Recovering from coerced non-monogamy

[Marcus]

To claim that choosing Lousy Choice A over Lousier Choice B is not coercion is simply wrong.

So what you are saying is, anytime I need to make a decision and at least one option ends in something I don't like... I've been coerced? So pretty much any choice that does not guarantee chocolate and blowjobs as every possible result is coercion? So every choice ever made is done so by coercion? You realize that I can either stop posting on this thread about this or I can continue going back and forth with you guys with no results? You have coerced me into stopping posting on this thread... right?

I always knew my alarm clock was coercing me every weekday morning lol

 

[Kella]

Hmm. Here's the other side of the coin, I guess:

In my marriage, I'm the one who admitted to poly thoughts & curiosity; it was a no-go for RugbyMan, and after a lot of painful discussion, I put the potential to explore poly aside for him. Sometimes I tell myself we might be able to explore it down the road, other times I recognize how unlikely that is.

Fact: this has not changed my nature or interest in polyamory, it just means it's left suppressed and not acted on. For what it's worth, I'm still sometimes hurt that he wouldn't hear me out or acknowledge my curiosity. I'm still sometimes angry that the price of keeping my family and children and love intact is giving up an entire side of myself that I'll never get to know. And I still sometimes mourn the loss of relationships that might have been and aren't and cannot be. He thinks we're doing great, because we don't talk about polyamory anymore.

People always say about "surprise" non-monogamy that it isn't what the mono partner signed up for. But you know, a lot of things about my life aren't what I signed up for. We've rolled with career changes, shifts in financial expectations, a move to the suburbs, a mental health issue... and there's pretty much nothing left of the fit, active, confident, downtown-big-city accountant I married. But I don't cry foul about "surprise" health issues, or "surprise" changes in career and prospects, because that's... life. Sometimes life deals out surprises. Funny how fault and blame and charges of unfairness are laid when it involves sex and emotions...

 

[graviton]

Kella that was very well put and is precisely how I feel.

 

[Kella]

Thanks, graviton. One thing I love about this place is feeling less alone.

 

[WhatHappened]

So what you are saying is, anytime I need to make a decision and at least one option ends in something I don't like... I've been coerced? So pretty much any choice that does not guarantee chocolate and blowjobs as every possible result is coercion? So every choice ever made is done so by coercion? You realize that I can either stop posting on this thread about this or I can continue going back and forth with you guys with no results? You have coerced me into stopping posting on this thread... right?

I always knew my alarm clock was coercing me every weekday morning lol

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word lousy. Maybe I should have said devastating, awful, terrible. I'd say it has a lot to do with the level of the threat.

Someone's hand will be chopped off if you don't do X.
Your mother will mysteriously fall down the stairs if you don't do Y.
You will lose your home, marriage, spouse, children, and half your income if you don't agree to Z.​

Somehow, I don't see merely not getting chocolate or a blowjob as a threat at all. It may be lousy for you. But it's no real danger or devastation or major upheaval that causes any real pain to anyone.

You are absolutely right that there are still other choices. The responses to "I want a boyfriend/girlfriend" could also include refusing, which may lead to divorce, and filing for divorce. But the fact that there are choices doesn't change the fact that, particularly as a parent, there are going to be major devastating consequences in virtually every area of our lives to either of those responses.

 

[WhatHappened]

People always say about "surprise" non-monogamy that it isn't what the mono partner signed up for. But you know, a lot of things about my life aren't what I signed up for -- we've rolled with career changes, shifts in financial expectations, a move to the suburbs, a mental health issue... and there's pretty much nothing left of the fit, active, confident, downtown-big-city accountant I married. But I don't cry foul about "surprise" health issues or "surprise" changes in career and prospects, because that's... life. Sometimes life deals out surprises. Funny how fault and blame and charges of unfairness are laid when it involves sex and emotions...

I think the difference is that monogamy is typically part of what a couple has very specifically agreed to.

Living in the city vs suburbs, sticking with one career--these things are not. Career changes and moves are typically made to better the family's finances, comfort, or lifestyle. Dating outside marriage is not. And health issues--they're often outside a person's control, as opposed to being struck with cancer or mental health issues.

 

[Marcus]

Someone's hand will be chopped off if you don't do X.​

Your mother will mysteriously fall down the stairs if you don't do Y.​

You will lose your home, marriage, spouse, children, and half your income if you don't agree to Z.​

Wait, you honestly don't see the difference between the first two examples and the third? I was about to put up this kind of example chain to make my point painfully obvious... I don't think it would have worked.

1. Threat of violence
2. Threat of violence
3. Life change causing difficult choices.

I'm currently letting go of the fact that you made the 3rd choice the most extreme possible case in the OPs situation. This kind of approach to the situation is looking at through the eyes of lifelong "commitment". An entitlement approach to relating to other people which you go on to describe below.

