SurvivingInfidelity.com® > General

LtCdrLost posted 4/7/2019 09:06 AM

My original statement: The idea that reconciling oneself to having sexually shared ones spouse somehow improves a marriage is to me, ludicrous.

Your retort, with my statement quoted so I will now riposte:

People like sex. People are imperfect. Demanding perfection in this one thing smacks of unnecessary fear - fear of women and fear of other men. I know that's counter-intuitive, but it's how I see it, perhaps because I can't possibly compete with my W's ap.

Sir, your choice was to accept a wayward wife's betrayal, which I and many like me choose to never accept. I'd like to give a full-throated laugh in the face of your assertion that is in any conceivable way based in fear. You seem to be willing to go quite far in justifying your particular choice regarding a wife who chose to give herself to another man while married to you. I lack the ability to engage in the sort of mental gymnastics required to equate such treacherous activities to things which took place prior to the marriage. Unlike you, I have no need of justification for my actions of nearly a year ago and so I will refrain from asserting what your reason(s) for that might be.

Edit: Sisoon, I took a minute & read the story on your profile. I apologize for assuming your WW's AP was a man. If my own WW had carried on a months long PA with a woman while I was deployed, it's certain I'd have still divorced her, but the primal rage at her allowing another man to penetrate her & ejaculate in her (and all the other male/female things they did) would obviously not have been part of the equation. I wouldn't have burned a female AP's life to the ground, as I did the enlisted man who enjoyed my wife so thoroughly. So, my assumption was in error...

[This message edited by LtCdrLost at 12:55 PM, April 7th (Sunday)]

nofeelings posted 4/7/2019 12:11 PM

I 100% agree with "if no kids, Divorce Divorce Divorce"

If you decide to R, but for the reason so you could see kids everyday and take care of them until they old enough, then do it, but go into it without hopium.

You will have doubts about possibility of affairs as long as you are together because the trust can't be completely rebuild no matter how much work WS does - its human nature. And chances that WS does enough work to fix their issues are very slim, because it is very hard work and requires WS to own their actions and face all the hurt and damage they caused. A lot to ask from already broken person.

So what usually happens with R is WS shows enough remorse and work to rope BS back into M and it all goes back into "normal". And since WS did not fix their issues, the chances of them having A remains very high and usually happen again and again. BS can choose to ignore it, or eventually D.

I am not saying R without WS having another A does not happen - I am saying it is very rare. I personally know a couple who R more than 10 years ago and it all looks going well - however no guarantee that they wont end up like my story at some point later:

My WW had A 8 years ago. I decided to R because of small kids and hopium. I put a lot of work in counseling and improving what kind of husband, father and person I am. She did some work initially and at some point decided she completely resolved all her issues. Meanwhile, I put lot of effort on improving everything that she felt was not good in our M. It pains me so much just thinking about it, but I am sure I did all I could to make this work.

All of it did not matter, because she never fixed whatever entitled her to have an A first time. She had another PA and it was all my fault

My kids are teens now, so this time wont be any R and we are heading towards D. I feel very sad and angry about my WW wasting gift of R, but that's on her. Meanwhile, I completely transformed my relationship with my kids and I became much better dad and better person. Maybe I could have done the same while D and would have avoided all this pain of another A - so I did pay the price for hanging on to hopium for too long.

[This message edited by nofeelings at 12:15 PM, April 7th (Sunday)]

NotTheManIwas posted 4/7/2019 12:20 PM

but go into it without hopium.

There ya go...

Wishiwasnthereto posted 4/7/2019 12:41 PM

Nofeelings, very well put. Too much to ask from someone broken is right.

OrdinaryDude posted 4/7/2019 14:41 PM

Lost, I completely agree. Again I’m not trying to minimize what any betrayed BW has gone through here.

“1. When a man cheats, it is assumed he is deficient. When a woman cheats, it is assumed the man is deficient.”

This.

A generation ago woman who committed adultery were shamed and shunned. My BW’s side of the family and friends circled around her. Their point of view was Well you should have treated her better then she wouldn’t have to go out and tuck other married men. Based on assumptions.
When I went to the book store or searched the Internet 99% of the information was about Men cheating.

This is so very accurate, cheaters are nearly always portrayed as male in virtual all forms of publication.

This is also why I have to this point not outed my WW to the rest of the family beyond our adult kids...they were the ones that would bring her the most shame, and did they ever.

As noted above, men have only a small fraction of the support that women do in all this, and many live in silent agony for decades because of it...it nearly cost me my life, thank God for SI.

