New date expectations/Keeping the door open

SEASONEDpolyAgain

Well-known member
Would it work for you if a newish date said that they need a certain time commitment from you (say 1 date per week) from now (3 dates in) if you want them to keep the door open for a entangled relationship?

The other alternative is that you do not commit to that and then they keep you as a casual partner at most forever?

Have you decided by approx 3 dates in what shape this relationship will ultimately take?

I was speaking to a potential date/acquaintance and it seemed like she gives people that question pretty early on. At first, I thought she just establishes that she wants people who are at least open to entanglement but she wants to know quite early on that SHE specifically is still in the running and she wants that indicated by a commitment to a regular contact schedule.

I think this might be why people consistently seem to betray her expectations. I think she might be forcing a commitment out of them too soon and then, like most connections, early on, they realize a glaring incompatibility and break it off or try to simmer it down.

She's trying to avoid a situation where they don't have the time to develop intimacy seemingly, and has had some experiences where someone expected partnership from her while not giving that level of companionship back which I get too. But it all seems... heavy...

What's your thoughts on it?
 
Hmm, interesting question. I know my partner has been frustrated by poly dates who turn out not to actually have any availability in their schedule to see a new partner regularly. So I could see wanting to look for someone/select for someone who would have one night a week guaranteed to be available / someone who wants to see a new partner one night a week regularly.

As for whether that weekly commitment should start by date 3...I don't know. For me that would normally be way too early to allot that much time to someone. On the other hand, how would I get to know someone if I weren't seeing them regularly?

I think I'm uncomfortable with the casual/committed divine that your new person is laying out. For me, all dating is casual until/unless it slowly becomes serious. I'm pretty slow about developing feelings for people, and it has to happen naturally, not because we "decided" early on that we were going to somehow be serious right away. But I'm not sure if serious is the same thing as committed...I have had casual partners that I was committed to seeing regularly, if perhaps not frequently.

Would a once a week date mean that the relationship is committed and "serious"? My partner has had casual partners that he's seen once or even twice a week for months at a time.

Would a standing once-a-week-date be too much for me to give or expect from a new person? I don't know. I feel like I couldn't get to know someone unless I was seeing them regularly/often. BUT I would have to see them regularly for a while before I could figure out if we are compatible for a "serious" relationship or a committed future.

When I met my partner, I was on the rebound from a bad breakup, we didn't seem to have much in common, he was only 25, and we both wanted to keep things quite casual. But we both had a lot of free time, so we were seeing each other once a week even though we lived far apart. It still took us a year to realize that we REALLY liked each other and couldn't really claim to be "casual" anymore. (That was 9 years ago).
 
Everything you said is exactly how I feel about it.

Jules thinks that they have had a lot of experiences where they believe that a relationship would have "made it" if it wasn't for the lack of time they spent together. Maybe those people suggested that. However in those circumstances, I usually believe that if the chemistry was right, they would have either made it over that hurdle or would have fitted each other in somehow.

What you said about deciding early on that you're going to be serious, this bothers me too. It feels.... unicornish. Like you're making this box that the person is going to fit or not.

I just can't think like that.

She text me and says that she feels like I've been distant since we had this discussion. See, I met her before Covid and we planned to go on a date but Covid meant that we just communicated A LOT over lockdown. So maybe if this discussion had come inbetween in person dates, it would feel a lot different.
 
Covid may skew things a bit. I could see wondering if a person was communicating with me a lot because we all have a bunch of time on our hands. I might wonder if it would be the same if there was no Covid.

I do think 3 dates is way too early to make some sort of commitment to a tangled relationship. This may sound odd, but I would expect more of a time commitment from someone like a play partner right off the bat. For example, a commitment to once a week for a play session. As for more entangled possibilities, I would ask about their other relationships and what they feel their saturation levels are.

I would hate to be put on the spot like you are saying. After such a short time I might know I like the person. I might have the intention of pursuing an entangled relationship. I couldn't make any guarantees though.

