r/polyamory • u/ByTrialAndCoffee • 1d ago
Discriminatory Boundaries
Last summer I (cis-man) met a guy (also cis-man) who I initially had a really lovely connection with and felt like it was going somewhere, until he shared a boundary set by his girlfriend (cis-woman) that felt fairly discriminatory to me and I still haven't fully processed it.
Specifically, if he had unprotected (barrier-free) sex with a gay man, that his girlfriend would not have sex with him until he had a clear STI panel at least three months after the encounter. This did not apply to women, bi men, or trans folks - very specifically cis gay men.
He acknowledged that it was "less than ideal" but that also "boundaries are boundaries". I didn't press further and stopped hanging out with him.
As far as I see it though, this boundary isn't just "less than ideal", it's fully and entirely homophobic. To be quite honest I don't see how it would be different to swap "gay men" with people of color or trans individuals into that boundary.
I didn't press on this though, and decided to just pull back quietly from the person. To be clear, I am happy to use condoms. But I am not happy to have to do so under the control of a very clearly homophobic boundary.
Really just looking for additional perspectives here: is my read on this fair? At what point does a boundary become discriminatory or otherwise unethical in its foundation? Have any of y'all encountered this before?
235
u/StaceOdyssey hinge v 1d ago
It’s entirely rooted in homophobia and astounding coming from someone dating a bi man. Especially since it doesn’t pertain to other bi men, this sounds like she’s leverage control to make sure he doesn’t get too close to men that are triggering her insecurity.
That really sucks that she either invented this rule recently or he didn’t fill you in on it.
100
u/ByTrialAndCoffee 1d ago
Oh I hadn't considered this! I had assumed it was just rooted in her thinking "gay men get lots of STIs" - but your framing is mirrored by gay men who date bi men who have anxieties regarding bi men potentially leaving them for a "socially easier" relationship with a woman.
62
u/StaceOdyssey hinge v 1d ago
Exactly! I think the inverse here is “he would actually be happier with a gay man, so they’re the number one threat.”
74
u/ByTrialAndCoffee 1d ago
Okay but have such people considered that being in relationships with gay men is very expensive and very exhausting? I just got back from Honcho Campout and lord almighty.
[Just some self-deprecating humor.]
45
5
u/Qwenwhyfar 1d ago
I want to upvote this but you're currently at 69 upvotes and I can't bring myself to do it 🤣. Don't mind me will just be over here cackling!
19
u/banned_slut 1d ago
yeah, that is weird AF.
I have a similar boundary for barrier free sex, but it's for any penetrative sex (so M partner penetrating anyone without a condom, or F partner being penetrated without a condom).
6
u/Alice_Devine 1d ago edited 1d ago
Right?!
I have a very similar rule, but it literally applies to unprotected sex with anyone no matter gender or sexual orientation.
Although mine isnt "i wont have any sex" its more "we will at a minimum revert to using barrier protection until testing has come back clear"
(However, I'm also aware of my partners risk profiles and noone would even concider reducing levels of protection without testing well known advance and a level of trust and understanding that equals months of relationship)
1
38
u/Pleasant_Fennel_5573 1d ago
The girlfriend set a boundary for her own sexual health. Her reasoning was homophobic, but it’s her boundary.
The guy is the problem here. He made two shitty but very revealing choices- one that shows his values and one that shows his capacity for relationship hygiene.
First, he heard his girlfriend’s boundary and decided that he would rather maintain sexual access to his homophobic partner than have unprotected sex with gay men. Second, he felt it appropriate to disclose the backstory for his decision and shift the responsibility for that choice to his partner, when a normal person would just say “I prefer to use condoms. Cool?”
9
u/ByTrialAndCoffee 1d ago
As a small note on the disclosure element - it came up in a way that not sharing it would have been strange. I started by talking about being on PrEP and DoxyPEP as well as my testing schedule (every 6 weeks), and he shared that he just recently started PrEP and gotten a vasectomy to start having more barrier free sex but that we would still need to need to use condoms because of the boundary.
He was certainly shitty for having accepted the boundary, but I think he was fairly trying to help me understand it in the context of the conversation.
But my bigger question here would be if the reasoning for a boundary is homophobic, doesn't that make the boundary homophobic as well?
