DADT, poly style

[opalescent]

I just don't see DADT as being the equivalent to not being out all the time to everyone. It's one partner telling another 'I don't want to know anything at all about this part of your life. Don't share the fullness of who you are with me, don't be fully authentic. Don't be all you are around me.' That's different from not being out to people on the street or at work. That's limiting what you can show, what you can say or do with an intimate partner, someone who loves you.

Can it work? Yes, of course. If someone is only interested in a sexual connection, no deeper emotions, it can work. There are worse things than DADT. Can it help couples transition to a more open, more transparent relationship? Yes, that can happen. But if it doesn't change and evolve away, it is poisonous to the couple, to their relationship and to anyone who wants a more intimate relationship with one of the them.

I also don't see it as similar to not telling one partner all about interactions with another partner. I don't want my partners to tell me in great detail about their other partners - I just want to meet them, be friendly and know the parts that may impact me and my relationship with a partner. I need a level of privacy. Privacy for me enhances intimacy, authenticity. Others have different needs for level of privacy. Some people need to know more in order to be comfortable. That's ok too. But it's not DADT.

 

[FallenAngelina]

Can it work? Yes, of course. If someone is only interested in a sexual connection, no deeper emotions, it can work.

History and the world are chock-o-block full of examples to the contrary. DADT is de rigueur in many cultures, past and present, and deep romantic connections have and do blossom all of the time without the spouse/meta needing to know who, why and how. It's not an inherently poisonous situation at all. The extent to which the relationships involved are deep, loving and beneficial is entirely dependent on the context, cultures and attitudes of the people involved.

 

[Norwegianpoly]

Yes, that is what is otherwise known as having affairs. Just not disclosing much is not DADT.

And I don't agree that not telling everyone is related to DADT. Coming out as poly to everyone you know takes a long time, involves education of everything from your mum to strangers and is never really something you finish doing until society stops pressuming that people are monogamous.

 

[River]

Then again, Hubby doesn't want to hear specifics about much of anything in my life, so it isn't only about poly...but that's another story for another time.

 

[River]

I fear we are confusing the issue. There is DADT between the members of a couple with an open relationship. Then there is "coming out" to people not involved in the relationship.

Shall we keep this discussion to the former?

We could, of course.

But if we do, I think we should respect and honor what FallenAngelina brings to the conversation -- a broad and general understanding of the social conditions which make non-monogamous / poly folk anathema, which causes us all to be somewhat underground. I agree that we should not confuse DADT between members of a couple with "coming out" issues, however. This distinction is important. But equally important is the social situation which undergirds it all. Let's face it; we poly folk are marginalized, disregarded, shoved aside as silly or irrelevant or evil in the same way gays, lesbians, racial minorities (etc.) have been. This fact underlies the whole REASON we have DADT agreements to begin with. There's no way around it.

 

[River]

I just don't see DADT as being the equivalent to not being out all the time to everyone. It's one partner telling another 'I don't want to know anything at all about this part of your life. Don't share the fullness of who you are with me, don't be fully authentic. Don't be all you are around me.' That's different from not being out to people on the street or at work. That's limiting what you can show, what you can say or do with an intimate partner, someone who loves you.

These are excellent, well made points.

Can it work? Yes, of course. If someone is only interested in a sexual connection, no deeper emotions, it can work. There are worse things than DADT. Can it help couples transition to a more open, more transparent relationship? Yes, that can happen. But if it doesn't change and evolve away, it is poisonous to the couple, to their relationship and to anyone who wants a more intimate relationship with one of the them.

I have to ultimately agree with this. Though it is more nuanced a picture, when it comes right down to it, if one of my intimate partners -- someone I love -- cannot be honest and truthful about me (my being loved) with his or her husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend..., I'm not being fully and entirely respected -- even if the intent is really to be respectful. I think R does basically respect me, that he's sincere in his care for me..., but his situation limits him and his acceptance of that situation limits our relationship is important ways... which ultimately cannot work for me in the long term. ... because I'd want hospital visitation rights, and the right to be acknowledged as someone beloved / loving....

I also don't see it as similar to not telling one partner all about interactions with another partner. I don't want my partners to tell me in great detail about their other partners - I just want to meet them, be friendly and know the parts that may impact me and my relationship with a partner. I need a level of privacy. Privacy for me enhances intimacy, authenticity. Others have different needs for level of privacy. Some people need to know more in order to be comfortable. That's ok too. But it's not DADT.

