Is there evidence to rebut this monogamous argument?
- Thread starter Lysander
- Start date
* your potential secondary partner may also have a primary partner. This is who she is likely to depend on for emotional support. Her needs won't be all on you.
* from personal experience, mono people who agree to polyamory and also explore dating themselves often do end up replacing a partner. That's just how they roll.
* your partner is likely giving you a heads up to how she feels about polyamory, and that's what's important. Our views may help you know that there are poly people put there, but you're married to your wife who isn't comfortable with it.
* she's not consenting to polyamory. It's unfair and unkind to keep pushing this. Polyamory isn't better or right. She doesn't want it. I'd go crazy if someone who was meant to love me kept pushing me to agree to something that isn't conducive to my happiness.
* from personal experience, mono people who agree to polyamory and also explore dating themselves often do end up replacing a partner. That's just how they roll.
* your partner is likely giving you a heads up to how she feels about polyamory, and that's what's important. Our views may help you know that there are poly people put there, but you're married to your wife who isn't comfortable with it.
* she's not consenting to polyamory. It's unfair and unkind to keep pushing this. Polyamory isn't better or right. She doesn't want it. I'd go crazy if someone who was meant to love me kept pushing me to agree to something that isn't conducive to my happiness.
part one...
My situation seems to be a rebuttal of most of her statements to a point. I apologise for the length, but I had a bit of extra time to get into things this morning.
Yes, I am a bisexual woman, but polyamory is not a way for me to somehow 'permit' myself to explore my connection with women. I have been de facto lesbian for most of my life, as the majority of my long-term connections have been both monogamous and with other women. My point is simply that it is entirely possible to satisfy bisexual tendencies within the paradigm of monogamy - you just date one person at a time like anyone else, the only difference being that sometimes you might date a guy and sometimes a girl. When practising monogamy, I have never left one relationship just to be with a partner of the opposite gender. From my experiences, it seems that your wife has a flawed view on what being bisexual means with her assertion that that's the only time it makes sense for a woman to want to be poly. The vast majority of bisexual women are invisible to society as they are happily monogamously in love with their partner, and thus get defined by society as being straight if that lover is a man or gay if that lover is a woman. Being open to loving men and women does not entail a necessity of loving both at the same time, therefore your wife's argument does not hold. Of course, the fact that being poly could allow a bisexual the chance to do that may make polyamory a more attractive proposition, but it's clear from the number of mono bi folk out there that being poly comes first. We can see this logic from the other side as well, since it is also clear from the number of poly straights out there that being bi is not a requirement for identifying as poly. Either way you look at it, the bisexual=polyamorous argument fails.
I have been a live in 'primary-type' relationship with another woman for the past five years. About 18 months ago we opened our relationship, initially at her behest. I had been in an open relationship immediately prior to being with her, so this wasn't so unusual to me. Both myself and my partner could see something we wanted from being open, therefore the myth that men are the only ones naturally inclined towards polyamory is a ton of horse manure. Plenty of other women on this forum have put forward the same case. I think what draws women and men to polyamory is broadly the same thing; however, what holds them back from polyamory DOES differ. Unfortunately, a woman interested in loving and fucking others has to fight through an extra layer of societal bullshit and conditioning in order to do so with her head held high, because we get told that sex is dirty and wrong and that if we like it we are slutty and others won't like us, whilst men are told that sex is great and something they need to 'win' from women and that the more they have the better a man they are. Both of these messages are destructive and wrong, but you can see how a priori they would encourage different behaviours from different genders if a free choice between monogamy and polyamory were presented to them.
As for there being strong evolutionary arguments to explain supposed differences in men's mating strategies and women's mating strategies, well, it's complicated. It's complicated because human societies have culture, and that changes both how we need to interpret behaviour, and also how biological selection pressures actually work when filtered through the lens of culture. As others have suggested, reading sex at dawn might make this clearer. Just as a first pass, there are many human cultures that practise polyandry and believe in partible paternity (the idea that a child can have many biological fathers and inherits the 'best bits' from each of them). For women in these societies, the absolute best thing you can do for your child is to have sex with as many men as are available, as that way your child will get the best fighter's strength, the best singer's ear for music, the smartest man's brain power and so on. For the men, they need to protect all the children, as they are all THEIR children. It is an evolutionary stable strategy equal to monogamy at both reproducing and protecting young. Of course it is based on a misunderstanding of ACTUAL biology, and we see it more in societies where there is high male mortality, but when we see equally good strategies for reproduction like that it tells us that our biological drives aren't fussy; they just want to get the job done. CULTURE might have preferences over how the job gets done, but then it's factually incorrect to try to claim a behaviour like monogamy as a universal (when it's not) and then to justify it as being the 'optimum' or 'correct' strategy on the grounds of it's compatibility with biology.
To make this last point crystal clear: ALL mating strategies HAVE to be compatible with biological reproduction at a minimum or else they'd never be present as a behaviour in a population. Therefore ALL mating strategies have a credible evolutionary explanation behind them. That doesn't mean a particular mating strategy (e.g. monogamy) gets to have extra special validation since it's compatible with evolution. Polyandry and monogamy both have good evolutionary explanations, as do other polyamorous mating strategies beyond polyandry. Given we live in a world with birth control, much of this doesn't come down to mating anyway; even less of a reason to appeal to it as some kind of ultimate behavioural cause, since it's proximate at best.
[part two to follow…]
My situation seems to be a rebuttal of most of her statements to a point. I apologise for the length, but I had a bit of extra time to get into things this morning.
Yes, I am a bisexual woman, but polyamory is not a way for me to somehow 'permit' myself to explore my connection with women. I have been de facto lesbian for most of my life, as the majority of my long-term connections have been both monogamous and with other women. My point is simply that it is entirely possible to satisfy bisexual tendencies within the paradigm of monogamy - you just date one person at a time like anyone else, the only difference being that sometimes you might date a guy and sometimes a girl. When practising monogamy, I have never left one relationship just to be with a partner of the opposite gender. From my experiences, it seems that your wife has a flawed view on what being bisexual means with her assertion that that's the only time it makes sense for a woman to want to be poly. The vast majority of bisexual women are invisible to society as they are happily monogamously in love with their partner, and thus get defined by society as being straight if that lover is a man or gay if that lover is a woman. Being open to loving men and women does not entail a necessity of loving both at the same time, therefore your wife's argument does not hold. Of course, the fact that being poly could allow a bisexual the chance to do that may make polyamory a more attractive proposition, but it's clear from the number of mono bi folk out there that being poly comes first. We can see this logic from the other side as well, since it is also clear from the number of poly straights out there that being bi is not a requirement for identifying as poly. Either way you look at it, the bisexual=polyamorous argument fails.
