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 12765 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TurtleDove

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6284
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #45 on: April 21, 2014, 03:00:26 PM »
So I would say it is worth talking about to see if the other person wants X now, or if they would like to move there but are okay with waiting a bit.

Absolutely it is worth talking about, but as daen said, the person who wants the least level of intimacy "wins."  Person A says, "I want to be exclusive."  Person B says, "I am still seeing persons C and D, but I would like to see you too."  Person A can either say, "Okay, I will continue to see you while you also pursue C and D" or "Okay, I am moving on because I want an exclusive relationship with someone." Person A cannot demand that Person B stop seeing C and D.  Person A either accepts Person B's terms (or vice versa) or they go their separate ways.

Garden Goblin

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 942
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2014, 03:00:31 PM »
If someone asks me out, I do expect disclosure on whether or not they are seeing anyone else at the same time.  Casually dating multiple people simultaneously might not be an issue, depending on what I'm looking for at the time, but failure to be upfront about that being what is happening would qualify as dishonesty to me, and that is always going to be an issue.

Therefore, I do have a problem with Ralph's behavior.  As soon as he started seeing someone else, he should have been honest and told Jenna, or been up front from the beginning that he was also seeing other people.

I'm not saying she had the right to expect him to go exclusive on the fourth date, but she does have the right to know if he is seeing other people and especially to know if he is intimate with other people.

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7361
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2014, 03:04:38 PM »

Had the phone call not happen or been taken, and Jenna had brought up exclusivity at the end of their successful fourth date, would it have been acceptable for Ralph to tell her that he does not want to date exclusively/seriously, but that he wants to keep seeing her casually?

Why wouldn't it have been acceptable for Ralph to tell Jenna what he wants and then see if they come to a compromise first? They are both in the relationship so both their opinions matter. It's not for one person to define the relationship and the other to take it or leave it. They both get to say what they want and then see if they can make it work.

I'm actually responding to the OP's question here:  Of course it's acceptable for Ralph to tell Jenna that he doesn't want to date exclusively. It's the truth!  Just because it's not what Jenna wants to hear, doesn't make it wrong. The phone call has absolutely nothing to do with it.   I get that Jenna was hurt...but her hurt stems more from  the rejection that Ralph isn't in the same place as her than it does from anything that Ralph did or said wrong.  You didn't provide too much detail, but from what is stated, it doesn't sound like Ralph did anything to lead Jenna on either.  They went out four times.  They kissed. Only a month has gone by.  I get Jenna's feelings on the matter (mine used to be the same...dating around wasn't my thing). To want exclusivity is understandable.  To be hurt that it isn't happening is understandable.  But to expect that it be given automatically or to asign any blame or rudeness to Ralph because he's not on the same page, isn't.

As for the bolded...I agree in principle.  But to me, this only practically works in already committed relationships.  If I want my DH to behave a certain way towards me (say, hypothetically, always include me in conversations he has with other women) and he doesn't feel that he should, then yes, we both get to say what we want and work out a compromise.  But when it comes to exclusivity, or just dating in general where no commitment has been made, I think that the person who doesn't want the exclusivity sort of has the upper hand.  There's no compromise there.  If I don't want to date you exclusively, you can't force me to.  And if you don't want to date me unless I'm committed to you, I can't make you date me anyway. 

I can kind of see a scenario where Ralph would say "I'm not ready to date exclusively yet.  But perhaps after we get to know each other better and develop the relationship better, I may be willing to make that step with you.  I can't promise that now." and Jenna replying with "Ok, but I'm not interested in doing X, Y or Z unless we are exclusive, and I'm going to date around too" as sort of a compromise.  But honestly, if Jenna is the type of person that is uncomfortable dating someone unless he's only seeing her (even if they aren't serious) and Ralph is the type of person that likes to date around until he's made a commitment, then they aren't likely a good match anyway.  It was smart of Jenna to move on.  Neither is exactly wrong in their desires, they just aren't very compatible with each other.

ETA: I see you already said something similar in your other post :)

I can see I didn't word it very well! :-) I kinda meant what you said. I was answering the question in the op's post. I kinda wanted to say what you did - that it isn't that the first person gets to define the relationship and that is that. But that both people get to say what they feel/want and then they go forward deciding if they both are okay with that or if it is a dealbreaker.   I wanted to say that everyone gets to put their cards on the table and then they can see what happens. That if Ralph isn't ready yet he doesn't have to say "okay we are through" he can say "i'm not ready - can you work with that" and see if Jenna is able to do so.

