"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies: Merged threads/General discussion

[InsaneMystic]

@Schrödinger & redpepper, it is possible for sexual orientations to change, but it really isn't common. Yes, you can "become asexual," but you can also be gay for 30 years and then suddenly "become straight." The fact that a lot of (normative/right winger) folks will more than happily jump at the chance to consider this a cue for all the "See, we can heal you and turn you normal! You just haven't found the right one yet!" talk is the reason why I don't think it's a very productive idea, in terms of acceptance and visibility of non-heteronormative identities, to be too quick to mention fluidity of orientation. Yes, it exists, but in most cases, it's a too marginal a phenomenon to be brought up without creating much more trouble than it's worth.


@soleil, I'm in a similar situation: asexual with a sexual partner, R. We don't have, and never had, sex with each other, but see e/o as "emotional primaries." She's my only partner currently. I'm open, but not looking, and doubt I'm compatible with all that many folks anyway. Basically, I feel a need for non-exclusivity to be agreed on as the basis of any 'ship I'd see worth entering, but no need to act upon it by having (an)other partner(s) in my life right now.

We do not have a full-on DADT policy about other folks she sees. (These are not limited to "just sex." R's had a 'ship with a woman for over one year of our four-plus years together.) But I, too, will not question her on what she does with others, and certainly don't ever want to hear explicit bedroom details.

What we do have, though, is the knowledge that both of us are always open for the other to talk to, if and when stressful situations with another partner come up. I trust her to be able to sort out the everyday goings on, being a grown-up woman and all. But I'm always there for her if she needs to talk about stuff, provided she leaves out the "explicit details." I wonder how you and your hubby would handle such a sitch, if you're stuck in a sore spot that way (which I'd daresay happens in any but the utmost casual hookups sooner or later)? Could you talk to him about it, or would he insist on the "don't tell" part? IMO, I'd think the latter would be worrying in terms of a basis of healthy, loving communication between the two of you.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

That's awesome. Good for you. I take offense that you say I'm policing. I thought perhaps it would have been of interest to the writer. I am only passing on what I've heard from people I know in the asexual community. What do I know? I'm not asexual. You can take it up with them, as I am no expert.

Well, I said that's how it came across to me, which is slightly different from accusing you of doing it. But that can just as easily be turned around on me, as my statement came across to you as offensive. But I think we both know that no harm was meant in either case, and I apologize for being unclear.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

It sure is possible for sexual orientations to change, but it really isn't common. Yes, you can "become asexual," but you can also be gay for 30 years and then suddenly "become straight." The fact that a lot of (normative/right winger) folks will more than happily jump at the chance to consider this a cue for the "See, we can heal you and turn you normal! You just haven't found the right one yet!" talk is the reason why I don't think it's a too productive idea, in terms of acceptance and visibility of non-heteronormative identities, to be too quick to mention fluidity of orientation. Yes, it exists, but in most cases, it's a too marginal phenomenon to be brought up without creating much more trouble than it's worth.

I don't disagree that discussing orientation fluidity can have that effect on ignorant people. But frankly, the social responsibility is on those normative/right winger folks to pull their heads out of their asses. The solution is not to stifle all the people who don't fit into neat little boxes. If I didn't have the self-esteem that I do, I might take that as you telling me not to express myself, and that would probably hurt my feelings.

I have friends who are gender fluid and identify more as a male or female or neutral depending on where they are in life at the time. Does that mean they should stifle their identity as gender fluid just to avoid causing problems for trans* folks, who might be told "Look, this person used to feel like she was a boy, but now she feels like a girl. Just wait it out and you'll feel like a girl again"?

But perhaps it's more accurate, then, to say that my orientation "is" something like "a/sexually fluid" (I don't know what asexual equivalent would be of gender fluid). I.e., it's not my "orientation" that changes, that would always be "fluid," but that means sometimes I'm a sexual being and sometimes I'm an asexual being. I don't know. I haven't thought about it that way before. I'm definitely going to give it some thought. Sorta like how a gender fluid person always "is gender fluid" and sometimes "feels more like a male" or "feels more like a female."

