Poll

Did Ralph do anything wrong?

Not at all
131 (62.1%)
Delivery failure
56 (26.5%)
Circumstantial
2 (0.9%)
Kind of- maybe
16 (7.6%)
Definitely
6 (2.8%)

Total Members Voted: 199

Author Topic: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff  (Read 12478 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CakeEater

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2826
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #105 on: April 27, 2014, 04:33:12 AM »
I'm curious, in the areas were exclusivity is automatically assumed from the first date, are we talking about the same thing?  I think of a date as any time you invite someone out with the potential for romantic involvement either then or in the future.  What I mean is that, for example, you meet someone at a party and exchange numbers.  Even the first time get together afterwards, say for coffee, that would qualify as a date, as would the times after that when it is not the first, get to know you, moment.  In archaic terms, there is a difference between dating, which may or may not be exclusive and "going steady" which mean exclusive. 


Yes, even the first time you meet for coffee, I would assume that my date had on other prospects lined up, and wouldn't ask anyone else out until we had decided whether to date again, or not. I would be pretty shocked to discover that I had dated someone twice and they had been to coffee with another partner in between.

I wouldn't even assume that was a date, much less any indication of exclusivity! I went out with DH 3 or 4 times (plus a number of phone calls in between) before I was sure he was interested in more than hanging out as friends. Granted, I am rather clueless in that respect, but even if it had been apparent (even to me) that there was definite possible romantic interest, I wouldn't consider meeting for coffee (heck, even going out for dinner the first time) as anything more than the most basic of getting to know you encounters - finding out if they have reasonable hygiene standards, that you're able to communicate with them, neither of you finds the other completely repulsive, that sort of thing. I can't imagine committing to one person until I've gotten to know them well enough to know I want to spend some real time with them - not just a coffee here or a dinner there or drinks with friends. And that's going to take multiple one-on-one meetings, and probably some chatting via phone and/or online in between, and establishing that we're looking for similar things in a relationship. Sure, sometimes you can meet someone and get that gut feeling and it works out well, but I'm not inclined to hand over heart & soul without a very good idea of what I am getting into.

No-one's handing over heart and soul on their firsts date. You just assume that if someone is showing any kind of interest in you as a potential romantic partner that they have no other prospects for romantic partners on the go at the same time. There's no need for the 'are we exclusive?' conversation, because if you decide to go on another date, and then another, you 'know' that you are, by default.

If you decide after one date or two that you don't mesh, you don't date again, and find someone else.

If I'm serious enough to exclude all others, then yea, I am handing over heart and soul. Or at least access to them. I would not exclude all others unless I thought there was a pretty good shot they were The One.

And I think this is where the confusion begins - I won't consider exclusivity without that, but it seems some folks won't consider that possibility until there is exclusivity.

I think "exclusive" can be used in two different ways.

As my fellow Aussie posters have said, in Australia most people date one person at a time. In that sense, if you go on a first/second date with someone, you're "exclusive" in the sense that you are not dating anyone else. However, you are not yet "exclusive" in the sense that you're a committed couple, calling each other "boyfriend and girlfriend". That second definition of "exclusive" generally comes once you've kissed/had some sort of physical contact.

So, as an example:

Bruce and Sheila go on two dates, There is no kissing or physical contact. Bruce and Sheila still consider themselves "single", however, it's an unspoken convention that neither of them is dating anyone else.

Bruce and Sheila go on a third date and end up snogging on Sheila's doorstep when Bruce drops her home. It's an unspoken convention that they are now a couple, in a relationship.

I think you hit it on the head. I wouldn't call it exclusive unless I was willing to commit, and my partner is too. To me, exclusivity indicates a relatively serious commitment. It seems that for some, it means you're giving Partner 1 a test drive, and won't consider Partner 2 unless Partner 1 doesn't work out. But I won't rule out Partner 2 unless I have a strong indication that a) Partner 2 won't work, and/or b) Partner 1 is The One. Just because Partner 1 is getting a shot, doesn't mean Partner 2 isn't.

