DADT and Poly

Al99

Well-known member
My wife's bf is in a Don't Ask, Don't Tell open marriage, and he says that his marriage is now more about convenience, financial security, and the like - with not a whole lot of closeness, romance, or sex. And he says they have a workable DADT relationship and they both have had other partners in recent years. He tells my wife, Becky, that he thinks our situation is "weird" - in which I know "everything" (not really - but enough - like when she is seeing him, especially since it is long distance and it will usually work out that she go out of town and spend the night with him). The three of us actually met for coffee early in the process - during the talking stage - and he was clearly not comfortable with that either.

I am sure that DADT works just fine for a whole lot of people. But I can't imagine having to deal with the uncertainty of not knowing (we've been married for a while and just opened up to a poly marriage). It may not always be easy "knowing" either - but, for me, it is much easier to deal with the facts and come to acceptance - than to never know what is going on "in secret" - that would just drive me bat shit crazy, I suspect.

After a great Valentine's evening in every respect, Becky left this morning to go out of town for her second overnight (first one was back in January). She will incorporate it into a business trip, but they will have lunch today, and meet back tonight for the overnight and time together until noon tomorrow.

I found that I was ok during the first overnight - having worked very hard on achieving a level of acceptance - and even found that I had some compersion for her - and the good time I knew she would have.

I believe I am even more at ease this time. As she drove away this morning, I had that bit of emptiness that I might have if she were going anywhere -but I find that I am happy for her opportunity to spend time with her bf. By chance, I have an old friend in town for a few days, and we will get together and visit.

Hope everyone had a great Valentine's Day!

Al
 
Last edited:
Hi Al,

DADT poly is generally proscribed, but that isn't to say it can never work in any situation. Some people do it and it works fine for them. Your wife's boyfriend is one example of that.

Glad to hear you are coping pretty well so far.

Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
Hopefully he really is in a DADT and not just cheating. His remarks send up some yellow flags to me.

My wife wanted DADT because that was what she was used to. I was uncomfortable with it. Not because I wanted to know what she was up to, but because I felt like I was lying, even if it was a lie of omission. We compromised.
 
Hopefully he really is in a DADT and not just cheating. His remarks send up some yellow flags to me.

Vinsanity - Becky and I have discussed this - because it does sound a bit suspicious - but there are several other evidences that Ben is actually a man of good character and integrity - so hopefully he is telling the truth. Becky and I both believe that if he is not - then it is on him - and Becky, of course, will have to decide what to do from there.

Glad to hear you are coping pretty well so far.

Thanks, Kevin - I got through her second overnight just fine - in some ways it was easier, since I had been through it once already - but there was a moment or two where I could tell that the "novelty" of the first time had worn off - and there was a bit of a twinge - but, for the most part, I was able to dismiss this by remembering what a good time she was having. Actually - it turned out that she had a very good time indeed (even more so than the first time) - which, in turn, made for a very hot reunion when she came back home this evening.

Al
 
Last edited:
He tells my wife, Becky, that he thinks our situation is "weird" - in which I know "everything"

Asking poly people about DADT is like going to an NRA meeting and asking about gun control - you pretty much know the answer going in. We poly people live in a bubble in which we say that DADT is "proscribed" and label full disclosure as the most "ethical" relationship policy, but the fact is that most people view poly as weird, bizarre, if not even downright wrong. So I never understand how poly people get so uppity about ethics and shoulds. Many, many marriage evolve into a DADT situation, especially after decades of intertwinement and community rooting that go much deeper than what people in their 20s, 30s and 40s can imagine. DADT works for many long married couples, we just don't talk about it or even know about it in our poly circles. We talk about and know about the train wrecks that support our position that DADT doesn't work and that full disclosure is the way to go.

To my mind, what works is what works and only you can know what works for you. For myself, what works is a personal policy of not policing anyone else's relationship, but to go by my own internal guidance regarding what is emotionally working for me and what is not. Getting all balled up in what my partner(s) and metamor(s) are doing never helps me find my way, it only muddies my ability to get a clear signal from my own internal radar. If you and your wife are finding your way with poly (and it sounds like you are) then it's all good and you can rest your thoughts about all the other stuff.
 