I think the difference is that monogamy is typically part of what a couple has very specifically agreed to.

Living in the city vs suburbs, sticking with one career--these things are not. Career changes and moves are typically made to better the family's finances, comfort, or lifestyle. Dating outside marriage is not. And health issues--they're often outside a person's control, as opposed to being struck with cancer or mental health issues.

Again, you have described exactly what I would have used as an argument *against* the promise of a lifelong relationship (monogamy or otherwise). It is an obviously short-sighted promise: "I promise that we will be together no matter what, even though I have no way to know whether or not my worldview will change dramatically between here and our deaths. But I promise to suppress any change which might possibly cause you to change, grow, or make difficult decisions which are painful."

What an entitled approach to expectations of other people! Why on earth should his wife just pretend that she is still monogamous when she is not? Why does he get to decide for her that "No, this change will cause me too much heartache. You just need to bury reality deep in your heart and lock it away for my sake"? No one gets to decide that for someone else (unless you made a promise handing over the right to your own life, I guess).

You are absolutely right that there are still other choices. The responses to "I want a boyfriend/girlfriend" could also include refusing, which may lead to divorce, and filing for divorce. But the fact that there are choices doesn't change the fact that, particularly as a parent, there are going to be major devastating consequences in virtually every area of our lives to either of those responses.

Which means that it is a very tough situation, and someone is going to have to risk giving up quite a lot to stick to their ideals. You say it should be her, because she is "coercing" him. I couldn't disagree more. I see them as both being adults, capable of deciding for themselves what kind of life they want to lead.

***************

Let me ask you this, how do you think this situation should be solved? If you can let go of insisting that there is a bad guy, and just look at what is actually happening, what do you think should be done here?

1. She should be monogamous and suffer through it.
2. He should allow her to have another boyfriend and suffer through it.
3. He should leave her and suffer through the divorce results.

All these choices seem pretty awful, for everyone involved. What's the right situation here?

1. Should she suffer, simply because she's the one who has had the worldview change?
2. Should he suffer because he is resisting changing to embrace his partner's life changes?

There is no bad guy here, as far as I can see, just two people who are in a difficult situation. Calling it coercive is just naming a bad guy so everyone else can feel better, even though no one is likely to be happy coming out of this.

 

[graviton]

Very good analysis. If she gives in and remains monogamous, I would call it coerced marriage.

 

[Anneintherain]

I think the difference is that monogamy is typically part of what a couple has very specifically agreed to.

I actually don't see that as the case often, except in circumstances where when people meet, they are dating multiple people, and as things get serious they address the question about if they should "become exclusive". I know it didn't come up when I got married the first time, we just defaulted to it automatically, without discussion, because that's "what everybody does." It probably only comes up for most people if they have a religious ceremony, where somebody says something about "forsaking all others," and not because a couple thought to sit down and discuss the topic.

I also know the second time I got married, we specifically agreed to three months of no new partners at one point, which turned into some years of monogamy, where nobody addressed the subject. I had no reason to think we hadn't specifically agreed that we were going to be poly again when we'd been married for awhile and both felt secure about the state of our relationship. My husband seemed to think that we had just defaulted to monogamy automatically, without discussion. It was just as much of a surprise to me when he resisted the idea of non-monogamy as it was to him for me to bring up being non-monogamous again.

I really like the things Kella said-- very interesting way to look at it.

 

[dingedheart]

What about the simple concept of partnerships, an agreement entered into? How many business partnerships would allow the addition of more partners for the reason of amusement or recreation of just one of the partners? Spring that on a business partner and see what happens. Has anyone had a business partnership or other in which a new partner was forced onto them? How did that end up?

 

[Anneintherain]

What about the simple concept of partnerships. An agreement entered into.

Well as I said, I think there is a difference between a clearly stated agreement or an assumed agreement.

In neither case though, would I accept anything being "forced" onto me, and I don't see why anybody would. That's not very loving. Why would people choose to stay in a relationship where their partner had become a hostile force? As seems pretty clear from thousands of debates on the subject, people aren't interested in polyamory for "amusement or recreation," or they would just be saying they wanted an open relationship, wouldn't they? It's too bad. I see so many people not clear about what they want. In some cases, I think people just think it sounds more PC to say "polyamory" when they just want to have other sex partners, or think just the act of falling in love with somebody else means they get to hold up a polyamory banner of entitlement.

