how soon should you meet your lover's girlfriend?

How does meeting this person ease your concerns of contracting STDs from them? In meeting them do you find that you get a "vibe" that their genitals are free from complication? Do you examine them on the dinner table?

Personally I'd be satisfied by seeing their test results (if only in email, as someone else suggested).

It doesn't necessarily ease my mind about the risks, but makes me more comfortable with accepting them. I will be a lot less pissed at that considerate, intelligent woman I met a few months ago that may have passed me herpes than I will be at the bitch who refused to meet me. You know? It doesn't mean the woman who didn't want to meet me really is a bitch, but in my mind she refused to do something as simple as have a cup of coffee or pop in and say hi real quick before they go out one night AND she gave me herpes so she seems like an awfully big bitch.

(On that note, if I ended up with herpes, more than likely I wouldn't be that pissed in general, but I would expect to think nasty thoughts if the person has insisted he/she was clean and blah blah blah to get out of meeting me and then either of us end up with it. It's a pretty big risk in swinging which I do and with poly when there are multiple partners having sex, so the likelihood that I have been/will be exposed is pretty darn high and tests aren't always that accurate for herpes, so clean results don't necessarily mean clean results.)

Like someone else said, that face-to-face meeting makes her a person and not some faceless being that is affecting my life.
 
Sparklepop-I think your answer rocked. :)
Feel free to visit me anytime! LOL! :p

Why, thank you!

Do I have to meet your +baggage first?

You'll have to meet mine. She'll be the one at the bar with the chainsaw and crazed jealous look in her eyes.

~teases~

;)


Marcus - you're a very interesting new addition to the forum, Sir. I like reading your comments. I see a lot of my old opinions on poly in you. I find it particularly interesting when you talk about mono fear rules being taken over to poly. That's something I try to avoid and wonder where the middle ground is. I do love a debate. Maybe you can start a thread with some of your thoughts and we can all re-write poly together?


Katie - I hope you come back and tell us how the meeting went and what your thoughts are on meeting the +baggage.
 
Rules are not unique to polyamory. The exact same instincts of control and ownership which are involved in monogamy are carried over into our polyamorous relationships. All of these requirements of when people have to meet, how much they are allowed to share before hand, how "close" they are allowed to become before taking certain steps, are simply methods of control. We are trying to control the actions of our partners and their partners through fear that, if we don't we will be harmed.
No, no, a thousand times NO!

Look, this may not fit into YOUR model of what polyamory is and YOUR way of doing things, but please don't presume to extrapolate that on the rest of the poly community and make such sweeping judgements.

A group relationship, for me, is a team. We are all working together in some way (some more closely with others, some more distantly) to make things work. There has to be a degree of co-operation, and an ability to problem-solve together so that life is just not chock-full of drama.

For one person to single-handedly bring someone in, and expect everything to work somehow magically, with this new person functioning seamlessly as part of that team is highly unlikely. You can increase the chances of that being successful if everyone is involved in the decision-making process to the degree they wish, rather than one person being arrogant enough to make decisions for everyone else in the group.

So agreements are put in place (which you can call rules if you want, but for us they are agreements) that everyone involved in the group has some input into whether someone new is going to 'fit". In practice, this usually means finding out whether there are any "show-stoppers" that the others can't see for some reason. It is a co-operative, joint decision and we have all agreed on that process. And this means that it's everyone in the group, not just a chosen few.

Also, it's a two-way street - doing this before anything gets too involved allows the new person to meet everyone involved and know exactly what they are getting into, rather than keeping everyone hidden until folks are in deep and THEN realising that there's someone already in the relationship that is going to cause unmitigated chaos in their lives. Nobody deserves that.

If you see this is as control based out of fear, then, frankly, I wonder what paradigms you are living by.


These rules creep me out - it all just sounds like marriage.
OH, so you are anti-marriage?

I am curious as to what you define, then, as "marriage", because I know term means different things to different people - for some it's a legal thing, for others monogamy, and for still others, a group marriage. For me, it means long-term committed relationships - things that should neither be entered into, nor cast aside lightly, but done with forethought and agreement of all involved, rather than everything done on whims of the individual and everyone else being forced to accept it or move out...

