SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Yeah, this is where I jump to the women's side I guess. This is just a silly generalization. While I don't want to be hurt again, and I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to be vulnerable in a relationship while still protecting myself, I refuse to go on board with an "every woman" comment like this. All women probably could use sex to get what they want, but they don't. It's the damaged and broken ones that do, and it's the damaged and broken women that have affected the men who are posting on this thread. This is probably why you are getting a one-sided view of this issue, we're all telling you what the shore looks like from the same boat.

Well said.

I agree this topic is getting stuck because it is mainly BSs on here. I know that in my case, I DON'T use sex to get what I want. The thought of having sex with someone that I am not really into is disgusting to me, I don't think I could do it. Likewise, at different (low) points following DDay I have had thoughts of 'just use his money and stick around for access to the kids, until they're older' but again I then get stuck on the issue of acting that role - I can't.

BUT I think that OW (who was my friend previously) DID use sex to get what she wanted. For whatever reason, she viewed herself as being highly sexually attractive and never hesitated to flirt, or just downright offer sex, to get her own way. Maybe there is a BS / WS split on this issue (huge disclaimer that not all BSs or all WSs are the same - but maybe more WSs think that way?).

If you are saying requiring sex under threat of divorce is coercion, why isn't requiring transparency under threat of divorce also coercion? Or a full timeline?

I am just kind of lost at this point. Not because of what you said above, but because the discussion confuses me.

You said your D is final as of today, so this advice might not be so relevant to you, but I'll give it anyway for folks who are seeking R: Talk. Communicate. That's what R is about. Talk about sex, talk about what you dearly want, find a way to be on each others' wavelength. Express to your WW why it hurts. Ask her why she would do the things with AP and not you, if that's your situation. Really listen to her answers. Tell her again how you feel. Talk about it, work together, until you can overcome that bridge together.

It IS reasonable to desire those things with your wife. It IS completely understandable to be devastated if she did things with AP that she refuses to do with you. It is HUMAN to value sex.

I think what a lot of us are saying is, communicate. Approach each other. Demands without communication might not be so successful. Ceasing to communicate because one spouse is being stubborn... well... it is deeply frustrating when a spouse is stubborn, but ceasing to communicate won't help the situation if you intend to remain in R. Communicating is key for long-term success. And it's a lot more likely that we'd all get to do the things we enjoy sexually if we'd communicate with each other more carefully and consistently.

Again, the above might be a generalization. It's not a be-all-end-all opinion; rather, it's advice to TRY. Best of luck.

ETA: I see no one took me up on my offer of Gerbil Milanos and milk. Another time, perhaps?

[This message edited by silverhopes at 12:51 PM, February 16th (Friday)]

while I am not entitled to sex, I wouldn't enter a relationship with someone that didn't have the same priorities as me in that area. Isn't saying I wouldn't enter a relationship without a certain expectation of sexual intimacy the same as saying I would end a marriage for the same reason?

Again, well said.

There are many feelings that do not need to be acted on, though.

Even though I agree that those BH's who feel and want the sex acts that may have been denied to them but given to the AP, I don't necessarily agree that a WW should acquiesce. As I said, I don't know the reasons why a WW would not be willing to do that, but I bet there are some very valid reasons. Besides hygiene. I feel that is something that a WW needs to delve into with a good IC. They may come to the conclusion that it would not be in the best interests of the WW to give in to the BH's wants or they may come to a place where the WW is comfortable and wanting to do those acts willingly and happily.

The thing is women have the right to bodily autonomy.

And, in general, women care less about sex than men do; hence, yes, it's been something that's been happening from the beginning of time and will continue to happen until men no longer desire sex with women more than women desire it with them.

Do you know what else has been happening since the beginning of time? Women have been subjugated by men. They have been owned by men. They have been property. They have been pawns and trophies in war. They have been sold and traded. Fuck, when my grandmother was born she wasn't even allowed to vote in this country. Wrap your ahead around that, men. Women have been forced to have countless children and told that was their duty and died at young ages from being worn out by having too many children. Real birth control, the pill, has only been available to women since 1961. Women have had to fight for the vote, birth control (Ms. Sanger jailed for it), equal pay, to be able to be things (police, military, firefighters, doctors, etc.) that only men were allowed. We have fought hard earned battles to win the right to bodily autonomy. And, as much as many husbands like to think this, you do not own your wife's body.

ETA: I don't mean anything in this post in a snarky way and is not directed to one person. I am actually older than most of you. I have actually lived through the "sexual revolution" "burning the bra" "the summer of love" etc., etc. I have lived this. Most of you can't understand or "pfffttt" away what it was like for women a mere 60 years ago. Women having autonomy over their own bodies is a big thing to me. It is something I was passionate about when I was 15 and it is something I am still passionate about today.

