I'm a hypocrite, and I don't know what to do

[vinsanity0]

When my wife first suggested we open our relationship after over a decade of purposely keeping it closed, I was pissed. Our situation was a little different. I was the sole provider and I was traveling for work all the time. My mind immediately went to her shacking up with some guy in my house while I paid all the bills and she had a grand old time on my dime.

So how did I get over that? Basically, I realized it was stupid and I don't like to be stupid so I changed my way of thinking. That's the best way I can describe it.It was all about self-realization. Nobody told me I was stupid. I didn't read books about it. I just thought about it.

Miket isn't the sole provider so his apprehension is deeply rooted in patriarchy. He doesn't own you. You are a team. Really, you'd be a team if you didn't have a job, unless he worked and took care of everything in the house.

So he would "allow" you to have a GF, but not a BF. That is also rooted in a fear that someone who, in his eyes, might be a better provider might come along.

Of course, I could be wrong about all that, but it doesn't matter. The point is to get him to examine WHY he feels the way he does. It sounds like he can do it, but it requires great effort on his part.

 

[MsEmotional]

I appreciate all the replies given here.

One thing that miket said the other day sticks with me. Basically, it's the concept that he would be the one doing all the financial care for me while another man would get to bang me for free.

How do you feel about doing care for him while Samantha gets to bang him for free?

He doesn’t seem to understand that another partnership can come with caretaking as well. A few weeks ago I got injured and drove myself to the emergency room. My boyfriend left work to come be with me at the hospital, updated my husband via text about how things were going, and later, drove me home when I couldn’t drive myself home. He then picked up my husband and drove him to the hospital so that he could retrieve our car from the parking lot. This was all very helpful to my husband because I got help when I needed it and he knew I was being taken care of, but he didn’t have to leave work that day or cancel a big meeting that he had. He even was able to go out to happy hour with his work friends, assured that my boyfriend was taking great care of me at home.

My point is that you adding another partner could mean some typical spouse responsibilities get taken OFF his plate. It’s impossible to know what will unfold in advance, but there will likely be hidden nuggets of good (for Miket) that come from you being in an outside relationship.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Okay, so I'll 'splain some. Lots of little tripwires that looked very familiar to me, even if they evaded the gaze of the general audience.

FWIW, MikeT is a drama queen. While anyone can write a hyperbolic headline -- that's just good storytelling -- his posts revealed this as only the iceberg top.

Somewhere along the line of his life, MikeT learned a trick: when cornered, all he has to do is screech "MEA CULPA!! MEA CULPA MAXIMA!!" & rend his clothes & thrash around on the floor whimpering & pissing himself. (Similar: "thrashing wildly from one extreme to another".) This gives him leverage to control or punish others because he "feels bad." As a public event, the idea is that casual passers-by see this & think to themselves, "Oh, that poor poor man!! He's clearly trying his best to be a good person & do the right thing!! Perhaps it's the fault of those nearest him -- certainly HE isn't the problem!!" (In Transactional Analysis, this is a Tombstone.)

Putting on these displays absolves MikeT from taking any actual responsibility, much less needing to make any changes (in himself or his precious preconceptions).

Later it was made clear that the assessment has weight:

He spent so much time thinking about this issue Monday thru Wednesday that it was negatively impacting our intimate life and general happiness.

Basic emotional blackmail.

MikeT pops in here, & the ploy falls flat (mostly). I figured he wouldn't be hanging around long but REALLY needed to hear some hard truths rather than just good-hearted attempts at sympathetic nudging. A culture of "niceness" encourages failed learning: no Truth is so great that someone can't trip over it, dust himself off, & proceed on as if nothing happened.

And rereading the entire thread, I still see where his FIRST step has to be creating & defining clear boundaries with Samantha, which means his normal "I'm a terrible person, waaah!!" stuff is NOT useful. To reiterate:

Sam ought to butt the hell out a little. ("Samantha is bothered by the Polyamorous aspect of the relationship")

And IME at least 9 times out of 10, a sudden onset of "STD concerns" is utter bullshit, manipulation under a PC guise. ("Samantha is bothered by ... the idea that Marie would be with other partners, and the risk of disease when I am with them both.")