You appear to see this sort of set-up as being too dependent on each other, and this is harmful. It seems to me like you are advocating independence for all involved, and that that would work best. (Am I right so far?) What I am advocating, instead, is interdependence - the whole being greater than the sum of the parts - the ability for the group collectively to make a better decision than any individual in it.
 
Last edited:
Do I have to meet your +baggage first?

You'll have to meet mine. She'll be the one at the bar with the chainsaw and crazed jealous look in her eyes.

~teases~
I'll wear chainsaw proof jacket. :) My+baggage would probably love to meet-assuming of course they weren't working. :) LOL!
Sometimes, it sucks living in Alaska-because we're so isolated from everyone! It's not like we can plan a road trip and go to the camps and stuff that go on stateside! It would be so cool to be able to meet like-minded people who didn't freak out over there being three of us and not two! LOL!


Marcus - you're a very interesting new addition to the forum, Sir. I like reading your comments. I see a lot of my old opinions on poly in you. I find it particularly interesting when you talk about mono fear rules being taken over to poly. That's something I try to avoid and wonder where the middle ground is. I do love a debate. Maybe you can start a thread with some of your thoughts and we can all re-write poly together?
Hey, maybe we could also have a debate thread. ;) I Love to debate. Not particularly great at it-but enjoy it! And, since I took it upon myself to pm Marcus and torment him with questions, I know he's good at responding even if my logic is flawed!! :)
 
The date with the girlfriend was brief and a bit awkward, but nice. Good potential. Wehad our meeting on neutral ground (i.e not in any of our homes, which I think is a must for a first time meeting).

My situation is that I am very new to poly and I think a lot of flexibility was important in this case. I think if I had been forced to meet before having a couple of dates with my lover I would have backed out, and that would have been a shame as everyone is very nice and now we have reached point where we are more cool with things. To me it is also a question of me having to feel comfortable with the whole idea of dating someone in a poly relationship, and that takes time for me. I really don't see what the problem is if I meet with him on a couple of occasions, get to know him him better, and that helps me to quickly get to a point where I feel more comfortable about the whole idea of being in a poly relationship, which means meeting the girlfriend. I saw my lover 4 times before meeting her, which I think is relatively quickly.
 
A group relationship, for me, is a team. We are all working together in some way (some more closely with others, some more distantly) to make things work. There has to be a degree of co-operation, and an ability to problem-solve together so that life is just not chock-full of drama.

For one person to single-handedly bring someone in, and expect everything to work somehow magically, with this new person functioning seamlessly as part of that team is highly unlikely. You can increase the chances of that being successful if everyone is involved in the decision-making process to the degree they wish, rather than one person being arrogant enough to make decisions for everyone else in the group.

So agreements are put in place (which you can call rules if you want, but for us they are agreements) that everyone involved in the group has some input into whether someone new is going to 'fit". In practice, this usually means finding out whether there are any "show-stoppers" that the others can't see for some reason. It is a co-operative, joint decision and we have all agreed on that process. And this means that it's everyone in the group, not just a chosen few.

Also, it's a two-way street - doing this before anything gets too involved allows the new person to meet everyone involved and know exactly what they are getting into, rather than keeping everyone hidden until folks are in deep and THEN realising that there's someone already in the relationship that is going to cause unmitigated chaos in their lives. Nobody deserves that.

This resonates greatly with my perspective and GG's. It's what Maca says he wants-but sometimes really struggles with, because fear gets in the way and he's afraid that if he lets the process work, he'll end up losing.
 
My situation is that I am very new to poly and I think a lot of flexibility was important in this case. I think if I had been forced to meet before having a couple of dates with my lover I would have backed out, and that would have been a shame as everyone is very nice and now we have reached point where we are more cool with things. To me it is also a question of me having to feel comfortable with the whole idea of dating someone in a poly relationship, and that takes time for me. I really don't see what the problem is if I meet with him on a couple of occasions, get to know him him better, and that helps me to quickly get to a point where I feel more comfortable about the whole idea of being in a poly relationship, which means meeting the girlfriend. I saw my lover 4 times before meeting her, which I think is relatively quickly.
This sounds like it worked for you and had a good outcome for all - this is fantastic, and I'm really glad that it did.

I would say that if the four meet-ups were getting together in a coffee house and discussing music, the world, and whatever other subjects came to mind then yes, that's nice and prompt - for our setup, none of us would have any issue with one of our partners going out and doing this.

