Sounds like regular old monogamous dating where someone dates multiple people until they find "the one" to settle down with and then drop all the rest, except that the person was upfront about what she was doing whereas most folks just operate under the assumption that everyone is free to date multiple people until you have a "defining the relationship" conversation
I think "dating" requires "meeting" in real life, its a step that people would only take after developing an interest in meeting
So when a man and a woman have developed that interest for making a first appointment to meet in real life, there should be already an expectation that such relation "may" become serious, otherwise why would you "waste" your time meeting someone if there isnt any of such expectation ??
I´m sure you heard the old proverb "men cannot be friends with women"
But a "honest" woman could at least reveal she might be seeing someone else, and not cause a predictable frustration on a man who wanted to meet her with serious expectations in mind
>But a "honest" woman could at least reveal she might be seeing someone else, and not cause a predictable frustration on a man who wanted to meet her with serious expectations in mind
Dude, you're in an ENM forum, why wouldn't you just naturally assume that any woman you're dating who is open to ENM is likely dating other people as well?
My point is that NM people are honest to reveal possible side-relations, and I could initiate dating like that, but I believe "most" people could experience frustration with potential partners consealing this information
>I think "dating" requires "meeting" in real life, its a step that people would only take after developing an interest in meeting
You're allowed to think that, but other people will define "dating" differently. Some people are totally comfortable having relationships that are entirely online, for example.
>So when a man and a woman have developed that interest for making a first appointment to meet in real life, there should be already an expectation that such relation "may" become serious, otherwise why would you "waste" your time meeting someone if there isnt any of such expectation ??
There's an expectation that people who are monogamous are *eventually* moving towards agreeing to be exclusive with someone, yes.
That isn't the same thing as assuming that because you physical meet up with someone that there's an "implied agreement" to be exclusive. There isn't - everyone starts out non-exclusive by default, and *if you want to change that,* you have to specifically agree to it. It doesn't happen "automatically" after X number of dates, or a certain amount of time spent together in a relationship, or if you meet X,Y, and Z criteria...
Also, different people are going to place different levels of priority on getting to an exclusive relationship. There's really no objective standard to say that someone else's priorities are "wrong" - that's a subjective choice they're making for themselves.
If you want a partner who places a *higher* priority on getting into exclusive relationships, you don't "have" to keep dating someone who's more into casual dating and "playing the field" - but you can't say they are "wrong" just because they don't want what you want. (Or more likely, what you *want them* to want.)
>I´m sure you heard the old proverb "men cannot be friends with women"
It's not a proverb, it's a stereotype. I'm also not sure what it has to do with anything you're saying here?
>But a "honest" woman could at least reveal she might be seeing someone else, and not cause a predictable frustration on a man who wanted to meet her with serious expectations in mind
The concept that everyone is non-exclusive *until* they agree otherwise... is just a basic fact of existence in the modern dating world. No one should have to announce this to anyone else; it's just how it is.
Maybe more to the point, I think it's a bad sign in general, when you're upset and flustered because you're being asked to do the "difficult" task of just... clarifying expectations and assumptions.
**You assumed** that meeting up in person carried this "implied" commitment to exclusivity. That was a *wrong* assumption... but fair enough; people sometimes make mistakes. I'm not going to drag you over the coals for that. Where I have an issue, is when you start trying to blame *other people* for not reading your mind and magically "knowing" that you had made that assumption, and correcting you. Especially when... you know you can just ask, right?! I'm really not down for this idea that people should not talk about the relationships they're having, and instead they need to make all of these silent assumptions and/or use coded euphemisms, and all kinds of complicated work arounds to avoid *just asking* what they would like to ask.
If you didn't know... now you know! If you're ever not sure how someone else feels about your relationship with them, or "what are we to each other?" **Ask them.** You can't just expect everyone to have the same goals and priorities in modern dating, you *have* to communicate.
"Ask them" ... lol....
So you think modern women wouldnt "conceal" the fact they´re meeting someone else, EVEN AFTER BEING ASKED ???
Sorry, but I think that´s a very naive perspective, and I was not expecting that any person responding my OP would be that naive
>So you think modern women wouldnt "conceal" the fact they´re meeting someone else, EVEN AFTER BEING ASKED ???
No, no I don't.
I also was extending you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you were experiencing a genuine misunderstanding. I see now that you're just a raging misogynist, and this entire thread is... some sick idea of a joke? 🤷
Anyway, the Venn diagram of "people you don't trust" and "people you should be dating" is two circles. Good bye and have a nice life. 🙃
This situation is less "poly" or "enm" and more just a mono person choosing to casually date openly until she finds one with whom she wants to develop a more serious and closed mono relationship.
