(no subject)

[geekchick]

Here's a poly-related question that's come up more than once now, and I thought I'd check to see other people's thoughts on the matter.

Say your partner is getting involved with someone new. What level of contact and outreach do you expect from this new person up front?  Do you expect them to, for example, send you an email to say hello and to explain that they don't want to steal your partner from you? Do you expect them to make a concentrated effort to be actively friendly towards you and assume some sort of hostility if they don't, or do you assume things are fine unless there's some indication otherwise?  For that matter, do you even consider your partner's relationship with them to be any of your business?  (Assuming that your partner in question is not a spouse or primary-level partner.)   How do you handle it when one person in a relationship web has got wildly different ideas (in either direction) on how much contact is required for comfort than the other people involved? [Edit: I seem to have been unclear on this last bit, based on some of the answers. When I say "how much contact is required", in this context I mean in the initial getting involved stage; say Partner A really wants Potential Partner B to check in with them while B is initially getting involved with their common partner or else they'll assume Partner B is hostile, while it may not occur to Partner B that there's any reason to check in in the first place. All of this is in the context of making initial relationship-noises.]

Usually my take on it is that while outreach is not unwelcome, it's far from required.   If the only obvious thing that we have in common is that we share (or potentially share)  a partner, I don't necessarily feel like I need to try to force some sort of friendship there.  I assume things are neutral to okay unless I hear otherwise, and I honestly don't understand the mindset of assuming hostility from the outset.

Comments

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

while outreach is not unwelcome, it's far from required

Nail head, meet hammer, IMHO.

[geekchick]

So either I'm not a space alien here, or we both are. =)

[datagoddess.livejournal.com]

For a non-primary relationship, I totally agree. If a conflict develops over scheduling, time spent, etc, then I expect the resolution to that issue to be worked out among all of the people involved, and the shared partner not be put in the middle.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

What level of contact and outreach do you expect from this new person?

It depends on which partner it is, and which person, how geographically close we are, and whether we interact in the same social circles.

Do you expect them to, for example, send you an email to say hello

Not really. I'd be a little surprised, largely because there are so few people either would get involved with who I wouldn't already know on some level.

. . . and to explain that they don't want to steal your partner from you?

Absolutely not. That's between my partner and the new person. I trust they're not going to get (or perhaps, to stay) involved with someone who'd try that.

Do you expect them to make a concentrated effort to be actively friendly towards you and assume some sort of hostility if they don't, or do you assume things are fine unless there's some indication otherwise?

It depends a little on the person. If we see each other socially and the other person more or less ignores me, or doesn't attempt more than glancing conversation or connection, I might think that the person has some issue with me personally, or perhaps with poly in general. At best, I'd think s/he's either very shy, or doesn't care enough to take my feelings into consideration.

do you even consider your partner's relationship with them to be any of your business?

Yes.

Assuming that your partner in question is not a spouse or primary-level partner.

Either way.

How do you handle it when one person in a relationship web has got wildly different ideas (in either direction) on how much contact is required for comfort than the other people involved?

It it's someone directly involved with me, and the contact/time issue involves me and that person, I let it be between me and that person. It doesn't need to be something involving others' in the relationship web. For instance, if one of deyo's other partners wants so much of his time that I feel that either I myself, or some other aspect of his life with me (time with DJ, time doing work around the house, etc.) is being neglected, that's between me and deyo, and how he deals with that is between him and the partner who needs him around more. Whether or how he works out a compromise is up to him.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

If somebody is getting involved with a non-primary sweetie of mine, it is not their responsibility to get in touch with me to reassure me that 'things are OK' or any other such stuff. I will at some point want to meet said person, if possible, to see if I approve of 'em personally - but as I have no veto there all I do is put together my own opinions, as such.

Contact

[tenacious-snail.livejournal.com]

I think it altogether depends.

