Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, September 4, 2012
Savage Love SL Letter of the Day: Free Spirit, My Ass
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM
I'm on hiatus while working on a manuscript for a new book. In the meantime, please enjoy these classic Savage Love letters pulled from previous columns. I will be back October 1st, when the book is finished. —Dan
Recently, I celebrated my first year of marriage to the most amazing man. When we first began dating, he told me that he enjoys open sexuality and wants swinging to be part of any partnership he's in. I regard myself as free-spirited and agreed to explore this with him. We delayed experimentation because I had a stressful job and I wanted to spend my limited free time with him instead of exploring our sexuality with multiple partners. My work situation changed, and we have since had about a dozen experiences in the past year. I have discovered that these situations are not a turn-on for me—in fact, they are a turnoff. I feel resentful after these episodes, and I don't feel like having sex for days. We have discussed this at length, and we have been seeing a counselor. Recently, we had a civil discussion wherein we discussed the possibility of him having these sexual experiences without me, since I do not find them compelling. This idea appealed to him. He proposed going to a sex party alone that very night.
Ever since then, I have been crushed by the prospect of my husband having a sex life outside of our relationship. Since we met, his sexuality has had an outward trajectory, rather than being relationship centered. Having a healthy sexual relationship with him is enough for me. He makes a good point that he has been straight about his desire for this lifestyle since day one, but I am still frustrated and horrified that my husband needs to have sex outside of our marriage. I can't help but feel hurt that I alone am not enough for him.
I'd appreciate your straight, honest feedback on this.
Sex Best One On One
My response after the jump...
Straight, honest feedback: You are an idiot. Your husband informed you in advance about the "outward trajectory" of his sexuality; you knew going in that your husband could never be satisfied in a marriage that didn't involve "open sexuality" and swinging. Don't come crying to me now because the man you married wants to actually have sex with other people. You knew that before you married him, SBOOO, because he fucking told you so.
You're unlikely to encounter a marriage counselor who'll take your husband's side (nonmonogamy? boo!) over yours (monogamy? yay!), SBOOO, so I'm going to aggressively come to his defense: You're never going to convince your husband that one-on-one ought to be enough for him. Sorry. You're also going to have a hard time convincing him that you didn't deceive him in the run-up to this marriage. When he told you that monogamy was a deal breaker, SBOOO, you replied that you were "free-spirited" and willing to "explore." But, alas, circumstances beyond your control prevented you from embarking on any explorations until after the wedding, and only then—only after he married you—did you discover that your husband's sexual interests both frustrated and horrified.
How convenient.
Because if you'd been a little less stressed at work, SBOOO, maybe you could've made time for a little swinging before the wedding. Then you might've learned that nonmonogamy wasn't for you and been able to give this amazing man that information before he married your ass. Oh, but your work schedule didn't allow for premarital explorations, and now this amazing man has to decide whether to go through the hell of a divorce—knowing full well that he will be seen as the bad guy by all your relatives and friends, and 99.99 percent of marriage counselors—or give in to your emotional, sexual, and financial blackmail.
Want more evidence that you weren't negotiating with your husband in good faith before the wedding, SBOOO? How about this: You aren't negotiating with him in good faith now. So you recently had "a civil discussion" with him about the possibility of his going to sex parties alone—how many uncivil discussions have you had?—but then you were crushed when he wanted to take you up on this proposed compromise. So once again he wants to fuck around, once again you agree to his fucking around in principle, once again he proposes fucking around in earnest, and once again you lose your shit—only this time you go boohooing to an advice columnist and not a marriage counselor.
Sorry, SBOOO, you picked the wrong columnist. You want and always wanted a monogamous commitment. Free spirit, my ass. You are—surprise!—sexually incompatible. Divorce. Get it over with.
2
Yeah, I have to go with Dan on this one -- you're both on different pages and that won't change. Divorce and move on.
3
My nice, optimistic, all-the-best-to-you-guys side hopes they have gotten a reasonably amicable divorce by this point, and are living out their preferred lifestyles with new partners (and number of partners) of their choice.
My cynical side wants to bet that she has become strategically pregnant, both to make it harder for him to leave (not to mention more expensive), and also to make him look like more of an asshole if he does. Cause it sort of sounds like that's how this woman would roll.
