how soon should you meet your lover's girlfriend?

[LadyKane]

For me, meeting before sex isn't a big deal. XIV is a lot more of casual sex guy than a relationship guy, (mostly because he is really really picky about who he is in romantic relationships with.... much less so who he sleeps with )
However, it would be important to me for a physical meeting to take place (unless it's an ldr.... then a phone call would suffice) before it got too serious. I have a couple reasons for that... a lot of the same already posted, (confirm they know I'm not going anywhere, that I'm not crazy, relieve fears on both sides, etc) but for me personally, I have a really good, accurate intuition about people, and I want to make sure I get semi good vibes off of them. Specifically before they spend much time around my son and at my home... but also because they will have a peace of the heart of the person I love so freaking much it's crazy, and I just want to confirm for my own sanity that they aren't demons in disguise. Nervous is fine, of course... I'm looking for creeper vibes primarily.

We don't have a veto, (except in terms of physical or emotional abuse) so even if someone gave off really gnarly vibes, I would explain to XIV what I felt, but he's a grown up and if he wants to be in a relationship with that person, that's fine, it's his call. However, I know he takes my impressions seriously, and I take his seriously as well.

I've never been in a situation quite like this before, but it is a firm line for me. Before he gets too emotionally vested (by his definition... not mine) I want to meet them. I have faith he will tell me when that time comes, and not a moment before

[JaneQSmythe]

Originally Posted by LadyKane

However, I know he takes my impressions seriously, and I take his seriously as well.

... I want to meet them. I have faith he will tell me when that time comes, and not a moment before

When I got together with Dude MrS and I had another conversation about how things would go down if he (MrS) met someone he was interested in. He expressed (unsolicited) that he thought that it would look like - he meets a girl, he flirts with her, she expresses an interest, I meet her, they date/have "happy-funtimes" (i.e. sex). He basically expressed that he thinks that I have a better "crazy-screening" ability than he does and that he would want anyone that he is interested in having a more-than-casual experience to meet me before things got "involved" because he trusts me to detect "red-flags" that he would tend to miss.

To be perfectly fair this has never been tested. MrS has always been free to pursue other women in whatever way he sees fit as long as he keeps me "in the loop" (i.e. informed) - but in 20 years he has never been involved (sexually or romantically) with any woman that we both didn't already know, and in the vast majority of cases the encounter was largely sexual and negotiated by ME (i.e. he was invited to a threesome sexual encounter with me and a FWB). For him, expanding our agreements to include Dude seemed to spark another level of discussion/re-affirmation of agreements.

[nycindie]

Originally Posted by Marcus

This is another valuable clarification from my new polyamorous friends in my coming to understand your viewpoint . . . knowing that your preference(s) is not quite as rigid as I imagined changes my understanding of your stance(s).

. . . I feel that I am learning a great deal about your viewpoints . . . Situation by situation, of course factors are going to be different.

There are so many ways to live polyamorously. You can't really make any assumptions about a "majority" by reading a few posts. There are numerous members here who only lurk and/or send private messages, so you are only reading the opinions of the most vocal of us. There are also many people in the world, I believe, who are managing multiple love relationships without ever having heard the word polyamory nor visiting a forum like this. Somehow they do it without adhering to popular opinion or someone else's rules . . . so anything is possible! We all create our own realities.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Likewise, any family I might be a part of in the future . . . A family "laying down the law" on the outset . . .

I've seen you refer to communes; now you refer to families. Are you looking for a poly family to join? It seems that you think of polyamory as mostly a group living situation, or am I misperceiving you? As a solo polyamorist, I just want to point out that there are many of us who do not cohabit in a family or communal type situation, nor do we have any desire to do so. For a solo perspective, if you're interested, you may enjoy reading through this thread: Solo poly people - what's your ideal?

[CielDuMatin]

It sounds like many here have a common wish - for everyone to meet in some form or another before it gets too serious.

Where we differ is on the definitions of "meet" and "too serious". For some sex, by definition, only happens when things are serious, for others it's more casual. As long as everyone involved in the relationship is compatible on this, then it's going to work - if they aren't, then it's going to be a problem really quickly.

For others, "meet" means face-to-face, because they get a far better "read" on someone when having a face-to-face interaction then by emails or phone calls, whereas for others the emails and phone calls are perfectly fine. Again, as long as everyone involved is on the same page, then things can be very functional.

Knowing this, I think that it's really important in the very early discussions about a relationship, to find out where everyone stands on these points and come to an agreement. This will involve lots of anguish and people wasting their time on something that was destined to fail.

This has been very interesting, and has helped clarify some stuff for me. Thank you for the (mostly) civil discussion on this.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by nycindie

I've seen you refer to communes; now you refer to families. Are you looking for a poly family to join? It seems that you think of polyamory as mostly a group living situation, or am I misperceiving you?

It's unlikely that I would find a group that would endure me or me them. I only mention that I recognize the value of the group so people don't mistake me for being anti-group/commune/family.

[lovefromgirl]

Originally Posted by Marcus

It's unlikely that I would find a group that would endure me or me them. I only mention that I recognize the value of the group so people don't mistake me for being anti-group/commune/family.

A nitpick, because context is huge:

Groups, communes, and families are very different concepts.

"Group" is the broadest of the three terms in play; groups can be loose-knit or as tight as this afternoon's initial botched crochet attempt. (Ow, my hands.)

"Commune" has certain connotations and can be considered a subset of "group": purpose-led cohabitation, often with a shared ideology taking precedence over individuals' relationships with each other. Easily confused with "cult". Easily associated with crunchiness (hippies, peace and love, free love, off-the-grid, off-the-land).

"Family" is another sort of group, rather the opposite of "commune" as I define both terms: a family is about the people involved, the relationships in play, and a willingness to love each other (romantically, platonically, etc.) despite or because of differences in ideology. There are plenty of small poly groups that fit this definition, however, and are still reluctant to use the term because of the cultural implications. America, at least, has not yet embraced the extension of the family past the nuclear; at best, it allows for aged relatives to come and die with their children!

I am also not sure you would find any of these arrangements suitable. All three have interdependence in common, and you are decidedly independent and happy to remain so. I merely caution you against conflating loaded terms; a group might be a group to you, but some of us have distinct preferences regarding what we are called, and it is kind to respect those differences.

[LovingRadiance]

lovefromgirl-
I love the quote in your signature! LOL!

[lovefromgirl]

Originally Posted by LovingRadiance

lovefromgirl-
I love the quote in your signature! LOL!

Susan Ivanova really is God.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by lovefromgirl

A nitpick, because context is huge:

Groups, communes, and families are very different concepts.

I was not trying to combine them.

I am also not sure you would find any of these arrangements suitable. All three have interdependence in common, and you are decidedly independent and happy to remain so.

I am decidedly (an unabashedly) independent. Thank you for restating this for me.

I merely caution you against conflating loaded terms; a group might be a group to you, but some of us have distinct preferences regarding what we are called, and it is kind to respect those differences.

You will need to clarify for me how I have conflated these terms. I listed them individually as to specifically avoid conflating the terms. Am I missing a piece of this semantic argument you are making?

[lovefromgirl]

Originally Posted by Marcus

I was not trying to combine them.

Oh! I'm sorry; the use of x/y/z rather implies a correlation between x, y, and z. Of course, if you weren't trying to conflate them, then I'm happy to have been wrong!