For myself, I've only had one conversation with a potential partner's secondary prior to gettting involved with that potential partner. I did that because of two really important factors-- she is a friend of mine, and I was concerned about how my involvement with him might affect our friendship *and* I'm already involved (though in a different capacity) with her primary. IOW, the potential trickle-down, ripple effects, etc. of this new involvement seemed to make this sort of conversation appropriate.

With my other romantic involvement with someone who had existing secondaries, I didn't have any contact with their secondaries until after our relationship had (a) begun and (b) caused a problem in his primary relationship.

I think, however, that some people have a known propensity for lots of contact and connection, and others have a known aversion to it. If I were dealing with two local sweeties, I think I'd have to find a compromise between their respective needs and MOs that works . (Ha! "if", who are we kidding pretending this is hypothetical?) OTOH, with one or both sweeties not in the same community (and LJ may "count") as a community here, I wouldn't worry about it nearly so much.

[winterbadger]

What level of contact and outreach do you expect from this new person up front? Do you expect them to, for example, send you an email to say hello and to explain that they don't want to steal your partner from you? Do you expect them to make a concentrated effort to be actively friendly towards you and assume some sort of hostility if they don't, or do you assume things are fine unless there's some indication otherwise?

Mostly I expect the person in the existing relationship who wants to start a new one to negotiate that with their existing partner. If Joe and Mary are a couple, and Mary wants to start dating Lisa, IMO it's up to Mary to communicate with Joe enough to understand what's going to make him feel OK about the situation. They may have talked it over a lot beforehand, but until Mary actually met Lisa, it was theoretical, and reality often offers new situations that one didn't predict. What if all of their previous discussion was based on Joe assuming Mary would be dating a guy, or that he (Joe) was the person most likely to be having a new partner?

I don't think there is much onus on Lisa to make overtures; obviously it's good for her to be polite, even friendly to Mary. All the rels I've been in, I've usually met my partner's new "intended" fairly early on and got to know them, and the same for my prior partner when I was meeting someone new. But I've also usually been in rels where it was assumed that someone's new partner would be interacting with one's prior partner at least socially on a regular basis and would, one hoped, even become friends with them. I know not everyone works in that close-knit a circle.

For that matter, do you even consider your partner's relationship with them to be any of your business?


Oh, gosh yes! if my partner is involved with them, they're affecting her/his emotional, maybe physical, perhaps even financial state. That makes them very much part of my business.

How do you handle it when one person in a relationship web has got wildly different ideas (in either direction) on how much contact is required for comfort than the other people involved?

In my experience, the person who has the lowest level of comfort needs to be accomodated (within reason). If that's the partner who isn't involved in the new relationship, their current partner needs to make sure they know what is necessary to make

[winterbadger]

[hit "post comment" before I was done there!]

... them feel comfortable. It's up to Mary to sound Joe out about her budding relationship with Lisa. I don't think it's Lisa's responsibility to reassure Joe, but I do think it's a good idea for them to meet and get to know each other as soon as possible after Mary and Lisa decide they want to start dating, so Joe doesn't feel as if he's hearing a lot about this person but doesn't really know what she's like.

Of course, I'm doing all of this right now and somehow unconsciously (or subconsciously) reversed one of the gender roles. :-) As "Lisa," I won't get to meet "Joe" until next month, but "Mary" assures me that he's OK with the situation so far. :-)

[geekchick]

But I've also usually been in rels where it was assumed that someone's new partner would be interacting with one's prior partner at least socially on a regular basis and would, one hoped, even become friends with them. I know not everyone works in that close-knit a circle.

*nod* The vast majority of my relationships, for instance, have been long-distance, which makes the interacting as part of the same social circle a bit more problematic.

[sjdr.livejournal.com]

Well, it's never come up that way - all my poly experiences have been either multi-person closed groups, ie, not based around 'partnerships' in traditional couple connotation, or have been me and my partner flirting with/dating/doing a third person as a team, or I've been the singlet but had already significantly interacted with the third party (ie, been friends), or just gone after a couple.

