As a new contribution to our Relationships series, let’s discuss the story of a woman who is going to meet her casual lover over the summer holidays (the woman in question requested input). The lover asked the woman if she was willing to be introduced to his children:
It wasn’t exactly a surprise when TA asked me if I’d like to meet [the children] while I was there this time. I’m going to be spending lengths of time in Home State this summer, as opposed to my previous brief weekends, so it would be somewhat odd not to meet them at some point, especially if TA and I want to spend extended time together. . . TA wants me to meet them, though. He adores his kids and they’re a big part of his life; he said it would be nice to have me meet them in some capacity while I’m there.
He did ask me what I thought about the idea and I said we could talk when I’m there. Because I’m not sure what I think. . .
Is it too soon? When do you meet someone’s kids? Do you need to be in some defined state before you introduce the girl and the kids? We don’t even claim to be dating – because we’re not, given the distance between us and the understanding that we’re free to be with other people if we wish.
I’m torn. On one hand, I’d like to, because they’re a facet of TA and it seems false not to see that side of him if we’re going to keep spending time together. On the other, it seems like a step and I’m not sure about taking that one.
This will not be of interest to everybody, so I’m putting my response under the fold. If you are not very happy about your personal life, I suggest you consider what you would do in this situation before seeing my comments.
Every relationship begins with a struggle for power. Once the balance of power solidifies, it’s extremely hard to modify it. If you consistently find yourself in relationships that somehow grow uncomfortable after a while, the reason might be that you snoozed through the early power struggle and did not mold the relationship into a format that will be good for you.
In the quoted situation, the gentleman, let’s call him Jack, made a play for power and he played hard. Jack is trying to orient the budding relationship towards the state where the woman’s role is constantly to stay on her toes trying to figure out how better to service him. And he’s succeeding.
The woman, let’s call her Susie, is already dedicating time and energy to fretting, thinking, wondering how to engage with his family and service his needs. Is he doing the same for her, though? At this very moment, is he wondering, posting questions on his blog, asking his buddies, etc. how, when and whether to visit Susie’s grandma at the retirement home or help her father at his building project? Or is he just sitting there, concentrating on his own life, and waiting for Susie to solve his private dilemmas?
I’m sure Jack is not doing this on purpose (few people have the requisite self-awareness to do this in a calculated fashion), just like Susie is not turning into his emotional and social maid two seconds after meeting him purposefully. These are probably the roles they observed in their childhoods and are now imitating. But this model does not lead to joy. She will eventually feel exhausted and resentful, and he will grow distant, bored, and lose sexual interest in the Mommified partner.
So here’s what I would do. I’d drop the subject of the children altogether. They are his children it is his business to figure out how to inscribe them into his personal life, he should not be offloading this responsibility on anybody. The only situation where I would consider allowing my partner to involve me in the care and management of his family is if I were getting something massive in return.
I would also start reorienting the narrative of the impending visit from “Susie is eagerly looking for ways to please Jack” to “here is how Jack and Susie are trying to figure out how to please Susie during her vacation.” Develop a hobby, a dietary preference, a health condition, a personal drama and set him the task of accommodating these complexities during the visit. Susie’s “facets” are just as important as Jack’s, and he should be reminded of this.
Clarissa's Blog 
Is it the fact the man has children or that he’s even asking the question of “Do you want to meet the children” that makes this emblematic of a power struggle? That didn’t occur to me on first read, but looking at it now….
What I’m wondering is if this guy is agonizing or agonized over asking “Do you want to meet the children?” I feel like it’s a little weird for a casual lover to be bringing his kids into the equation when there’s no mention of it being serious. I feel like it’s a gateway to audition childcare. Every woman I know that pops this question to a partner treats it like a huge deal.
Right now when I date, I’m not dating people with children or primary custody because I’m not interested in being a step mom. This is the same reason I’m wary of much older men because I have a sneaking suspicion they’re auditioning future nursemaids.
LikeLike
If he were childless, there’d be something else. The problem that I’m seeing is that she’s investing time and effort into figuring out his stuff while he’s not doing the same for her.
Of course, it is extremely weird that he’d even want to expose the children to a very casual lover who seems to be one of many at the moment. If she’s not careful, Susie might well find herself in a situation where she’s asked to babysit while Jack goes out on a date with another woman.
LikeLike
I can’t really see the play for power on his side, although I do see the enthusiastic ceding of power on hers. I agree that your suggestion would help with said enthusiastic ceding of power though.
LikeLike
So people with children should not date?
LikeLike
Yes. That is exactly what I said. They should dress in white and sit on a wooden chair next to a yellow wall all day long.
LikeLike
“They should dress in white and sit on a wooden chair next to a yellow wall all day long.”
-This evokes imagery from “The Yellow Wallpaper.” How apt. :p
LikeLike
Hah! I didn’t mean it but yes, somehow it worked out that way. 🙂
LikeLike
Okay, here’s where I’m weird… I’m wondering why she’s freaking out at the very idea of meeting his kids and throwing such a worry fit.
Unless the kids think their father is now a monk (or even then) or are extremely young they probably assume their father …. sees people.
I was assuming that “meeting” the kids was essentially the same as not keeping her a big secret – a casual introduction and later including her in activities where excluding her would be weird.
