SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Never going to have the entire story.

Time is not on my side.

Memory has faded.....

You are correct but don’t discount it’s probably her selected memory. They tend to minimize rather that just forget.

Maybe change in medication? dosage? I might write down the things that I don"t know. Maybe I am fearing more info. I have told her that.

The problem that is making you sad and cry is not medication.

A lot of self doubt and self criticism are dogging me.

She consoles and supports and has faith that we can be saved and strengthened.

As long as she does not have to do the work.

She does not ask me to forget, but she knows that I am on the right path....

You're on the right path? You're both focusing on the wrong path.

Let's talk about her path. How has she helped you since she was last shifting blame and victimhood?

Mr++

There was a recent discussion on another thread about polygraphs and I realized a big misconception many – me included – have about them.

A poly does not give you the truth.

What a poly does is tell you if the person being questioned is being HONEST.

Big difference – and IMHO maybe to your advantage.

If I believed the sky was green, I would pass a poly on that matter. If I knew it was blue but insisted it was green, I would fail.

I still think a poly can give you assurance. It can’t give you the whole story nor can it necessarily give you the truth. But the three questions I suggested can give you assurance about the extent of the affair and more importantly: Is your wife honest to you now?

(i) being assured that the affair was over when she says it was over,

(ii) that there has not been any contact since when she says there was last contact

(iii) that other than OM and you she has not been intimate with another man since you married

You're on the right path? You're both focusing on the wrong path.

Let's talk about her path. How has she helped you since she was last shifting blame and victimhood?

It sure feels like the right path. A path of honesty and togetherness. She and I have read and discussed a variety of books this year. State of Affairs, Untrue, Triggers, My Dark Vanessa.

We plan to continue, plan to value each other and honesty like never before.

She begins every morning reading me an affirmation, of love and loyalty and truth and togetherness.

She takes the blame. I feel that she takes too much blame. She refuses victimhood, I need to bring her thinking around to it.

What a poly does is tell you if the person being questioned is being HONEST.

Excellent distinction and that's exactly how I'm going to start thinking of my WW's failed poly and the shitshow of drama around it. Thank you, Bigger. Great point!

I've been making the same mistake, saying "help you get the truth." It may, in fact, get a parking lot confession and perhaps some BS's get *most* of the truth from the psychic pressure exerted by a polygraph.

But the more important points are whether your WS is willing to do the poly, does it without complaint, does it without sweating bullets, and passes or gives you a parking lot confession.

And most importantly, is your WW actually truly remorseful enough to move mountains for you? Doing a polygraph and a written timeline are truly small acts that don't require much out of a WW/WH at all. Puny, painless little acts they can take to show remorse and authenticity.

A polygraph doesn't consist of waterboarding someone, driving screws under their fingernails or delivering electroshock.

They get to sit in a comfortable chair and answer a few questions.

That's it.

If they're not willing, bad sign.

[This message edited by Thumos at 11:44 AM, December 1st (Tuesday)]

State of Affairs, Untrue, Triggers, My Dark Vanessa.

Wow, I feel very bad for you.

So you're reading the execrable Eurotrash Esther Perel and the apologist for women's lust Wednesday Martin?

Martin is among the female authors who are basically doing the flip side of crappy red pill ideology -- using evo psych to explain away bad behavior and reduce women down to the pre-programmed biological robots (actually very anti-woman and anti-feminist when you examine it).

Let me guess: My Dark Vanessa is there to help construct a narrative about how your WW was a "little lost girl in the woods" preyed upon by an older man? My God! She's practically a #MeToo hero now?

Triggers? In your case, that looks like a book designed to provide a work plan for you to choke down the shit sandwich and suffer in silence.

This is almost a parody.

Perel and Martin are among the authors almost everyone on SI agrees are simply there to provide WW's (and in some cases WH's) with bad justifications for their shitty choices and low morals.

How about instead of those above books, read No More Mr. Nice Guy, How to Help Your Spouse Heal from Your Affair by Linda McDonald, and Cheating in a Nutshell. Much more bracing and grounded in reality.

[This message edited by Thumos at 11:53 AM, December 1st (Tuesday)]

...the execrable Eurotrash Esther Perel...explain away bad behavior and reduce women down to the pre-programmed biological robots (actually very anti-woman and anti-feminist when you examine it).

Perel and Martin are among the authors almost everyone on SI agrees are simply there to provide WW's (and in some cases WH's) with bad justifications for their shitty choices and low morals.

I'm not one of them.

"Explain" does not equal "explain away".

That is so often the fear, that if we explain it, we justify it. But that is a non sequitur.

She triggers people on SI, yet a lot of what she writes is in fact espoused here. for example:

Not every infidelity is a symptom of a problem in a relationship, sometimes it has to do with other longings that are much more existential. Sometimes you go elsewhere not because you are not liking the one you are with; you are not liking the person you have become...Affairs are utopian stories that live on the sideline of your real life... it is not about necessarily being with another. It’s about you being another.

All of this rings true and is repeated on this site. Ego kibbles, escapism, the wrong answer to the problem, not the BS fault, problem is WS, that the BS can be doing everything right and still the WS cheats. It is practically a mantra.

