SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I gotta say, I'm amazed at the betrayed women here that stand up for the wayward wives in some random BH thread, yet they hate the OW in their situation with a passion that often shocks me.

I'm with sassy and karma on the authentic idea. My WW has changed. She's grown and matured and seems to approach life differently. I question if these changes are authentic or if it's simply manipulation to keep me from blowing up her life. I also feel manipulated by the amount of sex she initiates. I really think this is a no win situation for both of us.

I've never understood why dudes want anal with their wife just cuz OM did it... I mean it's not my thing and would never be my thing regardless of their dirty sex. If OM licked her butthole, does that mean I want to lick her butthole even if it makes me vomit uncontrollably...

I had an emotional affair. Straight up EA. No sexting, no future faking. I craved emotional intimacy more than sex.

Thanks for sharing Owl6118. There are many men that do this. Many.

I find this thread's topic and the fact that it's garnered 3 pages of responses to be rather interesting, in part because I had posted a thread expressing what I'd also perceived to be somewhat of a gender-based double standard. I did, however, receive chastising from some members and even from a site moderator. I do feel that overall, not just on this site but in society as a whole, that a male's sex needs are acknowledged and even somewhat "entitled" more than a female's. I'm not sure if I feel like women's sex needs are being punished on this site (although I've definitely felt this way IRL in the past), but I do feel that at least some members have (maybe not intentionally) empathized an incel betrayed male's sex needs more than an incel betrayed female's needs. I think there's also been some people who can't wrap their heads around the concept of a female truly being incel, that they think almost any female "can get laid anytime she wants if she really wants it enough". If "wanting it" alone was enough to get me laid and I could save a dollar every time I'd get laid, I'd be rich! (no reference to any type of prostitution/solicitation intended BTW)

I do admit I disagree with this, at least from my own personal POV as a female:

And I've said, many times, if a woman is looking for a toss in the hay, I get it, an A makes sense. You'll get that from an A. Where I think women "don't get it" is that there are a lot of men out there who will say anything to have sex with you, and I think that a lot of women believe the lines and wind up in an A that doesn't give them anything they wanted.

As a female who's been sex deprived by a now-ex WBF, I can honestly say that ALL I'm looking for is sex. NSA, ONS, non-emotional. Just sex on the principle of sex. I've done this to some extent many years before, and although it wasn't a common occurrence for me even back in those days, it was definitely fun and exciting, and something I'd like to do again, especially now. I also hate the idea of unintentionally living up to defy the popular double standard that "women can get laid anytime they want". Being the outlier/exception to that stinks! It makes me figuratively feel like I'm wearing my involuntary celibacy as a scarlet letter I on my lapel!

I do, however, agree with this post, which followed hot on the heels of the other post I'd quoted:

I like sex a lot. I have more of a drive than my WH. What if I want to live out my fantasy of being with two men? Do the same rules apply?

Does my WH need to have me penetrate him annally? What if I’ve always wanted to and he’s never allowed it?

I am 100% for the WS being accommodating to the BS. It’s something they need to work together on as a team, but there should be boundaries. If you have no respect for your WS anymore, just take it as a sign that you shouldn’t be with them.

I've been there, very recently. A WBF could put out to other girls but not me, his loyal GF. Even when he was home and physically available, he didn't want to work on it, instead rugsweeping my sex needs, just like he later rugswept my approaching him about any cheating. In my case, yes I no longer had respect for him after all this, but he also showed no respect for ME by purposely neglecting my basic needs. Everyone told me to "run" if a non-marriage couldn't even meet basic sexual needs, so that's what I did: saw it as a sign that I should not be with him.

Aside from any intended or unintended gender-based double standards, I did notice possibly what's a different kind of double standard: There was a thread where the general consensus was that an A is considered long-term if it lasts for a year or more, yet one of the members trivialized my last relationship as being "short-term" even though it lasted a total of 2+ yrs, with the first installment/portion alone lasting almost a year. I felt slighted and trivialized.

