I saw this post last night and wrote this offline before logging on just now. Much of this has now been covered but I went to the trouble of writing it, so I'm gonna post it anyway! 
But I guess my question would be this: Did Indivdual A (the one taking issue with the SO still being friendly with the ex) know that Individual B (the one that's still friends with the ex) was still friends with the ex before "committing to a monagamous relationship"? Because that would certainly change the dynamics of a lot of these poll questions.
Personally, I don't like this choice: "No, your SO is being completely selfish & not taking your feelings into account." Individual B could just as easily call Individual A selfish for asking them to discontinue a friendship with someone who is clearly important enough to them that they want to keep that person in their life even if it is an ex (which this poll would suggest Individual A has asked them to do).
So, my next point might not be a particularly popular one but it's something I've noticed on these forums over time. The use of the term SO has become used a little more loosely than I think it should. And I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here. However, I know one member was referring to someone in his life as his SO and when being more specific, it turned out he was talking about someone he had only been seeing for maybe two or three weeks. I'm sorry but in my opinion, that's a "girlfriend" at best. I think some people are forgetting that the 'S' in 'SO' stands for "significant". Or maybe people are just rushing into thinking that a relationship is more serious than it is sooner than they should and want to think of that person as the one who will be a "significant" part of their lives. For example, in the case above, if Individual A has committed to a monogamous relationship with Individual B before knowing that Individual B was still on good, friendly terms with their ex and that this would be a point of contention for Individual A in a relationship, I would suggest that Individual A did not yet know enough about this partner to make that commitment as "significantly" as they may have wanted to.
But in defense of Individual A's position, I understand insecurity very well. And this is a question of trust and insecurity really. Is Individual A secure enough in their trust of Individual B to overlook their own misgivings about Individual B's relationship with their ex? If not, then why not? How "significant" is this SO to them really? If there is insecurity and mistrust, where is it coming from?
Although, here's a story that may illuminate why many would agree with Individual A's opinion and his misgivings about such an ongoing friendship.
I knew this guy who was in a very serious, long term, monogamous relationship. He and his SO were common law partners for nearly a decade (I consider THAT "significant"). Despite never having gone through an actual wedding ceremony, they wore wedding bands and referred to each other as husband and wife. He signed up on one of those classmates type web sites and a high school ex-girlfriend and he got into contact with each other that way. I guess to him, she was "the one that got away." So, the question of he and this ex meeting sometime to catch up arises. He's actually somewhat reluctant to do so at first but his wife encourages him to do it. They've been together long enough that she trusts him and thinks it would be nice if the two of them have a chance to see each other again. Yeah. They end up sleeping together. Driven by the guilt of what he's done, he confesses to the wife. They tried for a little while to work through it but the damage was done and they split up soon after. And he then ended up moving in with the high school girlfriend and I believe has since even married her!
So, either way, I can understand where both sides of this argument might stand and I don't envy anyone needing to work through this.
Since she felt strongly enough about her opinion to post it despite being able to vote in the poll, I picked this with my vote as a proxy for Audrey.What, advertisers can't vote?
Count me in for relax, they're just friends
But I guess my question would be this: Did Indivdual A (the one taking issue with the SO still being friendly with the ex) know that Individual B (the one that's still friends with the ex) was still friends with the ex before "committing to a monagamous relationship"? Because that would certainly change the dynamics of a lot of these poll questions.
Personally, I don't like this choice: "No, your SO is being completely selfish & not taking your feelings into account." Individual B could just as easily call Individual A selfish for asking them to discontinue a friendship with someone who is clearly important enough to them that they want to keep that person in their life even if it is an ex (which this poll would suggest Individual A has asked them to do).
So, my next point might not be a particularly popular one but it's something I've noticed on these forums over time. The use of the term SO has become used a little more loosely than I think it should. And I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here. However, I know one member was referring to someone in his life as his SO and when being more specific, it turned out he was talking about someone he had only been seeing for maybe two or three weeks. I'm sorry but in my opinion, that's a "girlfriend" at best. I think some people are forgetting that the 'S' in 'SO' stands for "significant". Or maybe people are just rushing into thinking that a relationship is more serious than it is sooner than they should and want to think of that person as the one who will be a "significant" part of their lives. For example, in the case above, if Individual A has committed to a monogamous relationship with Individual B before knowing that Individual B was still on good, friendly terms with their ex and that this would be a point of contention for Individual A in a relationship, I would suggest that Individual A did not yet know enough about this partner to make that commitment as "significantly" as they may have wanted to.
But in defense of Individual A's position, I understand insecurity very well. And this is a question of trust and insecurity really. Is Individual A secure enough in their trust of Individual B to overlook their own misgivings about Individual B's relationship with their ex? If not, then why not? How "significant" is this SO to them really? If there is insecurity and mistrust, where is it coming from?
Although, here's a story that may illuminate why many would agree with Individual A's opinion and his misgivings about such an ongoing friendship.
I knew this guy who was in a very serious, long term, monogamous relationship. He and his SO were common law partners for nearly a decade (I consider THAT "significant"). Despite never having gone through an actual wedding ceremony, they wore wedding bands and referred to each other as husband and wife. He signed up on one of those classmates type web sites and a high school ex-girlfriend and he got into contact with each other that way. I guess to him, she was "the one that got away." So, the question of he and this ex meeting sometime to catch up arises. He's actually somewhat reluctant to do so at first but his wife encourages him to do it. They've been together long enough that she trusts him and thinks it would be nice if the two of them have a chance to see each other again. Yeah. They end up sleeping together. Driven by the guilt of what he's done, he confesses to the wife. They tried for a little while to work through it but the damage was done and they split up soon after. And he then ended up moving in with the high school girlfriend and I believe has since even married her!
So, either way, I can understand where both sides of this argument might stand and I don't envy anyone needing to work through this.
