Let’s say you make a new friend, Sean, whose sex and sexual orientation are to your taste. Happily, Sean is all kinds of hot; sadly, Sean is also married to Pat, whom you’ve met and liked. After you’ve known the couple of a few months, Pat approaches you in private and says:
“Okay, DoperName, there’s something you should know. Sean likes you. Really, really likes you. Now the two of us were monogamous when we first got married, fifteen years back, but we both found it stultifying and so came to a different arrangement. Either of us is free to take an outside lover as long as we follow some pre-defined rules. Whichever of us is looking to play has to tell the other one beforehand, and that partner has to vet the potential lover. We agree to have a maximum of four assignations with the person over a 4-week period, to always have safer sex, and to never do sleepovers; no video, still, or audio recordings are allowed; and we have to let the other person know the rules beforehand. Oh, and we don’t do threeways; whatever happens will be between you and Sean. I think you’re cool, so if you want to make a move on Sean, go right ahead; the two of you will have to decide between yourselves when and where you’ll meet. Have fun!”
Assume for the sake of this discussion that you are single and available. Would you go make a move on Sean?
No problem with me. I’ve done it before and would again. If I’m into both, the no threesome thing would be a shame though. Couples can be a lot of fun.
Were your reasons aesthetic (you weren’t sexually attracted to the person), ethical (you felt it was wrong to help someone go outside of their marriage, prudential (you didn’t trust either or both of the couple in the open marriage), moral (you yourself were in a relationship) or something else?
I’d guess that the no-threeways rule is for their benefit, not yours.
My answer is no but I wouldn’t call them freaks and I have nothing against freaks.
Married is married, unavailable, off limits and it’'s not open to negotiation.
He and his wife might not care but I care.
Besides there is nothing that makes a man go faster from stud to dud than knowing that he cheats on his wife, even if they don’t consider it cheating. So no matter how attractive he might have been at one time, he won’t be attractive to me anymore.
Hell yeah let this dude plow you. The only concern is if you actually like him and would grow attached. You must realize this is the end of the friendship.
20 years ago I would have said no but I eneded up having a 10 year sexual relationship with a girl who was married to a guy who approved of me. He would drop her off at my house around 11 pm when I got home from work and pick her up at 7am each morning several days a week. I always thought it was strange but they were both delightful people. More than 20 years younger than me, they would invite me to dinner and to stay for a movie where she would lay on the couch with her head in my lap. It didn’t seem to bother him at all. He and I have remained friends, she died in an accident a few years after they divorced. Beautiful woman, but a bit too crazy for my taste.
I wouldn’t be mature enough to handle it. Undoubtedly, I’d get involved and my feelings for Sean would be too strong. Then, I’d probably expect him to leave Pat for me and the inevitable dumping and broken heart would ensue. Best to avoid these types of situations (if I were interested) to prevent problems all the way around.
I’d have to think about it first. I’m currently in an open marriage, so I’m obviously not opposed to the idea, but there is so much potential for drama, especially if friends are involved.
The limited availability and no-sleepovers rule seem designed to prevent either you or Sean from getting too attached, and of course you could limit it to a one-nighter if you were so inclined. Are you saying that even a single encounter would result in your getting too attached?
I’m voting “regretfully” no, but it’s not really regretfully. It’s also not about the open marriage issue, so the freak response doesn’t work either. I might be unusual among men, but I’m not a casual sex kind of person. I just don’t see the point. Too many risks, too many hangups, too much complication. People are such a damned hassle. If I’m single and have an urge, I can take care of myself. Otherwise, it’s just not worth it except as part of a long-term relationship.
Not interested. They can have all the rules they want, but my view of marriage wouldn’t allow it. And why would I want to taste something I could only have four times?
I don’t have any problems with the ethics of this situation, as everyone involved must give their informed consent. However, I wouldn’t do it.
Just sex is not enough. If I need to get my rocks off, I have toys and a hand for that, and there’s no possibility of disease transmission or pregnancy (there is no such thing as “safe sex”. There is only “safer sex”.) I am not interested in having sex with a man I find attractive on multiple levels if I can’t also have a romantic relationship with him.
What phoka says. If I’m interested in just sex, its easier to find without the complications of open marriage - but I’ve almost never been interested in just sex. And I haven’t seen open marriages (and I’ve seen my share) where what is stated and what is really going on have much in common - don’t care to get involved in that.
Wait, since when is Sean a unisex name? (Also, it’s so weird that unisex means that…you’d think it would mean ‘single gender’…)
Anyway…I only have 2 reservations here, but, is it turns out, they’re biggies:
The 4 encounters limit and ‘no sleepovers’ rules. Both just lead to the feeling that one of them is concerned the other would get overly attached to an outside partner - and consequently feels a bit less like a truly mutual idea, and more like one of them sighing and saying ‘ok, I’ll let you sleep around, just with some rules’. In light of this the ‘no three-ways’ rule also feels…iffy…reenforcing the idea that one party isn’t really interested in the open relationship thing. (Of course, this part is assuming a relationship other than ‘opposite-sex relationship between two completely straight people’, but in that case the ‘no three-ways’ rule probably wouldn’t have to be explicitly enumerated - at least not to the potential outside partner.)
If Sean is interested in me, why is it Pat who’s coming to me with the rules and permission to hit on Sean? Why isn’t Sean coming and telling me the situation and asking me if I’m interested? Feels like a setup for a humiliating practical joke. (Or, perhaps, re point 1, Sean is the one uninterested, and Pat’s trying to push them into branching out so they don’t feel so guilty doing it.)
So, to answer the question as posed…no, I wouldn’t sleep with Sean…the whole situation is screwed up, and I don’t think I want to be a part of it.
But to answer the question in the title - sure, if the ground rules were less questionable and the partner interested in me asked me out themselves. (And, of course, if I find them attractive.)