Reparation

It would make me uncomfortable if she didn't know. Mostly because I would be wondering why he wasn't being forthcoming and honest in what is supposed to be an open, honest, communicative relationship.

My concern would also be that if he isn't willing to be forthcoming with her about a possible boundary violation, how could you trust he would be honest with you about something similar? Might he not share information with you at some point, too?

I would want to see my partner being in integrity. I would want to see him share the info with her and work it out lovingly, so that I could trust that he is walking his talk and being who he says he is (honest, stable, etc).

I know there isn't much you can do besides tell her yourself, which could potentially cause hurt and drama. But you can encourage him to do the right thing, and let him know that it would reflect positively on him, in your eyes, if he does so.
 
It seems to me you're trying hard to blame yourself for something that you knew nothing about.

Why isn't it your partner's job to help you understand this new world you've stepped into? It seems to me that when someone invites another person into their world, knowing it's very different there's some responsibility there, too.

Your partner should have told you of any agreements. You cannot possibly be at fault for these things you didn't even know in a world with which you were unfamiliar.
 
Thanks for all the feedback!

I really hope you let go of this "cheating" idea.
Well, I really just mentioned that in the context of having learned that intentionally breaking a fluid bond agreement is often considered cheating, and being freaked out that that could potentially have been what happened. It wasn't, but that was where the anxiety was coming from.


Even if it turns out that this is a violation in your metamour's perception, most reasonable adults would hear your story, feel your sincere apology and go forward in good will from here. You're heaping way more responsibility on yourself than what's called for.
Thanks! I fully took that advice on board when you mentioned it earlier, and did let my partner know that they had to take responsibility and leave me out of that part of it. As it happens, they have (since my last reply on this thread) had the chance to talk to my metamour and then get back to me, and there was no violation according to my metamour, which was a relief to both of us. Or all three of us.

If they are in a highly stable relationship, then why would he be reluctant to talk this over with her? Why is this situation so charged? Why would he be asking you for "an act" that he knows his partner wouldn't be happy about? And then hold you even the slightest bit responsible? I'm thinking that there's a lot more going on here than just this one slip up. You can't know what all is happening in their relationship and it sounds as if you tripped a wire that you did not see. Most of this has absolutely nothing to do with you. This is a good time for you to get clear on your emotional boundaries.
Sorry if my language is frustratingly ambiguous in this thread, I'm just concerned about my partner's privacy, anonymity or no. They weren't reluctant to talk it over, as it turns out (I did ask, following Leetah's advice), they just hadn't managed to catch my metamour on the phone yet, because of a bad run of conflicting schedules.

I have managed to have one date with my partner since the incident, and we talked about a lot of this, including my metamour's response and their fluid bond agreement in detail, so that at least feels pretty resolved. A lot of issues have come to light, and everything you all have brought up here has been super valuable. So thank you immensely. I think we're in a good place in terms of recognizing where our respective issues are and working towards better times. Trust will certainly be at the forefront of it all. Certainly going to ask my partner to take on a little more of the weight in terms of educating me.
 
Sounds like things turned out alright after all ... That's good to hear.
 
BAD news, I'm afraid, anita!

You have been tried by a jury of your peers and found GUILTY on a charge of over-sensitiveness. The good news is that this is not as heavy a charge as being a heartless, callous arsehole, and - with good behaviour - you should be free again in a year or two.

Let's look at the evidence. (I'm doing this from memory, so some details might slip my mind. But I've certainly retained enough evidence to sentence you adequately.)

a) You're new to polyamory and getting used to new phrasology. (In fact, for a "newbie", you seem to be doing pretty well. Does your love of reading have anything to do with that?)

b) The same term may mean different things to different people. In this case, you assumed that the term "fluid bond" entailed the use of penises. Although under cross examination you have blatantly refused to specify details (and in THIS judge's case, the imagination is doing backflips!) it is evident from your follow-up to this statement of that [in this case: false] assumption, penises did NOT come into the picture (or anywhere else) in the case under consideration. So - operating under a [false] assumption (and the heady fumes of NRE) - you engaged in an act that you assumed had not violated that bond.