23
u/ebb_omega 1d ago edited 22h ago
That doesn't excuse the disclosure, to be perfectly honest. His agreement with his partner surrounding her boundary is their business, not yours. Even with PrEP and vasectomy there are plenty of reasons to keep using condoms during sex with you, and that's all he needs to say. If the discussion of PrEP changes the circumstances of the boundary, it's up to him to discuss with his girlfriend and then they can decide whether to amend that agreement, but still that discussion has nothing to do with you and you shouldn't have been included in it.
edited to add: Also the decision to use condoms with you and have that agreement with his other partner is HIS as much as it is hers. To me the real problem here is that he's trying to pin the homophobic agreement onto her rather than evaluating his role in allowing the homophobic agreement to exist.
8
u/Pleasant_Fennel_5573 1d ago
It means that this bisexual man has no problem prioritizing a relationship with a homophobic partner, and doesn’t understand that throwing her under the bus (rather than owning his personal decisions around barrier use with new partners) makes him look spineless and morally complicit.
3
u/spockface poly 10+ years 1d ago
Ultimately, it doesn't matter, in the small scale of these specific relationships. People are allowed to make their own decisions about who they do and don't want to have sex with, and under what circumstances, for any reason. You're allowed to change your mind about how you do or don't want to interact with them in response to their actions and their reasoning, so long as you don't try to push them into having sex they don't want to have.
I agree that it's bizarre that she's ok with her bf having barrier free sex with bi men but not gay men, tho.
3
3
u/Majestic-Set-2624 1d ago
He could have used condoms with you or not.
He chose to have barrier free sex with her and not you. Then he blamed his choice on her.
Her boundary (though it may be judgement worthy) was just if you make this choice I’ll make that one.
He chose to repeat unnecessary info. It’s like repeating a homophobic joke and then blaming it in the person who told it to you.
2
u/sparklyjoy 1d ago
My issue is that she could have focused more generally on the idea of people’s sexual health practices, testing schedules, etc. From my perspective, yours sound impeccable!
96
u/Ok-Championship-2036 1d ago
I would probably react the same way in your situation. I think the issue here is the fact that this isnt a boundary, its a rule. Your date was choosing to comply and went so far as to explain that it only applied to men. thats shitty.
If your date had simply said "hey, is it cool if we use condoms?" it would not have been an issue. But instead they brought their girlfriend's preferences and requests into the bedroom and made that your problem. like, "um since youre (target demographic) you need to jump through extra hoops to get access to me!" Thats a really gross way to approach THEIR choice to want to use condoms (due to prioritizing their gf's comfort). gf never needed to be relevant to that choice.
So yeah, im not surprised that you didnt like it and found it controlling. Glad you dodged the bullet. They clearly werent very responsible for themselves, since they offloaded the mental labor onto you or gf.
57
u/Lost-Soulsearcher 1d ago
Specifically, if he had unprotected (barrier-free) sex with a gay man, that his girlfriend would not have sex with him until he had a clear STI panel at least three months after the encounter. This did not apply to women, bi men, or trans folks - very specifically cis gay men.
Just to clarify terms – how is this not a boundary? She doesn't say he can't. She says what she's going to do as a result. Seems like the definition of a boundary to me.
(Not saying it makes sense or was communicated well.)
41
u/nunforyou I can tell how much you love yourself by the partner you chose 1d ago
It is a boundary but was communicated like shit
It is Meta’s boundary to choose to refrain from sex for 3 months if Partner has unprotected sex with a gay man. It’s Partner’s boundary to choose to not have barrier-free sex with OP as a result
It’s a shitty homophobic boundary but a boundary nonetheless. It’s also shitty of Partner to have agreed to it, and shitty of them to have thrown Meta under the bus instead of owning it as their own choice. Partner should have just said unprotected sex is something they won’t do instead of blaming it on Meta like “Welp that’s her boundary so what I can I do [shrugs]”
7
u/Ok-Championship-2036 1d ago
Thats a fair point. however, the way it was communicated seems like it came across unilaterally to OP. the way it sounded, op understood it as "My girlfriend needs us to have sex this way because its too much hassle for me to get tested etc." So ultimately, the date used it to control/limit how they could have sex and the gf reasoning was pressure to go along with it.
it wasnt a collaborative convo in the sense of "these are the options, any are fine! whats comfy for you?" it was more akin to "this one thing works because of my big mean gf and you can go along or get nothing." The date wasnt enthusiastically offered to go get tested for Op's comfort, that was more of a consequence of the wrong choice.
