We host a party at our home every month. I recently hadn't been able to connect with someone (and their partner) that I see, so I invited them and it quickly came out during the party that that's how I knew those guests. They also brought a friend that they date who I hadn't met before. They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice and I personally don't think it makes a difference. Soon thereafter, I overheard a friend of over a decade say that she had to leave because she was uncomfortable with the situation, confirmed that I knew these people through dating, and was out the door minutes later.
Dan proposes two scenarios: (1) long-time friend (LTF) thought the evening was about to turn into a fuckfest, and (2) LTF was judgmental of the LW upon being confronted with evidence of LW's open relationship. I'd like to suggest a third option: (3) LTF was uncomfortable with watching three people make out. LW's relationship to the triad was incidental.
PDA makes some people uncomfortable. Three-way PDA probably makes even more people uncomfortable. Not necessarily because they're judgmental, but because they've literally never seen it before. Kinda like how two-person PDA makes young people uncomfortable until they get used to it. LTF may simply not have developed the resistance that LW and Dan possess.
Not saying that (3) is what must have happened, just that it's another option. One that doesn't mandate dropping a long time friend, should the unlikely fuckfest scenario be dispelled.
@1 - The insignificant details of that paragraph totally ground my brain to a halt.
They have a monthly party that's replete with past or present lovers... check. One such couple they couldn't connect with (who brought a third?)—meaning they wanted to coach them before mingling maybe? They sure as hell got the invite, what else would that mean?—spilled beans, etc.
Either way the friend was being a baby. Be gracious or make up something plausible if you want to leave, but indignant exits have no place at a party.
@2, I thought they host a party for their non-poly friends each month, but having not seen poly Partner X (and X's partner Y) for a while, decided to invite them to the monthly party. (And X & Y brought along their other partner Z.)
This I agree with: "indignant exits have no place at a party."
Now I wonder what would happen if Mr Savage attended a party hosted by a friend at which a small group of people broke out into spontaneous displays of Republicanism, when Mr Savage's friend had theretofore been careful to compartmentalize such tendencies.
Connect, see, know, date. I propose that the paragraph highlighted by @1 would be a pretty good test of machine intelligence to determine which of those verbs in which sentences mean "fuck." That's the heart of the ambiguity making the one friend anxious enough to leave. Note that Dan says "fuck" when he means "fuck," making the whole thing a pretty good illustration of why "fuck" brings clarity to conversations.
I wonder if the friend got the impression that there was more going on than there really was. Plenty of people aren't comfortable at parties where everyone else turns out to be fucking everyone else, and you're the only person who doesn't know and participate.
And keeping track of that level of "who you're fucking and who you're not" is only an intuitive process for people who are used to dealing with poly drama. Not everyone is, and not everyone's comfortable with it. For the norms, this kind of thing tends to feel like being thrown in at the deep end, and then realizing that that's not water.
I have no problem with open relationships, not being a fan of monogamy either, but who goes around telling their friends that they are in an open relationship? Whatever happened to discretion? Believe me, no one wants to know about your sex life.
And what sort of tacky party is it where people blab to the room that you are having a sexual relationship with one of the hosts?
With all that said, the pearl-clutching friend needs to lighten up. Some of my best evenings have been spent where I was at least not initially "comfortable" with what was going on. It's not like everyone was going to disrobe and start going at it right then and there, and even if they did, all friend would have to do is make up a polite lie and excuse herself. ("Oh my, that looks like fun, but I have to open up the bowling alley early tomorrow, so I have to go")
It almost makes one long for the days when an evening out with adults meant a table or two of Bridge. No one would dream of talking about sex while playing bridge.
Generally I think Dan's advice is good (speaking to the friend may smooth things over), but I'd add another interpretation to the friend's flight response. Friend may have been fine with the idea of LW being poly, but seeing it in action made her uncomfortable and she left specifically to deal with/work through why she had that response. A conversation would be an opportunity to work through that.
And for @1, I'm not young but I think PDA at a party is tacky. If I went to a party of a friend of 10+ years (where presumably I know many of the host's other friends) and some strangers were just making out in the middle of things, I'd probably be disinclined to stay too, regardless of how many people were participating in the makeout. It's hard to tell what level of "affection" the LW means, but I always assume LWs downplay the parts of the story that don't support their position, so I'm assuming this was more than just closeness, hand-holding and the occasional quick kiss (if that alone caused someone to leave a party, they're pretty thin-skinned and how do they go anywhere, ever?).
@11 Why shouldn't they talk about being open? Especially since they actually *date* other people. That means that they go out in public where they may be seen by others, who may then think they're cheating if not told otherwise.
It also means that they have more or less meaningful relationships witht their other partners and you shouldn't have to hide your friends just because you sleep with them.
I really don't undestand people who go "I'm totally cool with it, I just don't want to hear about it". If you really were cool with it you wouldn't mind heating about it.
@10: Pretty much what I was thinking. Not everyone wants to be in that kind of party, and the subtleties of poly sex flowcharts are lost on people who aren't into that.
@13: "I really don't undestand people who go "I'm totally cool with it, I just don't want to hear about it". If you really were cool with it you wouldn't mind heating about it."
Hey, wanna hear all about the huge messy dump your cousin just took? No? That must mean you're not cool with humans existing.
Either that, or you're just completely wrong. And you do understand people who have no problem with it happening but do have a problem with hearing about it.
Don't think #11 is suggesting that one shouldn't talk in detail about the nature of their relationship to protect the sensibilities of others who don't share preferences. I think it has more to do with said details (regardless of relationship type) being a boring and tacky topic of conversation at a party to anyone beyond Jr. High. Especially if those involved in the convo are not the ones in the relationship, aka gossip. That still does not explain why the guest did not, as everyone suggests, just make up a polite excuse. Or just find different people to chat with. I mean, if she has known the hosts for 10 years and nothing has happened at their parties before, why would these additional guests turn everything on its head.
I don't think that #11 is suggesting that one shouldn't talk about their (open) relationship at a party to protect the sensibilities of those who don't share the preference. I think it has more to do with the details of the nature of a relationship, whatever the type, is often a tacky and boring party topic, particularly if those involved in the conversation are not part of the relationship, aka gossip. If there was a lot of that going on, maybe the guest was just fearing hearing about boring drama. Although nothing explains the manner in she left. And the host certainly has nothing to apologize for.
@3 I just don't get where you get "indignant exit" from. The LW does not indicate that her friend caused a scene when she left. The "long time" friend left what she found to be a socially awkward situation. (Think a Trump supporter amongst a group of liberals, ridiculous as that would be). Presumably the long term friend knows that the LW is in an open relationship and has poly friends who attend her parties. While the friend is evidently a traditionalist, she has remained a friend. Presumably all guests know her parties are mixed events. The point being that the LW does "not" know what actions by her poly friends (most likely by the stranger) were that made her friend uncomfortable enough to leave. An apology (in either direction) may be unwarranted, but she should at least sit down with her friend and find out what upset her.
What made this party different from any other party. Unless you are intentionally blatant (confrontational?) about anything (religion, politics, sex, whatever), how does anything become quickly apparent. Unless it is that kind of party, discussing who is fucking whom really isn't appropriate at a party. LW knew If any of her friends were strongly opposed to poly and had LW had an obligation to inform those friends (unless it is common knowledge) that it was a mixed event. The decision to attend or not attend would've be her friend's decision. I would not feel comfortable at a social function, if I felt I was being ambushed. This is getting way too convoluted. Bottom line is, should LW remain friends with either party and should she invite either party to future parties. Miss Manners would just love to dissect this.
Personally, I don't give a flying fuck about who or how many fuck whomever (children and livestock excluded) in whatever manner. I don't want to know and I don't need know. TMI.
One reason talking about sex (specific to the parties involved) at a party is not a good idea. It is a horrible way to find out that you are or have been cheated upon and that until now your friends knew and said nothing. Being humiliated in public is not my definition of a fun party.
I support #10 because I'm often the person who is surrounded by people who are fucking each other and it never fails to make me slightly icky, especially when said people start winking at each other across the room, or playing footsie under the table. To be honest, sometimes I wonder if they get off on involving a sort of unwilling audience on their game, or they just plainly underestimate everyone's intelligence by thinking no one notices.