I can't imagine it's easy for most people to bring the subject up after years of their partner presuming monogamy is working just fine for everybody. It's not exactly a walk in the park. Nevertheless, I think when something is sprung on somebody, there was some lack of communication and/or honesty going on for a long time. If you don't share those desires with your partner when they first start, and are relatively small and benign, you lost some closeness along the way. Putting off the discussion until you have spent months thinking about it, falling in love with somebody else, or deciding that you want your life to take a whole new direction, and not letting your cherished partner have any insight into your heart, is not a positive for any relationship.

If you pull a dick move and present it as a fait accompli, in most cases I can't see why people would want to try to salvage a relationship that screwed up in the first place. Realizing one day your partner is a self-centered entitled jackass doesn't really make you feel warm and fuzzy. You can only make so many allowances for the fear and shame people have for making crap decisions, and each person has to draw that line for themselves.

 

[Icewraithonyx]

I wanted to clarify some things re: definitions and my original intent.

I went with "coerced non-monogamy" rather than "forced" because I feel that there IS a choice but it's not really made out of freely-given consent. Someone gave the definition of "consent" as "Having two or more choices, all of which are agreeable." Coercion vs consent.

Marcus, I'd agree that perhaps this discussion would be better served without your input. Thanks for your POV about autonomy.

Also, Wife's "surprise" was years ago. She regrets her behavior and we're trying to do things better in the future. It's just I'm on another list for poly/mono relationships, and I keep seeing "Hey, I fell in love. Now either you accept polyamory or we get divorced" intros. I was wondering if anyone here had experience in healing from that kind of situation.

 

[GalaGirl]

Well, I wasn't married to him at the time. But I made a mistake, and yet, here we are. Still together, closing in on 20 years. Could that give you hope?

As I said previously, it seems you and Wife both want to move this forward. That's good to start. Both are willing to try.

So, what areas need work? What's being done to address each area? I asked a few questions in my previous post, but haven't seen them addressed. It's kinda hard to give further feedback without knowing where you're all at in this process. Like, are we still identifying the areas that need work? Or have we done that already, and are moving it past the "identify" stage and on to the "improve these things" stage?

GG

 

[Marcus]

Marcus, I'd agree that perhaps this discussion would be better served without your input. Thanks for your POV about autonomy.

Because you'd rather be able to freely misuse words which are fundamental to the discussion at hand without being called out on it? Because I have a viewpoint different from your own and it makes you uncomfortable?

ROFL Thanks for the offer to "get lost," but I think I'll stick around.

While I'm at it:

Someone gave the definition of "consent" as "Having two or more choices, all of which are agreeable."

Consent refers to the provision of approval or agreement, particularly and especially after thoughtful consideration. Whoever gave that definition would have been better served to look it up. I say this because that is not even close to what that means. What you have described is the definition of a "win-win" situation, in case you wanted to update your dictionary.

 

[BoringGuy]

And we have here yet another anecdotal example of why "language is fluid" is not a productive way to communicate.

 

[Icewraithonyx]

Galagirl, my apologies. I got distracted from your questions. As to where we are now, I've accepted that Wife is more inclined toward non-monogamy, so we're trying to move forward with that. I think my biggest issue is that when this all started (badly), there was no option of giving up (or even slowing down) the new relationship or polyamory. In short, she had made a choice, and it wasn't me.

More recently, she started developing feelings for a friend online and came to talk to me about early on. My (trying to own that) fears were whispering that if I balked, she'd go forward anyway, and that would cause a lot of damage. Add to that, if I were able to get past an uncomfortable adjustment period, this might be a win-win situation for all concerned.

So far, while we are still experiencing bumps, they are mostly from issues separate from the current relationship.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

I think everything about love is selfish. It's just a matter of who is being selfish and in what capacity.

I completely disagree. I'm an incredibly selfish person. Love is the one thing that makes me actually consider the needs and desires of others.

Coercion (pron.: /ko???r??n/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation, or some other form of pressure or force.

There seems to be some disagreement on what constitutes "some other form of pressure." I would argue that there are varying degrees of coercion. To say that only extreme, violent coercion "counts" is simplistic.

It would be hard to argue that losing your family does not constitute "some form of pressure," but you're welcome to try. Does it constitute threats, intimidation, or force? I would agree that it does not. But by your own definition, it constitutes coercion.

How many business partnerships would allow the addition of more partners just for the amusement or recreation of one of the partners?

There's an important difference, however. Adding a partner to an existing business agreement is different from forming an additional and separate partnership. As long as there is no conflict of interest, the other partner in the first arrangement would have nothing to complain about. In fact, it's very rare for a person to be involved in only a single business. Your investments are more secure when you hedge your bets and spread out your capital to as many industries as possible.

Marcus, I'd agree that perhaps this discussion would be better served without your input.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if everyone always said exactly what we wanted to hear, and never disagreed or challenged our opinions? Oh, wait. No, it wouldn't. That would be the basis for a dystopian novel. I find life much more interesting when people challenge me and force me to reconsider my notions.

