At what point in one's relationship with person A does it become inappropriate to also be going on dates with persons B, C, and D? Obviously this is subjective. But what guides you? Is it how many times you've seen A? The frequency? Physical intimacy? You know it because you just don't feel like seeing B, C, or D anymore? Some other factors? Or is it "anything goes" until you have a talk and commit to exclusivity?What I said is that (a) when it'd upset A to know about B/C/D, it's time to stop it (or when you, contra-wise, would be upset to know A was still seeing others); and (b) that as a matter of course, you'll hit a point with A that you just don't want to be spending your free time with someone else. YMMV.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
LOVING BOTH OF YOU IS BREAKING ALL THE RULES: Next in our ad hoc series on the mores of modern dating, an anonymous friend of the blog seeks wisdom from the group:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the key is to be open from the start that B C and D exist. If at any point you don't want to see them anymore, then you know. If at any point A doesn't want you seeing them anymore, you can weigh your options.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying you should set time aside in a first date to say, "You should know I'm dating three other people." I'm saying, if A calls you up and asks you to go to the movies, but you've got a date with B? You say that, not, "Ooh, tough weekend for me."
It's been a loooooong time since I found myself in this situation, but Adam's answer is basically the same one I reached at the time. So, co-sign. No magic number of dates, no magical threshold level of physical intimacy -- you know it, and you should listen to yourself.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is anything goes until word of exclusivity BUT like Robin above think being open about lack of exclusivity before then is key.
ReplyDeleteAlso this depends on how interested anonymous is in continuing and ramping up seriousness in relationship with A. If A is someone anonymous could see as being important/significant/"the one"/what-have-you then I think phasing out B, C, and D is a first things first kind of deal.
Basically if anonymous and A end up married and telling stories to their grandparents or grandkids or just family and friends, how hard do you want to have to work forever to edit that story around the reality of being involved with multiple other people when you tell it?
Also - what if A were to find out about B/C/D from someone other than you? How would A feel about that? How would you feel about that?
ReplyDeleteThat final situation seems to be an endless well of plot points on "Brothers & Sisters." Seriously, how many "Nora's flame from when she was starting to date William Walker!" plotlines have we been through?
ReplyDeleteExactly, so I think Adam's right on the money with the addition of Robin and her note about being open from the start.
ReplyDeleteNow, can we put our heads together and solve the Middle East? And what's the deal with airplane food?
In addition to the wisdom above, you probably need to make sure A, B, C, and D, aren't part of the same book club. Because... AWK-WARD. (Also, perhaps try branching out to people with multi-letter names!)
ReplyDeleteOnline dating makes this whole thing especially awkward. At least back when I did it a few years ago, you could see when someone had last logged in to the site. If you've been seeing someone and they're still logging in actively, that tells you something. Although I guess you'd have to log in yourself to see that, which could lead to a whole series of hilarious misunderstandings.
ReplyDeleteOr confirmations of what you suspected was happening. Sometimes people lie about seeing other people and their match.com profile's activity at least grounds your suspicions in something tangible.
ReplyDeleteCo-sign on Adam's advice and Robin's added piece. And I agree with Jake on the online thing, although meeting someone online kind of takes away the need to specify you could be seenig more than one person. I operate on the assumption that if I go out with someone online, that they are also testing the waters with other people too, as am I.
ReplyDeleteI wish I had this problem....
ReplyDeleteNo hard and fast rule about number of dates or level of intimacy, but yes, honesty is required. For me, Adam's B was always the guiding force and then I'd just say, "Hey, I'm no longer seeing anyone else. Where do things stand for you?"
ReplyDeleteI've been in a healthy, happy relationship for years, but now I've got that awful song stuck in my head.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can say "would A be upset to learn about B/C/D?" You could go on one date with A and he/she might be upset about B/C/D. Not because you're two-timing scum, but because it's a normal human reaction to get jealous of the competition.
ReplyDeleteBut honestly, there aren't really rules. There aren't people who think there really are rules, are there? You just have to behave like a human being who is having infinitely complicated social interactions with another human being. Your cues come from communication, empathy, and morality, not from general-purpose dictates handed down by successful daters or triangulated from broad surveys.
Christina and I ceremoniously deleted our OKCupid sites with each other, which was nice.
ReplyDeleteI can't remember the last flight I was on which offered cooked food.
ReplyDeleteI followed 2 rules:
ReplyDelete1)<span> </span>Do you find B, C, D to be an annoyance on your ability to see A
2)<span> </span>Do you feel that in not disclosing ongoing interactions with B, C, D you might be misleading A?
Generally - if I felt dishonest about seeing B, C, D while seeing A, that told me what I needed to know.
I think the proper analysis can be found in the four-point balancing test in Complete Auto Transit v. Brady:
ReplyDelete(1) Nexus: Is there a substantial nexus between you and B/C/D? If the personal contacts, if you know what I mean, sufficient for there for B/C/D and to have jurisdiction over you? Are you purposefully availing yourself of B/C/D's affections?
(2) Fairly Apportioned: Is your time fairly apportioned between your suitors? If not and if one is taking substantially more time than the others, it's probably not permissible to be spending any time with the other three.
(3) Nondiscrimination: Are you being fair with the other suitors? Without entering into the whole Itel Containers line of cases of external and internal consistency, it's sufficient to note that parties in equal positions should be being treated equally. Party A ought to know that you are spending time with B/C/D but that B is not receiving any sort of special treatment vis-a-vis C & D. If you are presenting B/C/D as merely dating, you are implying that they are getting comparable treatment. B cannot being an f-buddy if C and D merely take you to the movies.
(4) Fair relation to the services provided: A may have more of your attention, but B cannot be getting more services for less attention This is a similar point to 3. One better not be shagging B if you only see B every other wednesday after book club if A is taking you out every weekend and left with a mere kiss goodnight.
****
Tomorrow: Quill v. South Dakota Department of Revenue's application to internet dating.
Vacco v. Quill may be more a propos for tomorrow, TPE.
ReplyDeleteI'm not clear how four suitors is a problem....
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wants to thank everyone for the suggestions.
ReplyDeleteI heart TPE.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the additional suitors may help you to clarify your own feelings. For example, I was dating A and very open with him about the amount of time I spent hanging out with my friend (and ex-boyfriend) B. Eventually, in a very soap opera hissy fit, A staged a dramatic confrontation and demanded that I make a choice between the two of them. I realized that I cared a whole lot more about hanging out with B than I did about dating A. So I booted A to the curb and married B. Thanks for clearing things up for me A!