...as the relationship [with Sam] settles in, I wouldn't be surprised if it was Sam to make moves outside the dyad, possibly without consulting Mike.

Sam is a cowgirl, & this needs to be called out by someone here.

If there's a major rift because Mike & Marie aren't communicating well? Hmmm... maybe THAT is an improvement path people hereabouts could be encouraging...

miket is having trouble getting to the bottom of why he feels certain things.

I disagree. Rather, MikeT is having problems maintaining the control he felt in the past AND extending his control -- the correct answer to "which way will you go?" is NOT "both ways!!"

MikeT has happily painted himself as the suffering martyr, with his wife "banging other men for free" as he foots all the bills. The fact that this suddenly leaves Sam out of the frame suggests he's either manipulative or insane.

Maybe MikeT brings in a little more income, but he's also off with Sam at least occasionally, therefore not carrying his weight at home, & maybe OUGHT to be paying a few dollars more.**

My Dad was VERY opposed to Mom working out of the house, though his job was/is highly seasonal (fulltime only 6-7 months/year, no winters). However, Mom waited until autumn, then pointed out it'd be nice to pay heat bills AND have plenty of food AND buy some nice gifts for the kids... & Dad agreed to let her take a seasonal job. We skated through winter, & Dad grudgingly admitted that not worrying about bills was VERY much worth cooking his own dinner sometimes. However, that was also 1971 & seriously "po' white trash" rural, so I'd have to call the attitude anachronistic at best.

Marie & Mike both profess wanting to stay together & maintain the status quo... but to ALSO explore nonmonogamy in fundamentally conflicting ways, & without doing much to determine what it is each wants & they want as a dyad.

Are there resources for men to unlearn patriarchal beliefs?

It's almost more of a "12-step" thing. First, there's seeing the possibility that someone could change... then that ---I--- could change... then that I ---want--- to change... then learning what needs to be changed... then doing the actual work... & it continues on.

If MikeT doesn't feel he needs to change, that he's always in the right (no matter how badly this might make him feel), then (short of zapping him with a Taser from time to time) there's very little anyone can do about that.
________________

** -- a strong suggestion: if each of the couple is putting 100% of their paychecks into a joint account, STOP THAT RIGHT NOW. I've never seen that end well.

When we had a four-person household, we figured out what it cost to pay the mortgage, & the utilities in deep winter, & have a small repair reserve... then factored in cable TV & washer/dryer & restocking basic foodstuffs... bumped it up a few dollars more just in case... then split the number four ways.

The resulting number was significantly less than area rents; we voted to give the least-employed of us a break, each paying like $20/month more to help her out, putting her on a more-equal footing.

As a result, we all controlled the space about equally, & all felt about the same responsibility to the house. Sometimes we'd even bribe each other to take over certain chores.

Take what's left & bank it in your private accounts. Use it to be individuals.

 

[Tinwen]

Somewhere along the line of his life, MikeT learned a trick: when cornered, all he has to do is screech "MEA CULPA!! MEA CULPA MAXIMA!!" & rend his clothes & thrash around on the floor whimpering & pissing himself. (Similar: "thrashing wildly from one extreme to another".) This gives him leverage to control or punish others because he "feels bad." As a public event, the idea is that casual passers-by see this & think to themselves, "Oh, that poor poor man!! He's clearly trying his best to be a good person & do the right thing!! Perhaps it's the fault of those nearest him -- certainly HE isn't the problem!!" (In Transactional Analysis, this is a Tombstone.)

Ravenscroft, once again, I find your post incredibly rude, so rude actually that I don't care if you're on spot or way off.
If you want to be blunt (and add insult to injury by using humiliating visual images to describe the poster's behavior), you should at least speak to him directly, not refer to him in third person in his own thread.

What I say doesn't matter, you'll continue to write in whichever way you see fit, of course. But you seem to be "explaining" from a point of authority - not to Mike but to us, other forum members. And since I feel included in your audience in this way, I need to distance myself. We co-create this forum and this is not how I want it to look like. And your view doesn't represent my view one bit. I'd never be so harsh on people. I don't believe it serves any good purpose.

 

[breathemusic]

Completely agree with Tinwen and I find most of Ravenscroft's post to be incredibly rude. I don't agree with many things people write and post here, but you don't respond in a way that is productive to anyone. So maybe just don't bother. I couldn't even finish the post since I'm so tired of the rude, insulting comments.