And anyone can end a relationship for any and all reason - no obligation to stay when you don't want to.

TurtleDove

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6284
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #48 on: April 21, 2014, 03:06:20 PM »
I'm not saying she had the right to expect him to go exclusive on the fourth date, but she does have the right to know if he is seeing other people and especially to know if he is intimate with other people.

I think it is on Jenna to ask questions that would elicit answers that are important to her.  I don't think it's lying to not tell someone you are just getting to know every little thing about you.  It happens on a need to know basis, as the relationship develops, or doesn't.  If Jenna is considering becoming intimate with Ralph, she should ask the questions that could be deal breakers rather than expect Ralph to know what her personal deal breakers are.   

bah12

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5305
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #49 on: April 21, 2014, 03:26:55 PM »

Had the phone call not happen or been taken, and Jenna had brought up exclusivity at the end of their successful fourth date, would it have been acceptable for Ralph to tell her that he does not want to date exclusively/seriously, but that he wants to keep seeing her casually?

Why wouldn't it have been acceptable for Ralph to tell Jenna what he wants and then see if they come to a compromise first? They are both in the relationship so both their opinions matter. It's not for one person to define the relationship and the other to take it or leave it. They both get to say what they want and then see if they can make it work.

I'm actually responding to the OP's question here:  Of course it's acceptable for Ralph to tell Jenna that he doesn't want to date exclusively. It's the truth!  Just because it's not what Jenna wants to hear, doesn't make it wrong. The phone call has absolutely nothing to do with it.   I get that Jenna was hurt...but her hurt stems more from  the rejection that Ralph isn't in the same place as her than it does from anything that Ralph did or said wrong.  You didn't provide too much detail, but from what is stated, it doesn't sound like Ralph did anything to lead Jenna on either.  They went out four times.  They kissed. Only a month has gone by.  I get Jenna's feelings on the matter (mine used to be the same...dating around wasn't my thing). To want exclusivity is understandable.  To be hurt that it isn't happening is understandable.  But to expect that it be given automatically or to asign any blame or rudeness to Ralph because he's not on the same page, isn't.

As for the bolded...I agree in principle.  But to me, this only practically works in already committed relationships.  If I want my DH to behave a certain way towards me (say, hypothetically, always include me in conversations he has with other women) and he doesn't feel that he should, then yes, we both get to say what we want and work out a compromise.  But when it comes to exclusivity, or just dating in general where no commitment has been made, I think that the person who doesn't want the exclusivity sort of has the upper hand.  There's no compromise there.  If I don't want to date you exclusively, you can't force me to.  And if you don't want to date me unless I'm committed to you, I can't make you date me anyway. 

I can kind of see a scenario where Ralph would say "I'm not ready to date exclusively yet.  But perhaps after we get to know each other better and develop the relationship better, I may be willing to make that step with you.  I can't promise that now." and Jenna replying with "Ok, but I'm not interested in doing X, Y or Z unless we are exclusive, and I'm going to date around too" as sort of a compromise.  But honestly, if Jenna is the type of person that is uncomfortable dating someone unless he's only seeing her (even if they aren't serious) and Ralph is the type of person that likes to date around until he's made a commitment, then they aren't likely a good match anyway.  It was smart of Jenna to move on.  Neither is exactly wrong in their desires, they just aren't very compatible with each other.

ETA: I see you already said something similar in your other post :)

I can see I didn't word it very well! :-) I kinda meant what you said. I was answering the question in the op's post. I kinda wanted to say what you did - that it isn't that the first person gets to define the relationship and that is that. But that both people get to say what they feel/want and then they go forward deciding if they both are okay with that or if it is a dealbreaker.   I wanted to say that everyone gets to put their cards on the table and then they can see what happens. That if Ralph isn't ready yet he doesn't have to say "okay we are through" he can say "i'm not ready - can you work with that" and see if Jenna is able to do so.

And anyone can end a relationship for any and all reason - no obligation to stay when you don't want to.

It's been a long time since I dated and maybe this isn't the case, but I would kind of take Ralph saying "I want to date other people" and not offering anything else outside of that (changing that arrangment later for example), as him saying "This is all there is for me.  I don't want to even lead you to believe there will ever be more, because right now, I don't feel that way at all."  And this is why I think Jenna made the right choice to just let it go. 