It's more like test-driving a car to me - I won't rule out one unless it's ruled itself out, or unless I am ready to buy another. I wouldn't declare exclusivity to one person unless I was sure I didn't want anyone else (either because that one person was That Compatible, or the other available options had ruled themselves out).

It's very interesting to me how different places work. Here, you don't do that. You try one 'car' at a time, as a rule.

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2212
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #106 on: April 27, 2014, 01:50:41 PM »
In the UK we generally do the one-at-a-time thing too and I would be pretty horrified if someone I was dating told me he was seeing someone else/playing the field. I wonder if exclusivity carries a slightly different meaning. What I'm reading is exclusivity infers a serious relationship. It doesn't here, necessarily. It just means that you only date one person at a time. There's no long-term commitment involved, one or other of the parties can still end the relationship if they don't want to take it any further, but you don't date/sleep around. It's seen as very poor form here and most people would consider it two-timing or that the person doing it was a player.

Dating seems to be far more of a direct activity over there. Here, we seem to do the dance a little more, which probably ties in with the ask/hint culture thing we've had so many discussions about (although we do have askers, hinting is much more the norm here). In my experience you probably wouldn't ask someone out in the first place if you weren't at least a bit interested in having some kind of relationship with them. You'd generally meet someone in a social activity, get to know them a little bit, decide that you're interested in them, maybe develop a bit of a crush on them then spend a while working up the courage to 'ask them out' (and the other person probably wouldn't agree if they weren't reciprocally interested). So, by the time you get to 'going out with someone', you already pretty much know that you really like them and the 'dating' phase is more of a 'see if it works out' kind of thing. If you're asked out for a second date it's pretty much understood that the person doing the asking likes you and is interested in progressing things.

From what I'm reading here, dating in America seems to be the complete opposite: ask someone out if you like the look of them, *then* decide if you're interested in them, so, I can see why the 'dating multiple people' thing happens.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2014, 01:52:32 PM by perpetua »

zyrs

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2042
  • spiffily male.
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #107 on: April 27, 2014, 03:14:41 PM »
I was in my twenties during the 1970s, so things might be different now.  And this would be during my dating years - I'm happily married.

Say I meet Jocelyn, Sheila, Babs and Linda within a few days of each other.  In talking to them I find out a few things about each of them.
  • Jocelyn likes movies, but hates playing pool, fishing,  museums, or rock concerts.
  • Sheila likes to play pool but really dislikes fishing, museums, rock concerts or going to the movies.
  • Babs loves museums, but is meh about playing pool, rock concerts, going to the movies, or fishing.
  • Linda like rock concerts but doesn't enjoy doing any of the other things.

Each of them has a personality that is attractive and none of us have had a talk about exclusivity.  At the most I have only seen each of them a few times for a couple hours each time.

I have tickets to a rock concert on one day, tickets to the movies on another, passes to the museum for a third day, a pass to a pool hall on another day and an upcoming trip on a charter fishing boat for a different day.

Yes, I will ask each of them to the event that they like.  If I then meet Sue and she likes to fish, I will ask her out on the charter boat.  If not, I will go alone or with a friend that enjoys fishing.




greencat

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2671
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #108 on: April 27, 2014, 03:20:15 PM »
I was in my twenties during the 1970s, so things might be different now.  And this would be during my dating years - I'm happily married.

Say I meet Jocelyn, Sheila, Babs and Linda within a few days of each other.  In talking to them I find out a few things about each of them.
  • Jocelyn likes movies, but hates playing pool, fishing,  museums, or rock concerts.
  • Sheila likes to play pool but really dislikes fishing, museums, rock concerts or going to the movies.
  • Babs loves museums, but is meh about playing pool, rock concerts, going to the movies, or fishing.
  • Linda like rock concerts but doesn't enjoy doing any of the other things.