I see that type of insistence as a holdover from the typical mono conditioning of hurrying up and finding a partner and settling down. Personally, I am more of a go with the flow type.
 
Hello SEASONEDpolyAgain,

I think it's okay for a newish date to have a certain want/expectation for a certain time commitment, as long as that person realizes that some people will not want to do that. Also they should keep in mind that someone may commit to once a week and adhere to that commitment for a while, but then change their mind and decide not to commit. People are allowed to change their mind.

I wonder if maybe you feel a little boxed in by this potential date/acquaintance because she's implying that *you* might be the next person on her list of expectations. If you are feeling uncomfortable about that, you should probably let her know. Just as she has a right to have certain wants/expectations, you have a right to decide your own willingness.

Regards,
Kevin T.
 
Thinking more about this...

I know a lot of mono people (heterosexual, seeking partner for marriage-and-kids) who have this pattern for dating: they meet someone, if they like them they begin seeing them like 4 to 5 nights a week almost immediately. They are exclusive. They spend ALL their free time together. Then, after a few weeks or months, they might figure out they are not compatible, and break up.

One of my mono friends has had about 5 "serious" boyfriends in the last 1.5 years, via this pattern. None of the relationships reached 6 months, but they were all her serious boyfriends for the brief time that they dated.

I can see that it may work to find your mono life partner this way. Like, you get to know each other very intensely right away. After a couple months, you know each other well enough to decide if you are compatible long term, I guess.

I could NEVER do that. Not even if I had no other partners or if I wanted to be monogamous. I would just NEVER be able to spend so much time together so early on. Plus, how would I have alone time, see my friends, do my hobbies and projects? One thing that puzzles me about my mono friend and others who date this way, is that they seem to be VERY bored and lonely and at loose ends when they are not dating someone. Life, they truly seem to have no life on their own and no way to fill their time.

However, I can see why a poly person might want a regular once a week date. It might be better if there were no expectation of commitment--like, maybe if it would be okay to break up after a couple months of doing one date a week, if you find out you're incompatible. It can feeling like you can't get to know someone if you simply never schedule time together.
 
Would it work for you if a newish date said that they need a certain time commitment from you (say 1 date per week) from now (3 dates in) if you want them to keep the door open for a entangled relationship?

I guess I would say "Thanks for telling me" because I appreciate people who are up front.

But no. I'd not be into that so soon.

The other alternative is that you do not commit to that and then they keep you as a casual partner at most forever?

So it's like "commit now or be forever casual?" There is no space with this person for anything else?

Have you decided by approx 3 dates in what shape this relationship will ultimately take?

Nope. Because 3 dates in the person is still basically a stranger to me. I'm still figuring them out and whether or not I even like them. So I'm not ready to make a standing date with them for once a week. That's a lot of my time and I have other things going on.

I would respond better to being asked "So what are you seeking in a relationship? How much time would you have for a new relationship?" because that's part of the getting to know each other.

Galagirl
 
Maybe they're applying the, "three date rule," which certainly isn't uncommon here, at least among my generation. For those unfamiliar... The third date is often the sex date. So wanting to know on the third date if there can be regular, ongoing dates that are also likely to result in sex, yeah, fair enough if that's how you roll.
 
It also sounds like in this particular case, the "3 dates" might be the in-person dates, but in addition, there has been several months of remote communication during quarantine?

So, if that's the case, it's reasonable for the new person to want to know, is this happening, or not? Are we going to see each other regularly, or not? That makes sense to me...as long as it's clear that setting up a weekly date does NOT mean serious lifetime commitment yet.
 
The more I think about this, honestly, the less I think it's unreasonable - you're not actually making a commitment TO become entangled, you're just making a commitment to actually devote enough time to try to. That said, the "now or never" seems a little ridiculous - like there ought to be room that if you dated casually for a while you could renegotiate that - but at the same time she may be a person that once she's walled off a certain type of feeling *can't* go back. It's similar, I suppose, to how some people like myself almost never develop attraction for people who are already friends. Acquaintances, sure. But if the attraction doesn't develop at the same time as the friendship it's probably not going to.
 