I have been a live in 'primary-type' relationship with another woman for the past five years. About 18 months ago we opened our relationship, initially at her behest. I had been in an open relationship immediately prior to being with her, so this wasn't so unusual to me. Both myself and my partner could see something we wanted from being open, therefore the myth that men are the only ones naturally inclined towards polyamory is a ton of horse manure. Plenty of other women on this forum have put forward the same case. I think what draws women and men to polyamory is broadly the same thing; however, what holds them back from polyamory DOES differ. Unfortunately, a woman interested in loving and fucking others has to fight through an extra layer of societal bullshit and conditioning in order to do so with her head held high, because we get told that sex is dirty and wrong and that if we like it we are slutty and others won't like us, whilst men are told that sex is great and something they need to 'win' from women and that the more they have the better a man they are. Both of these messages are destructive and wrong, but you can see how a priori they would encourage different behaviours from different genders if a free choice between monogamy and polyamory were presented to them.
As for there being strong evolutionary arguments to explain supposed differences in men's mating strategies and women's mating strategies, well, it's complicated. It's complicated because human societies have culture, and that changes both how we need to interpret behaviour, and also how biological selection pressures actually work when filtered through the lens of culture. As others have suggested, reading sex at dawn might make this clearer. Just as a first pass, there are many human cultures that practise polyandry and believe in partible paternity (the idea that a child can have many biological fathers and inherits the 'best bits' from each of them). For women in these societies, the absolute best thing you can do for your child is to have sex with as many men as are available, as that way your child will get the best fighter's strength, the best singer's ear for music, the smartest man's brain power and so on. For the men, they need to protect all the children, as they are all THEIR children. It is an evolutionary stable strategy equal to monogamy at both reproducing and protecting young. Of course it is based on a misunderstanding of ACTUAL biology, and we see it more in societies where there is high male mortality, but when we see equally good strategies for reproduction like that it tells us that our biological drives aren't fussy; they just want to get the job done. CULTURE might have preferences over how the job gets done, but then it's factually incorrect to try to claim a behaviour like monogamy as a universal (when it's not) and then to justify it as being the 'optimum' or 'correct' strategy on the grounds of it's compatibility with biology.
To make this last point crystal clear: ALL mating strategies HAVE to be compatible with biological reproduction at a minimum or else they'd never be present as a behaviour in a population. Therefore ALL mating strategies have a credible evolutionary explanation behind them. That doesn't mean a particular mating strategy (e.g. monogamy) gets to have extra special validation since it's compatible with evolution. Polyandry and monogamy both have good evolutionary explanations, as do other polyamorous mating strategies beyond polyandry. Given we live in a world with birth control, much of this doesn't come down to mating anyway; even less of a reason to appeal to it as some kind of ultimate behavioural cause, since it's proximate at best.
[part two to follow…]
part two
The final point your wife is making about no woman ever wanting to be secondary, since you get all of the 'costs' of the relationship with none of the 'benefits' also misses many obvious issues. I'm going to go with the gendered example you use, even though I think that in itself is problematic. So, the first assumption your wife is making is that a man couldn't actually provide for more than one woman (either because he doesn't have the skills/time, or because his wife would automatically be hostile to the very idea). Leaving aside the fact that many women can provide very well for themselves and their offspring without a man around at all, as other posters have already said, not all poly relationships need to be hierarchical. Many poly men (and women) have multiple primaries, who all live together, merge finances, share with child-rearing, live a life together. In some of those situations, all the adults are romantically involved with others; in others they aren't. As some posters show, some people maintain separate homes with separate partners, but still reap full benefits (and pay full costs!) of being in a relationship with multiple people. Our capacity for supporting relationships is not limited to just one. Obviously, individuals vary in their ability to support (emotionally AND financially) multiple relationships, but it is wrong to suppose that a priori, a man with a wife could only date another woman if she is secondary to his other commitments. It's also wrong to suppose a priori that a wife would automatically feel threatened and insecure or that she gets less of her husband. One of the things I love about my poly relationship at the moment is I feel like I'm starting to get a lovely network of supportive partners (and partners of partners!) around me which actively make my life easier. The hypothetical wife in this scenario could well have lovers of her own in addition to unwavering support from her husband. It doesn't have to be loss, loss, loss.
The second case is actually one I have experience in. Before meeting my current live-in partner, I was in a relationship with a woman for four years. I was essentially her secondary. She lived with her boyfriend - I would see her every day while he was working (with his full knowledge and consent of course), but it was always understood that I would not be able to live with her, have kids, do any of that 'big relationship' stuff with her. Up until he got a girlfriend of his own, we weren't even allowed to have sleep-overs. It was pretty rubbish. So no, I don't think anyone, male or female, would be happy with that kind of relationship *if that's all they had*. I certainly wasn't. However, the point about polyamory is that you can have multiple relationships. Had I had a primary type relationship outside of the secondary type one I had with my ex, I might well have been perfectly happy in that arrangement. The pain came not from the inherent inferiority of secondary-type relationships, but from the fact that with that particular girl I wanted a more primary-type relationship. The pain was from my expectation levels and what could actually be afforded me in the situation. In fact, nowadays, a secondary type relationship is exactly what I'm looking for. Neither me nor my girlfriend want to have multiple live-in partnerships, or relationships with the same level of life-entanglement that we have with each other. Living with one person is already more than enough for me! But I do have space and time in my life for other close emotional connections with others that don't have that level of commitment (people use that word differently - here it's my short-hand for 'high level of life-entanglement'), and I find it relatively easy to look for people who want the same thing. It's possible to have ethical relationships with people who are on the same page about what they want. There are many women who are looking for and happily content to not have a man 'all to herself', who are happy to only see him now and again, because, well, her life is probably already quite full, because she has other relationships, other commitments, a job she's ambitiously pursuing, anything really. I think that's the extra ingredient your wife is missing from her logical 'proof'. She's basing it on an assumption that no woman would want to do without (which is correct), but forgetting that this hypothetical woman may well have other relationships/responsibilities/interests that mean she is not starting this hypothetical secondary relationship with this hypothetical man from a point of lack in her life.