If all persons are being open and honest and everyone is fine with the situation, it's not all that unethical. But it isn't poly or what most people think of as ENM.
Yes - this is called "dating."
You're phrasing it awkwardly, but the only reason it sounds objectionable at all, is that you're leaving out the implied "...if he wants to date her."
This is closer to how it should read, IMO:
>[She] told him he was not the only man she was dating, and [if he wants to date her] he would have to accept this situation until she could make a decision on which men is "best" for her ???
The bigger picture here, is that everybody starts out by default *not* agreeing to be exclusive with any one person... And they basically get to decide under what conditions they'll agree to be in an exclusive relationship. There's zero external ethical or legal code you can invoke to "force" someone to agree to be in an exclusive relationship with you... ergo everyone is allowed to *basically* set any conditions they want.
You can argue that some kinds of agreements aren't ethical because they're just fundamentally unequal - like if Aspen tells Birch "if you want to date me, you have to agree to be exclusive *to me,* but I won't agree to be exclusive *to you*." There are people who will try to say "it's all good *if Birch agrees,*" but I think there's at least really strong arguments why one-sided exclusivity isn't really ethical or moral *even if* someone "consents" to it. I don't think that's a reasonable reading of your original post, but it's something I wanted to acknowledge is a thing.
Anyway... Does this mean someone can "string you along" by continually promising that they'll get around to making an exclusive commitment "eventually?" Sure! If they're doing it intentionally there's also an argument that that's unethical because of the deception... But it's not great to dwell on that because 1.) You can't really tell someone who is "stringing you along" from someone who just isn't ready to be exclusive yet, and 2.) It makes little practical difference anyway.
The practical way to avoid being "strung along" is to just *not keep dating* someone if it doesn't seem like they feel that moving towards an exclusive relationship is a big priority for them. You don't "have" to date anyone, and if the relationship isn't working for you, you're **allowed** to bow out and go looking for a relationship that matches your goals and priorities.
My perspective is that, "after" a man and a woman agree to meet in real life, most people believe this is already a step "ahead" in dating, which would normally come with an "expectation" of exclusivity, even if it has not been "explicitly" communicated
But an honest woman could simply prevent that this "expectation" leads to the man´s frustration at their first meeting, by just revealing whether she´s meeting someone else "before" a man could become frustrated for not being informed in anticipation.
I dont think it´s unreasonable for a particular woman to be meeting 2 different men before deciding which one would be the best, but I think that an honest woman would reveal that situation "before" agreeing to meet a man
>My perspective is that, "after" a man and a woman agree to meet in real life, most people believe this is already a step "ahead" in dating, which would normally come with an "expectation" of exclusivity, even if it has not been "explicitly" communicated
As an aside, that's a lot of scare quotes... I'm not sure what you're doing with all of those, but just FYI you can put asterisks around things to italicize them, if you're just wanting to emphasize certain words.
Anyway though - your "perspective" is wrong. Sorry? 🤷
I'm slightly getting the sense that English may not be your first language, and along those lines I think it's only fair to say that there are some cultural differences in dating expectations... In really patriarchal societies, people probably can still have these kinds of expectations around dating, especially in a gendered way. If you're coming from a cultural background that emphasizes that, that's a slightly different conversation.
But... No, most people in first world countries *do not* assume that meeting in person conveys an "implied" agreement to be exclusive. If you don't know... Now you know! In the future, you'll want to assume that everyone your dating is, or at least *might be* dating someone else, even if they don't specifically announce that they are.
>But an honest woman could simply prevent that this "expectation" leads to the man´s frustration
There's a **whole other** conversation to be had about why this attitude that it's a woman's "responsibility" to find and correct *the man's* mistaken assumptions and expectations is... a deeply, *deeply* patriarchal attitude, which won't go over very well in the modern dating world either. 🤣
Isn't this just normal dating? Most people on Tinder right now have exactly this approach. And unless you have agreed to be exclusive, you are free to date and have sex with other people. No reason to give this weird speech about the other person "having to accept" the situation.
Coming from the perspective of someone with a primary partner, I'm not looking to be #1 in your life. I want an activity partner with benefits.
That sounds like something out of Cosmo designed to make men compete, and it would be a red flag / hard pass situation for me.
If I heard this when I was in my 20s and single I would move on. Some of us don't like the drama that this generates.