What I am going to say is this: It's not that I bring it up every time someone talks about asexuality, nor do I have a tendency of bringing up orientation fluidity whenever people talk about sexual orientation in general. I recognize that the majority of people who identify as asexual have always identified that way, and can't imagine ever identifying otherwise. But in this case, someone explicitly said, "Asexual orientation cannot change." I had to pipe in that this was not always the case. As much as I agree with not giving the extreme Right more fodder for discrimination, I also don't want anyone to feel like they're "wrong" in feeling that their orientation is fluid, and feeling like they "have to choose" one or the other.

 

[opalescent]

It sure is possible for sexual orientations to change, but it really isn't common. Yes, you can "become asexual"... but you can also be gay for 30 years and then suddenly "become straight". The fact that a lot of (normative/right winger) folks will more than happily jump at the chance to consider this a cue for all the "see, we can heal you and turn you normal! you just haven't found the right one yet!" ... it exists, but in most cases, it's a too marginal phenomenon to be brought up without creating much more trouble than it's worth.]

This statement really bothers me. First of all, it's just wrong. Many people experience and understand their sexuality as fluid. I identified as a lesbian for many years. Currently I date men and identify as bisexual/pansexual. I know many people like me. There is social pressure against acknowledging sexual fluidity from within gay communities and from heterosexual people. Therefore, many folks rarely talk openly about how their sexuality has changed over time.

Dan Savage encourages bisexual people to come out, in part to show that hetero and homo are far from the only points on the continuum. The existence of bisexuals, asexuals, demisexuals, pansexuals, queers and other undefined folks highlights the fact that it's a continuum. As more people encounter and understand that sexuality can be fluid, more are being open about it. For example, more men are coming out as bisexual.

Second, it is wrong to allow people like right-wing fundamentalists to set the parameters of what is marginal. These people don't 'believe' in evolution, think the earth is 6000 years old and want to prevent taking any meaningful action in global warming. They are anti-science, anti-reason and can't find a fact with both hands if one should happen to hit them in the ass. Not talking about fluidity or other uncomfortable, uncommon topics gives these irresponsible, dangerous people too much power. Stop it.

Finally, I resent being called marginal. I don't know anyone who identifies as asexual. Not even demisexual. I didn't realize for a long time that such folks existed. I was ignorant. Once I heard the term, I learned about it and tried to keep in mind that someone I know or meet could be asexual. For me, asexuals are marginal in my life. But they exist. Not talking about them, or dismissing them as a tiny minority is not useful. In fact, it could be actually dangerous if this silence prevented someone from learning a critical fact about themselves.

I realize you had no intention of making this personal. You are not saying anything many gay rights people have also said. And obviously I have strong feelings about it.

 

[InsaneMystic]

I have friends who are gender fluid, and identify more as a male or female or neutral, depending on where they are in life at the time. Does that mean they should stifle their identity as gender fluid just to avoid causing problems for trans* folks, who might be told "Look, this person used to feel like she was a boy, but now she feels like a girl. Just wait it out and you'll feel like a girl again"?

But perhaps it's more accurate, then, to say that my orientation "is" something like "a/sexually fluid" (I don't know what asexual equivalent would be of gender fluid). I.e., it's not my "orientation" that changes, that would always be "fluid" ... but that means sometimes I'm a sexual being and sometimes I'm an asexual being. I don't know. I haven't thought about it that way before. I'm definitely going to give it some thought. Sorta like how a gender fluid person always "is gender fluid" and sometimes "feels more like a male" or "feels more like a female."

I identify as genderqueer myself, actually. I don't think I could take myself seriously if I IDed as trans one day, neutrois the other, and something yet more difficult to be put into words on a third day. I very much relate to how you put it in your second paragraph - the queerness/fluidity is my gender ID, the day-to-day differences are just "day-form" feelings.

What I am going to say is this: It's not that I bring it up every time someone talks about asexuality, nor do I have a tendency of bringing up orientation fluidity whenever people talk about sexual orientation in general. I recognize that the majority of people who identify as asexual have always identified that way, and can't imagine ever identifying otherwise. But in this case, someone explicitly said "Asexual orientation cannot change." I had to pipe in that this was not always the case. As much as I agree with not giving the extreme Right more fodder for discrimination, I also don't want anyone to feel like they're "wrong" in feeling that their orientation is fluid, and feeling like they "have to choose" one or the other.