[This message edited by SisterMilkshake at 1:04 PM, February 16th (Friday)]

Do you know what else has been happening since the beginning of time? Women have been subjugated by men. They have been owned by men. They have been property. They have been pawns and trophies in war. They have been sold and traded. Fuck, when my grandmother was born she wasn't even allowed to vote in this country. Wrap your ahead around that, men. Women have been forced to have countless children and told that was their duty and died at young ages from being worn out by having too many children. Real birth control, the pill, has only been available to women since 1961. Women have had to fight for the vote, birth control (Ms. Sanger jailed for it), equal pay, to be able to be things (police, military, firefighters, doctors, etc.) that only men were allowed.

Thank you for this, SMS. I find myself wanting to scream something like this a lot, only less eloquently. I think this is hugely relevant. This, sexual shaming, and a lot of other things mean that male sexuality and female sexuality aren't in an equal place yet. Most of this thread has focused on men's sexuality - haven't really heard anyone talking about what women's sexuality is like, or what might complicate it.

Bringing this up isn't to make dudes feel badly or like they're to blame. It's more a cry of "help us change this!"

ETA:

I agree this topic is getting stuck because it is mainly BSs on here.

This too, like DV said.

[This message edited by silverhopes at 1:09 PM, February 16th (Friday)]

Silverhopes: I don't think one single person in this thread has said "all" men and women anything. In fact the regular posters have gone to such lengths to clarify this that it clutters the responses.

When the point of the original question revolves around generalizations I don't see why it seems to affect people so much when people are general in the responses. Unless OP meant to say conspiracy instead of agenda.

As far using sex to get what you want, it doesn't have to be some evil machinations. A simple "if you take me to see this movie instead of that movie I think you'll be glad you did later tonight" is no different than husbands saying if you let me play golf with the boys Sat morning I'll take you to that place you really like to eat at Sat night. Whether either party was already planning a nice night out or awesome sexy time later anyway it's still using sex and money to get what you want, and perfectly normal discourse.

Silverhopes: I don't think one single person in this thread has said "all" men and women anything

If no one has said this, then I apologize and feel very relieved.

[This message edited by silverhopes at 1:14 PM, February 16th (Friday)]

sistermilkshake, to me it is not about women being

property. They are not. Though when you mention

women's rights there are BH's rights.

Forget sex, how about in these terms:

WW spent all day taking flour, organic eggs,

making fresh pasta. Then buying organic plum

tomatoes, virgin olive oil, garlic, salt, basil.

and made fresh sauce. All for her OM.

D day her BH finds out. His WW has only given BH

jar sauce and a box of No Brand Name dry pasta.

It is just for his WW to deny giving her BH the

same food she gave her OM.

When the BH complains is it ok for the WW to say

shut up before all I feed you is canned spaghetti; there is no way that I am going to

ever cook like that for you?

Food and sex? Really?

I swear to god some folks just don't get it.

This divorced mad hatter will never condone sexual violence towards one's mate, but if that's your thing, have at it, see how it goes for you.

Bravo, SMS. I too am older and we'll remember how repressive being a women was before the sexual revolution.

I see that no one has taken up on the issue of WHs who have had/still have ED with their BWs but didn't with their APs. I see many BWs who report this. Should the BWS immediately proceed to D if the WH'S don't immediately stop having ED with them? Or should the couple communicate to solve the problem?

Food, brilliant!!! WW used chocolate syrup for for playful time with AP and denies it to her huband

Should the BWS immediately proceed to D if the WH'S don't immediately stop having ED with them? Or should the couple communicate to solve the problem?

In that case it's a physical symptom that can be treated with medication (viagra, cialis) if he isn't able to connect with BW sexually. Perhaps if the issue lingers then consulting a sex therapist is something to consider.

Heck, maybe we all need sex therapists and IC to handle the vast array of shit everyone is trying to deal with following an A.

I swear to god some folks just don't get it.

This divorced mad hatter will never condone sexual violence towards one's mate, but if that's your thing, have at it, see how it goes for you.

I see that no one has taken up on the issue of WHs who have had/still have ED with their BWs but didn't with their APs. I see many BWs who report this. Should the BWS immediately proceed to D if the WH'S don't immediately stop having ED with them? Or should the couple communicate to solve the problem?

That is complete farce, and you know it. Men don't choose to have ED. However, I can fix it for you.

If your H has ED, but with the AP, took Viagra to have sex, but then, after the A, refused to take Viagra anymore because "he was in a fog" and would't have sex with you..

There's the analogy. How does that sit with you? Because, for me, I'd tell that H that behavior was completely unacceptable if he wants to R and sex is important to his W. As I think the other men on here would as well.

