SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I recently came across a series of videos about a couple; she is poly and he is monogamous. When they married, they were both monogamous until approximately year 17 when she decided she wanted to date others. Initially her husband was completely against it, but after "therapy" and essentially telling him he either allows this or they divorce, he relented. It's important to note that they have 2 young children which I definitely think factored into him staying.

In my opinion, she essentially coerced him into staying. Certainly no-one held a gun to his head and forced him to stay, but as a father myself, losing 50% of your time with the kids is unthinkable. She tries to frame this an empowering journey, but all of her discussions are focused on her feelings. She even mentions that her husband occasionally has issues with it and her response is "those are his feelings to deal with"

To be clear, while I don't approve of this kind of relationship, I'm not condemning those who choose it if both parties are on board from the start

Am I wrong to think she forced him into this?

It's a Faustian bargain, but still his choice.

I frame it as a mismatch between what they want from M and what they want to give to the M. It's much easier to say than do, but: shake hands and walk away, even if one or both parties is devastated.

Do the videos show anything about he the guy feels about his new M?

I agree with you that he was coerced. If he had asked me for advice, I would've told him that his marriage was over anyway; the only question was whether he preferred to endure months or years of humiliation and heart break before it ended or if he would prefer to get divorced while his dignity and sanity are still intact.

edit:add Ester Perel (for all the hate she gets here) actually has two great episodes on this very scenario on her podcast "Where Shall We Begin?" The episodes are called "You Want Me To Watch The Kids While You Go Out With Another Guy? (Parts 1 and 2)" The first episode was when the couple were just starting out with the open marriage; the second episode was a follow-up a year later. You can tell how deeply heartbroken the husband is in the first episode. By the second episode, he's a bitter, empty shell of a person.

Those episodes should be required listening for any person who is offered this particular Faustian bargain.

[This message edited by BluerThanBlue at 4:09 PM, Wednesday, October 22nd]

I’ve seen one or two videos where he says he’s fine with it. Perhaps I’m projecting but He doesn’t give the vibe that he’s really on board with it. Certainly I can’t read his mind; he certainly could be telling the truth. But he went from being totally against to "for" it in the span of three months doesn’t pass the smell test.

If something is against polyamory, that would suggest it goes against their core beliefs on marriage and relationships. To do a complete 180 in such a short amount of times just doesn’t seem authentic.

What’s really troubling to me is how dismissive of his feelings. That’s it’s his feelings to deal with.

The husband has to say he's fine with it because the alternative is to admit to himself that he's allowing himself to be emotionally crushed and humiliated. That's the only way to keep going while in a state of cognitive dissonance.

There was a thread a while back where an OP was pressured by his wife to allow her to sleep with her ex-boyfriend. It was incredibly bizarre and frustrating to see the OP conducting Simone Biles-level feats of mental gymnastics to convince himself that he wasn't coerced into the situation (even though his wife had threatened divorce both before he agreed to the arrangement and after he told her he wanted her to break it off). He even went so far as to blame himself for her proposing the open marriage because she didn't feel loved enough by him.

But even generally speaking, I would say that self-blame and self-loathing are requirements for remaining in infidelity (or any abusive situation, for that matter). You have to believe-- or make yourself believe-- that the abuse isn't abuse... and if it is, then it's somehow justified.

Wow. That is sad to me. It sounds like she preyed on his fear and love of his children and her to manipulate things to what she wanted. So many questions, though. Is she really poly? Or is this her way of testing the waters of other shores to see if that is what she really wants, while keeping hubby watching the kids. It seems like she wanted a safe way to get her jollies. honestly, it feel one step better than cheating- he did get agency to choose what he wants to do - but it’s just her being as selfish.

It’s definitely coercion. She made threats that if he didn’t go along with it, she would divorce him. That’s pretty much textbook.
I’m just amazed at what people with low self esteem/no self respect will go along with.
If I tried to pull something like that, I’d fully expect the mailman to discover my peen in the mailbox. Or maybe even my head.