The LW didn't actually see or hear what made her friend leave. Possible that somebody (and it could be somebody the LW doesn't know first-hand) did something objectively gross. Or hit on the friend, which is not necessarily gross but could definitely indicate not my kind of party.
So yeah, make a waffly apology, but leave the door open to segue into a real apology for what one of your guests may have done.
@18: This is also likely. People leave parties all the time. How dare you leave while we are enmeshed and making out in a corner! Gaze upon our coupling!
1. Monogamous person: “Welcome to my party! This is my boyfriend.”
Guest: “Hello! Nice to meet you!”
2. Poly person: “Welcome to my party! These are my boyfriends.”
Guest: “Yew! I don’t want to hear about your sex life! So tacky!”
Note that the 2. Scenario is not different from how gay people used to be treated when they dared to “flaunt” their sex life simply by acknowledging their partner in public.
My point is that “normal” people get to talk about their relationship status and invite their partner to parties without anyone complaining that that’s TMI. For that they’d have to talk about the details of actual sex acts. So if you’re ok with polyamory then hearing about several partners shouldn’t be any different than hearing about one partner.
So no, I don’t want to hear details about the specific dump my cousin just took. But I don’t consider it TMI if he merely acknowledges that he has a digestive system by asking where the bathroom is or publicly buying toilet paper.
@19, to me, this is an "indignant exit" -- "I overheard a friend of over a decade say that she had to leave because she was uncomfortable with the situation"
Whereas this is not: "I have to open up the bowling alley early tomorrow, so I have to go" (@11).
Party-host: Hi, welcome to the party. Did I tell you I have a Trump fetish? I do! My partners and I dress up as Trump while we have sex. That's our thing. By the way, here's some new people, who I usually don't invite. They're into the whole Trump-fetish thing. Here are a few more, who showed up already wearing their Trump masks! Isn't this exciting?
Guest: ...This looks like it's shaping up to be the kind of party I'm not into. Sorry, gotta go.
@25: You're not getting it: Lets say your cousin takes dumps very differently than you do. Do you want to hear about it?
Thought not.
Want to be involved? Yeah, me neither.
Having an unusual relationship setup doesn't mean other people are obligated to be involved in it. Including as the audience. If you like being led around on a leash in a gimp suit, that's fine. If you think I'm obligated to watch, you're dead wrong. If the party looks like it's heading in that direction, I'm out.
Take whatever horrifyingly messy megadumps you want. But permit me to leave the bathroom first.
"You don't mention how many people were at the party... but after realizing you guys had fucked this other couple... and then realizing this other couple brought along someone else they're fucking... and then after the PDA broke out... your friend may have leapt to the conclusion that this "party" was about to turn into an open/poly fuckstorm."
I'm glad Dan acknowledged this possible impression. It was the first thing that came to mind for me.
I've actually been in the position (more than once, with different people) where I was invited to a fuck fest without any prior indication that it was going to be a fuck fest. I guess the fuck-festers were hoping that peer pressure would get me to go along with it, and/or that I'd like it if they could just get me to try it.
There are creeps who will use a pretext to try to get into someone's pants (e.g. the person that asks to use the bathroom in order to get into someone's apartment, escalates advances from there). Those creeps sometimes find their way into open/poly circles. Not all open/poly folks are creeps, but some creeps present as open/poly.
The Trump fetish bit is a little goofy, but what if you were invited over for dinner and suddenly discovered that a whole lot of the people present were Amway salespeople? I can't say I'd bother with polite excuses to exit. I'd be charging for the door, mowing over anyone that got in my way like I was going for the winning touchdown.
So yeah, I can't say I'm with the people who are pulling in the friend for being "judgmental" without some clarification as to what impression she was under, or what exact behavior it was that made her uncomfortable.
For reference, because this was long and rather convoluted, and I will need to consult or refer at times: My husband and I are in our mid-30s and have a happily open marriage. We date other people casually and sometimes less casually, but it's important to us that the people we see are friends and not just people to fool around with. We've been together for three years and have been open longer than not. We told my pretty traditional friends about the open marriage two months after we started and everyone thought that it was either going to be a passing thing or that it was the beginning of the end of our marriage, but we're happy and our relationship grows stronger all the time. I haven't felt affected or offended by their questions and criticisms and I think that they have a right to voice their concerns and opinions, but since there has been some negativity from them, we've kept most of the details of the dating among ourselves.
We host a party at our home every month. I recently hadn't been able to connect with someone (and their partner) that I see, so I invited them and it quickly came out during the party that that's how I knew those guests. They also brought a friend that they date who I hadn't met before. They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice and I personally don't think it makes a difference. Soon thereafter, I overheard a friend of over a decade say that she had to leave because she was uncomfortable with the situation, confirmed that I knew these people through dating, and was out the door minutes later.
I understand that our situation isn't for everyone, but we're all just people and it didn't even occur to me to warn our guests in advance that they might meet strangers from this other part of our life. Should I apologize for putting my long-time friend in an uncomfortable position? It's easy to compartmentalize this part of our life, but if I'm having friends over, I don't really want to exclude some of these great friends that I've made. I'm starting to wonder if I'm going to lose some friends because of this.
Hopeful Integration
I think HI is an Attention-Seeking Drama Queen.
She and her husband decide to open their relationship relatively early and are happy to be in an open marriage. That's good. It's good to be happy and open (as in, in an unguarded manner) and unashamed of who you are. But then this: "We told my pretty traditional friends about the open marriage two months after we started," and now I'm wondering why. Why did she tell her pretty traditional friends something she could be certain would at least discomfit and perhaps really upset her so soon after opening her marriage?
I don't think you need to be closeted if your marriage isn't monogamous; and I understand that you're contributing to poly invisibility if you aren't out. But like being bi while in an opposite-sex marriage who is socially monogamous, you can show your support/or indicate you're bi/poly more reactively than proactively. I mean, if these friends are so traditional, it's unlikely that HI and her husband think they are going to date them. It's unlikely that her traditional friends are going to run into HI and her husband out on a date with another couple--and if they do, that is the moment for HI to explain to her traditional friends that what might look like a typical "double date" is actually a very different kind of date. Or not. Maybe the other couple would prefer not to be out. (Btw, I don't think that "dating" someone necessarily always means you're going out in the world or out on the town in what's clearly some sort of courtship way; it seems that lately, "date" means "I have sex with this person intentionally--we make plans to do it." Often times, when I see "date," I read it as saying "fuck," rather than reading it as "court.")
So it seems to me that she told these traditional friends what she told them before she and her husband (or then-boyfriend) had been out for three months purely to be shocking. But if she's being shocking under cover of openness, there's another level of drama to be had: being so upset by her friends' reactions to her oooh-so-naughty-and-yet-enlightened behavior. Almost everything from that point on in the letter reads as if she does everything she can to upset people she already knows will be upset and then feigns ignorance as to why people reacted as they do, and throws in some aw, gee, I'm just a sincerely-open-and-loving-polyamorous-babe. I didn't mean to upset you. Can't We All Just Get Along?
She says "we've kept most of the details of the dating among ourselves," because the friends have "been voicing their concerns and opinions," opinions that say they worry that this couple's being open will bring the "end of our marriage." But then somehow when the friends from these two social worlds were at the same party, it was "quick[ly]" established that the host couple was regularly fucking the guest couple, who brought a third person with them, whom they (guest couple) is currently and clearly fucking. And then all three of these people proceeded to make out in the public space of what sounds like a nice suburban bar-be-que AND NOW DUMBFOUNDED HI IS BEGINNING TO WONDER IF SHE'S GOING TO LOSE FRIENDS OVER THIS!
It's hard not to assume that the traditional friends may well have thought the party was about to--perhaps meant to--turn into an orgy. And this: "I understand that our situation isn't for everyone, but we're all just people and it didn't even occur to me to warn our guests in advance that they might meet strangers from this other part of our life" is bullshit. If you "understand that our situation isn't for everyone" than you don't deliberately expose people to that situation without letting them know what they are likely to witness or, at the very least, who some of the other guests are to you--it's called informed decision-making
This sounds admirable: "It's easy to compartmentalize this part of our life, but if I'm having friends over, I don't really want to exclude some of these great friends that I've made." But there's a vast difference between compartmentalizing your friends and deliberately exposing them to something that would make them uncomfortable, given the context. Early in the letter HI says, " And then to say "They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice and I personally don't think it makes a difference," is just laughably disingenuous.
