular emotional attachments to other people - friendliness, fondness, kindness, excitement, anticipation, appreciation, relief, gratitude - the list, of course, goes on.

Ms Fan - (when 33 was composed, 29 was not yet up; I'll follow your lead, even though Mr Savage appeared to have inside information)

That could likely depend on the kink, and whether LW takes a role where his orientation commonly figures into the encounter or not. For some specialty interests, it's common to find straight men whose kink exploration is all MM, I suppose more so for those kinks that could be considered less or even non-sexual, although I suppose there's the straight equivalent of that gay LW who found he had a kink for getting happy endings from masseuses. It could be an advantage to an OS-married LW to present as straight even if he identifies as bi, depending on the sort of scene he likes. I didn't go in for what I'll call turn play myself, though it has its adherents, and there even more for a few types of power exchange that run on a parallel line.

LW has been chatting with Mr Compatible Kink, which makes it seem much less likely he's OS-married, at least in anything within my ken. After several chats, I almost always knew how he got started, something about his taste in encounters, and usually at least some details of one or two. Orientation would naturally have arisen at some point for anyone Kinsey Four or lower, especially comparatively; partnered status, not quite so much.

Your question is a tricky one, because it might well be a question of correlation versus causation. It's also a third-layer question, because, unless it were something about which someone related his situation from the beginning, we'd have already navigated the bi/gay question and the partnered/single question in one order or the other. In the abstract, it would probably play out as a markdown on compatibility, perhaps about a grade or half a grade on average.

I feel as if I've said too much, and apologize for not being able to be more direct, but at least this may convey some sense of why Mr Savage's insistence that it should make no difference tends to rankle.

@31/Harriet: “not the erotically successful, partnered lover's responsibility.” Nothing about being partnered implies being “erotically successful,” whatever that means.

I think @32/BiDanFan and @34/ECarpenter provide the better argument as to disclosing one’s marital status even in the context of what starts as an NSA relationship.

True E Carpenter, @34, we are humans and sex/ play and feelings often intermingle.
The LW has already muddied the waters by not being clear upfront before the kinky chat exactly what they are available for and what their boundaries are.
You mean nsa can be like some marriages SA @36, after agreeing to a relationship form one of the participants decides they want to change it.
The LW’s partner and they have a DADT contract, so their outside play doesn’t shift their relationship paradigm. The LW is not available for anything except a nsa connection and however they communicate to this man or others, it needs to be unambiguous.
LW, if you are not looking for anything outside kinkplay, you need to disclose this early with others. If you don’t want this man or others to ‘catch feelings’ which may see them clamouring for more of you, be very clear now what you are offering. I’m not as convinced as others here that you have to disclose you are married, as opposed to being not available. Though my understanding of a lot of these dynamics is academic, my guess is the less the other person in this situation knows about your private life, the better.

I think Dan's advice to the Trump voter was that he had to disclose no matter what.

You can't have ethical non-monogamy without informed consent, and you can't have informed consent without disclosure. I'd say the one exception is when it's a mutually understood one-off, but even a casual arrangement needs disclosure if it's going to happen more than once. Withholding information because the other person might decide to opt out is selfish and dishonest. Basically, if there's a reasonable chance it's relevant, it's relevant.

I guess I can imagine another exception being an arrangement strictly for kink play (similar to a professional arrangement), but even there, if there's any aftercare, you probably need to disclose. Or any out-of-scene conversation aside from negotiation, probably.

@34. ECarpenter. Of course NSA isn't emotionless. Of course in a relationship of any sort that's repeated or regular, there's comfort in the regularities--attraction to one's partner's habits or peculiarities, friendship, fondness, something more than solidarity. My partner right now has hookups, while I have legacy FWBs (and the most interesting extramural sex I have isn't at all of the form of hooking up with individuals of complementary kinks). I try to negotiate his hookups and his schedule well in advance, and as a couple we have few other personal or social commitments--but yes, things can come up.