I'm able to be completely honest and open about any of my other relationships with my Sweetie, K. From where I sit at present, those who cannot are living in a kind of prison or cage which I would not be able to happily live within. I do empathize with those who live in these cages and prisons. I have compassion for them. I respect them, even. But I'm ultimately a rebel and a radical--, a revolutionary. I say we should cut all the bars out of the walls and let the prisoners free!

But that's me ... my passion, my deep longing.... In reality, most people mistake prison life for freedom. We see it in all sorts of places outside of relationship agreements (of the "romantic" [etc.] kind). Anyone who asks their husband or wife to NOT tell them important information about their lives is basically afraid, maybe even a coward. It's very sad. I can't live like that, myself. But I understand it.

They say that courage is a word with heart in it.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=courage

Can there be any real love without courage? I doubt it.

 

[River]

It's not an inherently poisonous situation at all. The extent to which the relationships involved are deep, loving and beneficial is entirely dependent on the context, cultures and attitudes of the people involved.

FallenAngelina, your original point(s) about the validity of the love between folks in DADT situations, and about how most poly folk have at least one foot in The Closet, is entirely valid and important. But when I think carefully (and feel carefully) about what it may be like to be in a long term loverly relationship with a person in a DADT with their husband/wife (or whatever), I see that I would be clearly set at a disadvantage -- several disadvantages -- which the spouse of my beloved would not have to deal with -- and would necessarily be in a secondary status in a hierarchy of value or importance. For those who are okay with such a secondary status, this is fine. But it would not work for me over the long haul -- which, for those of us hovering around the half-century mark of age, is not such a long haul. It's a little trip, really.

You know...? I love R. I always have. He's just not really available. Not really. However much I wish he were.

 

[FallenAngelina]

....it would not work for me over the long haul -- which, for those of us hovering around the half-century mark of age, is not such a long haul. It's a little trip, really.

You know...? I love R. I always have. He's just not really available. Not really. However much I wish he were.

I'm glad this discussion has helped clarify what is important for you, River, and I'm glad you understand what I was trying to say.

 

[River]

It worked ok for casual relationships, but DADT basically assured my relationships would never become anything serious. After all, my lovers were never to come inside of my house, or attend any event where hubby was present or any of hubby's friends. I couldn't be affectionate with my lover in public, lest it get back to my husband, and I could only really see them if my husband was at work. Basically, it limited to me to sex and casual friendship.

Yeah, there's no way I could come to his house, though he could come to mine. I could introduce him to my partner; but he could not do the same. Not even a "Hello," unless we were to pretend not to be cuddly, snuggly, kissy friends.

When a person is not used to getting even crumbs, he or she may learn to welcome crumbs as a kind of feast.

 

[River]

I'm glad this discussion has helped clarify what is important for you, River, and I'm glad you understand what I was trying to say.

Thanks sweet pumpkin! Your lovingness and supportiveness is of no question to me.

 

[FallenAngelina]

 

[River]

... and all the while I thought you were my sweet pumpkin; but all the while you've been the sweet person living inside the sweet pumpkin!

 

[Evie]

Can it work? Yes, of course. If someone is only interested in a sexual connection, no deeper emotions, it can work.

Hmmm, not in my experience. Hubby knows about my friends (often with benefits) whom I love very deeply, I just don't tell, and he doesn't ask, if I am sexual with them when I visit them. Perhaps it is a little easier for him to understand that his role in my life as husband is not threatened because he's newer in my life than the majority of them. But he's also not stopping me from meeting new people, he encourages me to make new friends, of any gender, and he knows that my history shows that I tend to fall in love with male friends (and they do with me). I don't make friends particularly easily because I don't have much interest in friendships that don't involve tangible feelings of love.

I don't have "flings" or sex only encounters, and I'd still class us as DADT.

kia kaha
Evie

 

[Reverie]

My partner's previous DADT relationship ultimately helped that relationship to its demise. I don't want to say that it LED it there, because there were, of course, other factors. But after a time, he realized that he was growing close to me in a way that DADT would no longer contain (special occasions, weekend vacations, emergencies, etc.), and rather than constrain our growing connection to the limitations of the DADT, he chose to force the issue with her. I can't say that it would work the same way for everyone, but I think that if you think you could LOVE this person, then the effect that DADT could have on holidays, emergencies, long weekend vacations, etc., cannot be ignored.

As for me, I will never again enter into another situation in which my metamour is not aware of my existence and also approves of the time my partner and I spend together. If I find a new person with a drama-filled partner, I think I will probably just opt out.

 

[River]

As for me, I will never again enter into another situation in which my metamour is not aware of my existence and also approves of the time my partner and I spend together. If I find a new person with a drama-filled partner, I think I will probably just opt out.