But, if a situation like you describe ever comes up, and I was either the primary partner "loaning out" her primary, or the secondary partner "stealing" said primary (horrible terms, but I can't think of more succint ones), what I'd want is an initial "expectation check-in"/"this is how our version of poly works" debriefing seminar. Not necessarily an attempt to form a friendship, but a clear attempt, early on, of working out everyone's expectations and boundaries and getting an ear for what people mean when they talk about things like "commitment" and "love" and "emotional availability" and so on. A chance to nail down some specifics (no matter how rough) for all the personal terminology and perspective everyone carries around in his/her head. Just so everyone is on even ground for communicating.

In fact, I'd do something like three of these. Say, the knee of the V partner takes the primary and secondary (or A and B, if you don't work that way) both out to dinner, introduces them, people talk, get to know each other, etc. Then the A and B have a chance to meet together, without the knee of the V, and hash things out, and then one more everyone goes together. (With, obviously, A/V and V/B conversations going on through all of this.)

Probably insanely demanding and anal by some people's standards, but I know I'd be very worried about a mismatch in communication styles or crossed wires in that kind of a situation.

But that's why I do closed-N-where-N-is-greater-than-2 groups, by preference.

[sjdr.livejournal.com]

Wow, I totally missed the 'not a spouse or other primary partner' bit, I suck.

In that case, I'd say basically 'it depends'; if the 'first secondary' is someone who's a very long-term and important partner - ie, really anything more than the 'friend with whom one flirts and has sex' - I would say outreach and discussion is polite and is certainly the mature and proper path, but that taking a failure to do so as hostile is a bit extreme, possibly even a bit of a warning sign.


Unless talking about one of those legally-necessary-but-unfortunate situations where you essentially have a bonded, non-V threesome (or foursome, or fivesome, but this seems to happen most often in threesomes), where two of the partners are married or living together and the third isn't and due to circumstance, not choice. For example, that pesky thing about marriage being two people, or cohabitation laws in the county/state/building/whatever. In that case, I'd view the hostility as basically coming from general and probably not entirely unfounded fear and irritation about being seen or just being the third wheel/adjuct/not-really-part-of-the-primary-relationship, and pretty justified. Then again, I'd also smack the prospective partner for being a thoughtless idiot and not including the non-married member of the triad in the initial negotiation with the other primary in the triad. ... and, in fact, probably decide they weren't up to my ethical/empathic standards.

But yeah, for the most part, if someone who's basically at the friend/fuckbuddy level is flipping out because you didn't email them, that's kind of psycho and would set off bells for me.

[kmusser]

Well everyone's rules are different. For myself if my primary is getting a new partner I'd expect her to tell me and arrange for us to meet each other at some point. For my secondary partners I'd expect them to tell me, but that's all. In both cases the burden is on my partner(s) to keep me informed, I wouldn't expect the new person to do anything on their own initiative. Even after meeting them I wouldn't expect the new person to maintain a friendship with me - I mean it's nice if they do, but they may very well have better things to do with their time and energy and I'm not going to hold it against them if they don't.

If I did have some sort of rule about new people "checking-in" (or my primary did) then I think it would fall on the common partner to inform the new person of any such expectations.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

I tend to want to check in with an outside partner's primary, but that's because I really dislike finding out afterward that this was not DADT, but in fact, cheating.

I don't check in with an outside partner's secondaries, though.

Been THERE

[pdx42.livejournal.com]

If you and I ever get a chance to sit down over a few drinks, I could go on for quite a while about this one. However, we don't have that luxury right now, so I'll keep it brief.

Your final paragraph states my view very nicely. As every relationship and every individual is different, there is certainly wiggle room, and some things have to be negotiated, but I do believe that your feelings in this are right on target.

