Mono Partner and "Sex" Boundary

New2This3

New member
Very simple question....

Say there is a potential MFF Vee dynamic/relationship, whatnot....One F is monogamous and does not want the M (hinge) to have any sex whatsoever with the other F....same said mono F is okay with the other MF having other forms of intimacy, hugging, friendly kissing, holding hands, etc....but not sex.

Is this reasonable? What are some ways a negotiation/compromise can be made?
 
Call them Jane, Harold the Hinge, and Joann.

Is this reasonable?

Yes. It is reasonable for Jane to have her preferences. Everyone is allowed to prefer what they prefer. That is fair.

She is up for a V model where (Jane and Harold share love and sex) and (Harold and Joann share love only. No sex.) It is reasonable for her to say what she is up for and what she is not. People are not mind readers.

(But just because it is reasonable for her to have her own preferences and make people aware of what they are? It doesn't mean other people are up for that!)

What are some ways a negotiation/compromise can be made?

Harold and Joann ask Jane if that is a hard limit or a soft limit.

  • A hard limit will NOT change no matter how much time passes.
  • A soft limit could change over time.

If a hard limit? Harold and Jane could choose to either accept the offer and refrain from sex. Or decline the offer. And move on together or apart.

It would NOT be reasonable for them to agree to something they don't really want and are NOT up for. Secretly hoping it will change later. Having a covert agenda is no good.

It would be more reasonable to ask clarifying questions, honor their own preferences from the start, and accept it is not a match if it is just not a match. Give an honest "No. I am not willing to do that. And I am not able to do that."

If this is a soft limit, they could ask Jane to clarify how/when she sees that changing over time. Harold and Joann could make some negotation points there. Then Harold, Jane, and Joann decide if they are up for working with a soft limit like that or not. If they can, they accept the offer and work it. If they cannot, they decline the offer.

Hard limit or soft limit? If a 3 people thing won't fly Harold will have to choose his second best choice.

  • Let go of (the want to poly with Joann) and seek a poly partner what is ok with this model.
  • (Let go of poly entirely) so it doesn't even apply
  • (Let go of Jane) so he doesn't have to consider her preferences.
  • Let go of both Jane and Joann. Move on without either.

Joann and Jane will have to choose their second best choices too. See if any of those line up. It may go down to 2 together and 1 moves on. At that point the conversation becomes WHICH 2? WHICH 1?

Or it becomes all 3 apart and all 3 move on.

I don't think they can "compromise" or "negotiate" a hard limit though. And it is foolish to go against your own grain doing things you don't really want to do just to be with someone or secretly hoping things will change. Easier accept it is not a math and skip trying to fly a kite that won't fly.

There is a difference between coming to compromise like taking turns and compromising one's preferences/values.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
If everyone involved is sexual (i.e. not asexual), then I believe having a limit of no sex ever for one 'arm' of the V is not ethical or practical. I don't believe it's ethical to try and set those kinds of very intrusive limits forever. For me that kind of long term control meant to manage one partner's emotions is not a good idea ethically or practically. What ends up happening is people have sex anyway, lie about it - or not - and everything implodes. Agreeing to a bad rule can be a set up to failure - both of the 'original' couple and the 'arm' of the V not having sex.

Now this kind of thing can work for shorter, defined periods of time while one partner works on emotional health - the others give them the space and support to do so without having the fact of sex in their face, so to speak. I've seen that work, occasionally. I still don't think it's always wise but sometimes saying, 'Hey, I need 6 months to wrap my head around your having a sexual relationship with so and so. If you would refrain from 'definition of sex here', that would help.' Then the people in that 'arm' could decide if they can live with that for 6 months. (I'm not saying 6 months is ideal - just what I picked.) And people could still agree to this and just know in their bones that they can't do it. And things would then still explode.

If the 'arm' in question is a mostly romantic connection where sex is not the point, then this could work. But then the 'sticking point' for the mono partner can, and often does, shift from sex to something else that is triggering, like sleepovers, or holiday celebrations.

To sum up, enforcing rules on others to manage one's own pain is generally not sustainable, healthy, ethical, or practical.
 
Hi New2This3,

Is it reasonable for Jane to want Harold and Joann to abstain from sex with each other? Yes. That is reasonable. For Jane. And it is reasonable for Harold and Joann to want to have sex. Our wants can be reasonable without being compatible. In the situation you described, I am thinking the V configuration is not meant to be. I suppose that could change if Jane could be talked into changing what she wants, but I don't know how to talk her into that (or if it's even possible).

I think I'd need more information to come to further conclusions. But these are my initial thoughts.

Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
A thing is only as reasonable as the people involved deem it to be. You need to be having this discussion with the other F and M in this scenario and find out their thoughts. That the first F is mono is neither here nor there. That doesn't make a request like that any more objectively reasonable than if it were coming in different circumstances.

If the question is alluding to how typical that scenario is, I would imagine not very. Firstly, it is very hard to maintain loving feelings and experience a sexual attraction for someone, and not act upon the latter. Many people would find that to be an unsatisfying and frustrating place to be. At the same time, many people who feel insecure or otherwise can't face the notion of sharing their partner sexually would find that same situation to be a constant cause of anxiety and worry. Just knowing that your partner desires another sexually can eat away at a person's self-esteem if it's not possible to see each person within the couple as individuals, and see that the other person's actions very often have little to do with oneself. Someone who has done the internal work to overcome the constant worry and rebuild the trust is likely to have fewer concerns about their partner hooking up with others, and would be in a better shape to accept and support their partner having sex with others. So whilst it *is* possible for the mono person to do that, it's unlikely that would leave them at the point of still wanting to request that their partner restrict themselves in that way.