I can say this, I’ve decided I won’t sleep with one eye open in R, but if things were to go sideways again, she won’t know what hit her world.

marriageredux959 posted 4/7/2019 16:14 PM

A slightly different way of looking at it:

The WS has to want to change his/her self, attitudes, behaviors (I'm going to use the generic "his," etc. for the remainder of this post to save typing) not for the BS, nor for the kids, nor for anyone else, but because the WS wants to change for himself.

Change motivated by pleasing others never, ever sticks as well as change motivated by improving the quality of one's own life.

I know, I know, this concept tosses "regret vs. remorse" right on its head, but it has some applicability.

People are going to do what punches their buttons. (And, at a certain esoteric, purely theoretical level, they should- otherwise, what good is free will?)

Husband traded his integrity, his vow and his word for several minutes of two handfuls of another woman and his own hard dick. What felt amazing in the moment felt incredibly stupid mere minutes after it was over and the fog lifted.

Before he even dealt with telling me (or not) he knew he didn't want to be that person and he never wanted to be that person again. He'd made a stupid, self-destructive deal: he'd traded something of real value, his word, for fool's gold, a fleeting, transient physical experience with an anonymous woman whom he'd never even see again.

In this particular aspect, I as a person barely figure into it.

Even if I'd never found out, he'd still be the man who broke his vow over a cheap, transient act.

Where I do figure into it, me, personally, the damage to someone he loves and respects, that's injury added to self-inflicted insult. Bonus round, value added.

I've been telling Husband for months that he hurt himself far more grievously and far deeper than he hurt me. I can walk off of this shit at any time of my choosing. He owns this shit for life.

Guys- would it make, would it have made a difference to you, if your wife came to that conclusion on her own? Would it make any difference if she came to you with a full confession, and this depth and type of realization and self-awareness?

Or is your major damage that your wife is "contaminated" by another man?

I *think* this is an aspect to which the women on SI are reacting and responding: characterizing your wife as damaged goods because she was "contaminated" by another man is paramount to treating her as chattel, rather than a self-realized person of free will and agency and self-determination (however misguided or ill-applied, in cases of infidelity.)

I'll give you the "ick factor" all day long- I get it- but unless both you and your wife were virgins up until the moment you touched each other, then you are being selective, and perhaps selectively punishing, with your "ick factor."

To discard your wife solely because another man touched her body is to declare that what men do is more important than the woman with whom they do it- both you, the husband, and the other man. You and the other man are the stars of the show. She is merely the stage. She is chattel, and now she is damaged goods. And nothing more.

I'm the BS but if I was the WW and I caught a whiff of that from my BH, I'd be gone. That's a big red flag that I'll never be more in this marriage than a reflection of his ego.

I don't see my husband as "contaminated" by the other woman. I see him as having dinged his own integrity.

Damage to one's own integrity either matters to a WS, or it doesn't. If it matters, reconciliation is possible, probably even likely.

IF one's own integrity doesn't matter (forget all of the pretzel logic behind "regret vs. remorse" for the moment) then reconciliation is impossible. It is a fool's errand to invest more in another's integrity than that person invests themselves.

There will always, always, always be weaker points, weaker moments in any marriage. There will always be temptations and opportunities. What prevents infidelity isn't the absence of temptations and opportunities (although it helps) nor does it lie in the perpetual perfection of the spouse and of the marriage (impossible.) It lies in the integrity of both spouses.

Empathy lies here as well: in the knowledge that every one of us has failed our better angels in one way or another, at one time or another. "Let him without sin..."

Perhaps the "sin" isn't whether or not each of us has (or has not) committed the same exact offense, but whether each of us has, at one time or another, violated our own standards and integrity, however minor or invisible (or not.)

I am still in this marriage not because I have any faith that I am all that- I'm not the most sexually, physically, psychologically or emotionally attractive woman on earth (BUT I'M DAMNED CLOSE, LOL! j/k) nor that there are no other temptations, nor that there are no weak spots in the marriage nor in time, but because integrity is important to Husband, as is quality of his life.

If he wants a decent life, he will invest in decent things and in decent people. If he wants a quality life, he will invest in quality things and in quality people. If he wants a superlative life, he will invest in superlative things and in superlative people.

I am decent, I am quality, I am superlative.

If he can't tell the difference or flat out doesn't care, or if he is allowing himself to be chased into dark corners by his own demons, well, then he's not worth my investment. Game over.

[This message edited by marriageredux959 at 4:31 PM, April 7th (Sunday)]

NotTheManIwas posted 4/7/2019 17:14 PM

Guys- would it make, would it have made a difference to you, if your wife came to that conclusion on her own? Would it make any difference if she came to you with a full confession, and this depth and type of realization and self-awareness?