Sex in a marriage is vital. It is to ours, but there is more to a marriage than sex. Think about all the things we do for our partners in marriage. There is so much more. If your only measure is in the bedroom, a marriage is doomed.

I think this is a great quote. I agree; there's more to a relationship than sex, but it's still important, which is where I let myself get neglected for the past 2+ yrs by not standing up to my now-XBF regarding my own sexual needs. In my case, sex was definitely not the only "measure" where XBF fell short either. Likewise, I admit to sometimes reading some people's situations on here and wondering why they're staying, when on top of being a BS and sex deprived, they're being disrespected in other ways too--maybe it's emotional abuse, left out of in-law family functions, stuck footing all the bills, etc. If it's one thing, I think maybe it can be worked on; but if it's a bunch of things, then I think it's a deal breaker.

One male posted on this thread:

After that happened, for me, it became a matter of 'lets see what I can get from my ww sexually. If the marriage doesn't last, at least I enjoyed the last bit of it. If it does last, well our sex life will be better for it.'

Even as a female, I agree with this. I can't fault him here. I've felt the same way before.

I found this interesting and almost comical (laughing at the OW that is):

But, OW also thought that Its va jay jay was the golden va jay jay. OW thought MisterSister would have to dump me because he wouldn't be able to be away from Its golden va jay jay. He would have to be with It's golden va jay jay 24/7. Some OW's know that the men are in it for the sex but they are hoping the sex is so awesome that the MM will have to leave the "Love of Their Life" for the OW.

If any OW really thinks sex is that sacred and rare, especially in these post-sexual revolution days, then she needs her head examined.

How delusional! I'm glad the poster's WH didn't see relationship potential in her.

Hence 'you better give me a [sex act]' used in general is much different than 'you better give me a [sex act]' used under the implications of 'you did it for him after denying me'.

The first has a veiled threat of... well anything really. The second is an implied 'or I will know you cared more about him than me'.

Very well said!

This thread is very interesting...

Naw it's not the same. At least not universally. First of all, part of me would think - whatever you did with that woman, you're not doing to me....secondly, in bed - if my partner doesn't want to do it with me - I don't want it. Nothing worse than a pity fuck - or an obligation fuck.

I agree with you, and that's how I've always seen things before, including with my own life. In my case, I admit I did crave sex even if it was an "obligation pity fuck". That in and of itself shows just how "damaged" my self esteem became as a result of the incel situation. The fact that I even reached that level of deprivation and consequential self esteem plummet...is just sad. I think your words are good words to live by. I think if someone's only option from a partner is a "obligatory pity fuck," then that's a cue that it's time to dump that person and move on. Again, well said.

Is this advice or agenda?

IMO, It's an agenda.

It started about 2-3-4 years ago. Men who reconciled were being denigrated on JFO. It was disgusting.

Then the whole ALPHA!! thing started.

Now a few men seem to be equating sex with jewelry and date nights, as if it's the same thing. It's weird, but yes, it seems to be an agenda.

On another site where they (no soliciting), there is thread in which the 'alphas' brag about having more than one identity on this site.

A while ago (a long while) I saw a post in JFO that was edited by ANOTHER NAME, I copied it to DS. She said a bunch of stuff and then "Good catch". One of them (when posting) was a 'good guy' and the other one was a newbie. Totally different personalities

The 'good guy' has been gone for a while now. Threads have been started asking where he is. I assume that MH is on the ball, and eventually, the assholes will be found out.

You rock for starting this thread. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

edited to fix tags. [/bold][/bold][/bold]

[This message edited by SI Staff at 5:45 AM, February 14th (Wednesday)]

finally happy - i'm so glad you mentioned the other site because I am sickened that another forum started a thread bashing this one. any BH in recovery is trashed, the implied and overt notion stating that if a bH stays, they are weak. i cannot imagine how much time you have on your hands or how much inner loathing you must have to be so very critical of how other people do it if its not "your way."

i hope they're reading this. i have a feeling that some traveled over here to set us straight because they absolutely can't stand BH's staying, no matter what the reason. i've never seen such projection.

