A friendly way to ask?

[DavidH]

I think the answer is make it a non-confrontational conversation, since it sounds like this will be the first time this conversation happens.  A question along the lines of "Where do you see our relationship going?" is as good an opener as any.  It sounds like there really is an open question of whether Steve got the name right or not and that should resolve it.

[Teenyweeny]

And this is why I'm glad that we don't date like this in the UK. If you agree to a second date, exclusivity is implied. I think that most people (IME) would be unpleasantly surprised if they found out that anybody else was on the scene at that point, unless an open relationship had been explicitly agreed upon.

I know plenty of people in the UK who date around until they click with the right person. I also know people here in the US who expect monogamy from the get go.  It has nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with individual preferences and wants.

Interesting, I've never heard of anybody doing that, although perhaps with the advent of online dating people are shopping around more? To be fair, most of my friends didn't really date as such (they just met, hung out, and then sort of became an item). Everybody I know (late 20s-early 30s crowd) would think exclusivity was implied after a second date.

[Arila]

For me, there is a difference between something which clearly states a person's desire to become exclusive, and the wording suggested by several other posters ("Where do you see this relationship going?") which requires THEM to first declare their stance. Maybe it's implied by just bringing up the topic period, but I am in favor of laying out my cards before requiring someone else to lay out theirs.

The "where's this going" question also could be misinterpreted to mean something beyond simply exclusive dating.

[MariaE]

And this is why I'm glad that we don't date like this in the UK. If you agree to a second date, exclusivity is implied.

So, you have one date to make a decision, monogamy or nothing? I couldn't do that.

It's pretty much the same in Denmark, and it's not so much "one date to decide monogamy or nothing", but rather that you only go on dates with one person at a time. So you may go on 3-4 dates and realize "Nope, not for me" and then move on to going on a date with another person without it being a big deal. But going on date #2 with person A on Friday, going on date #3 with person B mid-week and going on date #3 with person A again the following Friday would be seen as very bad form.

[perpetua]

And this is why I'm glad that we don't date like this in the UK. If you agree to a second date, exclusivity is implied.

So, you have one date to make a decision, monogamy or nothing? I couldn't do that.

It's pretty much the same in Denmark, and it's not so much "one date to decide monogamy or nothing", but rather that you only go on dates with one person at a time. So you may go on 3-4 dates and realize "Nope, not for me" and then move on to going on a date with another person without it being a big deal. But going on date #2 with person A on Friday, going on date #3 with person B mid-week and going on date #3 with person A again the following Friday would be seen as very bad form.

This is my experience in the UK too. This used to be called 'two timing'. I don't know if it still is or if times have moved on (been a long time since I dated anyone), but like Maria says, bad form.

[Teenyweeny]

And this is why I'm glad that we don't date like this in the UK. If you agree to a second date, exclusivity is implied.

So, you have one date to make a decision, monogamy or nothing? I couldn't do that.

It's pretty much the same in Denmark, and it's not so much "one date to decide monogamy or nothing", but rather that you only go on dates with one person at a time. So you may go on 3-4 dates and realize "Nope, not for me" and then move on to going on a date with another person without it being a big deal. But going on date #2 with person A on Friday, going on date #3 with person B mid-week and going on date #3 with person A again the following Friday would be seen as very bad form.

This is my experience in the UK too. This used to be called 'two timing'. I don't know if it still is or if times have moved on (been a long time since I dated anyone), but like Maria says, bad form.

This is exactly what I meant. I'd call that "two-timing" as well.

[LifeOnPluto]

And this is why I'm glad that we don't date like this in the UK. If you agree to a second date, exclusivity is implied. I think that most people (IME) would be unpleasantly surprised if they found out that anybody else was on the scene at that point, unless an open relationship had been explicitly agreed upon.

I know plenty of people in the UK who date around until they click with the right person. I also know people here in the US who expect monogamy from the get go.  It has nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with individual preferences and wants.

Interesting, I've never heard of anybody doing that, although perhaps with the advent of online dating people are shopping around more? To be fair, most of my friends didn't really date as such (they just met, hung out, and then sort of became an item). Everybody I know (late 20s-early 30s crowd) would think exclusivity was implied after a second date.

Australia is like this too. We don't date casually. It's either "hanging out" (in a platonic way only), or being in an exclusive relationship.

[jedikaiti]

And this is why I'm glad that we don't date like this in the UK. If you agree to a second date, exclusivity is implied.

So, you have one date to make a decision, monogamy or nothing? I couldn't do that.

It's pretty much the same in Denmark, and it's not so much "one date to decide monogamy or nothing", but rather that you only go on dates with one person at a time. So you may go on 3-4 dates and realize "Nope, not for me" and then move on to going on a date with another person without it being a big deal. But going on date #2 with person A on Friday, going on date #3 with person B mid-week and going on date #3 with person A again the following Friday would be seen as very bad form.

This is my experience in the UK too. This used to be called 'two timing'. I don't know if it still is or if times have moved on (been a long time since I dated anyone), but like Maria says, bad form.

