To not understand this trend for having to have an “exclusivity talk” when dating someone?

[HeartsAndClubs]

I was always under the impression that when you started seeing someone you were seeing each other and that was that.

But more recently there seems to be an understanding that unless you’ve actually agreed to be exclusive, it’s pretty much open season and either one of you can continue to date whoever you want however you want.

How have we got to this point?

Why is it seemingly so difficult for people to date one person at a time? And how is it that people should seemingly be happy to be cut loose at any time in order for the other to be “exclusive” with someone else?

@5zeds
“Not new, that’s how my mother (who is 80+) would have dated.”
My mother’s a similar age. She said it was strictly one at a time, even if some girls had a waiting list.
Was your mother middle class?

@ThereAintNoSanityClause no very posh I think in those days girls were asked out to different things and the exclusivity came very close to engagement and marriage. I remember her being utterly flabbergasted when I refused to go out with someone at home because I was seeing someone else. She viewed it as ridiculous that a man could take me out a few times and then have any say in what I did.. I remember her getting quite cross about it.

@Mynameismargot r.e conveyor belt it’s not something that can be avoided. It’s all circumstantial.
Dating wasn’t my favourite thing to do either. Some people love going on casual dates but I just wanted a boyfriend. However a lot of men I were ok, I didn’t want to write them off but didn’t completely click either. So I would go on a few more dates give them a chance.
Some people I clicked with instantly and knew I really wanted them however they didn’t feel the same about me. Wouldn’t be fair to force exclusivity.
This issue never happens meeting people organically because by the time you become a couple you’ll have spent time with them already, no need to ‘date’ first. DP was one of my friends but I had a few OLD boyfriends before him.

[quote 5zeds]@ThereAintNoSanityClause no very posh I think in those days girls were asked out to different things and the exclusivity came very close to engagement and marriage. I remember her being utterly flabbergasted when I refused to go out with someone at home because I was seeing someone else. She viewed it as ridiculous that a man could take me out a few times and then have any say in what I did.. I remember her getting quite cross about it.[/quote]
Thanks, I can imagine that, @5zeds. My mother also likes to imply that her generation were more liberated than mine or subsequent ones.
What you say fits with the picture I have of debutantes in their London season: a lot of concentrated activity to find a mate by people with leisure, money and energy. I think exclusivity was discouraged because it might lead to sex, or even if it didn’t it somehow left a young woman ‘compromised’. This idea of being ‘compromised’ still seems to have been around when Prince Charles was urged to make up his mind about Diana. Maybe it still is around in some circles.

I think there was just no idea that exclusivity was desirable or reasonable (a bit like me telling my child now that having a “best friend” doesn’t mean you can’t go to play/activities with whoever you like. I think the idea of “being compromised” was there but put forward as good manners and not being thought “fast”. I honestly don’t think they really thought sex was an option unless you were married, and obviously many had very little idea of any of it.

@HosannainExcelSheets

It's not a new thing at all. My grandmother explained that in her day (late 1930s) you "played the field" and had dates with many young men in over a short period of time. You didn't commit to one person or "go steady" unless you were heading towards marriage. Not that people tended to have sex with multiple partners then, but dating more than one person was completely normal.

I think the idea of commitment to one person right from the start, and before you read know if you want to rule out other possible partners is unusual.

This was very common in my mother's youth as well (1940s - 1950s). Dating several partners was very normal, though ostensibly you weren't supposed to have sex , just go out together , maybe the odd kiss but nothing more. Once you were serious that usually meant you were committing to marriage though

My mum was bemused and felt sorry for the youth of the 80's and 90's as when she was young she would "date" several men and only when they both decided to go "steady" did it mean you where "going out"
If you watch old movies the who "wearing his ring" and "going steady" was this.
Admittedly I don't think they where sleeping with each other but contraception was crap then.

I was under the impression “dating” was an American concept where both parties saw other people until they had the chat about being exclusive. It was limited to formal dates with potential suitors and no shagging.

Meanwhile in the U.K. one or the other of you asked the other out. You were then boyfriend and girlfriend until you dumped each other, that could be a days or months. I think you could legitimately do all boyfriend /girlfriend activities until the dumping but not see other people as that was cheating.

@lightisnotwhite

I was under the impression “dating” was an American concept where both parties saw other people until they had the chat about being exclusive. It was limited to formal dates with potential suitors and no shagging.

Meanwhile in the U.K. one or the other of you asked the other out. You were then boyfriend and girlfriend until you dumped each other, that could be a days or months. I think you could legitimately do all boyfriend /girlfriend activities until the dumping but not see other people as that was cheating.

I think that was the norm for most of the British population for most of the twentieth century, but the upper classes did things differently and more like the Americans.

“ I think the idea of “being compromised” was there but put forward as good manners and not being thought “fast”. I honestly don’t think they really thought sex was an option unless you were married, and obviously many had very little idea of any of it.”

