Sex: who’s the asshole here?

M

MsEmotional

Member
Let’s say, hypothetically you are at the beginning of a relationship with someone. They say that they want a relationship with you but don’t want to have intercourse with you right now and you accept this. But then they tell you that their reason is that one of their other potential partners is uncomfortable with them having so many partners. So, in essence, they are eliminating the riskiest activities with you in order to keep their options with another partner on the table. (They are continuing to have intercourse with their other partners whom they had already started having sex with, just choosing not to engage in intercourse with YOU and figure his is fair because you hadn’t had sex with them previously.)

1. Is it wrong of them to make a decision like this? Based on he preferences of someone else outside of your relationship with them who doesn’t even know you or your sexual health habits?

2. Is it wrong of you to decide to no longer be in a relationship with them? (If you walk away are you essentially dumping them for not “putting out”?)
 
1- their choice to not engage in sex for whatever reason.

2-your choice to not pursue a relationship when outside forces are going to affect big decisions.

No one is an asshole in this situation.
 
They are choosing not to do the work- as a couple or individuals - to be comfortable with multiple sex partners. And asking you to do the work to have a non-sexual relationship so they can continue to not work.

Dump away.

You’re not dumping for not putting out. You’re dumping for asking you to engage in codependent behavior.

And if you proceed, now or later, be aware they are willing to ask this of you, and make sure you are ready to say no.

It’s a big poly pitfall, espwcially for newbies.
 
P.S. they are unwittingly being assholes. They are engaging in nom-assholish mono behavior, and assholish poly behavior, and haven’t learned that you can be a gem to your first partner and be an asshole to your next partner in one move.

The most asshoish thing is not to be completely upfront about this before you even started dating. Or, rwreading, since it started after, not checking in with you about how you would feel and how it would affect you if they did.

Restrictions to your relationship definately require consent.

It’s a tough line because they don’t own you anything, and definately not their body.

So thy have the right to go seni-mono. But you have the right not to like it, and to renegotiate if the expected terms have changed- thinking you had a sexual relationship on the table to find you didn’t.

My best self in that situation would say “you have every right to limit partners and go semi-mono with one, . But that’s not working for me, so I’m going to bow out and leave you to to your happiness.
 
Last edited:
MsEmotional said:
Is it wrong of you to decide to no longer be in a relationship with them? (If you walk away are you essentially dumping them for not “putting out”?)
Click to expand...
No.

If someone says it's a deal-breaker, then PLEASE take them at their word.

They might be messing with you. Or clueless about what they claim. Or incapable of adult-level communication. Or (happily?) in a restricted situation.

IMO, it's been dismaying how many "others" have had dubious practices yet have happily held "the others of others" to a saintly-high standard.

Rather than deal with that level, I'd call upon my "interest" to choose which way they want to go.
 
Another thought occurs to me.

It's "good poly" that this is being discussed.

Okay, maybe it's a teensy bit "bad poly" because this wasn't made clear right from the beginning.

Setting that aside, people are simply going to have the boundaries that they want to make & want to own. Whether they're even rational is immaterial.

Your hypothetical Other has basically said "I have chosen to make my personal boundaries align with those of my extant partners. I now choose to expect you to accept their boundaries as well."

Anyone presented with that has the Kornbluth choices available:
  • yes
  • no
  • let's compromise
If #3 isn't allowed (a big negative, IMO), then choice is simple if not easy.

Over the years, I've observed & experienced people trying to control their metamours -- one reason I detest the term is that it's very popular with such manipulative ass-hats. :D Often, the reasons they give for such "reasonable" or "logical" boundaries turn out to be quite flexible for themselves, or when they decide they really like a potential metamour. Therefore, I kinda distrust the potential for dishonesty, & approach such situations as "guilty 'til proved innocent."
 
I'd back up further.

But then they tell you that their reason is that one of their other potential partners is uncomfortable with them having so many partners.
Click to expand...