My cynical side wants to bet that she has become strategically pregnant, both to make it harder for him to leave (not to mention more expensive), and also to make him look like more of an asshole if he does. Cause it sort of sounds like that's how this woman would roll.
4
Oh, and just in case she was honestly mistaken about what kind of person she was -- "I thought I was free-spirited, I really did; but apparently I'm not as free-spirited as I thought" -- she should get out of that marriage because she doesn't belong in it.
5
Dan was right when he gave that advice, but I think he should have at least given her some modicum of credit for actually giving it a limited shot. What percent of people would actually do that?
6
Oh yeah, I remember this one.
I think Dan's answer is right, but I do have a deal of sympathy for SBOOO. She probably pictured the swinging as a fun thing they'd do together, occasionally; and because she pictured it sunnily, she probably honestly thought she could handle it and probably even enjoy it. She clearly wasn't prepared for the reality; that's nobody else's responsibility but hers, of course, but I think she deserves at least a little slack for what sounds like it was really nothing more than being naively optimistic.
But yeah, they really should've worked through this before they got married. She does definitely deserve a scolding for putting off finding out for damn sure whether or not she could deal with something that's kinda major until after shit had already gotten pretty real.
:(
I think Dan's answer is right, but I do have a deal of sympathy for SBOOO. She probably pictured the swinging as a fun thing they'd do together, occasionally; and because she pictured it sunnily, she probably honestly thought she could handle it and probably even enjoy it. She clearly wasn't prepared for the reality; that's nobody else's responsibility but hers, of course, but I think she deserves at least a little slack for what sounds like it was really nothing more than being naively optimistic.
But yeah, they really should've worked through this before they got married. She does definitely deserve a scolding for putting off finding out for damn sure whether or not she could deal with something that's kinda major until after shit had already gotten pretty real.
:(
7
Wait, isn't the advice about bringing third parties into the bedroom usually that you want to wait a good, long time to establish the relationship with your primary partner? If what she says is true, she was GGG about swinging, and gave it a dozen tries over the course of a year. I think you were too harsh with this woman. She thought she'd be ok with it, gave it a go multiple times, and discovered that it wasn't for her.
On the other hand, it sounds as if her husband isn't treating her as the person he wants to spend his life with, but rather as the person who is his back-up at home when he doesn't have a sex party to go to. He sounds more into the sex parties than he is into her, and I bet that's one of the reasons she's not into the swinging.
She might be into it if her husband wasn't a dick.
On the other hand, it sounds as if her husband isn't treating her as the person he wants to spend his life with, but rather as the person who is his back-up at home when he doesn't have a sex party to go to. He sounds more into the sex parties than he is into her, and I bet that's one of the reasons she's not into the swinging.
She might be into it if her husband wasn't a dick.
8
@6 I would be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, except I can see straight through her thinly veiled "work situation" bullshit. She was seriously hoping once he was locked in, she wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. And that makes her a bitch.
9
I have a feeling Dan wouldn't be so harsh anymore - he's mellowing in his old(er) age. :P
It really does sound like she gave it an honest try. And it doesn't seem wrong to wait for the relationship to solidify and have the mental energy to invest before going there. And it is not at all surprising for someone to find the reality of swinging gross and unsettling compared to the fantasy or idea of it.
So, she's not a terrible person, but that doesn't change the fact that they are incompatible. I wonder what happened!
It really does sound like she gave it an honest try. And it doesn't seem wrong to wait for the relationship to solidify and have the mental energy to invest before going there. And it is not at all surprising for someone to find the reality of swinging gross and unsettling compared to the fantasy or idea of it.
So, she's not a terrible person, but that doesn't change the fact that they are incompatible. I wonder what happened!