 

[FallenAngelina]

Okay, so I'll 'splain some. Lots of little tripwires that looked very familiar to me, even if they evaded the gaze of the general audience.

I cop to taking a know-it-all tone around here at times, myself, but dude. Really?? This comment approaches Trump territory.

 

[jaymeexvee]

Ravenscroft, once again, I find your post incredibly rude, so rude actually that I don't care if you're on spot or way off.
If you want to be blunt (and add insult to injury by using humiliating visual images to describe the poster's behavior), you should at least speak to him directly, not refer to him in third person in his own thread.

What I say doesn't matter, you'll continue to write in whichever way you see fit, of course. But you seem to be "explaining" from a point of authority - not to Mike but to us, other forum members. And since I feel included in your audience in this way, I need to distance myself. We co-create this forum and this is not how I want it to look like. And your view doesn't represent my view one bit. I'd never be so harsh on people. I don't believe it serves any good purpose.

Thank you Tinwen for putting into words what I am sure many of us would like to, but are unable to.

 

[kdt26417]

Yeah I, too, agree with Tinwen.

 

[Ravenscroft]

It's great that people are willing to rally in support of a damaged individual.

But how is it moral to support a damaged individual in maintaining that damage? In fact, to freely spread that damage to others?

And how moral is it to stand in that support in a forum that will likely persist for years... & be a (gods help us all) beacon of Wisdom for years to come... encouraging others that ignorance is good?

Yah, I have no qualms about saying "hey, dumbass, don't step on that landmine."

If others wish to ignore, in their personal lives, the existence of landmines... well, that's a personal choice, & a bummer when they choose to accept any resultant damage. Individuals have the right to take the risk.

But I'm not good at watching that become a "wisdom of the crowd" delusion, as people agree amongst themselves that even mentioning landmines -- worse, pointing them out unequivocally -- is "negative" & should be discouraged.

Dogpiling kinda proves my point here.

Dogpiling occurs when a comment thread is bombarded by a mob of rabid dissidents who unleash a torrent of insults designed to make you take back your opinion or scare you.

 

[Tinwen]

Ravenscroft, I respect your observation talent, but there are a million ways to say the same thing.
I'm not telling you to not point out landmines. There's a lot of bluntness and directness going on in this very thread and elsewhere on the forum.
I'm telling you to please respect human decency (&autonomy &the fact that they are likely doing their best) and not describe them as "thrashing around on the floor whimpering & pissing himself".
Is that really more "unequivocal" than saying (something along the lines of) "MikeT, I believe you have a learned pattern of acting out to avoid responsibility"?
Why are you doing this, do you really believe you can shame someone into change?

I'm not very pleased by being the speaker of the crowd, but I'm aware that I spoke up for a community standard. Communities need standards. That's why I did it publicly, I guess. As well as to say sorry to MikeT, although technically apologizing for your words is none of my business.
I'm not supporting MikeT's behavior, but I'm sorry he had to read (if he did) something so shameful & painting him in the worst light possible. That must hurt.
See, Ravenscroft, you could very well be right. Maybe MikeT is creating drama to avoid having to change. You certainly have some good practical points in the second half of the post. But if you're wrong, your strong description still has social consequences on MikeT. We're reading along. His wife is reading along.
Would you say all this into his face?

As for "dogpiling", if you really feel that what is happening is "a mob of rabid dissidents who unleash a torrent of insults designed to make you take back your opinion or scare you", I have no words. I'm not asking you to take back your opinion. I'm asking you to figure out the line between blunt and insulting, illustrative and demeaning. I'm telling you that you've crossed it, not to insult you, but because if nobody told you, how would you know?

MikeT, from my own experience, asking advice on the forum gives a reflection from a crooked mirror. There's some truth in there, but it's not a balanced self-image. Some things get highlighted, others get neglected. If something gets stressed often, it's rarely completely off - somehow it's yours, or at least you've created the impression that it's yours. But you have to take the individual points and see to which extent they fit.
It's so with Ravenscroft's posts as well. He's got points. Some of them accurate, some distorted. But I'm very sorry for how he chose to put them across. I'd rather you and other people wouldn't have to encounter this kind of putting down on the forum.

