LW tropes in real life

[policywank]

I think that's the spot where we fundamentally disagree. I can empathize with that POV, but I also feel that the person who changes the terms is the one leaving. The other person is reacting to those changes.

I don't see the vice versa as equal.

How can it not be equal? If it isn't equal that would suggest that the person who isn't changing the terms has some moral high ground or latitude to deny or invalidate the will of the person wishing to change the terms.

I rarely see these things as absolute, but I sort of feel as though this one is. Either each partner has full unfettered personal agency to make their own choices or they don't. I don't see how one can have a little less. And while others may regard the one who is seeking to change the terms as the bad guy/gal what they think really doesn't matter.

Moreover I'd suggest that rarely does such a change just fall out of the clear blue sky. Relationships are complex and they evolve and the partners affect one another. It is possible that the partner who doesn't want a change isan absolute sexual dynamo and the one who does want a change is just bound and determined to pursue CNM, but it is more likely more complicated than that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

bound and determined to pursue CNM

I don't want to admit how long I spent looking at that acronym muttering "wtf is Clothed Naked Male?" before remembering the context here. Time for bed.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Any contact can and often is terminated absent agreement. There are penalties attached, but it can be done. In sports, sometimes players are forced to have their salaries cut mid-contract for the betterment of the team. Does it hurt? Sure does. But in marriage or even dating, there are no measures that ensure the terms of the vowes are upheld. There may or may not be penalties, but if they both agree, there need not be hard feelings. If there are, then one must decide if the hurt feelings are enough to end the relationship. It is unfair to say this person is at fault because they want X and the other wants Y. Who is more selfish, and what has that to do with the situation? I don't want Jo to have an affair. If she does, I'm not throwing away the 15 years I've known her and many years we've been married because my feelings are hurt. I can only speak for me, not her. A husband has no right to determine what his wife does or doesn't do about her needs or vice versa. As long as they are open going in, weather they agree to it or not, it's up to them both to figure it out.

This is my view, and yours can and probably will differ from mine. That's your right.

 

[lustychimera]

I also think it's an interesting point that keeps getting brought up about how monogamy is programmed rather than the default.

This very well may be true.

I've always taken the monogamy pressure to be an economic necessity rather than a moral one.

If it isn't equal that would suggest that the person who isn't changing the terms has some moral high ground or latitude to deny or invalidate the will of the person wishing to change the terms.

Yes. I believe this is true.

If, when you got married, you and your partner agreed on an open marriage, then ten years in, he can't find a date anymore, so he starts nagging you to close the marriage because he's sexually unsatisfied, would his case for closing the marriage be equal to yours if you wanted to keep it open as you initially agreed upon?

"If you don't agree, I'm going to drag you through a brutal divorce that we'll both lose."

 

[LMWM321]

he can't find a date anymore, so he starts nagging you to close the marriage because he's sexually unsatisfied,

Why would he want that?? Why, if you're still deriving joy from sex outside the marriage, would he want you stop just because he can't?

Remember, my post is predicting that medical science will one day find that sex w/ multiple partners is a Healthy and Normal thing for some people, that it improves their well-being physically and mentally, that it extends their life. Wouldn't you want that for your partner, no matter whether you're enjoying it or not?

..If I lost my vision, would I want my wife to blind herself so she can't enjoy sight too??

 

[policywank]

I also think it's an interesting point that keeps getting brought up about how monogamy is programmed rather than the default.

This very well may be true.

I've always taken the monogamy pressure to be an economic necessity rather than a moral one.



Yes. I believe this is true.

If, when you got married, you and your partner agreed on an open marriage, then ten years in, he can't find a date anymore, so he starts nagging you to close the marriage because he's sexually unsatisfied, would his case for closing the marriage be equal to yours if you wanted to keep it open as you initially agreed upon?

"If you don't agree, I'm going to drag you through a brutal divorce that we'll both lose."

