# Coercion



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

As an addition to the "needs" thread, I thought it might be a good idea to discuss coercion. 

I often see the recommendation to do what amounts to coercing a spouse to get what you want.....ie do less for them, threaten divorce, etc.

Coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. 

I struggle with this, because on one hand I get why one tires of making a lot of effort where they feel it isn't being reciprocated. And there's certainly nothing wrong with letting your spouse know what you're willing and not willing to live with. 

Otoh, often things you get by way of coercion aren't very satisfying.....paricularly where intimacy is concerned.

So I guess where I'm going with this is that you can certainly try to coerce your spouse into doing whatever you want, but you need to be clear on what that's going to get you.

Probably not an excited, willing partner. More likely a really resentful partner.....if they were willing you wouldn't need to coerce.

So what say you? Do you see what constitutes coercion differently? When do you think it's appropriate to use it and are you ok with what you'll get for it?

In general I'm not willing to coerce things out of my spouse, but I actually do think there can be appropriate times for it. I'll throw my own example out there: as many of you know my hb used to have terrible boundaries with his ex and her family. After putting up with it for way too long I basically told him I wasn't dealing with it anymore. I never directly threatened to leave but it was probably implied on some level. 

And guess what? His boundaries got much better. Was he pissed off about it? Perhaps, but it wasn't something I was willing to keep putting up with and he decided I was more important, so I'm happy. And I reciprocate what I ask.

But if I wanted more touching and he grudgingly gave it to me under threat of divorce it would be very unappealing.

Discuss.


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

Isn't that producing a victim to a degree, and in it's desire a mild form of torture to get what one wants with implied leaving the relationship a leverage?

Much different than a boundary... I would think of it as it's undesirable opposite, kind of an "evil twin".


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> As an addition to the "needs" thread, I thought it might be a good idea to discuss coercion.
> 
> I often see the recommendation to do what amounts to coercing a spouse to get what you want.....ie do less for them, threaten divorce, etc.
> 
> Coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.


Threatening divorce can be coercion, depending on how it's presented, but following through and divorcing them is a consequence. Doing less for them, or no longer trying to meet their needs when yours aren't being met is not - it's a consequence of their behavior. There is no force, no threat involved. How they handle it is entirely up to them. You hope there will be a realization of the imbalance, and that they will do something to correct it, but you are not telling them what to do.

Let's say your needs aren't being met. You can say that we have a problem, and we need to work on it. If we can't find a mutually workable solution, then we probably won't survive as a couple. That's setting up a scenario for negotiation, not coercion. On the other hand, if you say that we need to have sex at least three times a week, otherwise I'm divorcing you, then that's coercion. It's forcing the issue with the threat of divorce. It's not a mutual negotiation.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Subtle manipulation works far better, but there are things it can't accomplish...


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Emerging Buddhist said:


> Isn't that producing a victim to a degree, and in it's desire a mild form of torture to get what one wants with implied leaving the relationship a leverage?
> 
> Much different than a boundary... I would think of it as it's undesirable opposite, kind of an "evil twin".


What if the boundary IS leaving the marriage?? Sometimes that's a true, realistic boundary. It's not producing a victim, it's preventing, perhaps, the person stating their boundary from remaining in an unhealthy situation.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Threatening divorce can be coercion, depending on how it's presented, but following through and divorcing them is a consequence. Doing less for them, or no longer trying to meet their needs when yours aren't being met is not - it's a consequence of their behavior. There is no force, no threat involved. How they handle it is entirely up to them. You hope there will be a realization of the imbalance, and that they will do something to correct it, but you are not telling them what to do.
> 
> Let's say your needs aren't being met. You can say that we have a problem, and we need to work on it. If we can't find a mutually workable solution, then we probably won't survive as a couple. That's setting up a scenario for negotiation, not coercion. On the other hand, if you say that we need to have sex at least three times a week, otherwise I'm divorcing you, then that's coercion. It's forcing the issue with the threat of divorce. It's not a mutual negotiation.



That makes sense. Certainly boundaries and clearly defined needs are vital to a healthy relationship as is a willing spouse.

I think there is probably a grey area where the two can overlap.

Sometimes I see people continuing to beat a dead horse, where for various reasons they don't want to leave the relationship but their spouse has made clear that needs x, y, and/or z aren't going to happen. So they look for ways to manipulate and coerce in order to avoid the really hard decision of walking away.

They can of course choose to live with it and accept it, but people don't seem to be good at it. It's like they think there has to be a way to coerce a spouse into doing what they want.