Each of them has a personality that is attractive and none of us have had a talk about exclusivity.  At the most I have only seen each of them a few times for a couple hours each time.

I have tickets to a rock concert on one day, tickets to the movies on another, passes to the museum for a third day, a pass to a pool hall on another day and an upcoming trip on a charter fishing boat for a different day.

Yes, I will ask each of them to the event that they like.  If I then meet Sue and she likes to fish, I will ask her out on the charter boat.  If not, I will go alone or with a friend that enjoys fishing.

This is much more my experience, especially when I was online dating - have a bunch of first dates scheduled, and possibly second or third dates, without getting serious with anyone.  I tend to take awhile to make up my mind about a guy, seeing as how many jerks can pretend to be nice guys for about a month before their true colors show through!

And, to be very clear, a few guys that had UK/AUS style expectations of exclusivity upon agreeing to the second or even third dates, were thought clingy and controlling, by myself and friends I was venting to, and things ended with them.

It really does seem like there's a major cultural difference!

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2212
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #109 on: April 27, 2014, 03:31:50 PM »
It's a huge cultural difference.

I can't imagine having a bunch of dates with different people 'scheduled', like business meetings. That's like picking people out of a lineup to me, or conducting job interviews!

Things have changed a bit with online dating, I know, but I can't imagine that. I really can't. I wouldn't go out with someone unless I was interested in them in the first place and neither would a lot of other people I know. I can't fathom the concept of going out with a completely random person to see if anything clicks.

greencat

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2671
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #110 on: April 27, 2014, 04:11:05 PM »
It's a huge cultural difference.

I can't imagine having a bunch of dates with different people 'scheduled', like business meetings. That's like picking people out of a lineup to me, or conducting job interviews!

Things have changed a bit with online dating, I know, but I can't imagine that. I really can't. I wouldn't go out with someone unless I was interested in them in the first place and neither would a lot of other people I know. I can't fathom the concept of going out with a completely random person to see if anything clicks.

With either online dating, where you can at least get some idea of the other person's interests and personality, and dating people you meet through friends, it's not "completely random people" - it's people you suspect you may have an interest in, but you need to get to know them a bit better, one-on-one, with the idea that you might want to date.  There are often, especially with online dating, several people that might be potential matches that need to be evaluated. 

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2212
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #111 on: April 27, 2014, 04:47:56 PM »
I agree. I think online dating is a very different thing and I can see why you might potentially go out with two or three people at the same time, (although I personally would go out with one person first, then if I didn't feel a spark, not go on another date with him then go on a date with someone else, because why *would* you go out with them again if there's no spark?). But it's the idea of doing that with 'real life' people (bad phrase, but you know what I mean!) that I can't wrap my head around. I can't even imagine a situation in which I'd be agreeing to a date with someone unless I already knew them, ie, we'd met through a shared social activity first and both parties had expressed an interest, let alone more than one person at the same time.

I think it's the 'idea that you *might* want to date' thing I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. Here, at least in my experience, you (general) probably wouldn't go out with someone in the first place unless you had a fairly clear idea that you wanted to date them - although again, this is being changed by online dating, I know; I'm talking about in-person encounters, mainly.

zyrs

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2042
  • spiffily male.
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #112 on: April 27, 2014, 04:58:16 PM »
I can't fathom the concept of going out with a completely random person to see if anything clicks.

I think I may not have been clear enough and caused an incorrect assumption.  None of these people would be completely random; they would all be people I had met in the course of my life.  Say I meet Sheila in a class I am taking - during class break we get to talking, find out we both like to play pool so I invite her to play pool.  The expectation from this is that we will go play pool and hopefully have a great time.  From this, Sheila and I might mutually decide we'd like to go play pool again.  We may play pool once a week, it might from there blossom into a romance or we might stay friends.  Or we might play pool and realize that we are incompatible in every other way and decide not to see each other again.
 

jedikaiti

  • Swiss Army Nerd
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2867
  • A pie in the hand is worth two in the mail.
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #113 on: April 27, 2014, 04:59:57 PM »
Another classic example of how the US and other English-speaking nations are separated by a common language. :-) In one place, exclusivity is assumed after a first date. In another, it might get you thought of as a creeper.
What part of v_e = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} don't you understand? It's only rocket science!

