SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

As betrayed men, some of the work we need to do is putting boundaries around our own thoughts and hurt. For me, one of the biggest was not letting my disappointment in my wife turn into a more generalized misogyny.

By generalized, I mean not an active hostility toward women, but a more relaxed sort of "don't care". This is best summed up by that little nugget you've probably all heard: "No matter how hot/awesome/perfect you think a woman is, there's some guy out there who's sick of her shit." What that amounts to is just a low-level suspicion that women as a group can't be trusted to honestly report their relationship and/or sexual experiences.

And it's a form of misogyny. At least when it's generalized. You can (and should) be suspicious of specific women you know in real life who give you good reason to doubt their commitment to the truth. (When I say something like that, you can probably think of a few people right off the bat who fit that bill. You know on some fundamental level that they're just not trustworthy *people* regardless of their gender.)

While I'm on this, I want to reach back a page and toss some support to jaynelovesvera. I'm sorry that happened to you, man. I don't have any words of comfort. One of the issues my wife and I grappled with when we adopted our newest kids was that the sister in the pair had been sexually abused. My wife was...and still is, worried about that turning into false accusations later, so we have rules in place about things like our daughter can't sit on my lap. I'm never physically alone with her (without an adult woman present). If an accusation eventually happens, that won't mean much in the court of public opinion, I imagine...but the difference in our case is that I, at least, got to volunteer for the risk I was taking on. I don't know how I'd recover from it if it was thrown at me like a hand grenade from a clear blue sky. All I can say, my friend, is that I admire your strength and fortitude.

"No matter how hot/awesome/perfect you think a woman is, there's some guy out there who's sick of her shit." What that amounts to is just a low-level suspicion that women as a group can't be trusted to honestly report their relationship and/or sexual experiences.

Idk. I always took that saying as that everyone has a certain level of bullshit they expect others to tolerate and the more attractive a person is the higher that level will be. It's a warning to not jump into a relationship with someone who you think is super attractive and not expect to also deal with their bullshit.

Didn't really see it as sexism, any more than a thousand other bullshit sayings like 'the clothes don't make the man' etc. It's just a saying geared to a specific audience.

The other side of the bh coin that I see some of here, is that for dudes in pain, it's a lot harder to be sympathetic to the pain of others when there is little correlation.

For example, if right after dday you had a friend who broke their leg... you might express condolences to them, but it'd probably be unlikely that you spare alot of emotional concern as you'd be too busy dealing with your own pain. It'd be very easy to be unsympathetic. Even if that leg break is a life changing thing for them.

Kinda like spending all my give-a-fucks on myself first. Everyone else can keep the change.

And if I'm spending it all on myself, and someone starts demanding I give a shit about their problem(s), yeah, I'm gonna be annoyed.

After all, this singular news event concerning a guy and gal and whatever mighta happened however many years ago has exactly zero bearing on if I'm gonna get bacon on my cheeseburger for lunch today. It doesn't meet my threshold for 'why should I care?'

For others it might hit home.

So, if I feel like that, and someone is pushing their pain on me, yeah my gut reaction is to say, 'well what about this? Or this? Or whatever else I can say to give them enough irritation to match what they've given me.

It's not like I can get away with saying 'I don't give a shit about this person I don't know accusations of something I don't know is true for something decades ago but I'm really just sick of being drawn in the drama' and not come across as an unfeeling asshole.

It's a good thing I'm on an anonymous website, huh?

It's not like I can get away with saying 'I don't give a shit about this person I don't know accusations of something I don't know is true for something decades ago but I'm really just sick of being drawn in the drama' and not come across as an unfeeling asshole.

I was just about murdered for watching the hearings and concluding (out loud) "I'm glad I don't have to be in the middle of this particular he said/she said, because they both seem credible to me."

But, yeah, ultimately I don't have any stake in it, so I didn't give it more than a limited bit of attention.

(I can hear the chorus gearing up to tell me about the stakes being a conservative swing on the supreme court. The problem is that I while I tend to be mostly progressive in my politics, I like my Supreme Court to be on the conservative side. I think of their role as the brakes on populist overreach, so that the outrages of one generation don't get codified into law for future generations to have to undo.)

For me, one of the biggest was not letting my disappointment in my wife turn into a more generalized misogyny.