If, however, those four times were overnight sex marathons, then I think that we would definitely feel that this was too far, too fast without meeting up with us first. For each of us, we have no interest in casual sex, so it would mean something.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that it's not so much the number of times you meet that is "too fast" or "too slow" - it's what you do when you meet...

Make sense?
 
most of the occasions we had sex, but no overnight stays. Just meetings for a few hours.

Seriously, it would feel really silly for us to just sit around and talk if there is a spark and sexual interest. This reminds me a bit of how do you define sex. Is it when there is actual penetration, or is it just intense flirting? If we were just talking for sure both of us would be thinking about wanting to have sex.....

This is more about spending time together getting to know each other, and that also involves sex.

Again, I think the the point here is we are all different. We do it our way and that has worked out for us
 
We obviously work from very different ideas of relationships...

Seriously, it would feel really silly for us to just sit around and talk if there is a spark and sexual interest.
For me the sexual interest can only really come once I get to know a person - they can be attractive as all hell on the outside, but the insides (what's in their heads) can be ugly. I find that the sex itself is far better if I get to know the person's brain quite well first.

This is more about spending time together getting to know each other, and that also involves sex.
Glad that works for you - it wouldn't for me.

Again, I think the the point here is we are all different. We do it our way and that has worked out for us
Absolutely! :) As long as all involved in your relationships are ok with it, then absolutely go for it!
 
I'm also glad if it works for you - that's the thing about poly, it really is about viewpoints and what works for whoever is involved.

Just a quickie question - does your lover's girlfriend know you guys have already slept together? Or does she think you haven't yet?
 
Mawage.

No, no, a thousand times NO!

Look, this may not fit into YOUR model of what polyamory is and YOUR way of doing things, but please don't presume to extrapolate that on the rest of the poly community and make such sweeping judgements.

I'm happy to adjust my view on the poly "community" and to give each member a bit more breathing room. Upon my entry I was bombarded with what seemed to be a general consensus including ranking systems and rules about who meets whom when followed by veiled threats of backlash for misbehavior. It was this that prompted me to presume judgment on the community - I'm happy to be incorrect about that judgment and I appreciate you standing up for your views.

A group relationship, for me, is a team. We are all working together in some way (some more closely with others, some more distantly) to make things work. There has to be a degree of co-operation, and an ability to problem-solve together so that life is just not chock-full of drama...

I have no truck with any of this. It sounds like you have a functional commune and that is a beautiful idea. As you no doubt have deduced, I am SUPER hesitant to be encumbered in that way but I'm glad to see someone is pulling it off.

OH, so you are anti-marriage?

I'd rather have my penis nailed to a burning building.

Marriage is an old institution, riddled with traditions of ownership and overly sentimental promises of growing old together. If what you are calling marriage is not this traditional masterpiece of dysfunction then so be it. However, I find that many times a word carries its history with it and I use it accordingly.

You appear to see this sort of set-up as being too dependent on each other, and this is harmful. It seems to me like you are advocating independence for all involved, and that that would work best. (Am I right so far?) What I am advocating, instead, is interdependence - the whole being greater than the sum of the parts - the ability for the group collectively to make a better decision than any individual in it.

I understand the sentiment and you are correct, I am much more in favor of independence. Granted, I also see the obvious power and value of having a community - so this is a balance I am still coming to understand.

I figure, as long as everyone understands that my time/body/emotions/resources belong to me and me alone then we're off to a good start. Once people assume that they have some say over these things (I'm not talking about asking, I'm talking about assuming) I call it "marriage" and start packing my things.
 
You asked about why people would want to meet metamours before sex occurs, here is my answer:

I think the main reason to meet metamours early on is to be sure they realise I'm here to stay, and what polyamory is about. Sadly, with an abstract gilfriend or wife, many women just think they'll get him for themselves as some point, even if they don't realise it themselves. There are preconceptions that seeing someone else means other relationships are unhealthy.
By meeting the person, I can show that I exist, that I'm a real person and not however they imagined me to best meet their needs of what I should be (for instance, a bitch to justify that he wants to see someone else) and I can also show how much love, respect and complicity there is between my partner and myself, so they know what to expect going in.
Even with a polyamorous metamour, it's good to get to know each other and the dynamics, since we're all involved in the relationship. I want my metamours to be able to contact me directly and not have to go through a partner we have in common.