In detail:

For the most part, I consider my partners' other relationships to be none of my business. The exception comes when my relationship is being affected by the relationship with someone else. For example, my most recent ex-wife had trouble with one of her other relationships, and after a while, I got tired of acting as her therapist whenever she got home from a date. I told her, "If you decide to continue seeing him, that's fine, but I don't want to hear about how terrible it was when you get home."

I believe that anyone I'm involved with has a right to know who else I'm involved with (e.g.: "Hi, I met a woman named Velma the other night."). If they want to meet each other, I'll facilitate it, but if not, then ... not. Meeting each other is not necessary.

My personal philosophy is that each person is responsible for "managing" his/her own relationships. If I am person B, dating persons A and C, I will bristle if I feel like C is trying to manage my relationship with A. Most likely, I'll break it off with C if after letting my feelings be known, s/he continues to try to manage my relationship with A.

Re: Been THERE

[geekchick]

"If you decide to continue seeing him, that's fine, but I don't want to hear about how terrible it was when you get home."

Heh. That sounds familiar.

[tshuma]

I generally think that a friendship isn't required, but that there should be some level of friendly contact established so that communication with the other partner doesn't primarily come through the person in the middle.

That way, if Partner A is feeling a bit unsteady about things, s/he can tell the other partner(B) about directly, as well as communicating with Partner C, the one in the middle.

(In my brief experiences with this situation, it nearly always breaks down when A & B aren't in regular communication, and I've been both A & B.)

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I expect basic contact -- how to reach them, email and phone number -- in case of contingencies (sweetie-in-common is in the hospital, STD outbreak, etc.).

My opinion of a given partner is affected by their character as revealed in their other choices of sexual contacts and relationships. In the latter case... anything that happens, good or bad, that affects a sweetie-in-common will inevitably spill over into that person's relationship with me. So it is my business, IMO.

I don't expect or require that OSO's are also my friends (although given that they are extended family, it's much better if so), but I expect basic civility at a bare minimum. Lack of response, or avoidant behavior on the part of a new OSO is a red flag to me. And it is the newcomer's responsibility to initiate check-in...

Failure to check-in, and failure to initiate, and failure to respond when *I* make contact... all say to me that a new OSO doesn't give a damn about me or my established relationship with our sweetie-in-common, so why should I be supportive of theirs, subsequently?

[geekchick]

And it is the newcomer's responsibility to initiate check-in...

I don't think that at all, actually. I think that it is the responsibility of the person who needs the reassurance to initiate contact, or for the partner in common to mention to the new partner the existing partner's preference. I don't think it's the new partner's responsibility to be a mind-reader.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(and this very scenario has happened to me twice, arguably three times in just the past six weeks, and I'm wary of the OSOs as a result...)

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

failure to respond when *I* make contact

I'm dealing with something like this at the moment, actually, and it does not make me feel good at all.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

I was once in a situation where two of the OSO's were "neutral to kind of uncomfortable" with each other, and because there was strained communication between OSO-1 and pivot during the formation of the OSO-2/pivot relationship, things went really, really badly with OSO-1/pivot. (There were other complicating factors.)

At this point, I don't expect to get much input into the other partners of an outside partner, but I think it's nice. Also if the time taken for the new partner is coming from "partner time" rather than personal time, I think it's really only considerate to take some time to reassure those involved that this doesn't presage an eventual end.

[geekchick]

Also if the time taken for the new partner is coming from "partner time" rather than personal time, I think it's really only considerate to take some time to reassure those involved that this doesn't presage an eventual end.

Oh sure, I think that's quite fair.

I also don't expect that my partners will do more than mention to me that they're considering getting involved with someone new. They may consult me and ask my opinion, and that's great, but generally my theory is "it's your relationship" unless it turns into something that is negatively impacting our existing relationship. I don't think that new relationships by definition negatively impact existing ones, mostly I think because I assume my partners are reasonably responsible adults and are capable of managing the situation.

