SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I just read on one of the forums a post that just pissed me off! It has to do with what a BH can ask (or demand) as part of the reconciliation.

It is just another post from a BW that is telling us (BH) that she didn't care WHAT the WW did and whether or not she had an audience, if we should demand certain types of sex (basically whatever she FREELY gave to her AP) that we are abusing her desperation for reconciliation and that make US evil.

Now there have been a few posts where the BH did go beyond anything I would have done. I would NOT accept "sniveling, crying unenthusiastic sex" I would just tell her to leave and the divorce papers will be served as soon as possible.

You have to understand that these sex acts the WW was just enthusiastically doing with the AP and was apparently fine as long as it was with him not me. NOW she wants to reconcile but they are too horrible and degrading to do with me? Yet according to this woman WE would be the "ABUSERS"?

What about the fact that THEY just got done abusing US??? NOPE she didn't care about that part.

No we don't have to get into this debate again but to me (and I have pointed this out before) a MASSIVE double standard going on here. I have never seen a BW told that she cannot deny a particular sex act from her WH before. (A BW's usual decision), However we are told that we do not get to demand they do for us what they did for their AP! It is too terrible to contemplate, a fate worse than death! I'm just saying B.S.!

To me it says whether or not the WW "getsit" or not. If her answer is no then she is NOT "all in" so no R is possible (at least with me!) I never have used either threats of violence or violence itself on ANY woman for ANYTHING!! BUT you are either IN or OUT!! NO HALF ASSED EFFORT!!

You don't need to reply but I just see this as a betrayal of the BH's by all the BW's that say these things.

JMO YMMV

What types of sex are you referring to ? It would make a difference to me.

What types of sex are you referring to ? It would make a difference to me.

Well, since we had a thread a few times that went to 100's of posts, I feel like I can answer this question pretty well. It's almost always the same things, oral sex, oral sex to completion, swallowing, anal sex and frequency of sex. That's pretty much "the list" that's denied some BHs (and some BWs, let's be fair) and offered up to the AP.

If the WH has denied his BW sex during the relationship do we condemn her for want it NOW. I don't ever recall backing a WH up in ANY denying his BW ANYTHING. Just saying.

No. Sexual coercion is assault, I don’t care how entitled you believe you are to your wife’s body. Her body, her choice. You get to decide how you respond to her choices but you do not get to control them.

That is what upset you, Candyman66? You weren't upset and pissed off by all the mistreatment, the sexual assaults and other sexual inappropriateness that all those members have been subjected to?

All what members?

Edit: Nm...I found the thread.

And I think the comment he's referring to had no place in that thread.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 8:22 PM, September 25th (Tuesday)]

No one gets to DEMAND that I do something with my body that I do not want to do. I don't CARE if I did it with someone else.

For example, if I had anal sex with a boyfriend in the past, that doesn't mean that my current SO gets to DEMAND that I do that with him. If you want to leave me for this reason then fine, just go. If I want to leave you because of your demand then I will leave.

BTW, I'm a BW, now divorced.

This topic has been hashed over extensively.

No. Sexual coercion is assault, I don’t care how entitled you believe you are to your wife’s body. Her body, her choice. You get to decide how you respond to her choices but you do not get to control them.

This sentiment is frequently expressed by BW. Rarely by WW. But I do agree with it 100%.

I also agree that it is 100% okay for a BH to present the choice thus: "Sir Topham Hat gets frequent, enthusiastic, voluntarily offered trips to Tonsil Town, or I'm filing D." Free choice on both sides of the bargaining table.

Anyways, most BH's would not find grudging, coerced sex a palliative to the emasculation of infidelity. In fact, for most men, that would make it worse. Above everything else, the BH wants the brio, the desire, the joy, and the enthusiasm that the WW directed toward her AP, moreso than specific acts.

[This message edited by Butforthegrace at 8:22 PM, September 25th (Tuesday)]

Both spouses have options...a BS does not have to stay with their WS for any reason.

How important is the M to the WS? How important are the acts in question to the BS.

I can say if I were in that position that withholding would be a D issue for sure, but that’s just me.

I would also never demand or force it, it would simply end the M.

I really don't even think equal or better treatment should be demanded. Bc if you have to do that, then your WW just really isn't that into you, or she cared more about and was more into her AP than you. I'd just call it quits. Now if she asked why I was calling it quits and she understood, apologized, and said she'd up the ante, I'd have to think about that. Idk what I'd do.

SisterMilkshake, that was a cheap shot. I was reading on that subject BECAUSE I am very sympathetic to that cause.

I was NOT expecting to see that type of post in Off Topic since I was told that you do NOT discuss infidelity on that thread. That is why I posted on this thread. I did NOT want to draw attention from those horrible posts and I thought that my reaction could hurt some of the posters so I respected that thread and started my own on what I wanted to talk about. Isn't that what we are supposed to do on this board??

