I am diligently studying OB right now. Really.

[ocelot]

(Disclaimer: This scenario is in no way related to my own life. I'm just curious, because I've seen this issue pop up in multiple locations now, so it seems to be a fairly common way of thinking.)

Partner A and B are an opposite-sex couple in a committed, up-to-this-point-monogamous relationship. For the sake of simplicity of explaining (and because this is how it has been in the situations I've seen so far), A is female and B is male. Partner A is bisexual, and partner B is heterosexual.

Partner A decides that she would like to explore her bisexual side and have an encounter/relationship/whatever with another female. Partner B says "Sure, if I can do the same with a female."

Partner A logs onto the internet, explains the situation, and says that this is unfair. She would happily let Partner B have a relationship with another male, though. Multiple people agree that it is unfair, and allowing him to also have a homosexual side-relationship is an adequate solution.

Disregarding any issues of the morality or practicality of an open and/or same-sex relationship... What's your opinion of the situation? Is it fair for Partner B to request the same freedom with a member of the opposite sex? Is Partner A's solution of giving the freedom to explore with a member of the same sex fair, considering that Partner A does not actually have interest in exploring with a member of the same sex?

(If you can't disregard the morality/practicality, don't feel you have to answer. Or answer if you want, anyways. I'm just procrastinating. I'm tempted to post to Booju, too.)

Comments

[kuangning]

It seems fair to restrict Partner B's choice to a member of the same sex, because a same-sex relationship is often complementary instead of threatening to the primary, opposite-sex relationship. Partner A is, likewise, exploring a same-sex option. It seems likely that Partner B's declaration of "if you do that, then I want another woman," is less a genuine statement of interest than a way to stop Partner A from pursuing an outside relationship at all. ;)

[therealocelot.livejournal.com]

It seems likely that Partner B's declaration of "if you do that, then I want another woman," is less a genuine statement of interest than a way to stop Partner A from pursuing an outside relationship at all. ;)

I agree with this. However, saying "You can sleep with a man" when she know he'll do nothing of the sort seems like a similar form of passive aggression.

Kind of like going to the store to get dessert to share, and grabbing chocolate ice cream knowing the person you're sharing with hates chocolate.

[purdypiedad.livejournal.com]

Ultimately, I see this as unfair. Here's why:

Partner A doesn't have all of her needs/desires met with 1 relationship, so she wants to look elsewhere to have those unmet needs/desires met while still benefiting from the first relationship. Partner B decides that if Partner A is desirous of an open relationship to meet her unmet needs/desires, he can accommodate that provided he has the same freedom. Now, because Partner B is not fulfilled in any way by a same-sex relationship, he should be given the freedom to have an opposite-sex relationship to meet his needs/wants.

Just as we say it is unfair to limit marriage to heterosexual couples because homosexual people don't have the freedom to marry who they love, we can't say it's okay for a bisexual person to have a relationship with anyone she wants without giving that same freedom to her heterosexual partner. It's about having the freedom to do what you want, not about which gender you are with. Partner B does not have this freedom, but Partner A does.

[ourgosling.livejournal.com]

Nope, Partner A's 'solution' is not even remotely fair. A person is a person, and if you're asking your partner to let you get your rocks off with someone else you can hardly deny them the same thing. Gender really doesn't come into it, IMHO.

[theducks.livejournal.com]

/signed

Non-monogamy is non-monogamy, whichever sex you're doing it with. If you're all cool with that, no problems. Otherwise, not so much.

[kuangning]

No argument here. In any case, I would just think they deserve each other, and potential outside interests are well clear of them. ;)

[basbleu.livejournal.com]

sounds right to me.

[kristeljohns.livejournal.com]

Same-sex or opposite-sex doesn't matter. She's asking to have a fling/relationship with the kind of partner of her choosing, the kind of partner she feels an attraction toward. Therefore, he should have the same option. If she can't handle HIM doing it, then SHE has no business doing it.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

+1.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[purdypiedad.livejournal.com]

Wow. That took you so many less words to communicate than it did me. lol...

[barelyproper.livejournal.com]

going outside the relationship is going outside the relationship... Regardless of gender or orientation.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

It's exactly as fair as saying "People should only be allowed to marry members of the opposite sex."

[renewgirl.livejournal.com]

+2

[renewgirl.livejournal.com]

yep