SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Understand the concept of "the tingles".

Both men and women get the tingles when aroused by a person that pushes the right buttons.

That person who is so capable of giving the tingles...may be broke, a dirtbag, have STDs...and so on. So...do you want to wife/hubby them? Nope...but you might F them if you are a cheater.

The tingles are no joke. They are magnetic to some people.

It's also one of the core concepts behind PUA nonsense...but it works in that they focus on triggering "the tingles"...and can fake it for a short time. It's why PUA crap is both crap...and effective crap. The tingles work.

When you understand the tingles, you get why they need a plan B...the "tingles" guy/girl is likely not someone you want to marry. They are someone you want to F.

The cascading issue is that once you F Mr/Mrs tingles, you no longer get aroused from your spouse as you see them as sexually inferior. Disrespect, disdain, resentment, and similar follow.

Dead bedroom...happens.

It's the concept of the "Alpha widow/husband"...which is another topic. Gist is that once you have had a 10, it is hard to go back to a 7...even if that 10 was only a 10 in your mind.

I wasn't even Plan C for my ex...

[extra sad face eating salted caramel ice cream with two spoons realizing it started off as just caramel before my tears got mixed into it]

I enjoy these threads because for as emotionally invested as we are in this stuff, they tend to be a fairly facile and eye-opening affair (no pun intended). And each and every time they're just more fuel for my belief that making genderified generalizations (genderalizations?), while a fun intellectual exercise and airing of grievances, does little to actually bridge some of these opinion gaps.

[This message edited by AbandonedGuy at 5:23 PM, May 1st (Wednesday)]

[Quote]The cascading issue is that once you F Mr/Mrs tingles, you no longer get aroused from your spouse as you see them as sexually inferior. Disrespect, disdain, resentment, and similar follow.

Then, why attempt R?

What is PUA?

[This message edited by cocoplus5nuts at 9:24 PM, May 1st (Wednesday)]

I don't know about anyone else, but after years of being in an abusive relationship and having an abusive childhood reliable is what I want in a partner, it's not Plan B, it's freaking Plan A. If I have an itch to scratch anyone with a penis can do it, hell I can probably do it better myself without the penis. Sex is just a random physical act, attractiveness is fleeting, humor really is subjective but still really important. But at the end of the day I want someone honest, someone I know is going to keep their word and I can count on.

I used to call my husband my safe harbor, even when we argued he never yelled or raised his voice. 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.

I know I wasn’t chosen for my reliability. I was quite the wild guy when we met. I was on a fast track business wise, but if I hadn’t met and married her I probably would have burned myself out.

As to plan A or B, no doubt I was never plan B as far as a life partner. Her AP was never a viable replacement for me.

She hung her hat on that too. The fact that he meant nothing to her except to fulfill her needs of needing to feel relevant again.

Plan A or B didn’t mean crap too me. The same seamen was deposited in her whether I was plan A or B. She paid the price for that

I know I wasn’t chosen for my reliability. I was quite the wild guy when we met. I was on a fast track business wise, but if I hadn’t met and married her I probably would have burned myself out.

Not to be rude but I sincerely don't understand why anyone would marry someone who wasn't reliable. Like isn't marriage to have a life and family with someone?

I can see this being either way. Maybe the CW was looking to replace her H. She thought she found that someone in the AP, but discovered he was not all that. She then realizes her BH is the best thing she ever had and goes back to him.

There's a slight problem to this. This isn't a job vacancy where a person is chosen for his skills and abilities. When a WW "chooses" her BH for his reliability, she simply defines her BH as a person capable of doing a job. But is that how a BH wants to be defined? Is his identity as a spouse based on what he provides to the WW? What about bigger things like devotion and loyalty that couples must have for each other due to the years spent together in building a relationship. The identity one takes in being devoted to his wife and expects the same from his wife.

If he wasn't valued for that (and thus betrayed as a consequence) what good is his capability when it comes to being Plan A/Plan B? Even long term employees expect their companies to keep them until they retire even if they somehow become unable to work as efficient as before - for the loyalty they've shown (even if that is unreasonable, given how many businesses don't operate that way).

If a marriage is an investment decision only based on what the spouse can bring in the future, then it's alright for the BH to accept his WW's staying for the reliability. But a marriage is more than that - it is devotion and loyalty built over many years, and discarded for "lurve" when the WW strays. This is what a BH expects his WW to understand so that she can see what she has destroyed and try to salvage. If the WW doesn't see that and only wants the BH back for what he can offer in the future, then what good is it being Plan A?