The final issue, about it being all about 'shopping around for a better model'? Not even close. I don't bring free market economics into my love life, and I would be slightly terrified if anyone I was with did either. To me that sounds like a fear. One which can be overcome with courage and experience. To my mind, my partners having the freedom to see others actually makes me feel more secure in my relationships than when the barn door is forcibly shut on them. They choose to be with me, every day. They're not hanging around because of a promise they made years ago when we were different people. They stick with me because we're good together - no other reason. And that feels very liberating.
I hope that ramble made sense!
The final point your wife is making about no woman ever wanting to be secondary, since you get all of the 'costs' of the relationship with none of the 'benefits' also misses many obvious issues. I'm going to go with the gendered example you use, even though I think that in itself is problematic. So, the first assumption your wife is making is that a man couldn't actually provide for more than one woman (either because he doesn't have the skills/time, or because his wife would automatically be hostile to the very idea). Leaving aside the fact that many women can provide very well for themselves and their offspring without a man around at all, as other posters have already said, not all poly relationships need to be hierarchical. Many poly men (and women) have multiple primaries, who all live together, merge finances, share with child-rearing, live a life together. In some of those situations, all the adults are romantically involved with others; in others they aren't. As some posters show, some people maintain separate homes with separate partners, but still reap full benefits (and pay full costs!) of being in a relationship with multiple people. Our capacity for supporting relationships is not limited to just one. Obviously, individuals vary in their ability to support (emotionally AND financially) multiple relationships, but it is wrong to suppose that a priori, a man with a wife could only date another woman if she is secondary to his other commitments. It's also wrong to suppose a priori that a wife would automatically feel threatened and insecure or that she gets less of her husband. One of the things I love about my poly relationship at the moment is I feel like I'm starting to get a lovely network of supportive partners (and partners of partners!) around me which actively make my life easier. The hypothetical wife in this scenario could well have lovers of her own in addition to unwavering support from her husband. It doesn't have to be loss, loss, loss.
The second case is actually one I have experience in. Before meeting my current live-in partner, I was in a relationship with a woman for four years. I was essentially her secondary. She lived with her boyfriend - I would see her every day while he was working (with his full knowledge and consent of course), but it was always understood that I would not be able to live with her, have kids, do any of that 'big relationship' stuff with her. Up until he got a girlfriend of his own, we weren't even allowed to have sleep-overs. It was pretty rubbish. So no, I don't think anyone, male or female, would be happy with that kind of relationship *if that's all they had*. I certainly wasn't. However, the point about polyamory is that you can have multiple relationships. Had I had a primary type relationship outside of the secondary type one I had with my ex, I might well have been perfectly happy in that arrangement. The pain came not from the inherent inferiority of secondary-type relationships, but from the fact that with that particular girl I wanted a more primary-type relationship. The pain was from my expectation levels and what could actually be afforded me in the situation. In fact, nowadays, a secondary type relationship is exactly what I'm looking for. Neither me nor my girlfriend want to have multiple live-in partnerships, or relationships with the same level of life-entanglement that we have with each other. Living with one person is already more than enough for me! But I do have space and time in my life for other close emotional connections with others that don't have that level of commitment (people use that word differently - here it's my short-hand for 'high level of life-entanglement'), and I find it relatively easy to look for people who want the same thing. It's possible to have ethical relationships with people who are on the same page about what they want. There are many women who are looking for and happily content to not have a man 'all to herself', who are happy to only see him now and again, because, well, her life is probably already quite full, because she has other relationships, other commitments, a job she's ambitiously pursuing, anything really. I think that's the extra ingredient your wife is missing from her logical 'proof'. She's basing it on an assumption that no woman would want to do without (which is correct), but forgetting that this hypothetical woman may well have other relationships/responsibilities/interests that mean she is not starting this hypothetical secondary relationship with this hypothetical man from a point of lack in her life.
The final issue, about it being all about 'shopping around for a better model'? Not even close. I don't bring free market economics into my love life, and I would be slightly terrified if anyone I was with did either. To me that sounds like a fear. One which can be overcome with courage and experience. To my mind, my partners having the freedom to see others actually makes me feel more secure in my relationships than when the barn door is forcibly shut on them. They choose to be with me, every day. They're not hanging around because of a promise they made years ago when we were different people. They stick with me because we're good together - no other reason. And that feels very liberating.
I hope that ramble made sense!
tenK: yes, very illuminating; thank you for spending the time elaborating that!
MightyMax and GalaGirl: Yes, it is unkind, at least in the short term, for me to pursue this discussion with her given her opposition to the idea of polyamory in our relationship.
Before I "discovered" polyamory I had actually suggested repeatedly that she look for a second (or even primary) male partner that was more compatible with her than me -- or, ideally, complementary. (Surprise: I'm not perfect) It makes such practical sense to me, but it is such a non-starter for her.
Using the polyamorous theory and vocabulary I can now understand that she is monogamous, and that mono/poly dispositions are instinctive as opposed to driven by reason.
But as several have mentioned in this thread, a great deal of this is colored by social norms and cultural conventions. I have always been nonconformist, and she has always tended towards hyperconformity (as is evident in her arguments against polyamory). Therefore, I was wondering if maybe this was just a misunderstanding, and that equipped with better information she might change her viewpoint (which she has been known to do as reason-driven person).
Given, then, that she is almost certainly intrinsically monogamous/hypergamous, I suppose there isn't much upside to her from changing her perspective. I.e., much as I would love for her to find another man to provide her with a relationship she deserves and I can't really provide, I now realize that's not happening.
So I'm left essentially making up ideas of how me having other romantic entanglements might benefit her. E.g., it's conceivable that a positive romantic relationship with another woman could make me a better husband to her. It would be great if we could have another woman in our life that would be a friend and ally to her, and a romantic partner for me. I have a strong belief that there are women out there in circumstances that could produce a win-win-win. But I can't look unless she concedes that we could do better by amending our traditional monogamous contract.
MightyMax and GalaGirl: Yes, it is unkind, at least in the short term, for me to pursue this discussion with her given her opposition to the idea of polyamory in our relationship.
Before I "discovered" polyamory I had actually suggested repeatedly that she look for a second (or even primary) male partner that was more compatible with her than me -- or, ideally, complementary. (Surprise: I'm not perfect
) It makes such practical sense to me, but it is such a non-starter for her.Using the polyamorous theory and vocabulary I can now understand that she is monogamous, and that mono/poly dispositions are instinctive as opposed to driven by reason.
