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 11295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TurtleDove

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5858
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #90 on: April 25, 2014, 03:31:24 PM »
No, they're not saying he was unethical for *saying* he wanted to date other people but for actually doing so. Telling the truth about it is a good idea,but scarcely more than any decent person would do.

And my point was that it is in no way unethical for Ralph to want to date other people.  It is not unethical to actually date more than one person at a time.  I don't think it involves ethics at all, aside from Ralph was ethical in being honest about it.

Ethics and morality are personal and vary considerably from person to person and culture to culture.  I don't think any of us get to decide what is or isn't unethical when it comes to how people treat the people they are dating.  We are all going to have different opinions of that, and there isn't one universal standard.  I do think we can all agree that communication and honesty are important.

Yes, and presumably if a person has a problem with dating someone who is also dating other people...they would ask for exclusivity and if they do not get it they would not want to date that person, so problem solved!

Katana_Geldar

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1779
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #91 on: April 25, 2014, 06:56:28 PM »
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. 

To me, you can set whatever parameters you want and be ethical, exclusive, not exclusive, etc, but once you lie, you've crossed into unethical.
I wouldn't say necessarily from the first date, but certainly the ones after that. When I was dating DH neither of us were seeing anyone else, but if we had that might have changed things for is to continue dating.
Though I wouldn't take DH and myself as a typical example. Neither of us dated much before we met each other and when we met we were both looking for long term commitment and didn't want to waste any time. We are also both rather introverted people and the amazing thing is we both took that big risk for each other.

CakeEater

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2662
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #92 on: April 26, 2014, 02:29:09 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.

MariaE

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4587
  • So many books, so little time
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #93 on: April 26, 2014, 03:02:59 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 agree with this. If it was billed as a "possibly romantic meetup" exclusivity would be assumed.

Of course if one or both thought they were just meeting up as friends it would be a completely different kettle of fish, but that's another scenario entirely.
 
Dane by birth, Kiwi by choice

jedikaiti

  • Swiss Army Nerd
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2732
  • A pie in the hand is worth two in the mail.
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #94 on: April 26, 2014, 03:06:46 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.
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

Ceallach

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4771
    • This Is It
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #95 on: April 26, 2014, 04:51:40 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. 

To me, you can set whatever parameters you want and be ethical, exclusive, not exclusive, etc, but once you lie, you've crossed into unethical.

I'm in Australia, the majority of people I know got together with people they met through others - sometimes a friend, but often just a friend-of-a-friend they are introduced to at a party or similar.   Therefore the person already comes with "credentials" so to speak.     There wasn't the formality of "let us date and get to know each other" it was more hitting it off, and then getting together.   The getting to know each other part initially was in the group situation.   (And yes, the fact is, a lot of the long-term committed relationships I know the intimate part came very quickly, my own included).    I must know some very decisive people I guess!    But I think there's a huge difference between a stranger you meet in a pub vs.  somebody your friends can vouch for.  In my case DH worked with my brother and had socialised with him for awhile, and brother said he was the nicest guy he'd ever met.  (Very generous thing to say about the guy who was hitting on his baby sister!)   

In terms of situations I've seen where it is a stranger they meet in a bar or similar, it might mean exchanging numbers but then texting etc for awhile to get to know each other, or inviting them to join a party or meet up where you are with your friends, before seeing if sparks fly.   I don't know many people who go straight to a 1:1 date with a person they barely know, which I see happen in movies and tv shows all the time.   It may be common in other circles though I guess!
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"


whiterose

  • From the good old US of A!
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4448
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #96 on: April 26, 2014, 06:34:33 AM »
I do not think that agreeing to go on a first date with someone automatically means you have a crush on that person and want to get into a romantic relationship with him/her. Especially nowadays that online dating is so popular.

In fact, I do not even think that going on a second date with someone does...although if you have a successful second date, then perhaps. Maybe. Possibly. But mainly it means that you are not feeling a no (although you may not be quite feeling a  yes either), and that you have not discovered any dealbreakers in the other person (and the person probably meets more preferences than not).