Morning everyone, interesting posts. Many of which were not to me, but, I'll pretend they were.

Come on, a three some,where that is only introduced after a betrayal? it’s a revenge fuck. Call it what it is is. Healing? Please. Then every betrayed here should be advised to fuck another in the presence of their wayward so we can heal.

You aren't reading what I wrote. I said I think it's over the line. I never said I thought it was a reasonable request in R. What I did say, and I stand by is "Yes; it's a common male fantasy. Yes, I think it would help some BH's heal.". And I stand by that statement. Do I think WW's should do it? No, I really don't, unless it's something they are at least somewhat into and they want their H to experience it with them. If a man demands it as part of R, yes, I think it's a revenge thing and not healthy. If a woman offers it during R, yes, I think it would help at least some BH's get over the imbalance. It would me. I'm not sure I'd say "yes" to it if offered, but I'm pretty sure it would help me get over the imbalance that I feel in our relationship.

If your wife withheld sexual favors from you, and gave them to the OM, she doesn't love you. Period. The end. Extracting sexual favors from her may make you feel more powerful, but it's not going to fill up the hole inside of you that needs love and acceptance. Don't debase yourself by demanding something that should be given freely. Get out of that marriage and don't look back.

I kind of agree with you here, at least I can tell you, that's how it's made me feel. But, what does that mean? Every WW who discloses the details of an A, as soon as you hear "anal" just walk out the door and don't look back? Because, we all know, that (and other "kinky" sexual acts) are part of many, perhaps most, WW stories. So commonly that when a man posts, many of us either in their thread or PM tell them "get ready for the details to include sexual stuff she refused you". Should that be an automatic dealbreaker? Perhaps it should, because, at least in practice, many men equate sexual "kink" with love; and I feel exactly as you posted, the fact that she had anal sex on the 2nd date with the OM but denied it to her H for decades, yes, I think that does say "she never loved you". A lot of people disagree with that though; so I'm not sure it's as clear as you state it (and I feel it). But if what you said is a rule (and it very well may be) what does it mean for R in those cases? Because that's going to mean that many WW's aren't even given the possibility of R because this is such a common element in female A's.

Maybe I could stomach the advice of "Give your BH anal"!if it came after NC, transparency, remorse, empathy, honesty, and IC. Because if those thinks aren't in place - all the anal in the world isn't going to repair the marriage or heal the BH. What it will do is give the BH a sense of vengeance while he gets his ducks in a row to divorce.

I agree, giving a BH anal while continuing to lie/cheat/deceive isn't going to fix anything. And anal sex is NOT about "vengeance". It's a very common male fantasy, it's something a lot of men and women do for fun on a regular basis. If anal sex is "vengeance" than so would be "do the dishes more" as a condition of R, or "sign a postnup". The thing that I will never understand is that so many of these sex talks turn into "man is trying to hurt his W" with some sex act. I'm not sure where all these men are who are trying to hurt their wives with sex, but I've never met one, and I know I have NEVER felt that way.

I've never understood why dudes want anal with their wife just cuz OM did it... I mean it's not my thing and would never be my thing regardless of their dirty sex. If OM licked her butthole, does that mean I want to lick her butthole even if it makes me vomit uncontrollably...

It's a common male fantasy. Replace anal with threesome, oral sex, sex in public.. Whatever it is that you enjoy that your H or W has said "no" to. It's just that anal is one of the more common ones that pop up here, denied to the BH, given to the AP on the first date.

that a male's sex needs are acknowledged and even somewhat "entitled" more than a female's.

I think this is because most people think that males have a stronger sex drive than women. And, in aggregate, I'd bet my life that is true. So when speaking in generalities, men are "high sex" and women are "low sex". There are many exceptions, and where I lose the conversation is when this sexual mismatch is used to justify male (or high sex partner) cheating, I don't agree with that at all.