Also that post was DIRECTED DIRECTLY at people with my point of view.

I know that you and I are on the opposite sides on this argument. To me it signifies who's wants and needs comes first. Mine or hers, if it is hers here are the divorce papers. I never have and never will threaten a woman with physical violence. I agree that there have been some here who went too far (in my opinion) to take what they wanted. I would just give her this statement. "All the sexual things you did with him you either will do them with me WITH enthusiasm and a smile or there is the door.

Just for your info, I was a feminist long before it was popular. I also believe there are consequences for your actions.

JMO YMMV

[This message edited by Candyman66 at 9:22 PM, September 25th (Tuesday)]

Sex, kink, equality, privacy etc. etc..

There is only one rational in any of it and that belongs to the betrayed. The betrayed has the right to ask for anything. Anything. Doesnt make a difference if the request is sexual, religious, makes sense does not make sense, dancing the chacha in a suit of armor with helium balloons on their toes in public while screaming i hate (AP's name). Doesn't matter.

The wayward has the right to agree or refuse.

The betrayed has the right to take appropriate action in response to the waywards agreement or refusal. Etc

Those limits are defined by the two adults. It's that simple.

This person is on a roll about sex, the next could just as easily justify an arguement over privacy issues.

Don't buy into the hype. Dont get pissy and try to argue with a moron...you can't win.

You want what you want. You need what you need and that's ok (granted it's not illegal) If you feel justified in the request than its that simple. If he or she refuses, hand them their walking papers.

No reason to argue at all. Work and act from a position of authority. Your way or the highway.

Not a cheap shot, a genuine question. You did not express your sympathy or empathy on this thread or that thread.

You just came here to express your anger about what one person posted (and I agree, that doesn't belong in Off Topic) on that thread.

I can not read your mind. I can only go by what you post. You didn't post your feelings about what these members have suffered, but you have made it clear here what pissed you off about that thread.

Candy man - please go read that thread again. I just now attempted to clear up a few things there that I believe may make my opinion on the subject clearer. You may still disagree, but I think you’ll understand the distinction.

Also, I had no intent to discuss anything other than sexual abuse in the off-topic thread. In the discussion over there, the fact that infidelity is involved is ancillary. I was bringing it up in the context of sexual abuse within a marriage.

SisterMilkshake,there is a different action level between sympathy and anger. I AM sympathetic to that cause. In real life when I was single I intentionally intervened ANY TIME a woman asked my help! I didn't care who it was and most times it came without any benefits BUT it was something I could do to help women.

In this my actions were from anger because of the way people with my viewpoint were portrayed as less than human.

JMO YMMV

Lieswearmedown, I cannot answer back to you in that thread. If I reply there it will get me my last post because I have blundered before. If you wish to post in this thread I will gladly discuss it with you.

if we should demand certain types of sex (basically whatever she FREELY gave to her AP) that we are abusing her desperation for reconciliation and that make US evil

Candyman, I think demanding sex is abuse!!

If you absolutely want certain sex acts from your WW, ask, not demand. If she is not willing, walk out. But don't ask her to perform under threat of divorce.

Before you say this is unfair, I would apply the same principle to WHs. If a WH does not want to go down on his BW, she would be abusing him if she threatened divorce if he doesn't comply.

No one should have the right to demand sex of another.

To me, it applies to all other areas as well. Including access to phones, answering questions about A. I told my WH what I wanted. But never under the threat of divorce. If he did what I wanted of his own volition, great. If not, I get to decide what I want. But I never ever want anything from my spouse under coercion. I respect him too much for that, and value his agency in demonstrating his love for me.

Bad people lose the right to be treated like good people until they have earned redemption.

I think someone brushed on the crux of this matter when they said:

Above everything else, the BH wants the brio, the desire, the joy, and the enthusiasm that the WW directed toward her AP, moreso than specific acts

I'm not a fan of Ester Perel but one of her points is that people have affairs not to connect with the AP but to parts of themselves. Thus the question becomes not "Why did you have anal sex with AP but not with me?" but more "What conditions / circumstances were present to make those actions / choices possible?" Maybe through exploring these questions, WW can figure out a way to integrate some of those aspects into her marriage.

I totally agree the idea of demanding sex acts from a reluctant partner would be sickening. (Some of the examples I've read in other threads are sickening.) At the same time, I think if the WW is serious about reconciling, she is strongly encouraged to explore why certain choices / actions are okay outside of the marriage?

It's like if a BW found out, after years of being denied going to operas (something she really enjoyed), she finds out WH has taken AP to several operas! "Why couldn't you do that with me? What is present in THAT relationship to make that choice possible?"

My 2 cents.

[This message edited by Icewraithonyx at 10:18 PM, September 25th (Tuesday)]