Is there evidence to rebut this monogamous argument?

I am a man married to a very intelligent monogamous woman. I tried to introduce the concept of polyamory to her and she responded with the following assertions:

• Sure you're "polyamorous." Most men are inherently polygamous. This is a natural evolved instinct, and it is only suppressed by social pressure.
• But most women are monogamous. (Actually, if we're being honest, they are hypergamous, but given the option would prefer monogamy with the best possible mate.)
• Therefore, with the exception of extreme outliers, there are only three realistic situations for a woman in a polyamorous relationship:
  1. She is bisexual, and is content to let her husband philander because she gets to pursue her own sex interests.
  2. If a Secondary then she is lying about her desires and/or intentions. I.e., no woman is content in a relationship as a Secondary. Her true desire will always be to become the man's Primary. Therefore, any Secondary is almost certainly a threat to a man's Primary.
  3. If a woman accepts a mutually polyamorous relationship then she is embracing her hypergamous instinct, and she will abandon her current Primary as soon as she secures a more attractive one.

Is there any compelling evidence to suggest that a significant number of heterosexual women are content to have a permanent relationship as a Secondary?

Or do you think the polyamorous community would agree with my wife's assertions: namely, that the only long-term/intrinsically stable polyamorous relationships involving women are those in which the women are bisexual?

I think every woman and situation is unique.

Im bisexual and my desire for polyamory was originally to find a female partner.

When I met my husband I left my ex to be with him (like you describe in #3)

I could not find a female partner so I opted to be open to meeting a man but I was in no hurry and was satisfied being monogamous to my husband and I was fine with his multiple sexual dallinances

When I met my boyfriend I felt a huge disconnect from my husband and had to constantly remind myself that in a poly relationship I don't have to choose one over the other.

I will not be a Secondary partner and do not date poly people because of this (I have no desire to have a metamore or share a home with another woman )

As described in #1 I entered into an open relationship with my husband so I could have multiple aex partners without cheating.

What about those who don't do hierarchies within multiple relationships? I'm sure there are women who are with more than one man who have no primary/secondary...I know that is my preference. And I'm bisexual too, if I had a relationship with a woman I would want it to be just as equal.

gatm33 said:

If a woman accepts a mutually polyamorous relationship then she is embracing her hypergamous instinct, and she will abandon her current Primary as soon as she secures a more attractive one.

Click to expand...

Nearly but here is a potential rebuttal. Think we can do this with just 3 parties, as a in a V(ee), but assuming that the husband is also allowed to see other women (not included).

Husband - Wife - Wife's Boyfriend.

Wife is embracing her hypergamous instinct with her boyfriend who is richer/younger/fitter/more attractive than her husband. However, Boyfriend also has other options. He is not prepared to invest his resources and commitment exclusively in an older lady who has already had her family. Therefore it is clear that abandoning her current primary is not a good option for wife as boyfriend is not prepared to offer more. Husband would need to understand and trust this to feel secure, and Wife would need to know her place in the relationship (no chance of jumping ship to a "better" Primary)

Wife gets the best of both worlds - commitment and stability from her husband; exiting sex and fun times with Boyfriend. Depending on her personality this may be enough for her to tolerate Husband philandering...if she is confident that he also cannot secure commitment from a more desirable woman.

So this is a theoretical example of how it could work. And similar to the situation I'm trying to engineer with a married lady of my acquaintance.

The argument B: most women are monogamous.

Yes, I think this is true. Most women are monogamous but not all of them. There are polyamorous women - like me. I have not even tried a monogamous relationship ever and have no intention to do that either. Open relationships and more love is more better. I really do not think it has anything to do with my sexual orientation.

If a woman accepts a mutually polyamorous relationship then she is embracing her hypergamous instinct, and she will abandon her current Primary as soon as she secures a more attractive one.

Click to expand...

Nope... Actually, on this forum we have plenty of MFM Vee relationships, like mine. One woman and two men. I definitely had no intention to abandon my partner but have another as well. Now won't abandon either of my partners for someone(s) else - but might start a new relationship with an interesting person if time and circumstances permit (not likely, though).

If a Secondary then she is lying about her desires and/or intentions. I.e., no woman is content in a relationship as a Secondary. Her true desire will always be to become the man's Primary. Therefore, any Secondary is almost certainly a threat to a man's Primary.

Click to expand...

Do a search here... Not all secondaries are happy being secondaries. There are some who are happy with that kind of an arrangement, though. But, not all women want to have a primary type relationship in their lives; some are more than happy to stay solo and might be okay to accept a hierarchical relationship as a secondary. Hierarchy is not a necessity in poly relationships!

Journeyofawakening said:

What about those who don't do hierarchies within multiple relationships? I'm sure there are women who are with more than one man who have no primary/secondary...I know that is my preference. And I'm bisexual too, if I had a relationship with a woman I would want it to be just as equal.

Click to expand...

Yea, my husband and boyfriend are both my primary partners and get near equal time with me

gatm33 said:

[*]She is bisexual, and is content to let her husband philander because she gets to pursue her own sex interests.

Click to expand...

