I agree with your advice but there is just something about this situation. Why would you get seriously close with a guy in a war situation and then stress him out about the sex you NEED to have with someone else? Seems cruel. And unusual.

What happens next time he's deployed? It will likely be for more than two months.

Why is she telling him this - isn't this toying with his emotions?

She's not a good match for him. Ditch her.

This may be a bit crass, but if all she really wants is to get it off, in this case the best "last fling" might be a battery-powered one.

It sounds to me like she is jerking his chain. She doesn't sound like such a great catch. I feel for the guy. He is in the position of being able to do nothing while she works it out for herself to scratch an itch. And then bitches to him (apparently) about her horniness. Not cool.

If they are truly "as close as two people can while physically separate," then wouldn't she too want to be with him and not some random dude?

Don't go there, man.

This reminds me of a couple I knew in their early 20's. They guy was a marine deployed in Iraq as part of an all male unit. The girl was a civilian at home.

Halfway though his deployment she informed him that she wanted to be in an "open relationship". How convenient for her. But that's not the end of it, she had the nerve to bitch that she was the one who had it hard because she was always being hit on by cute guys that wanted to bang her. In her mind he had it easy because there were no women thus no temptation.

Here this guy was literally fighting for his life; trying to survive in an unforgiving desert filled with IEDS and people who were constantly trying to kill him. But in little Miss Princesses mind she was the one who was bearing the brunt of the hardship. She ended up banging her ex anyway before she had this little chat with him, making the whole thing an exercise in futility. He wouldn't have ever found out if I didn't tell him when he came home.

The fact that people think that behavior like this is acceptable speaks volumes of society's view of men. Many people view men as little more then: sperm banks, walking atms, and meat shields.

My advice to this guy: Run like hell!! If she thinks so little of you, then get out of there. What do you think will happen the next time you go on deployment?

"They aren't in a relationship yet, in which case it would be different. She's looking for a "last fling." This doesn't mean she isn't to be trusted. Also, the fact that she's honest says a lot about her."

Yeah...but she can be pretty sure he isn't playing the field with a bunch of women while she has that choice with a bunch of men. I think if you decide to carry on a relationship with a certain person in a particular situation then the rules change.

It is mean spirited what she is putting him through, and if he were my son, I would tell him her "honesty" isn't nearly as important as her lack of sensitivity. And I would tell him to flush that cold hearted bitch.

I'm willing to bet the guy is under 21, older than that and he has serious problems with "meeting" people just before deployment and trying to turn a one night/weekend stand into a 'real' relationship. If they were really as close as two people could be she wouldnt be trolling for some strange.

Given they arent in a relationship I'm willing to bet the girl is also under 21 if the felt the need to be honest about wanting to get laid. Best case senario is she is that young for feeling guilty about hooking up with someone while writting letters to a GI. If shes older than 21 and feeling this guilty for 'cheating' on a long distance pen pal she had a fling with then she needs therapy

I agree with Sarah that if it was just about getting off she'd be using a vibrator. My guess is she want an out and doesnt know how except for creating drama

My advice? You arent in a real relationship, accept that fact, you have a pen pal you masterbate to and may or may not have seen naked once or twice before you deployed.

If your lucky enough to be sent stateside via germany and have the time have your fling there, if you aret able to pick up an Air Force nurse or a local fräulein, there are plenty of escorts.

Once you do get state side remember the fact that
YOU ARE NOT IN A RELATIONSHIP.
For all your letters and emails your are barely past the first date, no matter how close you feel

Also, the fact that she's honest says a lot about her.

a. she has aspergers syndrome
b. she's already fucking around.
c. she's not taking this relationship thing nearly as seriously as he is.
d. she's a skank
e. a+b+c+d

Amy, this ran on the 29 of Sept, was that day the 60 day mark or was the 60 day mark when you first started coresponding with him?

This just sounds very unfortunate. I think the less people know of the particulars of their partner's prior sex experiences, the better... in my experience, too much info in this area just does not make people feel good. Especially men. And here this poor guy is, forced to confront not only the possibility of his future girlfriend having a nice fuck without him, but her actually suggesting it.

There's no way to un-know this, and yeah, she was probably right to be upfront about her needs. I get where she's coming from, it doesn't mean she's a lousy person or that she doesn't really want to be with him. Still, I wonder, if she can have one last fling and then be a great girlfriend to him, did he REALLY have to know about the fling, and therefore be able to torture himself about it? While he's also trying to stay alive in Iraq???

But I guess she couldn't really hide it either... might lead to yucky omissions and evasions from her and suspicions from him and then, he really would be wondering if he could trust her.

Bottom line, it takes a very rational and emotionally secure man to ignore his biological instincts and put things like his woman's sex with other men out of his mind. Amy provided the best possible mental ammo--it is indeed possible. And I think it will also help if they agree to "don't ask, don't tell" regarding pre-relationship flings from now on. He does not need to know a damn thing more on the subject.

Isn't this what vibrators are for?

I go with the theory that she's already slept with another guy and is trying to get him to have a fling so she can justify it in her own mind. Anyone who can't stay celibate for 60 days is a flake.

They aren't in a relationship yet, in which case it would be different. She's looking for a "last fling." This doesn't mean she isn't to be trusted. Also, the fact that she's honest says a lot about her.

I have contempt for cheaters but if these two people aren't in a relationship yet, they presumably they have no commitment to be faithful to each other and if she had sex with someone else without telling him it wouldn't be cheating. So, in this situation, I'm not seeing what's so admirable about her telling him this? If he had a realistic option for a last fling then I could see her proposing this arrangement but, as you pointed out, his options are a "bunch of big, dusty, sweaty men in camouflage pants."

She's already done it. She's hoping he'll reluctantly 'allow' it, because it's easier to lie about when something occurred than about doing it at all.

Just intuition speaking, but I learned to trust those first naggy feelings a long time ago. It's done, dude. She feels guilty and couldn't just keep quiet about it.

Honesty, as in, "I like you, and we'll see how it goes when you get back, but I think we should get to know each other better before we get committed," is a good thing. But, "I've just really gotta fuck one more dude while you're dodging mortar, pining away over me" is just... I dunno... inappropriate.

Tacky, all I can say is tacky. This is trashy behavior for any race, age, or income level.

Women are biologically programmed to not fuck around on someone they love( or at least lie about it if they have a few too many drinks and slip up when they are lonely and sexually needy) The fact that she wants to, and talks about it, screams two things. One is that she doesn't love him, and the other is that most of her self worth is probably derived from guys wanting to bang her.

This won't change after they are a couple.

Amy says they are not in a relationship yet. The girl acts that way. The guy seems much more involved. This is a very unequal attraction, apparently.

Would he ever be able to trust her on his future deployments? Right up to the point that she gets sexually frustrated? Yeah. Sign up for that. Not.

"She suggests we each have a 'last fling' before we start our relationship"

Wow. Really focused on you and that future relationship, isn't she? /eyeroll

Letterwriter, you just passed the warning sign flashing red, flaming words: "Succubus Ahead--Turn Back Now! Save yourself!"

Isabel1130 is dead on when she says this won't change once the "relationship" (har dee har har) starts: a woman who wants you in her life won't be saying, "Ah, wait, hold on. Before *WE* commit to a monogamous relationship, *I* am going to drunkenly get some strange over there with some smirking dude at a wedding. Then, with that grand experience checked off the list, we are good to go, my love!" Nope, when a woman wants you, nothing else will do.

You would seriously consider dating her? Really? My reaction would be to wish her well, and GTFO there. In short: heed the warning sign, mi amigo.

Once you get back to the states, visit family, decompress, have some sex (preferably with another gal...), catch up with old friends. Heck, go hang out at the local VFW a bit even and chat up any old vets there; they would love to talk to you.

Once you get your head cleared, you will slap yourself for even considering letting this gal into your life on these terms. Right now, where you are, she represents an idea, a hope, a promise of future good times. Naturally, you are fixated on that. But she sounds like just another twinkie, lacking in good sense and judgement. Don't let someone like that into your life, man. The way things are now, gals like that can ruin your life.

(And forgive Ms. Alkon for disappearing into psych evo mumbo jumbo; she is just having an off night.)

I dont know Spartee, people rarely ever stop to consider why they feel the way they feel about things. The amazing thing about humans is we have the ability to rationalize things, and while taht usually leads to irrational behavior, it can sometimes gives us the impetus to change our behavoir, or at the very least how we feel about our reactions.

Maybe this guy will realize that, as his irrational feeling are indeed perfectly rational when viewed in the proper context, he can put it behind him as something that really isnt that important.

Although I'd have to admit, I'd have like to have seen more analysis on why he was so invested in making this into a relationship when it clearly isnt over the analysis on why he felt the way he felt. Ofcourse this is why I'm not an advice columist (professional or amature) as my interest clearly wasnt the type of advice he needed.

Having lived in an Army town I would say that there is a 99% chance she has already had the fling.

I can't see this going well. Next deployment, the same thing is likely to happen.

I can't see this going well. Next deployment, the same thing is likely to happen.

Posted by: The Former Banker

I agree it wont go well, as for the future that depends on whether he acctually tries to have a relationship with her and whether or not they acctually form a realtionship.

Sound to me like he is on his first or second tour of duty, and they are both REALLY young. $20 bucks says they had one or two weekends of sex and she is coresponding with him becuase the idea of writting a sex buddy GI is "hot".

