Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Bianca Knows Best ... And Helps With an Open Relationship
Posted by Bianca Phillips on Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM
About a year ago, my girlfriend and I made the decision to open our relationship. She works in another state several months of the year, and so I’m left alone for long periods of time. We love each other, but neither wanted to go for months without sex.
That decision was made when she was home for a few months, so neither of us had a desire to act on it immediately, but she left for her out-of-town job a few weeks ago for the first time since we opened the relationship. A few nights ago, I met a woman online who seems interesting.
I’d like to meet up with the woman, but I’m feeling a little guilty. As far as I know, my girlfriend hasn’t hooked up with anyone else yet. We’re supposed to let one another know if we do find someone, and it has to be purely about sex ... no serious feelings.
Unfortunately, I’ve already developed a bit of a crush on this woman online. Should I pursue her and discuss it with my girlfriend or should I just forget the other woman?
— The Ladies’ Man
Dear Ladies Man,
Much like communism or late-night, drunken runs to a Taco Bell drive-thru, open relationships are good in theory but often so not much in real life. Communism gets tyrannical and late-night burritos give you gas the next day. Open relationships mostly result in jealousy and inevitable break-ups.
My best advice for you: keep it in your pants (I feel like I say that a lot in this column, but it’s no-fail advice). You’ve only met this woman on the Internet. You don’t really know anything about her. She might be a 12-year-boy, or worse, Chris Hanson from To Catch a Predator. How would your current girlfriend feel if you were busted for an Internet meet-up on Dateline NBC? Seriously, since you two have discussed your boundaries and established an open relationship, I suppose you’re well within your rights to hook up with the new lady. But start with an honest meet-up for coffee, no sex. Get to know her and make sure you’re willing to put everything on the line for a lay before you dive in.
You don’t have to tell your girlfriend that you’re meeting with the woman if you’re not having sex with her. But, as outlined in your own rules, you’ll have to let your girlfriend know if you do decide to go all the way.
Don’t be surprised if she doesn’t take it as well as she thinks she will. Jealousy and emotions may override the rules. Don’t act on the open relationship unless you’re ready to accept the potential consequences.
Got a problem? E-mail Bianca at bphillips@memphisflyer.com.
Comments (27)
Showing 1-27 of 27
like
dislike
An open relationship is basically an admission that you aren't willing to fully commit to each other. How exactly is that going to work out if you marry this woman? Will you become swingers?
Just break her off and go bone your little internet friend guilt-free. If you aren't willing to do that, then you need to do what mature couples have been doing for centuries - WAIT UNTIL SHE COMES HOME.
I SO agree with Jeff - dude should literally take matters into his own hands until his girl returns. I've done the "open relationship" thing before, and Bianca's right - VERY good concept to fantasize about, but not AT ALL cool when it's actual.... for either party.
The 'I've got a crush over the internet' pops up as a huge red flag against someone being perceptive and in control enough to do this sort of thing responsibly.
I know folks who have made open relationships, or polyamorous relationships work... and it seems to take a lot of work.
And it also seems to me that there are a lot more who find that it results in a lot of grief for a variety of reasons.
Big gamble for an uncertain payoff.
Dear Bianca (I mean Abbey),
A friend of mine fell in love with a mule and the mule has a crush on this hamster. What is he to do?
Should the hamster not see him at all; or should the mule just have sex with monkeys only? After all, there are no universally binding morals; so who cares?
Dr. Molie
CHG, that's a cry for help if there ever was one...
These repeated attempts to derail discussions about humans into your obsession with animal sex is a very troubling pattern.
As was explained to you the last time, the behavior you can't seem to get your mind off of is illegal, and if you don't get help, you will almost certainly wind up acting on your fantasies with a non-consenting victim.
CHG is right.
Mules and Elephants can have cosentual sex.
Take James Carville and Mary Matalin for instance....
Powergamz,
It was 'legal' to exterminate Jews in Germany. Legal/Illegal is a sorry, abribrary rule to base your life upon.
so it is for a book that states in no uncertain terms that:
-People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
-If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them
-Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)
-If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
-If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die
CHG, either we're a free society, or we're not. you can rail all day long, quote the constitution, froth at the mouth, etc. when you think the govt might be trying to drive down health costs by offering a public option, but all of the sudden the document means NOTHING when a person happens to be gay? or perhaps an adherent of a religion that's not your own? come on. I know you see the hypocrisy in that.
CHG... so now you've added killing Jews to the list of 'sorry ' and 'arbitrary' laws that your so called morals allow you to decide for yourself to do?
Thanks for letting the hood slip.
Auto,
By "do what mature couples have been doing for centuries," do you mean "have affairs?"