"The problem with re-examining your brilliant ideas is that more often than not, you discover they are the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'Hold my beer and watch this!'" - Cindy Couture

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2212
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #114 on: April 27, 2014, 05:15:57 PM »
I can't fathom the concept of going out with a completely random person to see if anything clicks.

I think I may not have been clear enough and caused an incorrect assumption.  None of these people would be completely random; they would all be people I had met in the course of my life.  Say I meet Sheila in a class I am taking - during class break we get to talking, find out we both like to play pool so I invite her to play pool.  The expectation from this is that we will go play pool and hopefully have a great time.  From this, Sheila and I might mutually decide we'd like to go play pool again.  We may play pool once a week, it might from there blossom into a romance or we might stay friends.  Or we might play pool and realize that we are incompatible in every other way and decide not to see each other again.

But that isn't really dating, in my book. That's just playing pool with someone and if something grows from that, great. Perhaps even the way dates are conducted is different?

dating here? More like: you meet someone in the course of your everyday life, there's a mutual interest/attraction, you get talking at the shared activity (say, for example, i meet someone i click with at orchestra, in my case), spend a bit more time together there than usual, eventually one or the other of you plucks up the courage to ask the other one out and you might go out for a meal or a drink or to the pictures, or or or, but there's an expectation that it's because the person is interested in you, not just because they want to see XYZ film or eat chicken for dinner that night. So, you probably wouldn't even *go* on the date in the first place if you weren't interested in that person in return.

Another classic example of how the US and other English-speaking nations are separated by a common language. :-) In one place, exclusivity is assumed after a first date. In another, it might get you thought of as a creeper.

I don't think that's quite correct either - I'm having trouble articulating it!

'Exclusivity' in US dating seems to imply a serious relationship and that isn't quite the same as it is here. It's not like you're automatically assumed to be serious boyfriend/girlfriend after the first date. You might go on a date with someone and one or either of you decides not to take it any further and that's fine. It's just that if you *were* really interested in someone after that first date, you probably wouldn't be seeing anyone else in the meantime. You might have a second and third date with that person and then decide it's not working out and that's fine, but you probably wouldn't see anyone else during that time. So you'd finish it with that person and then start looking again/seeing other people.


CakeEater

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2826
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #115 on: April 27, 2014, 05:20:01 PM »
I can't fathom the concept of going out with a completely random person to see if anything clicks.

I think I may not have been clear enough and caused an incorrect assumption.  None of these people would be completely random; they would all be people I had met in the course of my life.  Say I meet Sheila in a class I am taking - during class break we get to talking, find out we both like to play pool so I invite her to play pool.  The expectation from this is that we will go play pool and hopefully have a great time.  From this, Sheila and I might mutually decide we'd like to go play pool again.  We may play pool once a week, it might from there blossom into a romance or we might stay friends.  Or we might play pool and realize that we are incompatible in every other way and decide not to see each other again.

I think the main thing here for me would be whether the game of pool was considered a date by either/both parties. That is, do you and Sheila view the game of pool as a getting to know a potential romantic partner, or are you just having a nice game of pool with a new friend? The second, I wouldn't really consider to be 'dating' if you met a new friend who shares your love of pool who happens to be female.

Interesting indeed that assuming exclusivity early on would be seen as clingy in the US.  :)


perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2212
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #116 on: April 27, 2014, 05:23:45 PM »

Interesting indeed that assuming exclusivity early on would be seen as clingy in the US.  :)

It's very interesting, and I think our definitions of exclusivity must vary. Exclusivity in the States seems to imply a serious relationship. Here it's more 'I'm seeing person X right now'.

greencat

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2671
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #117 on: April 27, 2014, 05:57:44 PM »

Interesting indeed that assuming exclusivity early on would be seen as clingy in the US.  :)

It's very interesting, and I think our definitions of exclusivity must vary. Exclusivity in the States seems to imply a serious relationship. Here it's more 'I'm seeing person X right now'.

