Wilkes: Why Open Marriages Benefit Women

I can only imagine how many child support checks a woman may be able to collect in such a scenario should she eventually get divorced and get court-ordered paternity tests on her kids... in any case given the way human sexuality seems to work from a political standpoint I have no doubt that a woman in an open marriage would benefit in so many ways far more substantially than her husband. The only thing stopping the typical woman undoubtedly from pursuing such an arrangement is her own romantic notions about marriage and the fear that her husband may get drawn away from her by someone else, and all with her blessing for his carrying on with her, no less. Other than that, what else would stop her from wanting such a thing since there would be so much to be gained in terms of emotional and material support from it? Some societies practice polyandry just as some practice polygamy, only in those that practice polygamy the burden is still on the husband to provide for the wives while in societies that practice polyandry, the husbands still have the burden of providing for the wife. The gender roles don't seem to change despite the direction the formula goes in. For women, really, what's not to like about polyandry, especially if she can still take any of her husbands to the cleaners if she divorces one (or more) of them?

if society ever someday seriously starts searching for a real one,
it might well flip the equation again.
men could very easily go from being $crewed by the courts,
to gaining control of one's own reproduction. that's called serious leverage in a relationship.
a man could say when and where and how many. no more "ooppps! pay meeeeeee".
i mean, you would think all guys would figure it out eventually, but alas.

about open marriages? if men do ever do get effective m.b.c., then heck yeah, let's get 'er done!
women won't like equality, and financial and sexual freedom for men.

and it ain't gonna happen if they can help it. safe bet. no odds available.

Open relationships are only fun until someone gets pregnant. Then it is a disaster for all involved including the baby.

MBC will be similar to female BC, a man will have false sense of 100% security, and then an accident will occur.

Anyone else notice the caveat that makes the open marriage as described rather one sided as far as benefits go? The author describes an open marriage, but sex is going to far. She then describes how men want extramarital sex while women want the lead up to sex.

When men have "open marriages," it's a scandal. Things are always different for women.

She asked a bunch of women who suck at relationships and they agreed, in their own opinions, they're actually better wives. Self serving delusion doesn't get any more direct than that.

Sorry, but I disagree with much of your comment Matt, particularly these......

> "I can only imagine how many child support checks a woman may be able to collect...."

> "The only thing stopping the typical woman undoubtedly from pursuing such an arrangement is her own romantic notions about marriage and the fear that her husband may get drawn away from her by someone else, and all with her blessing for his carrying on with her, no less. Other than that, what else would stop her from wanting such a thing since there would be so much to be gained in terms of emotional and material support from it?"

What is stopping both genders from multi-partner sexual relationships (such as polygamy, polyandry and open marriages) is the natural balance which is a mix of "supply and demand" and "risk to benefit ratio". Women's needs and concerns are different from men's needs and concerns which are why there has historically been more polygamous cultures compared to polyandrous cultures (I'm not really sure if there has been any polyandrous cultures or just isolated circumstances).

When modern couples agree to open marriages it is because they perceive little/no risk and all reward. Maybe that is how it will work out for them or maybe not. The risk goes down if both husband and wife are sterile (vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.)

I would think that fear of your spouse getting emotionally involved with an extra sex partner would be a legitimate fear (risk) for a person of any gender.

Fertile women have the risk of pregnancy. In an open marriage if pregnancy occurs, she must be willing to abort or possibly lose her husband, her home and disrupt her family. If she gives birth, it is doubtful she would receive enough child support to offset the expense/risk/stress of pregnancy and life-long parenthood (parenthood does not stop at 18) This is why only pro-abortion, unconcerned-type females, or non-fertile women engage in this behavior. If a husband gets an extra sex partner pregnant, that will also take away financially and emotionally from his established family.

A woman will never be better off single with multiple children with multiple partners, or with a husband who creates a "lovechild" compared to a woman married with children by the same father. Convoluted families do not benefit anyone - not financially nor emotionally!