Now a few men seem to be equating sex with jewelry and date nights, as if it's the same thing. It's weird, but yes, it seems to be an agenda.

Equating no, comparing yes. However, if you have better comparison points, I'd love to have them, because, I agree, it's not at all the same. Sex is exclusive to marriage, anyone can give you jewelry and/or take you to expensive dinners. The reason that I use them as comparisons, those are things that women typically want from a marriage that are denied by men, but freely given to the AP.

People are responsible for their own boundaries and healthy relationships. Consequently they can be treated however, and only they can put a stop to it by walking away, whether as the betrayed spouse or reconciling wayward spouse.

T/j

the other site

Not defending my alphabetical brethren's forays into this site. Just saying the way I see it... which is that its very easy for a betrayed spouse (male OR female) to think that if their ws whom they thought was the shining beacon of that gender could betray them, then the whole gender is risky. So better to adopt a personal mantra that prevents further hurt, even at the expense of others. This shit breaks people. And some folks don't heal right. Some don’t wanna heal right. Some don’t wanna heal at all. Them taking it to this level isn't what most dudes think. it's a reflection of a massive prescription of Fuckitall. What I mean to say, is i see them as they are wounded, and should be treated as such, no matter the bravado they spout. Cause, really, nobody likes to admit when they can't handle shit. Even when its obvious. That's how I see it anyway.

On another site where they (no soliciting)

I wasn't soliciting. ?? In fact, I tried not to. I rather tried to disguise it.

Years ago, I asked DS on a thread what those three initials meant, as members were referring to it constantly. She replied in that same thread what that abbreviation meant, and said "It's a marriage board".

I was NOT soliciting. I *detest* that board. To me? They're idiots.

Nevermind. Thanks NTV.

[This message edited by Randy1133 at 8:05 AM, February 14th (Wednesday)]

Look theres alot going on here why dont we look at that cnn artical about being a cuck and alowing your wife to have a lover what it boils down too in my oppinion is engeneering on a grand scheme the first 2 waves of feminisem was good and needed to happen but 3rd wave started the war on men and families prime example is this lady thats a public wrighter called her own 2 sons rapists its the whole sjw crap thats going on we men and women are not the same but we are equal as soon as us western men truly wake up quit being simps and demand equality in family court but men are walking away its getting bad here in the us who would of thought that 3 boys could rape a 5 year old and film it and get away with it because they didnt know better i feel there will be a lot of tears before this gets fixed i belive it starts with family the home where our future is

Lostandlonely, I'm not sure what you mean.

What this all boils down to is:

When some women hear about a man asserting authority over a woman they think: sexism

And when they hear that such authority is being used to coerce sex they think: rape

And these notions are so inherently “triggery” they process further discussion using emotions rather than cold logic

And men, who normally do not face the circumstances causing these triggers focus on the simple syllogism that if the wayward spouse did it for their lover they better do it for their spouse—unless they want to be sent packing

" I’ve recently read how many males perceived wayward wives. And, how the wife must “repair” the relationship by not only doing what the wayward did with their AP, but also offering sex acts beyond, including threesomes, simply for helping the wounded, male betrayed. It’s normal male healing. "

A BH is mentally knocked down by their WW's affair.

They want their ego and self esteem restored.

To say that the WW must do everything that she did

with her OM she now must do with her BH. Is over

generalizing this.

As pointed out if the WW used a strapon to have

anal sex with her OM does not mean that her BH

will want let alone demand that his WW use a strapon,

on her BH.

Though when a WW let the OM pound her butt, how

can the WW not expect her BH to not expect his

WW to not give him anal sex. After her BH has

been asking for anal sex from his WW for years.

Evidently WW showed that her doing anal sex

with the OM was not to disgusting and or too painful for her.