Haven’t seen the videos so I can only share what I think based on the original post:

If he’s emotionally strong enough to accept the arrangements willingly – with no coercion and always with the option open of having said no – then he’s also strong enough to chose divorce.
So I guess it boils down to if he’s content with his decision.

Going just by what is described in the post I don't think he was coerced into accepting it if divorce was also a choice. If given a choice between divorce or sharing my wife with someone else I'd choose divorce.

ETA

Certainly no-one held a gun to his head and forced him to stay, but as a father myself, losing 50% of your time with the kids is unthinkable.

I think a scenario where I would be staying home to babysit the kids while she goes out to spend the night with and screw some other guy is pretty unthinkable.

[This message edited by Pogre at 7:55 PM, Wednesday, October 22nd]

If he’s emotionally strong enough to accept the arrangements willingly

Strong enough? I've been sitting here for a while trying to figure out how "strong" I'd have to be, and in what sense, to accept an ultimatum like that? I can think of a lot of other adjectives that might apply and "strong" just doesn't enter the fucking picture. Please... feel free to elaborate.

I had to think about this a bit and even look up the textbook definition of coercion. I don't think it's coercion.

I often think in terms of analogies. People and things do change during a marriage. You hope you know the person's values and thoughts well enough before marriage, and you hope they know themselves and what they want in a marriage too. How is this so much different than if my husband came to me after 17 yrs and said he had some new or hidden sexual kink? If he absolutely needed to explore it, I would evaluate whether I was ok with it or couldn't live with it. I might be ok with cross-dressing. I can't see myself living with some hardcore BDSM.

I don't think it has anything to do with being "strong" if I say yes. I don't think it has anything to do with "self-blame" or "self-loathing" if I say yes either though.

These observations are intended to provoke thought, particularly from those who strongly oppose non-monogamy or criticize reconciliation after infidelity.

​1.​I've observed significant coercion employed by "wayward" partners in infidelity scenarios who push for reconciliation. This behavior is often viewed as a necessary evil—an "anything to save the marriage" tactic.

This includes:

-​"Bombing" behaviors: Excessive demonstrations of affection, such as love bombing or sex bombing.

-​Shifting blame: Positioning the burden of ending the family onto the betrayed spouse.

-​Insane, one-sided offers or concessions.

​The tactics described in the poly/mono couple's story—where the wife presented an ultimatum (allow polyamory or divorce)—are, in a sense, structurally similar to the manipulation tactics used in some reconciliations. To push a partner to accept a fundamental change they are deeply against, manipulation or emotional pressure is often required.

​2.​Intellectually, I struggle to find a significant difference between accepting this polyamorous arrangement and reconciling after infidelity.

​While the specifics are different, what truly matters is the core challenge: accepting that your partner has been intimate with another person. Whether that sex happened a year ago as an affair, or last night as a consensual agreement, the betrayed partner must ultimately process a similar level of profound marital boundary violation.

​The one clear benefit of the polyamory arrangement is that it is a prior-agreed upon structure, moving from a position of betrayal to a form of consent, however forced that initial consent may have been.

​The element I cannot fully resolve is the one-sided nature of the current arrangement. Regardless of the practical complications, the husband should at least be encouraged to explore dating—even if only for the sake of his own self-worth and establishing a more equitable power dynamic within the relationship.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:49 PM, Wednesday, October 22nd]

DRSOOLERS,

Ok. She prohibited him from also "dating" or being polyamorous. I missed the part where she had any influence on that. That does change the situation.

Edit: I guess I also missed the part where she had already committed infidelity. That also changes the situation. End Edit.

It still doesn't indicate to me that he was coerced unless his free will was limited in some way to stay in the marriage. I'm not saying I like it or would like being in that situation or think it's at all fair. I'm still not sure I'd call it coercion.

