SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

HHADL: I'm sorry that what should have been a routine medical procedure became a traumatic experience or trigger for you. I was lucky that my doctor was extremely sympathetic and helpful when I went in for tests and for help with depression/acute trauma stress disorder.

Silverhopes: As part of getting over my ex's infidelity, I dealt with my feelings of failiure as a woman. Both of my children were born via c-section, breastfeeding didn't work out, I almost lost my second child at 20 weeks gestation due to "incompetent cervix" (see, even the medical terminology tells me my womanly bits are a failure) and ended up on bed rest for 4 months. So, obviously, I failed at my child-bearing role. My lost libido meant that I wasn't fulfilling my sexual role. I cut my maternity leaves short because I didn't enjoy being home with my kids (I love them, but 24/7 with my kids drives me batty). Since we define a lot of womanhood through those childbearing, childrearing and sexuality, I struggled a lot with those feelings of failure.

On the other hand, I succeed very well at the things that "men are supposed to do". I have a very successful, high-powered career (that apparently intimidates a lot of men) and I manage my own finances and investments well. There was a post on New Beginnings about being a strong woman vs. a bitch, and how that affects one's "fuckability". It was a fruitful, respectful discussion, but there were one or two comments about men looking for women who are dumber and/or less educated. A few weeks ago, my boyfriend and I went out with acquaintances. I paid for him and me, and a woman at our table made a big deal about it, telling my boyfriend to "be a man". I asked her what century she was living in, but the stereotypes still exist. He is judged for not being flush with cash, and I am judged for not being pretty and dumb.

DD, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with you. I guess it would depend on your motivation. If you stick to ONSes and avoid deeper connections out of fear, that might be something to explore in IC.

I'm the opposite. The idea of having an ONS does not appeal to me at all. It seems like so much work with not much return. That's because I imagine I would not have an orgasm, at least not one as good as the ones I have with my H. That belief comes from experience. None of my sexual encounters that ended up being ONSes were satisfying for me. Contrary to popular belief, even though I female, sex is very important to me. The amazing sex is one of the top 3 reasons I married my H.

That being said, I do not need to be in love to have sex. I was not in love with my H the first time we had sex. We hadn't known each other very long, a couple of months, and had been on maybe 3 or 3 dates. We were in a monogamous relationship, though. I could probably do a FWB thing as long as I knew the friend was a true friend and interested in getting me off. (I'm very selfish when it comes to sex.)

Hawke, I tell my boys that if they invite someone for a date, they should pay. If they are invited, I would expect the other person to pay. If they decide to hang out together, even if it is kind of like a date, they should go Dutch. I would not ask someone out and then expect them to pay for me.

DD, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with you. I guess it would depend on your motivation. If you stick to ONSes and avoid deeper connections out of fear, that might be something to explore in IC.

I think it is a little out of fear, honestly. I don't like to give someone emotional power over me. I try to be very selective in who I choose to be vulnerable with. That's hilarious really, when I consider why I'm on this site. Kind of relates to what we're talking about in the other thread. I know that when I love, I really love. I want to feel safe enough to let down my guard. If the only smart way to be in a relationship is to be as independent and self-contained as I already am, I kind of don't see the point, if that makes sense. I'm complete unto myself. I like being on my own. I don't have a need to be in a relationship, but dammit if I do, I want to do the love thing all the way. I want to be vulnerable and open and that leaves me at risk of great emotional harm, so it's not something I take lightly.

I'm the opposite. The idea of having an ONS does not appeal to me at all. It seems like so much work with not much return. That's because I imagine I would not have an orgasm, at least not one as good as the ones I have with my H. That belief comes from experience. None of my sexual encounters that ended up being ONSes were satisfying for me. Contrary to popular belief, even though I female, sex is very important to me. The amazing sex is one of the top 3 reasons I married my H.

I get that completely. It is WAY harder to have an orgasm with a ONS. The whole thing is fun for me. If I need to provide the orgasm myself, that's okay. So I still get something out of all the other parts of the sex even if the orgasm is my own doing.