But as several have mentioned in this thread, a great deal of this is colored by social norms and cultural conventions. I have always been nonconformist, and she has always tended towards hyperconformity (as is evident in her arguments against polyamory). Therefore, I was wondering if maybe this was just a misunderstanding, and that equipped with better information she might change her viewpoint (which she has been known to do as reason-driven person).
Given, then, that she is almost certainly intrinsically monogamous/hypergamous, I suppose there isn't much upside to her from changing her perspective. I.e., much as I would love for her to find another man to provide her with a relationship she deserves and I can't really provide, I now realize that's not happening.
So I'm left essentially making up ideas of how me having other romantic entanglements might benefit her. E.g., it's conceivable that a positive romantic relationship with another woman could make me a better husband to her. It would be great if we could have another woman in our life that would be a friend and ally to her, and a romantic partner for me. I have a strong belief that there are women out there in circumstances that could produce a win-win-win. But I can't look unless she concedes that we could do better by amending our traditional monogamous contract.
Last edited:
I am sorry you are struggling.
What need of yours is met by her having other partners?
She may be "monoamorous."
Because there are people who are monoamorous (love 1 sweetie) and are poly-friendly and don't mind being in a V shape structure as one of the "end point" people of the V. The "shared sweetie" has more than one partner, but not them. They have their one sweetie.
There are also people who are monoamorous AND monogamous. They love 1 sweetie. And they want a 1:1 shape structure only. No other people in the structure at all. (She sounds like this to me.)
If you are seeking rational and reasonable -- presenting a one sided rosy eyed view is not logical. You would have to list the pros AND the cons... not just the pros.
All that is only persuasive if she's "monoamorous and poly friendly" or wanting to try to see if she is.
If she's "monoamorous and monogamous" and you insist on selling when she isn't buying? You are foisting stuff on her hoping for a different answer when it sounds like you pretty much have a "no" answer. If she is not willing to change her mind about practicing monogamy? She does not have to. She's allowed to have her preferences for herself. Just like you are allowed to have yours.
Correct. If you want to be with her, that's the price of admission: Closed, 2 people, married monogamy shape. You choose to give up your want to poly date.
You could also choose to move on WITHOUT her. Price of admission: You choose to give up the want to be with her. You could terminate your monogamous contract. Setting all parties free of it. Then poly date as you wish.
Since you cannot have both at this time? You get to choose which want you want more.
Rather than putting your energies into pestering her about it to change her mind so you can have both? Which you admit is unkind?
It seems more efficient to me for you to focus on making up your own mind. Pick your higher want and go with that. Align your behavior accordingly.
Galagirl
What need of yours is met by her having other partners?
She may be "monoamorous."
Because there are people who are monoamorous (love 1 sweetie) and are poly-friendly and don't mind being in a V shape structure as one of the "end point" people of the V. The "shared sweetie" has more than one partner, but not them. They have their one sweetie.
There are also people who are monoamorous AND monogamous. They love 1 sweetie. And they want a 1:1 shape structure only. No other people in the structure at all. (She sounds like this to me.)
If you are seeking rational and reasonable -- presenting a one sided rosy eyed view is not logical. You would have to list the pros AND the cons... not just the pros.
All that is only persuasive if she's "monoamorous and poly friendly" or wanting to try to see if she is.
If she's "monoamorous and monogamous" and you insist on selling when she isn't buying? You are foisting stuff on her hoping for a different answer when it sounds like you pretty much have a "no" answer. If she is not willing to change her mind about practicing monogamy? She does not have to. She's allowed to have her preferences for herself. Just like you are allowed to have yours.
Correct. If you want to be with her, that's the price of admission: Closed, 2 people, married monogamy shape. You choose to give up your want to poly date.
You could also choose to move on WITHOUT her. Price of admission: You choose to give up the want to be with her. You could terminate your monogamous contract. Setting all parties free of it. Then poly date as you wish.
Since you cannot have both at this time? You get to choose which want you want more.
- Your ability to poly date right now.
- You being with her right now.
Rather than putting your energies into pestering her about it to change her mind so you can have both? Which you admit is unkind?
It seems more efficient to me for you to focus on making up your own mind. Pick your higher want and go with that. Align your behavior accordingly.
Galagirl
Last edited:
Re (from gatm33):
Well, we don't know if she would tolerate polyamory in you even if there were benefits to her. I think that some people are genetically (or at least culturally) hardwired to absolutely refuse to have anything to do with polyamory. Given how strong your wife's reaction has been against poly, I am somewhat doubtful that reason will suffice for her at the end of the day. Sorry to be saying that ...
By the way, the V I'm in is childless (and will remain childless), so the evolutionary argument for supporting children can't apply to the woman in our V. [shrug] For whatever that's worth.
Well, we don't know if she would tolerate polyamory in you even if there were benefits to her. I think that some people are genetically (or at least culturally) hardwired to absolutely refuse to have anything to do with polyamory. Given how strong your wife's reaction has been against poly, I am somewhat doubtful that reason will suffice for her at the end of the day.
Sorry to be saying that ...By the way, the V I'm in is childless (and will remain childless), so the evolutionary argument for supporting children can't apply to the woman in our V. [shrug] For whatever that's worth.
Yes, I'm bumping into some hard realities here. Thank you all for the sympathy!
Just to clarify my situation: We've been married for 15 years and have two young kids. Especially given that she made the sacrifice to have kids and I "locked her up" (in the good way) during her prime mating years I don't consider it fair to just walk away from my commitment to her when she doesn't want me to and she's holding up her end of the marriage contract. kdt26417 -- how kids complicate things!
GalaGirl: You have a pretty good read on the situation! Except that my grief is over the fact that I may be "stuck" in my contract with her while simultaneously having no idea whether I'm really stuck. I know I'm polyamorous, but I could be (as my wife thinks likely) completely delusional about the possibility of finding another woman who would tolerate my quirks, much less one willing to participate in any sort of polyamorous relationship.
(Which, to address your other question regarding what I could get out of her having other partners: I feel a sincere obligation to maximize her happiness. I'm not the 100% package she deserves. If she found someone better than me I would let her go on whatever terms she wanted. If, more likely, she could find someone who could complement me I would be very happy for her to have that even if it meant less of her for me. As a totally silly, isolated example of what I mean: I don't like going out to movies. She likes to go out to movies with me. If she found someone with whom she enjoyed going out more than me, I would rather she get to do that than ask her to spend that time with me. ... Which, I guess, is just another way of saying I'm polyamorous: The monogamous concept of getting completely stuck to someone for life, forsaking all others in any remotely romantic role regardless of the happiness opportunity cost, is just foreign to me.)
