Confirming relationship status - The Poly Checkin

participant

New member
I've been struggling with an ethical question:

When should an ethical secondary (ES) check in with a casual partner's (CP) significant other (SO), particularly to confirm that CP and SO are actually poly ?
(i.e. verifying that SO is generally okay with the situation and CP isn't cheating).



Having been poly for 15 years, I've seen
a few patterns for The Poly CheckIn:
No checkin (don't care) - CP's relationship status is irrelevant
No checkin (trust) - ES assumes CP is not lying/cheating, or it's not ES's problem
When suspicious - if something seems amiss, verify
When expected - as required by any agreements ES or CP have
After a time - after a few dates, ES should offer to check in
Periodically - every week/month/year ES should check in with CP
Before any intimacy- assume CP is cheating and off limits until a checkin happens.
Before meeting - talk to SO at or before even a platonic date with CP

For background, I'm operating under these (and probably other :) ) assumptions :
a) it is not ethical to knowingly date someone who's breaking commitments with their primary to do so. (ie. not actually in an open relationship).
b) if there is no way to confirm someone might be cheating, it's probably best not to get involved. (i.e. an extreme DADT where SO will not talk to, email or meet ES under any circumstances)


One can get very picky about the exact meaning of what it means to be cheating/lying/breaking-commitments, not to mention what it would mean to effectively verify someone's relationship status, but I think general idea is clear...

Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Hmm, I thought of an additional scenario where one would not need to contact the partner of a potential. There were more than a few instances where guys that I met through OKCupid simply directed me to their partner's profile there, so I went and read them, and that was my proof. If they did not have a rule about meeting each other's lovers and I saw there was a profile there, I felt I didn't have to contact their partners to confirm.

Then again, if someone had a rule requiring me to meet their partner, I probably would choose not to get involved because I'd rather that sort of thing happen organically and not be obligatory in order to date someone -- and people who insist on a lot of rules about how they and their partners must conduct adult relationships really turn me off.
 
Last edited:
Any of these scenarios can be ethical. I've used different ones at different times myself. Is your question that these scenarios are not ethical?
 
I guess the rule of thumb I'd suggest is, "When suspicious -- if something seems amiss, verify."
 
I have no need to check in with a metamour. I will trust my partner. If something seems amiss I will address my partner.

That being said, I have no qualms about meeting a metamour. Also, my "primary" has agreed to speak to any potential partners of mine to confirm my availability.
 
I would not date anyone who needs to speak to my other partners to prove my polyness. My husbands like their privacy.

It screams insecurity and lack of trust. I have no time or tolerance for drama in my life. What else would they need to "check". My texts? My facebook messages? My location at all times? NO THANK YOU!

The boundaries in my relationships do not effect my other relationships.
 
My inquiry is apropos of an ongoing discussion I'm having with my primary.

Her opinion is that a new potential prtner who has experienced cheating/infidelity should realize that someone who says they are in an open relationship may actually be lying and therefore expects that this person would, unbidden, ask to confirm the status of the relationship with the other part{y,ies}. Failure to do this is a reason to suspect the new partner of being insufficiently poly, in particular, insufficiently concerned with the primary's emotional well-being.

My opinion is that it's reasonable to ask the new partner to check in with primary (and to then be concerned if they are unwilling to engage!) but not to expect the new partner to offer this independently.

I understand her perspective but tend to think it's unrealistic to have such an expectation, particularly if new partner is clearly and fully informed of the existing relationship and its primary status.

So, there's no question per se, but [I think] it is an interesting ethical point and hence, other thoughts and perspectives welcome!

Ciao.
 
I don't think there's any one right answer. I think this is really a matter of personal preference (which is a function of past experiences, current realities, and any fears or insecurities we have.)

My personal preference is kitchen table-style poly where are all parties are at least civil, and are able to occasionally occupy the same space amicably, without tension or drama. With this type of poly, a check-in isn't necessary since everyone eventually meets everyone.

That said, since I don't live in my ideal world, I opt for Kevin's answer. I'd ask for a check-in if something seemed amiss, otherwise, I'd trust my partner. I don't wish to be in relationship with those I can't trust.

On the flipside, if my partner's other partner requested a check-in with me, I'd be totally willing.
 
I don't think there's any one right answer. I think this is really a matter of personal preference (which is a function of past experiences, current realities, and any fears or insecurities we have.)