There's still part of me that thinks 'if someone wants a relationship, look for a relationship'. Understand that a relationship and 'casual' are different. At a certain age, and level of self-confidence, I thought I was doing well to get guys to fuck me. No--wrong headset. Of course with very few changes I could have a relationship.

@36. Sublime. Listen to the tone of some of the comments saying it's morally imperative to disclose: roughly like 'we're single and not by choice; make everything explicit so we can avoid you and your superiority, or at least we can preferentially hook up with everyone except you, so that we avoid catching any feelings for someone emotionally unavailable'.

Isn't the point of hookups that the other person is emotionally unavailable? (Partly). That they're just an amazing disembodied quasi-fantasy dick (or ass)?

Is DADT indicative of an open relationship? It sounds to me like an attempt at a fixed relationship, with benefits.
For quick weeding out of others who may want more, just say I’m in a DADT relationship and that will convey all.

The tell for me in this letter that it’s from a man, is the word obligations.
LW, our obligations to other humans is to cause no harm. If you sense this man has gotten some impression re your status, you need to set him straight before you hook up.

No intentional harm.

"then you should of course tell him about your husband."

Spouse.

@37/LavaGirl: "You mean nsa can be like some marriages SA @36, after agreeing to a relationship form one of the participants decides they want to change it." Marriages are formalized relationships, with a social, and often religious, understanding, that stretch back millennia. Unilaterally changing the rules of your marriage, as if you are a free agent, is something I have rejected in the comments section before, and would do so again. And that is a far cry from misleading an NSA potential sex partner.

@41/Harriet: "Isn't the point of hookups that the other person is emotionally unavailable? (Partly). That they're just an amazing disembodied quasi-fantasy dick (or ass)?" DADT is not merely "emotionally unavailable," a rather fuzzy term that typically isn't a life-time condition, he is married. He knows (and many married people learn) that married people in open relationships may encounter some people searching for casual sex who will not fuck them. DADT and anyone else who isn't upfront about their marital status wants to avoid that possibility. They are willing to hide a fact that a significant number of people want to know in order to get sex. @21 I pointed out that DADT was clear in his mind that these would be NSA encounters, but unlike marriages, which I point out above have a long, defined history, simply saying NSA or casual encounter, is not enough. It is no harder to say, "I'm married, and in a DADT open relationship," than "I'm just interested in an NSA sexual relationship." It's just that one statement may lose you sex partners.

ECarpenter @34: I propose Dan's response be replaced with your post. Very well said.

Harriet @40: Isn't the conventional wisdom that the least effective way of finding a relationship to look for one? Surely in many cases, relationships simply develop when one hookup turns into two, turns into several, turns into a realisation that you really like this person on a deeper level, turns into a revelation that they feel the same way. Or when a single hookup goes so well that everyone who has come before pales by comparison. Worded differently, relationships and "casual" aren't different, they are merely different points along a continuum of connection.

Harriet @41: I thought the point of hookups was to get laid. In other words, "no strings" means no expectations -- and the expectation that someone will just go away afterwards is still an expectation! You might hook up with someone and never see them again. You might hook up with someone and end up married to them. Both of these situations have happened to me. Life is what happens when you are making other plans. If you WANT the person to go away afterwards, you should be explicit about that -- and telling them you're married is a great way to manage those expectations, because they may have some without necessarily realising it, and they may change once sex has happened. (General "you" throughout.)

Lava @42: Some open relationships are DADT, others are not. I'm not sure what you mean by "a fixed relationship, with benefits." By "fixed" do you mean unchanging or repaired? Yes, it's a committed relationship, without a forsaking-all-others rule, but an expectation that any others be for sex only, not emotional connection.

SA@47, A deal is a deal, that’s true in business, isn’t it, then why give a pass to relationships. By your reckoning, one pre emepts them.
NSA is not for everyone, so don’t sign up for it if it’s not for you.