[nminusone.livejournal.com]

All of this should be covered in your written relationship agreement, or at least worked out verbally, in detail, and agreed to all around. One thing I always considered a key benefit of poly was that it forced, or at least strongly incentivized, the people involved to be much more explicit and detailed about exactly what was expected of everyone involved. (Not that the expectations are the same for every person, or the same in each direction, just that they are worked out in detail and agreed to, not assumed.) I think the fact that so many people have chimed in with so many different ideas has already made my point. Either the question should have already had an explicit and agreed-upon answer, or it's time to negotiate one and put it into place.

I hate to be all ISO/CMM about this but otherwise you're just back in the Clerks-esque morass of "But I didn't have sex with him, I only sucked his dick, so I thought it was ok." (Insert variant scenario here.)

[sjdr.livejournal.com]

All of this should be covered in your written relationship agreement, or at least worked out verbally, in detail, and agreed to all around.

Poly people totally need their own FAQs and man pages, really. Including an extensive glossary of how they, personally, define a whole host of terms terms. But, yeah, we've already had the 'you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means!' conversation.

I think the fact that so many people have chimed in with so many different ideas has already made my point. Either the question should have already had an explicit and agreed-upon answer, or it's time to negotiate one and put it into place.

Word.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Hmm. When I was a secondary partner of a married person, I did email his wife (and met her not terribly long after) to introduce myself and say that I wasn't a spouse-stealer. I always had the feeling, though, that initiating too much contact would be intruding upon her space too much; I have no idea what the truth was there, though, and when things started to get bad between me and the guy in question, I felt that I couldn't talk to her.

At this point, if my sweetie wants to develop something with someone new, I expect to be told about it in advance of it happening and I prefer to have a talk with the woman in question about what she wants and what her expectations might be. It helps if I have at least a cordial relationship with that person, and I tend to assume a hands-off attitude unless something weird happens. At that point, if I initiate contact with her and she doesn't answer, I don't take that very well, as it turns out. But I don't assume that the potential partner has to make the first move to meet with me; I might take that first move myself.

I'm struggling at the moment with a weird situation that touches upon the questions of contact and outreach. So a friend of mine (let's call her Sue, since it's nothing like her name ;-) developed an interest in my sweetie and broached the idea of being friends with benefits, whereupon he talked to me and we negotiated that situation. Things went reasonably okay for about 2 months, when a couple of rough spots were hit and supposedly moved on from. Then, rather suddenly (or so it seemed), things got weird, Sue got a bit weird, and I suggested in email that she, my sweetie, and I all get together to have a talk about wants and needs and expecations (which really should have happened earlier, but, well, stuff got in the way). They both agreed, but shortly after that Sue engaged in some rather drama-provoking behavior in a public forum and backed out of talking. Some admittedly counterproductive communication on my part then took place, but I also tried to reassure her that I didn't hate her or anything like that, I just wanted to know what the hell was going on.

The upshot: I have had no response from Sue about anything I said in the last week. She has, however, initiated communication with my sweetie to tell him where her head is at. That's fine, but I now feel rather like the reassurance and friendship I had tried to extend regarding their FWB situation is being thrown back in my face. Maybe she doesn't mean it, but it's very difficult for me to feel otherwise at the moment. She wants time to figure things out? That's fine. But to me, it doesn't mean that the situation will be exactly as she left it when she buggered off, because I am feeling disrespected and ignored. If I won't put up with that from a partner's serious OSO, I don't see why I should put up with it from a FWB.

Am I totally on crack here? It's hard for me to be objective about all this.

[geekchick]

When I was a secondary partner of a married person, I did email his wife (and met her not terribly long after) to introduce myself and say that I wasn't a spouse-stealer. I always had the feeling, though, that initiating too much contact would be intruding upon her space too much

See, I'm not sure how I'd react to getting a note like that. Not that I'd be annoyed by it, but my reaction would be "Huh? Why would I think you were a spouse-stealer?" (unless the person in question has a history of such behavior). I tend to assume neutrality absent any other indicators. I don't assume the new person is now my bestest buddy, nor do I assume they're looking for the best spot between my shoulder blades to wedge the blade.