If they arent young they are horribly, HORRIBLY, immature.

The problem is, as Amy has pointed out in other columns, is that the gal is genetically programmed to want to be attached to the man she has sex with. Soooooo...if she does this, LW, maybe your relationship wasn't meant to be.

Hopefully, she'll keep her legs crossed.

I think Spartee hit the nail on the head. This is not a normal "relationship", if it even rises to that level. Let's even forget the fact that we are talking about sex here and think just about the level of selfishness on display by this girl. Talk about entitled! This would be just the tip of the iceberg with this one. If this relationship panned out, I can see her making his life difficult in a thousand different ways.

LW, please focus on staying safe and coming home in one piece. Don't let this person drag you down and make you miserable. There are plenty of nice girls who would be glad to be with you and you alone. Don't settle for less than you deserve.

"I dont know Spartee, people rarely ever stop to consider why they feel the way they feel about things."

True, but not really apposite here. For example, just because parents can analyze "why" they love their kids, and why parents feel devastated upon their child's death, that does not mean parents can proceed in life as though such perceptions of loss and sadness are not "real." Or that parents can in the future manage better the real suffering parents will feel.

Ms. Alkon's advice was fine for a college-level discussion of why people feel the way they do. And that removed, dispassionate analysis of "why" is always a good idea when considering life in a more abstract way.

But the larger part of what this guy is asking is not why, but "should I.....?" As such, it is not particularly helpful advice to focus on the "why" he feels a particular way in this instance.

Going back to my earlier analogy, Ms. Alkon's advice here seems somewhat akin to explaining to parents that their feelings of paternal or maternal attachment are evolutionary adaptations, and that parents should not get too hung up on such adaptations when considering future plans involving their child's safety. While it is true that our attachment to children is just a chemical set of reactions designed to maximize reproductive success. It is also true, however, that the suffering a parent feels upon a child's injury after is no less real as a result.

Similarly, this guy's reaction to being seen as the "we will be a couple after I am done getting some love hammering" booby prize is just a chemical set of reactions designed to maximize his reproductive success. The "whye, if you will. it is also true, however, that his sense of disappointment and anxiety about her is no less real for being a mere adaptation.

The practical advice here is that the best way for him to avoid those feelings is to GTFO there, not ponder the "why" of those feelings.

"Also, the fact that she's honest says a lot about her."

I wouldn't assume she was honest.
Actually the first thing that jumped into my head about her honesty was that she was already having sex with someone and just found out she was "late" and doesn't believe in abortion, or had been caught by one of his friends.

I don't understand. If these people aren't yet in a relationship and aren't yet committed to one another, than why should she even feel obligated to ask him for one last fling? That doesn't make any sense to me.

And there's a multi-billion dollar porn industry out there just waiting to help you with your unemotional hook-up, if you are that sexually frustrated.

I wonder if she would be so eager to allow him that fling if he targeted a ten for his unemotional hook-up.

A large part of avoiding pain and suffering in life is the diligent application of the obvious.

I am frequently amazed at how people--smart and stupid, rich and poor--believe they are going to be exempt from this iron rule.

I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said that in his role as counselor, 90% of his time was spent telling people to stop being a damn fool. I think in this instance the advice to the young (?) man here is: stop being a damn fool. Move on.

Making this an intellectual exercise in evo psych seems more like an attempt to avoid applying the obvious, in the hopes for an unlikely outcome.

The military should do a study on why it is that GIs tend to get into such F'd-up relationships. Because the crap that this guy is dealing with is par for the course. Maybe it's that many women don't want to get involved with men in the military, and so they tend to end up with skanks and basket cases. But whatever the reason, the outcomes are pretty consistent. For example, the infidelity rate among military wives and GF's is through the roof. More than can be explained by the fact that the men are gone for long periods. There's something going on that causes these guys to end up with the wrong type of woman.

The fact that this woman would even consider telling him what she's intending to do suggests a couple of things. That she's already fucking around, and that she's too self absorbed to recognize the impact that this would have on him.

But it's his fault picking her. He should go home, screw her brains out for a few weeks, and then go find a better woman. Forget trying to have a 'relationship' with her.

Either she's ready to commit to him or she isn't. Either she can handle a long-distance relationship or she can't. Saying she'll commit only after a throwaway sexual encounter means that she's willing to risk his walking for the sake of a one night stand, i.e. she doesn't have very strong feelings for him. There's his answer. This whole scenario sounds like that oldest of human yearnings, to eat one's cake and have it too.

"Making this an intellectual exercise in evo psych seems more like an attempt to avoid applying the obvious, in the hopes for an unlikely outcome."

Agreed Spartee, what is more important here, being "different" or being "right"? Giving someone the same advice as Dear Abby isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you are both right.

Also, I never assume that someone who is highly intelligent makes better romantic decisions than someone of average intelligence. I have seen too many counter examples of that.

An advanced analytical capability can sometimes mean that you are better at rationalizing your common sense out of existence.

Since I am not an advice god, I wouldn't dream of telling him what to do. I would walk.

He wants something that doesn't exist - the version of her that loves him as much as he thinks he loves her. I could toss in a gratuitous, USMC saying to cover the situation, but I'm sure he's heard them all already.

Also, the fact that she's honest says a lot about her.

Really? How about that fact that she's offering him a proposal that he can't possibly take advantage of? That says a lot about her as well.

He should ask for a rain check, and see how she likes that idea.

And lizzie is basically right. She wouldn't even bring up the subject if she cared about losing him.

Wake up LW. Look at her behavior. Think about the consequences. Don't be one of those guys who ruins his life for a woman because he was too blind to see what was right in front of him.

Since they're not exclusive, her sex life really shouldn't be any of his business... except that by telling him about it, she made it so. Once again, it's inappropriate and inconsiderate. He could, of course, consent to the "last fling," then do what my friend M did upon returning from Iraq: Go on a two-week prostitute tour of the Philipines. Then a couple more weeks in Brazil and Argentina. (Side note: Please don't go spendin' all your money on this girl, LW!!!)

She really, really wants to be with him down the road...but she hopes he doesn't mind if she gets it on with somebody else first? I guess I'm just not comprehending the ins and outs of this one. No woman I have ever known who wants a love relationship with a specific man has wanted to sow some wild oats first via an "unemotional hookup". Once she zeroes in on a specific guy, that's the only guy she wants. I could see her telling him that she can't do a long-distance thing, so let's put it on the back burner and talk when he gets back. That way they're both free to do whatever in the meantime and then can revisit the possibility of a relationship when it's more feasible. No graphic details necessary. Men don't want to know the gory details, which is why it's disturbing him and he's afraid he can't "get okay" with it.

Fine!

Let's answer the question he asks.

"How do I get her to hold out until I get back home?"

THAT is his primary question. This is what he wants in this relationship, not little Miss F***s Around.

Now, as a matter of principle, Amy has to say the GF is legally and morally justified in doing this...somehow without dwelling on how rude and emotionally devastating it is to shove one's sexual infidelity (Because, let's face it, that is how he is seeing it) onto a guy in a war zone. (Is she going to get a windshield sticker too? I'd suggest 'If you can't keep it in your pants, keep it from your GI')

His second question is 'How do I accept the fact that she sees f***ing around on me as okay?'

Well, in that regard, Amy is the perfect person to ask as the evolutionary stuff as it's fully suited for psychobabble rationalizations. She can tell him how he is a 'superior intellect' by allowing a woman who doesn't care enough for him to spend $29.99 on a sex toy but is more then happy to risk an STD, an emotional attachment, or devastating her proposed partner.

But where Amy truly misses the mark today (everyone has an off day) is the fact that genie has already spread her legs around the bottle. Because the GF raised the issue, he already sees her spreading at the wedding. The whorse is gone! He already sees it in surround sound 3D.

Which is why the real second question he should ask isn't 'how do I get alright with this', it is 'should I be alright with this'.

And so far, the commenters have made it a resounding HELL NO!

Do I really need to bring up the gender reversal thing? Would it be okay for him to shag a brides maid while she was giving pigmy children innoculations for 60 days?

My own experience with deployment is that it can make people see things in a relationship that aren't really there - a sort of wishful thinking. Most deployments don't give you anything to really look forward to except the end of the deployment. You build up in your mind what your return home is going to be like, and sometimes you build up the people/relationships back home, too. I suspect this young man is grasping at this woman because he needs someone/something to look forward to when he returns. Sometimes that's the only thing that keeps you going, but it can lead to huge disappointment and heartache when you actually get back to civilization.

She probably has a healthier and more realistic perspective on the "relationship" than he does.

Regarding "losing him," they don't have a relationship yet.

What's he mean by the following then?

>> We've gotten as close as two people can while physically separate,

that sounds like they have an existing relationship. Is he crazy or something? What's he talking about, and why is he holding out for this girl? He seems to think that they're having a relationship.

Do you mean because they haven't had sex that they can't be in a relationship? If so, how's that jibe with your claim that there's nothing special about sex? I'm confused.

Okay, he's not stooge. He also doesn't want the girl to have sex when he's right around the corner from coming back either.

If HE can wait for 60 days as a male, why does she get a pass for the hornies?

I think she was at best thoughtless and frankly cruel. If she really cared, as she asserts, then she'd find a couple of girlfriend who ar not going to the wedding and should spend the entire night with them just because she was so stupid and thoughtless and she owes him that.