[This message edited by KitchenDepth5551 at 11:43 PM, Wednesday, October 22nd]

The element I cannot fully resolve is the one-sided nature of the current arrangement. Regardless of the practical complications, the husband should at least be encouraged to explore dating—even if only for the sake of his own self-worth and establishing a more equitable power dynamic within the relationship.

^^^^THIS would be the truest test of whether or not this is "coercion".

If she spazzes out the moment he starts to date or entertain another, then she was intending to manipulate the whole time.

If she accepts this, then they just have an open marriage...by mutual agreement.

This, in and of itself is the crux of the issue with infidelity. In most cases one spouse, whether they admit it or not, wants to have the opportunity to explore on their end, while maintaining monogamy from their spouse.

In this scenario, she was bold enough to say it.

All he has to do is date someone else and her reaction will tell it all. I suspect that she would lose her mind if he even broached the subject.

whether they admit it or not, wants to have the opportunity to explore on their end, while maintaining monogamy from their spouse.

This is really made me think hard. When I come across these nuggets I always want to try them on. Is it part of me that I haven’t noticed sort of thing.

I certainly can agree that would be a valid perception, as one can look at infidelity so many ways and for your situation it could even be true. Ws have different justifications.

I could not make this fit me. I think if he would have said he wanted to open the marriage while I was having an affair or even in the immediate aftermath, I would not have been opposed. I would have been relieved.

It would have absolved me in my mind. It would have made me think that what led me to do it he was feeling it too. It would have let me off the hook.

I did not value fidelity as I was committing infidelity.

Then why not tell him? Why hide it? I mean after all, if I was okay with this being an experiment between husband and wife at best, or at worst our marriage had just run its course..what was I protecting?

The resounding answer is his vision of me. To admit what I was doing would have exposed me for the snake that I was, and there would be no room to hide from that anymore. And also I couldn’t control who he would share it with and I would look bad to other people.

So him doing the same thing as me when I was doing it too, just would have brought him down to my level and I don’t think I would have examined myself and my behaviors as I have ever since.

In some ways I am glad enough time passed before I found out about his affair because had they been caught early, it’s really hard to tell how bright that dumpster fire would have burned until we inevitably divorced.

I know this is kind of a side thought to the main thread. I do believe people have free will, yet I also believe that intimate partners can take what they know and use it to manipulate or control the other person. Some people are more susceptible to allowing that. Therefore I think coercion is a thing and know many marriages in which there is some form of coercion even if it’s not this extreme.

I don’t know the couple you are talking about but I think another good one to study is the Merrifields in seeking sister wives. That’s diabolical because he uses God and the Bible to manipulate her.

And Dr schoolers- I don’t think your observations are completely off, but I would say what you are talking about is people who stay together after infidelity versus those who really are not afraid to divorce and have true reconciliation. The only issue is most of those even go through early phases of what you describe.

I would not say I coerced my husband to reconcile with me, but early into it I do think I love bombed him and sex bombed him. That wasn’t effective in our case, I mean sure as a bandaid sometimes. It was eventually what led him to ask me for a divorce. It took me looking deeper before he gave me another chance. The other thing about love bombing and sex bombing, it fades, just like all inauthentic behaviors.

I am not saying it’s right, I just think it’s part of a phase that coincides with the bs processing a decision and that normally takes time.

I think many bs’s end up staying true to themselves and are happy they stayed married. Other’s stay true to themselves and they end up happily divorced. The ones who stay married despite their lack of happiness for a big portion of them it’s about being able to hold together a bigger picture (finances,family) and for the remaining it’s simply a matter of whether the bs can they are going to grow the part of them that knows they deserve more and can have more.

So I fail to see coercion as effective long term when it comes to infidelity, except with a subset of probably the latter type of bs.

Whereas in the world of polygamy, where there are men marrying girls, controlling the finances and access to resources, etc…then you have coercion in the purest form. I just think there are shades of what you are painting but there are so many to be able to generalize it.