The more I think about this, honestly, the less I think it's unreasonable - you're not actually making a commitment TO become entangled, you're just making a commitment to actually devote enough time to try to. That said, the "now or never" seems a little ridiculous - like there ought to be room that if you dated casually for a while you could renegotiate that - but at the same time she may be a person that once she's walled off a certain type of feeling *can't* go back. It's similar, I suppose, to how some people like myself almost never develop attraction for people who are already friends. Acquaintances, sure. But if the attraction doesn't develop at the same time as the friendship it's probably not going to.


I guess my issue is that I've never had to formally devote time to become entangled. Usually the fact that we want to spend that time together means that we find ways to make it happen and when we can't, it sucks but that's part of what builds the feelings.
 
Longer reply to everyone.

I think I've discovered why we are coming from different places. It turns out Jules was partially right. Hybrid (that's what I'll call her), has mostly had experience with people in quite busy and structured polycule. People who really lack time and resources to maintain the level of relationship they ideally want outside of their most entangled dyad. Some of that has been complicated with issues around poly with the most entangled couple. The typical things we see in here.

I don't have either of those issues in my life ATM and haven't for some time. Therefore, I can be more trusting in the process. For example, I know I can be really "serious" with someone and consider them a life partner even if logistics obstructs our time together.

That's because I've had the experience of partners who truly value our relationship and want to have more freedom to be with each other and knowing that they genuinely want it makes those hard times manageable. Those partners have had partners who work with the whole group to make it happen because we all want the same things for just as many selfish as altruistic reasons.

On a more basic level, Hybrid's past relationships have been with people who arent as able or willing to host or leave their homes for extended periods. There hasn't been as much room for group socializing or when there was room for that, there were rules about who went as whose date or PDAs. So time together was always about hunting down those times when you can be alone and when you couldn't be alone, you didn't see each other.

One thing this has made me understand is that I'm probably more KTP than I thought though I sometimes avoid that term for myself because MY experience with people heavily into KTP is that it is used more as a control or coping mechanism than idle desire. Almost an ultimatum: "if you don't like me enough than it just won't work with my partner". But there is more than enough scope for me to leave here for a few days even if one of my partners is staying here. Both Jules and myself have partners who stay in our homes for extended periods when they are here and it makes sense for them to be based in this part of the country. However, we all want it to be on the condition that we all have freedom to come and go (alone) as we please (within reason of course). So even though Titi is here, I can go and stay elsewhere for a few days (outside of a pandemic).

So these issues that Hybrid has had in the past are not going to be an issue here. The question now is if I'm willing to commit to what she needs to trust that or whether I should just show her why it isn't going to be an issue and operate as I normally would which would not be committing to formally 'try' to build a typically serious relationship or however you want to label it but just find our own ground and rejoice in that. I think, from experience, that's the best mindset to have. You can end up rejecting a lot of good, healthy relationships JUST because they do not look how you envisaged they would, or should.

It might turn out that we only really have time for each other a few weekends a year but that doesn't mean we have to consider each other casual. There are other ways to cement someone as a life partner and there are plenty of relationships which have just as much love without those heavy labels and expectations.

Part of me does want to go through the process of gaining trust by doing things how she likely need them to be but experience tells me that it can be laborious and eventually ruin what good feelings you do have when you feel obliged or even just stressed out trying to stick to your word.
 
It's understandable that past relationship experiences can color one's expectations of new relationships, ability to trust, etc.

That said?

The question now is if I'm willing to commit to what she needs to trust that or whether I should just show her why it isn't going to be an issue and operate as I normally would which would not be committing to formally 'try' to build a typically serious relationship or however you want to label it but just find our own ground and rejoice in that. I think, from experience, that's the best mindset to have. You can end up rejecting a lot of good, healthy relationships JUST because they do not look how you envisaged they would, or should.