Otherwise she is dangling him on a string and keeping him around as a salve to her ego. 'I got two guys pining for me; the guy I am screwing and a war hero. Whee!'

Fine, he can pine for her if it gets him through his tour. Does that mean she gets three free f***s if he's deployed for 180 days and still aren't engaged?

Do I really need to bring up the gender reversal thing? Would it be okay for him to shag a brides maid while she was giving pigmy children innoculations for 60 days?

If they're not in a monogamous relationship, then it would be totally OK! It would just be dumb for him to tell her about it. And I'm not really sure why the LW's lady felt the need to tell the LW.

If you aren't in a committed relationship with somebody and you feel like having sex with somebody, sex can be just sex and not mean anything more or go any further.

I haven't read every word you have ever written but someone upstream noted that you stated that 'sex' is a bonding experience. So is she 'bonding' with someone else or is sex just sex? It can't be both.

that even if he could find his way to some other base, non-married military personnel in a combat zone are not allowed to have sex.

A pair of kids were caught doing it in a DUMPSTER in Basic training. Recall that married guy doing it with that single mom I posted in one of the earlier articles. They weren't the only ones.

Yes, it is technically illegal. You know what else was illegal? Personal booze and porn when I was deployed. Would you like to guess how many of our boxes shipped out clinked and rustled? How many bottles were in the pilots' trash bags?

That said, his selection opportunities, where it's 50 to 1, yes, he isn't getting lucky. As a girl, all she needs to do is say 'yes' So they could be in the same club and they STILL wouldn't have equal opportunities.

Re Guilt. So not only is she insensitive, but she's stupid as well. Run Forest!

I'd say LW1's girlfriend likes torturing guys. She reminds me of Kathleen Turner in that Steve Martin movie, The Man with Two Brains. Send him off to Iraq then call him to tell him you're having sex with some other guys... then act offended when he gets bothered by it, as if he's such a sexist pig... LOL. She's into torture games, plain and simple.

People you click with, unless you're very average, don't come along every day.

Well, either she clicked with him or she didn't. And if she did, then she is pretty frigging stupid to risk a 'click worthy' guy over a bit of strange.

Which goes back to her not being dedicated, or sensitive, or being incredibly stupid.

Somehow, I think this guy has a lot more 'click options' then how you characterize yourself, being young, in shape, with a good story and dedication, loyalty and bravery cred to boot.

"Let's see other people"? I thought that was the classic euphemism for "it's over."

"Let's see other people"? I thought that was the classic euphemism for "it's over."

Only if you are a guy. That means that you are cheating scum and can't be trusted with a serious monogamous relationship.

If you are in fact a woman, it means that you are one of the enlightened creatures who can rationally divide sex and love.

Amy: "Also, because you think love and sex are chained together doesn't mean they are. They aren't for a great number of people -- many men, and a good many women, too."

You've mentioned in your column several times that women tend to bond after having sex. But even if for her love and sex are not chained together, she's handled this poorly. And if clicking with someone is so uncommon, why risk that for an "unemotional hookup"?

I agree with you that she just shouldn't have said anything about it since there is no commitment as of now and they will be far apart for a while.

flydye: "Well, either she clicked with him or she didn't. And if she did, then she is pretty frigging stupid to risk a 'click worthy' guy over a bit of strange."

You said it better than I.

They're into each other, but do not have a commitment yet.

I had wondered about that so thanks for the extra bit of info. So, if she slept with another guy it wouldn't be cheating and, as I said above, I fail to see what's so admirable about her bringing this up. If she wanted to have a fling that badly she should have just done it and kept her mouth shut.

People you click with, unless you're very average, don't come along every day.

That's for damn sure. Although you can increase your odds by meeting more people (and I think that's one of the benefits of online dating sites.)

A friend of mine who's a biostatician thought it would be cute to predict the men who'd be potential boyfriends for me in North America (or maybe it was just America) and he came up with a figure of 40.

That's a fascinating idea, being able to determine how many potential partners there are for any person, in the entire country or just in the area where they live. I didn't think people like this actually existed but about five years ago I met a woman who was convinced there was one, and only one, "soulmate" for her out there. Good luck with that, I thought.

The guy doesn't have to live with that or accept her, but that's a decision for him to make...

If he feels she's that special, then he'll probably be able to suck it up and stay with her.

If he feels she's that special, then he'll probably be able to suck it up and stay with her.

The fact that he's even asking the second question pretty much means he's going to suck it up.

I hope he is no woefully disappointed. He just needs to pray he isn't going to be deployed longer then 60 days, I suppose.

I don't think the girl deserves the character assassination she is getting here.

I now think telling the guy about her desire for a fling was the wrong choice. It's definitely making him suffer. But, there was no need for him to know in the first place. If they don't have a monogamous agreement, then it is not his business. It does not look like he ever asked her to wait until he got back. It seems that if he had, she would have said no.

That's her right. And yes, I would feel the same way if the genders were reversed. It does not mean she's not truly into him--just that, for any number of reasons, there are not together yet and such an agreement would be premature. Would all of you automatically swear sexual fidelity to someone you really liked, but weren't actually with, before they went away for an extended period?

It also does not mean she's completely incapable of being true to him in the future, as many seem to think. Does having previously had or wanted sex without commitment mean someone can NEVER make a sexual commitment? How many people sleep around before settling into monogamous relationships? Someone having sex with Person A, then Person B (and perhaps C, D, etc) before ending up happily committed to A is also not unheard of.

Her telling him she wants a hookup comes from the mistake of confessing EVERYTHING to someone you love, or think you might love, just to make yourself feel completely accepted. Most of us do this at some point--I know I have. But if she's not committed to him, and really wanted a meaningless fuck before getting together with him, then she needed to accept that herself and not burden him. Her mistake. She is a fallible human being, and it was not done maliciously.

The way ahead for them may be a little more complicated now, but all is not lost.

Either she is going to have an "unemotional hookup" of not. She told him she wanted one, although she didn't have to tell him, and now, she's going to this wedding and says, "Don't worry", like nothing will happen, which is what a girlfriend would say. A non-girlfriend, who is just a brutally honest sort, would say, "I'm going to a wedding, and what happens happens. We're not in a relationship yet."

I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt, as Yes,ThatSomebody does, who makes some good points, but now, it seems that she's being disingenuous about the wedding, and LW seems to fear this too.

So, I don't give her points for honesty. I think she wanted to get a free pass, and once she realized this upset him, she decided to lie. She'll probably have a hookup at the wedding but won't tell him.

Also, the reason she won't tell him now is because then she'll owe him a free pass, which was never a serious offer. She made it when she knew he couldn't cash it in, but now that's he's closer to coming home, she's not going to take a chance that he'd really sleep with someone else.

If the LW is smart, he'll put this "relationship" on the back burner and give himself some time to acclimate and enjoy his freedom. It's a bad idea to jump into something so soon, with so many expectations, and especially after what she's told him. He should ask himself what his advice to a friend would be if the friend were in his situation.

Character assassination might be a bit harsh.

But let me rebut a few of your points.

If she still considered herself single, footloose and fancy free, why did she feel she needed to ask permission? The only rational explanation I've heard so far was that she didn't want it to come back later and bite her on the butt if LW found out. But guess what? If she was REALLY single, then he had no such expectations anyway!

Obviously he does have such expectations and she knew (or at least suspected) he did. We have no idea how much she fostered such ideas either, but she is acting that way too!. Otherwise why ask permission?

Point the Second: By 'suggesting' this she sought his agreement. He said no. Now that has raised a whole host of other issues. She can now a) lie to a guy whom she says she wants a relationship with, b) tell him they aren't in a relationship yet and eff off until he gets home, or c) restrain herself like he would like her to, even though his trust is now badly tattered (correctly so).

I'm guessing she's hotter then any other girl he's hooked up with. So this whole 'not dating' thing is a bit of a drag for a normally socially active girl. But this is speculation. Will that go away when they are in a 'monogamous' relationship? This is pure speculation, btw.

Let me speculate a bit further. IF she 'discussed this' with him and planned on getting laid at the wedding and was afraid it would come back to bite her on the ass, then I'm guessing she might have a perspective 'meaningless fling' selected. And if it's someone they both know, then that isn't a fling. It's a relationship of sorts. Someone he might meet and it is possible she might see at least occasionally (as a guy, yes, we like repeats. At least I do. Why check out new girls who might like to screw when you know X likes to and will...with you!).She isn't suggesting going to a seedy bar and finding some anonymous bastard to screw. That is a 'fling'. She is picking someone out who is friends or family (or at least friends of friends or family) I can't annunciate how tacky and disrespectful something like that would be. But again, speculation.

I agree with flydye.

This thing stinks. It appears that the LW is way into the girl and his regard is not reciprocated. He is really into anticipating a relationship with her and she is horny and looking for tail.

Sure, she has a right to shag whomever she wants. But is seems incredibly insensitive to deal with LW the way she has. I can't decide if she is tacky, selfishly clueless or cruel. Maybe she likes to play the jealousy game. Some girls do.

It could be that the composite editing job on the original letter is giving us readers a different understanding than Amy got with her multiple interactions.

LW's comment "We've gotten as close as two people can while physically separate" is at odds with the assertion that they have no relationship as yet.

The way I see this, he doesn't have options until after deployment. They're not in a relationship "yet", but there is intent.