[This message edited by hikingout at 2:14 AM, Thursday, October 23rd]

It still doesn't indicate to me that he was coerced unless his free will was limited in some way to stay in the marriage. I'm not saying I like it or would like being in that situation or think it's at all fair. I'm still not sure I'd call it coercion.

I know this is kind of a side thought to the main thread. I do believe people have free will, yet I also believe that intimate partners can take what they know and use it to manipulate or control the other person. Some people are more susceptible to allowing that. Therefore I think coercion is a thing and know many marriages in which there is some form of coercion even if it’s not this extreme

I did a philosophy thesis on free will, and it's an extraordinarily complex topic. That being said, I'm not wholly convinced we do have free will at all. Not in the sense I'd describe it anyway. We are profoundly molded by our environment, how we were raised, our external influences, our genetics, and our hormone levels—none of our choices are therefore able to be made in a vacuum. Every thought, desire, and decision is merely the final manifestation of a colossal, unbroken causal chain that extends from our past all the way back to our birth and beyond.

We certainly have a very compelling illusion of free will though. This feeling of "choosing" is likely a crucial evolutionary mechanism for survival, planning, and establishing moral responsibility, which is the basis of any functional society. The experience of free will is a psychological necessity, even if the reality of it is lacking.

The topic of coercion is fascinating because some people are incredibly susceptible to it. In this circumstance, I would say this husband falls into this camp. For context, the husband was unable to accept her choice to be poly and they went to counseling. The counselor has very clearly brainwashed him into accepting things.

This situation presents a paradox: if we don't have true free will, coercion isn't about taking it away; it's about manipulating the causal inputs to force a specific, desired outcome. The therapist is injecting new, toxic environmental inputs into the husband's decision-making process to override his established values and beliefs.

You hear the very toxic weaponized therapy terms such as: he doesn't own her sexuality and endless other examples. The problem isn't whether one person "owns" another's sexuality—which is a non-starter—but the violation of a reciprocal contract (the monogamy agreement). By focusing on the buzzwords of autonomy and ownership, the therapist (and perhaps the wife) is framing the discussion as a moral failing on the husband's part rather than a negotiation about a broken contract. This shifts the burden onto the person upholding the agreement, making his entirely reasonable feelings of hurt or disagreement seem "unhealthy" or "toxic."

I do believe he believes he's there of his own free will, as do I think many spouses who reconcile but so do the majority of cult members until they get away from the situation. Even then, it can take years to deprogram. The analogy holds because the husband is in a state of cognitive dissonance, where the easiest path to internal peace is to internalize the new, toxic ideology presented by the authority figure (the counselor). He chooses to believe it to avoid the greater pain of loss, isolation, and conflict, but it is a choice coerced by the emotional stakes and the manufactured framing of the situation. The ethical line in counseling is crossed when the pursuit of one partner's preference is prioritized over the mutual integrity of the contractual relationship, using psychological leverage to force acceptance

Certainly some could argue he is there of his own free will. And while there is nothing physically restraining him from leaving, that’s not really the point.

IMO he is in a very difficult position. On the one hand, he divorces her. He loses his lifestyle, his home, access to his children, whatever assets he has to turn over to his wife etc. He also has the added knowledge that other men could potentially be around his children long term.

Or he stays and suffers until he can find a tolerable way of coping with it.

So does he truly have free will here?

Someone asked if he had the option to date as well. From what I gathered, he does but chooses to stay monogamous. Now some could argue that if he’s offered the same opportunity, it’s not coercion. I respectfully disagree.

I use the topic of RA’s to refute that. Many BS are offered hall passes from their WS. If the respondents on this site are any indication, most don’t use them. Why? Because they feel that their values and marriage vows still mean something to them, even if they don’t to the WS.

That’s why I really feel is going on here. I honestly believe she knew this would be his reaction and position given her complete lack of empathy on how he feels about this arrangement.