Just to clarify my situation: We've been married for 15 years and have two young kids. Especially given that she made the sacrifice to have kids and I "locked her up" (in the good way) during her prime mating years I don't consider it fair to just walk away from my commitment to her when she doesn't want me to and she's holding up her end of the marriage contract. kdt26417 -- how kids complicate things!
GalaGirl: You have a pretty good read on the situation! Except that my grief is over the fact that I may be "stuck" in my contract with her while simultaneously having no idea whether I'm really stuck. I know I'm polyamorous, but I could be (as my wife thinks likely) completely delusional about the possibility of finding another woman who would tolerate my quirks, much less one willing to participate in any sort of polyamorous relationship.
(Which, to address your other question regarding what I could get out of her having other partners: I feel a sincere obligation to maximize her happiness. I'm not the 100% package she deserves. If she found someone better than me I would let her go on whatever terms she wanted. If, more likely, she could find someone who could complement me I would be very happy for her to have that even if it meant less of her for me. As a totally silly, isolated example of what I mean: I don't like going out to movies. She likes to go out to movies with me. If she found someone with whom she enjoyed going out more than me, I would rather she get to do that than ask her to spend that time with me. ... Which, I guess, is just another way of saying I'm polyamorous: The monogamous concept of getting completely stuck to someone for life, forsaking all others in any remotely romantic role regardless of the happiness opportunity cost, is just foreign to me.)
Last edited:
And yet, the monogamous concept is what you're stuck with.
Well before I give up on life
... My goal was to look for good evidence to counter the assumptions that drive my wife's present thinking. If she's intrinsically a monoamorous monogamist then I understand I'm out of luck. But if her emotional response is based on assumptions she's willing to challenge, maybe we can be happier. Though obviously that will take some very compelling new information!I'm sure she'll read Sex at Dawn. The contents of this thread so far are illuminating (at least to me). Any other thoughts or leads will be appreciated!
Heh, start with Sex at Dawn ... you should both read it, really ... and see what questions it raises for you which you can then post in this thread.
Keep us posted on your situation in general as well. That will help us think of other relevant thoughts and/or leads.
Regards,
Kevin T.
Keep us posted on your situation in general as well. That will help us think of other relevant thoughts and/or leads.
Regards,
Kevin T.
Could you be willing clarify? Are you saying you feel obligated to stay? Because if you left you would feel guilty for "doing this to her?"
And you would not be able to meet your commitment to her support and the kids' support as a divorced guy?
Participants in a contract are able to terminate. Otherwise it is not a contract. It is enslavement.
So while you are experiencing internal conflict -- you could make up your mind. Get you out of that internal conflict by being decisive.
If you break up because you want the ability to polydate, it is because you want the ability to poly date. Nobody says you will have the outcome you dream about. That is part of the risk. You might get that. You might not.
If that is so, then you could bow out to free her up to find her person that suits her better. That's another way to maximize her happiness. Rather than staying there taking up her "monoamorous, monogamous sweetie slot" when you know you are not the person and you don't sound like you want monogamy.
You are not able to just say "No. I don't like movies" and let her sort it out on her own? She can go alone or with a friend. This sounds more "obligation" stuff than "poly" stuff per se. Like you believe that since you are married you are obligated to do stuff with you wife whether you want to or not. Is that what you believe?
You are contemplating change. Perhaps it is easier to frame it as "how great for her it will be" so you don't feel "obligated" or feel "guilty" or fear "losing her?" Rather than frame it as what you want or need? Because that feels too "selfish" or "guilty" or something?
Are you able to view it as time went by and the people in the relationship grew in different ways?
Galagirl
Last edited:
GalaGirl: That is some cutting insight!
Evidently I'm straddling two worldviews. In the old one, where I joined my wife, the "til death do you part" is still taken somewhat seriously. (Serves me right marrying a half-Sicilian Catholic!)
Of course people grow and change, and rational people should be able to accept and deal with that gracefully -- if not constructively.
In the new/evolving worldview a greater diversity and fluidity of arrangements is accepted. Properly and explicitly delineated, that allows for greater happiness and fulfillment for everyone (or, in game theoretic terms, a higher potential social efficiency frontier). I suspect that within a generation or two this sort of objective and constructive discussion will happen between mates with great frequency and facility.
I don't buy the old worldview, but I'm sort of still married to it. One rational response, as you point out, would be to say, "Honey, I know you disagree, but we'll both be happier in the long run if we get divorced." Humility is not one of my strengths, but such a unilateral declaration would stretch even my ample hubris. However if I could help her gain enough of an appreciation of the new worldview that it wouldn't be so hurtful, maybe something like that will eventually be a possibility.
Yes, I obviously have some selfish motives. There's nothing but my sense of obligation and guilt to keep me from announcing, "Hey, I'm going to start looking for other partners under the following guidelines. We can discuss reasonable accommodations for your concerns, or you can divorce me if you just can't deal with it." I guess that's sort of what I do when I take up new hobbies, although none of them cut to the heart of the old marriage contract and worldview like polyamory, so there has never been the need for an ultimatum like, "If you can't deal with me pursuing photography ... well, I'll do my part to keep the divorce as amicable as possible."
Yes, my wife may not think of herself as unhappy at present. Certainly she admits (and not infrequently enumerates) things she would change about me and our situation if she could that would make her happier. But to suggest she could be happier by involving another person who brings those things to the table: in her worldview the only way that happens is through divorce, and while sometimes the best of bad options, that is always considered a tragic failure, and woe unto the person who initiates it for anything less than the most dire of circumstances! (In the old worldview any deviation from the boundaries of strict social institutions is considered not only purely selfish but also guaranteed to reduce the long-term welfare of everyone it touches.)
To summarize my responses to your points sequentially:
Evidently I'm straddling two worldviews. In the old one, where I joined my wife, the "til death do you part" is still taken somewhat seriously. (Serves me right marrying a half-Sicilian Catholic!
)Of course people grow and change, and rational people should be able to accept and deal with that gracefully -- if not constructively.
In the new/evolving worldview a greater diversity and fluidity of arrangements is accepted. Properly and explicitly delineated, that allows for greater happiness and fulfillment for everyone (or, in game theoretic terms, a higher potential social efficiency frontier). I suspect that within a generation or two this sort of objective and constructive discussion will happen between mates with great frequency and facility.
