SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Why would you respond to me on cocoolus5nuts’ post if you want to respect her, and if I want to respect her by not replying to her posts further? Also bearing in mind that since I’m a new member with fewer than 50 posts or whatever the requirement is, that I cannot DM you? That strikes me as catty behavior. You get to address me, in front of someone who is triggered and wishing to distance herself from me, such that she’s likely to read it and I can’t respond there. I had to make this whole other thread, and now I predict it’s going to be blown out of proportion.

I have read so many times on here the words of BS counseling others that if you feel or express resistance to the advice given, one ought to explore what they’re saying. I think that’s what’s happening with Coco. I found it ironic that she was willing to take the advice from HikingOut, who has also cheated, but was dismissive towards me, when HO and I were saying much of the same things, and felt that I was "defending" her WH. I don’t care one bit about her WH. She said that she was struggling with her situation, and I felt that, and wanted to help her. I saw a solution to her problem which would bring about the outcome she is seeking, which is for her husband to be emotionally vulnerable with her, and I shared it, even with her resistance to it. To be told that my final elaboration before ducking out is "wayward thinking" by someone who continued to reply to me is also very ironic.

Anyway, enough said. I don’t have time to be wrapped up in this woman-on-woman drama today and I’m trying really hard not to let it make me internalize misogyny.

[This message edited by GotTheMorbs at 4:44 PM, Saturday, January 17th]

  Moving to General

Gently GotTheMorbs, you didn't respect her, you had to post one last time to prove you were right.

You have a right to feel the way you do, but again I mean this gently, your advice came off as sexist (she needs to be the soft spot) NO she doesn't. If he wants to be with her, and he wants to reconcile, then it's 100% on him to fix himself, not on her.

​We’ve discussed this previously, but I want to clarify the logic behind why many betrayed spouses are resistant to advice from wayward partners.

​The core issue is inherent bias. For a betrayed spouse, receiving guidance from a wayward partner can feel—excuse the pun—like a "one-sided affair." While this may feel unfair to those trying to help, many in the "eye of the storm" simply cannot trust the source. I am personally open to discussing ideas with wayward partners because I am not currently in a state of crisis, but it is entirely rational for someone in active recovery to view that perspective as compromised.

​Suppose I were a wayward (God forbid) and I said to a betrayed spouse: "The best way to keep your partner happy, ensure he no longer cheats, and keep him loyal moving forward is to give him plenty of kinky sex, make sure his favorite meals are cooked, and treat him like a king." You would likely read that and think, "Sure buddy, you’re just projecting how you hope your own situation plays out onto the rest of the world."

​This skepticism is rooted in the concept of incentivized reasoning. To clarify my point, consider when wayward partners condemn revenge affairs. Even if we agree that revenge affairs are destructive, a wayward person’s opinion on the matter carries little weight. They are perceived as being too "incentivized" to dissuade the behavior because they naturally want to avoid experiencing the very trauma they inflicted. Their stance feels less like a moral principle and more like a plea for self-preservation.

So when you tell a Betrayed wife that she may need to be the one that softens, it comes across like a wish, not advice.

​The most striking evidence of this dynamic can be found on r/Adultery. This is a community dedicated to the logistics of deception—sharing tips on how to hide affairs and bypass a partner's trust. Curiously, even within that pro-cheating subculture, users frequently look down on revenge affairs.

​This reveals a glaring hypocrisy: they aren't anti-cheating; they are anti-consequence. They support the act of betrayal until the roles are reversed and they are forced to "taste their own medicine." This is exactly why a betrayed spouse might view "advice" from a wayward partner with such suspicion. It is difficult to distinguish genuine empathy from a calculated attempt to steer the betrayed partner toward a path that is simply more comfortable for the betrayer.

​Basically, all of this is to say that cocoolus5nuts has every right to reject the advice of a wayward partner, as I may dismiss Josef Fritzl ted talk on family values...irrespective of your intentions, some people won't want to hear them, perhaps a small cost for being a wayward. However on the other hand please notd many others will be welcoming to your input, her perspective is a common and logical one.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:44 PM, Saturday, January 17th]

I’m sorry my reply came across as catty. I did see that you are a fairly new member, and thats exactly why I posted as I did.

One convention you will see here is that when members are delivering a message which might sting, we will preface the post with "Gently…". It means we recognize that it will not be a warm fuzzy message but we feel it needs to be expressed.

I also explained that I am a mad hatter and an addict, which means that I understand betrayed and wayward mindsets and also that as an addict, it gives me a deeper insight into wayward thinking. Double whammy, if you will. HikingOut is also a mad hatter, which may be why Coco is more amenable to her input. I can’t speak for her, obviously.

One of the things I’ve learned in my 15 years on this site is that when something pisses me off, it’s often something I need to sit with and consider. But if it’s not useful to you, you’re not gonna hurt my feelings a bit if you say so. Again, my apologies for the 2x4.

your advice came off as sexist (she needs to be the soft spot)

It’s absolutely not sexist. If it was a gay man saying the same things about his husband, I would tell him the same thing: be soft.

Society is sexist. It teaches men that showing and sharing emotions makes one weak and effeminate. Many people respond harshly to a man exhibiting any emotion other than anger— women saying they got "the ick" from seeing their husbands cry, for example, or being accused of "being on the rag" by other men who witness it. They are told to "man up" and "stop being a p*ssy."

As I said, men are generally conditioned to expect hardness and punishment in response to expressing emotion. If someone has been hard and punishing to their male partner and they want him to open up, my advice is going to be "be a soft, safe place for him" regardless of the gender of the person I’m advising.

If someone is in a stalemate with their partner, wanting to come back together but not wanting to be the one to give first, same thing: soften yourself towards your partner, whether you’re the man or the woman in the relationship, because you’re teammates, not enemies. Gentleness and tenderness knit couples back together. By all means, make sure you’re being respected. But you don’t have to be stony and fight in order to stand your ground and "win" all the time. That’s no way to live.