Thank you, @25. Seriously, anyone who conflates "This is my other boyfriend, Scott" with "Let me tell you all about the sex Scott and I had last night, while my husband was getting his cock sucked by his other girlfriend Marie" has got to get a grip. "These are the relationships I'm in" should not be TMI for any adult.
@29 " Lets say your cousin takes dumps very differently than you do. Do you want to hear about it?"
Oh boy, sounds like my cousin has some serious health issues. Of course I'd want to hear about that! We're family afterall. And maybe I'd have to set up my bathroom to accomodate his special needs so he can go in my home when he visits. That's absolutely relevant information!
It really pisses me off when "don't enjoy/agree with/want to watch" is blanketly equated with "closed minded." Really pisses me off. (This is also what's been poisoning GGG. "Oh you aren't willing to do literally anything and everything I ask for/want? Then you're not kinky/are closed minded/NOT GGG!")
Nocute @31 and other people: Try re-reading the letter with "they" as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun instead of a plural one and see if this makes the situation seem a bit less orgiastic.
"I recently hadn't been able to connect with someone (and their partner) that I see"
Someone. One. And their (his/her) partner, whom this person had invited as his/her date. Not "a couple that I see"; not "someone and their partner that I see"; not "someone that we see." "Someone (and their partner) that I see."
This is one person whom HI is dating (aka "her secondary"), that person's primary partner and another friend.
"They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice"
The guests were affectionate with each other. If they'd have been making out with the hostess, she'd have noticed. Who were "they" (as in he or she) being affectionate with? Their partner? The partner and the friend? Okay, if these guests were having a three-way grope fest, then yes, that's inappropriate behaviour unless it's specifically that kind of party. But if someone you know to be poly invites you to a party, the possibility that they've invited other people they care about -- for instance, the other people they're involved with -- shouldn't be a massive shocker.
@36: BiDanFan, you said "They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice"
The guests were affectionate with each other. If they'd have been making out with the hostess, she'd have noticed and I agree. I never thought that the guest(s) was/ere making out with the hostess or the hosts.
Interesting--the singular v. plural "they." This is where it really is an impediment to understanding.
I doubt it is the singular, gender-neutral pronoun, as the traditional friend gets her gendered and singular pronoun used. ("I overheard a friend of over a decade say that she had to leave because she was uncomfortable with the situation), as in both earlier in the letter and in the rest of the sentence, HI makes it clear that the guests at the party were a couple who'd brought a new sex partner (not having sex with the hostess or the host couple, but having sex with the guest couple):" it quickly came out during the party that that's how I knew those guests. They also brought a friend that they date who I hadn't met before. . . she was uncomfortable with the situation, confirmed that I knew these people through dating."
It is possible that she is going on dates with individual men or women and without her husband, even though I read the letter as if the couple dates other couples as couples, but even then the rest of my interpretation and the points I made stand.
Now that I reread the letter, there's no real reason for me to assume this swinging-couple thing. But it doesn't change anything. I mean it changes everything, and it also still means that HI is an attention-seeking drama queen!
Fake names might've been the way to go here. Or a chart of some type.
In any case, if you feel uncomfortable in a situation blandly excusing yourself is the polite, adult thing to do. Not whirling around the party investigating who is dating whom before storming off. THAT is stirring up drama.
Oh and @22: I believe Mme. Vel-DuRay is originally Iowan, same diff. :P
Yes, whirling around in a huff of indignation, clutching one's pearls, and screaming "you whore of Babylon" at the hostess and "Jezebel!" at another party guest is overreacting and drama-stirring.
Unfortunately, it's impossible for us to know from " I overheard a friend of over a decade say that she had to leave because she was uncomfortable with the situation, confirmed that I knew these people through dating, and was out the door minutes later" how big and loud the exit was.
Maybe the guest just had a normal-toned conversation with another guest and HI heard part of it.
Also, pda is all well and good, but mono or poly is slightly rude to your invited guests when gone on for longer than necessary. If the party is for your friends, stop dry-humping long enough to make sure they're all having a good time? Perhaps I'm too active of a host.
@40: "Yes, whirling around in a huff of indignation, clutching one's pearls, and screaming "you whore of Babylon" at the hostess and "Jezebel!" at another party guest is overreacting and drama-stirring."
...you know, the sad thing is that probably would've been better than whatever actually happened at the party.
Nocute @38: "I doubt it is the singular, gender-neutral pronoun, as the traditional friend gets her gendered and singular pronoun used."
Theories: Either the partner is genderqueer, or HI didn't want to make the partner's (or the partner's partner's) gender an issue.
"HI makes it clear that the guests at the party were a couple"
Yes. One of whom she was dating.
"I knew these people through dating."
She knows Spouse 1 through dating. She knows Spouse 2 through dating Spouse 1. It's very common for primaries to meet their metamours; many couples make this a condition of their openness, that everyone must meet and get along.
And nothing in my reading of that first paragraph suggests "we see other people jointly", just "we both see other people." Which is how the majority of open relationships work, in my experience. It's much easier to find other people to date when you're not part of a package deal.
I am a non-poly myself, and if I was the LTF in this case, I would have done the same thing. It is not that I am not supportive of poly relationships, but when the PDA started my brain would have jumped into a "oh, it is one of THOSE kinds of parties" and left with apologies to the friend with a "lets meet up when it is less busy for you."
If I was wrong in my departure, wrong in my assumptions, I would have apologized for jumping to the conclusion and suggested that while I support her/his relationship, it was uncomfortable for me to the extreme, I would even suggest my husband and I throw another party during the month, giving them an additional social outlet and one I would be comfortable in and that they would not feel uncomfortable in.
But I do think that they should have told the LTF that there would be more non-poly folks there and allow them to gracefully decline the invitation with no recriminations.
Ha. I was just musing on the fact that I have been to parties hosted by poly people with other partners in attendance. And I remembered that I actually have been to parties hosted by one of my partners and his primary, with my partner and on one occasion a friend of ours, and the three of us ended up making out in the hostess's bedroom.
Fortunately, these are not a couple who would have any friends who would have been shocked!
But it's not just the risk of an orgy breaking out.
Want to go to a party with your neighbor and all your neighbor's fuckbuddies?
Saying "no" doesn't make you a pearl-clutcher. Want to go to a party with your neighbor, your neighbor's coworkers, and just you, and spend an evening being the only person who doesn't know what they're talking about while everyone tells jokes about Jeff from accounting? Yeah, that really doesn't sound fun. Most of us have better things to do, and that's without a sexual component.
To the people who have now convinced themselves that the poly folk must've staged some crazy sex show without warning: Please note that only *one* guest left the party and there's no word of anyone else having any problems. Don't you think that if they had behaved widely inappropriately that a few more people would've objected to that?
Sure, it's possible that the LW is downplaying the whole thing to look good. (Afterall, for all we know the whole letter is made up.) But it's just as likely that the only thing that happened was some hand holding. Or maybe the guest in question simply asked "So how do you guys know the host?" and got an honest answer (see my posts @13 and @25 why I don't think that should be a problem).
@46: And if the hosts disappeared, leaving the friends alone, would they be expected to wait for your return? Being pro-kink doesn't mean that it's not a temporarily awkward situation for someone who doesn't know how long you're going to be and what they're supposed to do with themselves while their friends are so occupied. I might leave because it seems like the public event is wrapping up, out of politeness to my hosts.
@48: I don't think "freaky sex games" were scaring the whole party, but not every person has the same idea of fun and that's perfectly okay. Their idea of the funnest party isn't judgment.
This sort of reminds me of the geek social fallacies where they think all the friends should be perfect buddies in every context. Embrace diversity, accept that some people are not interested in all the same things as yourself.
@47 (Eudaemonic): "Saying "no" doesn't make you a pearl-clutcher. Want to go to a party with your neighbor, your neighbor's coworkers, and just you, and spend an evening being the only person who doesn't know what they're talking about while everyone tells jokes about Jeff from accounting? Yeah, that really doesn't sound fun."
Also a good point. Having been the sole teetotaler among a group of people who were very into recreational drugs--not occasional use, but a subculture centered on those drugs--that crap gets awkward fast. Pretty much the only motive you have to stick around in a situation like that is to prove how open-minded you are. "Look! I'm cool! I'm smiling and laughing as Cheech & Chong here watch bad cartoons!"