We poly people live in a bubble in which we say that DADT is "proscribed" and label full disclosure as the most "ethical" relationship policy

So I never understand how poly people get so uppity about ethics and shoulds.

DADT works for many long married couples, we just don't talk about it or even know about it in our poly circles. We talk about and know about the train wrecks that support our position that DADT doesn't work and that full disclosure is the way to go.

what works is what works and only you can know what works for you. For myself, what works is a personal policy of not policing anyone else's relationship, but to go by my own internal guidance regarding what is emotionally working for me and what is not.
Nonsense.

(And meeting Trumped-up fear -- yeah, I said it -- of a caricature knee-jerk reaction with a knee-jerk reaction of one's own does nothing to validate the stance.)

What sets polyamory apart from general nonmonogamy is the expectation of clear, open, honest communication between individuals in the relational network.

Anything that restricts this free flow of info walks it back from being fully polyamorous.

And anything that explicitly chokes off communication makes it not-poly.

Period.

Doing so consciously & voluntarily is (IMNSHO) both more-ethical & more-sane than cutting someone off without their consent or even knowledge.

Nothing WRONG with that, so long as it follows some rather basic rules of informed consent.

I'd be among the last to claim that polyamory has some inherent superiority, morally or functionally -- & note nobody claiming such here -- so, yeah, fine, folks can go incorporate DADT into their nonmonogamy & likely find some degree of satisfaction.

But whether it's polyamory is questionable, at best.
 
Last edited:
I think that few would argue that DADT is polyamory and it's not my intent to claim that it is - only that it's a valid relationship choice that works long term for an awful lot of people.
 
When I first stumbled into poly—coming from the standard mono-normative background—something along the lines of a DADT-lite policy (they'd know of me as their metamour, but probably wouldn't ever meet me) was what I assumed to be "normal". I think I thought it was polite to keep partners separate so as not to cause jealousy or something, and everyone would act more or less as if each relationship was a mono one. Fortunately Boy 2 and his wife demonstrated that such manoeuvring was unnecessary.
 
I think that few would argue that DADT is polyamory and it's not my intent to claim that it is - only that it's a valid relationship choice that works long term for an awful lot of people.

And it's strange to me that we poly people get on our high horses and call our choice "ethical non-monogamy" with a clear judgement against other non-monogamous relationship choices. Polyamory itself is judged and misunderstood by most, that's why so many of us are still closeted to varying degrees. Why would we judge other non-monogamists for making choices that they feel are the only real world workable ones for them? There's definitely an "attitude" in the poly community toward swingers, DADT and open hostility against cheating. I'm not claiming that any of those choices are "right," just that the poly community judgement of them is perplexing, given that we ourselves can experience harsh judgement about our non-monogamous relationship choices.
 
And it's strange to me that we poly people get on our high horses and call our choice "ethical non-monogamy" with a clear judgement against other non-monogamous relationship choices. Polyamory itself is judged and misunderstood by most, that's why so many of us are still closeted to varying degrees. Why would we judge other non-monogamists for making choices that they feel are the only real world workable ones for them? There's definitely an "attitude" in the poly community toward swingers, DADT and open hostility against cheating. I'm not claiming that any of those choices are "right," just that the poly community judgement of them is perplexing, given that we ourselves can experience harsh judgement about our non-monogamous relationship choices.

You might be carrying this tack too far.

DADT is dangerous in a so-called poly relationship because the DADT partner may actually be cheating and therefore have a chance of being caught, and the actual poly person being accessory to duping the cheated upon spouse. Cheating can lead to divorce, public humiliation, etc.

Swinging isn't judged negatively by most polyamorous people. It is just seen as "not poly," while still being "non-monogamous," especially since the focus is often on group sex with NO feelings allowed, hardly even fondness, and never love. If love arises, the sexual relationship must end (because that is seen as threatening the couples involved). Therefore, swinging is the opposite of poly, just as much as monogamy is.

Swinging appeals to one sort of person. Polyamory appeals to another.

DADT can be a coverup for cheating.

Proceed with caution and respect in all cases.
 