Yes his case for no longer wanting to be in an open marriage is just as legitimate as mine is for wanting to keep it open. If neither of us is willing to compromise there is no reason we can't separate amicably and agree that we just want different things in life and both of our perspectives are equally valid. IMO there is no default position that he needs to be the one to compromise to keep the marriage together.

Whether one of us chooses to make it nasty is another matter. That is not necessary or appropriate and that applies equally to both of us. The fact that he is the one seeking a change in terms doesn't mean I am more entitled to make things nasty.

 

[MillieDynamite]

One-word answer: jealousy. All things at that point are not equal. Therefore, the green-eyed monster rears its head.

Why would he want that?? Why, if you're still deriving joy from sex outside the marriage, would he want you stop just because he can't?

Remember, my post is predicting that medical science will one day find that sex w/ multiple partners is a Healthy and Normal thing for some people, that it improves their well-being physically and mentally, that it extends their life. Wouldn't you want that for your partner, no matter whether you're enjoying it or not?

..If I lost my vision, would I want my wife to blind herself so she can't enjoy sight too??

 

[lustychimera]

Yes his case for no longer wanting to be in an open marriage is just as legitimate as mine is for wanting to keep it open. If neither of us is willing to compromise there is no reason we can't separate amicably and agree that we just want different things in life and both of our perspectives are equally valid. IMO there is no default position that he needs to be the one to compromise to keep the marriage together.

Whether one of us chooses to make it nasty is another matter. That is not necessary or appropriate and that applies equally to both of us. The fact that he is the one seeking a change in terms doesn't mean I am more entitled to make things nasty.

If you both have an equal power dynamic in the marriage, then I'd agree that you both have equal agency to do what you want with equal penalties for irreconcilable disagreement.

But a very common dynamic is for the wife to give up her career to raise their children on the husband's sole income.

In that scenario, if after ten years and three kiddos, Husband comes home and tells her that he's no longer attracted to her saggy three kid body-- he's tried, but he can't help that she just doesn't do it for him anymore--that he wants to have sex with other people, or he's leaving her.

He's set up pretty damn good in that scenario. He's been working the whole time, building his resume, building his career, meanwhile she's middle aged and got fuck-all for job experience, basically starting from the ground floor midway through life. All because she put her entire trust in him to uphold his commitments to her.

Then he'll throw her 3-5 years of alimony--a partial paycheck--to "get her on her feet" probably all while bitching about how his greedy ex is getting all his hard earned money.

So, to me, that equal agency thing only applies when the power dynamics are equal. In that scenario, he's got very little to lose, meanwhile she's thrown out on her ass and has to start her life from scratch-- likely while taking care of three kids as a single mom, too.

That's not an equal penalties to the bargain. I see that as coercive.

Why would he want that?? Why, if you're still deriving joy from sex outside the marriage, would he want you stop just because he can't?

The reason why is irrelevant. Maybe he wants her home more rather than out on dates, maybe jealousy. Policywank said that the person changing the agreement has no moral high ground, and I was responding to that. So, assuming that is true, whatever his reasoning, she has no moral high ground over him.

 

[alohadave]

I agree that nobody should be forced or brow beaten into doing anything.

I just think that as long as everyone is treated fairly and with respect the overall framework should be that there is no one right or superior answer.

To the extent that you use words like "if this thing is more important than your partner" that applies both ways. It seems to imply that the partner who is inclined to leave their SO so that they can engage in CNM is selfish or is putting sex above their partner. I can see that point of view but then it runs the other way too. The partner who would prefer to lose their SO rather than let them engage in CNM is putting their need to limit their partner's sexual activity above their partner.

That's putting a lot onto a partner that didn't ask for, nor likely wants.

My wife telling me that she is not okay with me having an affair does not make her unreasonable. That is her boundary and if I want to remain with my wife I need to respect that. It shouldn't be on her to accommodate a drastic change in what we both agreed to.