At this point, if my sweetie wants to develop something with someone new, I expect to be told about it in advance of it happening and I prefer to have a talk with the woman in question about what she wants and what her expectations might be.

I don't think that's unreasonable, especially in a primary situation where all partners are local to each other. On the other hand, if I were getting involved with someone and their partner wanted to talk to me about my intentions, as it were, I'd probably feel quite put on the spot if the partner wasn't someone I already knew at least somewhat.

Me, I like to at least know about the other person, otherwise it's pretty hands-off unless it starts to have a definite negative effect on our existing relationship. I prefer to be friends with them ideally, but it's not something I think can be forced. I've been in a situation where a partner's partner and I really did NOT get along at all, and that's no fun. Trying to force interaction there was a very bad idea, I think. (Tangent, not directly related to what you were describing.)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I realise I'm late to the party, and much of what I am going to say has been said, but variations on a theme can illuminate, and I'll riff a bit.

I think the onus of communication is on the active partner, not the new one. I trust my partner to tell me when she is planning to see someone, because that is one of the rules (and such a notice may be as vague as, "I'm going to be at "x" this weekend, and without you I may get lonely." There have been times when "x" was a regular event, I wasn't able to go, and it was a place both emotionally, and sexually charged... I trust her to make reasonable decisions. And to abide by the rest of the rules).

My secondary partners (I hate that locution... but I can't think of a better way to say it), well we have rules too, but none of them involve me having to be told who they sleep with. That's their business. I don't have a formal veto with my SO, why in the world would I need to vet my OSO's interests?

Concommitantly I certainly don't feel the need to go out of my way to intrude myself into the lives of a new OSO's OSOs, any more than I would feel the need for going out of my way to introduce myself to my SOs siblings, parents, cousins, children. My SO can (and should) decide what level of involvement she wants me to have with them. There will come a point I pretty much expect to make the acquaintance of those people, but it isn't needful (and I feel no need to go to, say, her father and declare my intentions) and if the time comes I want to meet them, I will ask her to make the arrangement, thus allowing her the chance to keep the compartments of her life as she wants them.

If there is a primary SO, I want to know that I'm not, "the other man," that what seems to be good clean fun/budding relationship isn't actually me being seen on the sly, but that doesn't always mean I need to meet the SO, just that I can convince myself (and obvious OSOs is usually a good clue, though it doesn't mean seeing me isn't against the rules, but I like to flatter myself that the amount of time I spend getting to know someone before anything physical happens; combined with my line of work, makes it less likely).

I guess it boils down to my basically trusting people, and assuming the people I am interested in are grown ups, and will tell me what the limits are, so that I can make up my mind about what options I/we may want to exercise.

TK

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

I want any prospective partners of my SO to contact me, the sooner the better. At some level, all my primary's sweeties become extended family, and I want to be in the loop about what is going on, from their perspective as well as from my primary's. And yes, I do want reassurance from the prospective partner that they are cognizant and respectful of my needs and feelings, and supportive of that primary relationship. It is not their responsibility to police the agreements between myself and my partner, but I think it is a good idea for them to know about them.

I recognize that my opinions on this are pretty much at odds with a lot of -- maybe even most -- poly people out there.

[geekchick]

I recognize that my opinions on this are pretty much at odds with a lot of -- maybe even most -- poly people out there.

Not necessarily, there've been lots of differing opinions on the topic just here. (And I didn't even throw it out to polyamory, because then I'd have to actually make an effort to read it, and that tends to give me hives. ;))

I also for myself draw a distinction between primary partners and secondary partners. I would I think feel more inclined to check in up front with a potential's primary partner than I would their secondaries, but in either case I think it's the partner-in-common's job to tell me that I should do so if it's a needful thing as part of a discussion about requirements (like nminusone mentioned).