SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

While I’m not responsible for his being the chief of cheater mountain, I’m responsible for ignoring red flags and having the arrogance to think I was precious to him or anyone.

Remarkable... I'm imagining spoken for many of us, certainly for me. Change the "his/him" to "her" and you've got something I'd write.

And I continually assume the same responsibility upon introspection.

[This message edited by NotTheManIwas at 8:49 AM, May 2nd (Thursday)]

For the first time in my life I could be around someone and not have flinch everytime they got near me. That was everything!!! Now I don't have that anymore and I kinda hate him for taking it away

NeverHealed, I think you've got it backwards. It is almost impossible for a man to have sex with 1000s of women and not father a child. It us more evolutionarily advantageous for men to have sex with as many women as possible. That ensures the highest # of offspring and the lowest amount of energy and resources spent by the Male. Males spend a very minimal amount of energy procreating, a little energy put into the act of sex, a little loss of sperm that is continually reproduced, and not necessarily any other resources. A man can do this an unlimited number times throughout almost his entire life.

A woman, otoh, spends a lot more energy and irreplaceable resources on producing offspring. She uses up several irreplaceable and aging eggs in the hope of producing just one child every 10 months, at the most. She has a very small window each month or so when this can happen. If she does get pregnant, there's always the chance of miscarriage, at which she has to wait an indeterminate amount of time before she can potentially get pregnant again. If she stays pregnant, she spends a lot of energy growing the baby. She risks her life and the babies life giving birth. Then, she has to feed the baby for years with her own body, expending much more energy. She is very limited on the # of offspring she can have in her much more narrow reproductive phase of her life that will survive. So, it is more evolutionarily advantageous for a female to pick one male who can provide the support she needs to improve the chances of her offspring surviving.

This is all based on very basic biological imperatives, not taking into account advances in the human existence.

BTW, Darwin was a cheater. While his scientific theories may be genius, his opinions on relaships and marriage are not.

She saw the best in me and knew I would be a great provider and partner.

This statement disproves your previous statement. She did think you would be a good life partner. That's why she married you.

Hadji, M is a job. It's a lot of work. You don't just fall into it and then live happily ever after.

To me, "providing" means contributing to the relationship, the family, the home, life. I'm not opposed to making the money and my fch being the SAHP. I actually tried to convince him to do that early in our M as I was making more money and had better benefits. He wouldn't have it. He was the man. He had to work.

It is not about you making the money and me spending it. I'm the frugal one in our M. My fch is constantly spending money on unnecessary things that we can't afford. He even tries to hide stuff on credit cards. I had to recently ask him to give mine back because I have asked him over and over not to use it but he continues to.

Reliable, to me, means always available, doing what you say, being consistent. Can't think of anything else right now, but I'm sure there's more. But, again, to me, it doesn't have much to do with making money.

Ok, this should be my last post for a while. There were a lot of new posts to read.

Is his identity as a spouse based on what he provides to the WW?

Yes and no. His identity as a spouse is tied to what he can provide to the M. M is nothing more than a legal transaction. I started to say it was set up for 2 purposes, female monogamy and(note, not Male monogamy) and ensured support of children. But, I think there were other legal reasons, like ensuring the next kingdom over was your ally.

Anyway, I can get all the other stuff; love, commitment, familiarity, sex, in a non M LTR. What I can't get from that, usually, is coverage under my P's medical insurance, automatic rights to his assets, etc. My H is military. If I hadn't been married to him, I would not have been allowed on any military bases even if we lived together for years and had children and such. He would not get family pay. He would not get money to pay for us to move when he has to. I would not be able to use the commissary, free military labs and pharmacies. Again, I'm sure there's more.

I'm not saying you should marry only for those things. I would hope there would be attraction, love, and respect there, too.

I don’t think putting fidelity and social monogamy in an evolutionary context is helpful. As a species, having multiple sexual partners is what saved us from going the way of the dodo. It benefited both men and women. Our closest relatives, apes, are some of the most promiscuous animals on the planet.

Marriage is a cultural construct established only very recently in our history. Social monogamy is choice we make not a biological drive. There’s nothing from an evolutionary perspective that can really account for jealousy, it would be counterintuitive to have a drive to reproduce as much as possible but also display behavior to impede reproductive success. The troops (families hunting and gathering together) raised children, not one specific male.

IMHO, I think mate retention is derived from a social and cultural construct. The loss of a valued resource (the relationship) is what causes the jealousy and hurt. These relationships are only of value because our culture and society gives them value.

Masculine and feminist traits are dictated by culture not biology. Western culture puts a high value on sexual prowess is a masculine trait. Using the group RIO often cites, their drive to have As for sex isn’t biological but cultural. In other other words, they ain’t no kinda bro if they love them hoes. If that was a biological feature, men would not participate in EAs.