I am bisexual, but have two male partners. Just because I'm bisexual does not mean I'm searching for both a man and a woman to date. It means I connect with others, regardless of their gender. Both of my partners happen to be men.

[*]If a Secondary then she is lying about her desires and/or intentions. I.e., no woman is content in a relationship as a Secondary. Her true desire will always be to become the man's Primary. Therefore, any Secondary is almost certainly a threat to a man's Primary.

Click to expand...

I personally would not be a "secondary" to any parter (ugh, even the word has such negative connotations for me). I do not practice hierarchical poly. My relationships are equally meaningful to me, regardless of the shape that they take. That's not the only way to "do" poly.

However, there are many women on this forum and who I'm friends with IRL that are perfectly content dating someone who has a live-in partner or who is married. Not everyone wants to ride the relationship escalator. Why is marriage the "end point" and ultimate goal?

[*]If a woman accepts a mutually polyamorous relationship then she is embracing her hypergamous instinct, and she will abandon her current Primary as soon as she secures a more attractive one.

Click to expand...

Nope. I've been dating my boyfriend for about 5 years, serious for 3, and I am still with my husband. For many years, I was monogamous with my husband, but now polyamory makes more sense for me at this stage in my life. I may return to monogamy someday, but that would not be due to me "abandoning" anyone.

Is there any compelling evidence to suggest that a significant number of heterosexual women are content to have a permanent relationship as a Secondary?

Click to expand...

I think it depends on what you mean by "secondary." What restrictions does that place on your relationship with her? Will you be in the closet? Can you two not be affection in public, due to being in the closet? Will your wife have the ability to "veto" any relationship for any reason? Will she be treated as less than? Will your wife's needs ALWAYS come before your other partner in any situation (regardless of how serious your partners' needs might be at that moment?). Will couple privilege take priority? How will you manage your time? Living situation? Possibility of children? Are these restrictions fluid and changeable, or rigid and ever-lasting?

Or do you think the polyamorous community would agree with my wife's assertions: namely, that the only long-term/intrinsically stable polyamorous relationships involving women are those in which the women are bisexual?

Click to expand...

No. And I think you'll see many other forum members who are women who have multiple partners, regardless of whether or not they're bisexual.

reflections said:

Is there any compelling evidence to suggest that a significant number of heterosexual women are content to have a permanent relationship as a Secondary?

Click to expand...

I think it depends on what you mean by "secondary." What restrictions does that place on your relationship with her? Will you be in the closet? Can you two not be affection in public, due to being in the closet? Will your wife have the ability to "veto" any relationship for any reason? Will she be treated as less than? Will your wife's needs ALWAYS come before your other partner in any situation (regardless of how serious your partners' needs might be at that moment?). Will couple privilege take priority? How will you manage your time? Living situation? Possibility of children? Are these restrictions fluid and changeable, or rigid and ever-lasting?

Click to expand...

First of all, thank you to everyone who has shared their insights and experience.

The question of "seconds" is whether there is a rebuttal to what I expect is the most common and fundamental objection a married woman will have to polyamory, and that comes down to resource competition. I.e., she legitimately expects her husband to not spend any resources on another woman or on children that are not theirs (or accepted at the time of marriage). Based on the explicit and implicit terms of the marriage contract she will expect and assert that she and her children must always have first claim on her husband's time, attention, money, and affection; certainly to the exclusion of any other woman.

E.g., men may have hobbies that consume time and resources, but if a wife ever feels that the needs of the family are being neglected by some external interest -- to include a love interest, which, as you can see, is at best "secondary" in a conventional marriage -- then she has a legitimate "veto" over that. Of course, in practice couples work things like this out; it's not like a typical husband lets his wife walk all over him. But nothing threatens a married woman like another woman, because no other hobby, job, or commitment her husband may undertake provides the sort of things she is supposed to provide him, or threatens to use that to steal his resource commitment to her and her children.

The closest example I can think of is something like a diligent church or welfare volunteer. A man who spends time helping other women and children does, practically, take away from time and attention on his family. This can become a point of contention with his wife. But there is no serious risk of his charity work taking anywhere near an equal claim on his attention or resources. For example, if a woman to whom he ministers is having her life fall apart he can explain that to his wife. But if his wife says, "Well, I understand that, but we really need you here right now," then ultimately he can hand off the other woman to another minister. If the other woman is a romantic partner and needs him, well, that's where his wife will say, "See, this is why I was not cool polyamory." And if I know typical women, his wife will constantly be testing to ensure that she is "primary," and the "second" will constantly be testing his commitment to her. Of course it would be great if they could be friends and allies, but fundamentally they are women in competition for a limited resource.

Apparently some women are chill enough that this competition never surfaces. But my wife's argument is that such women must be exceedingly rare, and impossible to distinguish from women who claim to not be needy but then turn out to be conniving.

Your intelligent wife is probably atheist too, right? And perhaps a scientist or with a particular interest in the sciences?

Her arguments, are you presented, are very 'survival of the species' orientated.