Intent is not the same as done. They haven't even had a first date yet.

So expecting her to be "faithful" when they don't even know if there will be interest when they meet in person...well that is quite a leap.

I can't help but think of the movie, "The Princess Bride" when Wesley in the guise of the Dread Pirate Roberts says:

"You should be thanking me, I killed him before he knew you for what you really are...." ..."Faithfulness madam your enduring faithfulness was what he talked about, now when you heard he was dead did you get engaged to your prince in the same hour or did you wait a whole week out of respect for the dead?!"

The most down to earth and practical answer to this situation is to suck it up and let her go suck on someone else for a night so she can settle her baser urges, and he can do the same his first night back before they go on a date.

But there is something rare and precious about suspense, about holding firm against deep desire, as a testament and proof of one's character and the depth of one's devotion. The willingness to sacrifice a temporary pleasure because the act of getting it will cause someone else a measure of pain, emotional or otherwise, to put it another way, is a real and genuine measure of...well, love I suppose.

Maybe they meet, fall in love, get married, stay together 80 years. maybe they meet, dislike each other intensely, and never see each other again, who knows. But if it is something closer to the former than the latter, the more impressive story to tell years down the line, is not the latter.

I can't help but add one final thought, if it were my son, or my daughter, I'd feel most positively towards the potential spouse that waited. And if it were my child on the other end, I'd be proudest of them if they held out themselves. And I know which story I'd rather tell.

Why would she suggest a "last fling" before they even start the relationship? That implies that they will be monogamous and exclusive after the 60 days. If she's not in a relationship with him yet - and doesn't even know him that well - why pledge her future faithfulness to him? It's pretty weird to say, "I'm willimg to be faithful to you forever, but I can't start until you get home."

And isn't he pretty sexually frustrated too? She could go to the sex shop and choose from an assortment of vibrators and dildos to satisfy her urges, but he's stuck in the desert, probably bunking with some dude. Of the two of them, it's much easier for her to meet these needs and she doesn't have to sleep with another guy to do so.

@LS: Is that you, lovelysoul?

That is a lovely sentiment Robert and I am not being sarcastic.

The alternative story: "Well, your mom got horny and nailed an usher before we could hook up, but it's been magic since then" just doesn't trip off the tongue when you tell it to the grandkids...

Yes, flydye, I've decided to go by LS.

Yes, That Somebody said: It does not look like he ever asked her to wait until he got back. It seems that if he had, she would have said no.

Not necessarily. Even if he had asked her, she could have said yes, then realized that it wasn't as easy as she thought it would be. My boyfriend is in the Air Force, and when we first met, he was only a week away from a two month deployment overseas. We kept in touch by email, and I noticed that it sometimes took him up to a week to respond, but I just chalked it up to him being busy. He later admitted that he sometimes took a while to respond because he was afraid to open my emails and read that I couldn't wait any more and I was moving on. It had happened to him before, and he had seen it happen so many times to other people, so he was afraid of it happening to him again.

IF they had an agreement to wait for each other, then her changing her mind and suggesting a last fling for them both would be a bad sign.

But having such an agreement would be a rather crucial part of the scenario. I would think it would appear in the excerpt of the letter for the column. It doesn't. And I highly doubt Amy would have answered the question the way she did if they had made such an agreement. She's hardly been shy about saying "he / she's just not that into you" in previous columns, when warranted.

And suggesting a fling is indeed different than asking permission. She never asked permission, she suggested they both do it. In her mind, they are both still technically free agents. She seems to have sought his support so she would feel better about it--a bit weak and selfish of her, yes. But it's silly to speculate that she'd pull a bait and switch and throw a fit if he did have a fling before they got together.

And he himself does not seem to have the expectation of fidelity either. If he had outright refused her suggestion, or felt betrayed or begged her to reconsider, I think that essential info would also have made it into the column somehow. He has not made a claim on her. He is expressing what he wishes she would do. If that doesn't happen, he is at least open to the idea that they can still have a relationship when he gets back.

These are important points and are actually in the letter. I'm trying to base my thoughts on that, and on what Amy said--she undoubtedly knows much more about the whole situation than we do--rather than speculations.

Yeah, waiting for each other would make a better story for the grandchildren. But I'm sure there are lots of less than fairy-tale-esque (?? you know what I mean) stories grandparents choose not to share about their past.

To LW:

>>How can I encourage her to hang on a little longer?

Promise her a gift. A good one.

>>Barring that, how do I get okay with this?
Try to be less possessive.
Loving other person means to allow them to be free.

First of all I am a military wife. There has been several times when I have been expected to be with out my husband for up to a year. YES there is times you just want to get laid. BUT, you dont act on that. She is in a relationship with him, they just havent said it yet. If I knew my husband decided he needed one last fling and slept with another girl when he and I were in the first stages of our relationship, then we wouldnt BE in a relationship. Not to mention, when your man is deployed, you dont say stuff like this! you protect him, because if he has to be busy worrying about what YOU are up to, then he is not going to be careful there, and people WILL die. The Girl is being a bitch, and if they do get serious, she isnt going to get any better. She will treat him badly, cause him problems, and complain, then cheat on him when he has to be gone for more then a couple days. Which yes, they have to be gone QUITE often. Cut your losses, forget about her and run before you learn you will really regret it.

"Not everyone places such a high priority on sex that they're willing to toss a relationship over it."

Yet, apparently he does, since it's making him upset and worried that he can't "get ok with this".

If he can't get ok with it now, he likely won't be ok with it later. We always tell people to listen to their guts and heed the red flags before getting involved with someone. I'd say this is a red flag.

First of all, people who blurt out hurtful "truths" are miserable to live with. Being able to refrain from uttering every thought that comes to mind is a critical component in creating and maintaining harmony. This couple isn't even dating yet, and her words are causing him to lose sleep, doubt himself, and write for advice...while he's in a war zone!

Second, this woman is exhibiting a characteristic that most women either don't possess or don't readily admit to possessing: sexual aggressiveness. She's viewing sex more like a man, seeking an "unemotional hookup" just to relieve her sexual frustration.

It's all very liberated, but also worrisome that she possesses this ability to separate attachment from sex, which I would imagine wouldn't be a desirable trait for a military wife.

Again, I laid out the nuances for him so he could make a decision according to his values and what works for him.

You also made the assumption that her behavior isn't at all predictive, or indicative of anything but her 'honesty'. That's a huge leap.

Something tells me that if the sexes were reversed here, his desire to sleep around and tell her about it would be recognized as a red flag. But instead it's the classic pussy pass. She's simply being 'honest' and his reaction is due to his hang ups about sex - stupid men, why can't they be as enlightened as women.

The arrogance of people claiming to know the future here or presuming to know what is best for this guy is stunning.

LOL. Pot meet kettle!

Let's be careful about all this "genetic programming" stuff.

Our knowledge of evo psych is still growing. There's some interesting evidence that women in pre-agricultural societies slept around quite a bit.

It would make sense in small groups geographically isolated from each other for people to inject as much genetic diversity as possible into their populations.

People didn't even really understand how sex worked. I read about one society in which people thought it took the sperm from several men to make a baby, and there's evidence that there was more of "it takes a village" mentality about fatherhood. This would mean that the desire for monogamous female partners is an adaptation to the agricultural revolution and not a pre-programmed genetic tendency -- and that "sexual liberation" is a very old idea.

In addition, there are very, very few truly monogamous species. Pair bonding is common -- one partner for life, not so much.

That doesn't make his feelings about the matter any less valid, of course. But it's unreasonable to think she's an aberration of a woman.

The notion that she "will treat him badly, cause him problems, and complain, then cheat on him..."

Did you read that in a fortune cookie or your Magic 8 Ball?

Besides being an incredibly rude and belittling comment, I would also say it's pretty arrogant. She said she was a military wife, i.e. she might just have a few more specific and personal observations into those social dynamics then someone having read a book on evo psychology and applying it willy nilly with a broad brush. Unless it's a guy asking for a 'fling'. Then the biological rationalizations don't seem to come out.

This is an advice column. People write to it for advice: i.e. what to do in a situation. Package it how you want. As for me? I'm dicussing things with the other commenters on how he should react, not offering advice

So our collective 'arrogance'of actually daring to tell someone else what to do is actually a misreading of what we are doing, discussing other peoples problems and sharpening our ethical wits. Having a conversation.

How exactly is this discussion any different then the last 500 we've had except more people then normal are disagreeing with our hostess?

If we only have a 'few words' to understand a situation, then that is all that is provided to us. If we lack insight into his values, whose fault is that?

It's all very liberated, but also worrisome that she possesses this ability to separate attachment from sex, which I would imagine wouldn't be a desirable trait for a military wife.

I imagine his problem is that he believes she can't seperate attachment from sex and doesn't want to run the risk. Who does, military spouse or otherwise of any gender?

Amy,

No. There ARE special dynamics. Military spouses face very long, very tense and regular seperations. They have spouses who go away on ships and planes to foreign places where a $20 bill can buy a woman.

They live in relatively isolated locations (Minot ND anyone?) where the only recreation is drinking or screwing...with the husbands away. They also tend to be a generally younger demographic.

Except for pilots (headnod to LS), does that describe the average marriage condition? Heck even most pilots are only gone a week or two at a time.