How is the BH to believe his WW when she says

the OM did not mean anything, it was just a

fling, I want you not the OM, let's recover our

marriage, but I am never going to give you the

porn star wild monkey sex that I freely gave the

OM?

Though I can see a BH that was always turned off

by anal sex may still want to do it. Then there

can be a BH that will do it because he has to

do what ever the OM did as a process to

completely reclaim his WW.

I will close with this if the WW never wanted

and never had a threesome before and during the

affair the BH has no right to demand that his

WW have a threesome with the BH now.

In order for me to even get to a place to consider R not only does WW have to sexually do everything she did with OM with me but must go above and beyond. WW used sex as a weapon against me, intentionally withheld and sexed up OM all over town, the office and my house. Gave him anything he wanted. She never did anything close to that with me except for maybe a year in college but that was over 12 years ago.

If she refuses? Cool, I'm gone and done and will write her out of my life completely. It's that simple.

Does she have demands of me to stay M? Yes, I have to go to counseling to fix my mental state because she fucking broke me. I also do my own laundry and help with the dishes more frequently. I try to compliment her more often and listen better when we have conversations.

It's hard to compliment someone that you have no respect for though... I just don't see her as special anymore and think everything is just tainted now. Maybe no one should ever even attempt to R, after all there is no justice and the toast can't be unburned.

"there is no justice and the toast can't be unburned."

truth.

"there is no justice and the toast can't be unburned."

When I joined SI my first or second big epiphany was "You can't unfuck the donkey." The toast can't be unburned is a much more tasteful way of saying the same thing.

The sooner we can accept those two facts the healing is able to move forward in a much faster pace, well, at least for me it did, once I accepted those two facts. ETA:

Maybe no one should ever even attempt to R

Here is where I would disagree with you, skins. If one can accept those facts and realize that, maybe for us, what we really want is more than justice and unburnt toast. That what we had at one time was worth fighting for, that being able to keep a family intact, is worth more to us than our unattainable quest for justice. That we are able to get past our justifiable hurt, pain, wounded pride and be able to see what we really want and let go of wanting to be right and be able to get what we really want. Some do realize what they really want is to end the marriage and that is perfectly understandable. However, I feel if one wants to reconcile, the notion of justice has to be let go. You have to let go of the hope that the past could be different.

[This message edited by SisterMilkshake at 1:18 PM, February 14th (Wednesday)]

"there is no justice and the toast can't be unburned."

truth.

Yes, but burnt toast tastes a lot better with plenty of butter and jam on it. I think that's what some people, myself included, are trying to get across. And not doing for the BS what was done for the AP, be it sexual, emotional, financial or anything else is serving up burnt toast with a side of dog s**t. Sorry to be graphic, but it's that simple, in my eyes.

As pointed out if the WW used a strapon to have

anal sex with her OM does not mean that her BH

will want let alone demand that his WW use a strapon,

on her BH.

But, if it was a WH who had his AP use a strapon on him, something his wife wanted to do and he refused, I would offer the exact same advice. The story is the same, it's just most often it's a woman refusing a male sexual request, and most often a W doing things in an A that she won't do for her H. If the situation were reversed (making it more real, a WH goes down the AP all the time, but won't his wife), my story would remain exactly the same, you better make that a BIG part of your sexual relationship moving forward to try to help your wife heal from the trauma (assuming, of course, that she wants it).

Though I can see a BH that was always turned off by anal sex may still want to do it. Then there can be a BH that will do it because he has to do what ever the OM did as a process to

completely reclaim his WW.

I certainly would be this way. If he OM did it, I want to do it, even if it's not something I'm really into. I could never live with the thought that the last person who did whatever (anal sex, lets say, because that is a commonly denied request) was the AP. Nope, not gonna happen. Welcome to refuse, just like I'm free to walk, but walk I would. And I think that it would be a rare man who wouldn't. I can't imagine the resentment that would breed, I really can't. A better man that I could let that go, it's hard enough to "get to do" something you want because your wife did it with the OM. Even worse would be still being denied it.