This couple is being honest about the fact that their situation puts a strain on their monogamy and trying to circumvent the mounting tension by installing a "release valve" (the greenlight to sleep with other people) to avoid an affair that would ruin the relationship.
That said, they're going about it all wrong. Her demand that there be "no serious feelings" pretty much puts the kibosh on the whole thing unless he's going to see a prostitute. Who wants to have sex with someone they don't at least have a crush on? Having sex with someone you don't have feelings for leads to regret. And having a crush on someone does not negate the love you have for your partner.
This couple obviously values their relationship enough to take serious steps to try and make it work long-term. If they're serious about this open relationship thing working (which I'm not sure they are), they need to be realistic and set very clear rules about what information gets disclosed to the other partner and at what time.
If they are going to go through with this open relationship thing, wouldn't the best approach be what every other single guy does? Go to the bar, drink some liquid corrage, talk to a girl, go to her place, leave around 5 am for "that important meeting you forgot about".
Too bad Bianca wasn't doling out advice back in the 90's when David Letterman so desperately needed it.
Ladies Man's Internet crush is not purely about sex. If he's actually developed a crush, it means that he has been communicating with the Internet person long enough to develop some kind of feelings. That is why he feels guilty. He is probably realizing that he does not want to continue the long-distance relationship but he doesn't want to hurt the other person by ending it.
Matthew,
If "their situation puts a strain on their monogamy" then it's not really monogamy, is it?
I love how you make this artificial distinction between an affair that won't ruin the relationship and one that will. What happens to our dear writer when he brings home a VD, or finds himself with a baby on his hands? Those historical affairs you refer to have been plagued by precisely those problems, and there is no reason to think that any so-called "open relationship," which in reality is no relationship at all, would be any different.
My comment was an attempt to force the writer to confront his own real feelings about the matter and make a choice that won't leave him in the miserable limbo of juggling to redefine the terms of two separate relationships every time something changes. As it is, he's bound to ruin them both if he keeps up with this nonsense.
Auto,
I don't disagree at all that this couple is asking for trouble and doesn't seem to have any clue what they're jumping into, but to state that "any so-called open relationship is no relationship at all" seems a bit extreme. I'm sure it's a extreme minority that can pull it off, but there's no reason there aren't a few who seem to handle it and have a loving, caring relationship. If you just wanted to point out the problems relationships have you could pretty easily make marriage itself and its 50% divorce rate seem untenable. Although, I would argue that maybe a large percentage of people aren't cut out for marriage. Of course, I'm a cynic and think most people shouldn't even be allowed on the road.
Still, this guy doesn't seem to be in that extreme minority and needs to either meet his friend Internet porn or let the long-distance girl go.
BTW, where'd you get that hillarious avatar?
The number of people who make it through a monogamous lifelong relationship in a happy and secure condition isn't exactly encouraging.
Adding extra partners is adding extra stressors any way you slice it, which IMHO greatly reduces the chances of success.
Doesn't mean that there aren't people who can make this work... I've seen it happen, and even been part of a poly family that has been together for decades.
But folks should really understand that they are betting against a stacked deck.
I believe that it would be interesting to hear who came up with the concept of opening their relationship. That could make a difference in determining if they are in this for the right reasons, or if this is simply the beginning of the end.
Also I believe that there is a distinctions in affairs that will ruin a relationship and ones that wont. The purpose of having an open relationship would be to admitt that the distance is sexually frustrating and that not having to hide an affiar would encourage the partner to engage in safer sex practices instead of shady random hook-ups.
Not to say I personally like the idea of a "significant other" feeling the need to get satisfaction outside of their relationship. However, if both couples honestly had throughly discussed the situation, and came to an agreement, I dont see logically why it couldn't work. But as it is stated in the article, emotions arent logical.
wvfii,
You have merged and confused the civil, moral, and ceremonial laws of the Bible. The ceremonial laws are no longer valid due to the fulfillment in Christ's work. You have very poor hermeneutics in Biblical interpretation.
Does that mean the ceremonial laws against homosexuality are no longer valid due to Christ's fulfillment? Yes, yes, I'm sure you, being the utter and complete hypocrite and Bible rationalizer you are will explain how "good" hermeneutics makes THOSE laws valid while making some others invalid. typical fundy christian; follows what rules he likes and ignores those he doesn't.
CHG, I haven't confused anything; either you're a Christian theocrat, or you're not.
and what Packrat said.
@CHG
You are the one who keeps bringing up illegal non-consensual crimes, and claiming that for you there is no difference between them and consensual activities that are legal. You are the one who keeps claiming special status that gives you permission to ignore such laws.
Would Jesus do that?
(Trick question, I know you haven't completed the reading assignments, so you have no clue as to what Jesus actually said or did... and the King James you worship was more than a little deceitful on the matter).
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
