Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 08-10-2013, 08:09 PM
drtalon's Avatar
drtalon drtalon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CattivaGattina View Post
I think the 5 scales are too few.
The 5 I list aren't meant to be a complete representation. Of course there are lots of places in between them, probably further past 1 and 5, too. I was just trying to summarize the different positions I'd heard so far.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 08-10-2013, 08:51 PM
Flowerchild Flowerchild is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 145
Default Origins

I don't remember who, but someone posted something I found very helpful. Reminder that the term DADT comes from the military practice, where it was okay to be gay, just as long as no one found out. If you were "caught," you got kicked out. (It did not, in fact, work, but that's another discussion). So, whatever it means for you, it does already have connotations...

Continuing that analogy, I can date whoever I want, I just can't let my partner find out, or the relationship might be over. It means things like lying about going to the grocery store, when you're really slipping out to see a lover. If you can handle being someone's "dirty little secret," it can work, I suppose, but it's not my cup of tea.

Seems that most people are on similar pages, though Marcus is right about no one being able to come to consensus here :-p

Last edited by Flowerchild; 08-10-2013 at 09:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 08-10-2013, 09:27 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by idealist View Post
I was in AA for 20 years and the topic of denial was talked about a lot. One day I realized that some denial is necessary for our survival. If all denial was immediately removed from the planet, everything would fall apart.....within hours.....like a house of cards.
While I do find denial (willful ignorance of reality) to be an unhealthy trait for the most part, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was merely stating that DADT is a state of willful denial. That's not a value judgment, just a rational assessment of the reality of the agreement.

I'm not sure about the world falling apart within hours, simply because all of its human inhabitants suddenly decided not to be willfully ignorant of reality but I'd be up for hearing your defense of such an interesting assertion. It would be a purely academic exercise though since there is exactly 0% chance of that happening.
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 08-10-2013, 11:43 PM
idealist's Avatar
idealist idealist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Deep South
Posts: 542
Default On denial

Marcus- I didn't want to hijack the thread so I posted a reply at my blog!

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showp...&postcount=105
__________________
The key to life is in being fully engaged and peacefully detached simultaneously and authentically in each moment.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 08-11-2013, 12:57 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

I'm always interested when people say things like "important part of poly relationships" like poly relationships are fundamentally different from non-poly relationships. Consent is not inherent in poly relationships. What it is inherent in is healthy relationships, poly or not. Whether people in a relationships are poly or mono has no bearing on their ability to form healthy relationships. Both groups of people fuck it up as often as not.

Honestly, DADT means nothing to me because I'm not in a DADT relationship. I would hazard a guess that it means something slightly different to everyone who is in one. I would add that many of them don't self-identify as polyamorous and thus are unlikely to find themselves here to answer your questions.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 08-11-2013, 01:39 AM
Emm's Avatar
Emm Emm is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 786
Default

I see DADT as an open relationship of some description in which the uninvolved partner is able to pretend that they are in a monogamous relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 08-11-2013, 06:44 AM
JaneQSmythe JaneQSmythe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 1,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drtalon View Post
Yesterday, I heard another possibility described, where if one considers disclosure as a sliding scale from extreme secrecy to sharing everything, then DADT falls somewhere on that scale. Do others see it this way?

I tried to image what the steps along this sliding scale of disclosure would look like.
  1. You know nothing about your partners' partners, never want to meet them and never want to hear about them.
  2. You've met each OSO once, but insist upon never seeing them again, nor discussing them.
  3. You don't mind bumping into OSOs and know who they are, but don't make plans including them and prefer not to discuss them.
  4. You know OSOs well, consider them at least good acquaintences, and sometimes include them in plans, but don't share details about sex and intimacy with them.
  5. You are good friends with OSOs (when friendship is reciprocated), they are a regular part of your life, you share details about sex and intimacy... perhaps even *expected* to share details.
I would call only #1 DADT. I think #2-5 are not DADT, hopefully obviously in some cases. Until yesterday, I didn't think there was much difference of opinion about what is and is not DADT. I got the impression some people think that if you're not extremely open (as with #5) that meant you had a kind of DADT relationship.

I'm very curious what this group thinks.
I agree with whoever said that "this group" is likely to disagree on tons of stuff. That said, I also agree with whoever said that DADT implies a level of willful denial.

I screwed up with Dude early on when I represented a level of DADT that did not, in fact, exist (or didn't exist at the level that I was leading myself to "believe" that it did). Lesson learned (and resolved).

