Just to clarify; I'm not one that goes all ga-ga over the idea of 2 girls, and could not do the situation in question. I'm not going to go so far as to tell Teh_Loserer that his idea is wrong, though, just not for me.
The gender of the person shouldn't come into it - on a relationship level, it's wholly possible to have as fulfilling a one-to-one relationship with someone of the same gender as with someone of a different gender no matter what your sexual preferences are, and in fact many of the qualities you describe in her (drives stick, plays videogames, drinks beer) are those more commonly associated with males. You have a bromance, only she's a girl.
She wants to hump someone else. That should be the start and end of it for you.
It should only be the start and end of it for him if he can't handle the idea of his significant other boinking someone else. I couldn't, you couldn't, but for whatever reason, both him and his lady can. You were probably right earlier that it is about the sex; for some people, that really isn't a big deal and can be quite easily separated from any emotional ties. As long as all parties understand that going in, I don't see much of an issue (though I would hope they all also recognize that feelings can develop down the road unexpectedly).
If she loves you - and if you love her - you compromise. She stops cheating on you with other women. You stop cheating on her with other women.
It's cheating by your definition, and by mine. Open relationships aren't "wrong" relationships, they're just wrong for most people. I'm not even going to touch on which is more mature, exclusive or open, because as far as I'm concerned, the most mature thing is doing what most honestly jives well with your views on relationships. No point forcing yourself into a mold that wasn't meant for you.
She's labouring under the misconception that promoting an exclusive relationship means homophobia.
I don't care who she or you is knocking booties with. As soon as you hop on the good foot and do the bad thing with a third party, you're cheating on them. I've pointed out that not only does she want to cheat on you, you want to cheat on her and the gender of the person involved shouldn't be relevant to the discussion.
But if she wants to believe it's based on gay-bashing, she's wholly free to.
I didn't take her mention of same-sex marriage as a direct comparison to their situation, since I don't think the same-sex aspect is really the issue, here. I took it as her assuming that most peoples' views on relationships here skew towards "traditional", which is probably true. I know mine is.
This is almost as facile as Clinton claiming that it's not sex if you use a cigar instead of your John Thomas. Would scratching your bumhole in your sleep be an unconscious desire for receiving anal sex? Of course not.
She wants to roger someone else. You want to pound someone else. I don't know how more clear this can be.
Clinton was both right and wrong; it was a sexual act, but it wasn't "sex". The same way a girl using her old friend Mr. Plastic is a sexual act, but not intercourse.
I think she's trying to justify her incredible selfishness and mask it by using the stupid-switch that most blokes have when it comes to two chicks doing it.
This, however, is entirely possible, I'll concede that, even taking into consideration they've tried these things before. The biggest defense I can see is Teh_Loserer's vehement refusal to allow the third party to ever be a guy. It's a very common double-standard.
That's the point?
If either my wife or I were to nail someone else, our relationship would be over. Neither of us would be able to be away from the other without thinking "What are they up to while I'm not here?" - the trust would be dead and a relationship without trust is not a relationship.
Oh, same here. But would it be ending simply because someone else parked their car in the garage, or would it be the lack of honesty that (I'm assuming) lead to either one of you finding out after the deed had taken place?
For you and I, yeah, it'd be over. But we prefer our relationships strictly exclusive. Like you said, the amount of compromise needed with just two parties is enough of a fuss for me. But someone who deems getting their rocks off (with another living, breathing human being) as an important enough regular occurrence in life to contemplate a third member is willing to take that risk, I guess.
What they have is the above situation, only with an expressed desire to do it! People willing to cheat are always people willing to cheat.
This is an incredibly simplified view of the situation to aid your side of the debate.
She wants to cheat with someone else - he's 6 hours away for considerable stretches at a time, so what's to say she hasn't? He can't trust her.
He wants to cheat with someone else - he's 6 hours away for considerable stretches at a time, so what's to say he hasn't? She can't trust him.
My wife doesn't want to cheat with someone else. She could be on the other side of the world for months at a time, so what's to say she wouldn't? I trust her.
In both situations, his and your's, you're taking your partner's words at face value. His lady is saying nothing has currently happened, but would keep him in the loop if things did (and only if they both approve of said plan). Mrs. Indigo shares your views on exclusive relationships and has made it clear to you she wouldn't want to cheat with someone else.
Any and all parties involved above are capable of lying. It's not something exclusive to polygamists (I know, not strictly speaking the correct term).
If he can suppress those feelings of doubt, or genuinely doesn't have them, then that's great for him. If they are genuinely open about all aspects of this touchy subject, and don't use lie-by-omission, then what does he have to worry about?
You're going to say that you do trust her and she trusts you. You're going to say that you'd never cheat if it weren't permitted and neither would she. You're going to say you've had threesomes before, always broken by the third party and that your relationship will stand it. You might even point out that humans have only recently become a monogamous species and not even always then (Utah) and question what is "normal" anyway.
All valid points.
I might say that couple-exclusive relationships are the preserve of the mature and non-couple-exclusive relationships are the preserve of the young.
Another simplified and questionable view, though.
It seems like the two of you are in a relationship where both of you want to preserve every aspect of your single life - you want to keep working 12hr shifts a 6hr drive away and she wants both Guys and Dolls. It's like you're ****buddies, but you happen to share a roof some of the time, rather than man and wife (or husband, civil partner, smizmar, or any other committed, long-term relationship word you require). You're both independant, rather than co-dependant and that doesn't make for a happy future (even though it may be a priapic now).
What happens when you and her have kids? Or you and Teh_Thirderer have kids?
Okay, this I'll agree with, but again, it's down to my personal beliefs on relationships. An open relationship, or even one like what's been discussed, feels more like ****buddies to me too. But that term has always had the idea of no emotional attachment er, attached to it (whether true or not). It's hard for people, myself included, to not conclude that one or both parties does not view the other one simply as a "back-up", incase any other pursued interests don't pan out. The difference here being they already live together, which only complicates that.
I really don't think kids are on any of the involved minds, though!
End-note: Famine, thank you for using your bold and indigo tags often, it makes cutting up quotes that much easier. Also, thank you for probably hitting a new record for most sexual euphemisms in one post
Of all the people to call someone out on making up internet stories. I seem to remember you creating a thread and basking in an outpouring of the entire community's sympathy for a car accident that never happened...
Not tryin to be a dick, just sayin.
There's a fair amount of shame in just giving up, though.