 

[Emm]

Moderator note:

Ok, this is your regularly scheduled reminder to keep it civil. The primary rule of this board is that members need to be considerate towards each other. If you see something you believe fails to live up to that, please report it to the moderation staff using the

button at the top right-hand corner of the post.

Yah, I have no qualms about saying "hey, dumbass, don't step on that landmine."

Try omitting the "dumbass" next time.

 

[FallenAngelina]

Yah, I have no qualms about saying "hey, dumbass, don't step on that landmine."

This forum is filled with people who regularly say and do just this. I'm not sure why you fancy yourself the lone and courageous voice of reason in so many discussions, for caveats and contrary opinions are daily bread around here. In fact, we often have to point out to newbies that we are not a support community, but rather a discussion community. That you offer warnings from a mature and experienced perspective is not the issue and for myself, I'll add that it's very much valued. It's your brash delivery that needs considerable adjustment. Instead of entrenching yourself further in a defensive stance, consider taking in what Tinwen has to say.

 

[GalaGirl]

I am not telling her what she can and cannot do. What I AM saying, is that if she chooses to go be with other men I don't know how to be with her moving forward.*

That is fair. You can only state what you are willing and able to do at this moment in time.

Funslut, are you hearing him? You can date other guys. It's just that he doesn't know how to be moving forward after that. So if you choose to move forward with it you go knowing that he's not confident about his ability to handle it. He finds the idea of you with other guys a turn off. So if you choose to date other guys... depending on whether or not Miket can adjust to that... it may or may not end up being a deal breaker. You can choose to move forward with eyes open.

You can choose to skip it, and content yourself with a certain level of "Open" that he CAN do right now with some confidence -- dating women or "special occassion" sex stuff and visiting bunny ranch stuff.

Or you guys can go back to Closed so neither is dating.

One thing that miket said the other day sticks with me. Basically, it's the concept that he would be the one doing all the financial care for me while another man would get to bang me for free.

Is Miket able to articulate why you having female lovers doesn't trigger this idea in him? Are the women also “banging you for free?”

I am going to guess. I might guess wrong. I wonder if it could be some of this...

Since his ex wife cheated... is he fully healed from that or are leftover feelings from that being projected on to you? Could some of that be part of it? :confused

You mention that he thinks his job as a man is to be the sole provider. And he isn't the sole provider here. You have a career too. Does he think he's "failing to be a man?" Or like you "don't really need him" since you have your own job? Does he view you wanting to date men just further "proof" of how not needed he is?

Where you dating women doesn't trigger things because Miket is not a woman. So it's not an issue because since he cannot be a woman, you dating a woman isn't challenging his ideas about being a man. He's simply not a woman. Which is an idea he can deal with.

But men do trigger things because Miket is a man... and those other dudes...they might be "better men" somehow? Is that the line of thinking?

Is it that Miket isn't sure what value he brings to the table in this relationship if he isn't bringing "I'm the man" or "I'm the financial provider" to it?

I am so happy with my life and my marriage. My issue is that the inequality eats at me. He's dating. I feel like I should be able to, too. I don't want to be forever restricted by him. And I am especially concerned about being further restricted by my metas.

You sound happy in life and marriage. Does that mean you are ok being Closed again? If so, perhaps you both talk about that.

Miket says he's not restricting you. You can see who you want. Just that he's not sure how to handle it if you see guys afterward. It's not ideal circumstances for you to start dating guys... but it isn't preventing you. It's a risk. But I get that it would be a more comfortable risk to take if Miket was feeling more confident about his ability to handle it. Right now it's taking a risk into murky waters. Neither of you sound eager for that.

I'm happy, it's not like I'm wanting to run out and date people this minute. I'd be content working on this as a couple in little chunks for a reasonable period of time. It's just that miket is having trouble getting to the bottom of why he feels certain things. I bought a jealousy workbook, but I don't know if it will be helpful. He's seen several counselors, but that hasn't really helped.

Even if I never date anyone, it seems like he would benefit from working through it.

Why work on this at this time? Does he think it is beneficial? If he has a tendency to ruminate and shut down... would going on and on with this ADD to the stress or TAKE AWAY from the stress?

