Is this considered ok/ethical in dating

[Cookiesandough]

Is a hypothetical. I've never been in this situation, but I am

drawing from some experiences I have had and have read about. I see situation happens quite often to both men and women. I'm wondering what LS thinks

 

Let's say a woman is "seeing" A man for three months. The woman asks where it's going and the man says he's not ready to be official but he can see it going there. The guy says he just needs time (and let's assume he is being honest, he's conflicted) They both agree theyre not seeing anyone else, but they aren't a couple. They do couple like things though. Dates, friends, parties, family, and regular sex.

 

Everything seems to be going well, but at the end of the 3 months, the man starts to get distant . Slowly, he stops communicating as much and spending as much time with her. His overall interest seems to be fading. This concerns the woman, but she plays it cool because she doesn't want to assume anything and be needy. Then the man doesn't respond to a text she sent for a few days. She loses it, and decides to ring him and he doesn't pick up. He then immediately texts her, " I'm

Sorry. I can't see you anymore. I have a girlfriend now. I enjoyed our time together and I wish you nothing but the best. Please do not contact me again."

 

 

Is this situation ok? Since they were never in a relationship, should the woman have no one to blame but herself? They said they weren't seeing others, but they never made any formal commitment [/i] not to. If it is not right on his end, how could he have handled it better?

Edited March 11, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[lionlover1973]

They said they weren't seeing others

 

Well, that was simply not true, in his case.

 

Was it her fault?

Er, not really.

 

Nonetheless, the actions on his part (I am sure) were hurtful to said woman.

 

If it is not right on his end, how could he have handled it better?

 

By not stating "he wasn't seeing others" when in fact, he was.

[preraph]

Well, he TRIED to let it just fade out without having to have a breakup because you weren't exclusive anyway, so in his mind, it's just don't hurt her feelings, if you just let it fade out, there will be no hurt feelings but anyone would know I'm not interested anymore.

[Cookiesandough]

Well, that was simply not true, in his case.

 

Was it her fault?

Er, not really.

 

Nonetheless, the actions on his part (I am sure) were hurtful to said woman.

 

 

 

By not stating "he wasn't seeing others" when in fact, he was.

 

I see. So to you there is no real distinction between "I'm not seeing others" and "l will not see others/let's be exclusive"? He said he wasn't seeing anyone else, but he never said that he would discount it if the opportunity arose. This exclusivity/relationship stuff always gets me, hence the question

[lionlover1973]

I see. So to you there is no real distinction between "I'm not seeing others" and "l will not see others/let's be exclusive"? He said he wasn't seeing anyone else, but he never said that he would discount it if the opportunity arose. This exclusivity/relationship stuff always gets me, hence the question

 

For me personally? No.

I simply view his actions (towards said woman) are in itself, an implication.

 

There was an opportunity to state individual desire(s) to date other people when the question broached the subject of intent.

 

Especially considering the sexual aspect. I highly doubt within those three months of dating, he did not engage physically with the other woman he was courting.

It is a case of incompatibility.

If the woman viewed similar to myself, their dealings weren't in her best interest regardless of the outcome.

[ReformedPUA]

No it's not OK.

 

I mean, even after a handful of dates nevermind a few months in the "right" thing to do is to be proactive and kind in breaking it off. He needed to let her know sooner and on his own volition that he was moving on, exclusive or no.

[basil67]

Let's not make the woman out to be the victim in this. While it's not her fault per se, she's certainly made a series of bad choices which have contributed to her being in this situation.

 

She wants a relationship but waits three months before asking "what are we?" Why wait three whole months before having this conversation?

 

He says he can see it getting there eventually but he needs more time. He's conflicted. I say that a woman who wants a relationship is stupid for waiting around for a guy who can't commit after three months. This should be a giant red flag, yet she ignores it. And someone who is 'conflicted' or 'not ready for a relationship' is to be avoided at all costs.

 

Slowly, he stops communicating as much and spending as much time with her. His overall interest seems to be fading. This concerns the woman, but she plays it cool because she doesn't want to assume anything and be needy.

This is the stupidest part of her actions in the not-relationship. It's ridiculous to accept behaviour which we aren't OK with. It's ridiculous to ignore red flags of him drifting away.

 

It's not needy to talk about our needs in a relationship. Sure, her needs and his needs may not align and the discussion may end in a breakup, but surely it's better to have this happen than pretend everything is hunky dory, ignore red flags and then complain when she finds he's moved on. If he says that he's still really into her but his actions say otherwise, she should to recognise the BS and move on anyway.

 

The writing was clearly on the wall and she ignored it. She's only a victim to her own poor decision making.

Edited March 11, 2017 by basil67

[central]

If you're not explicitly exclusive after two or three months, then either move n or start dating other people, because this relationship is probably going to fail.

 

And if one of you can't say "I love you" after six months, that's also a good time to split and find someone who really can love you without reservations and a list of conditions.

[todreaminblue]

no it isnt ethical at all....because the relationships overlapped.