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7361
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #50 on: April 21, 2014, 03:30:10 PM »

Had the phone call not happen or been taken, and Jenna had brought up exclusivity at the end of their successful fourth date, would it have been acceptable for Ralph to tell her that he does not want to date exclusively/seriously, but that he wants to keep seeing her casually?

Why wouldn't it have been acceptable for Ralph to tell Jenna what he wants and then see if they come to a compromise first? They are both in the relationship so both their opinions matter. It's not for one person to define the relationship and the other to take it or leave it. They both get to say what they want and then see if they can make it work.

I'm actually responding to the OP's question here:  Of course it's acceptable for Ralph to tell Jenna that he doesn't want to date exclusively. It's the truth!  Just because it's not what Jenna wants to hear, doesn't make it wrong. The phone call has absolutely nothing to do with it.   I get that Jenna was hurt...but her hurt stems more from  the rejection that Ralph isn't in the same place as her than it does from anything that Ralph did or said wrong.  You didn't provide too much detail, but from what is stated, it doesn't sound like Ralph did anything to lead Jenna on either.  They went out four times.  They kissed. Only a month has gone by.  I get Jenna's feelings on the matter (mine used to be the same...dating around wasn't my thing). To want exclusivity is understandable.  To be hurt that it isn't happening is understandable.  But to expect that it be given automatically or to asign any blame or rudeness to Ralph because he's not on the same page, isn't.

As for the bolded...I agree in principle.  But to me, this only practically works in already committed relationships.  If I want my DH to behave a certain way towards me (say, hypothetically, always include me in conversations he has with other women) and he doesn't feel that he should, then yes, we both get to say what we want and work out a compromise.  But when it comes to exclusivity, or just dating in general where no commitment has been made, I think that the person who doesn't want the exclusivity sort of has the upper hand.  There's no compromise there.  If I don't want to date you exclusively, you can't force me to.  And if you don't want to date me unless I'm committed to you, I can't make you date me anyway. 

I can kind of see a scenario where Ralph would say "I'm not ready to date exclusively yet.  But perhaps after we get to know each other better and develop the relationship better, I may be willing to make that step with you.  I can't promise that now." and Jenna replying with "Ok, but I'm not interested in doing X, Y or Z unless we are exclusive, and I'm going to date around too" as sort of a compromise.  But honestly, if Jenna is the type of person that is uncomfortable dating someone unless he's only seeing her (even if they aren't serious) and Ralph is the type of person that likes to date around until he's made a commitment, then they aren't likely a good match anyway.  It was smart of Jenna to move on.  Neither is exactly wrong in their desires, they just aren't very compatible with each other.

ETA: I see you already said something similar in your other post :)

I can see I didn't word it very well! :-) I kinda meant what you said. I was answering the question in the op's post. I kinda wanted to say what you did - that it isn't that the first person gets to define the relationship and that is that. But that both people get to say what they feel/want and then they go forward deciding if they both are okay with that or if it is a dealbreaker.   I wanted to say that everyone gets to put their cards on the table and then they can see what happens. That if Ralph isn't ready yet he doesn't have to say "okay we are through" he can say "i'm not ready - can you work with that" and see if Jenna is able to do so.

And anyone can end a relationship for any and all reason - no obligation to stay when you don't want to.

It's been a long time since I dated and maybe this isn't the case, but I would kind of take Ralph saying "I want to date other people" and not offering anything else outside of that (changing that arrangment later for example), as him saying "This is all there is for me.  I don't want to even lead you to believe there will ever be more, because right now, I don't feel that way at all."  And this is why I think Jenna made the right choice to just let it go.

I think that she made the right choice - doesn't sound like they were that compatible. The original question just didn't sit right with me. It implied that Jenna set the rules for the relationship and Ralph had no options at all - if he wasn't okay he should just shut up and go away. And I do think he has the right to say "no but this would work for me" and if it won't work for Jenna then it won't and they move on. But he has the right to express it.

TurtleDove

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6284
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #51 on: April 21, 2014, 03:37:49 PM »
The original question just didn't sit right with me. It implied that Jenna set the rules for the relationship and Ralph had no options at all - if he wasn't okay he should just shut up and go away. And I do think he has the right to say "no but this would work for me" and if it won't work for Jenna then it won't and they move on. But he has the right to express it.

