Do I have an unrealistic conception of dating?

In My Humble Opinion
41

There are gray areas and black & white areas. I can contemplate your differing definition and see that as understandable. However I have never known anyone, barring those in an “open” relationship, who would see WhyNot’s actions as anything other than upsetting to the SO looking on.

Indeed where is WhyNot’s responsibility in this? I certainly would say her views are at the least on the fringe of what anyone would reasonably call understandable and acceptable. Surely she has to have a clue that her definition of acceptable “flirting” is a bit more aggressive than the norm unless she wants to tell us in her world everyone she knows acts that way. We take our clues from society around us and that one is unusual everywhere I have ever seen.

Given that is it not more incumbent on WhyNot to make her partners aware of how she is a liable to act?

Further, and no one has answered this yet, I really have to wonder if WhyNot would be absolutely content and have no issue of she turned around to see her SO playing tonsil hockey with some hot blond two feet away from her.

In the end I think the Golden Rule applies well here. Don’t do what you would be upset having people do to you and if your norms are notably different from most everyone else you had better be upfront with people about them (at least those you are close to).

42

Her responsibility is clearly to her partner.

The only people whose opinions about this matter are her and her partner.

The only people whose opinions about this matter are her and her partner.

Then you are quite welcome not to date her, or others who share her position.

It is. Didn’t she say that? Oh yes, here it is:

  1. Nobody has answered it because nobody has asked it.
  2. If you asked her you might be surprised by the answer.
  3. I am still trying to figure out how this is any of your business.

The point that a lot of us seem to be making is that the only important guidelines for this sort of thing are the ones that you and your partner agree upon. Some of us have provided examples of different guidelines that couples might come up with.

I do not see why this necessitates such a hijack focussed on some people’s apparent disapproval and negative judgments of the lifestyles of other people who you have never met and are certainly not expected to date. With all due respect, your opinion of a relationship has no standing in any relationship that you are not involved in.

There have been lots of threads about polyamory on these boards and WhyNot has been more than generous with her time and her privacy on the subject. It saddens me to see you interrogating her so presumptuously in this venue.

Are you willing to lay your own love life out like an open book, so you can answer to us for it?

43

I grew up under a Southern Baptist household with very traditional ideas about dating. My aunt decorates her yard with gargoyles to scare black people and my entire family (minus my father) campaigned against interracial dating. I could write you a fifteen hundred word essay on “the difference between a black person and a nigger.” If you can imagine it, I grew up in a conservative environment without a lot of exposure to other cultures.

Yet somehow, I’m aware that some people are polyamorous and see monogamy as being weird. Yes, I’m aware of this minority viewpoint, even though I haven’t met many people who subscribe to it. How anyone could remain ignorant of such an obvious cultural standard–Quoi? You don’t like me kissing other men? Weirdo!–is a mystery to me.

44

Nice dodge.

Clearly she upset her partner and evinced surprise at his hurt.

I agree the opinions that matter are her and her partner’s. I am saying her definition of acceptable is rather more permissive than is the norm. She thus failed her partner and hurt him even if unintentionally. Given her broader terms I do not think it is incumbent upon her SO’s to ask her not to play tonsil hockey with other guys. She needs to be the one to inform new SOs (as they occur) of her stance in this case. At least she should if she has any regard for them and does not seek to intentionally cause them pain.

45

I’m fully from the same school as the Panda.

Granted, I’ve not dated a whole bunch, but my preference is that marriage is merely the cement that holds together two people who are already an amazing fit. I desire exclusivity. Not really sure why, I’ve never really thought about it, but I also don’t think “why” really matters so long as my mate also wants it and is willing to give it. It’s just what I’m into.

46

Rather than trying to address this I’m going to wait for WhyNot to come back to the thread to minimise the amount of broken telephone.

47

My desire for exclusivity is more pragmatic than anything. I’ve got no problems with dating around and have had my share of twelve night stands. But, jesus, isn’t one person enough trouble? How on Earth can you handle being emotional with more than one person?

48

I have been describing my views on conducting a love life here. I’ll be happy to answer your questions if you have them although it is pretty pedestrian in comparison to some so not likely worth your time but ask away if you want.

I think you misunderstand me though. If everyone involved in a relationship is on the same page then more power to them! Have fun, go nuts, whatever.

I am saying in regards to the OP the girl dating multiple guys is barely dating by most definitions. It is messing around and more power to them but not relevant to the OPs discussion I think.

In WhyNot’s case she inadvertently hurt someone she presumably cares for because of a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding I think the vast majority of the population would likewise experience in the same situation. As such I think it is incumbent that she make her notions clear to those intimate with her rather than assuming or waiting for them to broach the topic.

All’s well that ends well…just saying.

49

Whack-A-Mole, it sounds like you don’t know I’m in an open marriage where my husband and I are both (separately) intimate with other people with permission. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clearer with my first post - I thought the “I don’t give or accept promises of monogamy” made that clear, but I apologize for not being more explicit and causing confusion.