My father always told me to recognize people for who and what they are, not who you want them to be. It's amazing to me how much trouble people seem to have with that.


----------



## _anonymous_ (Apr 18, 2016)

My experience has been that coercion is generally a bad move for husband and wife. 

Once it's perceived as effective at getting one's way, it gets used far too often, e.g. whenever someone gets offended or is unhappy, there's a threat of sorts. 

Not only is this childish behavior, it's inevitable that coercion gets applied so often that it's eventually no longer effective. The coerced person literally stops caring, and just doing what he/she believes is appropriate. In those circumstances, continued coercion just hurts the relationship and doesn't change behavior.

Hindsight is 20/20. It would've been far better if my wife and I never coerced each other, and just communicated to the point of understanding. If emotions are right, understanding your partner's needs can lead to accommodation. But coercion only stands to temporarily change behavior and ultimately destroy the right emotions... at least it did so for me.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

I don't understand why people EVER think it's a good idea to try to MAKE someone do what you want them to. Even to marry them in the first place! My husbands sister told her boyfriend to either marry her or get lost. So he married her. They're divorced. - big surprise. He should have gotten lost in the first place.

If you don't want to try and understand your spouse and work with them on things then there's a problem. People who think ultimatums are a useful tool need to give their head a shake.

The only ultimatums that should be used are those that will result in what you want either way. Such as kicking your cheating spouse the hell out. If they won't stop cheating they DO need to get the hell out. Simple. But to do something like withhold sex from your husband because he didn't take out the trash - that's just childish.


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

john117 said:


> Subtle manipulation works far better, but there are things it can't accomplish...


Isn't this what a "defecation" test is?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Emerging Buddhist said:


> Isn't this what a "defecation" test is?


The test is part of the process, generally to establish operating parameters...


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Threatening divorce, to skip a family event, and even to ground a teenager until their 30 aren't coercion. They are consequences.

Threatening to kill their cat, expose their tax returns, or publish a picture of their naked butt when they were 9 months old and so damn cute you could eat them up..are coercive because although they too are consequences, they aren't logical consequences of whatever behavior is being addressed.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

I have no basis in this area. People have heard my wife is a broken toy. Personally I feel once someone has been broken by brainwashing there's no coming back from it. She wanted out, and I came along. I am a strong leader. She switched her allegiance to me. 

I have to be careful, and guard what I say in order to keep Mary from doing something silly to satisfy a mistaken perception. 

With her illness it is very difficult for me to get information out of her about something I might do which bothers her, so I can improve. 

I think having her read posts on this site over my shoulder has actually helped in that respect. I took her to the bank the other day to open her own checking account for her Social Security deposits. A few days later in the morning she timidly said I had said something which made her feel disrespected. 

I was surprised. Normally she wouldn't mention anything so minor, and she typically waits years to say anything about any issues. It must be because of you guys!

I took the day off work and took her around to several places, including that bank, and made sure I kept quiet. She was so happy she was bouncing in her seat all day. 

Coercion? I don't know.

But I do thank everyone for helping Mary feel empowered to speak up more.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> Threatening divorce, to skip a family event, and even to ground a teenager until their 30 aren't coercion. They are consequences.
> 
> Threatening to kill their cat, expose their tax returns, or publish a picture of their naked butt when they were 9 months old and so damn cute you could eat them up..are coercive because although they too are consequences, they aren't logical consequences of whatever behavior is being addressed.


I think it also depends on circumstances. Sometimes threatening divorce can be coercive, if you're using it for a ridiculous reason or you don't mean it. Like telling your spouse if they don't give you 5 blow jobs a day you'll divorce them. THAT is coercive. Or threatening divorce all the time for petty things like putting the toilet paper on backwards.

Threatening to kill a cat could be a logical consequence in certain cases too. Like if it's super sick but the spouse just can't give them up. Telling them that if they don't put it out of it's misery you will is then a natural consequence 

My point being that in different scenarios, the same thing could be either a logical consequence or a coercive tactic.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

That is a completely backwards way of looking at it. It's like saying the local police man is coercing me into parking properly by writing tickets. He is not accepting me for the lazy parker that I am and will probably always be. I guess I could get all upset and resentful that he is making me park next to the curb instead of out in the middle of the street. But is that going to make me a better citizen, is it going to produce a safe environment? No as long as I insist on doing things that promote disharmony, there will be disharmony.