I guess this still really confuses me - what original question?  Anyone has the right to discuss anything and I didn't see anyone say otherwise.  But the person wanting a lower level of intimacy does basically set the rules for the relationship because you cannot force someone to "love" or "like" you or be exclusive.  In the OP, Ralph DID express what he wanted (to see Jenna and other new women he might meet), and Jenna was not okay with it.  So I guess I am not understanding your perspective here because both Jenna and Ralph did express what they wanted, they simply were not compatible.

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7361
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #52 on: April 21, 2014, 03:43:25 PM »
The original question just didn't sit right with me. It implied that Jenna set the rules for the relationship and Ralph had no options at all - if he wasn't okay he should just shut up and go away. And I do think he has the right to say "no but this would work for me" and if it won't work for Jenna then it won't and they move on. But he has the right to express it.

I guess this still really confuses me - what original question?  Anyone has the right to discuss anything and I didn't see anyone say otherwise.  But the person wanting a lower level of intimacy does basically set the rules for the relationship because you cannot force someone to "love" or "like" you or be exclusive.  In the OP, Ralph DID express what he wanted (to see Jenna and other new women he might meet), and Jenna was not okay with it.  So I guess I am not understanding your perspective here because both Jenna and Ralph did express what they wanted, they simply were not compatible.

I don't know how to quote many posts. This question

"Had the phone call not happen or been taken, and Jenna had brought up exclusivity at the end of their successful fourth date, would it have been acceptable for Ralph to tell her that he does not want to date exclusively/seriously, but that he wants to keep seeing her casually? "

And I just think it is acceptable for Ralph tell her he does not want to date exclusively but see her casually. And if she isn't okay with that then that is that and they move on. I don't understand why it wouldn't be okay for him to say that is not what he wants but he wants Y instead. Jenna doesn't have to accept that if that isn't what she wants, but I don't understand why it wouldn't be acceptable for him to voice his preferences.

TurtleDove

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6284
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #53 on: April 21, 2014, 03:58:08 PM »
The original question just didn't sit right with me. It implied that Jenna set the rules for the relationship and Ralph had no options at all - if he wasn't okay he should just shut up and go away. And I do think he has the right to say "no but this would work for me" and if it won't work for Jenna then it won't and they move on. But he has the right to express it.

I guess this still really confuses me - what original question?  Anyone has the right to discuss anything and I didn't see anyone say otherwise.  But the person wanting a lower level of intimacy does basically set the rules for the relationship because you cannot force someone to "love" or "like" you or be exclusive.  In the OP, Ralph DID express what he wanted (to see Jenna and other new women he might meet), and Jenna was not okay with it.  So I guess I am not understanding your perspective here because both Jenna and Ralph did express what they wanted, they simply were not compatible.

I don't know how to quote many posts. This question

"Had the phone call not happen or been taken, and Jenna had brought up exclusivity at the end of their successful fourth date, would it have been acceptable for Ralph to tell her that he does not want to date exclusively/seriously, but that he wants to keep seeing her casually? "

And I just think it is acceptable for Ralph tell her he does not want to date exclusively but see her casually. And if she isn't okay with that then that is that and they move on. I don't understand why it wouldn't be okay for him to say that is not what he wants but he wants Y instead. Jenna doesn't have to accept that if that isn't what she wants, but I don't understand why it wouldn't be acceptable for him to voice his preferences.
Ah - totally agreed - it is always acceptable to voice your preferences, and in fact I wish it were mandatory!  Life would have been so much easier for me and nearly everyone else I know!  :)

bah12

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5305
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #54 on: April 21, 2014, 04:01:16 PM »
The issue with the original question "Did Ralph do anything wrong?" is the implication that Ralph should have been on the same page as Jenna.  If Jenna had never said anything to Ralph about her 'four date exclusive' rule, then expecting Ralph would be on the same page and wrong for him not to be (i.e ask her out on date four with no intention of being exclusive), is not realistic. 

There is no universal dating code that I'm aware of.  Expecting that someone would tell you, when they asked you out, where they stand with other relationships is unrealistic.  When I was new to dating, I wrongly assumed that everyone wanted the same thing I did.  To find the person that they would eventually marry and stay with forever and ever.  So, I agreed to go out on dates with that purpose in mind.  As soon as I realized that there was some trait or chemistry issue that made him undesirable for me to marry, I'd break up (and often times to the utter confusion of the guy 'who said anything about marriage, we're just dating!'). And anytime I went out with someone and then found out that they never intended for the relationship to be anything other than casual, I would feel hurt and blame him.   But, not everyone wants the same thing and even if they do want the same thing eventually that doesn't mean they have the same purpose for asking you (general) out as you did for agreeing to go out. 