Then why are they out dating more people? :confused:

And making that partner more uncomfortable? How's that kind? :confused:

Rather than either a) stop dating more people, it has hit saturation point, b) sort it out with that partner first, or c) drop this partner because they want a small poly network and they want a big one? Not compatible.

1. Is it wrong of them to make a decision like this? Based on he preferences of someone else outside of your relationship with them who doesn’t even know you or your sexual health habits?
Click to expand...

I would say they are dating new people prematurely. Offering themselves as a "willing and able" dating partner when actually... might be "willing but not actually able."

It is not wrong to hold up their agreements with their other partners. When you take on more partners you take on more agreements.

My problem would be that they don't seem to be holding up their end of the sticks with their other people very well, while trying to add me to the network too.

I would think...

1) Why are you dating when you don't seem in the clear for dating more people?

2) You make your other partner uncomfortable. How's this show you are kind?

3) You tell me private stuff between you and your partner. How's this show you are discreet/respectful of the other partner? This sounds like blabbing. If I take up with you, who you gonna blab my private stuff to?

4) This is how you treat partners? Thanks for the heads up. I don't want to sign up here.

They are not taking personal responsibility like "This is what I can offer you." They are coming at it like "I can't do X because my other partner doesn't want me to." Kinda blame shifting.

I don't find that attractive.

2. Is it wrong of you to decide to no longer be in a relationship with them?
Click to expand...

No. That's what the dating process is FOR to me. To sort out the compatible people from the incompatible. I would deem this incompatible and move on. Because my willingness to continue/participate in things belongs to ME.

(If you walk away are you essentially dumping them for not “putting out”?)
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with dumping people if it is not a match sexually. If you want a traveling buddy, and they are home bodies? Not a match. If you want someone who loves pets like you, and they are horribly allergic and hate pets? Not a match. If you would like a lover, and they cannot be that? Not a match.

Here? We haven't gotten to sex yet. I'm not dumping them for not putting out.

I'm dumping them because if they treat their other partners like this -- making them uncomfortable and blabbing their private things? I don't need to sign up to be a partner then.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
GalaGirl said:
I'd back up further.

Then why are they out dating more people? :confused:

And making that partner more uncomfortable? How's that kind? :confused:

Galagirl
Click to expand...

The other person isn’t a partner — yet. They are friends who are interested in each other but she is unwilling to date someone who she views as having too many partners for her risk tolerance. Sorry if this was unclear, this is what I meant by “potential partner.”
 
I thought it was established partner. Thank you for clearing that up.

I still find it weird though.

The other person isn’t a partner — yet. They are friends who are interested in each other but she is unwilling to date someone who she views as having too many partners for her risk tolerance. Sorry if this was unclear, this is what I meant by “potential partner
Click to expand...

So basically she's telling him no dating because he has too big a network for her? That's fair enough. She can state what she is and is not up for.

What does that have to do with you though? And why's he telling you all this extra stuff? :confused:

If he's like "BTW, we cannot have sex because I want to present myself low risk enough to I can get with her" that sounds weird to me. You are supposed to wait in the wings in case it doesn't pan out with her? Or help him to trick her or something?

That's just too weird to me. I'd bow out.

Galagirl
 
I think this is a case of him not being as into you as he is into her. He can't have the type of relationship he wants with her if he has the type of relationship you want with you. His choice is to make sure he can have what he wants: her.

I think you know that he has chosen a potential relationship with her over what he could have with you and that hurts. I think that on some level you know that it is up to him and you aren't in a position to argue with him about that choice so instead you're deflecting by blaming her for her choices and boundaries. After all, if she would relax her boundary, he would relax his, and you could have the relationship you want with him.

There is no blame to be distributed here. It sucks when someone doesn't feel quite as strongly about you as you do about them. Sorry it's happening to you..
 
Hi MsEmotional,

To me it just sounds like you don't want to get involved in a messy situation. You don't want your sex life to be beholden to a potential metamour whom you haven't even met. I would want to break up too if I were you.

Glad you were able to resolve the situation.
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top