I've always heard of two-timing being cheating on someone you're in a mutually exclusive relationship with, not casually seeing multiple people at the same time while determining if any relationship potential actually exists. Heck, DH & I were 2 or 3 dates in before he hit me with the metaphorical clue-by-four that they were really dates (and he was really interested) and not just hanging out. :-)

[mbbored]

And this is why I'm glad that we don't date like this in the UK. If you agree to a second date, exclusivity is implied.

So, you have one date to make a decision, monogamy or nothing? I couldn't do that.

It's pretty much the same in Denmark, and it's not so much "one date to decide monogamy or nothing", but rather that you only go on dates with one person at a time. So you may go on 3-4 dates and realize "Nope, not for me" and then move on to going on a date with another person without it being a big deal. But going on date #2 with person A on Friday, going on date #3 with person B mid-week and going on date #3 with person A again the following Friday would be seen as very bad form.

This is my experience in the UK too. This used to be called 'two timing'. I don't know if it still is or if times have moved on (been a long time since I dated anyone), but like Maria says, bad form.

I've always heard of two-timing being cheating on someone you're in a mutually exclusive relationship with, not casually seeing multiple people at the same time while determining if any relationship potential actually exists. Heck, DH & I were 2 or 3 dates in before he hit me with the metaphorical clue-by-four that they were really dates (and he was really interested) and not just hanging out. :-)

I agree with jedikaiti. With online dating, I've sometimes lined up 3 first dates in a week and I certainly wouldn't assume that a 2nd date meant we were exclusive. With somebody I just met I need more time to decide if I want to be in an exclusive relationship with them. I no longer have multiple first dates in a week because it was too tiring, not because I'm "two-timing" anybody.

[MariaE]

mbbored and jedikati, according to your profiles you both live in the US, so obviously Danish/UK/NZ/AU dating standarts wouldn't apply to you. We're just letting you know how it works here

[Raintree]

And this is why I'm glad that we don't date like this in the UK. If you agree to a second date, exclusivity is implied.

So, you have one date to make a decision, monogamy or nothing? I couldn't do that.

It's pretty much the same in Denmark, and it's not so much "one date to decide monogamy or nothing", but rather that you only go on dates with one person at a time. So you may go on 3-4 dates and realize "Nope, not for me" and then move on to going on a date with another person without it being a big deal. But going on date #2 with person A on Friday, going on date #3 with person B mid-week and going on date #3 with person A again the following Friday would be seen as very bad form.

I'm in Canada and that's how I see it too. I have no idea what other people think is acceptable, but I would be dating one guy at a time. You go on some dates, and it either works and you continue, or it doesn't and you try dating someone else (or staying single, whatever the case may be). I think a "where do we stand?" conversation after two dates would send most guys screaming for the nearest train out of town. If a guy showed interest in me, and we went out again the next two Fridays, I would be hurt if I found out he'd also been showing the same interest in another girl the past few Wednesdays. Especially if there was any kissing or other more intimate physical contact going on.

Sounds like many people find this kind of dating acceptable, and it makes sense to me only if it's out in the open from the get-go: "I'm still seeing other people and I expect you to do the same while we get to know each other." Then the other person is free to accept or reject this arrangment.

[lady_disdain]

And this is why I'm glad that we don't date like this in the UK. If you agree to a second date, exclusivity is implied. I think that most people (IME) would be unpleasantly surprised if they found out that anybody else was on the scene at that point, unless an open relationship had been explicitly agreed upon.

I know plenty of people in the UK who date around until they click with the right person. I also know people here in the US who expect monogamy from the get go.  It has nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with individual preferences and wants.

Interesting, I've never heard of anybody doing that, although perhaps with the advent of online dating people are shopping around more? To be fair, most of my friends didn't really date as such (they just met, hung out, and then sort of became an item). Everybody I know (late 20s-early 30s crowd) would think exclusivity was implied after a second date.

Australia is like this too. We don't date casually. It's either "hanging out" (in a platonic way only), or being in an exclusive relationship.

Here, people usually "hang around" casually, with other people, before moving on to dating. However, once you are seeing someone one to one, it is pretty bad form to see other people one to one as well.

I imagine this is one of the reasons why online dating hasn't really taken off. Going straight to meeting tete-a-tete seems awkward.

[Danika]

My friend has been seeing someone for a couple months. They seem very happy but are taking it pretty slow. I will call him Joe. Joe has said he's not really seeing anyone else else but Sally, Sally has gone on a few casual dates but keeps going back to Joe. Joe is always inviting Sally over and being very attentive towards her. So she has been feeling like something is developing.

Sally has a good friend name Jamie who works with Joe's best friend Steve. One day Steve and Jamie were chatting about something and Steve says "Oh I need to invite Joe over for movie night, he has this girl he is dating named Amy I would like to meet her" Jamie was VERY surprised...  what about Sally? Jamie tells Sally this information and then later Steve says he may have misspoke and tries to backtrack.