So, if you have a strong aversion to even going out on a date with someone who is also going on dates with other people, then I really think the onus is on you to make sure that is known before accepting the date.  Not everyone feels that way.  It's like the advice I always gave girlfriends "If you expect that by being intimate with a guy, he's committed to you, then you need to make sure that he's committed to you before you become intimate."  Not everyone takes intimacy so seriously.  So, if the guy promises that you are his one and only just to get you to agree to be with him and turns out he's lying, then yes, he's a jerk and you need to stay as far away from him as possible.  But if you assumed that he wouldn't ask you out several times or be intimate with you unless he was committed to you and you never had that conversation with him, then it's kind of hard to put all the blame on him.  Sure, he could have assummed that you may feel that way and purposely didn't bring it up so he'd have an out later, but really the onus, I think, is on the person who expects something more to communicate that.

(And I'm using the genders that I'm using, only because I tend to have these expectation issue conversations with women...I understand it works both ways.)

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7361
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #55 on: April 21, 2014, 04:08:19 PM »
The issue with the original question "Did Ralph do anything wrong?" is the implication that Ralph should have been on the same page as Jenna.  If Jenna had never said anything to Ralph about her 'four date exclusive' rule, then expecting Ralph would be on the same page and wrong for him not to be (i.e ask her out on date four with no intention of being exclusive), is not realistic. 

There is no universal dating code that I'm aware of.  Expecting that someone would tell you, when they asked you out, where they stand with other relationships is unrealistic.  When I was new to dating, I wrongly assumed that everyone wanted the same thing I did.  To find the person that they would eventually marry and stay with forever and ever.  So, I agreed to go out on dates with that purpose in mind.  As soon as I realized that there was some trait or chemistry issue that made him undesirable for me to marry, I'd break up (and often times to the utter confusion of the guy 'who said anything about marriage, we're just dating!'). And anytime I went out with someone and then found out that they never intended for the relationship to be anything other than casual, I would feel hurt and blame him.   But, not everyone wants the same thing and even if they do want the same thing eventually that doesn't mean they have the same purpose for asking you (general) out as you did for agreeing to go out. 

So, if you have a strong aversion to even going out on a date with someone who is also going on dates with other people, then I really think the onus is on you to make sure that is known before accepting the date.  Not everyone feels that way.  It's like the advice I always gave girlfriends "If you expect that by being intimate with a guy, he's committed to you, then you need to make sure that he's committed to you before you become intimate."  Not everyone takes intimacy so seriously.  So, if the guy promises that you are his one and only just to get you to agree to be with him and turns out he's lying, then yes, he's a jerk and you need to stay as far away from him as possible.  But if you assumed that he wouldn't ask you out several times or be intimate with you unless he was committed to you and you never had that conversation with him, then it's kind of hard to put all the blame on him.  Sure, he could have assummed that you may feel that way and purposely didn't bring it up so he'd have an out later, but really the onus, I think, is on the person who expects something more to communicate that.

(And I'm using the genders that I'm using, only because I tend to have these expectation issue conversations with women...I understand it works both ways.)

you said pretty much exactly what I am thinking. What didn't sit well with me was this assumption that because they weren't on the same page someone was right and someone was wrong. And they might be wrong for each other, but there is no right or wrong in dating - just what works for those two people at that point in time.

blarg314

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8545
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #56 on: April 21, 2014, 08:57:44 PM »

My experience is also that the expectations/style tends to be different when you're dating someone you already know, and dating strangers or near strangers.

If you've known someone for a while in a non romantic way - a friend, a coworkers, a classmate - and you ask them out, you've usually decided you are interested in them based on what you know of them, and if they accept the date, they likely reciprocate that interest. So you're starting from a position of knowing each other and being mutually interested. That's very different than going out with someone you meet on a dating site, club, or alumni event - there, you've got maybe a total of an hour interaction in person (or nothing but email exchanges), and you're starting at a much earlier phase.

For internet dating or meeting people at clubs, there tends to be a very low success rate - for one good match, you go on a lot of dud dates, and there are a lot of people who look good in email, but there's not spark in person (or who aren't that great when you're both sober). So if you're communicating with one person at a time, and have a rate of one date every week or two, you're going to have a pretty low chance of meeting a good match. So a lot of people will communicate with and casually see multiple people. If they know someone is not a match, they stop, and if they meet someone who is a good fit, they taper off the other contacts.