Try as I might, I couldn't find the statement with which this was an agreement. Nice try, though. Marcus has presented his views in a clear, concise, and extremely polite manner. The fact that you disagree with his points does not remove his privilege to make them.

 

[BoringGuy]

OP could always start a blog thread where one does not have to put up with the inconvenience of others challenging one's paradigms

 

[Vixtoria]

Because you'd rather be able to freely misuse words which are fundamental to the discussion at hand without being called out on it? Because I have a viewpoint different from your own and it makes you uncomfortable?

ROFL Thanks for the offer to "get lost," but I think I'll stick around.

Consent refers to the provision of approval or agreement, particularly and especially after thoughtful consideration.

Whoever gave that definition would have been better served to look it up. I say this because that is not even close to what that means. What you have described is the definition for a "win-win" situation, in case you wanted to update your dictionary.

Greetings! Well, I am the wifey in all of this, and as I've been asked not to reply right away, more so he could get some clear answers than anything, I've held my tongue until now.

Marcus, what he was trying to politely say was that, since your view is that you don't believe in monogamy at all, or marriage, then perhaps your opinion is not helpful. It's not.

As for definitions:

consent
1: to give assent or approval, agree. "Consent to being tested."
2 (archaic): to be in concord in opinion or sentiment.

When the agreed-upon standard was indeed monogamy, and that was broken without being discussed at all in advance, then there is no consent. I understand totally that what I did was against his consent, without his consent, without, even, his knowledge. If you are trying to stand up for me, don't. You may be under the delusion that like you, I just never believed in monogamy and am against it. I'm not.

coercion: the act, process, or power of coercing. "A promise obtained by coercion is never binding."

coerce
1: to restrain or dominate by force. "Religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious." — W. R. Inge
2: to compel to an act or choice. "Was coerced into agreeing."
3: to achieve by force or threat. "Coerce compliance."

Telling someone that their choices are: to let someone break a promise; lie to you; cheat on you; or get out, is coercion. I never debated that. I understood that was exactly what it was.

We can use all the pretty words and intellectualize all we want on how people grow and change and that you have to be free to be yourself. Yeah, well... that's not the issue now, is it? I didn't come out as pansexual until after we were married and had children. I was never told I wasn't free to be myself. However, I came out with that in a much better way-- talking first, much discussion, then moving, then acting on it. Not so with polyamory/non-monogamy.

Plain and simple, this discussion is good for both of us. However, you aren't helping anyone by deciding that since you do not share our view of monogamy and marriage, and refuse to accept that as our view (yes, our view), then your advice is not helpful. Now, you can continue posting. We are honestly just going to ignore it. You don't believe in marriage the way we do. If you think the best advice is to change our view, please don't argue that I am incorrect, because your advice is all from your POV on marriage and monogamy, not ours. So your advice is invalid.

Now, as far as other questions. The original relationship was an emotional affair. Distance made it impossible for me to actually meet this person. However, that didn't make them any less a part of my everyday life and it cause its damage. We both agree on that. We've worked very hard.

The start of this was about 5 years ago. Since then, we have worked on communication and connecting. Our communication is amazingly better, and there are no problems with honesty in this situation.

DH and DC have met, and everything has been discussed with the three of us before any steps taken. I think we are doing what we need to now. The big problem for us specifically is dealing with past hurts, on both sides.

(I should really get around to the post of how that first visit went, as we were all three amazed at how it went, especially with the surprises and problems we ran into!)

So for us, and for those in the very beginning of all of this, the question is: how do you get over the bad treatment of the past? People say talk. We do. But feelings remain. As DH especially is a linear thinker, a "how-to" is what he is looking for. Sadly, there really aren't steps or guidelines for that kind of thing.

 

[Marcus]

It would be hard to argue that losing your family does not constitute "some form of pressure" but you're welcome to try. But by your own definition, it constitutes coercion.

A fair argument!

Since the definition (which isn't mine, I just pulled the top one I found first from a Google search) leaves the loophole in the end, it does open up the word to any and all applications in which "some form of pressure" is applied. Taken to its extremes (which I believe it has been in the current example), this does indeed make the word useless, and can mean literally any decision in which one of the choices is undesirable enough to apply "pressure."

This means, if one chooses to focus on the last piece of that definition alone, all choices which do not have "win-win" outcomes are coercive.

Marcus has presented his views in a clear, concise, and extremely polite manner. The fact that you disagree with his points does not remove his privilege to make them.

I don't get called polite in online forums like this very frequently. I'm adding this one to my sig so I have proof for all of the future times in which I am a complete douchenozzle.