I wouldn't want to be at such a party if the topic of sex lives was so (apparently) blithely discussed, particularly if I suspected answering that I was "only" seeing one person, or none, would be met with the sniffing sort of "oh so unevolved" attitude that I've gotten in such circumstances. ("NOT ALL" blahblah, I'm saying it's happened to me, and more than once. And no, I'm not friends with those people any more.) It may not just have been discomfort that the spotlight was on the LW's activities/partners, but that the LTF was in fear of the spotlight being turned on her.
I have been the uncomfortable one at that party. I felt that I was the one that needed to apologize although I didn't feel the need to leave. It was more like I was the one possibly staring too much while couples I didn't know started pairing off into other couples. It was uncomfortable because my experiences prepared me for a jealous lover fight to break out any minute. Of course that didn't happen, but that's why I felt uncomfortable at first. It's not because I'm conservative or judging the poly lifestyle. It's that I didn't know these people and hadn't thought of the scenario before it started happening in front of me. I knew that my friends were poly and once it dawned on me that the other people at the party were possibly poly as well, I no longer feared an ugly scene even though I was still uncomfortable. I was having a new experience and wanted to act accordingly without the social tools at hand. I would assume that the LW's friend was in the same mental situation but didn't have the ability to continue with witty banter without popping off an unintended insult to the LW's friends. Sometimes we people are at a loss in social situations and act poorly. True friends won't need to swap apologizes, just a simple chat should suffice.
If your friend freaked out at a party because they saw someone make out with two different people or because they were introduced to one of your other partners, then your friend must not go to a lot of parties or be much of a friend. For fuck's sake, you are going to see and hear a lot more than that at your average bar or club in this town.
A word of advice, being openly non-monogamous or poly, you will find pretty quickly who your true friends are. You will also see your friend group evolve, quite wonderfully, to include more poly and poly-friendly folks. I've been poly for over 15 years, my friends all know, they get to meet all my partners and they are open and friendly with them--because they are awesome friends who love and support me for who I am. Yes, that meant a few friends faded away over the years, but now when throw parties everyone gets along great, the arguments instead are about music and what kind of shots to drink next.
A party every month? One can only imagine how predictable the other parties must have been if ten year friend got all huffy over such an innocent inclusion. Omg. He was kissing two women, at the same party!
LW. I don't see any need for an apology, at all. How convenient you overheard this. I'd suggest it was staged for you to hear.
Have your parties, invite who you want and those who are all scared they might see something that isn't in their skill set, well, they can stay home.
sheelanagig @55 "Sometimes we people are at a loss in social situations and act poorly. True friends won't need to swap apologizes, just a simple chat should suffice."
Strictly as an etiquette question, this one isn't that tough: the LW doesn't owe her friend an apology because her friend has not raised the subject of her departure from the party with her, much less expressed grievance or offense. Until such time as the friend brings it up, the LW shouldn't offer an apology, especially because she doesn't know exactly what it was that the friend saw/heard and prompted her departure. Unless the friend raises the subject, he LW should let sleeping dogs lie.
As far as the future of the friendship goes, either the friend will come to future parties or she won't, and only time will tell which. If she doesn't come to another one, the friendship might still function in other settings or it might not, and only time will tell that, too.
Not all friends should mingle. It's okay to have some friends you see in one context and some in another context. That's less clear when you are young because it seems like everyone should just love everyone. Not suggesting anyone be closeted or hang out with total bigoted assholes. I'm thinking more along the lines of don't invite me to your party where you try to sell me oils or nail wraps. And I won't invite you to the cat lady party where 50% of the discussion is about cats pooping. I have plenty of great friends with friends I think are idiots. It could be no more than that.
@27 I say again what indignant exit. I don't care how good of a friend you are. You do not embarrass your friend/hostess without a damn good reason, I would definitely consider an indignant exit by a long term friend to be an embarrassment. That did not happen, since LW thinks she may owe her long term friend an apology and wants to continue their friendship. Until she talks to her friend, she really doesn't know what happened that spooked her friend.
Wing man principle (sadly particularly as relates to women), you do not leave a friend behind at a party when you go to a party together or as a group (not necessarily in the same car). Conversely, If you abruptly leave a party, you need to inform a member of the group that you are leaving. You also owe them an explanation for why you are leaving. Saying that you are leaving because you feel uncomfortable with a situation (without specifics) is acceptable social behavior. The long time friend erred in not saying good by to her friend, which is dictated by social norms.
Your statement assumes that the long term friend was ignorant of her friend's open marriage, had not previously attended the monthly parties, and was unaware that her friend had like minded friends who she would invite to her parties. Why would this party be any different than any other party the long term friend had attended? This must be aberrant behavior by the long term friend or else she would not have been invited to the party in the first place. You have a friend, but you can't take them out in public because they can't behave.
It's easy and politically correct to suggest "fuck getting this friendship back on track. Close-minded people make lousy friends generally." Yay Open Mindedness!
Funny how those who scream, who bleat, who militantly proclaim "I'm open-minded and you must be too" are often those who immediately will shun and disparage anyone who disagrees with, questions, or (as suggested by DS himself) is uncomfortable with an unfamiliar situation.
Here's a thought: Instead of adopting a "If you don't agree with my lifestyle then fuck you and your friendship, I don't need to justify or explain anything to you!" attitude, how about not coming across as such a dick who would do little more than reinforce and justify a "Yea, they are freaks" attitude and say, "Hey...this is just who we are. It may not work for you and we respect that so we'll keep that part of our life separate from our relationship with you."
@65: "Wing man principle (sadly particularly as relates to women), you do not leave a friend behind at a party when you go to a party together or as a group (not necessarily in the same car). Conversely, If you abruptly leave a party, you need to inform a member of the group that you are leaving. You also owe them an explanation for why you are leaving."
Are you for serious? These rules are totally alien to etiquette and party reality.
@45 You are positing that the LTF was unaware that this was mixed party. A more likely scenario was that LW did not inform the other friend that it was a mixed party. She didn't think it was necessary to inform anyone that this was a mixed party, which was true for every one who had attended mixed parties in the past. It is safe to assume that this was not the first mixed party hosted by the LW. Since the other friend only knew the LW because they were fucking, without anything said to the contrary the fuck friend would naturally assume it would be that kind of a party. Bringing an uninvited third to that kind of a party would not be a big deal. Bringing an uninvited stranger to a mixed party, with out checking with the hostess, is just plain rude. Nothing said to the contrary, the fuck friend would make, in this case, erroneous assumptions about what was appropriate behavior at a party made up entirely of strangers (except for the hostess)
@48 We only know that the LTF left an uncomfortable situation. LW does not say whether any one else left the party. A traditionalist being propositioned by a poly three some would make any traditionalist uncomfortable. Once again, no one knows what happened. Everything is speculation
Skeptic @65: Where did you get the idea that LTF left people she'd come with at the party?
And agree with Undead: When leaving a party (for whatever reason), it's good to try to find the host and say goodbye, but you don't owe them any explanation.
And where does anyone get "indignant exit", LTF making a scene, etc? She mentioned, within earshot of the host, that she was uncomfortable and left. Perhaps an overreaction to the concept of polyamory, perhaps a completely reasonable reaction to three people making out in front of her, but no evidence of anything but a discreet departure exists in HI's letter.
@65 skeptic. What are you on about?
If you go to a party in a shared vehicle, then yes you tell those people you are leaving. Otherwise, it's a party..
not Xmas lunch.
@72. Decorum of the party? The party was at the LWs house. She had told her traditional friends about their lifestyle.
These people I assume are old enough to put two and two together. At parties, the party holders can invite whoever the hell they want.
What, the traditionalists thought they'd never cross paths with the people the LW has sexual relationships with? Why would they assume that.
Lava @76/77: Inorite? Skeptic has some very strange ideas and vocabulary about parties. I wonder what part of the world they (there's that singular "they" again) are from.
"Mixed party"? Unless it's just me and a bag of Doritos, every party is a "mixed" party. No one should need to be warned that there will, in fact, be other people at the party! People with different relationship arrangements, single and partnered people, Democrats and Republicans, teachers and IT geeks. The point of a party is to mingle. "Decorum of the party" is pretty hilarious too. "You're invited to my party, but please note, no fun allowed!" And every guest is obligated to stay until they're kicked out at 4am unless they have a damn good excuse to leave?