Right now, we are at various levels of 3-5 on your scale with various situations depending on everyone's comfort levels. I don't see any of these (3-5) as being DADT, but more to do with levels of comfort and privacy, and these are specific to each person.

I, for instance, don't particularly need to meet anyone who is a casual sex/dating partner of one of my partners. I DO want to be informed if the relationship includes sex (specifically relating to safer sex agreements...I do NOT want to hear details) and would like to be informed when the relationship is "evolving" into deeper emotional attachment (which hasn't happened yet).

Dude is pretty much an open book. Eager to share and hear everything.

MrS is the middle road - open to hearing whatever we want to share (with a minimum similar to mine), open to sharing whatever we want to hear (with a maximum similar to Dude's).

We ran into a situation the other day where Dude didn't understand why I drew a "privacy" line where I did. I'm curious how others feel.

So, Dude is on a date with a girl from OKC. I want to check out her profile but I can't remember her OKC handle. He has shared this info with me, she has checked out my profile, she knows who I am on OKC, she knows about me/I know about her. I know that they have messaged back-and-forth on OKC. So I click on the "messages" tab on his profile on his computer (which is open right next to mine) to see who he has been messaging with...to see if I recognize hers. (For the record, I got the wrong one - they txt'd me the right one a few minutes later.)

The point is...I am NOT willing to actually open up the messages to confirm that this is the right girl. We talked about this later. For me, checking the messaging list of girls that he has talked to (most of which have also visited my profile) so that I can check out their (public) profile doesn't feel like an invasion of privacy, since I have explicit permission to be on his computer and this is info that he would (or did) share with me anyway (we often look to see whether girls who check him out looked at mine and MrS's profiles as well).

BUT, reading messages that she sent to him without her permission, or without him being present (and therefore sharing the info with me intentionally as part of an ongoing conversation - like me sharing a text with a close friend and conferring over what it might mean) feels like I would be invading HER privacy. His position is that she sent the message to him, he is free to share that with his partner if he chooses, therefore no-one should consider OKC messages sent to him to be "private".

My position is that, unless he has specifically informed his messaging partner that his partner could be reading all of his OKC messages (which I am not, but he would be fine with) then there is an "implied privacy" that I am not willing to break unless - a.) he intentionally shares a message with me (burden on him) or b.) she has stated that it is okay with her that I read ANY messages from her to him (burden on her). I am not willing to take that upon myself.

Sidenote: MrS immediately understood why I drew the line where I did, Dude is still confused, what do you think?

JaneQ
__________________
Me: poly bi female, in an "open-but-not-looking" Vee-plus with -
MrS: hetero polyflexible male, live-in husband (22+ yrs)
Dude: hetero poly male, live-in boyfriend (3+ yrs) and MrS's best friend
Lotus: poly bi female, "it's complicated" relationships with Dude/JaneQ/MrS (1+ years)
TT: poly male, married to Lotus, FB with JaneQ
VV and MsJ: bi-women with male primaries, LTR LDR FWBs to JaneQ


My poly blogs here:
The Journey of JaneQSmythe
The Notebook of JaneQSmythe
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 08-11-2013, 07:08 AM
Emm's Avatar
Emm Emm is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 786
Default

Some people seem to feel that anything less than a detailed recital of who put what where and how hard whose hair was pulled is a DADT. I disagree.

I think that where a lot of confusion seems to arise is in the difference between privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is where one partner deliberately hides something from another partner, whether by agreement as part of a DADT or while cheating. I don't think secrecy is healthy, therefore I don't think DADT (by my definition) is healthy.

On the other hand, I think that privacy is healthy. The exact goings on between me and my partner are nobody else's business, so long as any other partners know I exist. Sure, they need to know, in general terms, that we are or aren't sexually active, etc, but the details of what we get up to in bed are private up until they impinge upon the health of the other, eg safe sex practices.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 08-11-2013, 12:24 PM
drtalon's Avatar
drtalon drtalon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
Consent is not inherent in poly relationships.
I think I disagree, though I'm using 'consent' as in willingness rather than consent as in permission.

Are you saying that relationships where not everyone is willingly participating should be called polyamorous?
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 08-11-2013, 12:35 PM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

A DADT to me means that although one or both parties can see other people, the other party is not to be exposed to this in any way. If one was to "slip up", and their partner was confronted with evidence of their non monogamy, that would be a breach of a DADT. It's meant to be a hidden, dirty secret.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
asexual, asexuality, boundaries, communication, dadt, dadt policies, don't ask don't tell, privacy, talking about sex

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:43 AM.