Last night's chat update. I must admit I asked 3 questions and got a barrage of info.
The birthday celebrations weren't to be cancelled entirely, he suggested a weekend, not the usual week vacation. That didn't go down too well.
The rules are, indeed, designed for FB type hook-ups. Relationships, as basically defined, are not allowed. Therefore, no buying food or drink items for the FB, FBs don't leave stuff at the houses etc.
S wants Prof to have FBs too, that is what she has, he doesn't want FBs, there is a disconnect that they are working on.
He and I are not in a "relationship", we have a "connection". A relationship would be grounds for a veto. Semantics
He will not allow a veto for anything less than major crazy behavior on my behalf. On this he is firm.
She wants to cancel overnights, he does not, it is up for discussion.
I have not done anything to warrant the sword of Damocles, there are no complaints from S about my behavior. When she gets insecure or jealous she vetoes. He will no longer allow this to be a reason for veto.
He wants to protect his primary relationship and to do that he does not share everything that he and I do out of concern it will become a rule item.
The variety of activities that we do would cause jealousy, even just him teaching me to the ride scooter would cause issues as those are relationship type activities. So should S and I ever speak he wants me to be aware of things that would cause issue. therefore, all the warnings.
I got it. Seems fair enough.
I enjoyed the bit about connections and how the relationship/connection line was blurring for him He wants to continue the "connection", enjoys the "connection", the "connection" is important to him. Our time together is something he looks forward too.
He reiterated that he was hoping that the rules would have slackened off by now but was taking it one step at a time. Gave me a big hug and said he hoped I didn't want to stop seeing him.
Then we had some great play