Hmm. I suppose most people don’t question well established social norms. I’m assuming the system’s main purpose was to encourage young men to propose marriage (to someone suitable).
It may have seemed to some young people that sex wasn’t an option, but the Hon. Winston Churchill was born in 1874 seven months after his parents’ wedding. I’m sure mothers were always alert to the possibility. I also assume the upper classes, especially upper class parents, would have been more savvy and more ruthless in procuring abortions than most.
My father once got very frustrated and embarrassed at the pharmacy counter in Boots and announced ‘This is worse than buying contraceptives in the 1940s!’
Sex has always been an option!

I am with you OP, I don't understand it either.
I have never had the exclusive talk with dp, maybe I should be worried. We have lived together for 10 years and have children but without the talk, maybe he thinks he is free to see other people

Being born seven months after your parents wedding (if he was, I have no idea) surely most people would have been engaged for ages? My assumption would be he was prem. I don’t recognise your ideas about being pushed into abortions (but that would be enormously worse than being pregnant surely?) more likely you went on a long holiday to visit aunts or married quickly.

@5zeds
I believe that his mother’s letters suggest she knew her due date and he wasn’t premature. I have no evidence of forced abortions.

@Lifewith

This isn't a new thing

It is fairly new, maybe not the last two years new, but it definitely was never the case during my younger years (I am now 51). When I was a teenager, in 20s even 30s, you only saw one person at a time.

But times change, that is all, I don’t find that a difficult notion myself.

My dad was born under six months after my Nan's wedding, they were not engaged.

Just checking with someone that you're exclusive if that's what you want seems like such a non issue I can't believe it's worth talking about.

If they've always assumed exclusivity then it's no issue, if they've not then they either do now and it's all good, or they don't and you have another discussion.

This isn’t new. It was a thing back in the 90’s when I was last single. You might call it the “boyfriend chat” but it amounted to the same thing.

@Aprilx

'Going out with' a range of people was very much a thing amongst my social circle, I'm 61 now.

Who would have thought it? Social conventions can very across time and also across different social groups.

At some point, we had 'the talk' and then you were a couple, people started asking about engagements, weddings and children. Even then, some people had affairs 'on the side' in spite of being in a supposedly exclusive relationship.

The whole thing smacks to me of mostly benefitting men who can have their cake and eat it. why have cake if you don't want to eat it? And why would I'd mostly benefit men when plenty of women enjoy casual sex?

One of her female friends Tinder dates several guys a week and is judged by others in their circke. Well then your daughters friend needs to get friends who aren't judgemental bastards!

fhe best men dont want to marry a woman whi has had loads of casual partners What? Why would someone know how many casual partners someone else has had? If I were dating anyone and they demanded to know how many people I'd slept with I'd think them controlling and would end it there and then.

I would make sure I picked someone terribly old fashioned so that I didn't have to put up with all this crp Ah yes. The wonderful old fashioned days where marital rape was legal.

I think people are forgetting it is just communication! A conversation about expectations. If one of you wants to be exclusive from the first date but the other doesn't, they are incompatible! Much better to know from the off. Let's normalise communicating with each other rather than expecting our minds to be read!

Just checking with someone that you're exclusive if that's what you want seems like such a non issue I can't believe it's worth talking about

By needing to 'check' that you are exclusive, you are implicitly acknowledging that you are 'competing' for someone's attention. It's very humiliating and demeaning. I don't understand how women don't see this

communication is humiliating and demeaning.

It's not new to want to know where you stand.

If i've fallen hard for a bloke i want to know he feels the same and isn't still 'playing the field' to an extent.

It's not complicated.
It shouldn't be awkward.
It isn't a 'request' (as someone up thread said).
It isn't a demand.

IME it's a sweet moment when he or you initiates the ''this is more than a just fun fling for me - and i hope you feel the same'' conversation.

Thinking about it it was DH who initiated the convo. when we were dating.

I think it was about date 10. We'd already slept together more than once.

If someone said it on a first date it would be really odd!

I wonder if the people who don't understand this would cancel their online dating profile the second they agreed to a date?

Or the first text message?

Or would they wait until after the first meeting?

The second time they speak in person?

@Bookworm20

Its depressing. And a new eye opener to me. To have to actually request someone not to sleep around whilst you try and build a relationship? if you don't request it, they can sleep with who they want. I personally thought it should be the other way around! I mean different with an odd date going for a coffee or whatever, but not when you decide to start seeing each other regularly to build something.

I recently, by that a mean a couple years ago, rejoined the wonderful world of dating. I had not a zero clue that I should be asking the guy I was dating to please not stick his dick in someone else whilst we are getting to know each other.

Luckily he didn't know he was supposed to request that of me either, and we were just, you know, faithful to each other while we got to know each other. And the relationship progressed.

But had he been clued up on this exclusivity thing and I hadn't, I'd have been pretty devastated to find out he was seeing other people. And then to excuse it as ' we didn't have the talk though did we?'.

I find it all a bit odd. And depressing.

But you just said exactly that:

"but not when you decide to start seeing each other regularly to build something."

That's the exclusivity conversation - you deciding to see each other regularly to build something.

You can decide 'inside your own head' that you want to turn it into a relationship vs just dating. And you can be lucky without saying it out loud if the other person is having the same internal conversation. '

But it's a lot clearer and less prone to later upsets if you make that decision clear out loud.