Or is your major damage that your wife is "contaminated" by another man?

Ok, I'll bite.

And I say it that way because I'm going to be forthright which will probably evoke the shrieks of "chauvinism," and worse. So I'll qualify that I don't speak for even most men. Although, I bet that I do.

1stly, yes, "if she came to you with a full confession, and this depth and type of realization and self-awareness?" would have made a very big difference. The road to R would have been clearer. The TT, the agonizing thoughts of her excluding me from intimate secrets with him, the not knowing what it is that I'm forgiving, all of this clutters the path to R. So, yes, what you received from your husband certainly would have been welcomed by me.

That said, I took your bait because I'm in a very weird head space now. I find myself looking at her and thinking "you really aren't all that" and "how could I have ever been under your spell" (and I was)(I refer to it as the spell of the girl in the blue dress because that's what I saw when I met her in 1979).

That weird space I speak of is the realization within the last few weeks that I no longer really care for her to be mine, but I don't want anyone else to have her. That's hard to admit because of the "chattel" implications. But I'll own it.

Except, I'll make a distinction, and I don't care if the outcry and indignation uttered at me is that I'm rationalizing. Remember, I'm owning this. I don't like the word chattel because the definition simply distinguishes those possessions from real estate. She was "the" possession. My crown jewel.

It may not matter to anyone else. It may seem every bit as insidious to the enlightened, contemporary mind. But I maintain that this is part and parcel of how a man loves. I now own this, too. Something I didn't realize before the betrayal, and have only recently realized from the nauseating amount of time that I've spent analyzing how I feel.

Yeah, I think I have to admit that I feel she's "contaminated."

[This message edited by NotTheManIwas at 5:16 PM, April 7th (Sunday)]

sewardak posted 4/7/2019 17:30 PM

nottheman - consider changing your thoughts.
just consider it.

marriageredux - that was awesome.

Wishiwasnthereto posted 4/7/2019 17:32 PM

So, now we equate pre marital sex with Adultery and a promise to be faithful to God in Church or wherever you were married. Wow! No wonder we have so many members here.

OptionedOut posted 4/7/2019 17:34 PM

Betrayed here.

For the record, there are some of us women who look at our cheating husbands as 'contaminated' as well. At least, to some extent. At the least, we see our cheating husbands as male floozies. No morals, no brain, no remorse (until consequences), no problem! I mean, THEY didn't chase! They were HELPLESS to resist the trickery and seduction of strange/another woman's attention. To me at least, it reeks of, "I let my penis do the thinking.."

It may not be right, but now and then, that thought is there.

NotTheManIwas posted 4/7/2019 17:34 PM

sewardak

Considering the source, and the skirmishes we had on the last thread, I think not.

marriageredux959 posted 4/7/2019 18:14 PM

I could say a lot right here, right now...

... but all that is echoing in my mind is,

Guinevere.

NotTheManIwas posted 4/7/2019 18:22 PM

Hmmm, and I could do worse than comparisons to Arthur.

ETA: Do you want to be right? Or do you want to be married?

[This message edited by NotTheManIwas at 6:23 PM, April 7th (Sunday)]

marriageredux959 posted 4/7/2019 18:31 PM

As of this moment:

Guinevere is playing the part of Arthur in this drama, and Arthur and Guinevere are still married.

Care to parlay?

NotTheManIwas posted 4/7/2019 18:37 PM

Guinevere is playing the part of Arthur in this drama, and Arthur and Guinevere are still married.

Care to parlay?

???

Can I assume you speak of your own circumstances?

And, parlay? no

Jousting? yes

Home field advantage, and all that.

newlife03 posted 4/7/2019 18:46 PM

When Men cheat it’s usually for sex.

This may have come up in a different reply so I apologize if it's a repeat.

I believe that xWH's affairs (there were two separate ones) were about escaping his real world for the fun and exciting world of no responsibility. We had a good physical connection and it never stopped while he was cheating. I'm actually lucky I didn't pick up any diseases because of him.

marriageredux959 posted 4/7/2019 18:55 PM

1. Of course. Why else am I here?
2. You are correct. My parlay lies elsewhere, as does yours.
3. Jousting? I think we are already doing so, although I must confess, I am distracted and engaged elsewhere- not just by the Guinevere/Arthur drama but by much more pedestrian life events.

All of the medieval posturing aside (and I am admittedly thin in that area, Dragon Brain references notwithstanding) here's the point:

Is there enough value in each other, and in the marriage, to justify the damage and the risk?