My personal preference is kitchen table-style poly where are all parties are at least civil, and are able to occasionally occupy the same space amicably, without tension or drama. With this type of poly, a check-in isn't necessary since everyone eventually meets everyone.

Seconded. I requested to meet Taylor as soon as possible, since I figured we'd run into each other eventually (she and Roger worked together). I wanted to make sure she knew that I was okay with them dating, as well as have a face to put to her name. But if she said no, I'd respect her choice.

PinkPig, can I just say how much I love your new icon? :D
 
My inquiry is apropos of an ongoing discussion I'm having with my primary.

Her opinion is that a new potential prtner who has experienced cheating/infidelity should realize that someone who says they are in an open relationship may actually be lying and therefore expects that this person would, unbidden, ask to confirm the status of the relationship with the other part{y,ies}. Failure to do this is a reason to suspect the new partner of being insufficiently poly, in particular, insufficiently concerned with the primary's emotional well-being.

My opinion is that it's reasonable to ask the new partner to check in with primary (and to then be concerned if they are unwilling to engage!) but not to expect the new partner to offer this independently.

I understand her perspective but tend to think it's unrealistic to have such an expectation, particularly if new partner is clearly and fully informed of the existing relationship and its primary status.

So, there's no question per se, but [I think] it is an interesting ethical point and hence, other thoughts and perspectives welcome!

Ciao.

My experience is that most women assume a man (me) is cheating when he says he is in an open relationship. Cat's experience is men don't care if she is cheating or not. This made it very difficult for me when we had a DADT open marriage, even though I was always honest about my relationship with Cat.

I can see how dealing with a previous cheater might make one suspicious of everybody, but people should respect their meta's wishes. Cat has zero interest in meeting/talking to my kink partners. It's not her world. She has agreed to do it if needed, but I would rather not put her through that.
 
I wanted nothing to do with the women Butch was seeing. Zip zero nada. I like my privacy thanks.

Many poly women want to be bff's with their metas. I am picky on who I let in my life. If things grew beyond casually dating then sure I would be just fine crossing paths with them now and again.

Several of his early girlfriends want my number to text me. Or wanted to be my facebook friend. One even went so far as to try and facebook friend Murf. Or they wanted to go out together on double dates. Not my idea of a good time.

You would think some would be thankful for a meta, especially a wife, who kept her nose out of their relationship. Butch got tired of the drama and quotes Sheldon Cooper about women when he is asked why he isn't dating.
 
"They really do be crazy." :)
 
Why the objection to providing basic confirmation that your partner is indeed aware that they are in aneed open relationship? Having been on the receiving end of infidelity I would not want to be party to putting someone else through that pain.

Self deception, lying and deceit are the primary operating mode of the cheater. Call me distrustful but someone who says that they are in an open relationship but are unwilling to provide any supporting evidence of their open arrangement I default to the assumption that they are most likely lying. Don't ask don't tell screams they don't ask because they weren't told what is going on.

Poly and open relationships are rare, cheating is common. It's far more likely that a potential partner who claims to be in an open relationship but whose partner is unwilling to confirm that status is just a cheater and by getting involved with them you are not only risking being complicit in causing emotional harm to someone who is innocent and denying them the choice to consent to the arrangement, but also not only risk being drug into any emotional and legal fallout, but are trusting your personal physical and emotional safety to someone with such a callous disregard for others that they are knowingly making a choice that subjects the person they claim to love and made a commitment to, how can you trust them to treat you with respect and decency?

Pretending otherwise is rationalization and self deception, it's fundamentally unethical.

Don't get me wrong I don't think that one should have to develop any sort of relationship or bond but a quick phone call saying 'yeah we're open and I'm ok with it" is a reasonable step to encourage ethical nonmonogamy.

Will that reduce your potential partner pool? Sure but if you want to be an ethical and decent human being who truly respects the right of individuals to make informed choices about their lives then that's the price you pay.
 
Well...no. I can be ethical without involving my partners in each other's live if they don't want to be. People have reasons. You should respect that. There are other ways to spot a cheater instead of relying on one thing like that. Having been on the receiving end of those kinds of accusations because of a dadt policy, I can tell you it sucks to be wrongly judged.
 