I'm not asking to be banned. I'm not daring you at all. But I am disagreeing and I think that comment was rude. You said you prefer public talk. Okay.

These two would benefit from having an open relationship even when he does get back. They don't have to be monogamous right away. See if you like someone enough in real time to be monogamous before promising you will be.

Disagreeing with someone isn't rude.

The tone you use is what makes it rude.

And telling us we don't know enough to comment properly is an ironic tack to take considering where we are getting our information, but that's my opinion.

I apologize now for adding that 'ban' dig but what happened with Reality didn't sit well with me. His sin seemed to be to disagree, and not even rudely (though perhaps tediously). I'm sure there were other issues at work that I hadn't seen.

This is an advice column, not a work by Tolstoy. There are length requirements. If there is information that isn't in a question, don't just feel free to invent it.

Which is why when I do, I put 'speculation' on it.

But that being said, if a half dozen people say 'we don't know this' or 'we don't know that' and are frustrated at not being able to get an accurate read, then there are a few options to take:

1) Add said detail (this is the internet, not a newspaper. Mentioning if a six year old is a new or continual resident in bed takes seven words, for example)

2) Admit you don't have said detail

3) State that that information is personal and you can't share it because of the wishes of the writer

4) Don't add any further information and let them speculate in silence.

5) Deride the readers for not knowing enough about the subject.

I prefer the first four, but it's your website.

I don't think you should knuckle under to every niggling detail of a question, but a quick read of the comments can easily show that maybe something important was overlooked if it's mentioned more then once. We are all, after all, human.

@flydye

>>We are all, after all, human.
Heh... Some here are goddesses.

It is their prerogative to write books on rudeness and practice it at their whim.

"Men can do this and I can do this. Why is this worrisome? Is it "worrisome" in men?"

I think so. The best mates are those, of both genders, who tend to place more emotional significance onto sex.

I have to agree, Amy, with those who've said that if this was a guy suggesting he was so sexually frustrated and must have a fling, you'd probably see it as a red flag.

This woman not only told him she wanted a fling, but pretty much where and when it's going to happen, which seems cruel when he's so far away and can do nothing to prevent it.

To me, her actions do seem predictive of future behavior. Those who habitually cheat often try to preprogram their partners into believing that "sex is just sex. Nothing to toss a relationship over."

If they can get someone to agree to this premise upfront, it makes it so much easier when they "slip up" in the future.

Not every male can seperate the two. How many guys have suddenly 'obsessed' about a girl he's shagged once? How many times has a 'meaningless fling' turned into a divorce?

I don't know the number but I'm betting it's not insignificant.

Amy:

I'd love to have an update on this guy. You should write him to see how things went!

"Men can do this and I can do this. Why is this worrisome? Is it "worrisome" in men?"

Yes. And the reason that it's even more worrisome in women is twofold. Firstly women have a lot more opportunities for casual sex, and someone who sees fidelity and sexual intimacy as nothing more than ghosts from our monkey brain is likely to avail themselves of those opportunities. Secondly women don't typically have the sex drive that men do and without an emotional connection are going to lose interest in having sex with a given man.

Since we are accusing people of arguing in bad faith to shut down discussion, I'd observe that characterizing any criticism as an attack or a dig is a nice escape mechanism to avoid self reflection or admissions of error.

I am discussing your tone, not the correctness of your comments. One can be right and rude.*

If what I say has no merit, then please ignore me. Because I'm just wrong.

I'm not interested in arguing this point anymore.

*I've already outlined my opinion as to the substance.

I'm curious why you wouldn't see it as a red flag, Amy.

I'm imagining that LW must've told you a lot of details about his girl, which made her sound really cool. But LW is infatuated, so everything he *knows* about her would be questionable.

I certainly would view it as a red flag if a guy told me he wanted to start a relationship with me, but first he wanted a "last fling".

If you're promising to be in a relationship, then you're basically already in one. She's not saying, "When you come back, let's see where this goes. Until then, let's keep our options open."

No, she's saying, "Let's have a last fling before we START OUR RELATIONSHIP." This means she's agreed to be in a relationship with him, once he's home, but she wants to set some official starting date which allows her to bank other guys until that point.

It's weird, selfish, and inappropriate. The key is that he's already feeling lousy before the relationship has even gotten off the ground. That's a red flag.

I'm with flydye on this one. If it were no big deal, LW would not have written.

i.e. He's freaked out and looking for some way to rationalize what she's done. Because its so cold and slutty that he can't face the truth.

+1 on Amys gender bias on this one. Funny how the nuances only benefit women.

Thanks, Amy. I see this as a forum where people can disagree respectfully, and I know you've always welcomed that and rarely ban anyone.

I wish we really knew more details on a lot of these situations. For instance, you said:

"Can you see this hookup as something she just needs to check off her single-girl bucket list?"

So, I wonder is this the first time she's ever had an "unemotional hookup" and she just wants that experience before settling down?

I guess if I knew that, I might feel differently, but I'd also wonder why she believes her single girl status is about to end. Isn't it a bit soon for either of them to be acting like "this is it" and they should have a "last fling" before being forever bound? Is there talk of an engagement here?

+1 on Amys gender bias on this one. Funny how the nuances only benefit women.

Just curious: Have you actually read this website before today? Because it doesn't seem like it.

Amy's advice is solid. "Dump her" is obvious. Everyone knows they can end the relationship; that's the nuclear option.

His questions were very clear. He asked how to get his maybe girlfriend to change her mind or how to be OK with it. If he can't do either of those things, the option of not being with her remains. It's not like people never consider "I can just leave" until someone mentions it. "Wow! I can leave! I never thought of that! Brilliant!"

He can't dump her if they don't have a relationship.

According to Amy, they aren't in a relationship.

That hair was split pretty fine. And wrongly, imo.

They have plans for a monogamous relationship. (The whole thing seems a little weird to me, but hey, it's not my life.) If he can't cope with what she's doing, he can cancel those plans. They clearly do not have an exclusive relationship now; otherwise, he would have dumped her outright. He seems to be aware that he does not have a lock on monogamy yet. He says: "She suggests we each have a "last fling" before we start our relationship."

There aren't special "military dynamics." People are people, whether they're in the military or not.

I'm sorry, but I just had to comment on this. I'm another military wife, and I can assure you that the dynamics in the military are indeed different than those you would find most other places. Spend some real time in that community and you’ll find out for yourself. People are people everywhere, ha! Just try to argue with me that people in some other country are the same as the ones from the US. Or that people raised in the hood will react in similar ways to people who have lived in a mansion their entire life. Yea, people are people, but their surroundings make a huge difference on how they act and interact with the world.

Unfortunately, it's true that there seem to be a lot of bitches in the military community who take advantage of the fact that their partner is gone, and who cheat and steal from the people overseas like it's nobody's business. When they get caught, they move to the next, I've seen it plenty of times. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of good people who marry people in the service (I'd like to think I'm one of them), but there are some seriously messed up people there too. I’m inclined to agree with Elshiva, in that this girl will treat him poorly even when they are officially in their relationship. Her attitude just does not speak well of her.

I hope for his sake that he thinks long and hard before “starting” a relationship with her. She’s tugging him along on a string, hitting on him and talking about this imaginary ‘future’ they have together, but also talking about how she wants to have this fling at this wedding. She really shouldn’t be confusing him with this kind of talk while he’s in a warzone. So kind of her. I guess Amy’s first paragraph kind of talks about how callous this is for her to do, but the whole answer really just comes across as talking down to the guy. I know he wrote in for advice on how to forget it, but how do you really forget something like this? All the ‘intellectual’ arguments won’t do jack shit for him if he can’t get past it.

Maybe they really haven't begun this relationship, but I can’t imagine that in the civilian world, a woman could be messing around with a bunch of guys, tell one that she’s chosen him for her real relationship, but that she won’t be ready for that real relationship for a couple months. In the meantime she just has to f*** around with everyone else. But she also wants to talk to the LW every day during that time and basically use him as emotional support. So maybe you should put that to the LW; if you were home and she decided that she needed to mess around for a few months before committing with you, would you be ok with that? Don’t give me some bullshit answer that ‘that wouldn’t happen because we’d be together then’. You can be together now. Long distance is hard but possible. If you can imagine being ok with that scenario if you were home, then I’d say fine, be with the girl when you get home. But if you can’t accept that the girl wants to have her emotional support from you and her sex from other guys, then you might be better off in the long run just letting her go.

I get that you were answering his question. It just seemed like your attitude in the answer wasn't very helpful. But, after reading some of your older articles, that attitude is your way of responding to all the people who write in. I guess that's what they're looking for when they write to you instead of another advice columnist; I can't imagine ever wanting the same treatment. But the LW is not me.

I also know that these things don't happen in the military. Maybe it just seems that way because the same women frequent the same community. It's easier to find them because instead of moving to another guy in the next town, they move on to a guy in the next barracks. So while it may not happen more frequently, it certainly hurts more when that person you were with is now with your neighbor. Obviously I'm biased, being part of the community.

I don't buy into your philosophies, but you can obviously write your answers the way you best see fit. So, all in all, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll just continue to read these and enjoy them for the entertainment they are.

Don't JUST happen in the military. Proofreading rocks.

Um, you think this just happens in the military?