c) After your wicked lust had been satisfied and somewhat abated, it was YOU who asked your partner whether the bond had been broken. Said partner (gender unspecified, the mind truly boggles!) replied "technically".

d) Inasmuch as you were NOT a signatory to the fluid bond and your sexually-ambiguous partner was; inasmuch as you are new to polyamory and its terminology; it shows insight bordering on a criminal level that it was you who considered this possibility first; and gross negligence on your accomplice-in-crime's part to have crossed a border that THEY (generic pronoun) should have sited much more readily than yourself.

e) Neither your accomplice-in-crime nor your metamour is upset at you.

f)
I should clarify that my partner was not intentionally unfaithful
The mind boggles and reboggles! Were they tied up? In a drunken stupour and/or asleep at the time? (Don't answer that: I'll regain control of myself in a few moments. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Where was I?)

I could go on and on, but surely that's enough evidence. I am ready to pass sentence.

*********************

You are ordered to complete 36 hours of community service: NOT flogging yourself for something that WASN'T YOUR FAULT!!! How many people must say this before it sinks in?

If anyone was guilty of breaking a bond, it is this generic new partner of yours who shall remain nameless and has refused to testify in court. And they seem to be taking it a lot more lightly than you are, so ease up! If you refuse to do so, you will be brought up on a charge of contempt of court.

You are further advised to ensure that your accomplice and metamour are more open with you about THEIR boundaries. The onus is on them, not you.

This court is dismissed.
 
Last edited:
Word of honour: I did NOT post that twice. I just edited it. (The 2nd is the corrected version.) A bug in the technology. I was framed, Your Worship!

Edited: Thanks to moderators for removing surplus comment (first, uncorrected version).
 
Last edited:
Sounds like things turned out alright after all ... That's good to hear.
:) I'm fortunate to have found a partner who is very forgiving (not that I did anything wrong!) and gracious. Everyone makes mistakes, so it's just nice to be in a relationship where you're both invested in getting things back into a healthy space when that happens.


You have been tried by a jury of your peers and found GUILTY on a charge of over-sensitiveness.
You've ruined all my sense of self-perception, also my career, also my life, I'm going to spend all my savings on a Yuskavage HC or two and stare into them until I recover my identity.......

(In fact, for a "newbie", you seem to be doing pretty well. Does your love of reading have anything to do with that?)
Not sure if this was rhetorical or not but, I guess so?? Am glad I don't seem completely in the dark about all this.

Said partner (gender unspecified, the mind truly boggles!)
Yeah, it was kind of confusing when everyone was referring all of the parties with different genders from one post to another and I had to take and re-take and then realize who their pronouns were referring to!

e) Neither your accomplice-in-crime nor your metamour is upset at you.
Distortion of the evidence, your Rightness! My accomplice-in-crime is not upset at me *anymore*. And vice versa. Thanks in no small part to the invaluable support and perspective received from this thread. :)

Don't answer that
Which one, the drunken stupor and/or asleep, or the tied up?

How many people must say this before it sinks in?
3.5?

And they seem to be taking it a lot more lightly than you are, so ease up! If you refuse to do so, you will be brought up on a charge of contempt of court.
Ok yes but also.. oh, nevermind, privacy.. Please do consider me entirely eased, though! :)

A bug in the technology. I was framed, Your Worship!
Is.. "framed" another poly term that I don't know? Because it sounds kind of kinky.. Mm.. I am not into animal play, though, personally. (See, eased!!)
 
:) I'm fortunate to have found a partner who is very forgiving (not that I did anything wrong!) and gracious. [...] Distortion of the evidence, your Rightness! My accomplice-in-crime is not upset at me anymore. And vice versa.
Contradiction here: If you did nothing wrong,
a) there is nothing to forgive;
b) your partner shouldn't have been upset with you in the first place.