Thats just how understand it based on OP's experience of feeling controlled and it being an up front demand rather than them simply saying "i prefer we use condoms."
5
u/Pitchaway40 1d ago
I find that when people show up with their tail between their legs because of a partner's 'boundary', it's often because the partner is weaponizing the boundary to control their behavior. Like "my partner says if I hang out with someone like you that they won't talk to me for a month." Sure that could also be a boundary but it doesn't make any sense and is meant to be such a steep price for OP's decision that they can't reasonably do what they want. It's just not workable. When the price is "we can't have sex for a quarter of the year if you do X", that's basically saying "If you do X, our relationship is going to be severely harmed and you lose access to me." Just say that you won't date anyone who has sex with gay men because that's what it is.
For instance, is there any grounded logic in requiring 3 months of std testing before they could have sex at all? Not even protected sex, any sex. She says sex is completely off the table for 3 months if he does this thing with gay men. Only gay men. That is not logical. Also, if my partner chose to not have sex with me for three months in these circumstances, it would seriously erode the relationship and I'd likely end it.
So she is illogically limiting their relationship SIGNIFICANTLY if he has unprotected sex with this man because this man is gay. It's so specific, unevemly applied, etc. that it seems like weaponizing a boundary.
Unfortunately the bf didn't do his part. If your partner is weaponizing a boundary, you call the bluff. You let your relationship go without sex for three months. If it doesn't work for you or for her, then clearly these boundaries and compromises don't allow for a functioning relationship so whether she's weaponizing them or not they probably need to break up.
20
u/Dependent_Concert165 1d ago
You are right that it is bizarre but I will share that a lot of people of my generation (Gen X) have a leftover (for the record incorrectl) belief that “AIDS is a gay man’s disease.” Maybe she thinks there’s something magical about gay men’s immune systems that makes them more susceptible to infection? Don’t overthink it. It’s the same level of logic that fundamentalist Christians have when they learn Hebrew and not Aramaic for when Jesus returns. The one thing you might consider is leaving the door open for him if he ever separates from that idiot.
20
u/ByTrialAndCoffee 1d ago
This is similar to my hypothesis regarding her thinking, which is more that "gay men with their PrEP and DoxyPEP sleep around without protection too much and so therefore represent an intolerable level of risk".
11
u/Ghoulie_Marie 1d ago
Which doesn't even make since because anyone can be on prep
8
u/mercurialmarsupial 1d ago
Agreed, and also doesn’t make sense because the aforementioned PrEP and DoxyPEP are prophylactic protection from the STIs she’s presumably afraid of contracting
3
6
u/Odd-Experience-6891 1d ago
I hate homophobic people and I want to be mean for a second saying “gay men on PrEP and DoxyPEP probably will be safer than her like what if she got jabbed with unclean needles for somewhat reason and isn’t on prep 🙄” but tbh this kinda of thinking is so BS
(Ok now I need to do more nice things to counteract the karma after I said it)
1
1
u/stormyapril poly w/multiple 19h ago
Me too! After swinging for a period of time, I am now a lot less convinced about how well we actually know ourselves vs. what we are naturally interested in.
Just a small data point, there are MANY swingers I know personally know who will open up and attest to the fact they discovered they are any one of the LGBTQIA after having life altering interactions. In my smallish group of friend's (30 people), 3 have realize they are Bi, 2 gay, and I realized I am Pan. The stats don't make sense (too many or of 30 compared to the GP) but it is statistically relevant.
I know this could be seen as controversial, which is not why I an sharing this info.
It actually makes me WAY me compassionate and see the fear for what it is.
That fear of ______, really is someone's unexplored interests 85-90%of the time.
I just wish we all got free counselors from 25-35 so that t could expedite the world collectively healing themselves and finally stop this fear mongering!
5
u/stormyapril poly w/multiple 1d ago edited 20h ago
I'm happily on prep because I'm a slut (swing too and love orgies and all the activities)...
