STRUGGLE SESSION: Tolyamory, Masculinity, Jet Laggery and More!

...unequal power dynamics. For example, in a sexless marriage where partners value the companionship, family, and stability created over decades, tolerating outside sexual encounters may be preferable to ending the relationship for both of them — while skipping the emotional labor polyamory requires. Dr. Thouin takes a stab — a highly insightful and thoughtful stab! — at categorizing different forms tolyamory might take, from Toly Under Duress (TUD) to Resigned to Tolyamory (RTT), to Tolyamory of Convenience (TOC), and Egalitarian Tolyamory (ET). You can check out her “Flavors of Tolyamory” post here. Ken.Kle left this comment on Dr. Thouin’s post… “toly” amory is bullshit. If your partner is cheating, they are cheating. If you tolerate it, you are tolerating their cheating. If you are cheating, you are just cheating. You can’t assume your cheating is tolerated. No couple is “toly” amorous. If someone is cheating… yeah, they’re cheating. That was never in dispute. For the record: cheating is cheating, cheating is (almost always) wrong, and people should (almost always) refrain from cheating. What tolyamory describes is one possible reaction a person might have — one possible choice a person might make — after discovering their partner is cheating. While most people would choose to confront and/or leave a cheating cheater (or most imagine they would), some people decide to turn a blind eye and stay with the cheater. Someone who decides to put up with cheating — no confrontations, no couples counseling, no threats of divorce — is tolerating (“tolerans“) the unfaithfulness of their beloved (“amor“). The cheater remains a cheater. Ken.Kle follows up… So, only the tolerating partner is tolyamorous? Exactly. The other partner is a CPOS? Obviously. You agree there are no “toly” couples then? Only individuals who tolerate their partners’ cheating? That was never in dispute. A happy relationship all around seems pretty unlikely, though. There are people in successfully monogamous relationships — no history of cheating, no plans to cheat, not even a desire to cheat — who are completely miserable. Cheating is not ideal, of course, and cheating has a correlational and causational relationship with misery and vice-versa. But a relationship can be “successfully” monogamous and a disaster in all other respects. And while most people who practice tolyamory aren’t exactly thrilled about it, let’s not erase people who were delighted to discover their partners were getting it elsewhere — let’s call them Toly and Relieved (TAR) — because cheating relieved them of the burden of having sex with partners they didn’t wanna leave but didn’t wanna fuck and/or the guilt they felt not for fucking partners they didn’t wanna leave and didn’t wanna fuck. Zooming out for a second… Reading angry comments about tolyamory on Dr. Thouin’s post and on some of the longer pieces that have been written about tolyamory in mainstream news outlets… you would think I conjured it into existence and unleashed it on unsuspecting couples who would otherwise be happily monogamous. All I’m guilty of here, people, is naming something that existed and needed a name. To name something is not to condone it or endorse it. All sorts of things that aren’t great have names; we have lots of words for cheating — adultery, infidelity, disloyalty, unfaithfulness, betrayal, etc. — and no one argues that cheating shouldn’t have name because it’s a shit thing to do or that it wouldn’t happen if it didn’t have so many names. Says Imaginary_Mongoose… Because we live in a society where any form of ENM is stigmatized, even more so polyamory, I think it’s harmful to conflate language related to poly with language describing various scenarios of tolerated infidelity…. We need to stop conflating ENM with various forms of (literal, actual) infidelity, especially when the larger public already does this as a way of further marginalizing and stereotyping folks who choose ENM. Fair point. But as Dr. Thouin argues — and I’ve never disputed — tolyamory is not a form of ethical non-monogamy. And, hey, sometimes shit rhymes. Podophilia — a thing for feet — can be safely and harmlessly enjoyed by consenting adults, it shouldn’t be stigmatized, and people who enjoy it shouldn’t be shamed; pedophilia — a thing for kids — can’t be “safely and harmlessly enjoyed” because children can’t consent, it should be stigmatized, and anyone who sexually abuses a child should be tossed into prison with all the other youth pastors. Does anyone argue that being into feet is somehow tainted because it rhymes with a thing for kids? Says ClinicallyDaBest… so stupid LMFAO there is no such thing as ethical non-monogamy to begin with In a world where millions of people who might be happier in ENM relationships submit to monogamy because they feel they have no other choice — where millions of people are monogamous under duress — and where countless people (mostly women) are terrorized and sometimes murdered by jealous partners (mostly men)… yeah… I don’t think fans of monogamy are in any position to throw stones at people practicing ethical, consensual, and non-homicidal non-monogamy. Says JJ72… From what I remember, the “masc for masc” criticism was not centered on masc guys (authentic) self expression, but rather on how they expressed their desire for other masc guys, which often happened in a degrading way towards any kind of femininity, and also tended to include bits of racism, agism, and body shaming. It’s okay to express your own masculinity anyway you want, but not if you need to take other people down. Agreed. But during the “masc-4-masc” panic of 2010s, masculine guys who expressed an interest in other masculine guys — without putting down guys who weren’t masculine (or white or young or fit) — were lumped in with guys who put “no femmes” in their profiles. And many critics of “masc-4-masc” bros ran around arguing that masculine gay men were just too insecure about their sexualities to be their authentic selves — essentially and sometimes explicitly arguing that the only authentic gender expression for a gay man was a feminine one, which is bullshit. (And for the record: I am not now nor have I ever been “masc-4-masc.” I have always been attracted to men who “read” gay, i.e. slightly femme men.) Says Diana Bell… So, the conspiracy is that Zuckerberg wants you to spend all your time on Facebook because he gets more ad money the more time you spend there. And part of this he wants to turn you into a porn addicted thing. But Facebook doesn’t allow porn and me and some friends got temp banned for sending each other nudes in a private group. Big tech hates porn, remember even Only Fans wants to not allow porn. Meta — née Facebook — doesn’t allow porn; indeed, Meta deleted my husband’s Instagram account (120K+ followers) because he posted pictures of himself in swimsuits. (Teeny swimsuits, but still.) But we weren’t just taking about Facebook and we weren’t just talking about porn. Please take a minute to read Magdalene Taylor’s piece. Says Tim via email… There are two other meaning for “goon” or “gooner” in non-American English. Much more fun than the latest one. In Australia, a “goon sack” is the bag or bladder inside box wine. Younger drinkers (like uni students) will take the bag out of the wine box for easier transport. So, an “Aussie gooner” is someone drinking boxed wine without the box. In England, a “gooner” is a supporter of the London based soccer team, Arsenal. Arsenal are also known as the Gunners.  Which, over time, made the supporters of the Gunners known as Gooners.  Mainly expressed in a crowd chant, “Oooh to be, ooh to be, ooh to be a (pause) goooona!” So, an “English Gooner” is a supporter of Arsenal Football Club! Thanks for sharing, Tim — and the kids here in the states call those shiny silver bladders of wine “space bags.” ‘ And finally, a short question that isn’t going to make it into the column… When do you dump the friend already (DTFA)? A longterm friend’s latest boyfriend is a walking array of red flags. Depending on the flag, she doesn’t recognize it, chooses to ignore it, or turns it into a co-dependent project. The enmeshment is painful to watch. These days, the only purpose our friendship serves is to provide a forum for her endless conversation about him. I’ve set boundaries, but even with said boundaries, the friendship often feels like a burden. Do I DTFA? How does one end a friendship that needs to end, but isn’t fading away! Losing A Friend ‘ Have you ever had to end a friendship? Do you have some advice for LAF? Share it in the comments…