how soon should you meet your lover's girlfriend?

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.

That's a good point, and I do know that I have been exceptionally lucky. I found TWO wonderful guys on a poly dating site within 2 months, and we all had the same ideas, and there wasn't any need for wiggling ;)
Were I in a situation where I was more frustrated about fínding someone compatible, it is very possible that I would consider meeting the GF of someone that I was really interested in, sooner than I would be comfortable with judging from my current perspective.
 
That's a good point, and I do know that I have been exceptionally lucky. I found TWO wonderful guys on a poly dating site within 2 months, and we all had the same ideas, and there wasn't any need for wiggling ;)
Well, hopefully there was some GOOD wiggling ;)

Were I in a situation where I was more frustrated about fínding someone compatible, it is very possible that I would consider meeting the GF of someone that I was really interested in, sooner than I would be comfortable with judging from my current perspective.
Yeah, that's exactly the thought process I was talking about.
 
Cleo, I applaud you!! Thank you so much for putting very clearly and in detail into writing how I feel about this whole issue.

THANK YOU
 
WIth my boyfriend-we could easily operate this way, without rules at all. And for the most part we do-and always have, except that he isn't poly, so now that we have made a committment to one another, he's stopped dating.

BUT-he nor I get so caught up in NRE that we fling our personal responsibilities to the kids or to our jobs or to our family out the window.
We can enjoy getting to know new people without neglecting the ones who are still there and still matter to us.

SOME PEOPLE haven't learned to do this and aren't able to manage to function appropriately with so much freedom EVEN IF THEY ARE ADULTS.
That's just reality.

Shrug.

I do think-still that there is a HUGE difference when you hvae kids in the picture and you're bringing lovers home than when you do not have kids or are not bringing lovers home.

It's impossible for me to EVER "just go out" without checking in, I HAVE to ensure that there is someone there to watch the kids. As my oldest is now 20 and the youngest barely turned 5, it has been that way in my life for 20 years.

When you have a child at home-you can't just go out on a whim-ever. You have to do a little planning. Unless you have the finances to pay a full time live in nanny I suppose.
 
When you have a child at home-you can't just go out on a whim-ever. You have to do a little planning. Unless you have the finances to pay a full time live in nanny I suppose.

Yep. I find that to be the glaring difference those who are childfree and those who aren't, on the forum and elsewhere.
 
Re the question of meeting a metamour, or potential metamour, before or after sex has taken place, I think it all has to do with how people view sex as well as the other stuff mentioned. For me, sex is a form of communication, a way of getting to know someone through the physical rather than a mental/verbal process. Yes, of course, it's exciting and a first sexual liaison with another person does hold a certain significance to me, but I don't see the moment of having sex with someone as an indication that the relationship is now serious, as someone mentioned here. This is not to say that I would enjoy emotionless, purely recreational sex. I don't really get into that, but most of my love relationships usually start with an attraction and sparks that lead to sex very early on, and through this sexual communication is how I get to know them and develop the relationship

Some people seem to ascribe so much more meaning to the sexual act than others do. Same thing with saying the words, "I love you." Really, what's the big deal? My loving someone doesn't mean that our relationship has to change now that I have a certain feeling toward them.

Anyway, as Marcus said, he would entertain an invitation to meet someone, but not a demand. I think this is important. Lots of poly people have rules that cannot be broken, and others are much more open to seeing what happens. These two styles obviously can create a clash or conflict. Both sides may have to compromise from time to time, based on the circumstances and people involved. Is it really so difficult that the SO wait a little longer or the new love interest meet a little sooner than they would prefer?

If I meet a guy who has any rule with his SO that affects me, I have a choice whether or not to accept that rule or set of rules. I can ask myself whether or not it impedes or offends my own personal boundaries, and if it doesn't, sure I will go along with it. But if I don't think the balance is weighted fairly and if my needs feel disrespected, I can walk. There are plenty of fish in the sea. I think lots of people get caught up in accepting others' rules which they actually consider unreasonable, simply because they think this is their last chance at happiness or something. Feeling desperate for love is not a good basis for starting a relationship with someone and losing my integrity.

Personally, if a love interest of mine has an SO who is inflexible and demands that things happen the way she wants, and only that way, I would not comply. I resent anyone outside my relationships making rules about how I can proceed and conduct those relationships. I would rather share a quick email or phone convo just to confirm that the SO is on board with poly and the guy isn't a cheater, but meeting her, to me, is something I'd want to do in my own time.

Last year, I tried to have a LDR with Burnsy and it didn't work out, but I loved what his wife wrote to me in an email when he and I were just starting to acknowledge that we wanted a relationship. She told me that their goal in poly was to meet people and allow for their relationships to develop and grow into whatever they may. She was rather confident and told me frankly that she had "no worries or insecurities" about where she fits into Burnsy's life, and that she thought he and I should both develop our relationship separate from the dynamic of his relationship with her. I truly appreciated this, because all too often it seems that a spouse has no understanding of the importance of autonomy in relationships. She then told me that she would only want to get to know me once he and I had something established between us. Obviously, her and his approach totally meshed with mine, and so I have faith that there are more people out there like that. Yes, I can and will compromise if I feel a situation merits doing so and I am not losing myself in the compromise, but as I move forward I can state my boundaries and say yes or no without feeling like I have to do anything that goes against my convictions.
 
Last edited:
If I meet a guy who has any rule with his SO that affects me, I have a choice whether or not to accept that rule or set of rules. I can ask myself whether or not it impedes or offends my own personal boundaries, and if it doesn't, sure I will go along with it. But if I don't think the balance is weighted fairly and if my needs feel disrespected, I can walk. There are plenty of fish in the sea. I think lots of people get caught up in accepting others' rules which they actually consider unreasonable, simply because they think this is their last chance at happiness or something. Feeling desperate for love is not a good basis for starting a relationship with someone and losing my integrity.


