How do I handle dating several women at once?

November 14, 2005 10:44 AM

DatingFilter: How do I handle dating several women at once?

I'm a male in my mid-twenties who's had some incredible mojo lately. It seems like every time that I go out I meet someone new who I end up going on dates with. In the past few months, I've gone on a ton of first dates, quite a few second dates, some third dates, and not too much beyond that. The problem is that I have a hell of a hard time explaining my mindset to the women that I meet. I'm usually capable of saying something like, "I just got out of a very long term relationship and am thus not really emotionally available for anything beyond casual dating." I keep meeting people who are really fun who I'd love to be able to maintain a casual relationship with, but it's close to impossible for me to mention that I am also dating other women. I feel like it's important to be honest about that fact, but I'm unsure about 1) what's the best way to get that across and 2) when is the appropriate time to let them know?

I end up cutting off all contact with lots of people becuase it seems like they're getting too into me, and hope that it will turn into something more serious. The last thing that I want right now is a girlfriend, and the possibility of something going in that direction terrifies me. I'd rather just ignore phone calls than have to tell someone that I'm not interested. How can I get over that?

The other problem is that I live in a small town, and I'm constantly paranoid that I'm going to run into someone that I'm dating while I'm out on a date. It hasn't happened yet, but I've had some close calls. Ideas for dealing with that terribly awkward situation? Humorous anecdotes would also be appreciated.

By the way, while I spend a lot of time at first and second base, I really don't have a lot of sex. When I do, it's very, very safe so I'm not really concerned with any health issues.

posted by anonymous to human relations (27 comments total)

Let all of these women know in no uncertain terms that you are not interested in any long-term monogamous relationship, that you desire only mutually agreeable companionship and casual physicality, and that you will pursue the attentions of other women while you are also pursuing theirs. Most of them will probably slap you across the face and stomp out of your life, never to be seen again, but a few might be willing to accept this. They're the ones you'll want to hang out with. But whatever you do, don't get jealous if one of these latter women starts telling you all about the awesome guy she was making out with at the club the other night.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:57 AM on November 14, 2005

I don't think you have to explicitly say you're dating other women, but definitely throw the word "monogamous" into the "what I'm not looking for" line. "Casual" is a bit too vague to get your point across, I think. If you just changed your line to something like "I just got out of a very long term relationship and am thus not really looking for a serious, monogamous relationship, but I'd love to keep going out with you."

And yeah, a lot of women won't agree to that, but you don't want to be dating those women, anyway.

And I would say second or third date would be fine. I actually tend to think that unless anything is said otherwise, relationships are non-monogamous until sex comes into the picture, but I don't know if that's a common assumption.
posted by occhiblu at 11:16 AM on November 14, 2005

Make it clear you just want to be friends right away, and stop calling your outings dates unless you really mean to start a relationship. Mention nothing about being exclusive. "Date" seems to imply "I only care about you," rather than just catching a movie in proximity. Go on such outings with multiple people, also, so it's more like a hang-out instead of alone time. Don't even think about first, second or further if you're not planning to be absolutely exclusive.

Men generally live in a "physical" house, where emotion and feelings is a room they must have a reason for to get up, walk over to, and enter the room -- being physical is pretty much all the time and doesn't require a reason so much. Women, on the other hand, live in a "emotion" or "love" house, whereas getting physical is a room they have to have a reason to get up, walk over to, and enter. There is a similar filter for men to be emotional in front of someone, as there is a filter for women to become physical with someone. Consider this when getting physical with a gal, how much effort it requires on her part, to know that when they do, it's starting to get serious. As much as guys think about physical aspects of a gal, gals similarly think in terms of how solid the relationship will remain. Her permission to get physical is a step, for her, toward permanence in the relationship, whereas for a guy, opening up about his past and feelings in a sense of trust would likely mean he was getting serious. Your physical advances are a signal that you mean business -- if you don't actually mean business, you had best not be getting physical unless you particularly enjoy crushing their spirit.
posted by vanoakenfold at 11:19 AM on November 14, 2005

If you're not serious about dating, make sure they know you are just dating "as a friend". Then, don't do anything with her you wouldn't do with your best (male) friend from high school.... except maybe dance.
posted by Doohickie at 11:25 AM on November 14, 2005

Nobody has a right to expect exclusivity on the first few dates, so there's no reason to bring it up.

That said, unless you're in a very unusual pool of women, I don't think many of them are interested in dating someone with zero intention to acquire a girlfriend, so you might consider the ethics of your entire project...
posted by MattD at 11:30 AM on November 14, 2005

Humorous antecdotes? See the the movie Alfie. The original one, not the new one. It has a bit of a moral message but its a primer into being a player.
posted by geoff. at 11:31 AM on November 14, 2005

Oh my - there are soooo many innapropriate things I could say here *clamps hand over mouth*

I mentor a few younger guys, and have 3 rules for dating that I've found work for me:

1)Always be honest: remember that honesty transcends mere words to your intentions and actions.