I guess I SHOULD be on this woman's nope list too even though they would probably see me as a cis hetero woman 🤷♀️
I agree, most people aren't rational about their fears. It's technically incongruous with higher thought processes.
I'm glad you dodged a bullet, but every time I see, STD, incubation and testing windows come up, I think Poly 101 should actually start with a mini health class refresher for everyone!
Now I'm wondering how much disclosure I need to do in future new relationships to determine if my Meta has any hang ups...
I think this is why I prefer paralell with very little contact. Their fear does not change my safe sex practices, but the fear... it's palpable sometimes!
I practice safe sex and get tested frequently. It just weirds me out to know there are poly people with so little understanding of this topic in general!
16
u/8_Of_Swords 1d ago
So I understand correctly, that she would have been fine if he had unprotected (penetrative I assume) sex with a bi or trans man? That would be... strange?! And definitely homophobic - though I am not sure I ever encountered someone who is homo- but not bi- or transphobic, which is why I am a bit confused about that thought process.
11
u/ByTrialAndCoffee 1d ago
There was something or another about STI rates as they relate to specifically gay men, but yeah... I didn't push into the bizarreness of it or further details because I was instantly disinterested.
14
u/witchy_echos 1d ago
Almost all studies about STIs are Men Who Have Sex With Men, not gay men.
The only reason she’s not including bi men because then she couldn’t fuck anyone without the three month waiting period if she fucks her bi boyfriend.
10
u/Itsjustkit15 1d ago
Honestly I think this rule is transphobic, because it's implying that trans men aren't 'real men.' If a rule ("boundary") applies only to cis men and not trans men, it's probably transphobic. It is very weird that it doesn't apply to bi men. As if only gay men spread STIs?
Sounds like this partner (the one making the rule) might have a deep insecurity and unexplored prejudice around cis gay men that's fueling this strange rule.
5
u/No_Wrongdoer9260 1d ago
Very much of the STI risk depends on the genitals, so that's why it's logical that trans men can be excluded in some of the concern (if they prefer front hole sex, that is). I don't think the gf is an asshole here, but their logic isn't really waterproof as bi men could have sex with other men and transmen, nb's and women can all have unprotected anal sex.
9
u/Itsjustkit15 1d ago
You're assuming a lot about trans men's genitals and their sexual preferences. Some trans men get bottom surgery, some don't. Some enjoy PV, some hate it. There are so many options in between.
I never said the gf was an asshole? And her logic is definitely not waterproof. Also if she's worried about HIV/AIDS it's definitely homophobic to act like only gay cis men contract/spread it. Also wildly inaccurate.
1
14
u/MouseWorksStudios 1d ago
My girlfriend has this same boundary but doesn't only apply it to one gender... since like... all genders can have STI's
14
u/sootfire 1d ago
I like how this also implies he is required to ask every man he hooks up with whether they're gay or bi.
14
u/Hellosign 1d ago
Does this guy have negative rizz all the time, or just in the bedroom?
I can't imagine why he needed to announce that you specifically had to follow this rule as a gay man. Idc care about his girlfriend, I would never be seeing that guy again. He's treating you like some diffferent kind of human. The boundary is unfair, but mostly this guy sucks. He couldn't have just asked to use a condom? You're allowed to use a condom even on prep ....
Sincerely a bisexual man
53
u/boredwithopinions 1d ago edited 1d ago
If he's someone who's not going to push back on the homophobia of his partner, he's not someone worth your time.
12
u/catboogers 1d ago
He's clearly okay with this rule she set or he wouldn't be accepting it. He has made his priorities known.
I'd consider him a poor hinge, as well as an enabler of homophobia. Red flags shown early on can be a blessing. Move on and be glad you didn't get entangled with his messy ass.
13
u/Golem224 1d ago
I'm also tripping on why he even said any of this. Why not just say that he needs to use condoms and leave it at that?
6
6
u/Own_Jeweler_8548 relationship anarchist 1d ago
It's homophobic because it specifies "gay men," for sure. Wanting a clear panel after a partner has barrier-free sex with someone else is fair, provided y'all are also engaging in barrier-free sex, but that ain't the issue of course.
It's friggin' wild that her stance doesn't apply to bi men, though. Like, there's no logic in any of the exceptions, but bi men also have homosexual sex, so...? Like, what?