 

[LMWM321]

Husband comes home and tells her that he's no longer attracted to her saggy three kid body

You are not describing a marriage where CNM is tenable. It's an unhealthy marriage and as many here have said already, CNM is not going to fix a bad marriage. ..And shame on him for dumping that on her. I can only hope that they've given an honest effort to find ways to keep their mutual sexual interest in each other alive. ..And having kids isn't the a death blow to being attractive - we have kids and I've not lost one iota of interest in my wife's body - despite her age and changes to her body that go along with it. But in the situation you described, simply broaching the subject CNM would make matters worse. But I suspect to support your point, you've chosen to describe a scenario where it wouldn't work

 

[LMWM321]

That's putting a lot onto a partner that didn't ask for, nor likely wants.

My wife telling me that she is not okay with me having an affair does not make her unreasonable. That is her boundary and if I want to remain with my wife I need to respect that. It shouldn't be on her to accommodate a drastic change in what we both agreed to.

Agreed to when? ..30 years ago??

That's part of the point I've been trying to make. ..People who marry in their mid-20's have NO IDEA how their needs may change when they reach their 50's. Sure your wife can say, "you made a promise, I want you to keep it." But I think she needs to do some soul-searching and ask herself questions like...

"why? ...Why am I holding him to a promise he made decades ago - long before now, long before new desires and needs arise? ..What am I afraid of? Do I really believe him having a one-night stand poses a real threat to our marriage or do I just not like the idea of him enjoying sex w/ someone other than me?"

Simply answering with, "Because he promised..." isn't an explanation. And sure, it's her right to hold him to the promise. But she should understand his desires are not quashed by her saying "no". They'll fester and grow into resentment. But so it goes... this is why marriage is quite hard.

This sort of inflexibility in a marriage perhaps partly explains why 1/2 of marriages end in divorce and of the 1/2 that don't a significant % are not very happy. And the statistics for happiness after divorce aren't very promising either.

 

[policywank]

If you both have an equal power dynamic in the marriage, then I'd agree that you both have equal agency to do what you want with equal penalties for irreconcilable disagreement.

But a very common dynamic is for the wife to give up her career to raise their children on the husband's sole income.

In that scenario, if after ten years and three kiddos, Husband comes home and tells her that he's no longer attracted to her saggy three kid body-- he's tried, but he can't help that she just doesn't do it for him anymore--that he wants to have sex with other people, or he's leaving her.

He's set up pretty damn good in that scenario. He's been working the whole time, building his resume, building his career, meanwhile she's middle aged and got fuck-all for job experience, basically starting from the ground floor midway through life. All because she put her entire trust in him to uphold his commitments to her.

Then he'll throw her 3-5 years of alimony--a partial paycheck--to "get her on her feet" probably all while bitching about how his greedy ex is getting all his hard earned money.

So, to me, that equal agency thing only applies when the power dynamics are equal. In that scenario, he's got very little to lose, meanwhile she's thrown out on her ass and has to start her life from scratch-- likely while taking care of three kids as a single mom, too.

That's not an equal penalties to the bargain. I see that as coercive.


The reason why is irrelevant. Maybe he wants her home more rather than out on dates, maybe jealousy. Policywank said that the person changing the agreement has no moral high ground, and I was responding to that. So, assuming that is true, whatever his reasoning, she has no moral high ground over him.

I agree in that scenario. They don't have equal agency so there is effectively a power imbalance which makes it very difficult for his actions not to be coercive. One can imagine a variety of circumstances where the power imbalance favours one party or the other. One can also imagine circumstances where one party has behaved in a particularly egregious way.

I am not saying that there are never circumstances where one party holds the moral high ground. I am saying that is not by definition the party that is seeking a change. Nor is it by definition the party who doesn't want to make a change. And more often than not any observer does not know all of the facts or understand all of the nuances at play.

 

[policywank]

That's putting a lot onto a partner that didn't ask for, nor likely wants.