I would quite honestly say that my expression of my polyamory is about non-procreative loving connection punctuated with attraction. I simply have the ability to love, romantically, more than one. But that doesn't mean I want a full time relationship with those people whom I love. I wouldn't call myself bi, but I've loved a woman before. I love men more easily. I don't enter into relationships with most of the men I love, I've only had about 4 relationships in my life, 2 of which were under 2 years, the other about 5. The latest one is with my husband. We aim to grow old together. But that doesn't stop me loving my friends, old or new.

I don't date, or actively look for new friendships. If the connection is there it will make itself apparent. So, no, not hypergamy. But then, she'd call me an outlier as I'm childfree by choice.

But my point is polyamory isn't about survival of the species. And her arguments are.

Understanding how evolution played a part in the development of relationship styles is one thing. Applying it to make blanket statements about today's women is something totally different (which is what your wife has done with C.)

While it's probably true that the majority of women are serial monogamists, that doesn't exclude the possibility that there are a statistically significant number of women who are perfectly content in a poly relationship...including many who do not fit C.1, 2, or 3. (Assuming statistical significance is defined as >/= 5% of the female population.) Some of those women may indeed be women who prefer monogamous relationships, but find themselves content in a poly relationship. I think social pressure is probably a bigger deterrent than evolutionary patterns.

Also, as others have said, hierarchical poly is only one of many poly styles. If you narrow the definition, as you've done, then, yes, you'll find less women who fall within your definition.

I'm one of those people who can be happy within the right mono or poly relationship. Just depends on the person that I'm with. I am bi...more on the hetero side but still bi. But, that doesn't mean that I want or need concurrent relationships with a man and a woman to be happy. Considering that I've been the higher earner in every long-term relationship I've had, it's safe to say that I'm not hypergamous.

I am a woman in love with two men. I can only speak for myself. I have always been attracted to more than one person. Polyamory allows me to be responsable about that.

Hi gatm33,

Has your wife read the book, "Sex at Dawn: how we mate, why we stray, and what it means for modern relationships," by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá? If not, I would very much recommend it to her.

I know a few women on this forum who I'm pretty sure don't mind being secondary as long as it doesn't mean being treated like a second-class citizen.

As for myself, I'm one of the two males in an MFM poly-fi V. All three of us are heterosexual, and there are no secondary partners in our V, even though the other male is the female's legally/lawfully-wedded husband.

Don't know if that helps, but like I said definitely get the book "Sex at Dawn" ... and read it yourself even if your wife won't read it. It has some really good food for thought that is relevant to this thread.

That's all I got for the moment,
Sincerely,
Kevin T.

Well I would blow your wife's theory right out of the water.

I (the woman) is the polyamorous one. Actually polyandrous to be exact. I have two husbands who are on equal playing field relationship wise. Both of whom are totally monogamous.

I am by no means bisexual. I kissed a girl in my 20's and hated every second of it. I am about as heterosexual as a girl gets.

I refuse to be secondary and refuse to have hierarchical relationships.

Ditto. I am a straight poly woman with two husbands who are monogamous with me. I don't do hierarchy.

I think the best rebuttal to your wife's assertions would be to tell her to read the book Sex at Dawn.

I agree with the rest -- Sex at Dawn is a good book.

I find it interesting how you bring up polyamory. Was this phrased personally -- like "What do you think of poly? Could that ever work for us?"

And then she changed it to impersonal third person? Is she doing "rational and reasonable" response to mask her "emotional" or to hold it away at "arms distance?"

What's there to rebut? If that's her opinion, why not let it be?

Galagirl

She has a very visceral and negative emotional response to the idea. I asked her if she could provide a reasoned explanation for her emotional response. One of the great things about her is that she can (once the anger subsides

The other great thing is that she presented a reasonably objective argument for why polyamory can only "work" as a long-term practice in fringe cases. The assumptions and assertions she made can, in principle, be rebutted with evidence and counter-arguments.

So far a number of responses have provided illuminating anecdotal evidence that counters various points of her argument. I am certainly interested in hearing any more!

Actually, I am a monogamous man, and my wife had recently revealed herself to be poly-amorous. I can't speak for what the statistics are, but I really don't think that there's any rhyme or reason as it relates to men or women.

Often, it's difficult for either side to understand the other. While it's important to try, it simply may never happen, and that's ok. The key is communication. First, discuss it with one another BEFORE having a potential partner added to the mix. This is not what happened in our case, and it led to the ultimatum of her severing any & all contact with two people, or I was going to divorce my wife of 16 years. So ask yourself, and know the answer, before going down that path, if what you have is more, or less important than what you seek.

Re (from gatm33):

"She presented a reasonably objective argument for why polyamory can only 'work' as a long-term practice in fringe cases."

Click to expand...

That argument would be hard to prove or disprove considering how monogamous conditioning will skew the numbers. But even if it's true, is there something wrong with being a fringe case? It doesn't bother me.

Thanks for clarifying that.

She has a very visceral and negative emotional response to the idea.

Click to expand...

That's why I think there's no point in rebutting anything if this is just general discussion between you two. (I assume since this is posted in general discussion.)

Leaving her be and dropping it seems kinder. If she's not into it, she's not into it. Why keep uncomfortable conversation going with rebuttals if she's having that level of emotional response?

Galagirl