10
1 He is a slut.
2 You deserve much better.
3 Move on and be grateful you haven't wasted more of your life (or had kids....) with this loser.
2 You deserve much better.
3 Move on and be grateful you haven't wasted more of your life (or had kids....) with this loser.
14
Dan, I realize you're being extra-harsh because you're convinced nobody else will be harsh enough, but why is this all her fault? Why isn't her husband just as much to blame for sealing the deal before they tried swinging, if that is how it happened?Â
And then, letter writers, please: stop saying you're with the most amazing person ever, if you're going to follow it up with "but he throws me down the stairs every night when he comes home drunk/she has a previously undisclosed penchant for sticking thumbtacks into my balls/she spent our retirement savings to buy a beach condo for her parents who hate me". There's no such thing as an objective perfect 10. If you're miserable in the relationship, then that person is not amazing for you.Â
And then, letter writers, please: stop saying you're with the most amazing person ever, if you're going to follow it up with "but he throws me down the stairs every night when he comes home drunk/she has a previously undisclosed penchant for sticking thumbtacks into my balls/she spent our retirement savings to buy a beach condo for her parents who hate me". There's no such thing as an objective perfect 10. If you're miserable in the relationship, then that person is not amazing for you.Â
15
@6 is right. SBOOO made an honest mistake. Yes, a divorce seems like the best solution, and yes it would have been better to assess things before the wedding, but anyone who's even willing to TRY swinging is way more than a free spirit. That person's a freakin' poltergeist.
16
She was still wrong to get married before trying swinging, even if you believe a relationship should be on firm ground. I mean, how firm of ground do you need? More firm than You need to get married? That's rediculus. Hope they are people who they are comparable with now and have learned to try before you buy.
17
apropos of nothing, I kind of want "Free Spirit: My Ass" on a t-shirt. Yes, I know that's not the same punctuation.
18
While I do think that a husband who would propose heading off to a sex party the very night of the civil discussion ought to be sentenced to providing involved and detailed feedback for ten days of intensive shoe shopping or some appropriate equivalent, this LW bears a considerable resemblance to Ms Gallagher and company for the following reason:
"How convenient" really needs to be said with a much longer EEEEE in one's best Church Lady voice. The situation is much the same in structure. If someone claims to be a non-bigoted person who just happens to be 1000% convinced that same-sex marriage will cause the destruction of the planet, it is incumbent upon such a claimant not to end the discussion at Just Saying No to marriage equality but also to provide an acceptable course of accdommodation in order to dodge the Bigot label, which is the default for the Just Say No crowd. If this LW wants to be deemed a Free Spirit, when the evidence is pretty strong that that's about as accurate a label as Compassionate Conservative when applied to Church Lady, the onus is on the LW to provide evidence of Freedom of Spirit, and being crushed by the prospect of his having a sex life outside of the relationship ISN'T IT.
She bluffed but can't stand being called a bluffer. He called the bluff in about as tone-deaf a manner as possible. I appreciate Mr Savage's perspective, but personally place the honours close enough to even that this couple should not be permitted to divorce as it would be a pity to see either of them with someone less deserving of the whole package.
"How convenient" really needs to be said with a much longer EEEEE in one's best Church Lady voice. The situation is much the same in structure. If someone claims to be a non-bigoted person who just happens to be 1000% convinced that same-sex marriage will cause the destruction of the planet, it is incumbent upon such a claimant not to end the discussion at Just Saying No to marriage equality but also to provide an acceptable course of accdommodation in order to dodge the Bigot label, which is the default for the Just Say No crowd. If this LW wants to be deemed a Free Spirit, when the evidence is pretty strong that that's about as accurate a label as Compassionate Conservative when applied to Church Lady, the onus is on the LW to provide evidence of Freedom of Spirit, and being crushed by the prospect of his having a sex life outside of the relationship ISN'T IT.
She bluffed but can't stand being called a bluffer. He called the bluff in about as tone-deaf a manner as possible. I appreciate Mr Savage's perspective, but personally place the honours close enough to even that this couple should not be permitted to divorce as it would be a pity to see either of them with someone less deserving of the whole package.
19
I can see how this happens.
If you look at this the same way that Dan often looks at monogamy and how folks struggle with it, it's almost the exact reverse situation. In the monogamy scenario, they try what is expected...conventional monogamy...and they fail. Dan suggests that most people can't make monogamy work, and that more relationships might be successful if they're monogam-ish.
Here she wants to be open-minded, to be conventionally GGG. It's how she sees herself. In that mindset it would almost be a flaw to NOT be open to it. So to avoid exposing a potential flaw in her altruistic view of herself (which is really no flaw at all) she agrees a relationship that is built on the expectation that she will be cool with it forever more. And commits a far more grievous (and REAL) mistake because she can't back it up.