1. women can't trust men to take mbc. remember that one? like we can really trust them.

2. men don't really want it. yeah, that's us. here, let me write another check and beg some more to see YOUR child.

3. enough men won't take it to make it economically feasible to develop. almost 1/2 of the population as a potantial market, but that's not enough i guess. he!!, they develop drugs for a fraction of 1% of the population.

and now let's add kris' latest

4. like women and fbc, a man will have a false sense of 100% security, and then an accident will occur.

let me get this out there. fbc is what, 99% effective, or somewhere along those lines? i've known hundreds of guys that have had that sickening "oops" moment, myself included. so 99 out of 100 times, when she is able to get pregnant (couple days a month) millions of women "accidentally" get pregnant? if you had those odds in a casino you would never need to work again.

btw, if men had something even 90% effective, there would be no abortion industry, child support industry, alimony or divorce industry. maybe we would have real marriages again.

"Fertile women have the risk of pregnancy. In an open marriage if pregnancy occurs, she must be willing to abort or possibly lose her husband, her home and disrupt her family."

I didn't even know where to start unpacking your comment, so I thought I might as well with that: what if a pregnancy occurs.

If I were a woman, here is how I would play it. I would start out life trying to marry the RICHEST man whether or not I had any romantic inclinations towards him. I would live and enjoy my life in the lap of luxury as I pursued multiple romantic relationship with men whom I saw a more permanent bond with. Now, should pregnancy occur, my options are:
a) ditch the rich man, collect 50% of his life savings, and marry the more desirable lover
b) keep the rich man, fooling him into raising the child of the more desirable lover.
c) ditch the rich man, raise the more desirable child on my own, still have 50% of the undesirable's money.

Alternatively, if the more desirable lover is also richer then ditching the undesirable man who had been taking care of me up until then and marrying the richer lover is also a win.

Either way, with guaranteed child custody and child support, getting around with as many men as possible is a win, win, win, win, win for a sought-after woman. There's very little downside in trying to trade up until the cows come home. Now, if I were a fat old woman with a disfigured face and a grating personality, I would have to take that kind of stuff into consideration when looking at the risks involved in this scheme.

But as a man, I would never, ever, ever agree to having a wife who went around with other men. That would just be crazy. Why would I allow her to that? I'd never marry her, forget about it. Why would I want to knowingly risk the sort of situation where a woman who doesn't truly love me will treat me like shit, take advantage of everything I have to offer, and even if I try to break it off it's always me who risks losing everything else that I have worked so hard to build as well as any existing children. Yeah, existing kids - basically blackmail in the hands of a philandering woman who is just saying, "I dare you to try and stop me or leave me!"

I am discussing "open marriages" where both spouses have given consent and agreement to each have sex with other people while maintaining their existing family unit and debating if a woman would gain wealth if she became pregnant by an "outside lover". Although the swinging lifestyle may be gaining popularity there are reasons why it is not mainstream and why most married couples do not partake in it. Especially couples when there is risk of pregnancy. It is because of the financial and emotional risk involved.

I have been visiting swinging websites (don't ask - long story) and there are far more men involved compared to women. Finding enough women to partake is a problem and is noted in most "beginners guide to swinging". Men cannot even join some groups unless they can prove that they have a willing female partner to bring with them. If you think married women with potential for becoming pregnant have so much more to gain from swinging, why are they so outnumbered?

I have not seen women gain financially or emotionally from having children with multiple partners. If having babies is such a slam dunk to wealth how do you explain all the women taking birth control or having abortions. (BTW- wealthy women are more apt to take birth control and abort. Explain why most single mothers end up poor instead of rich. The only women who might benefit from having babies are women of low potential and/or already below poverty level).