I don't buy the old worldview, but I'm sort of still married to it. One rational response, as you point out, would be to say, "Honey, I know you disagree, but we'll both be happier in the long run if we get divorced." Humility is not one of my strengths, but such a unilateral declaration would stretch even my ample hubris. However if I could help her gain enough of an appreciation of the new worldview that it wouldn't be so hurtful, maybe something like that will eventually be a possibility.
Yes, I obviously have some selfish motives. There's nothing but my sense of obligation and guilt to keep me from announcing, "Hey, I'm going to start looking for other partners under the following guidelines. We can discuss reasonable accommodations for your concerns, or you can divorce me if you just can't deal with it." I guess that's sort of what I do when I take up new hobbies, although none of them cut to the heart of the old marriage contract and worldview like polyamory, so there has never been the need for an ultimatum like, "If you can't deal with me pursuing photography ... well, I'll do my part to keep the divorce as amicable as possible."
Yes, my wife may not think of herself as unhappy at present. Certainly she admits (and not infrequently enumerates) things she would change about me and our situation if she could that would make her happier. But to suggest she could be happier by involving another person who brings those things to the table: in her worldview the only way that happens is through divorce, and while sometimes the best of bad options, that is always considered a tragic failure, and woe unto the person who initiates it for anything less than the most dire of circumstances! (In the old worldview any deviation from the boundaries of strict social institutions is considered not only purely selfish but also guaranteed to reduce the long-term welfare of everyone it touches.)
To summarize my responses to your points sequentially:
- Yes, it's my sense of obligation and guilt that binds me to the traditional marriage.
- I could keep my legal commitments in a divorce, but knowing her worldview I would feel like a terrible person slapping my wife with a unilateral divorce, even personally believing that she can do better in the long-run.
- True, old-school marriage is not a typical contract: The only exit clause is death.
- Absent the aforementioned constraints, I would absolutely give up my current arrangement to poly date.
- She's reasonably happy, but neither of us doubts she could, in theory, be happier.
- Yes, the rational thing is to say, "Here's who we are as people now. You should find a better mono/mono partner, and I should try my luck as a polyamorist. We can still be friends."
Last edited:
Yet if wife agreed to Open you would NOT stay bound to traditional marriage. You would Open. So I don't think it's obligation and guilt that ties you to that structure.
I wonder if it is a belief that you "make" your wife happy or sad.
- So you fear being honest with her because she might feel bad hearing it.
- You perceive "she feels bad" as "I made her upset." You believe you are responsible for her emotional weather.
- You avoid having hard conversation because you will feel "guilty." Rather than work to disentangle yourself from taking responsibility for her emotional management. It is not your job to do. It is hers.
Is that it?
I understand my marriage vows as both physical death and spiritual death. When one partner is no longer "in it" at heart? Can no longer uphold vows in good faith? Been that way a long while? That is spiritually dead to me. I think it best to part. "Faking it" isn't really the way to hold up vows with integrity.
If you are experiencing spiritual death, then I think the best thing is to accept it. Be honest with spouse where you are at. Not hide it. That's a good way to grow resentments over time. Certainly if things can be mended -- see a counselor. But if it is just dead, it is dead. Staying while "faking it" doesn't do anything healthy for you. Not being entirely honest with her or with yourself risks growing poor in spiritual health from throwing self under the bus. Doesn't sound like strong marriage foundations -- one partner not being honest.
Doesn't do wife any favors either -- cheats her out of a partner in her 1 sweetie slot who really wants to be there.
Being honest and up front and authentic with your spouse = you feel horrible? Why is that?
Being emotionally honest is not you doing something TO her like you are out to "get" her.
Your willingness to participate belongs to you. Just as her willingness to participate belongs to her. If one of you does not want to participate in something, you are each allowed to say so up front and honestly.
This isn't like "Do poly how I want or else I divorce you." That would be you trying to dictate her behavior via pressure.
This isn't like "I decided we are Open now. Meet my new GF." That would be making unilateral decisions for the couple and acting on them without obtaining full consent first. Taking spouse along for the ride without asking how they feel about participating in it first.
This is "I can no longer participate in a monogamous marriage in good faith. I need to bow out." That is you being in charge of your behavior and you being honest and up front about where you stand at this time. You making a decision for your own participation in something. She cannot mind reader you. It's on you to report how you are.
You say she appreciates rational. You seem to also. So... why the fear in having that kind of conversation straight up? What is blocking you?
You seem to be at the place of...
"If I could have it so nobody feels yucky about it, then I would absolutely give up my marriage to poly date.
But I cannot ask for a divorce even if my heart isn't in the marriage any more. Because then my wife would consider herself a failure. I cannot let her feel like a failure.
Because in her belief system, anyone who gets a divorce failed. If she thinks she failed, then she would act out at me and bring woe unto me for filing the divorce. I want to avoid any woe."
But I cannot ask for a divorce even if my heart isn't in the marriage any more. Because then my wife would consider herself a failure. I cannot let her feel like a failure.
Because in her belief system, anyone who gets a divorce failed. If she thinks she failed, then she would act out at me and bring woe unto me for filing the divorce. I want to avoid any woe."
Is that it?
Galagirl
Last edited:
AnnabelMore
Active member
Here's a good counter-argument: me, a woman who's happily chosen solo poly so that I can enjoy multiple secondary-style relationships, because I've tried monogamy, including with a well-off and handsome man who should've met my need for "hypergamy" (if, in fact, I had such a need), and this made me happier.
Here's another counter-argument: my.girlfriend, who loves her husband deeply, and who also chooses to be with me, but is NOT only poly because she's bisexual, and in fact has had extremely fulfilling secondary-style relationships with other men (who were not well-off, nor, in my mind, particularly handsome, again dispelling the "hypergamy" idea... they just made her happy).
All I have is anecdotal arguments like the two above, but the thing is, there are *oodles* of such examples. Her presuppositions are just wrong, plain and simple.
Here's another counter-argument: my.girlfriend, who loves her husband deeply, and who also chooses to be with me, but is NOT only poly because she's bisexual, and in fact has had extremely fulfilling secondary-style relationships with other men (who were not well-off, nor, in my mind, particularly handsome, again dispelling the "hypergamy" idea... they just made her happy).
All I have is anecdotal arguments like the two above, but the thing is, there are *oodles* of such examples. Her presuppositions are just wrong, plain and simple.
InfinitePossibility
New member
Here's my take on the whole arguing for poly thing. I should say that I am in a relationship that is monogamous on both sides. My choice. My partner would prefer poly probably (his views have changed somewhat in the time we've been together). I came along here as part of researching poly when my partner and I got together and he mentioned it to me.