I got tested for HPV without a pap.

want to feel safe enough to let down my guard. If the only smart way to be in a relationship is to be as independent and self-contained as I already am, I kind of don't see the point, if that makes sense. I'm complete unto myself. I like being on my own. I don't have a need to be in a relationship, but dammit if I do, I want to do the love thing all the way. I want to be vulnerable and open and that leaves me at risk of great emotional harm, so it's not something I take lightly.

I get that. I don't take falling in love lightly, either. It takes a lot for me to fall in love, to trust that much. But, being sexual with someone makes me feel more vulnerable. Probably goes back to thinking I was in a relationship and having sex only to find out afterwards that everything was a lie. So, I got my issues around that, too.

Men just really suck most of the time. I don't feel the need to be in a relationship, either. I know I'd be fine, emotionally, on my own. What I absolutely don't want is to be a single parent again.

Since we define a lot of womanhood through those childbearing, childrearing and sexuality, I struggled a lot with those feelings of failure.

(((((Hawke)))))

You're not a failure. None of those things mean you're a failure. I know you already know it, but sometimes it can help to hear validation from someone else? Were these things that your ex was cruel to you about?

Just checked out that thread in New Beginnings. It makes me happy to know that there are many guys out there who like a woman's brain. As they should!

I have a random question: when Odysseus was involved with Circe, Calypso, and Nausikaa, do you think it was consensual or not consensual? For the longest time I had assumed it was (and hated him for it on behalf of Penelope), but then recently read an argument where someone said, "Circe and Calypso were goddesses! He couldn't say no!" Now I'm reconsidering - was he coerced? I remember that Circe had turned his men into beasts, but the version I'd read said that he had defeated her and she had already been forced to turn them back into men before he went to bed with her. But coercion is still possible in that situation. What do you all think?

What I absolutely don't want is to be a single parent again.

Whew yeah, I totally get that. I've been a single parent for most of my kids' lives. It is not remotely easy. Definitely wasn't the plan when I had them.

Definitely wasn't a plan when I had my younger 3 with my fch. I only wanted those kids because of him. Before I met him, I did not want kids at all. Fucker!

Ok, sorry ladies, I have so much I want to respond to on the rest of this thread since the last time I posted here, but I need to t/j for a minute.

How in the actual fuck is it that some of these men are claiming to be so fact/logic based when they are so clearly run by their feelings?!

A male poster states that men need to be men and use facts and logic, but that the females here always shut that down with their pesky feelings.

Then here comes the statement that he purports to be fact... "You are correct, some people are wrong and deserve to be mocked." That is NOT a fact, it is a FEELING. You FEEL that she deserves to be mocked.

Then ibonnie chimes in with two facts, 1, the definition of mocking, and 2, the statement that it is possible to disagree with someone without being an asshole and/or mocking them. Those are not FEELINGS, they are FACTS. A word does not mean something else just because you want it to, so a definition is a fact. And that poster could have responded in many different ways other than mocking, another fact. A female fucking poster presented those facts, NOT a male. But she's part of the hysterical "crew" who keeps running around with all of those feelings huh?

Is this the problem we keep running into? Are some men so convinced of their superiority that they actually think their feelings are facts?? Honestly, I'm asking because it certainly seems that way. Have they been socialized to think that their own feelings are so important as to make them fact?

It is so fucking arrogant to think that calling something a fact makes it so. Arrogant enough to think you can define "fact" as the way men feel, but when women present actual facts, they are just pesky "feelings."

Here is a cold hard fact - What you're really saying when you declare that you want men to be able to talk to other men in ways that men respond to, is that you would like to act/speak in ways that other people find offensive, without those people taking offense. The fact is, you don't actually want to report on "facts." You want to say how you feel without someone else reacting to it in a way that you don't like. That doesn't make you a truth seeker who is all about facts and logic. That makes you an entitled ass who wishes that other people's bothersome feelings didn't have to be taken into consideration.

Here's a fun fact - you can simultaneously use logic and facts in your reasoning, and ALSO care about other people's feelings! You can care about statistics and facts without being an emotionally stunted robot.

Thanks to ibonnie, SisterMilkshake, and DevastatedDee for putting their dukes up in that one. I was about to throw down, but the thread was locked before I could respond.