Here is what I know about having babies outside of marriage and child support:

> pregnancy and single motherhood impacts a woman's career, job opportunities and limits her salary potential

> Babies are expensive

> having babies makes you less able to attract high-potential future partners (I don't beleive a woman could keep trading up as you imply, as she will get older and each pregnancy will diminisher her value, so-to-speak)

> child support rarely covers 50% of expenses associated with raising kids Especially if the man has other children he is supporting (doesn't matter if her child is born first)

> if father is uninvolved then all emotional and physical support must come from the mother 24/7 (very tiring, and limits social, physical, and career opportunities for the mother )

>even when court ordered to pay child support, many fathers don't (unemployed, works under the table, change of circumstances, unable to locate, moves out of country, etc)

>. father is only responsible for 18 years, however parenthood lasts a lifetime and usually expenses run past 18 years.

> pregnancy takes a toll on a woman's body and inhibits her from doing many things for at least a year and permanently alters her body.

> I am not aware of many husbands willing to stay with a wife if she is pregnant by another man as a result of an "open marriage". (Dungone suggests that the wife staying with her husband is a likely option. BTW, - bringing another child into the household does not increase her wealth, it diminishes it) But should they divorce due to the pregnancy it is mathematically impossible to have more money after a divorce. if you take the whole of all assets and divide it by two, it can never be more than the original amount. One household will now have to become two households, plus the additional child. I firmly beleive a woman's financial position will only stay intact if she aborts the pregnancy and keeps her existing family unit under the same roof.

If you argue that a husband might reluctantly stay with his pregnant wife for fear of financial loss from divorce - then I would think you would agree with my original sentiment which is that most men would not allow their wives to have multiple sexual partners in the first place for the risk involved especially if fertility is an issue and women would not be motivated to get pregnant outside of their marriage because it increases her risk for divorce and single motherhood (which leads to loss of wealth).

You see, the risk to benefit ratio keeps the system in check. Take out the risk of pregnancy and you will have more husbands and wives embracing open marriages. That is the point I am making. (of course there are other risks to consider)

Having babies for the sake of collecting child support is extremely risky and a huge effort/life-long altering experience and very rarely boosts a woman's income to more than she could have made without having children. Look around and see if single women with no kids and traditional families (husband + wife + kids) have more wealth compared to single mothers and convoluted families (partner + partner + partner + children + stepchildren). Ask yourself: who lives in the ghettos and who lives in the upper class neighborhoods?

Dungone, I hope you don't give out financial advise for a living. .

according to all the lawyers i have talked to about this,
any child produced during a marriage is the responsibility of the husband.
d.n.a. is not allowed in a marriage. it is called something like the fruits of the marriage bed.

so, technically, a married woman can do whatever she wants with whomever, and the husband is
stuck with the final bill. lots of guys raising other people's kids as their own.

there was a segment of some news show (60 minutes?) a while back where a husband and wife married 20? years had 4 kids. one girl about 16 and three boys 5,6,7? (somewhere along in there) and they all looked just like the dad. had pix of them posing together with similar haircuts. the youngest had cystic fibrosis, so everybody had a blood test looking for the best donor, and guess what? the girl was his but the 3 boys were her long time boyfriend's. this caused a divorce. she got the typical kids, house, his truck, his boat, alimony, lawyers paid for, etc. and child support, for all four kids. and then boyfriend moved in with her and started raising his kids (driving x's truck, boat, etc.). the girl moved into the hovel with her father, but he still had to send mama c.s. for her too. he couldn't afford a lawyer to fight it. said she stayed with nondaddy because he had a better job than boyfriend dadddy.

so technically, in the u.s. of the offended, women pretty much already have an open marriage. they can even bring boyfriends home, make you wait outside while they play, and if you dare lift a finger against it, v.a.w.a. gives them plenty of our tax $$$ to hire her a lawyer (and a judge) and send your arse to jail. knew a guy once whose wife already had the dvorce papers made out. if he didn't tow the line her way (boyfriends), she would just pop them out for him to read. you don't want someone who hates you having complete control of your childen. BELIEVE!