[This message edited by KingRat at 11:37 AM, May 2nd (Thursday)]

Hate to rain on the parade but drawing conclusions about modern society using evolution is one of the most misguided mistakes that people frequently make. It ignores thousands of years of psychology and sociology by comparing people today to the hunter/gatherers of nearly 7,000 years ago. And natural selection stops being relevant as soon as society can account for the most common things that can kill off a significant population of a species in order to greatly affect gene frequencies.

You know what animal responded great to domestication? Dogs. Some how in only a few hundred years, they've managed to break free of a lot of their evolutionary programming better than we have if we truly believe that we're still heavily effected by programming that stopped being relevant thousands of years ago when society decided to go in a different direction.

What is relevant though is that women have only had the right to fair employment, to vote, to own land, and be independent for ~100 years. In the early 1900s, divorce meant poverty and in some cases it was even a death sentence because opportunities were so few and far between for women. Is it really a surprise that many still value being provided for when many of our grandmothers didn't even have the opportunity to provide for themselves? Makes perfect sense to me.

Coco

Of course men are wired to be promiscuous. Goes without saying. Doesn’t explain male sexual insecurity.

Bonobo monkeys are unusual in their promiscuity. In almost all other species, males are tremendously insecure, sexually, to the point of fighting and dying for exclusivity.

If anyone has previously stated this I apologize. Quite frankly once a couple says "I do" there should never be an instance where a choice should ever have to be made. And if one is indeed made then yes a BS should feel like plan B.

After all vows were made, one person broke them and went out and tried another person on for a test drive. So you "chose" your spouse once, and now they have to live through being "chosen" again? Those lacking the self respect to NOT be offended by that surprises me.

I see it as if I told my old trusty lawn mower I've had for a decade, Im going shopping to look at a new mower but if it doesn't cut the lawn like you do, I wont buy it and I'll keep you around.

I can relate. Ex-POS and I used to look at most other couples and think "thank god we're not them". We were different. Better... Oh sweet, sweet naive us. Now those bad couples are still together and I'd bet the farm that half will stick it out for the long haul, for better or worse.

So, it is more evolutionarily advantageous for a female to pick one male who can provide the support she needs to improve the chances of her offspring surviving.

While this is true, you're not seeing the whole picture. The female will often try to secretly mate with the Alpha males, but have her offspring raised by the beta male. This provides her offspring the best set of genes and the best chance of survival.

Bonobo monkeys are unusual in their promiscuity. In almost all other species, males are tremendously insecure, sexually, to the point of fighting and dying for exclusivity.

For every example drawn from biology, there is one that completely contradicts it. There are tons of other creatures that don't jealously guard potential mates. Many insects don't. Many species of birds don't. Lizards don't. Snakes don't. Monogamous species don't typically fight to the death like that - penguins, wolves, swans, voles, etc. Fighting and jealousy is reserved for species with high mate competition that is not based on female choice (like birds of paradise). So are Bonobos uncommon when they're the same as many other species?

P.S. Everything people have known about wolves got completely turned on its head when David Mech discovered that the alpha wolf theory was completely false. Turns out there are no alpha males and females. The larger male and female of a wolf pack are the parents of all the other wolves. Wolves are monogamous and a lone wolf trope comes from when a wolf grows up and goes looking for a new mate to start a new pack with.

Is it really a surprise that many still value being provided for when many of our grandmothers didn't even have the opportunity to provide for themselves

If I had known my wife's main reason for wanting marriage was because I was a good provider I would never have married.

It isn't the 1900s and from what I've seen, women in my country can provide for themselves, often better than men can.

I WILL not be a wallet with legs. Fuck that. I didn't think this way before her affair but I wish I had. Because I'd have been a lot less selfless and a lot more focused on what's in it for me.

Good provider to me equates to being a mark. Because if a woman is after my "financial security" aka my wallet, then she isn't after me.

If it weren't for kids, I wouldn't see a point in being married at all.

Consistent source of sex and intimacy? Ha! Sell that lie to a dude who hasn't been married before.

A life long partner? I've got friends who fit that bill.

Saving money on taxes? Idk.

Look. I understand WHY a woman would say that they value it. Hell, I value my financial security. I just don't see what's in it for me really.

I see that it's something beneficial to my kids. But what happens when they are grown?

While this is true, you're not seeing the whole picture. The female will often try to secretly mate with the Alpha males, but have her offspring raised by the beta male. This provides her offspring the best set of genes and the best chance of survival.

That's only true of SOME species. Some monogamous species don't have this problem.