So just like someone who is a CPOS who can't live up to their monogamy promise, she gets the verbal beatdown for not living up to her swinging promise. But in the big picture, I think there is a similar lesson here to the one Dan often draws about monogamy: many people can't make non-monogamy work. They shouldn't get caught up in trying to live up to some 'sex positive' ideal. If you like monogamy, own it. And I know, monogamy as the 'conventional norm' doesn't need Dan to stick up for it. At least, I think that's true in the broader sense. But I think it's nice when Dan reminds us (and he often does...thanks!), especially his longtime readers, that you are not 'sex-negative' just because you prefer monogamy.
If you look at this the same way that Dan often looks at monogamy and how folks struggle with it, it's almost the exact reverse situation. In the monogamy scenario, they try what is expected...conventional monogamy...and they fail. Dan suggests that most people can't make monogamy work, and that more relationships might be successful if they're monogam-ish.
Here she wants to be open-minded, to be conventionally GGG. It's how she sees herself. In that mindset it would almost be a flaw to NOT be open to it. So to avoid exposing a potential flaw in her altruistic view of herself (which is really no flaw at all) she agrees a relationship that is built on the expectation that she will be cool with it forever more. And commits a far more grievous (and REAL) mistake because she can't back it up.
So just like someone who is a CPOS who can't live up to their monogamy promise, she gets the verbal beatdown for not living up to her swinging promise. But in the big picture, I think there is a similar lesson here to the one Dan often draws about monogamy: many people can't make non-monogamy work. They shouldn't get caught up in trying to live up to some 'sex positive' ideal. If you like monogamy, own it. And I know, monogamy as the 'conventional norm' doesn't need Dan to stick up for it. At least, I think that's true in the broader sense. But I think it's nice when Dan reminds us (and he often does...thanks!), especially his longtime readers, that you are not 'sex-negative' just because you prefer monogamy.
20
It would be nice if these reruns had dates on 'em -- I'd be interested to know how long ago these were. (It'd also be interesting to know what happened afterwards, but of course the point of these reruns is that he doesn't have the extra time right now...)
I tended to agree with @6 for whatever it was worth. Still that was a pretty refreshingly bracing read. I feel a bit like that Maxell Tape kid...
I tended to agree with @6 for whatever it was worth. Still that was a pretty refreshingly bracing read. I feel a bit like that Maxell Tape kid...
21
I'm with #19. I'd be willing to bet she got caught between wanting to be GGG on general principles, and being heavily sold on the idea by him. Anybody who would open a discussion on solo non-monogamy with someone who isn't happy with even shared sessions, and end the discussion with "So, I can go tonight, then?" has got to be plenty pushy.
That and it takes two people to get married. If it's her fault for marrying him when she wasn't sure the terms would work out, it's equally HIS fault for marrying HER prematurely. If we go with the being pushy part of it, I could easily see him making the argument, "But honey, even thought I want to fuck other people, I'm totally committed to you, which is proved by the fact that we are getting married." That is exactly what happened with me with an old girlfriend. I was an idiot for going along with it, but she was as much of an idiot for pushing it on me and casting me as the repressed, unevolved bad guy who really just needed to be trying harder to see it her way, instead of just recognizing that we were, for better or for worse, on opposite sides of the monogamy fence, and there is nothing wrong with either side.
That and it takes two people to get married. If it's her fault for marrying him when she wasn't sure the terms would work out, it's equally HIS fault for marrying HER prematurely. If we go with the being pushy part of it, I could easily see him making the argument, "But honey, even thought I want to fuck other people, I'm totally committed to you, which is proved by the fact that we are getting married." That is exactly what happened with me with an old girlfriend. I was an idiot for going along with it, but she was as much of an idiot for pushing it on me and casting me as the repressed, unevolved bad guy who really just needed to be trying harder to see it her way, instead of just recognizing that we were, for better or for worse, on opposite sides of the monogamy fence, and there is nothing wrong with either side.
22
To me, they both botched it. She (it seems) married him without first establishing that she could handle non-monogamy and he simply accepted that she could without seeing how things would work in practice.
If I absolutely had to have a partner who loved skydiving, I'd probably want to go on a few jumps with them first before taking the plunge. I wouldn't assume that they'd just learn to love it.