Undead, you seem to be one of the people who has the mistaken assumption that the host or hosts were involved in whatever canoodling offended LTF. "They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice." It was just the guests, no one was left alone holding their drinks and glancing around awkwardly while the hosts got it on with other guests. In either of the parties under discussion. Depending on the extent of the canoodling, HI may want to advise the poly guests that her friends are more vanilla and they should probably tone it down. But that's the extent of the party foul here.
FWIW: "They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice."
Drama llamas say this kind of thing about stuff they were doing, not just stuff they didn't actually notice. And I think Nocute's diagnosis is likely correct. People uninterested in drama don't invite a token square to be The Shocked Person, and we notice when we're doing something that's likely to come off that way.
But it's not unusual to have multiple groups of friends and not invite them all to the same party. If I were having a party with my work friends--and so I had good reason to think most of the night was going to be about in-jokes on the topic of Jeff From Accounting--I wouldn't invite one of my college friends, because they have better things to do.
@ 79, except it was the fuck-buddies who were the odd ones out at this party. Everyone else was just their regular monthly party crew. Maybe they started making out because they had nothing in common with other guests and didn't get their in-jokes? I agree with with keeping certain groups of friends separate, at least for small get togethers, where people will be forced to interact with strangers they have little in common with. If anything, she owes an apology to her fuck-buddies for inviting them to a party where she could of anticipated the other guests would be freaked out. I think it was a pre-mediated attempt to get her square friends to be more accepting of her arrangement, and it just ended up making everyone uncomfortable
Or, likely, the "making out" as graciously described involved more than just mouth action, if it went on longer than a few minutes, some people might not be comfortable with watching them grope, dry hump and finger each other?
@80: They weren't freaked out and been made to feel uncomfortable by her relationship(s), they just didn't want to see it unfold live and in person. And that's fine! Being sex positive and private aren't mutually exclusive.
The LW should have realized there was potential for awkwardness here: when new people show up at a regularly-held party, "So how do you know LW?" is not an unpredictable question. And the honest answer could easily test a surprised guest's social aplomb.
Also, do the LW's usual non-poly monthly guests get "affectionate" at her parties, or did her fuck-friends introduce an unexpected new element to the mix, thus startling some of the regulars? There's something disingenuous about the phrasing, "They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice and I personally don't think it makes a difference." I'd bet money that (a) they did, (b) the LW noticed, and (c) the LW knows it made a difference.
@80 "except it was the fuck-buddies who were the odd ones out at this party. Everyone else was just their regular monthly party crew. "
That's definitely a thing that would be known... to people who were already fully in the know about (and interested in) the LW's poly drama and extramarital shenanigans.
Look: When you want to play Shock The Vanillas, some of them are going to be unhappy about the fact that you didn't ask them if they wanted to play or not. And some of them won't want to play.
Whatever. everyone is making a lot of assumptions re what upset friend.
Yes, perhaps LW needs to be more sensitive when asking people to her parties. Or not.
Maybe if her sexual lifestyle, which is a pretty important part of oneself, has to be put aside so her old friends aren't confronted by it, Id say fuck em. They are not real friends if they won't make the effort to get over themselves and accept who LW really is.
True, @86. ( if you refuse to label people, I'll follow along).
I'm assuming the traditional friend was upset about her poly friends turning up at the party and maybe seeing amorous behaviour between them.
The assumptions I make are coming from the LW's inside knowledge of her friend, and what may have upset her.
Whatever. Leave it.
Start talking to her friend about this, unless the friend brings it up, and then LW is giving power to others re who comes to her parties. She'll think twice before inviting so and so.
Already these so called " friends" have given her and her husband grief about their story. And it is their business, how?
If she loses a few controlling and interfering in her choices friends, I'd say she's better off without them.
"The assumptions I make are coming from the LW's inside knowledge of her friend, and what may have upset her. "
I mean, that's the problem. She has assumptions based on literally no information, she didn't care enough to send any considerate response to the guest, just assigned malintent and fumed.
Why should she send any response to anyone@ 88? It was a goddamn party. Shit happens at parties. Nature of the beast.
And the friend didn't say anything to her directly, the LW overheard a conversation. From that, she is making assumptions. Pretty accurate ones as I read it, too.
Stick in the mud people and a poly lifestyle are like oil and water, don't mix.
Maybe LW could have alternate monthly parties, for her different groups.
One month, those who can't abide being reminded that the LW and husband are poly.
Next month, her poly friends and others who know when to mind their own business and let others live their lives as they choose too.
I don't know if poly is applicable since the LW does not use that word (Dan did).
"We date other people casually and sometimes less casually, but it's important to us that the people we see are friends and not just people to fool around with."
The LW is being case specific to the threesome. As indicated by the quote, there is nothing to infer that like minded had not attended previous parties or were not attending this party.
Presumably the LTF had attended other mixed parties without feeling uncomfortable with the situation and leaving. Hence the LW's concern. Why the LTF was having the conversation in the first place is unknown.
As I have said before. Everything is speculation until the LW talks to her LTF. When a LTF is acting abnormally (an assumption), wouldn't you want to know why?
Skeptic @92. How do you know if friend is acting strange? LW just says she left the bloody party. And if the ltf was ok throwing a little tanty and gossiping with others re having to leave because... Then no. I wouldn't need to know.
If ltf brings up the subject. something like..
" Sorry I left the party early honey. I just got all funny in the tummy knowing that man was, you know, to both those women. I dare to even imagine what the women might do together. And you being part of this harem, is a little disturbing."
The LW then has the chance to help her friend develop tolerance. Wait for the friend to bring the topic up.
@94. No, of course not. How did you get that idea?
I'm making assumptions based on LW's knowledge, which have lead to her assumptions. The friend is traditional. The party included LW's poly friends, and her trad friends had been skeptical of this lifestyle. LTF was having a gossip with another person, re why she was leaving. Why not just leave and say nothing to no one?
And the LW overheard this little chat.
Must I spell it all out to you. That's what Your mind is for.
@68 I apologize in advance if misconstrued your comment, but what world do live in. You obviously not had a female (or male hypothetically) friends or relatives roofied at a bar or party (not hypothetical, trip to the emergency verified). Fortunately, they had friends who kept track of them.
A local bar owner is doing serious prison time for roofieing (is that a word) some of his female customers. Conveniently (for him) he had an apartment above the bar.
Perhaps wingman was the wrong choice of word.
However, the concept applies to a friend who has had too much to drink to drive or get home safely.
@77 the response was to @61 who used the term decorum
@78 the LW has two very distinct groups of friends. You can't imagine a type of party to which she would never invite her traditionalist friends? How then do you describe a party where both groups of friends are invited?
General comments: I assume LW understands the difference between heard and overheard and that she intentionally chose to use overheard rather than heard.
If her LTF behaved differently (assumption) at this party as opposed to other mixed parties the LTF had attended, why wouldn't the LW ask her LTF what happened that made her uncomfortable?
Skeptic @92: "it's important to us that the people we see are friends and not just people to fool around with"
That's pretty much the accepted definition of the difference between "open relationship" and "polyamory." The connection with the other partners outside the primary relationship is emotional and not just sexual. And I don't read that as being case-specific to this group of people; I read it as being a general principle regarding any others they may (individually or jointly) date.
@97: "You obviously not had a female (or male hypothetically) friends or relatives roofied at a ... party."
No, I have not. Thank fuck for that. A bar is quite different from a party at someone's house, where the host has individually selected all invitees. We aren't talking about a frat party here.
Skeptic @100: "How then do you describe a party where both groups of friends are invited?"
I would describe that as a "party."
So many comments on this tiny little storm in a teacup!
PDA makes some people uncomfortable. Three-way PDA probably makes even more people uncomfortable. Not necessarily because they're judgmental, but because they've literally never seen it before. Kinda like how two-person PDA makes young people uncomfortable until they get used to it. LTF may simply not have developed the resistance that LW and Dan possess.
Not saying that (3) is what must have happened, just that it's another option. One that doesn't mandate dropping a long time friend, should the unlikely fuckfest scenario be dispelled.
They have a monthly party that's replete with past or present lovers... check. One such couple they couldn't connect with (who brought a third?)—meaning they wanted to coach them before mingling maybe? They sure as hell got the invite, what else would that mean?—spilled beans, etc.