Yes - exclusivity implies that you are in a relation.ship.  I wouldn't be willing to be "exclusive" with someone I've only been on a few dates with, because I'm generally not ready to enter a relation.ship at that point.  Ergo, I would still be willing to accept invitations for dates with other men.  You don't "exclude" other people until you're settled on the one person. 

whiterose

  • From the good old US of A!
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4457
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #118 on: April 27, 2014, 08:30:03 PM »
I was in my twenties during the 1970s, so things might be different now.  And this would be during my dating years - I'm happily married.

Say I meet Jocelyn, Sheila, Babs and Linda within a few days of each other.  In talking to them I find out a few things about each of them.
  • Jocelyn likes movies, but hates playing pool, fishing,  museums, or rock concerts.
  • Sheila likes to play pool but really dislikes fishing, museums, rock concerts or going to the movies.
  • Babs loves museums, but is meh about playing pool, rock concerts, going to the movies, or fishing.
  • Linda like rock concerts but doesn't enjoy doing any of the other things.

Each of them has a personality that is attractive and none of us have had a talk about exclusivity.  At the most I have only seen each of them a few times for a couple hours each time.

I have tickets to a rock concert on one day, tickets to the movies on another, passes to the museum for a third day, a pass to a pool hall on another day and an upcoming trip on a charter fishing boat for a different day.

Yes, I will ask each of them to the event that they like.  If I then meet Sue and she likes to fish, I will ask her out on the charter boat.  If not, I will go alone or with a friend that enjoys fishing.

Yes, but would you have kissed all of them? Would you snuggle with all of them? Would you gaze into the eyes of all of them?

Or would you just engage in the activities as friends?

Also, would you have issues with their casually dating other fellows- especially if they kissed?

If you started developing romantic feelings for one (and only one) of them, would you keep dating the others if the one you like that way also shows signs of liking you back the same way? Would you keep seeking out other new women to date as well, even though you actively like someone who likes you back?

Since Jenna and Ralph had kissed (and done physical things that come before that, such as holding hands and hugging tightly), there is definitely a romantic undertone. Jenna has as much of an issue with Ralph doing physical things with other women as she does with his taking them out one on one with more than just friendly intentions.



Also, the USA, UK, AU, NZ, and DK are all countries where there is a very high amount of gender equality. Hence I am a bit surprised that there are so many cultural differences in dating.
I have pet mice!

blarg314

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8532
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #119 on: April 27, 2014, 09:37:12 PM »

I can't imagine having a bunch of dates with different people 'scheduled', like business meetings. That's like picking people out of a lineup to me, or conducting job interviews!


That's pretty much what online dating is - you look at a profile, you pick out people who you think might be interesting, you exchange a few emails, and you arrange a meeting to check each other out. The answer may be "No Way" or "Yeah - I like them and are attracted to them and want to see more of them" or "I'm not sure - I need a date or two more to find out".

Personally, I prefer meeting people in a more casual way, but sometimes you just aren't meeting interesting/eligible people (and the 'join a new activity' approach to meeting people tends to be low efficiency and depends on you having a lot of free time), or you have something fairly specific as a dealbreaker/requirement that you want to filter.

Think of it this way - it's a more formal version of going to a party and chatting with a lot of people. Most of them you not be interested in, if you are interested in someone, you chat for longer, and maybe ask them out/exchange numbers. Online dating is a somewhat more detailed tool for meeting a bunch of people who might be potential partners. The first date is the equivalent of chatting with someone at a party, and you wouldn't go to a party, pick a single person who looks interesting when you walk in the door, and restrict yourself to only chatting with them at that event.