Even more so, since your partner (could we just call her/him/it "Jellyroll" to save misunderstandings? Has there ever been a female - or neuter - Jellyroll? Let's set a [possible] precedent.) - not being under the influence of mind-altering substances (well actually, you DIDN'T clear up that little detail, did you?) - crossed this line with you while more conversant with the "fluid bond" than you could possibly be. Is this sentence getting too long? In short, this alleged Jellyroll is more to blame than you (if any alleged blame is to be attached at all), so it is no act of grace to forgive you.

In fact (unless you DID have your wicked way while Jellyroll was helpless/legless/on the astral plane/tied up/otherwise incapable of protecting themselves), it wasn't very gracious of said Jellyroll to be upset with you after the alleged Jellyroll allegedly got their rocks off.

(You will please, in future, not distort my title. You are to address me as "Your FarFromRightness".)
I'm going to spend all my savings on a Yuskavage HC or two and stare into them until I recover my identity.......
Well, that's alright then.
I am not into animal play, though, personally.
Hmmm... or possibly not 100% alright, after all.
Please do consider me entirely eased, though!
Glad we (royal we and the other kind) could be of some assistance.
Is.. "framed" another poly term that I don't know? Because it sounds kind of kinky..
You have a dirty mind, Young Person. (For all I know, "anita" might be another ploy to cover your tracks. As to "Young" and "Person", these might, by some, be also considered unwarranted assumptions on my part, but - in the former case - everything is relative and I am rather certain that I am far more ancient than yourself. I will allow you to appeal against the charge of "Person" if you so wish.

No, My Dear (if I may be so forward!), "framed" is not a poly term. Am I to understand that you are of the American persuasion and that "framed" is strictly of British use? Must research that...

frame (verb, definition #25): Informal. to incriminate (an innocent person) through the use of false evidence, information, etc.

This court will be adjourned for lunch.
 
Last edited:
This thread is extremely hard, almost impossible, to parse, since we don't know the genders of the players and the "act" that was done without barriers.

Was it a man and 2 women? 3 women? Since there was no penis involved, can we assume there was cunnilingus without use of a dental dam or cling film in between tongue and pussy? Did someone get a hand job without the use of gloves??

Gosh, I am pansexual and have sex with women and men, cis or trans. I use condoms for intercourse, but have made the choice to do oral sex with either gender without condoms, as the risk is much lower. And I don't use gloves for digital sex. It has worked well for me over the past 7.5 years.

In any case, whatever the genders of the players, if you assumed that only PIV sex needed to have a barrier, that is a pretty common assumption. Not every goes to the idea that that also means barriers for oral or digital sex.

And I totally disagree with other posters saying you need to "confess" to your lover's partner that you and he/she/they/pronoun had some kind of sex without some kind of barrier, when you assumed fluid bonded meant only covering a dick for penetrative sex. Since when can we assume metamours even meet? Often they do not. We rely on the hinge of the V being "open and honest" with both of their partners. We never rely on metamours being friendly enough to meet. Nor do we assume that metas will be intimate enough to discuss the finer points of barriers for safer sex!
 
Last edited:
Your FarFromRightfulness, there were no astral planes and no wicked ways. Also, I was intentionally pretending not to understand the meaning of frame, for my own amusement. As for unwarranted assumptions, do you have a warrant? No? Then I do not permit a search of my person! I mean, if I even am one!?

Joking aside, I am sorry that I cannot make things clearer for readers. I take the privacy of Jellyroll very seriously. I have done my best to be as comprehensive as possible in the information shared as pertaining to my own resolution of my own misapprehensions, and nothing superfluous to that. The gender of the parties involved and the specifics of the sexual activities partaken in do seem to be superfluous, hence their exclusion. If "the act" had been under any kind of influence or had not been consensual or ethical in any way other than in the context of a potential violation of my metamour, I would have mentioned so. This thread was, after all, intended to help me discern how to possibly make reparations with my metamour. It would be useless to ask for such advice without disclosing the extent of the damages potentially done.