Either way the friend was being a baby. Be gracious or make up something plausible if you want to leave, but indignant exits have no place at a party.
This I agree with: "indignant exits have no place at a party."
And keeping track of that level of "who you're fucking and who you're not" is only an intuitive process for people who are used to dealing with poly drama. Not everyone is, and not everyone's comfortable with it. For the norms, this kind of thing tends to feel like being thrown in at the deep end, and then realizing that that's not water.
And what sort of tacky party is it where people blab to the room that you are having a sexual relationship with one of the hosts?
With all that said, the pearl-clutching friend needs to lighten up. Some of my best evenings have been spent where I was at least not initially "comfortable" with what was going on. It's not like everyone was going to disrobe and start going at it right then and there, and even if they did, all friend would have to do is make up a polite lie and excuse herself. ("Oh my, that looks like fun, but I have to open up the bowling alley early tomorrow, so I have to go")
It almost makes one long for the days when an evening out with adults meant a table or two of Bridge. No one would dream of talking about sex while playing bridge.
And for @1, I'm not young but I think PDA at a party is tacky. If I went to a party of a friend of 10+ years (where presumably I know many of the host's other friends) and some strangers were just making out in the middle of things, I'd probably be disinclined to stay too, regardless of how many people were participating in the makeout. It's hard to tell what level of "affection" the LW means, but I always assume LWs downplay the parts of the story that don't support their position, so I'm assuming this was more than just closeness, hand-holding and the occasional quick kiss (if that alone caused someone to leave a party, they're pretty thin-skinned and how do they go anywhere, ever?).
It also means that they have more or less meaningful relationships witht their other partners and you shouldn't have to hide your friends just because you sleep with them.
I really don't undestand people who go "I'm totally cool with it, I just don't want to hear about it". If you really were cool with it you wouldn't mind heating about it.
@13: "I really don't undestand people who go "I'm totally cool with it, I just don't want to hear about it". If you really were cool with it you wouldn't mind heating about it."
Hey, wanna hear all about the huge messy dump your cousin just took? No? That must mean you're not cool with humans existing.
Either that, or you're just completely wrong. And you do understand people who have no problem with it happening but do have a problem with hearing about it.
What made this party different from any other party. Unless you are intentionally blatant (confrontational?) about anything (religion, politics, sex, whatever), how does anything become quickly apparent. Unless it is that kind of party, discussing who is fucking whom really isn't appropriate at a party. LW knew If any of her friends were strongly opposed to poly and had LW had an obligation to inform those friends (unless it is common knowledge) that it was a mixed event. The decision to attend or not attend would've be her friend's decision. I would not feel comfortable at a social function, if I felt I was being ambushed. This is getting way too convoluted. Bottom line is, should LW remain friends with either party and should she invite either party to future parties. Miss Manners would just love to dissect this.
Personally, I don't give a flying fuck about who or how many fuck whomever (children and livestock excluded) in whatever manner. I don't want to know and I don't need know. TMI.
So yeah, make a waffly apology, but leave the door open to segue into a real apology for what one of your guests may have done.
Guest: “Hello! Nice to meet you!”
2. Poly person: “Welcome to my party! These are my boyfriends.”
Guest: “Yew! I don’t want to hear about your sex life! So tacky!”
Note that the 2. Scenario is not different from how gay people used to be treated when they dared to “flaunt” their sex life simply by acknowledging their partner in public.
My point is that “normal” people get to talk about their relationship status and invite their partner to parties without anyone complaining that that’s TMI. For that they’d have to talk about the details of actual sex acts. So if you’re ok with polyamory then hearing about several partners shouldn’t be any different than hearing about one partner.
So no, I don’t want to hear details about the specific dump my cousin just took. But I don’t consider it TMI if he merely acknowledges that he has a digestive system by asking where the bathroom is or publicly buying toilet paper.
Whereas this is not: "I have to open up the bowling alley early tomorrow, so I have to go" (@11).
Guest: ...This looks like it's shaping up to be the kind of party I'm not into. Sorry, gotta go.
Host: Hater!
Thought not.
Want to be involved? Yeah, me neither.
Having an unusual relationship setup doesn't mean other people are obligated to be involved in it. Including as the audience. If you like being led around on a leash in a gimp suit, that's fine. If you think I'm obligated to watch, you're dead wrong. If the party looks like it's heading in that direction, I'm out.
Take whatever horrifyingly messy megadumps you want. But permit me to leave the bathroom first.
I'm glad Dan acknowledged this possible impression. It was the first thing that came to mind for me.
I've actually been in the position (more than once, with different people) where I was invited to a fuck fest without any prior indication that it was going to be a fuck fest. I guess the fuck-festers were hoping that peer pressure would get me to go along with it, and/or that I'd like it if they could just get me to try it.
There are creeps who will use a pretext to try to get into someone's pants (e.g. the person that asks to use the bathroom in order to get into someone's apartment, escalates advances from there). Those creeps sometimes find their way into open/poly circles. Not all open/poly folks are creeps, but some creeps present as open/poly.
The Trump fetish bit is a little goofy, but what if you were invited over for dinner and suddenly discovered that a whole lot of the people present were Amway salespeople? I can't say I'd bother with polite excuses to exit. I'd be charging for the door, mowing over anyone that got in my way like I was going for the winning touchdown.
So yeah, I can't say I'm with the people who are pulling in the friend for being "judgmental" without some clarification as to what impression she was under, or what exact behavior it was that made her uncomfortable.
My husband and I are in our mid-30s and have a happily open marriage. We date other people casually and sometimes less casually, but it's important to us that the people we see are friends and not just people to fool around with. We've been together for three years and have been open longer than not. We told my pretty traditional friends about the open marriage two months after we started and everyone thought that it was either going to be a passing thing or that it was the beginning of the end of our marriage, but we're happy and our relationship grows stronger all the time. I haven't felt affected or offended by their questions and criticisms and I think that they have a right to voice their concerns and opinions, but since there has been some negativity from them, we've kept most of the details of the dating among ourselves.
We host a party at our home every month. I recently hadn't been able to connect with someone (and their partner) that I see, so I invited them and it quickly came out during the party that that's how I knew those guests. They also brought a friend that they date who I hadn't met before. They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice and I personally don't think it makes a difference. Soon thereafter, I overheard a friend of over a decade say that she had to leave because she was uncomfortable with the situation, confirmed that I knew these people through dating, and was out the door minutes later.
I understand that our situation isn't for everyone, but we're all just people and it didn't even occur to me to warn our guests in advance that they might meet strangers from this other part of our life. Should I apologize for putting my long-time friend in an uncomfortable position? It's easy to compartmentalize this part of our life, but if I'm having friends over, I don't really want to exclude some of these great friends that I've made. I'm starting to wonder if I'm going to lose some friends because of this.
Hopeful Integration
I think HI is an Attention-Seeking Drama Queen.
She and her husband decide to open their relationship relatively early and are happy to be in an open marriage. That's good. It's good to be happy and open (as in, in an unguarded manner) and unashamed of who you are. But then this: "We told my pretty traditional friends about the open marriage two months after we started," and now I'm wondering why. Why did she tell her pretty traditional friends something she could be certain would at least discomfit and perhaps really upset her so soon after opening her marriage?
I don't think you need to be closeted if your marriage isn't monogamous; and I understand that you're contributing to poly invisibility if you aren't out. But like being bi while in an opposite-sex marriage who is socially monogamous, you can show your support/or indicate you're bi/poly more reactively than proactively. I mean, if these friends are so traditional, it's unlikely that HI and her husband think they are going to date them. It's unlikely that her traditional friends are going to run into HI and her husband out on a date with another couple--and if they do, that is the moment for HI to explain to her traditional friends that what might look like a typical "double date" is actually a very different kind of date. Or not. Maybe the other couple would prefer not to be out. (Btw, I don't think that "dating" someone necessarily always means you're going out in the world or out on the town in what's clearly some sort of courtship way; it seems that lately, "date" means "I have sex with this person intentionally--we make plans to do it." Often times, when I see "date," I read it as saying "fuck," rather than reading it as "court.")