The "before sex" isn't really a hard rule here, but for a lot of people sex is a turning point of when a relationship gets serious, and therefore it can become harder and more painful to leave a relationship after sex has occurred. Therefore, I find it best for them to know what to expect (and be able to make their decision) before that step has occurred, so that if they're uncomfortable with the whole thing or think it's not for them, they can just say "goodbye" without feeling used, or stupid, or like they well lied to.

In practicality, Seamus and I have always met potential partners before they became potential partners, so we don't really have a "when" rule. It just has never happened that we became interested in someone that didn't know both of us already. If it was to happen, I'm sure we'd discuss it and see how to deal with it.
 
I have no truck with any of this. It sounds like you have a functional commune and that is a beautiful idea. As you no doubt have deduced, I am SUPER hesitant to be encumbered in that way but I'm glad to see someone is pulling it off.
Nice try. Grabbing the first definition that comes to hand.. "A commune is an intentional community of people living together, sharing common interests, property, possessions, resources, and, in some communes, work and income." (Wikipedia).

We do not all live together, nor do we all share property, income, etc., etc., etc.

We're not a commune - we are simply a group of people, connected by several pair-bonds, who have decided to walk together through life rather than taking an "every man for himself" approach. If you believe that independence is the best way to go, then that's fine, but I'll put any soccer team up against twelve of you and your friends, and we'll see which one works better.

Yes, I'm snarky - first you judge with sweeping judgments and then you start labelling us a "commune" without bothering to find out a darned thing about us, because it seems that you already have all the answers.

Well, good for you. Glad you have found what makes your life work.


Marriage is an old institution, riddled with traditions of ownership and overly sentimental promises of growing old together. If what you are calling marriage is not this traditional masterpiece of dysfunction then so be it. However, I find that many times a word carries its history with it and I use it accordingly.
A nicely condescending evisceration of all those that are making marriages work very well without any ownership or dysfunction. Ah but you know better.... "Many times" a lot of folks are doing marriage extremely well and highly functional. Many are making monogamy work for them too, making promises and commitments to be with one another and then keep to them.


I understand the sentiment and you are correct, I am much more in favor of independence. Granted, I also see the obvious power and value of having a community - so this is a balance I am still coming to understand.
Just a small tip for you - if you want to increase understanding, it might be a good idea not to start your points of view by putting down the very folks that are making things work. You intimated that you have got a hostile reaction from other places you have joined - it may be your style of presenting your views as some sort of global truths that rub people up the wrong way, as you have done extremely effectively with me.

I figure, as long as everyone understands that my time/body/emotions/resources belong to me and me alone then we're off to a good start.
You alone. Yes I can understand how that would work in this case.

Once people assume that they have some say over these things (I'm not talking about asking, I'm talking about assuming) I call it "marriage" and start packing my things.
This has nothing to do with having say over another person's actions. This has everything to do with developing a agreed-upon pattern of behaviour so that folks can have a relationship where they can live in some knowledge that folks understand what is important to them and don't go unknowingly trampling over things that cause hurt. It's about being considerate of your fellow human-being by having a dialogue and providing reassurance that you understand. It's about developing trust between strong individuals, to the point where you know that when times get tough, someone has your back. it's about living your life thinking about something other than "me, me, me".

Look, if you are working yourself out of situations in your life where you have been in some sort of dependent (or abusive or co-dependent) situation, then I can totally understand why independence seems exceedingly attractive, and any sort of reliance on another must necessarily be a weakness. But there is another way, without having to live in a commune or a cult, or being in an abusive, controlling situation.
 
Rules are not unique to polyamory. The exact same instincts of control and ownership which are involved in monogamy are carried over into our polyamorous relationships. All of these requirements of when people have to meet, how much they are allowed to share before hand, how "close" they are allowed to become before taking certain steps, are simply methods of control. We are trying to control the actions of our partners and their partners through fear that, if we don't we will be harmed.

You're right and you're not. Taking it from my personal perspective/How I Do This Stuff:

I meet the prospective partner (or the existing partner) and now we are real people to each other, faces, not just screen names. I meet hir and the fear of the unknown subsides, because now the unknown isn't. If zie decides that the reality of me is too much, then the sooner zie discovers that, the better off we all are.