Here's the thing. There will pretty much always be people around who can support either side of the argument. Your wife will - with a little research - be able to show you instances where monogamy works beautifully and instances where poly has gone terribly wrong. You will be able to show examples of the opposite.
Neither of you will convince the other in that way.
Trying to argue that you guys should be poly from the position of it being evolutionary is unlikely to succeed also. Those sorts of arguments are flawed for a number of reasons - particularly because behaviour doesn't work like that. Genetics may well give you some predispositions - in humans it predisposes people to be sociable creatures. Nobody's genetic inheritance lays down a blueprint for how those predispositions are expressed. Some people live sex free lives with friends or colleagues or helping others. Some people dedicate their social energies to a husband/wife and close families. Some folks have a bunch of friends and loved ones - some of whom they are sexual with and don't feel the need to get married. Others have multiple committed, romantic and sexual marriage-like relationships. Others devote their social energies to caring for and understanding other species of animal.
Lots of variations and variations within variations. Evolution provides no information about their being one right way to go about relating to each other.
This has absolutely nothing to do with poly.
It may be your concept of monogamy that what people do when they are monogamous is look for a partner who is 100% right for them, who they dedicate their life to and who they stay with even if both parties have changed sufficiently to be making each other miserable. That is not my concept of monogamy.
To me monogamy is simply a statement that sexual relationships with others are not part of the agreement.
I have a wide range of things I'm involved with and very close friends that I spend time with to do these activities. Several of them are things that my partner isn't remotely interested in. He doesn't need to be. I do those things with the people who are interested in them. He does the stuff I'm not interested in with his friends who are.
For each of us, some of the relationships we have with others are incredibly significant in our lives. These are people we love and are committed to staying close to. We just aren't having sex with them.
Like you, if my partner met somebody else who he felt he would have a better life with, I would encourage him to develop a sexual relationship with that person. I would stop having sex with him and shift our relationship to one of friendship.
I have read little that you have written that I don't agree with. Other than that you see it as an argument for a poly relationship structure and I don't - mostly because I agree and yet am very happy being mono.
The only way I think I'd be poly is if I were single again. Solo poly appeals to me a little. Poly while I or my partner are in a relationship doesn't at all.
I hope you and your wife are able to sort things out between you.
IP
Here's the thing. There will pretty much always be people around who can support either side of the argument. Your wife will - with a little research - be able to show you instances where monogamy works beautifully and instances where poly has gone terribly wrong. You will be able to show examples of the opposite.
Neither of you will convince the other in that way.
Trying to argue that you guys should be poly from the position of it being evolutionary is unlikely to succeed also. Those sorts of arguments are flawed for a number of reasons - particularly because behaviour doesn't work like that. Genetics may well give you some predispositions - in humans it predisposes people to be sociable creatures. Nobody's genetic inheritance lays down a blueprint for how those predispositions are expressed. Some people live sex free lives with friends or colleagues or helping others. Some people dedicate their social energies to a husband/wife and close families. Some folks have a bunch of friends and loved ones - some of whom they are sexual with and don't feel the need to get married. Others have multiple committed, romantic and sexual marriage-like relationships. Others devote their social energies to caring for and understanding other species of animal.
Lots of variations and variations within variations. Evolution provides no information about their being one right way to go about relating to each other.
This has absolutely nothing to do with poly.
It may be your concept of monogamy that what people do when they are monogamous is look for a partner who is 100% right for them, who they dedicate their life to and who they stay with even if both parties have changed sufficiently to be making each other miserable. That is not my concept of monogamy.
To me monogamy is simply a statement that sexual relationships with others are not part of the agreement.
I have a wide range of things I'm involved with and very close friends that I spend time with to do these activities. Several of them are things that my partner isn't remotely interested in. He doesn't need to be. I do those things with the people who are interested in them. He does the stuff I'm not interested in with his friends who are.
For each of us, some of the relationships we have with others are incredibly significant in our lives. These are people we love and are committed to staying close to. We just aren't having sex with them.
Like you, if my partner met somebody else who he felt he would have a better life with, I would encourage him to develop a sexual relationship with that person. I would stop having sex with him and shift our relationship to one of friendship.
I have read little that you have written that I don't agree with. Other than that you see it as an argument for a poly relationship structure and I don't - mostly because I agree and yet am very happy being mono.
The only way I think I'd be poly is if I were single again. Solo poly appeals to me a little. Poly while I or my partner are in a relationship doesn't at all.
I hope you and your wife are able to sort things out between you.
IP
MusicalRose
Member
My most compelling argument about any of this is that it is really really presumptuous of your wife to speak for all women. She is only one woman.
I would recommend you and or she read Sex At Dawn. There is at least some suggestion that your wife's assertions about women have absolutely no basis in fact, and are more culturally driven than anything else.
And as far as contentment being primary or secondary, I can only answer from a personal level. I don't want a primary. I tend to avoid couples that do the primary/secondary thing altogether. This isn't because I want to be someone's primary, but because of my own experiences with strict hierarchies and what it usually says about the ability of the individuals in them to act autonomously. I tend to get along much better with people who are making decisions as individuals, rather than as a part of a "we."
Yes, her arguments make generalizations about women, but only to draw the probabilistic conclusion that a man is far more likely to find a woman who is going to use the relationship to subvert his primary relationship than to find a woman who is content to respect the primary relationship. (Of course, in practice one considers each person individually, and there is good anecdotal evidence in this thread of the existence of what she thought would be "outlier" women.)
BTW, turns out my wife has read Sex at Dawn. Which means now I'm going to have to read it to extract the salient points, and I am not a fast reader
InfinitePossibility's take is worth highlighting:
Sex isn't a big thing for my wife. Money, kids, security, and attention are her motivators. She'd probably be fine living an asexual life if it didn't have any bearing on the things she secured via a sexual commitment. And she'd probably be fine with me philandering if it couldn't threaten those things.
Which gets to GalaGirl's last post and excellent points: My wife and I are in full communication on these questions. But I don't think I adequately explained the big sticking point when a mono/mono woman in her mid-thirties with kids is involved: I locked up a woman during her peak mating years. Her "mating market value" is far lower now than it was then, and lower still with kids. She gave me that value in exchange for my promise to do my best to give her security, money, kids, and attention. Those things are diminished in divorce. So even if the spirit has left the marriage, I can't (in good conscience) unilaterally dissolve the contract because I got my value up-front, on the premise that I would continue to pay my side even as hers diminished. So, yes, at this point I am morally indentured at her discretion. (And, as I have mentioned, my arguments to her include reasons it may benefit her to change the contract. I hope to learn more so that I can offer more informed and compelling reasons!)