So it seems to me that she told these traditional friends what she told them before she and her husband (or then-boyfriend) had been out for three months purely to be shocking. But if she's being shocking under cover of openness, there's another level of drama to be had: being so upset by her friends' reactions to her oooh-so-naughty-and-yet-enlightened behavior. Almost everything from that point on in the letter reads as if she does everything she can to upset people she already knows will be upset and then feigns ignorance as to why people reacted as they do, and throws in some aw, gee, I'm just a sincerely-open-and-loving-polyamorous-babe. I didn't mean to upset you. Can't We All Just Get Along?
She says "we've kept most of the details of the dating among ourselves," because the friends have "been voicing their concerns and opinions," opinions that say they worry that this couple's being open will bring the "end of our marriage." But then somehow when the friends from these two social worlds were at the same party, it was "quick[ly]" established that the host couple was regularly fucking the guest couple, who brought a third person with them, whom they (guest couple) is currently and clearly fucking. And then all three of these people proceeded to make out in the public space of what sounds like a nice suburban bar-be-que AND NOW DUMBFOUNDED HI IS BEGINNING TO WONDER IF SHE'S GOING TO LOSE FRIENDS OVER THIS!
It's hard not to assume that the traditional friends may well have thought the party was about to--perhaps meant to--turn into an orgy. And this: "I understand that our situation isn't for everyone, but we're all just people and it didn't even occur to me to warn our guests in advance that they might meet strangers from this other part of our life" is bullshit. If you "understand that our situation isn't for everyone" than you don't deliberately expose people to that situation without letting them know what they are likely to witness or, at the very least, who some of the other guests are to you--it's called informed decision-making
This sounds admirable: "It's easy to compartmentalize this part of our life, but if I'm having friends over, I don't really want to exclude some of these great friends that I've made." But there's a vast difference between compartmentalizing your friends and deliberately exposing them to something that would make them uncomfortable, given the context. Early in the letter HI says, " And then to say "They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice and I personally don't think it makes a difference," is just laughably disingenuous.
Well done!
Oh boy, sounds like my cousin has some serious health issues. Of course I'd want to hear about that! We're family afterall. And maybe I'd have to set up my bathroom to accomodate his special needs so he can go in my home when he visits. That's absolutely relevant information!
"I recently hadn't been able to connect with someone (and their partner) that I see"
Someone. One. And their (his/her) partner, whom this person had invited as his/her date. Not "a couple that I see"; not "someone and their partner that I see"; not "someone that we see." "Someone (and their partner) that I see."
This is one person whom HI is dating (aka "her secondary"), that person's primary partner and another friend.
"They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice"
The guests were affectionate with each other. If they'd have been making out with the hostess, she'd have noticed. Who were "they" (as in he or she) being affectionate with? Their partner? The partner and the friend? Okay, if these guests were having a three-way grope fest, then yes, that's inappropriate behaviour unless it's specifically that kind of party. But if someone you know to be poly invites you to a party, the possibility that they've invited other people they care about -- for instance, the other people they're involved with -- shouldn't be a massive shocker.
The guests were affectionate with each other. If they'd have been making out with the hostess, she'd have noticed and I agree. I never thought that the guest(s) was/ere making out with the hostess or the hosts.
Interesting--the singular v. plural "they." This is where it really is an impediment to understanding.
I doubt it is the singular, gender-neutral pronoun, as the traditional friend gets her gendered and singular pronoun used. ("I overheard a friend of over a decade say that she had to leave because she was uncomfortable with the situation), as in both earlier in the letter and in the rest of the sentence, HI makes it clear that the guests at the party were a couple who'd brought a new sex partner (not having sex with the hostess or the host couple, but having sex with the guest couple):" it quickly came out during the party that that's how I knew those guests. They also brought a friend that they date who I hadn't met before. . . she was uncomfortable with the situation, confirmed that I knew these people through dating."
It is possible that she is going on dates with individual men or women and without her husband, even though I read the letter as if the couple dates other couples as couples, but even then the rest of my interpretation and the points I made stand.
Now that I reread the letter, there's no real reason for me to assume this swinging-couple thing. But it doesn't change anything. I mean it changes everything, and it also still means that HI is an attention-seeking drama queen!
In any case, if you feel uncomfortable in a situation blandly excusing yourself is the polite, adult thing to do. Not whirling around the party investigating who is dating whom before storming off. THAT is stirring up drama.
Oh and @22: I believe Mme. Vel-DuRay is originally Iowan, same diff. :P
Unfortunately, it's impossible for us to know from " I overheard a friend of over a decade say that she had to leave because she was uncomfortable with the situation, confirmed that I knew these people through dating, and was out the door minutes later" how big and loud the exit was.
Maybe the guest just had a normal-toned conversation with another guest and HI heard part of it.
...you know, the sad thing is that probably would've been better than whatever actually happened at the party.
"I doubt it is the singular, gender-neutral pronoun, as the traditional friend gets her gendered and singular pronoun used."
Theories: Either the partner is genderqueer, or HI didn't want to make the partner's (or the partner's partner's) gender an issue.
"HI makes it clear that the guests at the party were a couple"
Yes. One of whom she was dating.
"I knew these people through dating."
She knows Spouse 1 through dating. She knows Spouse 2 through dating Spouse 1. It's very common for primaries to meet their metamours; many couples make this a condition of their openness, that everyone must meet and get along.
And nothing in my reading of that first paragraph suggests "we see other people jointly", just "we both see other people." Which is how the majority of open relationships work, in my experience. It's much easier to find other people to date when you're not part of a package deal.
If I was wrong in my departure, wrong in my assumptions, I would have apologized for jumping to the conclusion and suggested that while I support her/his relationship, it was uncomfortable for me to the extreme, I would even suggest my husband and I throw another party during the month, giving them an additional social outlet and one I would be comfortable in and that they would not feel uncomfortable in.
But I do think that they should have told the LTF that there would be more non-poly folks there and allow them to gracefully decline the invitation with no recriminations.
Fortunately, these are not a couple who would have any friends who would have been shocked!
Want to go to a party with your neighbor and all your neighbor's fuckbuddies?
Saying "no" doesn't make you a pearl-clutcher. Want to go to a party with your neighbor, your neighbor's coworkers, and just you, and spend an evening being the only person who doesn't know what they're talking about while everyone tells jokes about Jeff from accounting? Yeah, that really doesn't sound fun. Most of us have better things to do, and that's without a sexual component.
Sure, it's possible that the LW is downplaying the whole thing to look good. (Afterall, for all we know the whole letter is made up.) But it's just as likely that the only thing that happened was some hand holding. Or maybe the guest in question simply asked "So how do you guys know the host?" and got an honest answer (see my posts @13 and @25 why I don't think that should be a problem).
This sort of reminds me of the geek social fallacies where they think all the friends should be perfect buddies in every context. Embrace diversity, accept that some people are not interested in all the same things as yourself.
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion…
Also a good point. Having been the sole teetotaler among a group of people who were very into recreational drugs--not occasional use, but a subculture centered on those drugs--that crap gets awkward fast. Pretty much the only motive you have to stick around in a situation like that is to prove how open-minded you are. "Look! I'm cool! I'm smiling and laughing as Cheech & Chong here watch bad cartoons!"
A word of advice, being openly non-monogamous or poly, you will find pretty quickly who your true friends are. You will also see your friend group evolve, quite wonderfully, to include more poly and poly-friendly folks. I've been poly for over 15 years, my friends all know, they get to meet all my partners and they are open and friendly with them--because they are awesome friends who love and support me for who I am. Yes, that meant a few friends faded away over the years, but now when throw parties everyone gets along great, the arguments instead are about music and what kind of shots to drink next.
LW. I don't see any need for an apology, at all. How convenient you overheard this. I'd suggest it was staged for you to hear.
Have your parties, invite who you want and those who are all scared they might see something that isn't in their skill set, well, they can stay home.
Never try to outrun a fuckstorm. Always head straight for the eye.
Well said.
As far as the future of the friendship goes, either the friend will come to future parties or she won't, and only time will tell which. If she doesn't come to another one, the friendship might still function in other settings or it might not, and only time will tell that, too.
Wing man principle (sadly particularly as relates to women), you do not leave a friend behind at a party when you go to a party together or as a group (not necessarily in the same car). Conversely, If you abruptly leave a party, you need to inform a member of the group that you are leaving. You also owe them an explanation for why you are leaving. Saying that you are leaving because you feel uncomfortable with a situation (without specifics) is acceptable social behavior. The long time friend erred in not saying good by to her friend, which is dictated by social norms.