In retrospect, yes, my assumption that a fluid bond agreement would only include the literal exchange of bodily fluids was naive, and the whole thing could have been avoided if I had been more aware of the vestiges of privileged, assumey-laden society still festering within me and made a point of inquiring about this mysterious bond of fluids that my partner so obliquely mentioned to me. Ergo, IT WAS ALL MY FAULT AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
 
Do you KNOW your partner's agreement with their partner?

Do you KNOW your activity broke theirs?

Maybe to them fluid bonding *is* only involving penises.


If you now know and didn't, and something was involved like bondage or disability where your partner could not at the time, don't be too hard on yourself. It's may not be your partner's responsibility to educate you about poly, but it is their responsibility to educate you about their relationship.


If your partner has told your meta what happened, and you want to keep clearing the air, you can let them know you were really sorry it happened, and that you didn't know/adduced wrongly, etc, and would like to talk about what their assumptions and requests were so you can also do your part to keep G them.
 
I am sorry that I cannot make things clearer for readers. I take the privacy of Jellyroll very seriously.
Joking aside, for me, the genders, activities, and any other details are completely irrelevant (aside from the question of mutual consent, which I never really doubted). This thread was always about betraying trust, and guilt feelings. And - as the title states - reparation.

In my own most honorable, learned, and esteemed opinion,

a) no trust was betrayed (or - if it was - it wasn't you who did the betraying);

b) therefore no guilt should be felt; and

c) no reparation is due.

You are quite right to take Jellyroll's [Is that really her/his/its name?!!! Bit of a giveaway, no?] privacy seriously.

Amongst all my jokes, there were a few hints of complete seriosity. Just one example: unless you have grossly distorted the facts in the telling, Jellyroll had no right to ever be upset at you. If anyone in this case crossed a forbidden line, fully cognisant* of the fact that it WAS forbidden, that person was not you, but Jellyroll. As not only I have pointed out, you couldn't be expected to know what Jellyroll and your metamour meant exactly by "fluid bond" if they never spelled it out to you. Jellyroll did know where the boundaries lay... and crossed them.

Of course that might have made Jellyroll feel guilty (after you [honestly unsure, but wanting to be clear on this]] brought up the issue) and slough some of the blame off onto you. Hardly fair, but "we are but human". (At least the rest of you are.)

None of this is to be construed as an attempt on my part to sour you on Jellyroll. I repeat, "we are but human". (OK, OK, even I, on occasions.)

* British spelling of cognizant
Ergo, IT WAS ALL MY FAULT AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Sweet Lord! I trust that this is another of your attempts at humour... Put DOWN that whip this instant!!!
 
Last edited:
. . . my assumption that a fluid bond agreement would only include the literal exchange of bodily fluids was naive . . .
Huh, whaaaa???

I'm sorry, but... naïve??? What else could a fluid bond possibly include, other than the "literal exchange of body fluids?"

Are they including saliva and tears in this bond of fluids, or some strange ritual? Are they flim-flamming you with some odd and very personal definition of the term that most people would have trouble understanding? Do you now have to wrap yourself up in Saran Wrap from head to toe before having sex because of their definition of fluid bonding?

This gets more confusing with every post.
 
Last edited:
Do you KNOW your partner's agreement with their partner?

Do you KNOW your activity broke theirs?
I do now! And turns out it didn't, hooray! (I did mention those two resolutions in a previous post, but I don't blame you for missing it.)

If your partner has told your meta what happened, and you want to keep clearing the air, you can let them know you were really sorry it happened, and that you didn't know/adduced wrongly, etc, and would like to talk about what their assumptions and requests were so you can also do your part to keep G them.
Thanks for the advice! I do plan on meeting with my metamour at some point and apologizing as a gesture of goodwill, but more so to hopefully get to know them and see if a friendship is possible.

Amongst all my jokes, there were a few hints of complete seriosity. Just one example: unless you have grossly distorted the facts in the telling, Jellyroll had no right to ever be upset at you. If anyone in this case crossed a forbidden line, fully cognisant* of the fact that it WAS forbidden, that person was not you, but Jellyroll. As not only I have pointed out, you couldn't be expected to know what Jellyroll and your metamour meant exactly by "fluid bond" if they never spelled it out to you. Jellyroll did know where the boundaries lay... and crossed them.
Thanks, I did catch those hints of seriosity, and I appreciate them. I also appreciate the laughs :D

Do you now have to wrap yourself up in Saran Wrap from head to toe before having sex because of their definition of fluid bonding?