This kind of BS is very common for servicemen. They're guys with high sex appeal for women, but low social status. Which leads to problems in their relationships. What this guy is experiencing isn't uncommon. It's also not unusual for the girlfriend to drop something like this a short while before their duty is up. She's probably been up to something and is either trying to prepare him for some bad news, or to establish a pretext for breaking up. She may already have another boyfriend.

Also Tripkey is right. For whatever reason, military men attract cheap women. Where do you think that the stereotype of the Bird Colonel with the trashy wife comes from?

The thing to keep in mind is that there are other reasons to question her behavior beyond some genetic predisposition towards jealousy. This is very hinky behavior in any context. She's obviously not worried about damaging the relationship that they're intending to have. Does he recognize that?

If I were to advise the LW, I'd tell him to go with his gut. He's not comfortable with the idea, so he shouldn't agree to it. This is a good time to appraise the reality of their 'relationship', and who she really is. Go home. Cool off. Meet some girls and have fun. Don't jump into anything. If you then want to get together with her, you'll have a clearer head and be in a better spot to make a decision.

She can't wait two months?

She's not that into you.

I'd wait two years if my husband were deployed. I'd wait longer, as long as it took for him to get back.

Because I'm into him.

Actually... there is another scenario. It may be that she WANTS you to man up and clarify the relationship. Maybe she doesn't like this "sort of close, contacting, but no commitment thing".

It's actually very possible that she is willing to hold out for the guy if he really wants to be with her, but not if he's going to get back and they aren't even in a relationship. She very well may feel like she's turned down other opportunities for this guy, but is having doubts.

Maybe she wants him to say, "Excuse me, but if you're in a relationship with me, hell no, neither of us is going to be seeing other people"

Currently, I work overseas. My rotation is, coincidently, 2 months away, 2 weeks at home. For a year.

My wife is not happy with the situation, but we both understand that a bit of strange is not on the table no matter how bad the hornies get.

Now, a married couple with kids have different incentives then a couple of kids IM dating, but speaking only for myself, if even a potential girlfriend laid it to me that she wanted to chase some strange but would be happy to be in a faithful monogamous relationship as soon as I got off the plane...I'd think very hard about that, particularly if we've had long and intimate conversations strongly suggesting a relationship.

I don't know how long she's already been celibate, but unless it's been a VERY LONG TIME, I can't see there being this kind of pressure, particularly for a girl. Yes, that's sexist and yes, I'm sure girls get horny. But this suggests some serious impulse control issues.

Or perhaps as NicoleK says, it's 'trying to get him off the fence', which is short hand for screwing with his head. Not that this guy seems to have ANY commitment issues, at least as far as getting into one. The reverse if anything.

Impulse control problems or Screws with my head. That SCREAMS keeper to me.

LW: She suggests we each have a "last fling" before we start our relationship (when my deployment ends in 60 days). Well, I'm in an all-male unit, and when I'm home, I want to be with her.

I'm curious if he'd take her up on her offer if he had the opportunity. He doesn't say "she suggests we each have a 'last fling' before we start our relationship but I wouldn't feel right having a fling with another woman considering how I feel about her." All he notes is his lack of opportunity: "I'm in an all-male unit."

*

I certainly would view it as a red flag if a guy told me he wanted to start a relationship with me, but first he wanted a "last fling".

LS, there are red flags that give one pause and there are red flags that are deal-breakers. Let's say there were a lot of things you liked about this guy and there hadn't been other bad signs. Would this one red flag be a slam-dunk reason for you to decide you didn't want to get into a relationship with the guy?

*

flydye: "Disagreeing with someone isn't rude. The tone you use is what makes it rude."

Absolutely.

"LS, there are red flags that give one pause and there are red flags that are deal-breakers. Let's say there were a lot of things you liked about this guy and there hadn't been other bad signs. Would this one red flag be a slam-dunk reason for you to decide you didn't want to get into a relationship with the guy?"

For me, personally, yes. I've taken enough grief for not seeing those red flags with my ex - who also had(has) a lot of wonderful qualities - so I just wouldn't chance it. Maybe the guy would ultimately be the most faithful partner in the world, but if he wasn't willing to wait 60 days for me, I'd consider that a dealbreaker.

I mean, honestly, who can't wait 60 days? We have men and women here saying they're separated for a year or more at times and still don't cheat.

True, they're already in relationships, but I agree that if she's really into this guy, and truly wants to "start a relationship" with him, she wouldn't do anything to cause him distress. Being considerate counts from day one. You don't get to say, "I'll start considering your feelings 60 days from now."

Thanks, LS. I understand your reasoning.

Like you (and the letter-writer) I wouldn't like it, but I don't think that, by itself, it would be an absolute deal-breaker for me, although I'd probably lean in that direction.

This is a tangent but it seems that you feel the same way I do: that women are less likely than men to be able to separate attachment, or an emotional connection, from sex. We were discussing this earlier in the year on the other blog I'm on and, interestingly, most of the women there were adamant that women like casual sex just as much as men but that they don't do it as often for practical reasons, with the main ones being fear for their safety and the belief that the man wouldn't necessarily be concerned with their pleasure.

Jim, I think women can separate sex from emotional attachment, but it depends a lot on where they are in life. I wasn't really able to do that until I was older. In my youth, sex was too tied up with the romantic notion of "falling in love" and/or getting pregnant, so I couldn't really separate sex from those significant emotional events.

Even when I've sucessfully separated the two, it was always a conscious choice, not something that came totally naturally. It was usually because I wasn't in a place to start a relationship and knew I needed to stay single and somewhat detached.

That's why I find it strange that this girl wants an "unemotional hookup" at this stage. If she's truly falling in love with this guy, the last thing she'd want would be an unemotional "second-best" kind of hookup. When a woman is feeling a strong emotional attachment towards one man, the idea of being with anyone else is usually unappealing.

"This is a tangent but it seems that you feel the same way I do: that women are less likely than men to be able to separate attachment, or an emotional connection, from sex. We were discussing this earlier in the year on the other blog I'm on and, interestingly, most of the women there were adamant that women like casual sex just as much as men but that they don't do it as often for practical reasons, with the main ones being fear for their safety and the belief that the man wouldn't necessarily be concerned with their pleasure."

Jim, a lot of women "do" like casual sex as much as men do, at least at certain times. I believe that women have more evolutionary cautions against it, because one of the times that women are the most interested in sex is when they are ovulating. They also get more interested generally when their inhibitions are reduced, such as when they are drinking.

My only problem with the woman in this situation with the deployed soldier is that this isn't really a "sex" problem, it is a character problem.

What kind of women tells a guy she loves that she is planning on screwing another guy if she gets the opportunity, but not to worry because it is "just sex"?
My answer: A woman who does this sort of thing is callous, ill mannered, self absorbed, and possibly, stupid.

Not a good bet for a faithful mate, if that is what the soldier is looking for.

Hopefully he will be smart enough to spend several months around this woman in the future, before jumping into anything it takes a family court appearance to get out of.

This should be enough time for someone rational to figure out if any other red flags go up.

Jim, I think women can separate sex from emotional attachment, but it depends a lot on where they are in life. I wasn't really able to do that until I was older.

Interesting, LS. I believe the women on this other blog are mostly younger (under 35) so I was actually thinking that maybe women are more likely to be able to separate sex from emotion when they are younger. But it could be that most of these women were so adamant about women wanting casual sex just as much as men because, as a group, they're pretty liberal/lefty.

When a woman is feeling a strong emotional attachment towards one man, the idea of being with anyone else is usually unappealing.

I would agree with you that it's usually unappealing but, of course, there always are exceptions and perhaps this woman is one of them. I'm also not sure just how "usual" the "usually" is. For example, on this other blog (we talk about sex a lot more than is done here) a fair number of the people are in open marriages or relationships, so the women sleep with other men even though they have a "primary" partner (the one they presumably feel the strong emotional attachment towards.) And other women who are married or have boyfriends talk quite frankly about wanting to have sex with other men even if they actually wouldn't go through with it. So I wonder if more women than we think would actually find being with someone else appealing even when they have a strong attachment to a man?

Jim, a lot of women "do" like casual sex as much as men do, at least at certain times. I believe that women have more evolutionary cautions against it, because one of the times that women are the most interested in sex is when they are ovulating. They also get more interested generally when their inhibitions are reduced, such as when they are drinking.

Thanks Isabel. I forgot to add that one of the other reasons these women were saying that women don't have casual sex as much as men (even though they allegedly want it just as much) was due to the risk of pregnancy.

What I was arguing with them was: if women theoretically do want casual sex just as much as men but all the limiting factors (risk of harm with a strange man, men not caring about a woman's pleasure, risk of pregnancy) are due to men then if we removed men from the equation and compared lesbians with gay men, then shouldn't lesbians be having just as much casual sex as gay men? And I don't believe they do. I believe that gay men have much more casual sex than lesbians.

What kind of women tells a guy she loves that she is planning on screwing another guy if she gets the opportunity, but not to worry because it is "just sex"? My answer: A woman who does this sort of thing is callous, ill mannered, self absorbed, and possibly, stupid.

Yeah, I don't understand why she had to say that to him if they don't have a commitment.

Hopefully he will be smart enough to spend several months around this woman in the future, before jumping into anything it takes a family court appearance to get out of.

Several months...or several years. I certainly think it would be wise of him to not get married right away. Who knows, once they spend more time together, maybe one or the other (or both) will decide they're not compatible for other reasons.