I agree with you. Just be how YOU naturally are. It will either pan out or not.

Galagirl
 
For example, I know I can be really "serious" with someone and consider them a life partner even if logistics obstructs our time together.

It's an interesting idea - I just personally don't feel I can hit *life* partner without some level of consistent time together, and if logistics get in the way of that they're gonna be someone that I might love passionately, as a comet, but it's not going to feel like a *partner*. Of course I'm pretty unwilling to consider long distance (more than an hour or two) as well, for similar reasons.

For me, lack of consistent touch leads to ... lack of emotional intimacy. That was the worst part of the first part of quarantine, when I wasn't seeing Artist - and I'm not sure that that a less established relationship of mine could/would have survived that. But that's just how I experience intimacy, and everyone else's mileage does of course vary.
 
It's an interesting idea - I just personally don't feel I can hit *life* partner without some level of consistent time together, and if logistics get in the way of that they're gonna be someone that I might love passionately, as a comet, but it's not going to feel like a *partner*. Of course I'm pretty unwilling to consider long distance (more than an hour or two) as well, for similar reasons.

For me, lack of consistent touch leads to ... lack of emotional intimacy. That was the worst part of the first part of quarantine, when I wasn't seeing Artist - and I'm not sure that that a less established relationship of mine could/would have survived that. But that's just how I experience intimacy, and everyone else's mileage does of course vary.

That brings up an interesting conversation about both consistency and time.

Take Titi, she's nomadic. She spends time around the world anywhere there is a black community and/or human rights issues that she's working in. However, she consistently makes sure that whatever she is doing, seeing me is a priority. Whether that is just taking a connecting flight near to me and spending a few hours because that's all time permits or actively shifting things around to spend extended time. Like now. She decided to stay a bit longer as she hasn't been here for a long time and we have a new freedom in our personal relationship which we are enjoying.

So in that sense, consistency is present in our relationship. When she is away, we connect every day and at least once a week, have some sort of "date" where we connect at the same time. This is something that we were more rigid about including in our "things that must be done" as time progressed and our relationship naturally became something we wanted to not only sustain, but allow to grow into whatever it turns out to be.

So I too need consistency, but that takes the shape of the other person consistently staying on the same page as I am and wanting things from life and each other that complement the growth of our relationship.

I guess Titi could be a comet but the love and support we want to express to each other means that we are comet *partners*. I'd say that's because we had all the elements of friendship alongside romantic and sexual interest in each other. Generally speaking, a partner for me is someone where I have all of those things: friendship, sexual intimacy and romantic desire. And yes, those things are sustained through consistency in our relationship. Consistent respect, interest, lust, companionship and camaraderie.

With more regular in person contact, that process from date/friend to partner can be accelerated but it doesn't increase the value of those relationships over the ones where logistics meant we got there at a slower pace. And even if they don't get all the way there, it doesn't mean the relationship is less valuable or can't be long term.

I think that's another difference between myself and Hybrid.

PS:

Titi said that she just knows when she is on that page with someone. She has people who she doesn't see for months or even years and although it would be cool to see them, she isn't going to jump over mountains JUST to see them like she does with me and vice versa. And they are also fine with that and some would even be uncomfortable if she regularly did that because it would signify that she prioritizes their relationship in a way that they do not want to reciprocate.

Those people are people she would still call friends even though she doesn't have to any more (see my blog post on Titi for info). With me, I'm a partner and (the desire for) inperson contact with each other is the main way we connect as a couple. The fact that we are on the same page about balancing our wider lives with our relationship goals and ideally, we would both love to have teleportation powers so we were not obstructed by logistics like distance and time difference, is what makes the times we cannot see each bearable. Not only bearable, but it sort of fuels our passion and intimacy.
 
Back
Top