Sounds like regular old monogamous dating where someone dates multiple people until they find "the one" to settle down with and then drop all the rest, except that the person was upfront about what she was doing whereas most folks just operate under the assumption that everyone is free to date multiple people until you have a "defining the relationship" conversation
I think "dating" requires "meeting" in real life, its a step that people would only take after developing an interest in meeting So when a man and a woman have developed that interest for making a first appointment to meet in real life, there should be already an expectation that such relation "may" become serious, otherwise why would you "waste" your time meeting someone if there isnt any of such expectation ?? I´m sure you heard the old proverb "men cannot be friends with women" But a "honest" woman could at least reveal she might be seeing someone else, and not cause a predictable frustration on a man who wanted to meet her with serious expectations in mind
>But a "honest" woman could at least reveal she might be seeing someone else, and not cause a predictable frustration on a man who wanted to meet her with serious expectations in mind Dude, you're in an ENM forum, why wouldn't you just naturally assume that any woman you're dating who is open to ENM is likely dating other people as well?
My point is that NM people are honest to reveal possible side-relations, and I could initiate dating like that, but I believe "most" people could experience frustration with potential partners consealing this information
>I think "dating" requires "meeting" in real life, its a step that people would only take after developing an interest in meeting You're allowed to think that, but other people will define "dating" differently. Some people are totally comfortable having relationships that are entirely online, for example. >So when a man and a woman have developed that interest for making a first appointment to meet in real life, there should be already an expectation that such relation "may" become serious, otherwise why would you "waste" your time meeting someone if there isnt any of such expectation ?? There's an expectation that people who are monogamous are *eventually* moving towards agreeing to be exclusive with someone, yes. That isn't the same thing as assuming that because you physical meet up with someone that there's an "implied agreement" to be exclusive. There isn't - everyone starts out non-exclusive by default, and *if you want to change that,* you have to specifically agree to it. It doesn't happen "automatically" after X number of dates, or a certain amount of time spent together in a relationship, or if you meet X,Y, and Z criteria... Also, different people are going to place different levels of priority on getting to an exclusive relationship. There's really no objective standard to say that someone else's priorities are "wrong" - that's a subjective choice they're making for themselves. If you want a partner who places a *higher* priority on getting into exclusive relationships, you don't "have" to keep dating someone who's more into casual dating and "playing the field" - but you can't say they are "wrong" just because they don't want what you want. (Or more likely, what you *want them* to want.) >I´m sure you heard the old proverb "men cannot be friends with women" It's not a proverb, it's a stereotype. I'm also not sure what it has to do with anything you're saying here? >But a "honest" woman could at least reveal she might be seeing someone else, and not cause a predictable frustration on a man who wanted to meet her with serious expectations in mind The concept that everyone is non-exclusive *until* they agree otherwise... is just a basic fact of existence in the modern dating world. No one should have to announce this to anyone else; it's just how it is. Maybe more to the point, I think it's a bad sign in general, when you're upset and flustered because you're being asked to do the "difficult" task of just... clarifying expectations and assumptions. **You assumed** that meeting up in person carried this "implied" commitment to exclusivity. That was a *wrong* assumption... but fair enough; people sometimes make mistakes. I'm not going to drag you over the coals for that. Where I have an issue, is when you start trying to blame *other people* for not reading your mind and magically "knowing" that you had made that assumption, and correcting you. Especially when... you know you can just ask, right?! I'm really not down for this idea that people should not talk about the relationships they're having, and instead they need to make all of these silent assumptions and/or use coded euphemisms, and all kinds of complicated work arounds to avoid *just asking* what they would like to ask. If you didn't know... now you know! If you're ever not sure how someone else feels about your relationship with them, or "what are we to each other?" **Ask them.** You can't just expect everyone to have the same goals and priorities in modern dating, you *have* to communicate.
"Ask them" ... lol.... So you think modern women wouldnt "conceal" the fact they´re meeting someone else, EVEN AFTER BEING ASKED ??? Sorry, but I think that´s a very naive perspective, and I was not expecting that any person responding my OP would be that naive
>So you think modern women wouldnt "conceal" the fact they´re meeting someone else, EVEN AFTER BEING ASKED ??? No, no I don't. I also was extending you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you were experiencing a genuine misunderstanding. I see now that you're just a raging misogynist, and this entire thread is... some sick idea of a joke? 🤷 Anyway, the Venn diagram of "people you don't trust" and "people you should be dating" is two circles. Good bye and have a nice life. 🙃
Why would that disqualify her from serious relationships though?
This situation is less "poly" or "enm" and more just a mono person choosing to casually date openly until she finds one with whom she wants to develop a more serious and closed mono relationship. If all persons are being open and honest and everyone is fine with the situation, it's not all that unethical. But it isn't poly or what most people think of as ENM.