My wife telling me that she is not okay with me having an affair does not make her unreasonable. That is her boundary and if I want to remain with my wife I need to respect that. It shouldn't be on her to accommodate a drastic change in what we both agreed to.

In that example I am not saying it is incumbent upon her to accommodate a drastic change. Absent a notable power imbalance she has the agency to make her own decision without coercion.

But I am saying that if you do truly seek a drastic change it is also not incumbent upon you to be denied that change based upon an agreement that was arrived at decades before. And I don't think it is for society to decide which such changes one might genuinely seek in their lives are valid or not.

In my view there is no such thing as a truly static marriage. Circumstances change. People change. Needs change. Life at 60 is probably not what you thought it would be when you were 23. And even if it is as expected it is entirely normal that what you want out of life at 60 may have changed since you were 23. Circumstances are rarely as black and white as stereotypes and generalized ideas of right and wrong should not be applied to personal circumstances in my view.

Consider the scenario where a man decides he wants to open up the relationship. In the scenario described by LustyChimera most of us would probably agree that he is being a douche bag. But that scenario was designed to achieve that conclusion to illustrate a point wasn't it? (How many jurisdictions in the western world allow a man to give his ex-wife a few years worth alimony? Most heavily favour the woman in that scenario). But what if they have had no meaningful sex life in many years, the kids are long since grown up and moved away and she refuses to see a counsellor or make any adjustments insisting this is just what happens when couples get older? I highly doubt that was part of the wedding vows. Is he still the bad guy for wanting to open things up? Or what if there is no duress, both have good jobs there is no suggestion of an unequal division of assets if they divorce and they have just grown to want different things. Is one partner's aching desire for a more exciting sex life intrinsically less valid than the other partner's desire to change nothing.

 

[LMWM321]

My wife telling me that she is not okay with me having an affair does not make her unreasonable

What kind of affair? ..Asking to fly to Maui to spend 10 days with another woman is very different than seeking permission to go back to a co-workers room for an hour after a company dinner at a national sales meeting. Each poses a different degree of risk to the marriage.. ..Personally, I would NOT be ok with my wife traveling w/ another man, but spending an hour fucking after a work dinner? Totally ok with it... Which underscores that there are different kind of arrangements.

 

[MillieDynamite]

What if she doesn't tell you about her dinner and a fuck, but you find out from someone else?

What kind of affair? ..Asking to fly to Maui to spend 10 days with another woman is very different than seeking permission to go back to a co-workers room for an hour after a company dinner at a national sales meeting. Each poses a different degree of risk to the marriage.. ..Personally, I would NOT be ok with my wife traveling w/ another man, but spending an hour fucking after a work dinner? Totally ok with it... Which underscores that there are different kind of arrangements.

 

[LMWM321]

What if she doesn't tell you about her dinner and a fuck, but you find out from someone else?

That would upset me. I'd need to know beforehand (phone call or text) - and know all details afterwards. No secrets. There'd be no reason to NOT tell beforehand, b/c I'm totally fine with it. But I'd still want to know. And it's good for safety sake for her to be able to tell the guy, "My husband knows I'm here with you. I just texted him."

 

[Bramblethorn]

Agreed to when? ..30 years ago??

That's part of the point I've been trying to make. ..People who marry in their mid-20's have NO IDEA how their needs may change when they reach their 50's.

I've talked before on this forum about a couple I knew.

Bob and Judy were married something like 60 years. They were pretty good to one another - maybe not perfect, but a loving and supportive marriage overall. Then Bob had the misfortune of surviving a major stroke. He needed nursing-home care, and Judy put a considerable amount of her savings into getting him the best care she could. (Separate finances, she'd managed her money better than he'd managed his.) She found a good place near her home so she could visit him frequently. But it was still a miserable time for him. He didn't understand why he wasn't allowed to go home, he thought Judy had betrayed him or that he'd somehow done something terrible he couldn't remember. He begged to be allowed to come home; there was absolutely no way Judy could've looked after him.