So now Sally is at a loss. Is there an etiquette friendly way to ask if he is getting serious with someone else and maybe she needs to back off?

The bolding is mine. According to Sally, is this how he said it? Maybe not "really" seeing anyone else meant to him, at the time that he said it, that he wasn't having multiple dates with any other women. So maybe he'd go on one date with one and another date with another, but never saw anyone a second time. And then after he made that comment to Sally, he then did find someone he wanted to go on two or three dates with.

And you said that Sally has gone on a few other casual dates. So does Sally have a double standard? Or is she fair and ok with Joe seeing other people casually, but put off by the fact that he seems to have lied to her?

If I were in her shoes, and my main issue were with the fact that Joe could possibly be a liar, I would say to him "You told me you weren't seeing anyone else. Then, I heard through the grapevine that you are seeing someone else. I'm ok with you seeing other people at this early point in our dating relationship,, but I wondered why you specifically told me you weren't seeing anyone else. Was the grapevine incorrect, or what's the deal?"

Or, I just wouldn't say anything at all. I'd keep casually dating him and in time I would find out if he lies about other things or not.

I don't think she should ask if he is getting serious with someone else, because if he were, she'd know it because he'd have less time for her.

[whiterose]

I wonder how long Sally and Joe had been dating, time-wise and number of dates wise. I wonder if both length of calendar time and number of dates play a role.

Imagine something like this:

Jenna and Ralph meet at an alumni event for the very large university they both attended. A couple months later, they run into each other at another alumni event and get to know each other better. They talk on the phone and go on 3 successful dates. They have kissed- but that's it physically.

They go on their 4th date. By now, over a month has passed since their first date (and even more since their first meeting). Jenna is hoping to define the relationship on that date. Ralph receives a call during the date while waiting to be seated at the restaurant. It is a very short and perfunctory call- so he takes it in front of Jenna (he had never taken a call in front of her before). She asks if everything is fine- Ralph says it was just Deborah (whom he had not mentioned before). Jenna asks casually if Deborah is his friend- Ralph says it was a woman he met. Jenna asks if he was interested in her- he said no, that they went out just once (one night he was not seeing Jenna) and he could tell she was not a good match for him, and that she now was more of a business contact since they work in the same broad industry. Jenna does not bring it up on the rest of their dinner and movie date...

Until they are in the car on the way back to drop Jenna off at her place. Ralph asks Jenna if she has a problem with his dating other women. Jenna said yes. Ralph replied "I never said we were dating exclusively".  Jenna replied "true"...but she said that she was the kind of person who by 4 dates needed exclusivity and was hoping to discuss it. Ralph and Jenna part ways cordially that evening, but Jenna is still hurt because she really liked Ralph and she thought he liked her back and all.

Was it just a misunderstanding? Did Jenna do wrong in assuming exclusivity? Assume this happened in the United States of America- would it be different in another country, given what has been said here? Is there a communication breakdown, regardless of what country this is happening in? Which one should be assumed- exclusivity, or casual dating- until it is explicitly discussed.

OP- was the situation similar to the one I just described, or is there another variable?

[wolfie]

I wonder how long Sally and Joe had been dating, time-wise and number of dates wise. I wonder if both length of calendar time and number of dates play a role.

Imagine something like this:

Jenna and Ralph meet at an alumni event for the very large university they both attended. A couple months later, they run into each other at another alumni event and get to know each other better. They talk on the phone and go on 3 successful dates. They have kissed- but that's it physically.

They go on their 4th date. By now, over a month has passed since their first date (and even more since their first meeting). Jenna is hoping to define the relationship on that date. Ralph receives a call during the date while waiting to be seated at the restaurant. It is a very short and perfunctory call- so he takes it in front of Jenna (he had never taken a call in front of her before). She asks if everything is fine- Ralph says it was just Deborah (whom he had not mentioned before). Jenna asks casually if Deborah is his friend- Ralph says it was a woman he met. Jenna asks if he was interested in her- he said no, that they went out just once (one night he was not seeing Jenna) and he could tell she was not a good match for him, and that she now was more of a business contact since they work in the same broad industry. Jenna does not bring it up on the rest of their dinner and movie date...

Until they are in the car on the way back to drop Jenna off at her place. Ralph asks Jenna if she has a problem with his dating other women. Jenna said yes. Ralph replied "I never said we were dating exclusively".  Jenna replied "true"...but she said that she was the kind of person who by 4 dates needed exclusivity and was hoping to discuss it. Ralph and Jenna part ways cordially that evening, but Jenna is still hurt because she really liked Ralph and she thought he liked her back and all.

Was it just a misunderstanding? Did Jenna do wrong in assuming exclusivity? Assume this happened in the United States of America- would it be different in another country, given what has been said here? Is there a communication breakdown, regardless of what country this is happening in? Which one should be assumed- exclusivity, or casual dating- until it is explicitly discussed.

OP- was the situation similar to the one I just described, or is there another variable?

I think you should expect casual dating unless it is explicitly discussed that you are exclusive.