 

he never ended it with her before pursuing another when they had said they werent seeing others......honesty was scarce on his behalf and she kept her feelings to herself about the relationship and him fading ........it might not have been official but...it was however exclusive....when things are ethcical there is no real confusion about right and wrong.......there's transparency in ethics..a certain dignity in truth......when things are unethical it is where deceit, lying dishonesty, propoganda,personal bias or self serving behvaviors or omissions are present and dont do anything towards a greater good...more a lesser evil.......therefore one or both parties are being misled....and unable to make informed decsions because they aint informed....

 

i would say deceit on his behalf on him saying that he sees it going there and denying officialness stating he was needing more time..he was already looking for another....and this is ...unethical .....he also claimed official status with new gf rather early it seems for someone who needs more time....seems like he might have had her on the hook before even old gf was in the picture....that of course is a summation....because i dont know the guy .....but it fits....making summations though...also unethical not knowing the people involved....making summation of guilt before proven to be so ..unethical...

 

 

its much easier for me to say the guy sucks.....and i reckon that summation is completely justifiable by his failure to finish what he started before moving on....deb

Edited March 11, 2017 by todreaminblue

[Cookiesandough]

For me personally? No.

I simply view his actions (towards said woman) are in itself, an implication.

 

There was an opportunity to state individual desire(s) to date other people when the question broached the subject of intent.

 

Especially considering the sexual aspect. I highly doubt within those three months of dating, he did not engage physically with the other woman he was courting.

It is a case of incompatibility.

If the woman viewed similar to myself, their dealings weren't in her best interest regardless of the outcome.

 

Well assuming that she didn't ask him on a regular basis, is it still implied? What I typically see here is a woman asking "are you seeing anyone else?" And the man say "no, I'm not/haven't been seeing others" She will assume that to mean that they are exclusive, but next week...he could be seeing another. I guess that can happen in a relationship if any kind, though. But can you call what the man in OP did technically "cheating"? Maybe

[Cookiesandough]

If you're not explicitly exclusive after two or three months, then either move n or start dating other people, because this relationship is probably going to fail.

 

And if one of you can't say "I love you" after six months, that's also a good time to split and find someone who really can love you without reservations and a list of conditions.

 

Can you explain "explicitly exclusive" pleaae?

[Shining One]

Can you explain "explicitly exclusive" pleaae?

Person A: I would like us to be exclusive.

Person B: I agree.

[stillafool]

I think if you are dating and one says "I'm not seeing anyone else but I'm not ready to enter a relationship yet". You date but you both know there are no commitments and in the meantime one of you meets another person that peaks your interest. You start dating the new person also because you aren't exclusive with the other one as stated; then find out this new person is someone you really want to be exclusive with so you end it with the first person. This happens all the time and it's called dating. We date around until we find the person we want to settle down with. As long as everyone is honest it is up to each of them to protect their own heart.

[lionlover1973]

Well assuming that she didn't ask him on a regular basis, is it still implied?

 

I suppose, if actions do not match what is communicated verbally, than no.

 

The 'maybe-zone' is no fun for anyone.

 

What I typically see here is a woman asking "are you seeing anyone else?" And the man say "no, I'm not/haven't been seeing others" She will assume that to mean that they are exclusive, but next week...he could be seeing another. I guess that can happen in a relationship if any kind, though. But can you call what the man in OP did technically "cheating"? Maybe

 

Right, it could happen regardless of the dynamic.

 

Is it cheating in this case? Hmm, probably not.

 

The thing is, if someone is made aware that the other is dating others at the same time, it would provide the option to opt out if the terms are not agreeable and would most likely dictate a different outcome.

[Cookiesandough]

Person A: I would like us to be exclusive.

Person B: I agree.

 

But people obviously have diff definitions of exclusive...as evidenced by posts here. # 5 says that saying you are not seeing others is the same as being exclusive and you do not necessarily have a "relationship" but there is a commitment to not see others. Stillafool says being in exclusive and being in a committed relationship are the same thing. Once you become exclusive you are "settling downL What I don't understand about stillafools position is that if you agree not seeing others, how do you start dating someone new? And I've always seen exclusivity as a bridge before a committed relationship, but I'm not sure,

 

Exclusive: are we making a commitment to not see others until the relationship breaks down for other reasons

 

Or are we making a commitment to not see others as we feel each other out, but we might find someone we like more and are able to jump ship if that arises since we're not in a relationship? For example, I being exclusive with a fwb to have unprotected safe sex and just have them to myself the the time being ??

[Cookiesandough]

I suppose, if actions do not match what is communicated verbally, than no.

 

The 'maybe-zone' is no fun for anyone.

 

 

 

Right, it could happen regardless of the dynamic.

 

Is it cheating in this case? Hmm, probably not.

 

The thing is, if someone is made aware that the other is dating others at the same time, it would provide the option to opt out if the terms are not agreeable and would most likely dictate a different outcome.

 

I agree.. it's semantics. And implication, as you said . But I wonder if people use this loophole to their advantage often. Well I tell a man "I'm not seeing others" I mean that I'm taking propositions by men, flirting with men, or having anything to do with other men while I'm feeling this guy out. If seems a bit deceptive to say "I'm not seeing others" when asked, but in my head say '.but that doesn't mean I can't go flirt in an hour'. I wouldn't feel right about it.