Not every infidelity is a symptom of a problem in a relationship, sometimes it has to do with other longings that are much more existential. Sometimes you go elsewhere not because you are not liking the one you are with; you are not liking the person you have become...Affairs are utopian stories that live on the sideline of your real life... it is not about necessarily being with another. It’s about you being another.

This still reads like a word salad. Here let me fix it:

"Infidelity is never a symptom of a problem in a relationship, but rather is ALWAYS an expression of dysfunction within the adulterer. Cheaters cross ethical and moral boundaries because they have low EQ, have a high sense of self entitlement, low empathy and low regard for others. Adultery is a fantasy world untested by reality, and an extremely toxic indulgence that will blow up your family. Your desire to run away from yourself will do great life-changing harm to others. Your desire to 'be another person' is illusory. You are the person you are, and you can choose to do better. Deal with reality, don't betray your faithful partner and stop navel gazing about idiotic existential crises."

[This message edited by Thumos at 2:01 PM, December 1st (Tuesday)]

Thank you Houseofplane

Esther Perel's work as an adultery apologist has been debunked in a number of major publications. Ultimately, she tiptoes to the edge of advocating for a "monogamish" open marriage style relationship (which almost always privileges women over men). Her prescriptions for dealing with betrayal are odd to say the least (she seems to find it laudatory when one betrayed woman erects a shrine to the OW to thank her for renewing her marriage).

And she seems to struggle with coming to terms with the abusive nature of adultery. Perel seems to want to look the other way. If you want to look the other way, too, she's your gal.

Someone said succinctly that if Perel had a Deep South accent, instead of a vaguely French Eurotrash one, she'd probably be a guest on Jerry Springer instead of a bestselling author feted on the pages of the NY Times.

That about sums it up. This is just gussied up blameshifting and moral relativism. If your WW is looking for that as comfort food, OP, then keep feeding it to her and keep choking down that feces sandwich.

I would recommend another path that really grapples with the truth and approaches this with authenticity.

[This message edited by Thumos at 1:54 PM, December 1st (Tuesday)]

Thumos, you are a voice in the crowd and I come to this forum to hear voices in the crowd.

I read Ms. Perel first. My spouse continues to read it and finds cautionary tale after cautionary tale.

I felt that Ms. Martin helped me to accept that the myth of domesticity and monogamy as the only guidelines for women has no dominating basis in behaviour or biology.

We have lived in a marriage that was clouded by secrecy, but it also was the basis of raising three children and feeling our love grow over the decades.

She can't go back and eliminate the mistakes that haunt us both.

I intend to continue living and loving inside a long term marriage. If that, in your opinion, involves eating bad sandwiches, we might just have to agree to disagree.

I intend to continue living and loving inside a long term marriage. If that, in your opinion, involves eating bad sandwiches, we might just have to agree to disagree.

It's not staying in the marriage I equate with eating the shit sandwich (although it can be this in many cases) it's her inability to be authentic with you about it.

Go back and read my original posts about truth and reconciliation, which I believe you indicated resonated with you.

You're in the thick of it in your own situation, not me, but you've reported a lot of defensiveness and inability to own it.

You've reported a long-term intimacy vacuum at the heart of your marriage (because it is built around a lie about her inability to be faithful in the early passionate halcyon years of newlyweds during which time she was sexually passionate with a man she wanted to leave you for.)

Maybe that's changed?

Esther Perel refuses to look at the abusive nature of adultery squarely in the face and ultimately has pushed a "consensual non-monogamy" agenda. She has pushed the notion of "no fault affairs" which is the very antithesis of the advice you'll hear from SI from nearly every voice in the crowd.

That was my point.

Pair her with Martin and it's a one-two punch conveniently proferring a WW a tidy narrative about bad choices.

That was my other point.

(Incidentally, there's as much empirical and scientific evidence that humans are geared for monogamy as anything else. Evo psych has been abused to push a series of questionable viewpoint like so-called "red pill" ideology" and the idea of female infidelity as "empowerment.")

I felt that Ms. Martin helped me to accept that the myth of domesticity and monogamy as the only guidelines for women has no dominating basis in behaviour or biology.

Well of course monogamy and domesticity are not innately biological. Our primal instincts encourage us to do whatever it takes to perpetuate the species. However, we’re an evolving enlightened and civilized species who doesn’t answer to primal instincts otherwise we’d behave like animals, lie, cheat, steal, rape and kill for what we desire, acting on impulse, discriminate with prejudice, and consume without discretion...Is this where we’re headed? If we continuously tear down our institutions with a “do it if it feels good” ideology there’s going to be consequences. Loyalty, honesty, vows and empathy are fundamental to civilization-especially utopian civilizations.

If a domestic contract is not appealing to you then, don’t get into one in the first place. Or, use the D process to get out one.

[This message edited by RealityBlows at 3:37 PM, December 1st (Tuesday)]

We have lived in a marriage that was clouded by secrecy, but it also was the basis of raising three children and feeling our love grow over the decades.