This gets more confusing with every post.
Oooooohh, that sounds actually marvelous!! Thank you for the suggestion!! (Also, from what I've read about fluid-bonding, there *are* cases of fluid bonds that include more (or less) than the literal exchange of bodily fluids, keyword being exchange, but now who knows what *type* of body fluids.... Hmmm....)
 
Huh, whaaaa???

I'm sorry, but... naïve??? What else could a fluid bond possibly include, other than the "literal exchange of body fluids?"

Are they including saliva and tears in this bond of fluids, or some strange ritual? Are they flim-flamming you with some odd and very personal definition of the term that most people would have trouble understanding? Do you now have to wrap yourself up in Saran Wrap from head to toe before having sex because of their definition of fluid bonding?

This gets more confusing with every post.

I agree! I don't know how it's possible to give advice without knowing which sex act we are talking about.

And MrFarFromRight isn't helping with his ... unique brand of flirting/joking.

Thanks, I did catch those hints of seriosity, and I appreciate them. I also appreciate the laughs :D

sigh...
...from what I've read about fluid-bonding, there *are* cases of fluid bonds that include more (or less) than the literal exchange of bodily fluids, keyword being exchange, but now who knows what *type* of body fluids.... Hmmm....)


WHAT? You're giving me a headache with your coyness. We are all adults here.

If you want serious advice, state some facts. If you just want to joke around and titillate MrFFR, well, I'm out.
 
OP, perhaps you could point us to these references where you've read that fluid bonding is about something more than fluids, or some other kind of mystery fluid, so we can know what you're talking about.


And MrFarFromRight isn't helping with his ... unique brand of flirting/joking.
That's a kind way to describe it. :cool:
 
Hi again. Sorry, I haven't been responding in complete seriousness because I no longer feel that it is necessary. I'm no longer seeking any advice here. I apologize if I hadn't made that sufficiently clear already. A lot of extremely helpful insight was very generously given and it helped me in no small measure to appreciate the situation better. So there is no need to continue with the matter here.

If you would like a thread summary, Q: My partner and I had sex in violation of a standing fluid bond agreement, I didn't realize but I feel responsible, how do I apologize to my metamour? A: It's not your fault, leave the apologizing to your partner. A: I feel for you, but please don't think you are responsible. Q: But I was doing half of the sex so surely I'm at least somewhat responsible? A: No, you're kind of not. A: Yep, not your fault. Q: Can it not even be a little bit my fault? A: I don't see how. A: No it can't. A: NO. No no no no. Q: Okay. So it's not my fault. A: Correct. Q: Got it. What a relief actually. Thanks. A: By the way, you've been oversensitive here. Keep that in mind for the future. Q: *sobs*
 
I am glad you feel you got the resolution you needed, but keep in mind that this forum is aimed at helping people and this thread will be here long after you may want to stop posting here. Therefore, clarity would be helpful to future readers who could stumble in here looking for answers or help on fluid bonding. If they do a search and find this thread, they will surely be confused. You can very easily protect your partners' anonymity while also being less cryptic about the topic you brought up.

I also hope you continue to participate here, in other threads, and won't just disappear.



PS - I don't get the oversensitive and sobbing bits. Are you being serious? I really can't tell.
 
I have seen this happen with poly couples, so I might be able to be more explicit that the original poster, if that helps the discussion.

Let's say two partners have an agreement to be fluid bonded, and so have agreed to use condoms for sex with others outside of their relationship.

They were diligent to be clear that oral is okay, hands/fingers are okay, but condoms must be used for any penetrative sex.

It was later, after the fact, that they realize they have not actually discussed at what point during the sex act the condom should go on. It was "assumed" by both parties, but never explicitly discussed.