Does that answer things for you, or should I go on? I’m willing to, but I don’t want to take over another person’s thread, and the poly Q&A’s tend to get long and dominating.

50

I haven’t heard anybody saying monogamy is “weird.” *

And I also see no evidence that anybody is unaware that it is the cultural standard.

Speaking for myself only–I don’t think monogamy is unnatural or undesirable. But it is unnatural and undesirable for many people. Lots of polyamorous types find themselves in “monogamous” relationships because that IS the dominant cultural expectation. Maybe they never even considered open polyamory. And that is unnatural and undesirable because it forces a person into a role that doesn’t fit. (This is not to say that a polyamorous-type person shouldn’t choose to practice monogamy if that’s what they want in the context of that specific relationship.)

I have no issue with your monogamous orientation. I’d hope you have no issue with my not-monogamous orientation.

  • With the possible exception of AHunter3. But he has downright contrarian views on a lot of things. (You know I adore you, darlin’!)
51

While I can agree, what’s the solution? I’ve never had a serious relationship, so let’s use me for an example. Let’s say I meet a girl and fall head over heels for her, she for me, she most likely having had more experience in the dating game, and things go great for three or four years. The topic turns to marriage. Do I tell her “sorry, even though this is an amazing relationship, I think we need to break up instead because I just haven’t gotten enough experience yet”?

I know that first relationships usually don’t work out. That doesn’t mean they CAN’T work out.

52

My comment, with regard to “weirdness” or “naivete” is that if you mean “statistically in the minority,” then I don’t think you are. That is not to say I think you’re the majority opinion; I think there are innumerable slivers to this pie chart.

My theory is that less than 1% of the world’s population is a suitable mate if you’re looking for a life partner. The reason is that every time you add a qualifier to your wish list, you thin the applicants. She must be “into” monogamy, ok, let’s say that’s (WAG—doesn’t matter) 75% of the population.

First, the woman has to be available. What percentage are already married, engaged, or otherwise off the market? Let’s guess 50%. So 50% of 75% are off limits…we’re down to 37.5%

She has to be in your age bracket. What percentage of women would that be? WAG, let’s say 40%…the pool shrinks to 15%. I.e. you’re not going to marry a woman who’s 40 years older than you just because she’s available AND into monogamy.

What percentage of women are attracted to you? WAG, let’s say 70%. OK, down to 10.5%. What percentage of women do you find attractive? WAG let’s say 60%…we’re down to 6.3%.

What about kids? Do you want them? Maybe you do and she doesn’t or vice-versa. What about church? Maybe you don’t want to go and she insists. What about careers? Maybe you’re Mr. Ambition and she likes to kick back.

A statistically minded woman told me once that some of my filters aren’t quite pure (I think that was the term she used), but she conceded that the trend is clear…if you have any standards, you have qualifiers, and those qualifiers always cut someone out.

So my answer to your question is that I think each of us is looking for someone uniquely suited to individual tastes, needs, etc. Your particular combination probably isn’t any easier or harder to find than anybody else’s. So, stick to your guns, expect some false positives, and try to enjoy the ride in the meantime.

[hijack] This is bugging me. An editor told me that you never join a “compound adjective” (if that’s the term) with a hyphen when the first is an adverb.

So I wanted to type, for instance “A statisically-minded woman” because it looks right. She says the hyphen is incorrect. Comments? [/hijack]

53

The qualifier “must be a she” drops you to half the population right away.

54

Well if he’s a he (and he is) removing that qualifier only makes another 10% of the population available anyway so I’d say it’s not that great a benefit for what might be quite a considerable cost.

:wink:

55

I wasn’t going to pick that nit, but since you brought it up…

Would you accept a transexual, OP? I remember my brother showing me in one of his Playboys, circa 1983, a woman who wasn’t born that way. I think the staff didn’t know it till someone wrote in about it. I don’t know the number of reassignments done per year, but with Murphy’s Law and all…

I expect to find a pretty wonderful gal some day, only it will turn out she has hidden $100K in credit card debt. Or her kids will decide they don’t accept me. Or emotional baggage from her past will surface during the honeymoon. Or she’ll come to the realization that she’s a lesbian. Or…or…or…

56

You’ll find out she’s actually a sleeper agent from an alien civilisation waiting to invade the planet a la Torchwood.

You find out (too late) that she believes all arguments can be solved by the woman severing the man’s penis when he’s asleep and throwing it out of the window.

She eats people (and I don’t mean that figuratively).

She thinks that Return of the Jedi is better than Empire Strikes Back.

And so forth…

57

Oh, thanks, now I have to sleep with all the lights on tonight! :smack::mad:

Ahem.

Seriously, in middle-aged dating, if the woman has kids, I’m concerned that she may not have a healthy relationship with them. By “healthy” I mean that she has assigned enough importance to her own life to enable her to make decisions about her life as in individual. There have to be some emotional boundaries that free her up to be a woman instead of a full-time mom, even when her children have left the nest.