Point taken. Put like this, I can completely agree with you.

This statement really bothers me. First of all, it's just wrong. Many people experience and understand their sexuality as fluid. I identified as a lesbian for many years. Currently I date men and identify as bisexual/pansexual. I know many people like me. There is social pressure against acknowledging sexual fluidity from within gay communities and from heterosexual people. So many folks rarely talk openly about how their sexuality had changed over time. Dan Savage encourages bisexual people to come out, in part to show that hetero and homo are far from the only points on the continuum. The existence of bisexuals, asexuals, demisexuals, pansexuals, queers and other undefined folks highlights the fact that it's a continuum. As more people encounter and understand that sexuality can be fluid, more are being open about it. For example, more men are coming out as bisexual.

I don't really get your point here. Even if fluidity didn't exist at all, it would still be the same wide spectrum... just that one's own point on the spectrum would be fixed.

Second, it is wrong to allow people like right wing fundamentalist to set the parameters of what is marginal. These people don't 'believe' in evolution, think the earth is 6000 years old and want to prevent taking any meaningful action against global warming. They are anti-science, anti-reason and can't find a fact with both hands if one should happen to hit them in the ass. Not talking about fluidity or other uncomfortable, uncommon topics gives these irresponsible, dangerous people too much power. Stop it.

Finally I resent being called marginal. I don't know anyone who identifies as asexual. Not even demisexual. I didn't realize for a long time that such folks existed. I was ignorant, and once I heard the term I've learned about it and try to keep in mind that someone I know or meet could be asexual. For me, asexual people are marginal in my life. But they exist. Not talking about them or dismissing them as a tiny minority is not useful. In fact it could be actually dangerous if this silence prevents someone from learning a critical fact about themselves.

I realize you had no intention of making this personal. You are not saying anything many gay rights people have also said. And obviously I have strong feelings about it.

Huh. I guess we react to the word "marginal" quite differently. Being asexual - a spectrum that comprises an estimate of only 1% of all people - means that my experience is marginal, compared to the overwhelming majority of folks on this planet. That's just a statement of fact; I don't react negatively in any way to it.

Acknowledgement to exist is very important, I grant you that immediately. Asexuality and bi/pan are easily the most ignored/erased minorities in that regard, not just by right wingers, but even by the gay and "sex-positive"* communities; in terms of being simply acknowledged to exist, even gay/Lesbian folks have a far easier time. And yet, that doesn't invalidate that a tiny minority is just that - a tiny minority. Should we be seen and heard? Yes, definitely. However, is our experience an adequate gauge to measure the majority of sexual identity on? Most probably not.

Overemphasis on fluidity, IMO, creates more problems than it solves - especially for aces and bi/pan people. I'd daresay we hear that "you'll grow out of it" way too often already (though at 38, it's finally dying down for me ); with fluidity being overstressed, I'd reckon we'd just get to hear it that much more often. I'd be afraid that not seeing fluidity as a comparatively rare occurrence and (semi-)permanency as statistically normal, brings too much a risk of ace and bi/pan identities becoming (further) invalidated and silenced.

* Putting "sex-positive" in air quotes there just for one single reason-- true sex-positivity has to mean to support everyone's right and freedom to have as much or as little sex in their lives as they want (provided it's all SSC, of course). IMO, someone calling themselves "sex-positive", but who automatically ridicules folks who out of their own free choice remain virgins all their life, is false advertising.

 

[Marcus]

DADT

I am enjoying the "fluidity" conversation very much. I know so little about it that I'm reading it with both eyebrows up.

As to the earlier discussion of DADT, I agree with some that an explicitly DADT policy is a sign that there is something wrong. That is to say that, if any direct conversation about other lovers is uncomfortable, that is the same as saying "I am not ok with this arrangement, I cannot handle it, I need to pretend it doesn't exist." Having a relationship with someone who is expressly against the set-up seems like a half of a relationship. While this wouldn't necessarily mean the relationship couldn't work, it would put a hard limit on intimacy, because there is a giant and important chunk of a person's life that is now just an elephant in the room.

Something I see as a stumbling block in this conversation is that people are conflating DADT with a person's desire for detail. For me, these two discussions are on the same spectrum, but DADT is WAAAAY at the extreme end.