[This message edited by hadji at 10:14 PM, May 1st (Wednesday)]

There's a slight problem to this. This isn't a job vacancy where a person is chosen for his skills and abilities. When a WW "chooses" her BH for his reliability, she simply defines her BH as a person capable of doing a job. But is that how a BH wants to be defined? Is his identity as a spouse based on what he provides to the WW? What about bigger things like devotion and loyalty that couples must have for each other due to the years spent together in building a relationship. The identity one takes in being devoted to his wife and expects the same from his wife.

But those are things a spouse can and should provide. Marriage is a job, it's being the life partner for someone. Everyone gets to define their own criteria for what that "job" entails. I don't understand why anyone would want view being a good father, provider, etc as a bad thing.

Not to be rude but I sincerely don't understand why anyone would marry someone who wasn't reliable. Like isn't marriage to have a life and family with someone?

When we met I was in my late 20’s and was having fun. She was too. We lived in New York in the late 70’s and 80’s. It was crazy. But we loved each other and she did keep me from burning out. We married, had children, and moved to the suburbs.

She saw the best in me and knew I would be a great provider and partner. I knew she would be a great life partner also. For 25 years we lived a great life.

But back to the topic, I wasn’t your typical safe choice. She and I got together because we really loved each other. Not to just procreate

Plan A vs. Plan B seem to mean one or the other, but sexy and reliable does not need to be sexy or reliable.

I have always hesitated to tell certain aspects of my story because a--they are too complicated, and b--they may not sound right without full details. But, prior to the boundary crossing and cheating there was just a deteriorating marriage. My H wanted more sex and I wanted more sleep. This went on for a bit. My H became more . . . compliant to get sex (except for the drinking), and his compliance was turning me off. I tried to explain that I wanted an equal, not a subservient; he kept up his same patterns. The wounds in our home festered. (Why, oh why did we not get into MC?!)

My point is that my husband believed he was reliable and boring and that it got him either worse sex or no sex, but he was very wrong. He was Mr. Too Nice Guy, No Longer A Self Guy. And THAT guy was not sexy!!!!

Lots of IC later, and he has changed. He is more independent and much stronger now, and that sh$t is sexy! And he looks good to me for his competence and strength.

Maybe the problem here is our definitions and application of the word "reliable." I saw first hand that my H thought it meant "give up all sense of self and just try to please my wife." That was not sexy. And cheating was definitely not sexy. But getting his crap together and finding himself is Plan A, B, C, D and all the way to Z. He looks better all the time, 100 × better than any skanky AP could ever look to me.

Maybe we aren't understanding reliable to be the same thing?

Aggressive is not sexy.

Passive is not sexy.

Assertive is sexy.

[This message edited by OwningItNow at 10:38 PM, May 1st (Wednesday)]

Rejection is relative. Plan A and plan B are relative to the observer. So the person that owns sports car will still feel rejected if the driver chooses to drive the minivan. This completely undermines the foundation from which their ego and understanding of the principles of their existence are built upon. It’s like the fabric of spacetime has unraveled.

[This message edited by KingRat at 10:40 PM, May 1st (Wednesday)]

I've come to the belief that male sexual insecurity isn't a state of being which should be tolerated, but rather something to be defeated. IOW, it shouldn't be accepted as "the norm", but rather a flaw.

Men’s “sexual insecurity” is a biological imperative. (Coco, chime in her)

A man can have sex with 1,000 women and not father a single child, if he is with those women on the wrong days, or another man just before, or after, him, impregnates her.

The only guarantee a man has of procreating is an exclusive woman. Men that tolerate unfaithful women were mostly bred out of the gene pool long ago. Natural selection saw to that.

The imperative is not as strong for women. A promiscuous husband might leave her nursing one child and heavily pregnant with another, and things will be difficult for her. Or he might share his resources with a child not hers.

But this is not as fundamental as not procreating is.

Female infidelity is more threatening to men than vice versa. Darwin explained this. Women should at least understand the raw primal needs that make men lunatics. A “flaw”? I don’t think so.

And I happen to think that women’s silliness about shoes is cute, not a flaw. I like women just the way they are. Even my WW.

And btw, women benefit from promiscuity. Reduces the risk that a single man might be infertile, or that she won’t be serviced on her fertile days. But she has to be careful, if she wants to keep her caretaker around. Because if he finds outs she’s cheating, well, see above about lunacy.