2)Be willing to pay the price: there usually is when any level of passion between two people is involved. Clearly you've learned about this - you want to date a lot of people in a small town? You're going to run into them - accept it and deal with it gracefully - this goes back to point one when your date asks "who was she?".

3)Always wear a condom - sounds like you have this covered.

Best of luck.
posted by gregariousrecluse at 11:45 AM on November 14, 2005

I'd rather just ignore phone calls than have to tell someone that I'm not interested. How can I get over that?

OK, you need to get over that NOW. Your current mode of handling this issue reflects negatively upon your character in a big way.
posted by lilboo at 11:45 AM on November 14, 2005

I'll second vanoakendfold's opinions on the male/female perspective on sexuality.

Regarding the morality/protocol:

If you're certain you don't want a serious relationship with anyone right now, you should be upfront about it on the first date. Don't waste her time.

If you think you might want a relationship if you meet the right woman, then you still have an obligation to let any woman know that she's not the one as soon as you're certain (I'll admit that I procrastinate this).

As for the unpleasant responsibility of breaking it off, there's no easy way to do it. If there is, let me know. You just have to be a man and not blow her off.
posted by justkevin at 11:48 AM on November 14, 2005

I don't have a whole lot of experience dating many women simultaneously, but I don't think you are doing anything wrong. Just say "I do not want a girlfriend right now. I just want to have fun." They'll respect you and like you more for it.
posted by xammerboy at 12:12 PM on November 14, 2005

You'll be surprised how well women receive this sort of information. Tell a woman up front you're tired of breaking hearts and lately, have only been casually dating. Explain you're available for a second date but let her know she'll have to book you in advance :-) Basically, pretend you're an exclusive restaurant. Only a few people get in the door in the first place, but just because they're in doesn't mean they're your only customers. In fact, most women will take this as a challenge to beat their competition and try even harder to get you.

The important thing is that you're comfortable with this. If you are, and you are honest about your intentions, the woman will be comfortable as well.
posted by Happydaz at 12:24 PM on November 14, 2005

A guy I dated last year was in the same mental place that you're in now. He and I went out a couple of times, he made it clear that he didn't want a girlfriend and that he just wanted to be able to date/sleep with a few women casually. I appreciated his honesty, but since I was looking for a relationship, I broke things off and have had no regrets. So my advice is just to be upfront with the women, but don't be surprised when they stop calling you. Then you should just be left with the ones that want to date casually like you do. (Or the ones that are deluding themselves that they'll be able to change you, but I don't really know how to weed those out.)
posted by MsMolly at 12:36 PM on November 14, 2005

Men generally live in a "physical" house, where emotion and feelings is a room they must have a reason for to get up, walk over to, and enter the room -- being physical is pretty much all the time and doesn't require a reason so much. Women, on the other hand, live in a "emotion" or "love" house, whereas getting physical is a room they have to have a reason to get up, walk over to, and enter.

Um ... no. This is silly. Men and women are people and there are plenty of women who don't live in this 'love' house and plenty of men who don't live in this 'physical' house. Also, men are not actually from Mars and women are not actually from Venus.

xammerboy and happydaz are right on--you need to be upfront about this and accept the fact that a good proportion of the girls you're dating will not be cool with it. And you need to be easy-going and straightforward about it, which means returning calls, etc. I'd bring it up early--like on the second date. Don't wait until a line of intimacy has been crossed; instead, give your dates the chance to make an informed decision about crossing that line of intimacy with someone who's not looking for a long-term relationship.
posted by josh at 12:43 PM on November 14, 2005

Start hanging out with the local polyamorists. For example, if you lived in Chicago, you could join ChiPolyFriends.
posted by alms at 1:09 PM on November 14, 2005

Men generally live in a "physical" house, where emotion and feelings is a room they must have a reason for to get up, walk over to, and enter the room -- being physical is pretty much all the time and doesn't require a reason so much.

Oh what the hell kind of Cosmo generalization is this? Jesus christ. This ranks among one of the worst things I've ever read on Metafilter. Get your head out of Oprah and make some friends men outside of sports bars.
posted by xmutex at 1:55 PM on November 14, 2005

Um ... no. This is silly. Men and women are people and there are plenty of women who don't live in this 'love' house and plenty of men who don't live in this 'physical' house. Also, men are not actually from Mars and women are not actually from Venus.

Damn straight.
posted by grouse at 2:04 PM on November 14, 2005

Yeah, the "women all live in the love house all the time" notion is bull. As a woman, I've been in non-exclusive situations before, and it is perfectly possible to be cool about it -- but that both partners being upfront, clear, and friendly about it. (That also includes not just refusing to return phone calls when you think someone may be getting stronger feelings about you! Seriously: just because you're not making a commitment doesn't absolve you from good manners.) Josh, xammerboy, and happydaz all basically nail it in terms of what to say and when to say it.
posted by scody at 2:44 PM on November 14, 2005

whoops! that should read: "but that requires both partners being upfront..."
posted by scody at 2:51 PM on November 14, 2005

There may be more women out there with an attitude similar to yours than you think.