[preraph]

Saying you're not seeing anyone else right now is not the same as promising and committing not to see anyone else. And if you'll learn to listen to a man's tone when he tells you this, you can tell the difference. A commitment would be him seeking exclusivity and being all nice about it. When asked if he's seeing someone else, it's a different mood, usually, and the answer is more like "not right now" and he's just trying not to commit or run you off either.

 

My guess is there were signs he might have been dating others or pulling away.

[basil67]

I think the definition of "committed relationship" needs defining. To me, commitment is making some type of agreement to doing your best for the relationship and expecting that there is a somewhat of a future for the two of you. That said, commitment still falls way short of engagement or marriage.

 

For me: I would be exclusive from the outset, but I would not commit to a person until I felt that I knew them well, was reasonably sure there were no deal breakers lurking around and the relationship was working for me. I'd use the term 'in a relationship' but I wouldn't be committing to anything quickly.

[lionlover1973]

I agree.. it's semantics. And implication, as you said . But I wonder if people use this loophole to their advantage often. Well I tell a man "I'm not seeing others" I mean that I'm taking propositions by men, flirting with men, or having anything to do with other men while I'm feeling this guy out. If seems a bit deceptive to say "I'm not seeing others" when asked, but in my head say '.but that doesn't mean I can't go flirt in an hour'. I wouldn't feel right about it.

 

Indeed.

 

There are too many variables (like you said, loopholes) that seem to be viewed upon and/or acted upon, as a 'way out'.

 

It's almost as if a written contract needs to be drawn up just to be in a committed relationship, and that is just silliness.

[todreaminblue]

Indeed.

 

There are too many variables (like you said, loopholes) that seem to be viewed upon and/or acted upon, as a 'way out'.

 

It's almost as if a written contract needs to be drawn up just to be in a committed relationship, and that is just silliness.

 

i don't think a contract needs to be drawn up lion lover.....i do think though people seeing each other should do whats right and that means being honest so the other person can make an informed decision whether its worth their time to stick around..i think that all that takes is a bit of respect and not being self serving in keeping a person around until something better comes along .that isnt contractual ...just being a good human should be necessity ....especially when dating and the feelings of another can be affected....deb

[basil67]

My guess is there were signs he might have been dating others or pulling away.

 

Indeed. In Cookie's scenario, he was pulling away but she didn't raise her concerns with him because she was scared of being 'needy'.

[Shining One]

You don't need a contract. You just need to be more precise with your questions. "Are you seeing anyone else" and "Would you like to be exclusive" are two very different questions. Had the woman in question asked the latter question instead of the former, she would have been better equipped to make an informed decision.

[stillafool]

I think if you are dating and one says "I'm not seeing anyone else but I'm not ready to enter a relationship yet". You date but you both know there are no commitments and in the meantime one of you meets another person that peaks your interest. You start dating the new person also because you aren't exclusive with the other one as stated; then find out this new person is someone you really want to be exclusive with so you end it with the first person. This happens all the time and it's called dating. We date around until we find the person we want to settle down with. As long as everyone is honest it is up to each of them to protect their own heart.

 

But people obviously have diff definitions of exclusive...as evidenced by posts here. # 5 says that saying you are not seeing others is the same as being exclusive and you do not necessarily have a "relationship" but there is a commitment to not see others. Stillafool says being in exclusive and being in a committed relationship are the same thing. Once you become exclusive you are "settling downL What I don't understand about stillafools position is that if you agree not seeing others, how do you start dating someone new? And I've always seen exclusivity as a bridge before a committed relationship, but I'm not sure,

 

Exclusive: are we making a commitment to not see others until the relationship breaks down for other reasons

 

 

What I said was if the guy/girl says they aren't seeing anyone else at the time but is not ready to enter a relationship yet. At that point you are not committed to each other but just dating. If you meet someone else you like better and are not committed to the first person you are not in the wrong if you decide to not see the first person anymore because you now want to commit to the second person who you like better. To me exclusivity and commitment go hand in hand and must be discussed first and agreed upon by both parties. It's best not to assume anything until you've had the discussion.

[stillafool]

Indeed. In Cookie's scenario, he was pulling away but she didn't raise her concerns with him because she was scared of being 'needy'.

 

This happens a lot. Most people are afraid to ask because they are afraid of the answer.

[lionlover1973]

i don't think a contract needs to be drawn up lion lover.....i do think though people seeing each other should do whats right and that means being honest so the other person can make an informed decision whether its worth their time to stick around..i think that all that takes is a bit of respect and not being self serving in keeping a person around until something better comes along .that isnt contractual ...just being a good human should be necessity ....especially when dating and the feelings of another can be affected....deb

 

I was being facetious with the 'contract' comment.

 

It seems to be, too much 'relationship ambiguity' going on today.

 

It's like if someone says to the other: I said "X, Y and Z" but I really meant "A, B and C" and because you didn't state "D, E and F" I am hereby resolved of responsibility and accountability.

 

Everything else you wrote above, I wholeheartedly agree.