As a beer-drinking sports-watching complete and utter tomboy, I have hung out with men more than women in my life and somehow I have been capable of conversing with them as if we all spoke a relatable language that each of us could understand. I've been the sounding board for a male friend for decades who has run the gamut in relationships and is now in a poly lifestyle and somehow or another he and I have been able to speak on a level that we can both understand almost as if we were part of the same species. And he has feeeeelings. Shocking. Amazing.

It doesn't do men or women any favors to perpetuate this bullshit stereotype that women are irrational harpies and men are Spock.

It was just dumb.

Haha! That thread was about me. It took all I had to not respond. I wish I knew who my crew is and what our mindset is. Probably all of us on here. I also wish I knew what those "run ins" were. Did I engage in fisticuffs without remembering?

Yes, I think some men are so convinced of their superiority that whatever they experience is the truth, whoch makes it fact. They all talk about how upset they are with what I said, but they aren't ruled by feelings. Meanwhile, I was crying and calling mods. Um, no. I was disturbed by the nastiness of some posters considering this is supposed to be a safe place for all of us.

BTW, I find it very interesting that another member who identifies as a male WS posted several threads blasting other WHes for not listening to their BWes, and then started a thread mocking what I, a BW, said.

I went back and read their stories and some of their earlier posts. They are in a lot of pain. They have been put through hell, like we all have, and don't know how to get out of it. Sadly, I think that's part of the male condition, not knowing how to deal with feelings.

Oh boy. So there are still folks who really think womenz are run by their emotions while men deal in cold hard facts? What is this, a retread of Red Eye?

Way too tired to argue. If people want to say that inflammatory kind of thing, ignore them. Don't pet the llama. Our energy could be spent on posters who need help and aren't spouting blatant misogyny. Or maybe we could highlight the asshattery in question and post the pat response: "No generalizations, please."

(I'm saying this more to myself. Those kinds of comments piss me off. Uh-oh, look out, it makes me feel feelings! And anger tends to be a great motivator for action. It is extremely hard to ignore things like that, but oh so rewarding when they no longer have any power or headspace.)

DD, I just saw your questions about nonattachment on that other thread. I wasn't ignoring you. I didn't go back to that thread because I didn't want to get drawn into more drama. Although, I do find it interesting that most people essentially agreed with me, even someone who went on the other thread that was mocking.

Anyway, if you'd like to ask the questions here, I'll try to answer. It could get lengthy. Also, I am not an expert on Buddism or nonattachment. I do not practice buddism. I adopt ideas from a variety of sources.

Did I engage in fisticuffs without remembering?

Thanks, Coco. I've been thinking on it. I feel like I have unhealthy detachment and I've been trying to figure out whether or not I'd abuse the idea and not be able to make it healthy. I have "fuck everyone, I can take care of myself" detachment, lol. Detachment with too much defiance wrapped up in it. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, Dee. I ran away from home when I was 16 y.o. because my father was being physically abusive to me. And, that is exactly the attitude I had. I had to. I had to survive. I was sixteen and, for all intents and purposes, had to take care of myself on my own. I had to be detached, I had to have defiance and toughness to survive. I was strong and tough and I could take care of myself, thank you very much.

But, it wasn't healthy.

There's a difference between detachment and Buddhist nonattachment. A lot of people mix them up and use them interchangeably, but they aren't interchangeable.

Detachment means to be aloof, to not care, like you said. Nonattachment means that you care, but you understand the impermanence of everything. You don't attach yourself to any thing, person or feeling to such an extent that it causes you suffering. You actually become much more caring and live more deeply because you remove your ego. Ypu understand that what other people do, even if they seem to do it to you, isn't about you. It's about them.

People you love will leave and die. You are sad about that, but you don't live in the sadness. You let go of expectation because you cannot control the outcome of anything. Then, you don't suffer from disappointment.

That's all I can think of right now. It's a process, not an event. I am not trying to achieve enlightenment by practicing nonattachment. I am just trying to live a peaceful and contented life.

I just have to put this somewhere where I feel safe saying it but man I am so triggered by WS lecturing a BS on here. I haven't been posting much because I get so triggered when I drop in hoping to update my story only to fall apart when I wander around a bit first and catch up on a few threads. I keep seeing the same WS post ad nauseum on threads as the expert and wise one and I just have to leave...like now. The life literally gets sucked out of me and the tears start again...and I'm getting better! Go figure.