I would rather share a quick email or phone convo just to confirm that the SO is on board with poly and the guy isn't a cheater, but meeting her, to me, is something I'd want to do in my own time.

I truly appreciated this, because all too often it seems that a spouse has no understanding of the importance of autonomy in relationships. She then told me that she would only want to get to know me once he and I had something established between us. Obviously, her and his approach totally meshed with mine, and so I have faith that there are more people out there like that. Yes, I can and will compromise if I feel a situation merits doing so and I am not losing myself in the compromise, but as I move forward I can state my boundaries and say yes or no without feeling like I have to do anything that goes against my convictions.


Nyc-I highlighted the parts that stood out to me with a huge smile on my face.
Also-in purple, to me email/text might BE meeting the other person. It doesn't have to be face to face per se. It's the total lack of straight one person to the other communication I have a true issue with. If they aren't willing or interested in verifying that I exist and that I am on board-they risk the possibility that I'm not and he is cheating. Which in turn makes them a cheater.

I know for CERTAIN (watched it AND he admits it readily) that Maca has a HUGE issue with grabbing anything that pays him the slightest attention-because he's afraid no opportunity will ever come along. (obviously THEY DO-as he's filtered through 4 so far, even in our small community). But, he's certain they won't.
Even he looks back and says "WTF was I THINKING?!?!?!" The answer is simple, he wasn't thinking-he was fucking attracted, panicked that no one he was attracted to would give him the time of day again and rushed into more than HE was ready for. Only to end up with major regrets of his own (not including the complications for the rest of us) because HE DID NOT STAY TRUE TO HIS OWN priorities and needs.

With all of the women-I've given him the go-ahead, because I don't believe in controlling my lovers. But, every time I've warned him, he was considering actions HE HAS AN ISSUE WITH. Our boundaries are almost COMPLETELY HIS boundaries-not mine.
The last time, I warned her. After he shared naked photos of her with my brother (whom she doesn't know and whom he is not close with). She tried to tell me she knew him better than I did. I let it go (with her) knowing she was about to get burned up one side and down the other, because in fact, I know him much better than she does. 24 years of watching someone will do that for a person.

Now, she's hurt, angry, resentful and flinging all the blame at me. He has figured out that it was him and he knows I didn't do or say any of the shit she's accusing me of.
But, she can't IMAGINE that he would ACTUALLY have lied to her or misrespresented himself to her. Because she TRUSTED him and she knew him OH SO WELL through their sexual connection.....
:rolleyes:

After a few weeks of reading through the writings here, my conclusion at this point is-
she fucking deserves it.
If she chooses to believe she can get to know someone that well, that fast, through sex-she deserves precisely what she got-which was finding out that in fact, there are some guys out there who WANT to be really nice guys-but do some STUPID ASSHOLE SHIT and if you ask their current significant others wtf is going on before you get in to deep (sex/no sex, whatever, before you get emotionally attached), you could save your self a fuckload of heartache.
And STI's.
(not that STI's were an issue here, just saying)
 
I would rather share a quick email or phone convo just to confirm that the SO is on board with poly and the guy isn't a cheater, but meeting her, to me, is something I'd want to do in my own time.

Just to clarify, when I talk about meeting the metamour, I never meant it had to be in person. Meeting online is fine, and I guess a phone call could be fine too although I'm hopeless on the phone so I'd prefer Skype if she really cares about hearing each other's voice. Meeting in person is an option, so is meeting in any other way, it's mostly about making contact and being sure they understand the situation and won't feel used later on due to misconceptions.
 
Method of Contact

it's mostly about making contact and being sure they understand the situation and won't feel used later on due to misconceptions.

This is another valuable clarification from my new polyamorous friends in my coming to understand your viewpoint. When I was reading "meeting" I assumed that we were talking about the new person coming in for an in-person interview (I also imagined there being a panel with a scorecard lol). Three of you have clarified in this thread that the form of "meeting" is any that would be sufficient for making contact that would let everyone know the other partners are not simply figments. Obviously I presume a face to face would be best just for the sake of meeting new friends and building our communities, but knowing that your preference(s) is not quite as rigid as I imagined changes my understanding of your stance(s).

I'm certainly glad that I found this group and that we have had our (mostly) civil disagreements. I feel that I am learning a great deal about your viewpoints and hopefully this will enrich my own relationships.
 
Demand vs Request

Anyway, as Marcus said, he would entertain an invitation to meet someone, but not a demand. I think this is important. Lots of poly people have rules that cannot be broken, and others are much more open to seeing what happens. These two styles obviously can create a clash or conflict. Both sides may have to compromise from time to time, based on the circumstances and people involved. Is it really so difficult that the SO wait a little longer or the new love interest meet a little sooner than they would prefer?

Sounds like a rational approach. Situation by situation, of course factors are going to be different. While I would outright refuse what I perceived to be a "demand" in one situation, might be accepted in another (probably having to do with how enamored I was with the girl in question). Likewise, any family I might be a part of in the future would surely give a bit of latitude for a new member such as myself who did not want to meet right off the bat but wanted to let it play out a bit longer.

It is this adult outlook that I am interested in, even in the presence of more "rules" than is my preference. A family "laying down the law" on the outset would almost certainly be the same group who would butt heads with me later down the road anyway.
 
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 :D)
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 :)
 
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.
 
Marcus said:
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.

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Yet Again

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?
 
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!
 
Back
Top