Personal experience: IV doesn't give any specific details about her sex life. We have conversations about sex, and sex with other partners, if it finds its way into the conversation, but there are no descriptions, specifics, or details that are not relevant to that particular conversation. It works for us; it's a balance we found without discussing it. Fortunately for me, IV is sensitive to my expressions, so maybe she just "picked up" on how much detail I was interested in. Either way, while there are details she could express to me which would prompt me to say, "That's ok baby, I don't need that much detail," this is far from a DADT policy. This is just her being courteous.

This courtesy is not only for the person hearing the details, but the people she would be talking about. I presume that this courtesy is extended to me as well, and that she does not share the intimate details of our sex life with other partners. Though even if she did I trust her judgment that the information expressed would be dealt with appropriately, otherwise she wouldn't risk expressing it.

 

[beyondblueeyes]

It is interesting to me as I read this thread. This question is usually asked by friends that are not poly, "Do you want to know what the other is doing?" My situation is not really complicated. I have a husband and a bf, and my bf has a wife (his wife dates), and my husband has a gf (who only sees my husband).

We have a very open and communicative life. However, we also keep our relationships separate from each other out of respect for everyone. The only thing is, there is an understanding with my bf and me that there is no lying, so we are upfront if we see or sleep with anyone else. (In two years, that has not happened.) However, before he went to Australia for 6 weeks, he asked me if I wanted to know the details if anything were to happen when he was there. My answer was nope, just that it did happen. Now if I were to ask, he would tell me.

Same rule with my husband. However if something really hot sexually happened with my h and his gf, he would tell me and it would not bother me at all. Unless his gf is not comfortable having him share the details. Then he won't.

It comes down to respect and honesty. To be honest, I love sex talk. Give me the dirt on sex with others. I will give you all the sex talk about me too, but only if you want me to.

 

[LovingRadiance]

I agree with Marcus. To me, DADT means secret. There is a huge difference between a secret and privacy. I'm not interested in details about sex and I don't need them. But other partners aren't secret. The exciting "We had so much fun on xyz date" stories are enjoyable, because they are happy.

If you can't handle hearing about the other person's love, there's an issue. But that's not to say that one needs to talk nonstop about their other love, or that they need to share personal details.

Additionally, I think it's important that new partners know what levels of privacy they can expect. We are still struggling through leftover drama from last January because a potential dating partner of my husband's thought that her every word was kept private from me by Maca, when in fact, we both have free access to each other's phones, email accounts, etc. We rarely use that access. But we don't keep secrets. So when she started talking shit about me, I was well aware. She felt that since she was talking shit to him, it wasn't "fair" that I knew.

The clear point of "make sure new potentials know what to expect" was not handled properly.

 

[Marcus]

We both have free access to each other's phones, email accounts, etc. We rarely use that access. but we don't keep secrets. So when she started talking shit about me, I was well aware. She felt that since she was talking shit to him, then it wasn't "fair" that I knew.

LR, if I can ask, how did she become aware that you knew about her trash-talking texts? Did he just mention it to her in passing at some point, or did it "come up"?

No doubt you should let new folks know about that arrangement right out of the gate. That is a rather stark characteristic of a relationship and would hopefully cause a good conversation.

 

[LovingRadiance]

We have a family agreement that we don't promote contact between our kids and any person who is disrespectful to any one of the four parents. She was badmouthing me every time they were together. Therefore the kids weren't free to join. She wanted our youngest child to come and entertain her child so she could have more freedom to be with dh unhindered by her child's demands for attention. When her pressure for that got significant, he started pressuring me to talk to her and "resolve" the issues. So I let her know that her derogatory comments bothered me. That pissed her off because she felt it was "private," that any derogatory comments she made were none of my business unless spoken directly to me.

 

[Marcus]

We have a family agreement that we don't promote contact between our kids and any person who is disrespectful to any one of the four parents.

I see, I was curious about the context of it coming out; she accidentally outed herself because she didn't know the rules. For the best, in retrospect. It's counter-intuitive that she'd want to be an integral part of a family in which she felt such strong negative emotions about one of the other members. People are so strange.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

I see, I was curious about the context of it coming out; she accidentally outed herself because she didn't know the rules. For the best, in retrospect. It's counter-intuitive that she'd want to be an integral part of a family in which she felt such strong negative emotions about one of the other members. People are so strange.