This is really a difficult thing to put into practice. The last person on the planet I thought would cheat was my prudish church lady wife. My thoughts immediately jump to an indictment of the whole gender, and that every one of them without question are using their sexuality to manipulate and get whatever they want. Of course I know this is not true of the whole species, but in the pain of the moment, thoughts definitely go there.

It also makes me want to go MGTOW and give the world the finger. I have visions of disappearing from the world moving to the coast and fishing the rest of my days..dog for loyalty and sex doll for release.

Having always been the 'Nice Guy'. this is the ultimate slap in the face which invokes a dark fuck you attitude toward everyone. Thanks infidelity!

For me, one of the biggest was not letting my disappointment in my wife turn into a more generalized misogyny.

One of my biggest concerns is not lettering all of the assholes in the world turn into a more generalized misanthropy.

We (humans) tend to fear what don't understand. Often enough, I just don't understand some people. I don't always fear them, but I sure as shit don't trust them.

I want you all to know that I went through two bags of popcorn reading all this.

Ps - My wife very early on said she was coerced by her AP because she was at a “vulnerable” time in her life. Rape? Hiw about sexual assault?

This is all so scary for me as I have a young son who definitely loves girls. So I am pushing HARD for no sex before marriage but if that’s not a possibility then he has to get the girl he’s with to sign a sexual consent form and notarize it. Both he and his partner shall wear gopros during sex and subsequently release the video/audio recording to a non-partial attorney who then locks that recording up in an undisclosed safety deposit box.

When 'conservatism'.... Man, I don't know how I can write about this without violating the NO POLITICS rule....

Let's just go back to Adam Smith. Didn't he say something about not letting corporations influence legislation? I know he was very uncomplimentary about joint stock companies. Consider the position of corporations in US 'conservative's' practice.

Consider, also, the place of science and data in US 'conservative' theory and practice.

When I consider those things, I draw certain conclusions - but outlining them comes too close to the line for me.

WRT hearings and testimony, it always comes down to believing one or another of the witnesses. Here's the thing, though. We can usually apply critical thinking skills to testimony and come up with the most likely truths.

Except on the Sunday talk shows. Those are so content-free and logic-free that they rarely, if ever, contain any truth....

Adam Smith is the guy that planted all the apple orchards, right?

Naw, man, that was his grandmother, Granny Smith.

PS: There was a time that NTV would have allowed no bad pun to remain unpunished.

[This message edited by PlanC at 2:17 PM, October 2nd (Tuesday)]

I think I'm gonna need some punglasses.

I’m trying to stay out of all this, cause, well, football and life and ummm...football, but my WW, who herself is a victim of assault as is all 3 of our daughters to varying degrees, was getting hammered for daring to suggest that it’s possible that innocent mistakes are being made that are being clouded by the circumstances around who this man is and the position he’s up for. Something is off with that concept. That emotion has generally replaced reason and any skepticism or questioning of facts is treated as misogynistic.

I was discussing it with a buddy and he forwarded me a well-written article from a magazine that is not in line with where I sit in terms of views, but it was a very well made point. In sum, remember To Kill A Mockingbird? Either the book by Harper Lee or the movie starring Gregory Peck? Where has Atticus Finch gone? He’d be vilified today. He defended an alleged rapist and didn’t just simply believe Mayella. He questioned her, focused on facts, poked holes in her story, and showed how Tom Robinson was innocent. He’s rightly been a cultural hero for decades. Now replace Tom Robinson with Kavanaugh. See how that thought experiment goes.

Not giving any opinion on the whole mess. But boy do I miss the days when people were generally fair-minded and not inherently evil just because you had a differing point of view.

Let's just go back to Adam Smith.

True story - I took a New Business Venture class in business school and we decided to have fun with it (everybody else did some variation of a dot.com which was hot back then). My team’s idea was an automatic toilet seat lowering device. For all of us Menz whose SO’s curse our names every time they make a late night trip to the facilities and meet porcelain head on. Well, not head on exactly. Anyway, we called it “The Invisible Hand.”

Yes. We were nerds.

[This message edited by Walloped at 9:11 AM, October 3rd (Wednesday)]

Walloped, I understand the concept of Atticus Finch, but that concept applies in criminal prosecutions, where the government is taking steps to deprive a citizen of his liberty (i.e. lock him up in prison) as punishment for a crime.

Here, we are considering whether to bestow upon this man a rare and high honor, so rare that only 9 living people in the world can hold this honor at any time. If we choose not to bestow this rare honor upon him, his life will continue as normal. His liberty will remain intact.