Does he actually want to work through it? Or simply accept it as a personal limit? That's why I asked in earlier posts if this was a hard limit (which will NEVER change, no matter how much time passes) or a soft limit (no for now, but could change in time.)

It's not the same issue... but I don't care for swinging. There's nothing for me to "work through." I think it is fine for other people, but it isn't for me. It's a personal limit.

This may be like that for Miket. He can do X activities, and that's as far as he cares to go. Y activities might be fine for other people, but it isn't for him.

Do you want him to work through it for some reason? What is the reason? Greater understanding? Less discomfort talking about things in the marriage? Something else?

She has made it clear that she would be fine with a completely open marriage. I am not, that isn't what I signed up for.

I am fine with being monogamous.

Funslut, if you are basically happy with the marriage but don't like the inequality where he dates and you don't... and Miket says he's fine with being monogamous...are you both willing to go back to Closed or mostly Closed? And solve it that way?

Even if you return to Closed marriage... maybe you want to do this one worksheet together so you understand each other better and what each of you thinks about intimacy, relating, committment, etc.

http://openingup.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Creating-Authentic-Relationships-OU.pdf

Galagirl

 

[FunSlut]

Thank you, galagirl, for the insightful questions.

Closing the relationship is not something miket is willing to do.

A lot has transpired since either of us last posted. Lots of talking, some crying.

The three of us have pushed past some soft boundaries and shared how we felt and gotten to know each other better.

 

[anamikanon]

One penis policy is unlikely to work unless all YOUR partners are either bi-but-mostly-into-women or monogamous. It is unrealistic to expect her to agree to this and you have to respect her maturity that this hasn't come to a halt and "we need to talk" before this. She is clearly giving you time to grow up.

Frankly, if I was a man with a one penis policy and a partner who happily agreed to it without feeling any desire to be with a man, I'd be more worried about getting dumped because I have a penis.

That said, emotions are rarely fair. It is far easier to adapt to privilege than to be accommodating of inconvenient wishes of others - particularly when you have got away without so far. Also people are different. There are many poly people with mono partners, for example - the desires of one are not necessarily the same as the other. Emotional issues we face are different. If someone needs a lot of reassurance and feels insecure in relationships, they will not find it so hard to have another partner, but will find it very hard to have their partner find another partner. And whether fair or not, this will be hard for you.

Whether it is so hard that one of your relationships ends over it or whether it is hard, but you make a decision to learn to deal with it is going to be up to you. There is plenty of support and advice available, but you have to want it first. It basically boils down to what your problem is with her being with another man, and YOU deciding whether it is a necessary condition for you or merely a phobia you need to overcome.

I am not much of a believer for equal rights in this sense, every person is different. For example, if a partner is good with communication and is mature emotionally, I wouldn't mind them having other partners. With a partner who finds communicating hard or is immature about relationships, I would be very uneasy if they had another partner. It is insecurity, but it is insecurity based on conditions that are likely to create problems.

All these are things you need to consider for your own well being. In my view, while not fair to her, it isn't "mandatory" for the rules to be the same for both of you, because both of you have different abilities to maintain relationships and different levels of security with yourselves. The fact that you are here means that you are aware that this is not fair to her and you don't like it.

What remains is an honest assessment of your needs and fears and see which of them are based on real factors and which of them are merely fear of the unknown or something else that is not necessarily an actual threat in the manner you perceive it.

Also, you don't need to see her with her partner or know more details than you are comfortable with it. You can choose to be best buddies with her other partners or not meet them at all. They are her relationships. Not yours.

Edit: "grow up" in the first sentence sounds patronizing. It wasn't my intention. More like I meant that she knows you and seems to think you'll get there.

 

[anamikanon]

Oh wow. I had this open in a tab for quite some time and didn't realize how much the thread had progressed since I read it.

 

[anamikanon]

One thing that miket said the other day sticks with me. Basically, it's the concept that he would be the one doing all the financial care for me while another man would get to bang me for free.

That's how he felt when his first wife cheated on him.

My take is nowhere near as optimistic as most of those coming before. I find this situation emotionally exploitative at best and abuse - more likely.

I agree with what Ravenscroft said, though the manner in which he said it ended up derailing his own impact by objections to how he said it.