No kidding, eh? "I don't like you, but I want to use your child for my own selfish purposes. You're cool with that, right? No? I'm so offended that you're offended by me not liking you!"

 

[LovingRadiance]

Yes, it was for the best. People are so strange. I can't grasp the idea of wanting to integrate myself with people I strongly dislike, or with their children either, actually, as I have found there tends to be a common thread in personality and behavior (not always, but frequently) at least until they are grown.

 

[soleilselene]

My husband simply just doesn't want to know. He has always had issues with sex and sexuality. I don't see why I should fit the cookie-cutter recipe of other relationships when we simply aren't the same. Our situation is different. My husband was date raped and he just never really likes to talk about sex or people hooking up. He doesn't like me to touch his private parts and hates it when I say something overtly sexual. It bothers him.

I don't see a need to talk to him and let him know what I am doing. That would just make things worse. I love him in spite of all this. It probably is not healthy, but it is what we have, and what I have to work with.

 

[ThatGirlInGray]

I'd say your situation definitely falls under "special circumstances". He doesn't want to hear about sex, period. It's not about him trying to pretend something isn't happening so he feels safer in his relationship. At least, that's the impression I got. Hopefully, sometime in the future he can find a way to work through his issues from the past so he can be more comfortable in his daily life, since sex is everywhere in our society.

 

[soleilselene]

He kind of doesn't want to know that something is happening, but it is because of his issues with sex. When we did have sex, it was with the lights off, missionary style, and it was always the same. At times it was very awkward.

I know he has had times when he is horny. I really don't know what to make of him sometimes. I try to back off and not pressure him. I do hope someday he will get the help he needs.

I found this forum because I have no one close to talk to about this. My family is ultra-conservative and religious and so are most of my friends. It is not easy.

 

[Achimwis]

My wife and I are new to this. We talk, but we don't feel an obligation to tell everything, particularly if we feel it needs to stay private.

 

[Helo]

I do ask lots of questions (mainly because I'm nosy) and even if sometimes the answers make me react a certain way. I may feel insecure or jealous. I think that's ok because then i can actually deal with those feelings and talk them through and usually resolve them. I also don't want sex to be taboo subject. In the past i have always been very free in regards to talk about sex. I am aware that Mountainboy doesn't want to hear details and I try to respect that.

What are other peoples opinions on this?

Bad idea for the army, bad idea for people.

I've never seen a DADT situation end well. Inevitably, someone finds out about someone else and there's surprise, anger, hurt feelings and generally negative reactions. I usually extend the saying to "What is out of your sight, you will let drive you out of your mind." The human mind is soooo much better at coming up with those spicy, insecurity-stoking details than reality.

 

[Stevenjaguar]

I can understand what's going on. My fiancee has a gf that she's been close to since they were 15 (they're 22 now) and she's always been uncomfortable telling me about anything sexual they do together. I knew she was actively bi when I started dating her.

She spends the night with J once or twice a month. I'm happy she does, since J is also a good friend of mine. I've always been curious and wanting to talk about it, but she says it's a personal thing between the two of them, and she doesn't feel like she should share with another person. I think it would be a very intimate thing.

I've only been there once when they had sex and it was much like what we do together, lots of cuddling and kissing and touching, oral back and forth, followed by penetrative sex, which they did for each other. I'm less curious about it now. but I would still like to talk about it.

I understand, too, about being surrounded by conservative family and friends, and having to hide our relationships. We took a trip to see her family up north and the only one who knows is an aunt who actually approves. The rest are fundamentalists.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

But that's not a DADT policy. When she goes to spend the night with her gf, she doesn't tell you that she's going on a business trip. You know she has a girlfriend, you know that they have sex, you know that they're spending time together when they are.

The opposite of DADT is not "We tell each other each and every thing that happens when we're together with our other partner." The opposite of DADT is disclosure about the fact of having the relationship, the fact of having sex with someone else, the fact of where you're going when you go out. How much detail you give one another about those other relationships is a different spectrum altogether.