In that case, he has the burden to show that his character is impeccable, without any skeletons in his closet, not even tiny mouse skeletons.

In that case, he has the burden to show that his character is impeccable

his life will continue as normal.

What???

A man, with a wife and two young daughters, is accused of a sex crime and you’re saying that just because someone accuses him without any corroboration or evidence, the burden is on him to disprove it??? His life and career will be permanently destroyed if he can’t disprove it?

That is totalitarian thinking and flies in the face of everything this country was founded on and believes in.

I guess whenever a BH comes to JFO or this thread shell-shocked from a false DV charge by their WW, I need to tell him that it’s up to him to disprove it because we only believe the WW. And since he likely won’t go to jail, even though he might lose custody of his kids or lose his assets, his life will continue just fine, so no big deal. After all, the burden is now on him to disprove, not on his WW to prove, right?

Dammit - now I’m all riled up.

What???

A man, with a wife and two young daughters, is accused of a sex crime and you’re saying that just because someone accuses him without any corroboration or evidence, the burden is on him to disprove it??? His life and career will be permanently destroyed if he can’t disprove it?

That is totalitarian thinking and flies in the face of everything this country was founded on and believes in.

I guess whenever a BH comes to JFO or this thread shell-shocked from a false DV charge by their WW, I need to tell him that it’s up to him to disprove it because we only believe the WW. And since he likely won’t go to jail, even though he might lose custody of his kids or lose his assets, his life will continue just fine, so no big deal. After all, the burden is now on him to disprove, not on his WW to prove, right?

Carefull there Wal. You are talking logic. And we are in a Feelings based reality now.

Tread lightly.

but my WW, who herself is a victim of assault as is all 3 of our daughters to varying degrees, was getting hammered for daring to suggest that it’s possible that innocent mistakes are being made that are being clouded by the circumstances around who this man is and the position he’s up for. Something is off with that concept. That emotion has generally replaced reason and any skepticism or questioning of facts is treated as misogynistic.

I was right there with her, until the pitchfork and torches crowd came along.

[NB: The comment about how I feel about "my sexual assaults.

And the one about, "a few innocent men being burned is a price I'm willing to pay" ]

In that case, he has the burden to show that his character is impeccable

his life will continue as normal.

Yeah, this is the biggest load of BS being peddled right now. And you want to know why it is completely false?

Because the experiment has already been run: Harvard was about to withdraw his teaching assignment before Kavanaugh did; some tool with USAToday suggested that Kavanaugh shouldn't coach his daughter's basketball team because...well, little girls. All with no evidence, just accusation.

The burden of proof to be on the accuser to prove charges/allegations/stories against someone is not just a "court" thing - it is foundational to our society.

How many of us were outraged when we got a visit from the cops about false DV claims? In a lot of ways it felt like I was looking at myself on TV.

Oh, and BTW, I welled up during my custody hearing (I was alone, representing myself) when I was on the stand telling the judge about how my son had become a shut-in and my middle D overdosed.

And note: This has nothing to do with politics, this is about simple fairness.

[This message edited by WornDown at 11:11 AM, October 3rd (Wednesday)]

I guess whenever a BH comes to JFO or this thread shell-shocked from a false DV charge by their WW, I need to tell him that it’s up to him to disprove it because we only believe the WW. And since he likely won’t go to jail, even though he might lose custody of his kids or lose his assets, his life will continue just fine, so no big deal. After all, the burden is now on him to disprove, not on his WW to prove, right?

Dude, look around. We're only a step away from that today. Not NEARLY as much on this board, but, if you feel like getting really riled up, just Google "my wife cheated on me". Yes, you'll find sites like this, as well as some other helpful ones. And you'll also find 100's of sites that basically say "it's your fault, you weren't meeting her needs". I know, because coming out of d-day, that's exactly what I did. And then, I went into IC.. And they told me some version of "your fault". And then MC, and they told me a different version of "not meeting her needs". It was f**king crazy making. It's only because of boards like this that I kept my head screwed on straight at all, because if it wasn't here, I'm pretty sure I would have been convinced "it's my fault" (and then divorced her, because, obviously, I can't meet her needs).