If I absolutely had to have a partner who loved skydiving, I'd probably want to go on a few jumps with them first before taking the plunge. I wouldn't assume that they'd just learn to love it.
23
Wow, I guess she thought she could get away with a technicality. I feel sorry for the husband, who has been up from since Day 1. Poor guy.
24
Something that has always niggled with this letter is what was the husband thinking during the courting period? When someone tells you "Swinging? That sounds super sexy and fun! I would be totally into that! But not right now. Or next month, or in six months, or any time at all when we're dating, because I'm super super busy at work. But in the future I will be a swinging wildcat!" don't you have a red flag or two? And so you wait before proposing to see how it goes when this Extremely Important Dealbreaker is actually a part of the relationship?
And if it's just going super fast and you popped the question in the dizziness of new lust because she sounded so free spirit, wouldn't you put that in as a "Now before we tie the knot, we need to try a couple of sex parties, because I don't want you going into this without knowing what's involved"?
She's got plenty of fault, because he was upfront. But this is something that was pretty easy to explore before they married for him as well as her, and he allegedly went with "Hey, she SAID she'd be totally cool with this thing she'd never tried! How was I to know she might actually not like it? What could I have done differently?"
(And, he was totally cool with no swinging during the entire courtship and engagement? Even though it is a vital dealbreaker thing to him? What, did that part last six weeks and then they eloped to Vegas?)
And if it's just going super fast and you popped the question in the dizziness of new lust because she sounded so free spirit, wouldn't you put that in as a "Now before we tie the knot, we need to try a couple of sex parties, because I don't want you going into this without knowing what's involved"?
She's got plenty of fault, because he was upfront. But this is something that was pretty easy to explore before they married for him as well as her, and he allegedly went with "Hey, she SAID she'd be totally cool with this thing she'd never tried! How was I to know she might actually not like it? What could I have done differently?"
(And, he was totally cool with no swinging during the entire courtship and engagement? Even though it is a vital dealbreaker thing to him? What, did that part last six weeks and then they eloped to Vegas?)
25
Wow. Dan's reply is full of unnecessary nastiness, even for him. How many times has he said said that monogamish works best in cases where the couple has been, in his words - spoken as recently as Savage U and of course in other places - "effortlessly monogamous" - for a long while -ie maybe a year or more. Which makes total sense - ideally you fall super hard for the person and vice versa - to the point where they're all you need, certainly sexually ... for a while. Human nature being what it is, people get bored with time, and start wanting others. But wanting and needing to fuck others RIGHT AWAY?? Wow.
So ... what gives, Dan? Why does she deserve total blame here if she was GGG and gave it a go ... only to learn she simply didn't like it? Aren't people permitted to give things a try and decide it's not for them? The husband just HAS TO fuck other women, all the time, immediately into their marriage? No matter how it makes his wife feel? Because he told her this was his intention, and she likely wanted to please him and go along and give it a try ... that gives him a total pass? Shitty, nasty advice, here.
So ... what gives, Dan? Why does she deserve total blame here if she was GGG and gave it a go ... only to learn she simply didn't like it? Aren't people permitted to give things a try and decide it's not for them? The husband just HAS TO fuck other women, all the time, immediately into their marriage? No matter how it makes his wife feel? Because he told her this was his intention, and she likely wanted to please him and go along and give it a try ... that gives him a total pass? Shitty, nasty advice, here.
27
Velvet Babe... your head's spinning off into space. Her man told her BEFORE they got hitched that he wasn't interested in monogamy. She married him anyway, obviously okay with it. They tried it out many times AFTER they were married, and low and behold, she DIDN'T like it. He told her she didn't have to be non-monogamous, but that he was still interested in it. She said "okay". So....how the fuck is HE at fault? He was upfront and honest with her from the start. She married the wrong guy. There's 3 billion more fish in the sea. Hopefully she'll be smarter in her second marriage.
28
@20: the question was originally published Feb. 12, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/c5dgqc
I wish we could get an update too!
http://tinyurl.com/c5dgqc
I wish we could get an update too!
