(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

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.

I missed a part

[pdx42.livejournal.com]

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?

For me, it's fairly simple. I make it known up front what my expectations are: if two of my partners want to meet, I am happy to facilitate that, but the meeting is up to them, not me. If one wants to meet, and the other does not, I will not force it. Once that expectation is accepted, I will not budge. Partner A then has the freedom to decide for herself what is important to her. I have encountered the situation where Partner A accepts my terms in theory, but when Partner B (or potential B) comes around, A decides post facto that my stance is wrong, and that I am "stupid" for not giving in. I have lost Partner A in that situation before, but without regrets. It's not that I'm rigid or inflexible -- I'm actually very flexible -- but when it comes to an agreement that I see as a foundation of a relationship, change can only be by consensus. Additionally, I can't force B to be any more involved than she wants to be, and I believe it would be wrong to coerce that.

Re: I missed a part

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

But by bringing in B in the first place, you're IMO coercing A to accept B... unless A has some kind of prior veto rights.

Re: I missed a part

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

I think there's a big grey area in there. I don't see why C would "bring B in" without having talked it over with A, already, veto or otherwise, and I can't imagine a situation in which A wouldn't at least say so if s/he were incomfortable with someone else, even without veto rights. And if A and C have a good relationship and C trusts A's judgement, C would at least give A's concerns some weight, no? Is that coercion? (If C continues to push to be involved with both A and C, there are any number of reasons. Maybe A's been known to panic over just about anyone new, or maybe A holds an inexplicable grudge about B, but then there's more to work out.)

At any rate, there's a huge grey area before it becomes coercion.

Re: I missed a part

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

As I read him, he's saying that his partners are all independent, as though what happens with one doesn't affect the others. They have to resolve their own issues caused by him adding others -- in this case, A has to just cope, or leave. I associate the play-now-and-let-the-OSOs-just-cope-afterwards approach, that I seem to see in pdx42's description, with large-scale drama-generation...

Re: I missed a part

[pdx42.livejournal.com]

A has nothing to do with B, other than knowing someone in common (me). I have my own relationship to maintain with each, but if they want to know each other, or not know each other, that's not for me to interfere. I personally prefer it if they know each other, and consider it a bonus if they like each other and become friends, but it is not a requirement.

Also, as I said, A knows up front how I feel about this. It's part of the package deal with getting involved with me, kind of like "must like my dogs". I'm not going to get rid of my dogs for a relationship, and I'm not going to change my views on the conduct of relationships either.

That said, I will always ask both A and B if they would like to meet my OSOs. So far, I've never had anyone decline the invitation, but there has been the rare instance where they met and didn't get along. That's fine. They don't have to.

Re: I missed a part

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

B is consuming time and energy, some of which probably is taken from the relationship with A. So in some sense, I think B is indebted to all of your existing partners, because of the negative impacts on them all. Not to mention the added disease risks due to B...

At least you're upfront about this with your partners. Although, frankly, your approach is so different from mine that I hope that we never have partners in-common... it wouldn't work, I'd probably see your indifference as hostility and disrespect.

Re: I missed a part

[pdx42.livejournal.com]

That would be a problem, alright.

But as I see it, it's not indifference, it's boundaries. It is up to me to balance A, B, and C. If I do that poorly, then I am going to suffer the consequences of losing people I am close to. It looks like I am good at it though, because I have yet to have these specific problems come up.

Just a thought...

[tenacious-snail.livejournal.com]

Several weeks ago, I had the experience of providing emotional support to one of my sweetie's sweeties, and telling her that I love her and admire her. I certainly don't think one can *require* ones sweeties to feel that way towards each other. However, having had that sort of experience, I have to say I really prefer it.

And heck, I've had a phone conversation with my beloved's long term secondary more recently than he has.

It works for me. It may not work for everyone. But I think part of that is that too many people set their sights too low-- I mean, its like a really amazing buy-one-get-one free sale. For those of us who *like* it-- acquire a lover, get a friend/friends free. I *like* dating people whose OSOs I like. But it may require more relationship skills and negotiations than some folks feel up for.

I mean, really, how many people can say "last month I sat down with my lover's wife, my secondary's wife and my future-not-yet-sure-what's secondary, and we had a really, really wonderful talk-- even more useful than the one I had with my tertiary's spouse and their girlfriend? (yes, there is a multiply repeating squirrely presence there). But me? I can, and I love it. Love. It.