Originally Posted by london
If your partner meets someone who wants to spend so much time with them that maintaining other relationships or responsibilities is difficult, it should be them who negotiates that with their new partner because of their desire to maintain all the relationships they have, not because we have a rule that they have to abide by. I shouldn't need to enforce a boundary that quantifies what is too much. My partner is in our relationship too, they should know what will fuck with our shit and take steps to avoid it.
I think something that gets missed (a lot) in these conversations is a detail.
WE have a rule/agreement/boundary.
As in-we talked and agreed that we all feel xyz is important to all of us and we agree to uphold it.
That doesn't mean "I" make Maca enforce xyz with other partners.
That means we all three back each other up with anyone else who tries to press any of us to break these agreements.
I got SO MUCH SHIT from the local community when I set my foot down with a woman who flat tried to tell me that I would let my daughter go socialize with her and her daughter-because she was a potential date for Maca.
He had tried to tell her no-she was walking over him.
He is soft spoken. He didn't want to offend her and he was in a quandry with himself over the fact that he liked her, was attracted to her, was caught up in "omg this might be the only woman who will date a married man in the whole state".
But-that is all irrelevant-the bottom line is-WE already have agreed to what is in the best interests of our children and THAT IS NOT IT.
We re-discussed in in light of the person in question specifically (as we do with all new people) and were MORE certain that it wasn't in their best interests. So the answer was NO.
I AM more vocal and when she stepped up to me on the topic-hell yes I did tell her NO I WILL NOT ALLOW IT.
Which got interpreted by teh community as "LR is controlling Maca".
No. No I'm not. He can see anyone he darn well pleases.
But he doesn't want to break agreements that ARE important to him also. Just because he chooses to just walk away silently and not look back-doesn't mean I am dragging him on a leash.
I don't need a "rule" to tell me that I am not going to go out and screw someone I met today.
I only have an agreement-so I know what is meaningful to my current partners and what doesn't matter-that way I can decide what my priorities are.
IF I don't know what matters to them-I can't consider their preferences in my decisions.
So-yeah-the whole anti-rule thing is annoying. rule/boundary/framework/understanding/agreement.
Call it what you will. It IS important that people identify what their hard and soft limits are AND KEEP THEIR PARTNERS AWARE. If they choose to do that in writing or verbally or whatever-who gives a shit?