Now to leave that analogy and get back to the subject at hand. Mrs Nail had determined in her mind that having sex with me was something she no longer wanted to do. I went through the regular list, Was I unattractive? Did I do something that caused resentment? How was the distribution of household chores? But she claimed she was happy with all of that. So I started a separation. A coercion if you insist. I started doing things with out her, I stopped initiating sexual encounters. I adjusted my needs so I wouldn't miss the fulfillment she no longer desired to give. This is what @Married but Happy calls consequences. She wanted to create physical distance between us, I responded by introducing emotional distance, not to coerce her, but to protect me. The distance was painful until I stopped wanting closeness. In other words separation led to more separation. 

Now Mrs Nail has no problem initiating regular sexual encounters at about twice the previous rate. I see no signs of resentment. What has happened is that she has decided that she wants closeness, and to get it she is willing to give me closeness. As western people we have some pretty strong feelings about personal freedom. We believe that we have many rights and we work hard to get them codified into law. But no matter how many laws we write, we will not be able to escape the logical consequences of our actions. If we step off the rim of the grand canyon we will certainly fall. And if we ignore the emotional needs of a spouse, we will create Distance. It's not coercion, it's Gravity.

Everyone is of course Free to deny their partners emotional needs, but , everyone is also free (extremely free) to leave their partner and find a better match.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

What you did with your wife wasn't coercion, not by my definition. It WOULD have been coercion if you had told her that unless she had more sex you would go and cheat.

Handing out parking tickets isn't coercion either. There is no relationship between Joe Citizen and the law. The law is impersonal and everyone has to abide by the same laws, they aren't optional.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Hope1964 said:


> I think it also depends on circumstances. Sometimes threatening divorce can be coercive, if you're using it for a ridiculous reason or you don't mean it. Like telling your spouse if they don't give you 5 blow jobs a day you'll divorce them. THAT is coercive. Or threatening divorce all the time for petty things like putting the toilet paper on backwards.
> 
> Threatening to kill a cat could be a logical consequence in certain cases too. Like if it's super sick but the spouse just can't give them up. Telling them that if they don't put it out of it's misery you will is then a natural consequence
> 
> My point being that in different scenarios, the same thing could be either a logical consequence or a coercive tactic.


Right.

Divorce over only 4 blow jobs a week when 5 per day were requested isn't very reasonable or logical, IMO.

If the cat is sick euthanizing is a logical consequence, IMO.

These are boundaries issues and everyone gets to decide what they will and won't accept, just as everyone gets to decide what they find a logical consequence to a reasonable expectation.

I'm not being coerced into giving 5 blow jobs a day...if I see that as reasonable and I might see that as reasonable if my desperation to avoid divorce at all costs is also reasonable. 

Two negative combine to make a positive.  They're both unreasonable, IMO but it works for them so...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Like needs, coercion covers a wide range. 

Threatening or engaging in some illegal action (physical harm etc) is always unacceptable. 

"Natural" consequences, if true, are generally OK. "if you don't get a job, we will lose the house". 

Where things get tricky is statements of intended actions: If you aren't willing to have sex once a week I will ask for a divorce.

The problem is that "threatening" to leave has a different effect depending on the situation. Although I've never done so, I don't think it would be immoral to threaten to leave my wife. No kids and she is independently wealthy. My leaving would have no significant negative consequences on her other than the loss our relationship. With a stay at home mom, it would be a different situation.


I think overall its OK to tell someone you are going to leave if they don't agree to some action, but only if you are willing to do everything practical to make sure that they do not suffer a non proportionate amount from ending the relationship AND if you truly intend to carry through on leaving. 

Its a very tricky question.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I know that if I offer massage Mrs. Nail will magically become sexually aroused. Works every time, asleep or awake, tired or stressed, all I have to do is put a hand on her shoulder and start working. in short order she will be doing things that she wouldn't have considered as little as a half hour ago. Sounds a lot like coercion to me. In fact all Seduction is an attempt to get someone to do something they hadn't planned on.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

hmmm, I've had little to no luck with any of the following:

manipulation
coercion
asking nicely
asking not so nicely
suggestion

Any time I merely suggest something done differently, it's met with a "how dare you" stare.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Mr. Nail said:


> I know that if I offer massage Mrs. Nail will magically become sexually aroused. Works every time, asleep or awake, tired or stressed, all I have to do is put a hand on her shoulder and start working. in short order she will be doing things that she wouldn't have considered as little as a half hour ago. Sounds a lot like coercion to me. In fact all Seduction is an attempt to get someone to do something they hadn't planned on.