@50/LavaGirl: I think this very letter demonstrates why your perspective fails in real world situations. DADT knows what he is seeking, and knows his partner is up for casual sex, but he also acknowledges that his potential sex partner believes him to be single. That is relevant because DADT cannot give more, bit his potential sex partner many be open to more down the road. That is a common way for relationships to start, undefined, but with some expectations or assumptions. Not only are you boxing DADT and his prospective sex partner into an NSA arrangement, which doesn’t fit what has transpired, you are acting as if saying NSA is an incantation which makes the requirement of basic honesty disappear.

I got confused there SA. I don’t think I’ve boxed anyone in, I agreed the LW needs to address any misconceptions his potential play mate might have. The LW is allowed to be clear there is no future past or outside kink play, and the man can accept or reject that.
The LW says he’s only looking for a casual hookup, or is that another category and not NSA.

@47. Sublime. Morally I'm with you. If:

'you know this is just casual, right? We have matching kinks but this can only ever be casual for me'

allows a married guy to have some casual partners, while:

'I'm looking forward to exploring our kink, but I have to tell you upfront that I'm a married man'

loses the same married guy some sex partners, I think it's more honorable to say the second--to go for full disclosure. At the same time, my advice to casual partners would certainly be not to get your hopes up--to cross your fingers that casual will develop into more-than-casual. Accept that it's just a match of kinks. That (maybe) you wouldn't like your lover so much if it had to be a match of personalities.

@49. Bi. I still sort-of feel that there's a 'culture of casual' (or many cultures, in different sexual subcultures) and that, in belonging to a subculture, the participants can be expected to know the rules. That a part of e.g. gay male identity, certainly, is knowing the rules--and glorying in them, taking pleasure in them in a mark of group identity. (For instance, I wouldn't run round the dungeon at the end of play scribbling people's names down on a map and saying that I'm thinking of holding a similar event myself, and that they can expect an email. It would betray a worrying lack of understanding of how things worked). On this sort of basis, I agreed with Dan saying 'you look kind-of dense' in over-disclosing and seeming not to understand how gay hookups work.

I've read this advice from Dan before - that you shouldn't say that you're only available for casual until the other person brings it up.

I suppose in a hook up app, the default assumption is casual connection. I don't really see the harm, in the negotiation stages, of mentioning that what you're seeking out of the app is occasional kinky fun. I don't think that's dense at all.

I think it's worth mentioning, ESPECIALLY if you are a kinky woman who plays with kinky men. There seem to be more men than women, and while a lot of kinky men just want to get off, some of them are longing for romance and intimacy, even the ones who seek play partners. (And a small subsection of those guys project romance onto all the positive female attention they get.)

And, regardless of your gender, there's no harm in making sure you're not hurting feelings. Kink is really intense for some people, and that intensity can create strong feelings. And while you can't predict or prevent that, it can still be helpful to know what your expectations are up front.

Harriet @53: I'd defer to you and Dan, but multiple gay men on the board share my position, so, no. Your "this is just how it works in Gay World" does not hold up.

Here's how it works for me a couple of times a month:
Chat with guy on Grindr, Adam, or Scruff. Things turn dirty, have to discuss where to meet. That's when his "singlehood" or whatever is established. Personally I don't mess with guys who are cheating on anyone, I just find it ethically wrong. Guys who are married to women are also not of interest to me as I don't play particularly safe and I don't want to be the cause of a calamity for an innocent third party. Men who are with other men and are in open relationships are cool, I'm not looking for a relationship so they're ideal. In fact, they're somewhat of a preferred group.

cocky: love the screen name, btw.

Gay men in open relationships are both banging all kinds of guys and accept the potential for STDs that comes with that. Open women, IMO, may be banging a straight guy here or there, but not like us gays... lol. So I'd feel guilt if I introduced syphillis in to their happy happy situation. I also question how many women let their man get gay sex on the side...

I tend to come down closer to Mr Balls' side than Mr Browne's, though I'd ask Mr Balls to clarify whether or not he does MMFs.