However, after four successful dates in the span of a month and involving kissing, I would assume that both partners do want to keep seeing each other exclusively. Maybe it is due to the fact that the times I have made it to the fourth date with someone, it was never the final date. Usually, a no was felt by the third date- and in the one case where I was not feeling a no but did not feel a yes either, I decided to not enter a relationship with him when he asked at the end of date 3 (I eventually figured out the reason why I did not feel the same way for him). Maybe due to cultural norms- there seems to be something special about making it to/past the third date here in the US of A.

Hence Jenna hoped that Ralph was feeling the same way for her and wanted to start calling each other boyfriend and girlfriend. Hence Jenna disappointment about Ralph not only having gone on one date with another woman between dates 2 and 3 with her, but mainly about his wanting to keep dating (if not downright actively seeking) other women while still seeing her casually and not making a commitment.
I have pet mice!

CakeEater

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2662
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #97 on: April 26, 2014, 07:06:19 PM »
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.

Raintree

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6002
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #98 on: April 26, 2014, 11:48:54 PM »
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.

I agree with this. I'm of the "date one person at a time, and if it doesn't work out, stop dating that person and find someone else" mentality. OK maybe "first coffee meetings" in the on-line world don't really count as dates, but four dates in one month that seem to go well, do count.

But I can see that others don't see it the same way, so I guess if I were on the dating scene, so to speak, I'd want to find out expectations fairly quickly. Mind you, it's hard. Do the "where do we stand" conversation too early and guys are notorious for running for the hills. Like, come on, I'm not asking to get married, I just want to find out if we're on the same page.

CakeEater

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2662
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #99 on: April 27, 2014, 12:20:12 AM »
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.

I agree with this. I'm of the "date one person at a time, and if it doesn't work out, stop dating that person and find someone else" mentality. OK maybe "first coffee meetings" in the on-line world don't really count as dates, but four dates in one month that seem to go well, do count.

But I can see that others don't see it the same way, so I guess if I were on the dating scene, so to speak, I'd want to find out expectations fairly quickly. Mind you, it's hard. Do the "where do we stand" conversation too early and guys are notorious for running for the hills. Like, come on, I'm not asking to get married, I just want to find out if we're on the same page.

This is what I find interesting about non-exclusive dating culture. People here are implying that exclusive dating implies more commitment, when to me it's the other way around. If you assume exclusive dating, then there's no need to discuss any kind of commitment after a few dates. Ie, are we exclusive? It must be awkward to be the one who brings that up?

LifeOnPluto

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6540
    • Blog
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #100 on: April 27, 2014, 12:38:11 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. 

To me, you can set whatever parameters you want and be ethical, exclusive, not exclusive, etc, but once you lie, you've crossed into unethical.

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.

MariaE

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4587
  • So many books, so little time
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #101 on: April 27, 2014, 02:33:37 AM »
^^^ This chain of events is the norm in Denmark as well.
 
Dane by birth, Kiwi by choice

TurtleDove

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5858
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #102 on: April 27, 2014, 03:09:44 AM »
The recently described chain of events is not my experience at all in USA. I think to expect exclusivity based on a couple dates, and BF/GF status after kissing, would set a person up for heartache here.

jedikaiti

  • Swiss Army Nerd
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2732
  • A pie in the hand is worth two in the mail.
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #103 on: April 27, 2014, 03:11:28 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).
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

MariaE

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4587
  • So many books, so little time
Re: Etiquette of defining exclusivity- a spinoff
« Reply #104 on: April 27, 2014, 04:16:49 AM »
The recently described chain of events is not my experience at all in USA. I think to expect exclusivity based on a couple dates, and BF/GF status after kissing, would set a person up for heartache here.

Just goes to show how extremely important it is to figure out the cultural norm in advance. Neither is any more right or wrong than the other, but going by the AU/DK model in the US would set you up for heartbreak there and going for the US model in AU/DK would give you a bad reputation.
 
Dane by birth, Kiwi by choice