I don't mean to pick at this, but this is a self refuting statement. If the marriage was clouded by secrecy from almost ground zero as newlyweds about a physical affair with another man she wanted to leave you for, then it's an incomplete marriage with a gaping hole in it. The gaping hole is true intimacy and authenticity. I'm sorry but it is virtually impossible this didn't have various deleterious impacts on the past three decades with her that you are only now beginning to realize. You keep coming back to this, but have you really grappled with her about the fact that she created an intimacy gap in your marriage that functionally became an abyss over time?

Well of course monogamy and domesticity are not innately biological.

Meta data analysis of anthropological studies of hunter gatherer societies indicate that monogamy is the rule in these primitive societies as opposed to the exception. Something like 90 percent. The polygamous hunter gatherer societies are the outliers.

This goes beyond a polyamory vs monogamy debate. I’m talking about the promise one makes to another. If we justify breaking promises, vows, lying and cheating, hurting the one’s we love because, it’s in our nature....

RealityBlows,

Agreed. But OP is citing a book which makes the case for WW's to say "see? My evolutionary psychology demands I be polyamorous!"

Also, Mr++... I wrote this a couple of weeks ago. Has anything substantial changed since then? Is she still angry and closed off, defensive with you about it?

It's also a problem that your wife seems to want you to credit all of behavior since she cheated long ago -- but you really have no idea if it's true or not that she stayed faithful after that.

And you know for a fact that in all these years, she deliberately chose to violate your autonomy and agency as a human being with free will, overriding your decision making as a free man to do what you felt was best with your life.

She kept that from you.

So when she says, essentially, "Look at what a great wife I've been all these years" you have to remember she's also saying "While I kept vital information about your life from you and violated the very covenant of our marriage from the inception of it."

I want to be clear that you CAN choose to credit all of that to her. I'm not diminishing it. I'm just saying as you think about this, it may trouble you that she seems to have made the assumption that you WILL and MUST credit it.

I get it. My point is those impulsive instincts are base and primal and came before the relatively more evolved anthropological examples you gave of ancient man evolving with monogamy to help perpetuate the species through the very first examples of team work. The theory is that those who followed their monogamous instincts faired better. But, sex feels damned good-for a reason, that can probably be traced back to some premordial ooze. Are we going to justify cheating because it is a part of our primordial nature?

So, I’m saying I don’t agree with this author regardless of whether polygamy/amory is in our nature or not.

[This message edited by RealityBlows at 4:56 PM, December 1st (Tuesday)]

If we're talking primal instincts, then OP should find the AP and stave his head in with a rock.

Remember, right up until about 100 years ago, discovered affairs typically resulted in the deaths of 1 - 3 of those involved.

I choose to believe it was a perfect storm.

Mr++, can you expand on what you mean here?

What do you mean you "choose to believe"? Is it true or not? Or are you choosing to believe something that likely isn't true?

What do you mean it was "the perfect storm"? That sounds like an act of God.

Incidentally, Esther Perel said in an interview this about the fake naugahyde remorse sad face she recommends WW/WH's put on as a mask so they can make sure their spouse sticks around - just so we're clear on where this lady is coming from:

"You show the remorse, and you show the guilt for hurting the person — even if what you've just experienced was a unique thing in your life that you will forever cherish."

Show... show... even if... forever cherish.

Get it?

I also find Perel's refrain that only strong relationships survive infidelity nauseating. The implication is that if the marriage dissolves, the marriage must not have been that great. This is just another version of the same old chestnuts passed around among adulterers for ages. Perel says and writes this sort of thing all the time. Her labeling and spin are gross.

She labels those who stay together as "transformative" while marriages that dissolve after infidelity as "destructive." These are false labels. It could very well be the case that both reconciliation and divorce are positive "transformations" for the betrayed spouse (as for the wayward spouse, I don't really care).

WS had an unguarded comment at the end of June, about boss kissing her at a 87 party, but then coming home to me for fun. When I asked hey, how often? She replied about keeping me guessing. She had forgotten about a comment she had made to me, turns out very late in her affair in 88, that she was in love with him and was going with him “if he’d have her”. As she never left, I always guessed that she had been rejected by him. Turns out that was a lie, she felt no love for him, just physical semi chemistry and a boss using his authority for his selfish reasons on a young wife/employee.

I keep coming back to this and find it haunting for some reason. It sounds like your WW made a snarky and casually cruel remark back in the summer of this year because that's how she really felt, then you pressed in and the truth slowly came tumbling out.

Then she's like "hey knock it off, that was 33 years ago and I've been the model wife since then." Even though she essentially taunted you with it both then and now.

She threatened to leave you in '88. I don't understand this in the context of what happened. Someone threatening to end the marriage typically results in a severe crisis for the marriage right then and there. It usually results in a significant loss of trust and a wound that must be addressed.

Like, you know, most marriages someone threatens to leave you for someone else, it's a huge turning point, it's tantamount to separation. It's acknowledgement they've shattered the vows.

But it sounds like that didn't happen here.

Again, am I missing something?

[This message edited by Thumos at 5:28 PM, December 1st (Tuesday)]