I’ve met a lot of women who embrace that “super mom” role after their divorce. I understand wanting to do the best for the kids, but IMO many women let it go toooooooo far. One woman told me her boyfriend (whom she REALLY liked) didn’t understand it when she said that her son would ALWAYS be first in her life. He broke it off and she was sad, but she said that’s how it had to be.

Wrong answer: if you marry, the spouse is #1. It’s hard enough to make it work as it is. Telling the spouse that he/she will be overruled, especially if the kids are still living at home, is a death sentence.

The sickness of the case I described, and I swear to all I hold dear that this is true: the woman was 60, her son was 40, lived in another state, and had his own wife and kids. Yet she had adopted that supermom role so deeply that if he called, she figured she ought to be driving to the airport.

That’s codependent, unhealthy, and thank you no. Although she’s an extreme case, kids are forever. If one loses a job, maybe he has to move back in the house. I read a study that said the biggest cause of second marriages failing is kids from prior marriages because the spouses haven’t set each other at #1. I believe it; the kids will pit the two against each other if they can.

I think it’s a ripping shame, btw, that second marriages have a worse mortality rate than first. I never had kids and “instant family” absolutely appeals to me. The article, IIRC, went on to say that if you enter such a situation, you have to “marry” the entire family, i.e. develop meaningful relationships with each of the kids as well. The Brady Bunch just made it look easy.

Given that most people who do have kids, what does THAT do to the likelihood of success? :dubious::frowning:

58

It’s great you and your husband are on the same page with an open marriage. I say that honestly, in the end having a matching lifestyle is what you want from your partner whatever that choice may be and I certainly will not tell people what that choice ought to be.

Guess this part confused me given you have an open marriage is all. Not sure why he would be pissed with the understanding you have. Not necessary to rehash your whole relationship here. Just pointing out the part I was on about.

“I inadvertently pissed off my husband once because he saw me “making out” with another guy in front of him, and he wasn’t cool with it.” -WhyNot

59

EXACTLY! I couldn’t figure it out either, because of the understanding we have! :smiley: whew So you don’t think I’m a clueless bitch anymore, I hope.

But that’s exactly my point - you have to be very clear with what these words mean. When, in a previous conversation, we had determined that he was okay with me flirting and kissing another person in his view, but he wasn’t comfortable seeing me make out with someone else (he was okay knowing I did, but not seeing it), I should have stopped him right there and gotten clearer definitions of “flirting”, “kissing” and “making out”. I didn’t, and so when I did French kiss a guy in front of him, I thought I was kissing (okay) and he thought I was making out (not okay).

Okay, so you can see why an open relationship needs to have clear “define your terms” discussions, right? But I think that even monogamous relationships would do best to have these things very clearly articulated. Mind reading is nice, but unrealistic. So, what’s “flirting”? What does “any possible interest [in another person] is discarded” mean? Can I still say Brad Pitt is hot? Can I smile at the cute boy behind the counter at Starbucks, or will that upset you? Can I give your brother a hug when we say hello, or does that hurt you? Would you be okay if I ate lunch in the lunchroom with a male coworker? What if we went out to lunch together? What about dinner? What about sharing a hotel room at a professional conference in another city? Does it matter if the coworker is ugly or attractive or married or single or gay?

Somewhere, you have a limit. We all do, I think, although there are some poly couples who say they don’t. And we don’t always *know *our limits - these things can be hard to deal with in hypotheticals, and one should always be willing to speak up and say, “you know, I said I wouldn’t be upset at that, and now that it’s happened, I actually am upset.” or, as sometimes happens, “You know, I know I said X would bother me, but now that we’re here, it’s actually fine.”

The older I get, the more I date, the more I think that the more specific, the better. Yes, it means you can’t trap me in the “but if you really loved me, we wouldn’t need to talk about it” or “but you should *know *how I’d feel; any normal person would feel this way!” arguments. (Although, to be fair, my husband still pulls that last one. It’s something we’re working on.) Yes, to some extent it makes things a little less Hollywood romance and fireworks and effortless romance…but real relationships aren’t effortless. I prefer to put the effort in to prevent mismatches and misunderstandings, instead of trying to patch things up afterward.

60

Some weird views here.

I think that from an evolutionary perspective, being in an “open marriage” is a good and healthy thing to do.

But, however liberal I am, this still dosent seem right.

It’s kind of like “why get married if your going to have other partners at the same time” type of mentality.

Why not just move in together, but not get married?

I believe that if you do take the step towards marriage, you should be exclusive to the person you are marrying, it’s part of the commitment, and part of the challenge.

Granted, doing something just because its diffcult to do (staying loyal to one person, and not “hooking” up with someone else) does not make it the “right” thing to do.

And yet…it feels wrong.

Just thinking out loud…