Samantha is "getting to bang him" while you pay for his upkeep too. He is the one actually doing it, while you merely asked about it. The RULES are different for the two of you, and decided unilaterally by him. He overreacted enough to deter you from even considering it (this is where it crosses the line from his inability to handle to manipulation), while he'd also like you to adapt to him doing it.

Add to it his reactions about your previous relationships, his reaction quoted above.... my mind interprets this as an inability to RESPECT you as a person beyond your relationship with him. When he says he does all the financial care for you, he is actually completely dismissing any contribution you make - what you do is you being you, what he does is a favor to you kind of thing - responsibility apparently is shared with him financially and pretty much shouldered solo when it comes to emotional work in the relationship, where he's pretty much being a kid in an adult relationship. It isn't just about who gets what and what is fair. Like shared finances, addressing problems in the relationship, preventing conflict and disruptions, etc is important contribution that takes time, effort and skill in order to maintain a relationship.

Not only is he dumping the responsibility on you, he's doing it knowing he is doing it and choosing to do it because the alternative is hard for him. You must deal with his trauma about even imagining you with other men, in addition to his other relationship initiated without your consent, in addition to dealing with his melodramatic self-flagellation about being unfair to you while doing nothing to change that unfairness. I call it leveraging nuisance value to discourage you from your desired action to evade a mature discussion about it - to which he knows he has no honorable answer to contribute.

You appear to not insist on your contributions being valued - perhaps it doesn't matter to you who takes credit, but if you want a healthy relationship, preventing one of the two from being taken for granted is also important for the relationship, not just you not needing to state what you give.

Unless something changes dramatically, I don't think you are going to be valued beyond your utility to him in a hurry.

I know this is dramatically different from the understanding many seem to have of the situation, but you can fix difficulties with coping, you can make sacrifices where your desires are difficult for your partner. If one partner is being taken for granted, unless it stops, the relationship is never going to be healthy. You are always going to be the freeloader he cares for. Whether you bang others or not. Even if your salary is more than his. On the basis of little more than "I am a man, it is my responsibility" - words he chooses to use, while being irresponsible.

Oh, you will be happy as long as you do as he wishes. Then you will have absorbed his model and taken yourself for granted while glorifying him and not triggering his overreactions. Is that what you want? For how long?

In your place, I would at the very least evict such a partner from spending anything on me. Shared home expenses, ok. My expenses would strictly be from my income and any effort on his part to shoulder them would be rejected, because he can't do it respectfully. As in completely rejected. If he brings a gift, toss it in the bin grade rejection. Dignity matters. He can then figure out if he still deserves to bang you and request it as someone wanting a privilege with you, not someone entitled to it by virtue of sharing home expenses and claiming sole credit. This would be bare minimum.

 

[anamikanon]

Ravenscroft, in my view, you NAILED it. I hate to sound preachy and my intent actually is more about utility. Hard language doesn't bother me. At all. I use it plenty myself. Just that one of the most important posts on this thread ended up derailing itself on presentation. Blunt language tends to make the reader sit up and listen, but if they sit up and listen only to find something peripheral they find unacceptable, they derail impact - it ends up inferior to a measured post that lays the analysis out straight so that once you see it, it can't be unseen.

Going to sound really odd, but the first thing I thought of was that it was similar to presenting a research paper while showing major amounts of cleavage (women encounter problems like colleagues taking your boobs more seriously than brains). Both may be magnificent and deserving of full attention, but presented at the same time, end up distracting from each other - the one most important in that exact moment may not necessarily win the struggle.

 

[FunSlut]

I tried to address the ownership thing last night and things got bad. I spent a good 10 minutes bawling last night.
Yesterday he had also talked to Sam suggesting that she talk to a counselor to get over her jealousy of seeing him with me. She threw the idea back at him.

Today he sent us both a text that he needs to be alone with his thoughts today. He feels that neither of us wants to be with the him the way that he is and that we should decide if we want to be with him because he doesn't think he's worth the angst.

Sooo, we went from having an amazing 3 days of getting to know each other better and deepening our relationships to this. I feel like it's all effed up. At least Sam and I are giving each other support today.

 

[kdt26417]

Sorry things are going so badly right now.