The drama she’s throwing sounds like she’s being to adopt them and/or swear oaths of loyalty to them sight unseen or that she’s expecting to be introduced “Kids, this is Susie, youre new Mommy!”
In light of what you wrote I assume if it weren’t the kids she’d actively find something else to worry about and gnaw on.
LikeLike
Absolutely. This is not about the kids per se. This is a relationship model where she frets and tries to figure him out. In the meantime, he’s blissfully unaware that anything of the kind is occurring.
LikeLike
I don’t know why she should assume anything about these kids. I mean, she doesn’t know them. Kids vary a lot in terms of how they react to meeting new people, and meeting the significant other of a parent can be significantly loaded. She doesn’t know whether Jack Jr. loves meeting new people, or whether he’s likely to be standoffish and suspicious. Or whether they are likely to get attached, which, given the ambiguous nature of the relationship, might reasonably lead to sadness and letdown for everybody. Its a big deal for some kids, and others might treat it totally casually, as you’ve described. That’s why the father, who presumably has this kind of information about his children, shouldn’t foist the responsibility of a first meeting on someone who doesn’t. It’s his job to determine when it’s appropriate for a meeting to take place. I think it’s totally reasonable for her to worry about this, given the situation he’s put her in.
LikeLike
This is precisely why I’m saying that he’s making a power play. He puts the burden of answering all these questions on her. In a relationship that is beyond casual, this is nothing but an effort to tip the balance of power in his favor. He’s not similarly obsessed with meeting her relatives.
LikeLike
“That’s why the father, who presumably has this kind of information about his children, shouldn’t foist the responsibility of a first meeting on someone who doesn’t”
How is she ever going to get that kind of information without …. meeting them? I he supposed to compile tenure files with spreadsheets for her perusal ahead of time?
“It’s his job to determine when it’s appropriate for a meeting to take place.”
He apparently has determined it’s an appropriate time and conveyed that information to her in a normal fashion and she’s freaking out for some completely unapparent (to me) reason.
I’m not perceiving anything weird or super controlling from him (just on the basis of what Clarissa has excerpted here, though there could be other stuff not mentioned here of course).
LikeLike
My rule was always that the only situation in which I become aware that he has relatives, let alone find out their names, is if this is a very serious relationship. Otherwise, the relatives, health issues, personal problems, neuroses, etc should not be brought to me. For many people, the words “casual relationship” mean “Let’s dedicate your life to listening about my drama.” And I’d always clamp down on these outpourings the second they started.
I’m not saying the guy is controlling or even doing anything consciously. This is a game that plays itself out in every relationship, irrespective of whether people are aware of it or not. The person who is the first to get exposed to relatives, issues and drama loses the position of power and will have a very hard time recovering it.
This is why my advice is: every mention of “my children / mother / grandpa / auntie” from a casual lover should be countered not with “Please tell me more because it’s a facet of your fascinating self” but with “well, by the way, MY auntie / grandma / cousin, etc”.
LikeLike
Huh, guess I’m naturally predisposed for equalitarian relationships. Whatever the seriousness of the relationship, I’ve always interpreted people talking about their drama as an invitation to also talk about similar-intensity drama in my own life.
I feel really sorry for anyone who’d need more than half a second to figure out whether she wants to meet the kids.
LikeLike
“Huh, guess I’m naturally predisposed for equalitarian relationships. Whatever the seriousness of the relationship, I’ve always interpreted people talking about their drama as an invitation to also talk about similar-intensity drama in my own life.”
LikeLike
“For many people, the words “casual relationship” mean “Let’s dedicate your life to listening about my drama.”
Truer words were never spoken and this is very important to keep in mind. I am flashing on the guy who wanted a casual relationship (I am cool with love affairs that are not leading to marriage, but not at all interested in having sex with friends when they don’t have anyone else to sleep with and want that gap filled) with me and who also called me, not a closer friend, when he had an injury and needed rides to orthopedist and other kinds of help.
I also note that many many men think that what women WANT is to listen to their drama.
LikeLike
I also note that many many men think that what women WANT is to listen to their drama.
Yes. A good listener is “listens to all of my problems like a therapist” or “my one emotional sounding board.”
My life is such right now, that a bare factual narration will be “drama.” What people consider “drama” from a woman is just “life” from a man. I observe this pattern, starting with my parents, of women offering all kinds of emotional and practical support to men, while not expecting it or cordoning off areas of their life.
A tiny example: My mother very seriously lectured me on how my role as future sister in law could make or break my brother’s hypothetical marriage. He was not in any relationship.
LikeLike
Interesting. It has been said in my family that my degrees and intellectual orientation are threatening to my brother’s marriage since they are competition for his wife’s degrees.
LikeLike
The tone was more, “You need to make her feel welcome and be a diplomat between the two” which is too much.
Sometimes I wonder if saying “degrees and intellectual orientation are threatening” are just code for something else, because I hear this about people with whom I’m not in competition with at all. It’s intensely weird to have someone say you’re intellectually intimidating someone with more degrees than you or in a completely different field.
LikeLike
I guess they might be code for confidence, or for being admired sometimes, or for independence, or something. Interesting idea, I will think about this.
LikeLike
“I also note that many many men think that what women WANT is to listen to their drama.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if they use sex to relieve their emotional constipation.
If you start declaring fuckbuddy status to casual lovers they get so pissed. :0
LikeLike