Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfdietz | Hacker News Reader

I'm straight and love my wife of 44 years. But I long ago made the thought experiment of what would happen if she were in the same kind of situation you were in: what if she decided I was a mistake, or that being in a relation with a man was a mistake, and that she needed to do something else. I decided that would require I support her in that. How can you love someone and not want what is best for them, even if that has a cost?

I don't know your wife, and I don't know if she would feel the same way. Maybe she would?

View on HN

I can relate to this probably the most out of everything I've seen on HN so far. My fiancee is pansexual and overall seems to prefer women, so I surely am quite a bit of a surprise in her life (to the point where her family laughed at the fact that I 'fixed her' the first time I met them...) as a straight man. I know she loves me, I love her with all my heart but I am aware that at some point she may want to change me for someone of the opposite sex. I have therefore decided that as long as this does not happen behind my back I will support her, even if that means I have to endure a lot of pain.

I don't really see why you should support that. In your case your wife is not closeted and living a lie, everything is out in the open. So deciding to change you for someone else, regardless of sex, is no different than if I decided to change my wife for another woman. We give stuff up to make a commitment to someone else. It doesn't always work out and I'm not saying people should stay together when they don't want to, but I am questioning your pre-acceptance of your partner wanting to shag someone else even though that would clearly make you very unhappy.

"Prefer women" could be in a sexual context, romantic context, platonic, etc. and the commenter above didn't define it. I imagine it's hard enough for bisexual people to be asked if they're "living a lie" by having to choose a side.

They aren't choosing a side, they're choosing a person. Being bisexual surely just opens the field to more potential mates, but once you're with someone the same rules apply as to folks in any other relationship. And I don't want to sound too conservative - if you choose to be with someone and both agree to have an open relationship of some kind, or any other mutually agreed kind of thing, that's no-ones business but yourselves.

In this case though, they're saying their partner is pansexual - open to many kinds of sexual activities. And they're saying that they'd be accepting if their partner needed to go and do sexy stuff with someone else even though it'd cause them a lot of pain (that's my reading of it, not having a platonic friendship with someone else as you mentioned). I'm asking why? Having a different to hetrosexual appetite before going into a relationship shouldn't give you special rules once you're in one - it's absolutely no different than if a hetrosexual person wanted to sleep around. OK if your relationship allows for that, really not OK if it's going to cause your partner/spouse/love pain, as they said.

Already explained this a bit further in a reply below in the chain, hope this explains a bit more.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46033816

Yes that makes more sense. I would take the same approach.

For you and anyone else reading this I recommend the book "the designer relationship" - its actually about polyamory but I think it does a great job solidifying the concept that really, a relationship between two people can be basically whatever they want it to be, not defined by social norms. What comes first is open and honest communication and negotating through hard conversations to find a way of mutually meeting everyones needs

FWIW my wife is bi and dates women, not that really ever bothered me but in no way has it ever been more damaging to our marriage beyond basic scheduling conflicts. I will admit I would have had a much harder time opening up to her being with other men though. Im lucky that she has never fallen in love and wanted to run away with one of em I guess, but partly thats because our marriage is otherwise great and shes already free to explore her gay side so why would she want to leave?

https://www.amazon.com/Designer-Relationships-Monogamy-Polya...

I admit that when reading the description of your relationship (I don't mean to be disrespectful, for what it's worth) I can't help but wonder how it can possibly be consistent with "a relationship between two people can be basically whatever they want it to be." It really reads like the relationship is whatever _she_ wants it to be.

If you had come into the relationship with the understanding that you'd both date/have sex with other people then great; it doesn't matter what other people think. However, when you say that it was hard for you to accept her being with other men, and that you're lucky that "she has never fallen in love and wanted to run away with one of em", damn. My first instinct is that you should take your own advice: find or design a relationship where you don't have to accept this.

I realize that some of my knee jerk reaction might just be instinct/cultural values, I mean no disrespect.

If I didnt like it, I would leave. Reread the post though you misinterpreted our situation.

You have a right to have firm boundaries and communicate them clearly to your partner. Doing so will usually make a relationship and life together better, not worse because your partner will respect your honesty and strength. If her doing that will hurt you, I strongly recommend you communicate clearly and up front that you know she has those interests, but following up on them is a deal breaker for you, and you need her to be honest about that. You’re not even married yet, have the conversation now! It won’t be good for you or for her to be an angry shell of yourself like the dad in the article, making a sacrifice you never wanted to make.

I'm only mentioning this as a potential future divorce topic.

It's not up to debate whether or not I accept cheating because I've already set it as an immovable barrier multiple times: come into sexual contact with anybody else during the marriage and she's going to be thrown out of the window with all of her belongings.

But if she comes to me with honesty and hasn't done anything yet - why would I want to be on bad terms with her as she leaves? I can only be sad at her decision.

dude fuck that - cheating is cheating - don't be that guy (unless you're into that sort of thing, of course). if she feels that you aren't the one for her, drop it like it's hot. there's plenty of other fish in the sea

Besides what everyone else said, just get yourself a pre-nup too :-)

Lots of judgment all over this thread. I vote more of us listen to anecdotes like this one here, from someone whose long and successful relationship is based on wanting the best for someone else--who they recognize as human and fallible--even when that means change.

If you want marriage to mean that your partner will never change, or that the 100% match on the inside what you think they are looking from the outside, you're gonna have a hard time. This discussion is just further down the continuum than most.

(Exceptions made for arranged marriages and the like; the primary purpose there isn't romantic love-based companionship, so there isn't a pretense to shatter.)

I think this is a good example of how lying can affect one's autonomy (though I don't remotely hold that as an absolute principle). In the ideal exercise of love, I agree with your claim. I don't think it's dismantled in practice, but I think it is weaker. The spouse fell in love with "someone", but it turns out it's just a dummy of the other spouse. To some extent, probably everyone only loves or even perceives imperfect images of others, but this takes it a step further. I think this is somewhat different from supporting a disabled/ill spouse, because that condition arose through no fault of anyone (presumably). I think this is also different from a spouse, sometime into the marriage, realizing a different romantic/sexual orientation, because no one could've known at the time of marriage (presumably).

I'll add another scenario like this would be if ones partner had an egg-breaking epiphany and decided they needed to transition. And my personal conclusion would be the same.

There’s a big difference between changing and lying. I wouldn’t be happy if my spouse lied to me.

I wouldn't be happy either, but I'd be understanding. Everyone is human. Everyone lies, even to themselves.

Not all lies are equal. Marriage is a contract built on trust and commitment. When you have been lying about that specifically, you have defrauded someone.

You’ve stolen time and emotional energy from these people. They can never get those years back.

Your children have been deprived of seeing parents role modeling romantic love. They have built their entire world views based on your behavior towards your spouse, which incorporated subtle lies and deception.

The victims of your fraud now have to deal with second guessing which things you said might be true and which might be lies - you shatter everything they ever believed throughout the marriage. It is a horrendous thing to put people through.

So can I understand why they did it? Sure. But I will definitely judge them for their actions and not support them.

It's also built on forgiveness, because no one can possibly not ever need that.

I think you're a better person than I am.

Obviously I can only speak for myself here but I wouldn't be so understanding, especially when my partner lied about such a fundamental aspect of their life and joined in a union of marriage with me.

I suppose, for me it would feel like the vows they took where not real and the foundation of our life, all the memories, thoughts and feelings were nothing but smoke and mirrors.

You're right, we're all humans and life is complex but I think it's selfish to waste your partner's life for years because you can't face the truth. I suppose that a bitter end is better than endless bitterness however.

Just because it is human doesn't mean you can't be hurt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com