I can relate to this, now that I've thought about it some. I just don't like being invisible, basically. I don't like any degree or kind of it. Not in the long run. Maybe in the sort run -- if he or she shows me than he or she is on a path that direction.

I never want to be a "side dish," really; but if I choose that role, I want even that to be an open matter with all involved.

 

[Reverie]

I can relate to this, now that I've thought about it some. I just don't like being invisible, basically. I don't like any degree or kind of it. Not in the long run. Maybe in the sort run -- if he or she shows me than he or she is on a path that direction.

I never want to be a "side dish," really; but if I choose that role, I want even that to be an open matter with all involved.

For me, whether I'd like to be a "side dish" depends on the situation. I currently feel that, for me, in my current situation, I am so wrapped up in my longer-term partner that I would be unable to make anyone else other than a side dish themselves. So mutual side-dish-ness is actually desirable to me. But, even so, I'd prefer that all parties be well aware.

 

[IndieSolo]

I disagree that DADT necessarily places limits on emotional involvement or one's importance in someone's life. The world over, many people who cheat have long-term love affairs that mean very much to both cheater and mistress/mister. These people are sneaking around in secret because of the very fact that they are in love and mean a great deal to each other. Not everyone conflates loving someone deeply with taking vacations together or being an emergency contact! So, DADT doesn't mean it's impossible to have a deep, meaningful relationship with someone with whom you have to hide your involvement.

I think the central issue that makes many polyfolk cringe at the idea of DADT is the fact that you cannot confirm whether or not the person you're seeing, or interested in, is cheating.

Poly people place a great deal of importance on consent, and if someone can't tell their long-term partner about dating you, you can't communicate with their partner to verify that they have consented to being in a poly arrangement. I just think a lot of polyfolk can be a little rigid and hung up on what they believe consent (and doing poly "the right way") is supposed to look like.

If one's partner says "You can fool around, have lovers, and do whatever you want, but just don't let me or anyone we know find out about it," that is basically consent. Sure, it's also putting blinders on, and means that whoever agrees to it has to then sneak around and keep everything hidden - but it is consent. How can I tell someone else what they "should be" ready to hear, see, and accept for themselves?

I wrote the following in another thread a while back.

From what we see here on this forum, it seems DADT is usually implemented when at least one partner either:

1.) is really uncomfortable with non-monogamy and doesn't want to look at the situation, but agrees to it because they feel powerless or that they have no choice anyway. "Just keep me out of it," they say;

2.) has an issue with a certain aspect of what their other partner wants from poly -- for example, the physical vs. the emotional. If they can shut their eyes to their partner's involvement with others completely, they can avoid accepting the full implications of what is going on and can pretend "it's only sex" or "it's only a friendship" or whatever; or

3.) is really okay with it but just do not want to know anything so that they can present a "picture-perfect" facade of monogamy to the public, friends, colleagues, and family without lying.

DADT usually seems focused on preserving a fantasy.​

While the above may apply to many cases, no one can say these are the only reasons for a DADT. Nor can we say that someone wanting to hear nothing, or to pretend their partner is monogamous and faithful to them, is such a terrible thing. If one is extremely bothered and uncomfortable with seeing someone who has a DADT with another partner, then we have the choice not to get involved with them, or to ask if there is a way we can verify consent without upsetting the apple cart.

However, maybe our options seem fuzzy because we're emotionally involved already, or don't want to walk away from something that feels good for the most part. Then I think it comes down to whether we trust the people we engage with to be honest with us and to conduct their relationships with maturity and respect, even if we don't like the agreements they make with others.

 

[River]

I currently feel that, for me, in my current situation, I am so wrapped up in my longer-term partner that I would be unable to make anyone else other than a side dish themselves.

I respect that. In my case, I want to be LOVED most of all, and to give LOVE. Love, for me, is never a matter of ranking, higher or lower. Amounts of time spent together is another matter.

The "amory" part of poly-amory, is, for me, about love. Not sex.

 

[Cleo]

Just wanted to add another thought to the mix.
I have a partner who kind of practices DADT..
BUT he also practices 'if you DO ask, I DO tell'.
which means that he doesn't talk about his other relationships or hook ups if nobody asks. But if anybody does ask, he's completely honest, answers all the questions.
It's been working for him and all his partners (including his current primary) for years.
I'm one of his partners. I've never felt invisible because I know that if any of his other partners asks about me, he will tell. Just like he tells me things about his other partners... when I ask.

 

[kdt26417]

I don't generally recommend DADT, but, I think it works in some situations. I also think most of us do lesser forms of DADT; for example, we don't tell our partner every little detail of our sex life with our other partner/s. There are degrees and a slider.