Meanwhile, I found some informative quick reads on this subject:
BTW, turns out my wife has read Sex at Dawn. Which means now I'm going to have to read it to extract the salient points, and I am not a fast reader
InfinitePossibility's take is worth highlighting:
Sex isn't a big thing for my wife. Money, kids, security, and attention are her motivators. She'd probably be fine living an asexual life if it didn't have any bearing on the things she secured via a sexual commitment. And she'd probably be fine with me philandering if it couldn't threaten those things.
Which gets to GalaGirl's last post and excellent points: My wife and I are in full communication on these questions. But I don't think I adequately explained the big sticking point when a mono/mono woman in her mid-thirties with kids is involved: I locked up a woman during her peak mating years. Her "mating market value" is far lower now than it was then, and lower still with kids. She gave me that value in exchange for my promise to do my best to give her security, money, kids, and attention. Those things are diminished in divorce. So even if the spirit has left the marriage, I can't (in good conscience) unilaterally dissolve the contract because I got my value up-front, on the premise that I would continue to pay my side even as hers diminished. So, yes, at this point I am morally indentured at her discretion. (And, as I have mentioned, my arguments to her include reasons it may benefit her to change the contract. I hope to learn more so that I can offer more informed and compelling reasons!)
Meanwhile, I found some informative quick reads on this subject:
- Point for me: Great quote from this good essay by a woman in an "open marriage": I think the most bizarre thing about monogamy to me is how often sexual exclusivity serves as a proxy for a real commitment. “Yeah, we’re together, I guess, because I’m not doing it with anybody else.”
- A post by a therapist who notes the importance of following mutually-accepted rules in relationships -- especially open relationships.
- Point for my wife: Article by author of Prince Harming Syndrome about how ultimately poly men do not make mono women feel safe and secure.
- WebMD (of course)
Last edited:
I think you guys have an enmeshed sounding dynamic. It's hard for me to tell who believes/feels what. I am also having some trouble with your writing style.
Let me repeat that back so I know I got it right. You correct me if I am wrong.
That is in good conscience how?
I think not all choices in life are win/lose. I think some are "pick which stinks least." And if it stinks least for you to continue in a marriage you have no heart in, then continue it without bugging your wife about poly stuff she's not into.
So when the kids are grown... then that subcontract is over and then you are more agreeable to ending the marriage?
Could have that conversation then. Closed on her side, and Open for you on your side... provided she doesn't lose the things the values. What needs to happen to make it so? Set up a separate account for her?
I see several conversations you could be having to move toward more authentic, honest relating with you wife rather than this "rebut and prove her opinion wrong so I can convince her her to poly date another guy" thing.
Even if you "prove" her opinion wrong about her beliefs about poly women and what they seek, that doesn't mean she's willing to poly date. You cannot railroad her into that.
Seems more efficient to find out what she IS willing to do or change so YOU can poly date. Rather than change her mind about her dating a new guy so you can poly date by extension -- like secondary benefits. Approach it head on rather than seek to create a situation where you arrive there "through the back door."
Galagirl
Let me repeat that back so I know I got it right. You correct me if I am wrong.
- You prefer to continue a monogamous marriage you have no heart in at this time.
- You prefer to choose to serve (the relationship model continuing) at the expense of (the continued health and happiness of the people in it).
That is in good conscience how?
I think not all choices in life are win/lose. I think some are "pick which stinks least." And if it stinks least for you to continue in a marriage you have no heart in, then continue it without bugging your wife about poly stuff she's not into.
So when the kids are grown... then that subcontract is over and then you are more agreeable to ending the marriage?
Could have that conversation then. Closed on her side, and Open for you on your side... provided she doesn't lose the things the values. What needs to happen to make it so? Set up a separate account for her?
I see several conversations you could be having to move toward more authentic, honest relating with you wife rather than this "rebut and prove her opinion wrong so I can convince her her to poly date another guy" thing.
Even if you "prove" her opinion wrong about her beliefs about poly women and what they seek, that doesn't mean she's willing to poly date. You cannot railroad her into that.
Seems more efficient to find out what she IS willing to do or change so YOU can poly date. Rather than change her mind about her dating a new guy so you can poly date by extension -- like secondary benefits. Approach it head on rather than seek to create a situation where you arrive there "through the back door."
Galagirl
Last edited:
We are having those conversations. But underlying all of those are assertions and assumptions about reality, which are subject to change based on the acceptance of new information (like what is being collected in this thread).
It's hard to change someone's beliefs and feelings by directly arguing with those, but it is not unrealistic to change them by addressing the assumptions from which those beliefs and feelings derive.
So, for example, I share her belief that a young woman with no kids has her highest mating market value, and that "value" decreases with age and children. (Actually, I wasn't aware there are any credible disputes of this assertion.) Therefore, yes, we believe I am currently in debt on the marriage contract.
My preference would be to renegotiate the contract to produce a win-win. But my obligation is to honor the existing contract if she so insists (and continues to honor it).
At best I might maintain my commitments in divorce. But the reality (which is what she fears in all of these scenarios) is that I could acquire commitments to other women and children, and then she and our children would be getting less. (Unfortunately there is no legal way to avoid that.)
Yes, at some point, presumably after the kids are grown, the balance of debt in the marriage contract would be more neutral and it would not be immoral from that perspective to unilaterally divorce.
It's hard to change someone's beliefs and feelings by directly arguing with those, but it is not unrealistic to change them by addressing the assumptions from which those beliefs and feelings derive.
So, for example, I share her belief that a young woman with no kids has her highest mating market value, and that "value" decreases with age and children. (Actually, I wasn't aware there are any credible disputes of this assertion.) Therefore, yes, we believe I am currently in debt on the marriage contract.
My preference would be to renegotiate the contract to produce a win-win. But my obligation is to honor the existing contract if she so insists (and continues to honor it).
At best I might maintain my commitments in divorce. But the reality (which is what she fears in all of these scenarios) is that I could acquire commitments to other women and children, and then she and our children would be getting less. (Unfortunately there is no legal way to avoid that.)
Yes, at some point, presumably after the kids are grown, the balance of debt in the marriage contract would be more neutral and it would not be immoral from that perspective to unilaterally divorce.
Last edited: