Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Death of Intimacy

From time to time I meet people who say they are in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) poly relationships. Their primary partners have supposedly agreed that they may have outside relationships, but they don’t want to know anything about them. They don’t want to know when dates happen, they don’t want to meet their primary partners’ other SOs, they don’t want to know who is having sex with whom, nothing. DADT agreements seem to be most common when a polyamorous person is married to a monogamous person, but they certainly aren’t limited to that situation. I usually hear about DADT from men who I feel are trying to get away with something (that is, they seem to be actually cheating on their wives, rather than polyamorous)—they show all the signs of sneaking around. But sometimes a person will show up at poly events wearing a wedding band, saying that he or she has a DADT arrangement with his or her spouse. If the person keeps coming to events, the ring is usually gone in a few months, and we hear that there’s a divorce in the works.

Whatever the reason, I view DADT as a major warning sign that the primary relationship is not healthy, and that we may well be hearing its death rattle. It is frequently used when the monogamous partner does not, in fact, want his or her partner to have other relationships, but does not feel secure enough to demand monogamy from that partner. It is almost always a compromise arrived at when one partner does want other relationships and one wants a closed relationship.

The main problem that I see with DADT is that it kills intimacy. It prevents full and honest communication between partners. Intimacy can only occur when there is total honesty. When certain topics are off-limits, there are barriers between you. Most people do not live strictly compartmentalized lives.

For instance, Tom is really looking forward to his weekly lunch with his sweetie, Nancy. A crisis comes up, necessitating an urgent meeting. He has to cancel the lunch plans, leaving him out of sorts. When he gets home that night, he can’t explain his mood to his wife Ann. Ann knows that something is bothering him, and she wants to know what it is—but she may be reluctant to ask because she doesn’t want to know about it if it has anything to do with Nancy. There are walls between them, and slowly the withholding spreads to other areas of their lives. DADT is not sustainable in the long run, and can lead to the couple becoming roommates more than partners.

DADT can also present safety issues. If Tom learns that Nancy has decided to stop using condoms with her other sweetie(s), his relationship with Nancy presents a greater health risk to him and to Ann than it did when Nancy was using barriers. He needs to disclose that increased risk to Nancy. If they have a DADT agreement, he’s likely to be reluctant to bring up the issue.

True intimacy requires true honesty. True honesty is complete, without holding anything back. I can’t imagine sacrificing intimacy to avoid discomfort. Why would you do it?

I’m the first to admit that I don’t have the One True Way to Do Poly, so obviously, there may be people for whom DADT works. I just haven’t seen it myself.

3 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Heicart
    Dec 05, 2015 @ 11:58:03

    I enjoyed your column. I am in a situation that is open (we are honest with each other), and where recently one of his partners in another city has moved to town, literally into his neighborhood. Their arrangement has been DADT for 12 years. And I didn’t question it. I assessed it much as your analysis–that I personally would want to “know” things that impact me, such as health risks, and I see the situation as one that undermines intimacy–if I refuse to get to know who you really are/what you’re really doing, how can my feelings for “you” be valid or that I honestly accept you? So, my arrangement has been that I try to be respectful of other partners in my questions, and my partner is able to tell me whatever he is comfortable sharing, but MUST tell anything that could put me at risk.

    What has concerned me about this latest development is that it seems to violate the “DA” portion of the deal. If I say I don’t want to know about your other partners, but them move, literally, around the corner from where you live, then my actions and words aren’t aligned. Further early in our relationship we had STI screenings to determine if we could stop using condoms. His test came up with a problematic positive result that he then had to share with his DADT partner–out of pure ethical considerations. When he told her about the positive result, she asked why he’d been tested. Again, asking someone why they were screened for an STI, when you say you don’t want to know if they have other partners does not appear to represent alignment between actions and words.

    I’ve been researching this because her move to his neighborhood, from a nearby city, has now made problems with the DADT situation they had previously–which was more easily kept when they were living farther apart. I had my own thoughts on the situation, but wanted other perspectives.

    Neither of us, he nor I, have had much time to process this news, as she only announced her move to him less than a week ago. But his immediate reaction has been very different than mine. I believe the effort to be discreet should not include protecting his partner from herself. That is, I don’t see why *our* arrangement needs to change. She made the decision to live within such close proximity, and she therefore has exposed herself to a greater risk of finding out about his other comings and goings. That’s on her, and he has no obligation to re-arrange his life for her, but has suggested we may no longer be able to meet at his home for our dates. I see her behavior as “asking.” And I believe that while he shouldn’t flaunt the information to her, he’s not under an obligation to take extraordinary measures to protect her from finding things she has taken extraordinary measures to find. In other words, DADT means you don’t check your SO’s cell phone. That’s *asking*. My solution would be to note that if you check the cell phone, you may not like what you find–and if you honestly don’t want to know, then don’t check the cell phone. His response seems to be “since you’re going to check the cell phone, I guess I need to buy another cell phone and find a way to keep it hidden from you.”

    That to me is above-and-beyond DADT. But he said as well he doesn’t want to jeopardize what he has with her–and so I have to *hear* that, and it seems that I don’t have much option other than to walk in this case, and be glad I only spent a year invested in this so far.

    Since he hasn’t had a lot of time to process it, and I won’t be connecting with him for about a week, I’m taking the time to just check other points of view and research this idea, and think/rethink things, so that when I do see him later I can be clear on what is/is not acceptable to me. If his attitudes remain what they are as of our last/first conversation about this, then I have to move along. But it’s possible he was simply reacting to new information and hadn’t processed it fully himself. If he can adjust his view to create more reasonable boundaries between what’s on him and what’s on her as far as information exposure, then I may be surprised and there may be a future, but to me even the idea of her moving into the neighborhood is saturated with dysfunction, and so I’m not hopeful. I honestly believe my next conversation with him will be my last and he can then focus on his new neighbor and try his luck finding partners who don’t mind being treated like subordinates to her, rather than peers/partners.

    But wanted to say yours was one of a handful over level-headed perspectives on this issue that I’ve come across. Thanks for posting it.

    Reply

  2. Angel
    Feb 07, 2016 @ 20:41:21

    My only request was if he became sexually active with other women, that we use condoms together. I never asked him to use them with other women, that was a decision between them. That way, whatever decisions they made didn’t impact the decision we made. He was upset to have to go back to using condoms after 20 years of marriage, but it was my only request regarding sex.
    So our DADT shouldn’t have had the “health” drawbacks you mentioned. In terms of intimacy, that’s just bullshit. I have a deep connection with my mom without knowing all the details of my parents’ sex lives. I have very close friendships without having blow-by-blow descriptions of their sex lives. Intimacy covers so much more than talking about who’s doing what to whom. People leave out details of large sections of their lives without it damaging the relationship. I’d be willing to bet you don’t know every little detail about every person you’re close to. It’s simply not necessary to know everything in order to build intimacy with someone. What is necessary is trust and respect. Neither of which is shown when you demand to share intimate details with someone who doesn’t want to hear them.

    Reply

    • Cyn
      Mar 06, 2016 @ 14:16:56

      Hi Angel. This would be much simpler if you would keep your comments to one article, rather than continuing your thoughts from one article to the next. In any case, I’m glad you came to an arrangement that didn’t have that drawback. And I think you know that the kind of intimacy one has with a parent or friend is entirely different than that which one has in a relationship that includes sex. Bringing up the other kinds of relationships is a red herring. Apparently your agreement didn’t work out, or you wouldn’t have written the comment on the other article.

      Reply

Leave a Reply