He lived for five years after the stroke but I don't think he had more than a handful of happy days in that time, and it was a terribly hard and lonely time for Judy. She was still looking after Bob but he wasn't able to look after her, and while Bob was still alive she started seeing another guy, a widowed friend of the family.

If it had happened before the stroke, it would definitely have been considered "cheating". As it was, though - yes, they had sworn "forsaking all others, till death us do part", and Bob hadn't agreed to any change in that (nor would he have, most likely). But circumstances had changed beyond what either of them had anticipated when they made those vows.

In that kind of situation, I think most people (not quite everybody) would excuse her breaking her vows. Enforcing them would've just made life harder for everybody, to no end.

At the same time, I don't think those commitments are something to be cast aside lightly, especially when people's lives are tangled together in a way that makes "if you don't like it, leave" unrealistic. There needs to be some balance between commitment/mutual consent and flexibility to accommodate extreme circumstances that neither party foresaw.

Where does that "one partner has lost interest in sex but the other still wants it" situation fall on that scale? I'm not sure there's a good one-size-fits-all answer there.

 

[desecration]

I'm not sure there's a good one-size-fits-all answer there.

There never is, for anything, really.

 

[LMWM321]

n that kind of situation, I think most people (not quite everybody) would excuse her breaking her vows. Enforcing them would've just made life harder for everybody, to no end.

That's a heartbreaking story... And I'm sure there are many quite similar.

As for me, like a living will, I've already made it clear to my wife in very clear terms, "I don't want you to ever be lonely, if something should happen to me. I want you to find someone to share what time you have left. If I die and you re-marry, put the ring I gave you on your right hand and tell him it will stay there. ..And I'll look for you in the afterlife if there is such a thing."

 

[policywank]

One-word answer: jealousy. All things at that point are not equal. Therefore, the green-eyed monster rears its head.

I think that you are correct. However, I think that because jealousy is a visceral reaction we tend to assume that it is immutable. I don't think it is.

That visceral reaction is rooted in expectations and they in turn are rooted in what we are conditioned to believe. If we look on a beach in North America today we would see lots of women in skimpy bikinis. If we go to Europe they might be topless or totally nude. Generally speaking their male partners are not jealous or society does not try to compel them to be jealous. Yet if we travelled back in time 100 years or go to many other regions of the world today this would be deemed totally unacceptable. The prospect of other men seeing their wife/girlfriend in this way would send male partners into a jealous rage.

In both cases the jealousy is a deep visceral reaction, but it isn't immutable and unchanging independent of time, expectation and circumstance.

When it comes to monogamy we have seen things ebb and flow. 100 years ago women were conditioned to nominally expect that if their man was a high value provider the occasional fling on the side was ok as long as it didn't affect the household and family. She might feel jealousy but probably not the same way a wife would have 50 years ago when male fidelity was expected to be more equal with female fidelity. Nowadays men are somewhat inured to the prospect that their wife is not as pure as the wives of past decades and for some the possibility of extramarital relations is there, but only if he gets to enjoy them too.

But isn't that a rather juvenile approach. I mean if he wants the same latitude that is fair. But to be upset because he doesn't realize equivalent outcomes isn't fair. I am a better than average skier and my husband is a novice. I don't think anybody would think it is fair that I not be allowed to go skiing or am only allowed to ski the easy runs so that he can keep up.

Nevertheless when it comes to sexual relations that is where we are. Whether or not it is fair or reasonable that is the point at which men will often get triggered into jealousy. That won't magically go away. But as these things all do ebb and flow and evolve maybe there will be a day when expectations and perspective have evolved to the point where CNM and the fact that couples engaging in it will have unequal outcomes will be accepted.

 

[LMWM321]

...Another great post PW.

If we want to reduce jealousy - and the horrible things that it leads to - parents need to quit teaching boys and girls that "cheating" is the ultimate insult to the other partner - one that justifies rage and/ or immediate calls to an attorney to begin divorce proceedings. Instead, instill in kids the understanding that it's a biological urge that, for some people, is quite irrepressible. So, instead of treating it as the ultimate marital crime that should be met with the ultimate penalty, they should work together on a set of rules that mitigate the threat it poses to their marriage.