I am more comfortable confirming, face to face, certain attitudes and personality traits about a person. I realise this is no guarantee against lying liars who lie, but it's a start. It's also nice to be able to state certain things and know I have said them to this person, preferably with a witness. If zie then proceeds to ignore what's been said, that's a sign I may not be able to trust hir. Is it born of fear? Perhaps, but I have learned with time and experience to trust my gut.

I still experience a far greater freedom than I had while practicing monogamy. CdM has no monopoly on my time or affections. I am my own woman. I care very much about keeping him in my life, but that is my choice. He has told me repeatedly that should I need to leave, he would be hurt but he would understand. There was also a freedom from the "dating = sex = exclusivity" paradigm I had experienced. While we were getting to know each other, I felt no pressure. This was a major first for me. My God, a man who wanted to know me for my mind before he knew me Biblically? Whoever heard of such a thing?

How We Do It is just that: how we do it. Plenty do it differently and you are welcome not to do it the way we do, though I daresay you'd not get very far with me in that case.

Worth noting also that if I married, I'd marry for security (e.g. health insurance, artistic patronage). Sexless. Bring on the rich, closeted gay men. I don't conflate marriage with commitment. I view it precisely as a legal agreement between two individuals, under the current letter of the law, to join fortunes and, um, fortune$. So I'm not a great fan of the institution, either; the notion of a white wedding breaks me out in hives. But I do believe in commitment, that choosing of my partner every time there's a choice. It's my choice to make and it means more to me that I make it freely. Also that he chooses me back without being compelled to do so. That's lovely.

We have made it work pretty well for years now, so I'm confident in saying that it can! Have you any experience that has told you it can't, with poly? I'm sorry if you have been hurt in the past by social expectations. I do hope you'll refrain in future from assuming that any two poly people think alike on Great Matters. Ask us first. ;)
 
I'm finding this to be a very interesting and thought provoking thread.
My 'practices' seem to be a bit different from most people's on these boards, and I definitily sympathize with the OP who felt that meeting the lovers girlfriend was maybe too soon. I would never be comfortable with meeting a potential lover's partner before potential lover (and I'm talking serious relationship material here, not casual sexual relationship material) and I had gotten a chance to get to know each other, test the waters, talk, flirt, have sex, see how compatible we are, what we want from a relationship.

While I agree with sparklepop that any person who is in a serious relationship is not single but +baggage, I still look at this person as an individual first before looking at them as part of a partnership. I trust that the person I'm getting to know is responsible, and honest with his partner(s). If he's not, I'll find out sooner or later - that's my responsibility and a risk I'm willing to take, just as I would be willing to take the risk that when I'm dating a person who declares to be single and unattached, that he actually is. And yes I did get burned here a couple of times.

Maybe it's because my husband and I don't have kids, and therefore fewer domestic responsibilities, but even in our 15+ years of monogamy we always very much operated as inviduals. We have our own friends, (also mutual friends of course), our own hobbies, and both value our time alone or with others just as much as the time we spend together. When we were younger, and my girlfriends had partners but no kids, it always amazed me that when I called a friend to get together she said 'yes, but I have to check with X first'. While of course there are a numer of situations where checking or discussing might be appropriate, this happened every single time - whereas for me it was much more common to just call my husband and say 'hey I just made plans with so and so, you're on your own tonight!'.
I think we brought this sense of individuality to our poly life - I only met his first serious GF after a couple of months, by that time she had spent weekends at my house and nights in my bed, and I was fine with that. He told me a lot about her, I knew her name, saw her picture, and beyond that, I trusted his judgment.

His next girlfriend I met much sooner, because my husband really wanted me to. We talked about being open, about my relationship with my husband, my boundaries, being open. We met a couple of times after that, also in social settings. After a year she turned out to be untrustworthy. I had a feeling about this from the very beginning, and more so after meeting her. But my husband had to find this out for himself, which he eventually did, and nothing I said or could have said about her, would have made him come to this realization any sooner.

My husband has met my boyfriend, and they seem to hit it off, and they even had lunch together without me one day when I was away, and tomorrow we're going for drinks all 3 of us - but I never expected this to happen, and would have been perfectly fine with it if they only met the one time.

My other boyfriend has another partner, and I've never met her and I think it's unlikely that I will, although I'm not opposed to it. He talks about her, he talks about talking to her about me, and I trust him. I know her name and where she works, just as my husband knows the name of this boyfriend.