29
I have to wonder if the husband has ever actually been in a serious nonmonogamous relationship before, but just thought that's what he wanted. Perhaps he was just a guy that liked hooking up and have several FWB's, but had never actually combined the open sexuality with a serious relationship. Saying "agreed to explore this with him" seems like that could be the case
Yes, the guy was open about what he wanted, but he still needs to act with her feelings in mind. If he's never been in a serious open relationship, he may not know that he still needs to make his primary partner feel validated and make their sex life feel special. If he's ignoring her during their swinging and treating their sex life like its just something to do in between swinging again, then he's not doing this.
Maybe its not the swinging that's a turn off, but how he acts (potentially not making her feel special and validated) before/during/after these experiences is what actually turns her off. Maybe that's all she needs, but says "I can't help but feel hurt that I alone am not enough for him" because that's the only way she knows how to get the validation she needs.
Also, a dozen experiences seems kinda like a lot when you consider the fact that she's been uncomfortable with them. A conscientious swinging partner would slow things down and make necessary corrections before embarking on another event (as long as she communicated her discomfort of course). But if all he's doing is saying "well give it another shot, maybe it will get better" he's pushing a little too hard and not doing anything to actually improve the situation. You need to go at the pace the more uncomfortable partner to make an open relationship work. If after a few times and its not working, its probably a good idea to take a few months (or more) off before going for it again to reaffirm their relationship and sex life. Maybe they should try a MMF threesome where everything is about her for a night so she can start to learn to like having sex with another guy which might make it easier to see her partner have sex with another girl.
Just because he was open about what he wants doesn't mean he actually knows the proper ways to get it which might include waiting. She was willing to crack the window and he may have taken that as a sign to immediately open the floodgate.
More...
Yes, the guy was open about what he wanted, but he still needs to act with her feelings in mind. If he's never been in a serious open relationship, he may not know that he still needs to make his primary partner feel validated and make their sex life feel special. If he's ignoring her during their swinging and treating their sex life like its just something to do in between swinging again, then he's not doing this.
Maybe its not the swinging that's a turn off, but how he acts (potentially not making her feel special and validated) before/during/after these experiences is what actually turns her off. Maybe that's all she needs, but says "I can't help but feel hurt that I alone am not enough for him" because that's the only way she knows how to get the validation she needs.
Also, a dozen experiences seems kinda like a lot when you consider the fact that she's been uncomfortable with them. A conscientious swinging partner would slow things down and make necessary corrections before embarking on another event (as long as she communicated her discomfort of course). But if all he's doing is saying "well give it another shot, maybe it will get better" he's pushing a little too hard and not doing anything to actually improve the situation. You need to go at the pace the more uncomfortable partner to make an open relationship work. If after a few times and its not working, its probably a good idea to take a few months (or more) off before going for it again to reaffirm their relationship and sex life. Maybe they should try a MMF threesome where everything is about her for a night so she can start to learn to like having sex with another guy which might make it easier to see her partner have sex with another girl.
Just because he was open about what he wants doesn't mean he actually knows the proper ways to get it which might include waiting. She was willing to crack the window and he may have taken that as a sign to immediately open the floodgate.
30
@19, 21, 24, and 29: Thank you for addressing the complexities and nuances of actual human relationships, complete with shared responsibility, contradictions, and irrationality that characterize true interactions.
All to often on this thread people (Dan included this time) fall into "it's all his/her fault. He/she agreed to ________ and then changed his/her mind. Bitch!/Asshole!
Life is more complicated than that. People have a right to change their minds.
It's clear that this couple is incompatible as of the writing of this letter. Maybe they could/did get some help with their communication skills. Maybe they split up over this issue if it wasn't resolvable. But our unilaterally blaming one party and name-calling is useless, childish, and unrealistic.
All to often on this thread people (Dan included this time) fall into "it's all his/her fault. He/she agreed to ________ and then changed his/her mind. Bitch!/Asshole!
Life is more complicated than that. People have a right to change their minds.
It's clear that this couple is incompatible as of the writing of this letter. Maybe they could/did get some help with their communication skills. Maybe they split up over this issue if it wasn't resolvable. But our unilaterally blaming one party and name-calling is useless, childish, and unrealistic.
32
@30: Some of the backlash may come from the fact that being on the receiving end of a bait-and-switch on something damned important (and not restricting it to poly matters) is a depressingly common. So, when somebody commits to X or promises to accept Y and then demands or won't accept anything but Z. In short, a frightening amount of people have been subject to suddenly having the rules changed on them once they're locked into the relationship and feeling responsible for the complaining person's feelings. Folks can't go back in time and say "you double-dealing bastard!" to the folks who sandbagged them to their own benefit, but they can lash out in a blog thread.
