Recovering from coerced non-monogamy

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by WhatHappened

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 poly, 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 poly 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]

Originally Posted by Marcus

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]

Originally Posted by Kella

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]

Originally Posted by WhatHappened

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 entitlement 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 would 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

They all seem pretty awful, for everyone involved. What's the right situation here? Should she suffer, simply because she's the one who has had the worldview change?

Should he suffer because he is resisting changing to embrace his partners 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]

Originally Posted by WhatHappened

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" 3 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 for 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 partnership 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 ? And how did it end up ?