In terms of parables, considering Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot (OMG THAT NAME, LANCELOT, IT'S LIKE, MEDIEVAL PORN) do the "rules" and parameters of the conditions (weather, social expectations, financial obligations, day of the fucking week) bear more weight than both the infraction, and your partner's presence, and, I don't know, whatever else?

Do you trust your partner's integrity, and your partner's personal fidelity to their own integrity, enough to work through this damage, through this insult?

And this, for me, is part of the shift in reality through which I am currently working.

I drank the Kool Aide. I bought into the marketing. I never, ever thought my husband would find himself (or me, or the kids, by extension) in *that* kind of situation.

Turns out I was all kinds of wrong.

Husband's situation is probably the least of it.

But back to Arthur, and Guinevere, and Lancelot:

Arthur, the statesman, the warrior, the one with the most wear and tear and damage of the lot, and the one with the most responsibility:

... he best understood, comprehended, all of the inputs to the situation.

He best saw the battle map.

He understood how everyone ended up, where they ended up.

And yet, despite his empathy and his love for himself, for the state and its laws (the state and its laws were huge players in this drama) his love for both Guinevere and Lancelot,

He defaulted to duty.

Whom did Arthur serve? and why?

Ask ourselves that...

... perhaps the rebels are the ones who refuse to follow the protocol.

Not to say that the rebels win...
... but if one is adhering to The Rules, then The Rules get you what they get you, and perhaps The Rules are not particularly serving you.

Arthur desperately wished for another choice.

I see a LOT of that here on SI. Just a thought.

NotTheManIwas posted 4/7/2019 21:42 PM

Broke from the thread long enough to objectify me some Carrie Underwood on the ACM's. And, oh yeah, girl's got pipes, too.

So, to start with the easy first, yes and agree with all of your medieval references. The part about the rebels not playing by the same rules resonates. The waywards are our personal Talibans.

Got unseated in this round of the joust when you nailed me with that shit regarding the Lancelot medieval porn name reference. I'd just been thinking about that troika before you posted and mentally bemoaning the fact that mine was the Arthur role in this drama. Fuck that. I wanna be Lancelot. He's the one having fun playing the tip of Arthur's military spear AND plundering that Guenevere treasure. And then you nail me with, yeah, he be Lancing her Alot. My shoulders sagged in unison with the FML sigh. So... thanks so very much for that.

As for your questions regarding her baseline integrity, integrity of the marriage, value of us weighted against future risk and value. It comes down to this. I've told her to never embarrass me again. Period. That's how low I've set the bar because of familial considerations.

As another poster on another thread put it, and I'm paraphrasing because he did so much more clearly and concisely than I can, I'm engaged in R sans the hopium. My demeanor is stoic and reasoned day by day, minute by minute. Civility is the operative theme. I now liken this to an "arrangement" of old.

However, the "contamination" and the way it dissolved the Pollyanna view I previously had of marriage, which I cherished, will never be forgotten. I will be mercenary in the familial, emotional carnage I wreak should she ever transgress. My red line.

Yeah, so how's that for a debbie downer view on love and life.

marriageredux959 posted 4/7/2019 21:46 PM

sewardak, thank you. <3

I was once tempted (SEVERELY) by a property there.

I only saw it online- but I *was* shopping. I spent a bit of time doing contract work in the Pacific NW and it was pulling me toward AK. I worked with people from AK who missed it sorely.

OMG that property was IMMACULATE. It was a gorgeous wooden cabin on the water (we are never far away from water, that's our MO) and it was just enough... but not too much. Just enough land but not too much. Just enough water but not too much. Just enough out there but not too much.

Just enough POLAR BEARS but not too much.

Husband insisted it was a POLAR BEAR. I insisted not- too far south of the Arctic Circle.

I'm pretty sure it was the propane tank. LOL.

marriageredux959 posted 4/7/2019 22:42 PM

It's late, I'm tired, Husband has gracefully and graciously suffered this thread (and many other Life Things) today and this evening, and we are both late to bed, but:

NotTheManIwas, ladies, gents, all,

Arthur made Lancelot.

Arthur made Guinevere.

Arthur made them both.

Without Arthur there was none.

Camelot is an illusion- or a state of mind.

Those who do not choose to dwell in Camelot- for those souls, Camelot does not exist.

That does not mean that Arthur does not, did not, exist.

P.S. Sometimes Guinevere plays Arthur. It happens. Lancelot? I cannot speak to that. I have no dick. (But rumor has it, I HAVE BALLS.)

(WHOOPS. DID I TYPE THAT IN MY OUT LOUD VOICE?)

(IT'S FIGURATIVE, PEOPLE. BUT I DO HAVE FIERCE OVARIES.)

(CAN WE SETTLE ON HELLA GONADS?)

<3