Note, too, that poly issues are such that -- no matter how egregious the bait-and-switch -- society and almost everybody in it will blame the wronged person, not the switcher; the sort of person who reads and posts here knows and resents that unfairness. They're also more likely to take the side of the poly person, knowing damned well that this is about the only part of the world that will back them.
Not every change of mind is a bait-and-switch. But not every bait-and-switch is a change of mind.
Note, too, that poly issues are such that -- no matter how egregious the bait-and-switch -- society and almost everybody in it will blame the wronged person, not the switcher; the sort of person who reads and posts here knows and resents that unfairness. They're also more likely to take the side of the poly person, knowing damned well that this is about the only part of the world that will back them.
Not every change of mind is a bait-and-switch. But not every bait-and-switch is a change of mind.
34
@27 - I'm aware the husband was up front about it, and I agree with you and others, that these folks are clearly incompatable, and probably split up by now. I guess I just fucking hate it when Dan trashes somebody this much, who at least made the effort. *12* times of trying something out -in a year - that's once a month, folks, is a lot, particularly when you discover you don't enjoy it - at all. Dan gave the husband a total pass, here, which sucks. (Sometimes I think his love of non-monogamy blinds him.) Point being, BOTH parties were at fault here - so don't lay the blame entirely w/one. These people were stupid for not working on their sexual stuff before they tied the knot, clearly. If the guy told her he was into swinging before the wedding, that should have given her pause enough to give it an active try, many tries, before the wedding, to see if it worked for her, obviously. As others have pointed out, it sounds as though he doesn't give that much of a shit about her feelings here, ie here she is only ONE SHORT YEAR into her marriage, and she's already feeling insecure, and "crushed" - wow. Which I'm fairly certain is why Dan has said, as I pointed out, that monogamish tends to work best AFTER a long period of sexual exclusivity, which, ideally, results in the person new to the idea being more comfortable/confident/assured of their place in the spouse's life/order of things, etc before they give other people a try. So I remain puzzled as to why he didn't say this very thing in his response, and why he jumped down the chick's throat this much.
35
There are a couple things to be learned from this, folks.
1) Don't marry someone when you haven't even tried something they've said is non-negotiable.
2) Don't marry someone when they haven't tried something that you feel is non-negotiable.
I mean, really: they decided to get married, and her work schedule prevented them from trying this out until after they were married. What, exactly, was the rush? Couldn't they have not set a wedding date and not announced their engagement until they'd tried this vitally important thing?
1) Don't marry someone when you haven't even tried something they've said is non-negotiable.
2) Don't marry someone when they haven't tried something that you feel is non-negotiable.
I mean, really: they decided to get married, and her work schedule prevented them from trying this out until after they were married. What, exactly, was the rush? Couldn't they have not set a wedding date and not announced their engagement until they'd tried this vitally important thing?
37
@34 "monogamish tends to work best AFTER a long period of sexual exclusivity"
If that were true, then the bait-and-switch practices that seeker references above would be even more common. People would tell their non-monogamous partners "we need five years (and two children) first, and then we'll try swinging." But then children make divorce much harder.
I agree that two people bond best if they focus on each other for a number of years. But if swinging is important to one partner, they should experiment with some light swinging (at least making out with other people, or a threesome), before getting married. If even light swinging is too much, that's a sign of a strict monogamist who should stick with others of that kind.
If that were true, then the bait-and-switch practices that seeker references above would be even more common. People would tell their non-monogamous partners "we need five years (and two children) first, and then we'll try swinging." But then children make divorce much harder.
I agree that two people bond best if they focus on each other for a number of years. But if swinging is important to one partner, they should experiment with some light swinging (at least making out with other people, or a threesome), before getting married. If even light swinging is too much, that's a sign of a strict monogamist who should stick with others of that kind.
38
I gotta agree seeker 6079 and EricaP. If Dan is coming down hard on the LW it's because there's a good chance no one else will.
39
@35 I agree. Both parties seem to be at fault for this overhasty marriage. Esp. since we don't really know whether the LW honestly thought she could/would give swinging a fair chance.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (39) RSS