Well, it's not quite the same to compare swinging partners with this. Most couples who swing have been together past the "new romance" infatuation stage. They're emotionally attached but may be rather sexually bored with each other, so they swap to spice things up. Also, some women may feel freer in those situations because they've already found their main partner, so sex can just be about sex, not romance.

I think both genders fantasize about sex with other people. Few actually act upon this (at least on a regular basis), and typically, when either a man or woman is ready to settle down - perhaps start a family - they attach more emotional significance to sex. LW is doing this because it sounds like he's ready for a committed relationship. She, on the other hand, doesn't seem ready to stop sewing her wild oats just yet.

"Being considerate counts from day one."

LS, On this issue, we are in 100 percent agreement. In fact, I am pretty much in total agreement with everything you have had to say on this subject, including this being somewhat abnormal behavior for a 20 something woman who has supposedly "bonded" with this guy.

Somehow this discussion has been turned on its head. It is no longer about how a decent person would behave, it has become whether you should give someone a total pass on following their baser instincts.

Are we back in the 60's now, where if it "feels good" we should "do it"?

Somehow this discussion has been turned on its head. It is no longer about how a decent person would behave, it has become whether you should give someone a total pass on following their baser instincts.

Isabel, that was one of the questions the LW had: "how do I get okay with this?"

I don't think it a wise or decent thing for her to do, and I agree with both you and LS that it's a red flag, but I also wouldn't advise the guy to dump her just because of it.

"I don't think it a wise or decent thing for her to do, and I agree with both you and LS that it's a red flag, but I also wouldn't advise the guy to dump her just because of it."

I am in agreement there. "Dump the bitch" would have been too short an answer and too much like Dear Abby.
However, I think what I am viscerally reacting to, is that while Amy's answer was not wrong per say, in my opinion, it did not go nearly far enough, and should have addressed the sleazy aspect of her behavior.

In my opinion, warning this guy that a woman this age wanting to play the field during his absence was a real red flag was also in order.

He should watch very carefully, for a long time to see if any other red flags crop up. You're right there Jim, in that "years" would be better than months but with people in the military that is a little much to expect.

Maybe this discussion went on in the correspondence between Amy and this soldier and it just ended up on the cutting room floor.

If not, I hope he is a somewhat regular reader and has followed this discussion.

In the words of one Army officer, who was an instructor at West Point many years ago.
He told the cadets "Beware of clever packaging." It tends to blind you to the realities of what life with some woman is going to be like.

You're right there Jim, in that "years" would be better than months but with people in the military that is a little much to expect.

I was thinking he was getting out of the military but it's just the end of his deployment so if he was going to be deployed again then yeah, I suppose they wouldn't be waiting too long to get married.

What I was arguing with them was: if women theoretically do want casual sex just as much as men but all the limiting factors (risk of harm with a strange man, men not caring about a woman's pleasure, risk of pregnancy) are due to men then if we removed men from the equation and compared lesbians with gay men, then shouldn't lesbians be having just as much casual sex as gay men?

**

No, because the drive, whether nature or nurtures, is more instinctual than logical

That's why I find it strange that this girl wants an "unemotional hookup" at this stage. If she's truly falling in love with this guy, the last thing she'd want would be an unemotional "second-best" kind of hookup. When a woman is feeling a strong emotional attachment towards one man, the idea of being with anyone else is usually unappealing.

For some reason, this phrase brought to mind a single excuse for this stupid thoughtless, ill considered and disrespectful action of hers.

She wants to know he'll be back alive before she starts to tie herself emotionallyto him.

Where it breaks down is that according to the LW, they are already 'tight' at least with IMing or whatever. And it wasn't characterized by her reasoning.

If she had written him "I think I could love you, but I'm not about to be the girlfriend meeting a body bag, so get back safe so we can start this properly" I'd have fully respected that.

But it wasn't. It was 'I'm horny, so I'm finding some schlong to take the edge off. And to be fair, if you find a fair haired nannygoat, you can do the same.'

Maybe she's just confused and stupid (There is another red flag, Jim)

"Somehow this discussion has been turned on its head. It is no longer about how a decent person would behave, it has become whether you should give someone a total pass on following their baser instincts."

Thanks Isabel. I'm in agreement with you too.

In general, I'm against encouraging someone to "get ok with" things they aren't, especially when it comes to sex.

What she's proposing might be perfectly fine to someone else, but it's obviously not ok with him. And what I don't like about Amy's advice here is that the implication is that he should struggle against his own instincts to get ok with it.

Also, it's unclear to me from the letter whether she's horny because she's thinking of him, or whether this is just a state she's been in for some time.

She might be trying to claim that she's so full of lust for him that she must sleep with another guy to take the edge off until he comes home.

At first, this even seems kind of flattering, but ultimately, it's like someone saying, "I robbed a bank so I could buy you this lovely gift." You may really appreciate the gift, but it's hard to ignore the glaring character weakness that's been revealed.

I don't think it's wrong for a single person, of either gender, to detach emotions from sex. Most of us have at one time or another.

What is wrong is for her to tell him when it's totally unnecessary. This makes me question her intelligence, if nothing else. Personally, I wouldn't want to be with a guy who was idiotic enough to tell me this (I want you so bad, I have to bang someone else...but I'll be thinking of you the whole time!")

It's also wrong for her to pretend that her need to do this doesn't speak volumes about her feelings for him. Both desiring casual sex right now and telling him about it suggests that she just isn't that into him.

Nicole K: "She can't wait two months? She's not that into you."

That's how it struck me.

Someone who can't wait 60 days without needing a hook-up isn't a good bet for the LW. What about his next deployment - and the next?

Maybe she's just confused and stupid (There is another red flag, Jim)

True, flydye, but she might also be hot. Many a man has ignored red flags due to a woman being hot.

True, flydye, but she might also be hot. Many a man has ignored red flags due to a woman being hot.

That's why I'm guessing she looks like Nicole Kidman, and not Sandra Bullock if he's struggling to be okay with this.

Sex isn't just about getting off. If that were the case, legions of married men who aren't getting any from their wives anymore could just jerk off and it would be no problem. Giving up (possibly) ever having sex with anyone ever again could be a big step for her. It involves giving up a huge chunk of her freedom and autonomy, and it's normal to be nervous about that, especially if she's young. She could want one more single-girl fling and be done with it.

MonicaP

Because guys don't give up the same thing, right?

As a soldier, I would like to speak on behalf of everyone who has been victim of infidelity. "Fuck you with a cactus whore"

Honestly, and this is coming from a male, sex is much more than just the act. In this case it's about commitments, and even more so, it's about her respecting his feelings. She knows that this isn't comfortable for him, but she wants to barge on ahead, satisfy herself, and make some half-assed attempt to justifying it to him.

Lastly, unless that Marine plans to ETS he knows very well this may not be his last deployment. If she's pulling this stuff now, if she can't wait 60 days (and is pressuring him), then what will he expect on the second deployment? Or the next field training exercise?

Simply put, your advice may apply to the civilian side of things, but in the more extreme environment of the military, it doesn't fly too well.

Because guys don't give up the same thing, right?

Never said that. But we can continue making this a gender war if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Everyone gives up a tremendous amount of freedom when they give up access to multiple partners. He has less of a problem with it for whatever reason. But it's a big deal, and treating it like a simple matter of being horny denies that aspect. She's not a terrible person because she sees the big deal it is. Or maybe she is a terrible person. It's hard to tell when she didn't even write in, but it's pretty awesome that some people can divine the personal character of someone based on a few sentences by a third-party to an advice columnist.

Honestly, and this is coming from a male, sex is much more than just the act. In this case it's about commitments, and even more so, it's about her respecting his feelings.

Exactly what I'm talking about. "Can't she just keep it in her pants for two months" denies the psychological importance sex has for people. It's not about getting off, for either of them.

There's no evidence that once she's in a relationship with him that she will cheat on him. That's just us projecting. And in the end, it's not just about her respecting his feelings. It's about them respecting each other's feelings, and whether they can or not will determine whether they ever get into a relationship. We're more sympathetic to him because he wants the things a lot of us want.

The fact remains that she has laid her cards on the table. If he can deal, they can try a relationship when he gets back. If not, he can walk.

"People will tell you who they are -- if you're willing to listen."

Like when they tell you that they just need one more meaningless sexual encounter?

Well, I can't say I've divined her personal character or trustworthiness, but I think I have a pretty good lock on her common sense and sensitivity.

I could see if this was a couple who were engaged and about to be married...her saying she needs a "last fling" before settling down...but, good grief, they haven't even dated yet!

And, frankly, it would go over about as well then as it does now. If your partner needs a "last fling," they're probably not ready to take the priority off sex and place it on commitment.

I don't know anyone who has had a scheduled "last fling" that was really their last. Last flings are best when you're not planning them to be, but you just look back and realize, "Wow, I haven't had sex with anyone else since I met and fell in love with you!"

Make that another vote for she's probably just not that into him or she'd be willing to make do with a vibrator for two months. No matter how horny I was, I absolutely cannot imagine in a trillion years saying something like this to someone I genuinely cared about and wanted to be with -- especially someone out risking his life in Iraq. Especially when we're talking about 60 lousy stinking days. Especially when we're talking about some generic hookup she hasn't even met yet.