So when it comes to me dating someone, the most important thing is that I am willing to trust him, and base this trust on how he talks about his other partner(s) and the information he's willing to give. To me it would feel seriously off putting if a guy I was interested in would require me to meet his partner before we could take the relationship to another level. It would make me feel like I was judged, needing to be approved, interviewed. Meeting after some time, just because it's fun and interesting to meet new people who will possibly like each other and wil have good time (like what's now happening with my husband and my BF) is whole other story.

And when it comes to my husband dating someone, or one of my boyfriends dating someone: I trust them to make good choices, I trust them to tell me what's going on, I trust them to build their own relationships the way they see fit.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely applaud anyone who has stuff worked out in terms of the order that they would rather things happen. I think that this shows that there are many legitimate ways of approaching this, depending on the individuals resolved.

This will lead to situations where some folks who were otherwise quite compatible relationship material being show-stoppers because of the difference in requirements - classic example - person 1 absolutely feels they need to have sex with someone before meeting their other partners, person 2 absolutely feels they need to meet the partners before sex can happen. I think it's worth it for those that have strong feelings one way or the other to sort out for themselves (and discuss with others as appropriate) how much "wiggle-room" there is in this.

It seems like it is hard enough to find compatible poly people out there (in my time with the various poly communities I have met exactly 2 people I would have been interested in having a relationship with, and am now in a relationship with one of them) - even more of a shame when something like this excludes even more potential partners from the mix.
 
Nice try.

It is clear that I have gotten under your skin and now you just want to fight me.

I'm not interested in fighting so let's just ignore each other and we can all move on with our happy lives.
 
It is clear that I have gotten under your skin and now you just want to fight me.
It is clear that you have come in and made sweeping generalisations based on your own paradigms and that has upset me. I have been trying to point out to you (yes, rather testily, due to what I experience as a combative writing style) that there may be other quite legitimate ways of thinking about this.

I'm not interested in fighting so let's just ignore each other and we can all move on with our happy lives.
We are heatedly discussing the issue, not fighting. I find it interesting that you see this as a "fight". We merely have very differing viewpoints (which I can respect, as I do many other members of this forum and the poly community in general) and have been putting them out there. My only issue with you that is making me upset is your style of posting, not your substance.

I like to discuss with everyone, whether they agree with me or not. As long as there is mutual respect there I can have discussions about issues till the cows come home - and do, regularly. I wasn't sensing a lot of respect from you for differing points of view - and still am not.

However, if you feel that the best solution when you have upset someone is to just walk away and cast it as their problem, then fine, I accept that.

Good luck with your independence.
 
Issue of Trust

So when it comes to me dating someone, the most important thing is that I am willing to trust him, and base this trust on how he talks about his other partner(s) and the information he's willing to give. To me it would feel seriously off putting if a guy I was interested in would require me to meet his partner before we could take the relationship to another level. It would make me feel like I was judged, needing to be approved, interviewed. Meeting after some time, just because it's fun and interesting to meet new people who will possibly like each other and wil have good time (like what's now happening with my husband and my BF) is whole other story.

And when it comes to my husband dating someone, or one of my boyfriends dating someone: I trust them to make good choices, I trust them to tell me what's going on, I trust them to build their own relationships the way they see fit.

Very very well said.

In private message I have found that this is the confusion I was having in understanding the rules of one of our fellow members. It seems that the rules put in place about meeting new partners was directly related to the fact that they didn't trust their partner. In fact, they seem quite certain that their partner will cause destruction and rules needed to be put into place to protect from their bumbling ways. For me, this is a way strange kind of operation - but I guess if one of my lovers is too dumb to survive and will almost certainly cause me harm with how they conduct themselves with new lovers, I need to make rules or see them to the door.

I absolutely insist that my partners trust me to look out for their best interests. If my partners think I'm an idiot, I wouldn't expect the relationship to last very long.

Now, as far as the benefits of meeting everyone directly connected to our romantic community, that much is clear. Obviously their are great benefits to everyone knowing each other and hopefully getting along (as I've said before). But, like you said, meeting someone because there can be social value (new friends, broader support network, etc) is VERY different from meeting someone because I am told I have to.

I will almost certainly accept an invitation, and will almost certainly decline an order.
 
Back
Top