I will say two things about expectations in a relationship.

I do think that after four dates there is zero obligation to work things out, or come to a mutually agreeable solution, or compromise for the sake the relationship. This is the stage where you are figuring out if you are interested and compatible. If it turns out that you're not, you can walk away and try someone else, and neither person is at fault. If you communicate clearly, aren't deliberately hiding things, and speak up when you realize there's an issue, it's not your responsibility if the other person is hurt or angry because you don't have the same system or expectations they do.

The second is that ultimately, if you make assumptions it doesn't really matter what your personal set of rules or expectations are, you can get burned. There's a *huge* range of variations in what people want or expect in relationships or romantic encounters - from extremely conservative to extremely casual, and an equally large variation in what they consider important. If you assume that the other person agrees with your views and act accordingly, and it's something that matters to you, you're setting yourself up for heartbreak, no matter what the issue is.


Raintree

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6086
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #57 on: April 21, 2014, 09:15:29 PM »
By the fourth date in a month, with kissing, I'd be assuming Ralph was interested in me, and by interested, I mean I'm not one of several women he hangs out casually. I'd expect him to be upfront about it if he wanted to date other people, rather than wait for it to come up unexpectedly like this.

I'd not be thinking it was getting serious or anything, but I'd at least expect that he'd put his "other dating" life on hold until a fair trial period with me had passed while we decided whether or not it was going anywhere.

I'm not really sure he did anything wrong, but I think each of them had differing expectations and it's good she found out now. I think it would be perfectly fair of Jenna to say, "I'm not into dating multiple people at the same time, so if that's what you want to do, it's OK by me, but I don't wish to have a 5th date unless you are going to make up your mind whether or not you want to date me exclusively." Ralph then has a choice, but so does Jenna.

DavidH

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1825
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #58 on: April 21, 2014, 09:23:51 PM »
Four dates over a month seems pretty casual, so I don't see an issue with not wanting to date exclusively or not having discussed it. I suppose that I consider the default to date casually until the decision is made to be exclusive.  At the time one party thinks dating should be exclusive, the onus is on them to bring up the conversation, since that is increasing the level of intimacy.  At some point, exclusivity could, perhaps, be assumed, for example, seeing each other multiple times a week, over a period of months, or when the default assumption is that you'll be together every weekend unless you specified otherwise, or after being invited to meet the other person's parents on a major holiday, but it is still better to have the conversation. 

Ceallach

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4815
    • This Is It
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #59 on: April 22, 2014, 12:08:54 AM »
...an attempt by either party to argue 'I never said I wasn't dating elsewhere' would not go down well.


This is why I think it always makes sense to be up front about these thing and not assume.  I am not saying a person should spend 45 minutes on the first date defining "the relationship" that does not yet exist, but never assume the other person is on the same page as you are (general you).  For me, I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone I could not speak openly with about these things anyway.

I don't have a problem with playing the field, so long as everyone knows what the deal is. I have a major problem with being in an exclusive relationship and cheating, but that is not at all the same thing.  In the latter situation, it makes sense that a person would be hurt.  But if you are not exclusive, while a person may be hurt, the one playing the field did nothing wrong.

They would be in Australia and the UK, it sounds like. I didn't date a lot before I met DH, but as far as I know, here, going out on a date with someone generally means you have no other prospects lined up. I would be dumbfounded to discover that someone I dated twice in two weeks had been on a date with someone else between them. I wouldn't expect a commitment, but I'd expect that if a man went on a couple of dates with me, that he'd wait until he'd decided that he wasn't interested in me any more before dating someone else.

Anyone with a different experience in Australia can feel free to correct me - lack of vast experience here, as I said.

Well, yes and no.  On the one hand, yeah 4 dates with kissing I'd normally assume exclusive, and I agree in Australia there is more of an assumption of exclusivity - relationships here seem to move really fast.   EXCEPT for the timeframe here.  If a guy only saw me less than once per week I would assume he wasn't that into me.    That to me sounds like very "casual" dating in terms of frequency, therefore it wouldn't shock me if he were also casually dating others on the other 6 nights per week.   (Well, every night would surprise me, but I wouldn't expect him to be sitting home alone every night).   

Is it normal for most people to enter into a romantic relationship with a person who they wish to pursue an exclusive longer term relationship with, but only see them once per week?    To me it seems really casual.  If I like somebody enough to keep seeing them then I like them enough to be in contact most days and see them several times per week.   
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"