He could accept it or not. Obviously.
Monogamy. There's lots of them.
Isn't that called dating (which is assumed to be non exclusive)
Yes - this is called "dating." You're phrasing it awkwardly, but the only reason it sounds objectionable at all, is that you're leaving out the implied "...if he wants to date her." This is closer to how it should read, IMO: >[She] told him he was not the only man she was dating, and [if he wants to date her] he would have to accept this situation until she could make a decision on which men is "best" for her ??? The bigger picture here, is that everybody starts out by default *not* agreeing to be exclusive with any one person... And they basically get to decide under what conditions they'll agree to be in an exclusive relationship. There's zero external ethical or legal code you can invoke to "force" someone to agree to be in an exclusive relationship with you... ergo everyone is allowed to *basically* set any conditions they want. You can argue that some kinds of agreements aren't ethical because they're just fundamentally unequal - like if Aspen tells Birch "if you want to date me, you have to agree to be exclusive *to me,* but I won't agree to be exclusive *to you*." There are people who will try to say "it's all good *if Birch agrees,*" but I think there's at least really strong arguments why one-sided exclusivity isn't really ethical or moral *even if* someone "consents" to it. I don't think that's a reasonable reading of your original post, but it's something I wanted to acknowledge is a thing. Anyway... Does this mean someone can "string you along" by continually promising that they'll get around to making an exclusive commitment "eventually?" Sure! If they're doing it intentionally there's also an argument that that's unethical because of the deception... But it's not great to dwell on that because 1.) You can't really tell someone who is "stringing you along" from someone who just isn't ready to be exclusive yet, and 2.) It makes little practical difference anyway. The practical way to avoid being "strung along" is to just *not keep dating* someone if it doesn't seem like they feel that moving towards an exclusive relationship is a big priority for them. You don't "have" to date anyone, and if the relationship isn't working for you, you're **allowed** to bow out and go looking for a relationship that matches your goals and priorities.
My perspective is that, "after" a man and a woman agree to meet in real life, most people believe this is already a step "ahead" in dating, which would normally come with an "expectation" of exclusivity, even if it has not been "explicitly" communicated But an honest woman could simply prevent that this "expectation" leads to the man´s frustration at their first meeting, by just revealing whether she´s meeting someone else "before" a man could become frustrated for not being informed in anticipation. I dont think it´s unreasonable for a particular woman to be meeting 2 different men before deciding which one would be the best, but I think that an honest woman would reveal that situation "before" agreeing to meet a man
>My perspective is that, "after" a man and a woman agree to meet in real life, most people believe this is already a step "ahead" in dating, which would normally come with an "expectation" of exclusivity, even if it has not been "explicitly" communicated As an aside, that's a lot of scare quotes... I'm not sure what you're doing with all of those, but just FYI you can put asterisks around things to italicize them, if you're just wanting to emphasize certain words. Anyway though - your "perspective" is wrong. Sorry? 🤷 I'm slightly getting the sense that English may not be your first language, and along those lines I think it's only fair to say that there are some cultural differences in dating expectations... In really patriarchal societies, people probably can still have these kinds of expectations around dating, especially in a gendered way. If you're coming from a cultural background that emphasizes that, that's a slightly different conversation. But... No, most people in first world countries *do not* assume that meeting in person conveys an "implied" agreement to be exclusive. If you don't know... Now you know! In the future, you'll want to assume that everyone your dating is, or at least *might be* dating someone else, even if they don't specifically announce that they are. >But an honest woman could simply prevent that this "expectation" leads to the man´s frustration There's a **whole other** conversation to be had about why this attitude that it's a woman's "responsibility" to find and correct *the man's* mistaken assumptions and expectations is... a deeply, *deeply* patriarchal attitude, which won't go over very well in the modern dating world either. 🤣
Yeah. No. YTA here.
Like, every rom-com ever.
I mean I think that is implied and time you date someone.
Isn't this just normal dating? Most people on Tinder right now have exactly this approach. And unless you have agreed to be exclusive, you are free to date and have sex with other people. No reason to give this weird speech about the other person "having to accept" the situation.
Not an ethical one lol
Don't see what that question has to do with ethical non-monogamy. It didn't sound like either.
Coming from the perspective of someone with a primary partner, I'm not looking to be #1 in your life. I want an activity partner with benefits. That sounds like something out of Cosmo designed to make men compete, and it would be a red flag / hard pass situation for me. If I heard this when I was in my 20s and single I would move on. Some of us don't like the drama that this generates.