Be that as it may, she may be "honest" (so is someone who tells his pregnant wife she looks fat and undesirable or informs a pimply teenager that he's ugly...), but it doesn't sound to me like she shares his values, and I think he can easily find someone who does. Tons of women value monogamy and don't want just one more cheap fling before they settle down with Mr. Right. Look for one of those, Fraught -- you deserve it and you'll be happier. And thank you for your service.

"His questions were very clear. He asked how to get his maybe girlfriend to change her mind or how to be OK with it."

And a woman whose boyfriend was always belittling her and making her feel like crap might write in asking how to get him to stop doing it or how to be OK with it. That doesn't mean any advice must be restricted to those two options.

I just read this entire thread and I would like to chime in for the first time after lurking for so long.

I have a question for Amy:

Have you ever been a member of the military community?

You state that the military is no different than any other walk of life, but I have been there (military wife for 7 years of a 12 year marriage) and I feel differently. I have seen the guys who bring home foreign spouses who then cheat on them... mainly because those spouses were only looking for a free pass into the U.S. I have seen guys whose wives are completely faithful, but they, in my experience were in the minority. (And yes, I was in the minority... I met my ex-husband while in college before he lost his student deferment.) Also, in how many "walks of life" is your spouse sent to a war-zone for months on end? Not many, I'd guess. War-zones are deal changers.

Military men and women don't make much money (unless they're actually in a war-zone) but they have the uniform working for them. Still, they (in my experience) tend to attract people who think "Hey, he'll be gone for months at a time, so I can have a good time while he's home (NOTHIN' like multiple honeymoons!) and then do what I want when he's gone! HOWEVER, the caveat here is that they (or at least most of them) didn't TELL the guy what they were up to! This goes for wives, girlfriends, fiances and girls in LW's friend's situation. I have spent 7 years submersed in a military setting and many years afterward submersed in the "other walks of life". Two completely separate places BECAUSE OF LW's situation. That situation is not "normal" compared to the lives most of us live. With the exception of a few journalists and other folks of their ilk, NO ONE is spending extended periods in a war-zone and then coming "home" to an urban/suburban life, so how can one say that it's no different from anyone else's life? Do YOU go off to a war-zone for months on end and then come home to a life in the U.S.? Do you have a spouse that does? I did, both with the first husband (on a surface ship for 4 months off the coast of Viet Nam) and with my now-husband of 21+ years who is in the Navy reserves and was deployed to Iraq for 8 months. They called themselves "Sandbox Sailors"!

Now, the LW doesn't HAVE a relationship with this, what? "friend"? she's not a GF, they're not in a relationship... YET, but supposedly they both want to be in one when he comes home. So, why does this girl put added stress on him while he's in a war-zone that he doesn't need? (naive? doesn't realize that his LIFE is on the line and distractions help improve the odds that he won't come home upright?)

The unwritten law in the military community is that you DON'T send "dear john" letters (or shag announcements/questions) to someone over there who may be so distracted as to pay with their life. You do what you feel you must do and deal with it when they return home.

I see NO redeeming qualities in someone who would put LW's life on the line because she feels she needs a green light for her "need" for a quick horn trim. And even more so because they are not in a committed relationship.

Guys have been taking cold showers for YEARS... why can't she?

LW, thank you for your service. I appreciate more than many.

This is more common than many might think.

I published the ship's newspaper on the USS Batfish for a while, and on a long deployment, during the return cruise, I would be sure to repeat the article on tha back page -- the lyrics from Kate Bush's "Babooshka", and a gentle warning that the woman you left would not be the one you find on the pier.

Women HATE submarines, because duty comes first. Not their life or their promises. Many do not understand that they serve, also, if their man is on a submarine, because they will be expected to do what must be done upon deployment. My boat left once with only two hours' notice, and was out for three weeks. Nobody liked that.

And so some aren't capable of coping with it. LW, do keep in mind that literally thousands of women admire you, and you have great prospects if you can be patient. I know what you have looks best - I just say it might not be.

Sometimes, military-involved relationships turn truly horrible. Like this.

About a thousand people will be at the officer's funeral. Quite a bit fewer will attend the off-duty Guardsman's.

"...the woman you left would not be the one you find on the pier."

Truer words have never been written.

Sorry, but it's cheating. If a guy had asked this, he would be (rightly) considered a cad.

@Hal - how in the world is it "cheating" if they haven't, in the LW's own words, started a relationship? How can she "cheat" on him if they aren't actually in a relationship (save the one he has possibly invented in his lonely, deployed mind)?

She's being unnecessarily nasty, but it's not "cheating."

I just have to ask, how would everyone feel if;

A soldier wrote and said they had met someone just before they were deployed and there was a spark. The soldier states though there was a spark they did not make any promises and were not in a relationship yet but they were writing to each other. The soldier says the other person has written and spoken of sexual frustration and asked to have one last fling before they start their relationship.

In this scenario the soldier is a woman and the man is sexually frustrated. Would it be okay then? Would he be castigated this way? Or would so many here understand his needs?

Give me a break, this is not his fiance, this is not his wife, this is not even his girlfriend, she is someone he met who he likes and wants to see where it goes. In the meantime he is in a distant land in a very different culture as one of an occupying force. Nothing is familiar, and he wants to hold onto something familiar. He wants something to look forward to.

She on the other hand is still here going on with her life, if she is attractive enough for him to want her other men are probably trying to get close to her too. She is also lonely.

I would say they both went into this "not a relationship" with completely unrealistic expectations.

I also have to say, I know an awful lot of military men who feel if they are in a different time zone it is not cheating. There are a lot of female military deployed in most places the men are. There is even a name for it, Deployment Spouse. It is not just the young enlisted men and women involved either.

So please if it was me, if there was no promise, no ring, nothing but a few good times and some e-mails and a few conversations, I would think I was free to do what I want. I would also think he was free to do what he wants. Before I touched either one, I would want a full STD test panel done.

@radwaste
You are completely right. We wives HATED those boats. My ex-husband was on the U.S.S. Alexander Hamilton, an FBM, which was out for three months at a time with a blue crew/gold crew rotation. And yes, it was a boat. Surface ships are ships, subs are boats.

I personally knew of women who had a husband on the blue crew and a boyfriend on the gold crew so that they would never be alone. I know of one couple who were open about it, but several other wives kept it a secret. When both crews were in port for the changeover, wives lived with hubby and BFs kept mum. Amy states that military life is just the same as any other walk of life, but it's not true. Been there, know the difference.

@Worthita
You're also correct, but I would go one step further... she should've just kept her mouth SHUT and done what she wanted and dealt with it (or not mentioned it) when he got home. To stress him out in a war-zone is unconscionable, and to me, shows that she is either very young and naive, really stupid or just plain mean.

I wouldn't feel a bit different if the sex of the soldier and his stateside squeeze were reversed. And whether they had a "promise" or not, I find her behavior kind of icky.

Let's first assume there was really nothing there -- no promise, no commitment, no relationship. (Apropos of nothing, I don't think you need "a ring" to have a commitment.) Let's say all we have is a soldier with a female friend he's attracted to, and the most she's done is agree to go on a date with him when he comes home. If that's true, she didn't have any obligation to say anything about her hookup plans. She could just do what she's going to do and then see where her relationship with the soldier goes when he gets home.

And in this case, that would have been the better thing to do. The guy is in Iraq. He's in a war zone. The last thing he needs to be doing is fretting about this chick's one night stand thousands of miles away. So I don't give her points for honesty -- I take them away for unnecessary cruelty.

Interesting timing, too -- she doesn't tell him in the beginning of his deployment that she wants to see other guys. It's not something she's been saying all along. No, she waits until he's 60 days away from coming home to tell him she plans to hook up with another guy. To really twist the knife, she tells him what weekend it's going to happen so he can really dwell on it while landmines are exploding underneath him. Come on, people -- that's just not nice.

And what if there was a promise? It sounds to me like these two have admitted to having some powerful romantic feelings for each other. They haven't just said "oh, let's go to Applebees when you get home." They've agreed they want a committed relationship, to start in 60 days, as soon as he comes home. (If you think you can't fall in love with someone you haven't dated yet, I beg to differ. I fell hard for a colleague and worked with him for the better part of a year before we confessed having mutual feelings for each other. That kind of thing happens -- a lot.)

If that's the case, I find the woman's conduct inexplicable. She can't wait 60 lousy days for this guy to come home without hooking up with a random dude? She's not military wife material, to say the least.

If I were the soldier, and a guy back home wrote that letter to me, I'd be bagging the trip to Applebees when we got home.

Granted, I'm a bit old-fashioned on this kind of thing. But it sounds like our soldier LW is, too (and good for him). I don't see him getting OK with this, and I don't blame him. I think he'd be happier with a woman who shares his values. And I don't think he'd have trouble finding one.

Fraught, I wish you happiness whatever you decide. Although I admit I'm kind of hoping you dump the wedding crasher and find someone else -- someone really fantastic.

"Amy states that military life is just the same as any other walk of life, but it's not true."

You've added something, an element, that Amy hasn't said. I understand everything about boat life, and I'm pretty sure others don't, but the principles of decency in relationships don't change, the severity of service and the isolation does. Some sailors are alone in crowds of people, unable to express themselves, or get appreciation for how well they know a Westinghouse engine room.

Thank you for your support. I was on Madison (Gold) for 3 years & 3 patrols. There is still considerable debate about whether it is worse to have someone waiting for you, who might not be faithful, vs. no one at all.