When I was in my mid-twenties, I would have been thrilled with a guy who was not interested in a long-term relationship, but it seemed like I could only find ones who wanted a girlfriend. I certainly wasn't living in an "emotion" or "love" house, whatever that means.

Just be completely honest and upfront about your intentions, I'd say beginning at the beginning (first date). Although I personally lose patience when people make assumptions about COMMITMENT (*ROAR*) before an open discussion about it has taken place, or when they don't take personal responsibility for their own emotional safety within a relationship (meaning any type of relating between people, not necessarily something for the long term), those kinds of assumptions seem to happen a lot, and a slightly uncomfortable talk early on is way better than a painful/tearful talk later on.
posted by tentacle at 3:21 PM on November 14, 2005

Holy cheezits, I was just thinking of asking the same question. I'm in a similar situation, having just come out of a LTR, and now I keep meeting interesting women who I'd love to follow up with. My difference is that I am interested in a LTR as soon as I find the right one, but for the moment there are just too many to choose from! I'd like to get to know some of them without cutting off my other options, but I'm afraid that no one likes to be on a date with someone who's just "window shopping".

So far, "I'd like to see you again, but not exclusively" has worked one out of two times. The one who it didn't work on gave me a hard time for not knowing what I wanted, though that was exactly what I was trying to find out. Are there "rules" for this that I'm just missing? Just seeing if we can expand the answers to cover LTR-oriented dating, not just polyamory and casual flings.
posted by purple_frogs at 5:13 PM on November 14, 2005

If you can convey the idea that it's possible to dig two people at once and not have it be a lacking of either of them, you should be okay. Honestly, it's worked out well for me in the past.

Be up front and let the girl know you like her. Let it be her perogative to bring it up if she wants anything more. It's okay to get attached and still not be monogamous, so long as it's been brought up ahead of time.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 5:30 PM on November 14, 2005

You.

Lucky.

Bastard.

Anyway, just be honest with these girls. Might reduce your chances with em, but then you won't feel guilty. If you're telling them "I'm not looking for a monogamous relationship" they might not realize that you're actually banging (or at least making out with) other chicks.

Figure out how to balance your pleasure in making out with these girls with your guilt in misleading them.

Or rase your standards.
posted by delmoi at 6:20 PM on November 14, 2005

Um ... no. This is silly. Men and women are people and there are plenty of women who don't live in this 'love' house and plenty of men who don't live in this 'physical' house.

It might actually help to read what I wrote before you blather on some misunderstood topic -- you completely obliterated what I just said. At no single point did I discard men and women as people, nor filter all people into two distinct and unswaying categories. Go read it again, and check your personal experience at the door -- I'm talking about a general populace application, not you personally. I suppose the next thing you'll tell me is that all this "digestive system" talk is nonsense because everyone is unique.

Yeah, the "women all live in the love house all the time" notion is bull.

Where did you people read that? When you see the word generally, it means with exceptions. Just because you don't fall into this particular line, or know a few exceptions personally, doesn't mean it's completely discardable. Plus, I'd like to know what your PhD is in. You were just out of the loop. It applies to a majority of people, but there are fair numbers of exceptions. Care to cite some references on how this is untrue?

My references:
This, this,this and this and a significant number of psychology journals. You might try applying it first without immediately casting it down.
posted by vanoakenfold at 7:36 AM on November 15, 2005

Oh what the hell kind of Cosmo generalization is this?

It's a PhD's assertion of gender roles. Your dissatisfaction comes at no surprise, Mr/Mrs "intermediate".

Get your head out of Oprah and make some friends men outside of sports bars.

Grammar demerits aside, you're supposing I should take the advice of individuals like yourself with the paltry credibility of "because I said" and depart from people who have actually researched the matter? Pssh.
posted by vanoakenfold at 7:43 AM on November 15, 2005

Meh. PhD, whatever. It still sounds like hooey to me.
posted by Doohickie at 2:53 PM on November 15, 2005

Sorry, can't resist. It looks like your PhD (you seem to claim having one) has lead you to "security alarm dispatching" vonoakenfold, ,now that is a title that screams credibility in the world of academic Psychology.

See it? Right there in the word security. That is credibilty that 6 years of graduate school can't buy.
posted by jduckles at 4:06 PM on November 15, 2005

Where did you people read that? When you see the word generally, it means with exceptions. Just because you don't fall into this particular line, or know a few exceptions personally, doesn't mean it's completely discardable. Plus, I'd like to know what your PhD is in. You were just out of the loop. It applies to a majority of people, but there are fair numbers of exceptions. Care to cite some references on how this is untrue?

My goodness. Someone's certainly living in the House of Touchy these days.

I didn't stick around for my Ph.D. (didn't feel the need to go that much further into debt for a degree I wasn't going to end up using anyway), though my M.A. is in American Studies (with an emphasis on the development of early 20th century mass media as it related to advances in industrialization and technology). Would you like to know more (I can certainly post my thesis on the battle for private vs. public radio in the 1920s, if you'd like), or are you sufficiently impressed that you'll now never dare express a contradictory opinion to mine in a thread about cultural history? No? Hm. Interesting.
posted by scody at 4:27 PM on November 15, 2005