For one partner, they thought the condom should go on before entering the vagina/anus. Pretty straight forward, right?

For the other partner, they thought that the condom should go on before ANY penis/vagina or penis/anus contact, including non penetrative, but potentially fluid-contacting actions (such as using the penis to stimulate the outer lips of the vagina, or clitoris, any light teasing/rubbing before actual penetration)

So, Partner A unintentionally violated the fluid bond by allowing the penis to rub and stimulate the vagina, unprotected. They potentially could have come into contact with fluids before putting a condom on for actual penetration.

Partner B felt upset by the miscommunication and felt that an STI test was in order, and that the fluid bond had not been properly observed.

Partner C, the new lover, was unaware of the details of their agreement, and so could not have contributed to it's upholding. Hopefully Partner C has his/her own boundaries and concepts of what is okay, with their own personal health in mind.

I hope that helps in some way?

I have seen this happen to others in real life and so have made sure to have this discussion and clarification with my partner.
 
I don't know how it's possible to give advice without knowing which sex act we are talking about. [...] If you want serious advice, state some facts.
I disagree. This thread was never about "Hey, was this sex act we performed out of bounds?" It was about breaking trust, and whether reparation was necessary. This whole forum deals with emotions, doubts, "Did he/she/I act responsibly under the circumstances?" issues, AS WELL as who did what to whom and other sexually-based questions.

anita stated all the facts that were necessary:
a) My partner and I crossed some kind of boundary.
b) I did not know beforehand the details of that boundary, but now do.
c) I feel guilty.
d) Should I make reparations with my metamour?

In my opinion, these are ALL the facts that are necessary. If you need a blow-by-blow account of what went on in the bedroom in order to give advice on a moral doubt issue, then you haven't grasped the crux of the matter.

To flog a dead horse, this thread is NOT about "Was the sexual act we engaged in OK from a polyamorous point of view?"
And MrFarFromRight isn't helping with his ... unique brand of flirting/joking.
And MrFarFromRight isn't helping with his ... unique brand of flirting/joking.
That's a kind way to describe it. :cool:
Right from the beginning, I (apparently unlike you) recognised that this thread was about anita feeling guilty for something that wasn't her fault. This was aggravated by the fact that her partner - who DID know just where the boundaries were... and crossed them - was (at least for a short time) upset with anita. The gender of that partner is totally IRRELEVANT. And I repeat: the sexual act involved is totally IRRELEVANT.

The whole idea of anita needing to feel guilty or make reparations seemed, to me, so ridiculous that I chose to poke gentle fun at the idea, to help her see just how ridiculous it was.

If that joking had offended anita, had made her feel that I wasn't taking her feelings and concerns seriously, it was up to her to slap me down. But no, what was her response?
Thanks, I did catch those hints of seriosity, and I appreciate them. I also appreciate the laughs :D
So - just maybe - I hit the right note after all.

My responsibility on this thread is to help the person with the problem to overcome that problem. As far as I can see, I did so... and in such a way that anita appreciated.

If my "unique brand of flirting/joking" bothered anybody else, well, frankly, I see that as their problem.

I've been spending my recent forum time between this thread and others, one of which involved a nasty abuse of power games and denial that so angered me that I called the OP a "bad name"... for which I was sanctioned. Perhaps I needed a bit of light relief from that messy business.

If nycindie and Magdlyn can't appreciate my sense of humour, well, OK. I didn't get involved in this thread to help them. In this case, it seems to have got the job done.

In my opinion, and strictly speaking, nycindie and Magdlyn have both attacked anita for not exposing facts that
1) were unnecessary to the issue;
2) anita obviously felt would have violated the privacy of her partner... and her metamour.

anita has shown exemplary dignity and responsibility in not doing so.
If you just want to joke around and titillate MrFFR, well, I'm out.
You have a perfect right to that.

If I had to be completely po-faced serious at ALL times on this forum, no light relief allowed, I'd be out. as Emma Goldman said: "If I can't dance, I want no part in your Revolution".
 
Back
Top