It is a little screwy that the other partner is coming to offer the proposal. Why did you make that part of the hypothetical, Skald?
Since the 80s, at least. I’ve known both male and female Seans, Shawns, and Shauns. To me it’s the archetypical unisex name.
Because otherwise you’d have to wonder if Sean was bullshitting you about Pat being okay with the arrangement.
We do this every month or two with like-minded folks. No biggie, but I understand it’s not for everyone.
Too messy for me. Not judging others.
“Take my gender nonbinary nonmonogamous partner…please.”
My experience is that it happens that way. I suspect that its either guilt as mentioned above and “I want you to know that this is really ok with me” - depending on the circumstances.
IME and IMHO, its skeevy no matter how it happens - I’m not really into no strings sex, and I’m not into being used as someones sex toy, so any offer of casual sex comes off as skeevy…
This is extraordinarily unusual, IME. Not only a masculine name, to me, but a strongly masculine name, just like John, Ivan, Johann, etc. Sean Young stands out specifically because her name is more typically masculine.
Not really. If it’s never come up in conversation before that they’re in an open relationship, it’s easily cleared up - ‘well, I’m going to have to talk to Pat to make sure they’re OK’. Sean’s reaction would be telling in itself, but it wouldn’t be an issue to clarify things with Pat. The only possible bad outcome of that is if they’re not open and I’ve just brought Sean’s infidelities to Pat’s attention, but that’s hardly a negative. If Pat’s setting me up to be punked, there’s no way to clarify that without GETTING punked, and if Pat’s trying to push Sean into something they don’t want, it’s very difficult ground to tread without making Sean uncomfortable.
I don’t believe I would - too messy. Also sharing would make me uncomfortable.
I was in a live-in relationship for eight years where some of our mutual friends were into “non-exclusive” relationships or marriages. I’m pretty open and have gone to parties or resorts (Hedonism in Jamaica three times) where no-strings sex with other people was very much accepted; encouraged, even. But I was never interested. Mainly because if I’m seriously with someone, it’s in part because I’m already having fabulous sex with them and I don’t see the point of having sex with someone else concurrently.
I’m not getting in the middle of that. There’s no way it will end well.
I don’t mind sharing in principle. But I wouldn’t (at my time of life) be interested in a short-term relationship, or sex just for sex’s sake (unlike the aptly-named CarnalK, apparently). If I liked Sean well enough to want to mess around, I would want the prospect of something that could develop out of it. So I would decline with thanks and perhaps some regret.
I wouldn’t, but only 'cause I’m married. If I was single, sure.
everyone needs rules and procedures custom to their relationship. doubly so for an open marriage.
sounds like it’s being done with considerable forethought.
if in those months i thought i knew them then it’s a possibility.
I’ve known maybe four female Shauns. Probably twice that as a male name. Used to work for one. Not unusual at all IME.
I’ve had such offers in the past, I didn’t take them up on the offer. Now, though, I probably would.
I used to be very much of the “sex only in a committed relationship, and they’re not in another relationship” mindset, but it’s since degenerated to “sex only with someone I am friends with” when I’m otherwise single. So, no one night stands, but FWB are now okay, and (I’m ashamed to admit) I don’t put much thought into the strain on the partner’s relationship status. I still haven’t done so with someone who’s married; I’ve had offers, but wasn’t attracted to them, so declined. However, my last few partners have been dating/living with someone/engaged. I never pursued them, but when they decided to pursue me, I happily accepted. If I was attracted to someone in an open marriage, then I imagine I’d have no issues now.
That said, I have some of the same reservations Kamino Neko points out regarding the given scenario. The strict 4 encounters/4 weeks thing is odd, and does seem to throw up a red flag about attachment issues. It makes it seem that the sex isn’t really about no-strings-attached playtime, but that Sean actually has some feelings (or that Pat is distrustful of Sean’s motivations).
And having Pat make the offer is weird, too… almost parental. I suppose it could just be that Sean and Pat have such an agreement that the other feels obliged to make it clear that “hey, there’s no problem, you two have fun!,” but it would be preferable if it started out with Sean saying “hey, we can do this thing, lemme put Pat on the phone to let you know that I’m being upfront about it.”
And, incidentally, nearly every Sean I’ve ever known personally has been female. Especially common among my students. The guys I’ve known have mostly been “Shawns.”
I can name a boy “Sue” or a girl “Bill” but that doesn’t make them unisex names. If 0.001% of the people with that name are female, it certainly doesn’t make me question the gender of someone whose name I have encountered but never met in person.
And every single Sean has been male. I don’t know any females in person, and only Young (he given first name is Mary and this is her middle) and Yseult (who is really a Shauna).
Title talks about sex. Post body talks about a relationship. If it were casual sex, I’d find it unnerving that the person would dictate a bulleted statement of the rules, so that would be a turn off. Not interested in a bedroom lawyer. If a relationship/multiple encounters, almost certainly no.
Yes, agreed. I think I’d almost rather have a torrid affair than a contract brought over by the partner in question. It’s just so clinical.
Girls named Shawn: Pregnancy, Parenting, Lifestyle, Beauty: Tips & Advice | mom.com
You have to spell it Shawn to get it to show up - it hasn’t hit the top 1000 names as Sean or Shaun.
Nope. No desire to be part of any type of open relationship.
Frankly I think most (not all) open relationships are dysfunctional and will blow up sooner or later because the people involved are fooling themselves, but I know there could be more exceptions that I realize, and if so, that’s great for those people and it’s none of my business. But I don’t want to get involved.
I thought the four encounters/four weeks rule seemed weird too, but I wasn’t sure why. I think you’ve explained it, though. A “one-night stands only” rule would make sense to me for a couple that was only interested in a relationship with each other but occasionally wanted no-strings sex with another partner. A “have sex as much as you like within a set period of time” rule would seem a bit stranger to me, but I could see the appeal for couples who wanted to have short-term flings that didn’t have time to get too serious. But having both a time limit and a limit on the number of sexual encounters seems like a rule that must have come about through bargaining, with it not being what either Sean or Pat really wants. Keeping a running tally of the number of sexual encounters so that we’d known when we’d have to stop is also IMHO pretty unsexy. It also seems like it would inevitably lead to some sort of disagreement between Sean and Pat or even Sean and me as to what counts as a distinct sexual encounter.
If I did decide to pursue something with Sean it seems like limiting it to a one-night stand would be easier and more fun for me, although the 4/4 rule also makes me wonder if Sean would expect four encounters.
Sure, why not? Sex is fun, and they seem to have their relationship worked out enough so that I won’t feel like I am causing a problem. I’m 50, so I’m not likely to have many more bites at the apple, so to speak. Something like this falls into my lap, and I’m confident it’s not a scam of some sort, I’d go for it.