I have appreciated all the comments on this thread. While I am really too new to all this to have an informed opinion, I did read some of the introductory literature.

It does seem to me that DADT is probably a workable solution for many couples - perhaps even the best solution for them, although - as I wrote earlier - it would drive me bat shit crazy. And while it is consensual non-monogamy, I do understand why many would not classify it as poly - since one of the prime criteria of poly (knowledge of all involved) is not met.

As far as "ethical" non-monogamy goes - I had the impression that the various forms of consensual non-monogamy were all ethical - but non-consensual non-monogamy was not (i.e., plain ol' fashioned dishonest cheating). I suppose that assumption, however, is subjective - as some might not consider swinging to be ethical or perhaps not even DADT to be ethical - I guess to me, as a newbie, consent seems like the main component of ethical - with knowledge of the various parties not absolutely critical (as in DADT). For me personally, knowledge is a prerequisite.

I do agree - and it seems obvious - that DADT could easily be used as a cover for actual cheating. So in our case, where we've adopted poly as a couple (albeit only out of practical necessity in my case) - and my wife's bf is DADT - there is the possibility that is he is lying and is really cheating on his wife. Becky, my wife, does acknowledge that there is a slight possibility of that, but is almost certain that he is telling the truth. As I mentioned in an earlier reply, there are other factors that would suggest he is trustworthy, but I still have mixed feelings and am not totally convinced in either direction. I recently sent him a very polite text since I had his number, just to make sure he had mine - so that in the unlikely event of an emergency while they were alone together - he could have my number on his phone. I was somewhat bothered that I didn't even get an acknowledgment back even though I am certain of the number - clearly not a big concern, but not a great sign either.

Hope everyone has a great week!

Al
 
I have close friends who are swingers, both club scene & couplist, which are NOT interchangeable though many couples (in Minneapolis, at least) do both. I can forgive that people outside the swing community are ignorant of this.

Call it a prejudice, but most swingers I know accept affectional attachments, maybe even something like love. Sure, it's controlled or walled-off, but it's not like they're unaware of its occurrance. There's at least one swing community I know of that looks more like an extended family than the "poly community" has managed, with social events & outings & shopping trips & whatever.

And most swingers I know (IME, again) would find DADT to be silly, or obstructionist, or even encouraging of a dishonesty that would seep into the rest of their relationship & poison communication.

Can DADT work? Sure!! All it takes is a degree of self-confidence that's far beyond most monogamists. And if anyone in an intimate network is monogamistic, they're at risk of being self-deluding if they believe DADT to be some sort of firewall.

Let me be clear: There is NOTHING WRONG with being non-poly nonmonogamist... but it ain't polyamory. By definition.
 
I recently sent him a very polite text since I had his number, just to make sure he had mine - so that in the unlikely event of an emergency while they were alone together - he could have my number on his phone.
Al

Hi Al,

You strike me as a man who has a great head on his shoulders. I believe you have correctly assessed the situation. He is as uncomfortable with polyamory as you are with DADT. This is evidenced by his one and only meeting with you over coffee. Him not replying to your sms can be interpreted in any number of ways. From a DADT mentality, your SMS is totally out of line - he could be caught! Not replying is the right thing to do since it allows him plausible deniability if found. From your polyamory perspective, his lack of reply sets off warning flags about cheating. Without knowing the exact text you sent him, I feel we are ill-equipped to reply. You should probably also not share the exact text publicly in case his wife reads this.

I believe your best bet is to ask Becky to sort this out with him. She can frame the request from a position of love and medical safety - he needs your number in case she becomes unwell, gets hit by a bus, and so on.

Nobody has mentioned it yet in this thread, but DADT, by nature of its secrecy, is likely to have higher risk of medical consequences and STDs, including those not preventable by barrier methods.

Finally, DADT is successfully used in many subcultures or non-English cultures. If Becky's boyfriend is from one of these, then our discussion of DADT and its morality so far on this thread has missed the main cultural point. Monogamy in some subcultures is sometimes practiced for reasons other than love with the understanding that one should seek love outside of marriage. If unconvinced, google or find some ted talks on the topic, and don't be quick to judge an entire culture!