But those are things a spouse can and should provide. Marriage is a job, it's being the life partner for someone. Everyone gets to define their own criteria for what that "job" entails. I don't understand why anyone would want view being a good father, provider, etc as a bad thing.

It becomes a bad thing when that is the only thing that a man gets defined as, by his WS. That is what I have tried to explain in my reply. That, while that identity is good, that identity should also evoke a sense of deep love and devotion - if not the feelings of romance and lust - from the spouse so much that he does not even have to become a choice - he should be the only one from the beginning, even.

[This message edited by hadji at 10:59 PM, May 1st (Wednesday)]

Men’s “sexual insecurity” is a biological imperative. (Coco, chime in her)

A man can have sex with 1,000 women and not father a single child, if he is with those women on the wrong days, or another man just before, or after, him, impregnates her.

The only guarantee a man has of procreating is an exclusive woman. Men that tolerate unfaithful women were mostly bred out of the gene pool long ago. Natural selection saw to that.

And btw, women benefit from promiscuity. Reduces the risk that a single man might be infertile, or that she won’t be serviced on her fertile days. But she has to be careful, if she wants to keep her caretaker around. Because if he finds outs she’s cheating, well, see above about lunacy.

I think you are falsely equating fidelity and monogamy.

Fidelity - faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated by continuing loyalty and support.

Which you can do and still sleep with other people, providing you are honest and upfront about it. It's polyamory, ethical non-monogamy, or being an ethical slut.

It becomes a bad thing when that is the only thing that a man gets defined as, by his WS. That is what I have tried to explain in my reply. That, while that identity is good, that identity should also evoke a sense of deep love and devotion - if not the feelings of romance and lust - from the spouse so much that he does not even have to become a choice - he should be the only one from the beginning, even.

Sorry, I don't experience lust. My attraction to people is based purely on their personality and whether or not I think we can have a life together. I am pretty romantic though, which is unfortunate because the type of person I usually date tends to be not romantic.

I only ever remember one member here who actually wanted from his WW and enforced porn star sex on demand from her as part of him not leaving her.

Ive never seen anyone else say anything even close to what continually gets accusedly supposedly said by BHes in every one of these threads.

Somehow, if BH makes the same sexual acts she did with her boyfriend a requirement for R, hes a sexual deviantand one step away from a rapist.

Please...

[This message edited by GoldenR at 12:40 AM, May 2nd (Thursday)]

I don't understand why anyone would want view being a good father, provider, etc as a bad thing.

It's a bad thing when your wife thinks this of you, then decides you're just a boring nice guy and then finds Mr. Bad Boy to help her with her passionless marriage and ego-kibble cravings. When she finally realizes Mr. Bad Boy is really a POS, then she wants her boring, faithful nice guy back. At this point, who really gives a shit whether they're Plan A or Plan B?

[This message edited by HardenMyHeart at 12:16 AM, May 2nd (Thursday)]

Men’s “sexual insecurity” is a biological imperative.

If you want to go full Darwin on this thing, we're talking about the strongest in the pack just grabbing up the fertile females and killing his rivals. Maybe it's just me, but it's 2019 out there, and I think maybe the modern man is capable of a little more finesse.

Sorry, I don't experience lust. My attraction to people is based purely on their personality and whether or not I think we can have a life together. I am pretty romantic though, which is unfortunate because the type of person I usually date tends to be not romantic.

It's not a bad thing entirely. That is why I've added the "if not" qualifier. I mean, what if your spouse cannot perform sexually anymore. Does that make your marriage a sham right away? There were other things I had mentioned. The love and affection that comes from familiarity, the loyalty that comes from being a team, the gratitude that comes for being firm as a rock, etc. Now, if that identity of being a reliable husband does not evoke those feelings and still led the wife to stray, then being all of that in the past had no value and the WW only sticks with the BH because she knows she will still get all of that in the future even though the BH knows that this identity of his hasn't stopped the WW from giving her affections to someone else.

So, what is the value of that identity? To get the WW to stay? Is that it? Should the BH feel lucky for that?

[This message edited by hadji at 2:01 AM, May 2nd (Thursday)]

I think you are falsely equating fidelity and monogamy.

Mods, change the name of the site to “Surviving Unethical Non-monogamy”!!

I didn't use the word “fidelity.”

But here”s what Webster says about “infidelity”: marital disloyalty, adultery.

While you have your dictionary out, look up “pedant.”