It's a sad discourse that we see played out all over society today. Shoot, at the risk of annoying a mod, I'd say that all the "sexual equality" threads are a huge insight into how far the pendulum has swung. OK, my wife cheated on me, I'm trying to R, but requiring the sex to be on the level she gave to the AP is one step from "rape" and an unreasonable requirement for R? What the f***... Sorry of the language, but that's just so counter to the "we're all equal" and should stand on equal footing with one another it makes my head spin. So, we're all equal until my W makes me sign a post-nup because I'm a cheating ass (and totally deserve it), but me expecting the love my wife gave another man behind my back is unreasonable? Suffice to say, that just flies in the face of everything I believe; I'm not one to defend cheating men; put them on lock down, deny sex, get a post-nup, whatever it is that makes you feel whole and safe in the marriage again. But it seems that there's still a double standard; neatly summed up as he cheats, his fault; she cheats, his fault. :) It's very sad and destructive to BH's, or at least it was to me coming out of the horror of d-day.

Okay, this is getting borderline political, which is streng verboten here on SI. I would say simply that this hearing is not a criminal trial. This individual injected himself into the public eye by accepting a nomination to one of the rarest of honors. He could have declined. He knows that once he sits in that chair, his opponents are going to scour the earth for every skeleton in his closet. He knows at the very least that he lived a youth of heavy drinking and loutish behavior, not the sort of stuff one associates with a justice on the highest court in the land.

In other words, he chose to have his dirtiest laundry exposed to his family and the rest of the world. I feel zero sympathy.

Look, I have plenty of dirty laundry from my younger years. Which is why I will never seek public office.

OK for a second lets just not worry about the original charge.

The MAIN objection I have to this man sitting on that court is his CURRENT BEHAVIOR!!! This man has NOT behaved in a calm or reasonable manner. He appears to be (in effect) acting like a dry drunk!! Shifting from tears to attack in seconds is NOT the demeanor I think is appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court!!

I can appreciate that he is mad and upset but still to behave like a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum!! He does NOT "deserve ' to serve on the bench, nobody "deserves" to sit on the supreme court some must be chosen and it should ONLY be the BEST of the bunch. Not just because he will throw a particular case YOUR way!!!

In my opinion it is too important to let someone who cannot maintain their professionalism under stress!

JMO YMMV

Gentleman, I think we are all rightly concerned that some women (and girls) will file or claim false assault or sexual assault charges against men. I think we all know, either from experience or from other BHs sharing, that WWs are more apt to do this than most, which is why we advice most BHs to buy and use a VAR and take other steps to protect themselves.

Here's the thing though, and this is what these women are trying to tell us. It's not the norm. The norm is being sexually assaulted and never believed. The norm is being so traumatized and terrified that they bury the event and never discuss with anyone. The norm is that they carry the effects of that trauma with them for the rest of their lives, in silent desperation.

You don't have to believe them, but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexually assaulted and justice is rarely met.

Now replace Tom Robinson with Kavanaugh. See how that thought experiment goes.

Rather poorly, if you ask me. The two are vastly different men in extremely different situations (particularly racism).

I tend to think analytically. I don't know, and probably never will, the truth about Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanagh. What I do know is that Supreme Court Justices ought to be very, very carefully chosen. These nine men and women have the power to literally shape the future for the 300+ MILLION citizens of the United States.

So, I have to weight the possible outcomes (which, not being a Senator, means absolutely nothing).

1) If the claims are false and the man is confirmed, no harm, no foul (aside from political view points).

2) If the claims are true and the man gets confirmed, then we have a man on the SCOTUS who really shouldn't be there.

3) If he's not confirmed and innocent, it's truly an injustice.

4) If he's not confirmed and guilty, then we all win and justice is served (at least in part).

Which is the worst possible outcome, do you think?

Yeah not going to wade into that polticial debate, but as father who has a son . . .in the current environment it makes me concerned that even a false allegation could derail his life. Even if he did nothing wrong. I raised him so I am not worried about him in that way. I hope the parents of other kids his age do their job . .color me skeptical.

Men and women both can lie. I guess we in the menz forum are a little more sensitive to that because we have all been lied to by a woman whom we thought we could trust. It is hard not to be skeptical. Too many messed up people in the world.

I also have a daughter. Who is definitely a daddy's girl and it shocks and horrifies me to think that could happen to her too. Or worse yet that it happened to her and she wouldn't tell anyone because she thought no one would believe her.

It is hard not be skeptical and see the world through an ugly lens sometimes.