I promise you that being on the receiving end of the accusation is hell of a lot better than being on the receiving end of infidelity. My policy on married playmates is very straight forward, if you want to be involved with us, you have to be willing to show that you really are in an open relationship. Otherwise I'm going to assume that you are just a cheating moocher.

Now I admit that my own experience makes me particularly sensitive to this issue. And obviously people get to choose to do what they want to do, but tell me how exactly is one to tell the difference between a cheater and someone in a DAD open relationship?
 
. . . a quick phone call saying 'yeah we're open and I'm ok with it" is a reasonable step to encourage ethical nonmonogamy.

It's no guarantee, though. Anyone can be on the other end of the phone saying what they were told to say to you, and having you believe it's their partner. We've seen people come here and share that things like that have happened to them, even meeting people in person who turned out to not be who they said they were! So, to me, getting confirmation is something I'd like to do, but isn't something I'm going to go to a lot of trouble to make happen.

I think it all comes down to being secure in knowing yourself and in having a good bullshit detector. In other words, trusting when your gut tells you something is amiss and having the confidence either to question things or to trust in someone. Being able to self-select trustworthy people is a valuable skill. I am pretty good at judging someone's character because I know how to trust my instincts. Hell, I'm a woman in my mid-50s and never been in an abusive relationship because I can tell when someone is trouble and I don't stick around if there is even a hint of abusive behavior (that is not a criticism of those who have been in abusive situations, just my assessment of how and why I've personally been able to avoid them). Also, I don't limit myself to dating only polyamorists, because that isn't any guarantee of anything, either. I do think that if you can read people well, you will know in your gut whether they are worth your time, effort, and trust.

I also believe that people should take responsibility for their own actions. Just because someone introduces me to a partner of theirs doesn't automatically mean they are trustworthy and share the same ethics I do.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that nothing is foolproof, some due diligence is better than none.someone who's went through the level of deceit to recruit another to pretend to be their SO can't be prevented. That just goes with nothing in life being certain, but that one simple requirement is sufficient to weed out the lazy ones. Will it weed out some legitimate individuals? Probably but to my mind that's a small price to pay to minimize the potential pitfalls that involving cheaters does.

Like I say each person has to make their own decisions about what they are willing to put up with and what kinds risks you are comfortable with.

I'm not comfortable with dealing with an open couple who aren't actually open about it. That's just my take. I actually found this forum because I was looking for opinions on whether my wanting to exclude cheaters from our pool of potential playmates was reasonable. This seemed to be the most relevant post.

While I know that I come across very "certain" in the way I argue I am looking for good counter arguments to check my own thinking.

Personally I think that this question is two parts. The first is whether there is any obligation on poly individuals to avoid cheaters (defined as someone who is involved with an intimate partner who isn't aware of their half open status ) and if so how far does that obligation extend? What level of due diligence is reasonable to expect?

It seems that the consensus is that yes there is such an obligation but the disagreement is on whether that obligation caries any actual weight.
 
I also believe in some sort of reasonable assurances that married/nested partners aren't cheating. I've been cheated on, and unknowingly dated cheaters who are *really* good at lying about it--many cheaters are, especially at the beginning, before the more "obvious" signs of cheating would set off bells. Even close friends of the cheaters often have no idea that some of the really good liars are cheating on their partners. In the early stages of a relationship where one wouldn't expect to be meeting family or close friends, aren't yet doing overnights, etc., it is fairly easy for someone to maintain the facade.

This assurance can take many forms, depending on the situation (if they're poly on a dating site and their obvious partner's says the same, that's generally enough, for example). Other forms will depend on the situation. It might be a phone call, a brief meeting, a quick facebook message, or something else entirely. Will this eliminate all cheaters? No, probably not; but, I think it is a reasonable and not-onerous step in weeding out those who can be weeded out without, say, a PI.

"Reasonable assurance" shouldn't be conflated with wanting some kind of relationship/friendship with my metamours. I certainly don't need, or even want, to be friends with metamours, necessarily. I also have no interest in being involved with people in DADT arrangements, because it's a model that doesn't work for me, which shouldn't be interpreted as wanting any sharing of details about lives (which is something I am generally not interested in on anything other than necessary for scheduling). If a potential partner has a nested/married partner who is not interested in providing confirmation of poly status, I assume either the model of poly on offer isn't for me, or there is cheating involved. Either way, it's a deal-breaker for me, so I move on.
 
Back
Top