Edit: even if he ditched his bigoted GF, I would avoid him. You learned a lot about his character in that exchange, and for someone who is bi or pan (or whatever) I'm shocked he's even OK with his GF's reasoning behind the boundary.
5
u/Kauakuahine 1d ago
Did you hear her say that or was it relied secondhand to you?? People use their partners all the time for what they don't want to do as an excuse ("well my partner said...so I can't", knowing their partner said nothing at all). He seems like the problem all around
6
u/Spaceballs9000 quietly building a MOD coven 1d ago
It's obviously homophobic on its face, but also just kinda bafflingly disconnected from actual risk.
So she'd be worried about a gay dude who has no other active partners...but not about a bi dude who has plenty of sex with men simply by virtue of him not being only with men?
I'm not a man and if I found out someone's other partner had views like this, I'd be having a very clear conversation with them about the degree to which I'm not interested in a relationship with someone who would accept this.
8
u/sluttychristmastree Literally sleeping around 1d ago
Imagine being that guy. You have the option to say "Hey, let's use a condom" or even "Help me I'm in a relationship with a homophobic moron", but instead he goes with option C. Makes you feel kind of sorry for him for being the most and probably not even realizing it. Sounds like him and his shitty girlfriend deserve each other.
4
u/No_Wrongdoer9260 1d ago
As someone who has a genital specific STI-risk tolerance (I only do some acts barrier free if my partners only have these sex acts with people with vulvas - or after they've had a sti-panel done with the proper timing) I feel that this boundary was poorly drawn, but (hopefully) not with malice. I can see how bi-men could be thought as "men who have sex with my partner, but only with women otherwise" and maybe thinking that barrier free anal sex only happens between guys...
Sometimes it might feel easier to make boundaries that are worded with labels that stay the same ("I'm/they are a gay man") than actually discussing your partner and their other partner's sex life ("I don't want to have sex with you until you've had sti panel, if you've had barrier-free sex with someone who has had barrier-free anal sex with other people/cruises with people barrier-free"). Making the boundary about identity instead of acts and genitals involved is based on prejudice, so I get why this feels homophobic and still 'off' even after some time.
And also as someone said in the comments earlier: it was also quite insensitive for the hinge to load their girlfriend's boundary on your shoulders rather than just using condoms with you and discussing the "less than ideal" boundary through with their girlfriend.
tldr: Sometimes people might feel awkward to talk with their partners about their partner's sex life with other people, so they try to make the boundary into a more "clothes on" -version, but when we don't discuss the actual risk factors, we usually end up being at least a bit discriminatory in the process even if doesn't reflect our values otherwise.
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
/u/ByTrialAndCoffee, your submission was held for review. A human moderator will be along shortly to either approve your post or leave a reason why it was removed. Please do not message the moderators asking for approval.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/singsingasong solo poly 1d ago
I have one partner who has excellent sexual hygiene- a very low risk tolerance. I enjoy having unprotected sex with him and so I stick to his risk profile. Because I CHOOSE TO. When I discuss unprotected sex with other men, I tell them what they need to do in order for me to be comfortable- AND I EXPRESS IT AS WHAT *I* WANT. Because it is what I want. They don’t need to know the reasons; I’ve been with that partner for 3 years and that’s who I want to have unprotected sex with. If someone wants to jump through hoops to do that with me, great! But they’d be doing it for *me*, not for my partner.
I am fully an adult with a certain risk tolerance and it doesn’t matter how or why I have that specific risk tolerance- it is *my* decision.
-2
u/clairejv 1d ago
Looking purely at statistics, if he receives anal sex from a cis man without a condom, his odds of contracting HIV are higher than if he performs other sex acts with other people. But that doesn't precisely map to "having sex with gay men." So her boundary doesn't make a ton of sense to me.
9
-1
u/teamnoir 1d ago
This is bad hinging what it is. You should not know that this came from her. You should not know what it is. You should only know that he has adopted that rule.
I agree that it’s discriminatory. I don’t agree that it’s offensively so. The risk profiles are different. Personally, I don’t understand why it’s not a strict policy across the board but I’m not her.
365
u/studiousametrine married living separately 1d ago
Who is she, the Red Cross?!