Here's the deal - we can't look at all of creation with its extreme variance in behavior and say that any one specific behavior is the TRUE one. That's like saying the color royal blue is the one true color and all the others are just weird and don't count.

If I had known my wife's main reason for wanting marriage was because I was a good provider I would never have married.

I agree with you completely. Hence I married a cook. If my husband wanted to marry me because of my ability to keep house and have kids, I wouldn't have married him either. That's probably in part because the idea that the only way to raise a family is if mom stays home and dad provides is no longer the case.

I liked Ashley’s wife, too. Do women really want Rhett?

It's so funny that Gone With the Wind has come up, because I've been thinking about it for the last few days. The climactic scene in the book deals with everything we unpack on SI. In the first chapter, Scarlett decides that she's in love with Ashley, not because she knows or understands anything about his true character, but because she's built a fantasy of a knight in shining armor and projected it onto him. Rhett is actually perfect for her, and loves her knowing exactly who she is, but she won't admit that and keeps trying to lure her "soulmate" away from his wife. Ashley values Melanie, who is genuinely good, but lusts after Scarlett in perpetual shame. It isn't until (spoiler alert for anyone who's running 90 years behind schedule) Melanie dies that Scarlett wakes up and sees that she doesn't really want Ashley, she wants Rhett. And it's too late; he's finally stopped dancing the pick-me dance and gotten over her.

Margaret Mitchell wanted to end the book with Rhett saying, "I wish I could tell you I care where you go or what you do, but I don't. My dear, I don't give a damn." It was her editor who convinced her she couldn't leave it on a down note and got her to add Scarlett's speech that tomorrow is another day.

I think we’re also forgetting another motivation for a woman’s occasional settling for a “good provider”/wallet with legs: the insistent power of the biological clock. Sure, an above-average-attractiveness woman can fuck a damn lot of “alphas,” but if she can’t get one to settle down early enough in her childbearing years, guess who she’s likely to go for if she wants to have children? Mr. “Reliable ‘7’,” even if she’s enjoyed sex with many “Bad Boy ‘9’s.”

Mow is over 50 and was definitely looking for a provider. She and her bh/former om/former brother in law were just scraping by with their incomes. Her breeding days were far behind her, so no tick tock there. But I think her math said “he owns the company. This will secure my income and I can fuck myself into a higher tax bracket.” That had been her professional plan for 20+ yrs and maybe this time it would pan out. But dum dum that she is conveniently forgot about the 4 dependents wh had. I call this shitty affair math. Everything he had belongs to me, even more so now. He wasn’t going to support her kids. He didn’t even want to be seen in public with her and the only lunch she got out of him was via oral sex, no $ needed. So she overplayed her hand, er mouth, which was to treat his dick like an atm. It all blew up in her face. I apologize for the visuals, it’s actually quite fun to write.

I think the narrative was that I’m (me) a lady who lunches, plays tennis, shops. None of it is true. And she wanted that because supporting a family is hard. She thought by getting a glimpse of my life via close-ups of my wh’s penis gave her the full view of my life and who I was. She couldn’t see the forest for the penis and then beep beep, she went under the bus with her walking papers. So much hurt all around. She lost that job and she was the breadwinner with 4 kids. A big mess. Her bh knew a year before I did and said nothing, because then he would have to put his joint and guitar down and get off the couch, even tho he was a teacher. He was ok with her staying on there, being with my wh. He’s not reliable or a plan B - I’m pretty sure our alphabet isn’t long enough to label his role.

I apologize for the visuals, it’s actually quite fun to write.

And this is part of what keeps me engaged here. Humor laced into the pain. Solid.

She couldn’t see the forest for the penis and then beep beep, she went under the bus with her walking papers.

I was just explaining how NeverHealed had gotten it backwards. I wasn't advocating anything. I also said that none of what I wrote took into account modern advances.

There’s nothing from an evolutionary perspective that can really account for jealousy

Yes, there is. Jealousy, I assume you're talking about the male, keeps other potential mates away, ensuring guy#1 will have more offspring than guy #2. It's not just about procreating. It's also about procreating more than the other guy. More of my gene's multiplied than yours makes me the winner. And, again, I'm talking about the lizard brain here. Why do you think males of other species chase other males away?

Doesn’t explain male sexual insecurity.

I didn't realize we were trying to explain male sexual insecurity. Sorry. There is the other side of female choice. The female is going to choose whomever she deems to be the most suitable mate. Therefore, the male has to present himself in the best possible light.

I don't understand why men go straight to money when they think of "provider". It's not only about money. It's about providing safety and security. It's about providing care. It may be about the potential to provide money. If I'm the sole breadwinner, I still want to know that my spouse can support the family if needed.