As an aside... What exactly is monogamy? Am I monogamous if over the course of a 25 yr marriage, I've had sex w/ my wife 3300 times and with someone else 8 times? Personally, I'd say that's pretty goddamn monogamous. In the animal world, such a percentage - same partner 99.76% of the times - would be regarded as monogamous.

 

[policywank]

Agreed.

I think that the reasons why society in general and certain elements of society (religious and cultural leaders, etc.) seek to control how people live their lives are complex. But I think that the fact that they do is undeniable. And one of the most effective ways they do so is by mobilizing public opinion and sentiment around certain ideas then punishing and invalidating anyone who doesn't buy into those ideas. In this way they seek to turn opinion into fact by claiming that a given opinion is so widespread that it must be true (while conveniently ignoring the extraordinary efforts invested punishing dissent).

Why is a woman who breaks the marital contract evil incarnate while a general contractor who short pays his trades and suppliers (in violation of their contract) is just navigating a rough and tumble industry? Or for that matter why is a woman who cheats subtly regarded as more evil than a man who cheats? I've heard the arguments which I won't rehash here as they are all bullshit.

Women cheating is deemed a by-product of promiscuity or an "incorrect" attitude towards sex. Men have this attitude towards sex but are supposed to resist, so if they cheat it is evidence of weakness or a submission to temptation but not innate evil. But women are not supposed to have a similar attitude towards sex in the first place so our cheating is more than evidence of weakness or submission to temptation. It is for some evidence of innate evil and therefore irredeemable.

I think one of the underlying themes is sort of an artificial construct regarding female sexuality. I refer to it as a bit like a protection racket.
Bad guy: Pay us money to protect you.
Shop owner: From who?
Bad guy: From us if you don't pay us money.
Shop owner: Why don't you just not hurt me?
Bad guy: It doesn't work that way? What will I do for money?

Society: Don't be promiscuous or no man will want you?
Woman: Why?
Society: Because we teach them that promiscuous women are bad?
Woman: Why don't you just stop teaching them that?
Society: Because that wouldn't allow us to control you.

If we truly embrace equality, throw out the nonsensical conceptions of female sexuality (yes we are different but not in the ways society has taught us or not to that degree) and the bullshit explanation for the double standard then we can all have a more grown up view of sexuality. That doesn't mean cheating will be right or should be accepted as insignificant. But it does mean that if we saw our sexuality more realistically we might grow past the black and white ideas of sexuality that actually facilitate or even precipitate cheating - it would happen less often and when it does happen we would be better equipped to address it and its root causes.

 

[LMWM321]

Bad guy: Pay us money to protect you.
Shop owner: From who?
Bad guy: From us if you don't pay us money.
Shop owner: Why don't you just not hurt me?
Bad guy: It doesn't work that way? What will I do for money?

Society: Don't be promiscuous or no man will want you?
Woman: Why?
Society: Because we teach them that promiscuous women are bad?
Woman: Why don't you just stop teaching them that?
Society: Because that wouldn't allow us to control you.

Love that...

 

[alohadave]

Am I monogamous if over the course of a 25 yr marriage, I've had sex w/ my wife 3300 times and with someone else 8 times? Personally, I'd say that's pretty goddamn monogamous.

Have your cake and eat it too. Redefine the term so that it means what you want so that you can say you are something you are not.

Partial monogamy is just that, partial. Whether that is important to you and your wife is between the two of you. But don't say that you are monogamous.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Am I monogamous if over the course of a 25 yr marriage, I've had sex w/ my wife 3300 times and with someone else 8 times?

You are keeping score? Damn, I thought that thing stops once you enter your thirties, but apparently not.
That's a nice average there, btw. Don't let it drop. The average, of course...