-Shaya
 
I think that few would argue that DADT is polyamory and it's not my intent to claim that it is - only that it's a valid relationship choice that works long term for an awful lot of people.

I would argue that there is such a thing as a DADT polyamorous association. The only way to argue that DADT cannot be polyamory is to cling to one of the definitions that includes how the people involved in the association must communicate with one another. In my opinion, these definitions are just an attempt to fluff up ones personal concept of polyamory and to deny that other ways of being are also valid.

It's an odd defense mechanism that I see a lot on these boards and with my poly community at large. It's what happens when an ideal becomes precious and it's practitioners become self-righteous.
 
...these definitions are just ... what happens when an ideal becomes precious and it's practitioners become self-righteous.
Nobody can stop you from painting yourself as morally superior to everyone else here -- well, actually, every other person "pretending" to polyamory :eek: -- but PLEASE make the attempt to stick to stuff like facts & logic. :(
  • polyamory requires a high degree of interpersonal communication in order to have reasonable chances of happiness persisting for so long as the participants desire (a.k.a. "success")
  • anything that restricts maximal interpersonal communication reduces chances of successful polyamory
  • DADT restricts communication -- by definition
  • anything that reduces communication will further restrict communication about topics that are anywhere close to (or may lead thinking toward) any hot-button issues... such as having sex &/or emotional entanglements &/or time commitments with other people
  • THEREFORE, DADT is anti-polyamory
Okay: simple, clear, minimal big words. Please establish your case with simple refutation of those principals. Please avoid further (as you characterize it) "puffery" as well as passive-aggressive name-calling, & maybe we'll get somewhere.
 
I am in the camp that believes that DADT often leads to train wrecks. Certainly not always, but often.

But I disagree with Ravenscroft. I don't think that a DADT agreement automatically excludes a relationship from the definition of poly. As alien as it is to the way I would ever conduct a relationship, I recognize that there are people with different perspectives, who include it in the way they engage with people, and whose behavior still qualifies as poly.

I don't believe in simple absolutes.
 
Someone who says "I'm not going to bother telling my partner these things" is not communicating.

Someone whose *partner* says, "Please don't tell me these things," who then says, "My partner asked me not to share these things, and I respect that request," *is* communicating. They are listening to their partner's request and boundaries, and are choosing to respect and abide by them.

Some might argue that the first isn't poly, because it's inherently dishonest to deliberately *hide* things from a partner. But the second unquestionably *is* poly; it's two people who have communicated about the situation, one of whom has stated a need to not know anything about the other's other relationships. Which is completely valid, in my opinion. Everyone has levels of what they do and don't want to know about a partner's other relationships; for some, that level is "nothing."
 
I am in the camp that believes that DADT often leads to train wrecks. Certainly not always, but often.

Undoubtedly; it's a communicated agreement of non-communication. What could go wrong?!?

Since so many of the issues that pop up with poly folk can be resolved with frank and concise communication, the idea of a smooth sailing DADT relationship is suspect. I can only imagine it working with a person (it's usually one person who doesn't want to know) who is really good at disconnecting from an aspect of reality; someone who can put on blinders and leave them on comfortably. Unfortunately I expect a person with this kind of skill set will have a number of other 'skills' related to communication which are not going to be constructive.

It's not a communication agreement I would want to take part in, or at least I haven't been made a sweet enough offer to try it yet.
 
I am very new to all of this, just been reading and taking it all in. I feel the same way as Al99, I could never handle DADT and quite the opposite, I am comforted knowing almost every detail about how my partner is feeling and what is going on with her other relationships.

However,

I can see how, with some pre-defined boundaries in place, it could definitely work for some people. For example, I know my wife well enough to know what she is comfortable with, how careful and picky she is about who she associates with etc. that I almost considered whether DADT would be easier for me in the beginning. It definitely was NOT. But, I could see it working for someone else, if they are trusting enough of their partners judgments.

In that situation, I don't see how it makes it not polyamory. If you have set and agreed upon boundaries, then why do the details of who, what, when and where really matter as long as you have trust? I agree with others here that, in many cases where someone claims DADT it could raise some flags, and being successful at it is probably not the norm.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top