I don't think that's coercion..... it's in no way forcing or threatening.

Creating an environment favorable to your desired outcome with a willing partner is completely different.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

lifeistooshort said:


> I don't think that's coercion..... it's in no way forcing or threatening.
> 
> Creating an environment favorable to your desired outcome with a willing partner is completely different.


Agreed. Just because someone is doing something they don't want to, or didn't want to at some point, doesn't make it coercion. I am not being coerced into working my ****ty job for ****ty pay. I do it because I haven't found anything else for the moment.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

So many concepts, so little time.

Marriage is all about continuously growing as individuals and that means growing a part from your spouse emotionally. For a marriage to last, both need to be committed to it and both need to change themselves from time to time. David Schnarch says that as we grow we self-differentiate. He also says that this creates stress and conflicts with our spouse. We need to examine our self and see if we can change so that our spouse is less in conflict. To do that we many need to "self soothe" so that we can accept ourself or our spouse acting in ways that are not comfortable for us. Or we need to determine if this is a hard boundary that if we changed it would deeply lessen our self worth.

Only you and your spouse can conduct that negotiation and each perform the necessary introspection. 

Digression, my wife will never give or receive oral sex, even though many times she promised me she would or that she was saving if to keep the spice in our marriage alive when we were older (we are 68 & 67). I have had a world class sex therapist work with us on that. It is a personal boundary issue for my wife. I have to either accept that and find something else that we can both enjoy or divorce her. I can't bribe her, I can't logically explain why it isn't a mortal sin, I can't threaten her, my asking her to do it for me is of no use. 

I believe that you cannot change your partner, they are the only one who can change themself. You can reinforce positive behavior. You can try 180's to see if different behavior results. Demanding or threatening a partner to change is only appropriate if you are willing to live up to your ultimatum and even then it is probably not a good approach to someone that is your spouse.

Negotiation is not coercion. Some people feel so guilty about some things that they feel it is, but that is their problem. Keep negotiating for what you want, but learn to recognize that some things will never change. On those, figure out your own boundaries and live with them and expect that you spouse will do the same.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

So if you re right and marriage is a journey of individual growth, Why do I need a spouse to do it?
And while we are discussing imponderables, If I have no right to have any expectations of my spouse, Did she have a right to expect me to show up for the wedding?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I think coercion (and the manipulation inherent in it) is weak and a tool of weak people. It certainly does not inspire me.

If my partner threatened or tried to otherwise manipulate me in any way, I think the only healthy response would be to leave him. We play fair or we don't play.

He already has more power in this relationship than I do. Threatening me or trying to force me in any way would be an abuse of that power. 

Coercion/manipulation in personal relationships is definitely a red flag to me, and a keyhole into a person's character.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

lifeistooshort said:


> Sometimes I see people continuing to beat a dead horse, where for various reasons they don't want to leave the relationship but their spouse has made clear that needs x, y, and/or z aren't going to happen. So they look for ways to manipulate and coerce in order to avoid the really hard decision of walking away.
> 
> They can of course choose to live with it and accept it, but people don't seem to be good at it. It's like they think there has to be a way to coerce a spouse into doing what they want.
> 
> *My father always told me to recognize people for who and what they are, not who you want them to be.* It's amazing to me how much trouble people seem to have with that.


 I agree with your Father.... Personally ... I don't think I could live (and he happy) with someone I wasn't compatible with on a fundamental level in the ways that DEEPLY satisfy my soul... values, love languages...our dreams to name a few...

There are things that wouldn't bother me about a man that WOULD bother other women.. then things I could NEVER PUT UP With that other women could over look, and think little of - we all have different fulfillments... even with compatibility though..we need MORE THAN THIS... we need someone self aware too.. willing to work with us.. to care about *"the US"*.. not just the "I" or "ME"..... we're all different, have different wants, desires, lusts and levels of emotional needs... we need to know what we could live with.. and what we'd still seek to change in another...where we'd be banging our head against the wall, only to end up resentful and struggling, become a Nag, or withdrawn out of frustration....

While dating is when to figure all this out... but unfortunately people can still CHANGE....grow in another direction, decide they didn't know who they were or whatever excuse they give... a tragedy can change some, who we are hanging with (influences)...what we are listening to....some of those can be good or bad for our marriages even... 

None of us want to become a Nag, or controlling / bossy to get what we want... If I had to resort to any of this...for me.. I wouldn't like who I was becoming either...besides being frustrated with my partner... it's a lose lose...


----------