I think what is more common when encountering a mismatch of desires ('I am poly, but you are mono, how do we make this work?') is for an established couple to either recognise that they are both in a better position if not going against their own grain, and separating as a couple, or for the mono person to adjust to the point at which he or she can accept that their partner wants a sexual and/or romantic relationship with another without it causing them emotional pain. How couples go about that varies, and there is no one-size-fits-all way to transition. Much depends on the personality traits of both members in the couple and the health of the original relationship. There are also strategies in between. For instance, it is almost never reasonable to expect instant acceptance from the mono partner, but perhaps if the transition goes at a slow enough pace, the mono can keep up, and perhaps if the poly partner is willing to drop fantasies that involve the mono partner directly (i.e. the idea that one day s/he will get to live with all their lovers - this directly affects both other partners and therefore that's not really up to the poly partner), then a slowly-slowly approach can represent an in-between strategy.
 
I generally feel it's best to be responsible for yourself and only yourself, and leave your partners free to make their own choices. Anything short of that is unlikely to be sustainable.

Is it reasonable to want a pet who will greet you at the door and sit on your lap when you watch tv? Sure. Is it reasonable to get a goldfish and expect it to meet you at the door and sit on your lap? No.

There's nothing unreasonable about wanting your partner all to yourself. It's the cornerstone of monogamy. But dating a poly person who's dating someone else, and expecting them to behave in a way that's contradictory to their nature? Probably not gonna work out.

For the record, a "boundary" is not the same as a "rule" or "agreement." Boundaries are limits you impose on yourself; e.g. I will not stay in any relationship where my partner is having sex with other people. Rules are limits you impose on other people, and are really only valid when you're in a position of authority over them (e.g. parent/child, employer/employee). Agreements are where two people consent to limits (or expectations) on their behaviour. Might seem pedantic, but it's important to think of them as different things. You're always allowed to have any boundaries you want in a relationship: boundaries are all about you and what behaviours you'll tolerate from other people. You're never allowed to make rules in a relationship: rules are always about authority. Agreements can be made by any group of people, but those agreements should align with actual intentions and desires. Agreeing to something you prefer not to do, or worse agreeing to something knowing you don't intend to follow it, is never in the recipe for health and happiness.

There is a difference between coming to compromise like taking turns and compromising one's preferences/values.

i.e. the difference between compromise and sacrifice. Compromise is where both parties are more-or-less comfortable with the agreement. The best compromise is when both people feel like they "won." But no one should feel like they "lost" in a compromise, otherwise it's a sacrifice. Relationships built on sacrifice are doomed.

Assuming Harold and Joann actually want to have sex, there's really no way to "compromise" -- either they have sex, or they don't. If they do, then Jane is sacrificing her value of sexual monogamy. If they don't, then Joann and Harold are sacrificing their value of sexual expression.

If everyone involved is sexual (i.e. not asexual), then I believe having a limit of no sex ever for one 'arm' of the V is not ethical or practical.

Education opportunity!

Asexual means lack of sexual attraction. It's an orientation, specifically that the group of people to whom you tend to feel sexually attracted is "no one." It is not the same as having no sexual desire. An asexual person can still want and enjoy sexual relationships with their romantic partners. I think of it this way: I never see a hottie from across the street and think "I'd spread my legs for them" but I do feel sexual desire, generally responsive, with certain people; and I experience arousal at all kinds of awkward times (like watching the animal channel...)
 
Last edited:
In my world no that is not reasonable.

I do not allow partners to put restrictions upon myself or relationships they are not involved in.

But everyone does things differently. If BOTH women address ok with that rule then so be it. But consent must be obtained first. It would be wrong to spring that rule blindly upon a partner.
 
Last edited:
While it's logical, I agree that it's probably not practical.

My biggest cavil is that it's really just another well-established facet of monogamy-as-practiced, NOT polyanything.

The larger problem is the allure of the forbidden, dangling the goodies just the teensiest bit out of reach until some nice big blowup happens (whether or not the goodies are ever grabbed).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201201/14-quotes-the-forbidden

(Well, a few of those quotes make clear the blogger's confusion, but most are good. I like Bonapart's the best.)

If you're gonna be monogamous, then be monogamous -- period. When you've got a powder keg in the frontroom, "generously" replacing the fast fuse with the slowest you can find, then lighting it, is NOT a particularly loving gesture.:eek:
 
I'm in a MFF V and I couldn't imagine not being physically intimate with both F's

Edit: what I mean is, I can't imagine one partner trying to limit my activities with the other partner. Maybe my wife but wouldn't she just veto the GF or ask to close the marriage rather than say I can date my GF but not sleep with her?
 
Last edited:
AJM said:
I'm in a MFF V and I couldn't imagine not being physically intimate with both F's

I am confused. Could you be willing to clarify? Are you the shared sweetie? It is

(female + [male) + female]? FMF?​

Because MFF V makes me think one of the females is the shared sweetie in this V. Like...

(male + [female) + female]​

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Re (from OP):
"One F is monogamous and does not want the M (hinge) to have any sex whatsoever with the other F."

Per the above quote, the male person (M) is the hinge (i.e., FMF).

Unless the question is for AJM (but I still think that's an FMF).
 
Back
Top