"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies: Merged threads/General discussion

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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Don't Ask don't tell to me means you could be involved with someone who wants to remain oblivious to your actions and even partners. You know you have someone who you are open with but details of any kind wig you out.

Could easily be poly. Poly simply means to love more than one, thats it. Relationship constructs around that don't apply to polyamoury. Ethics are also individual so its hard to apply to a relationship construct.

I couldn't do a DADT.. i prefer friendly involvement with my metamours. Doesn't mean it can't work, just means it won't work with me in the picture.
 
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?

I'm saying that no one except the people in a relationship get a vote in whether that relationship "should" be called polyamorous. I'm emphasizing that "polyamorous" and "healthy" are unrelated terms.

The only intrinsic characteristic of the term "polyamorous" is the literal one: multiple loving. Whether that happens through cheating, DADT, or 100% informed consent, is all a matter of coincidence.

Until we form the polyamory gestapo, there is no validity to saying "this and this and this are polyamory, but this and this and this are not." It's all opinion and personal preference.

Sure, "ideal" polyamory entails things like consent, good communication, being self-aware, expressing your feelings and blah blah blah... But if "ideal" was ever intrinsic to the term "polyamory," I didn't get the memo.

I firmly believe that it is not for you or I to tell someone else that their relationship is or is not polyamorous. The most you and I can say is that it does not conform to the type of polyamory we have chosen for our own lives. Big whoop-de-doo.

I think "that's not polyamory" thinking comes from the attitude some people have that polyamory is better or sacred or special. It's not. It's just another way of doing things. Some people do it well, some people fuck it up. But doing something poorly is not the same as not doing it.
 
thoughts on don't-ask-don't-tell

I don't see too many posts from people in a don't-ask-don't-tell poly situation. It's really worked for J and I, so I'm not sure I see a negative side to it, but wasn't sure if others had opinions or experiences to share.

H and I have a similar relationship; he obviously knows of J and E but doesn't care to know details.

Is don't-ask-don't-tell common in poly relationships?
 
My definition of dadt is your partner is in the dark with every aspect of your other relationships.

They do not know or want to know who what why or when.

You know the view you're going to do it just I do not want to know.
 
See, for me, DADT refers to the relationship style someone I used to date had; his girlfriend knew he saw other people but being confronted with it in any way was a betrayal. This meant, theoretically, that if we had a date planned and she wanted him for something, he couldn't say he was busy because there was nothing he could be busy with that sh couldn't attend and she was used to him cancelling anything he had planned for her needs anyway. This meant that we would never be able to develop the trust and mutual respect necessary for me to build a committed romantic relationship. I would never feel valued enough. It certainly prompted me to adjust my views somewhat about my relations with metamours and what is realistic over the long term if you want to have long term polyamorous commitments.

What you describe just seems to be minimal sharing of details rather than a DADT.
 
Seems to me that knowing someone's other relationships but not sharing details is different from knowing nothing. I just spent the evening with AM and WI doesn't care about details - she knows what we'd be doing and probably hopes we had fun. That's different from me hooking up while on a trip and not saying anything. DADT wouldn't work for us, but minimal info does.
 
Is don't-ask-don't-tell common in poly relationships??
Define your terms.

To me, DADT is where one partner is able to pretend that they are in a traditionally monogamous relationship even though they have given permission for their partner to see someone(s) else.

A situation where one partner knows about the other partner(s) but doesn't expect to be given a blow-by-blow recap of what goes on between them isn't DADT, it's just people with healthy personal boundaries.

Someone who knows about the other partner(s) and insists on knowing exactly who did what to whom, when, and for how long isn't the opposite of DADT, it's a whole different mess of possessiveness and intrusion.

#1, DADT, requires secrecy.

#2 rejects secrecy and allows privacy.

#3 rejects privacy and is an unhealthy couple-privileged mess in which nobody is happy to mind their own business.

Which do you mean when you say "DADT"?
 
Last edited:
To elaborate on that, I don't think DADT can work in a relationship form of Poly (i.e. if we define Polyamory as featuring emotion based outside relationships) for the reasons already mentioned. But as a form of non monogamy I don't see the problem. Especially if one or both don't live together or travel much for work, I don't think it is sustainable if someone gets attached. Being a dirty secret is never nice.
 
I don't see too many posts from people in a don't-ask-don't-tell poly situation. It's really worked for J and I, so I'm not sure I see a negative side to it, but wasn't sure if others had opinions or experiences to share.

H and I have a similar relationship; he obviously knows of J and E but doesn't care to know details.

Is don't-ask-don't-tell common in poly relationships?

I think it's the kind of thing that can work great.....until it doesn't.

It's like not buying house insurance. As long as nothing bad happens, you're golden, laughing at all those suckers for paying their monthly premiums. But when it blows up, it's catastrophic

To me, the biggest problem is that it necessitates lying. Now, I have no problem with privacy and keeping some things secret. But that's different from bold-faced lies. I don't see how you could maintain DADT without eventually lying outright.

I think it would be pretty much impossible to have a really intimate, long term, loving relationship with someone if I couldn't even tell my spouse that they existed. For me, one of the things that makes my life so fulfilling is the acceptance I get from everyone in it about my relationships with everyone else.
 
I think if your partner really wants a DADT, the main thing I would say you really need to discuss is how emotionally involved you can become with other people. Theoretically, one partner could end up progressing a relationship to a live in stage and you'd have no idea that they had been on their way to making such a game changing commitment to someone else. You are effectively consenting to not be informed of major life decisions that they might make that will affect what plans you make for your own future.
 
Back
Top