Your statement assumes that the long term friend was ignorant of her friend's open marriage, had not previously attended the monthly parties, and was unaware that her friend had like minded friends who she would invite to her parties. Why would this party be any different than any other party the long term friend had attended? This must be aberrant behavior by the long term friend or else she would not have been invited to the party in the first place. You have a friend, but you can't take them out in public because they can't behave.
Funny how those who scream, who bleat, who militantly proclaim "I'm open-minded and you must be too" are often those who immediately will shun and disparage anyone who disagrees with, questions, or (as suggested by DS himself) is uncomfortable with an unfamiliar situation.
Here's a thought: Instead of adopting a "If you don't agree with my lifestyle then fuck you and your friendship, I don't need to justify or explain anything to you!" attitude, how about not coming across as such a dick who would do little more than reinforce and justify a "Yea, they are freaks" attitude and say, "Hey...this is just who we are. It may not work for you and we respect that so we'll keep that part of our life separate from our relationship with you."
Are you for serious? These rules are totally alien to etiquette and party reality.
And agree with Undead: When leaving a party (for whatever reason), it's good to try to find the host and say goodbye, but you don't owe them any explanation.
And where does anyone get "indignant exit", LTF making a scene, etc? She mentioned, within earshot of the host, that she was uncomfortable and left. Perhaps an overreaction to the concept of polyamory, perhaps a completely reasonable reaction to three people making out in front of her, but no evidence of anything but a discreet departure exists in HI's letter.
If you go to a party in a shared vehicle, then yes you tell those people you are leaving. Otherwise, it's a party..
not Xmas lunch.
These people I assume are old enough to put two and two together. At parties, the party holders can invite whoever the hell they want.
What, the traditionalists thought they'd never cross paths with the people the LW has sexual relationships with? Why would they assume that.
"Mixed party"? Unless it's just me and a bag of Doritos, every party is a "mixed" party. No one should need to be warned that there will, in fact, be other people at the party! People with different relationship arrangements, single and partnered people, Democrats and Republicans, teachers and IT geeks. The point of a party is to mingle. "Decorum of the party" is pretty hilarious too. "You're invited to my party, but please note, no fun allowed!" And every guest is obligated to stay until they're kicked out at 4am unless they have a damn good excuse to leave?
Undead, you seem to be one of the people who has the mistaken assumption that the host or hosts were involved in whatever canoodling offended LTF. "They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice." It was just the guests, no one was left alone holding their drinks and glancing around awkwardly while the hosts got it on with other guests. In either of the parties under discussion. Depending on the extent of the canoodling, HI may want to advise the poly guests that her friends are more vanilla and they should probably tone it down. But that's the extent of the party foul here.
Drama llamas say this kind of thing about stuff they were doing, not just stuff they didn't actually notice. And I think Nocute's diagnosis is likely correct. People uninterested in drama don't invite a token square to be The Shocked Person, and we notice when we're doing something that's likely to come off that way.
But it's not unusual to have multiple groups of friends and not invite them all to the same party. If I were having a party with my work friends--and so I had good reason to think most of the night was going to be about in-jokes on the topic of Jeff From Accounting--I wouldn't invite one of my college friends, because they have better things to do.
Context: It's a thing.
@80: They weren't freaked out and been made to feel uncomfortable by her relationship(s), they just didn't want to see it unfold live and in person. And that's fine! Being sex positive and private aren't mutually exclusive.
Also, do the LW's usual non-poly monthly guests get "affectionate" at her parties, or did her fuck-friends introduce an unexpected new element to the mix, thus startling some of the regulars? There's something disingenuous about the phrasing, "They may have been affectionate, but I didn't really notice and I personally don't think it makes a difference." I'd bet money that (a) they did, (b) the LW noticed, and (c) the LW knows it made a difference.
That's definitely a thing that would be known... to people who were already fully in the know about (and interested in) the LW's poly drama and extramarital shenanigans.
Look: When you want to play Shock The Vanillas, some of them are going to be unhappy about the fact that you didn't ask them if they wanted to play or not. And some of them won't want to play.
Yes, perhaps LW needs to be more sensitive when asking people to her parties. Or not.
Maybe if her sexual lifestyle, which is a pretty important part of oneself, has to be put aside so her old friends aren't confronted by it, Id say fuck em. They are not real friends if they won't make the effort to get over themselves and accept who LW really is.
Aren't you here doing the same?
I'm assuming the traditional friend was upset about her poly friends turning up at the party and maybe seeing amorous behaviour between them.
The assumptions I make are coming from the LW's inside knowledge of her friend, and what may have upset her.
Whatever. Leave it.
Start talking to her friend about this, unless the friend brings it up, and then LW is giving power to others re who comes to her parties. She'll think twice before inviting so and so.
Already these so called " friends" have given her and her husband grief about their story. And it is their business, how?
If she loses a few controlling and interfering in her choices friends, I'd say she's better off without them.
I mean, that's the problem. She has assumptions based on literally no information, she didn't care enough to send any considerate response to the guest, just assigned malintent and fumed.
And the friend didn't say anything to her directly, the LW overheard a conversation. From that, she is making assumptions. Pretty accurate ones as I read it, too.
Maybe LW could have alternate monthly parties, for her different groups.
One month, those who can't abide being reminded that the LW and husband are poly.
Next month, her poly friends and others who know when to mind their own business and let others live their lives as they choose too.
overheard
verb (used with object), overheard, overhearing.
1) "to hear what one is not meant to hear," 1540s, from over- + hear. The notion is perhaps "to hear beyond the intended range of the voice."
2) to hear (speech or a speaker) without the speaker's intention or knowledge:
as in "I accidentally overheard what they were saying."
I assume that the LW used the word correctly and intentionally rather than using the word heard.
Sorry for being pedantic
"We date other people casually and sometimes less casually, but it's important to us that the people we see are friends and not just people to fool around with."
The LW is being case specific to the threesome. As indicated by the quote, there is nothing to infer that like minded had not attended previous parties or were not attending this party.
Presumably the LTF had attended other mixed parties without feeling uncomfortable with the situation and leaving. Hence the LW's concern. Why the LTF was having the conversation in the first place is unknown.
As I have said before. Everything is speculation until the LW talks to her LTF. When a LTF is acting abnormally (an assumption), wouldn't you want to know why?
If ltf brings up the subject. something like..
" Sorry I left the party early honey. I just got all funny in the tummy knowing that man was, you know, to both those women. I dare to even imagine what the women might do together. And you being part of this harem, is a little disturbing."
The LW then has the chance to help her friend develop tolerance. Wait for the friend to bring the topic up.
You know them all personally?
I'm making assumptions based on LW's knowledge, which have lead to her assumptions. The friend is traditional. The party included LW's poly friends, and her trad friends had been skeptical of this lifestyle. LTF was having a gossip with another person, re why she was leaving. Why not just leave and say nothing to no one?
And the LW overheard this little chat.
Must I spell it all out to you. That's what Your mind is for.
A local bar owner is doing serious prison time for roofieing (is that a word) some of his female customers. Conveniently (for him) he had an apartment above the bar.
Perhaps wingman was the wrong choice of word.
However, the concept applies to a friend who has had too much to drink to drive or get home safely.
Literally none of which applies to this scenario, though.
@78 the LW has two very distinct groups of friends. You can't imagine a type of party to which she would never invite her traditionalist friends? How then do you describe a party where both groups of friends are invited?
General comments: I assume LW understands the difference between heard and overheard and that she intentionally chose to use overheard rather than heard.
If her LTF behaved differently (assumption) at this party as opposed to other mixed parties the LTF had attended, why wouldn't the LW ask her LTF what happened that made her uncomfortable?
That's pretty much the accepted definition of the difference between "open relationship" and "polyamory." The connection with the other partners outside the primary relationship is emotional and not just sexual. And I don't read that as being case-specific to this group of people; I read it as being a general principle regarding any others they may (individually or jointly) date.
@97: "You obviously not had a female (or male hypothetically) friends or relatives roofied at a ... party."
No, I have not. Thank fuck for that. A bar is quite different from a party at someone's house, where the host has individually selected all invitees. We aren't talking about a frat party here.
Skeptic @100: "How then do you describe a party where both groups of friends are invited?"
I would describe that as a "party."
So many comments on this tiny little storm in a teacup!