But I'd go further. What if this WH said "I took Viagra, but it gave me blue vision, and I didn't really like that". Well, sorry; if your W wants to have sex with you, you may as well get used to seeing Smurfs, because, I'd still say, if your AP was worth seeing blue for, your W sure as hell is.

Stop using abrasive or inflammatory language that doesn’t apply here. Sexual violence? Nobody and I mean NOBODY here has advocated that. It’s sending the wrong message. I agree that here something to be said about women’s rights and subjugation over time that make this a particularly sensitive topic to broach. It doesn’t make what the men here are saying invalid, it just means as mentioned, that more careful language paints the same picture. And using this topic to advocate for women’s rights, well that has its time and its place, but that’s not why any guys here are debating. In all truth, the bad guys aren’t here on SI having an honest conversation. They are the ones out there without two Shits given, harassing women.

I’ll just say this. Again. Everyone has autonomy. Don’t ever expect a BH to accept his wife blowing another guy cheating on him, and then refuse the BH. That’s going to be a run, not walk towards divorce. And maybe that is how it need to be. The WS who is broken can fix their brokenness and fragility by themselves because they maintained their misguided views on what their BS actually was needing vs what they perceived they needed.

I’d encourage ANY WS reading here who gave an AP, man or woman, something that they subsequently denied their BS, and are happily reconciled, to post. Doubt there will be too many, because they don’t often exist.

[This message edited by nicenomore at 1:37 PM, February 16th (Friday)]

I am just kind of lost at this point. Not because of what you said above, but because the discussion confuses me.

You said your D is final as of today, so this advice might not be so relevant to you, but I'll give it anyway for folks who are seeking R: Talk. Communicate. That's what R is about. Talk about sex, talk about what you dearly want, find a way to be on each others' wavelength. Express to your WW why it hurts. Ask her why she would do the things with AP and not you, if that's your situation. Really listen to her answers. Tell her again how you feel. Talk about it, work together, until you can overcome that bridge together.

It IS reasonable to desire those things with your wife. It IS completely understandable to be devastated if she did things with AP that she refuses to do with you. It is HUMAN to value sex.

I think what a lot of us are saying is, communicate. Approach each other. Demands without communication might not be so successful. Ceasing to communicate because one spouse is being stubborn... well... it is deeply frustrating when a spouse is stubborn, but ceasing to communicate won't help the situation if you intend to remain in R. Communicating is key for long-term success. And it's a lot more likely that we'd all get to do the things we enjoy sexually if we'd communicate with each other more carefully and consistently.

I'm not trying to pick on you or anything but I brought up transparency a couple pages ago but no said anything. Since it was brought up again and you replied I'll address this to you.

The quoted text is not an answer. Communication has to be stipulated otherwise it wouldn't be known that it's a condition of R. If a husband said - Wife in order to try to R with you I'd need you to.

1. WANT to expand our sex life to include things you have denied me but gave to AP willingly.

2. Give me transparency on your communication and update me on your day like you did with the AP as evidenced by the 1000's of text messages I discovered between you each month.

3. Give me a full time line of your affair.

A response by the wife of: "When I did those things I was broken and mis-prioritized what was actually important in my life and am no longer comfortable in continuing or re-living that behaivor." Could work for any of those conditions. What I think we're asking is why is OK to say that to condition 1 but not condition 2 or 3.

Your response was better than mine was going to be Lazarus.

Lazarus,

I'm sorry, are you familiar with my story or did you jump off the assumption cliff? That reeks of personal attack actually. I suppose being a mad hatter makes anything I say void, though there are others here (men in particular) who's word is gold?

Nice.

Good luck with being judgemental thing, it sure does come round to bite you in the ass, so be ready.

old truck, please, I can not say it any other way. I agree with you. I agree that BH's have a right to want what the WW has given the AP. I can not even imagine how devastated and rejected I would feel if I was refused something sexual by FWH but was given OW. I wouldn't demand it from FWH, though. I would walk away from him. Or, have him get some good IC help and we would discuss and communicate honestly about the situation. See what could work for both of us or realize that it wasn't going to work for us.

If a WW can not freely, enthusiastically, happily and willingly do those things that a BH is requiring as a term of reconciliation, there may be a valid reason why. These reasons need to be explored in IC and discussed and communicated between BH and WW.

I am thinking undiagnosed mental health issues (bi-polar can cause people to act out sexually in ways they normally never would) CSA issues and any number of valid reasons. I feel that, unfortunately for the BH's, that they may have to let their WW's get healthy before they can make healthy choices for themselves (the WW) and that may include not giving a BH what the AP got sexually. If that is a dealbreaker for the BH, it is a dealbreaker.