SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I'm having a hard time with the whole boundaries/coercion thing myself. I also am not down with the BS having to be the one to direct the WS into being a decent human. I had boundaries, but they basically came down to "I won't be with someone who sucks as a person". The realization that I came to shortly after DDay and that I fully acted on in a few months time was that I didn't want to be with the kind of person who was capable of doing what my XWH did. That pretty much took him out of the running as an option. I didn't want him to adhere to my boundaries of "I won't be with a cheater" or "I won't be with a liar" or "I won't be with an active addict". I didn't want him to behave according to my boundaries in order to keep me. I wanted him to not be who he was. My boundaries only enabled me to kick him out a few times until he'd come back not behaving in such a way. My understanding of what was behind my boundaries allowed me to be done with him altogether.

Boundaries were games I was playing with myself. They were real and I meant them and I absolutely enforced them, but they were cover for a deeper truth. The deeper truth was that I could not be with someone who needed me to state these particular boundaries.

Jesus, RIO, women can't fake everything.

If your talking about orgasms, I get that. And my W had orgasms with the AP too, even though she stridently insists, as so many WS's here, that the sex was "for the kibbles" and not for the orgasms/enjoyment of sex.

It is going to make a difference for her.

Really? Because my WW was ready to leave me for her AP who she described as a "very poor" lover with ED/PE issues. Didn't seem to stop her, at least not compared to me. Perhaps that says more about me than him, IDK, but sex certainly doesn't seem to rank high (or at all) on her list of important things in a relationship.

What was the point of being a player if you really learn nothing about women? I'm a man, but the whole "everything must fit into my preconceived worldview" that so many men fall into drives me up the wall.

First off, this isn't "my worldview". This is a worldview presented by MANY people here, many of whom I've sparred with across 100's of pages of threads trying to understand how on earth "sex for kibbles" was really their reason for having sex with the AP (vs "sex for orgasms" or "sex for fun"). I was raised that "men and women enjoy sex the same", that was my worldview pre-affair, and that worldview allowed me to be, as you said, "a player", without guilt. If we both want sex as much as I do, there's no harm is using some psychological tricks to move things in that direction. I wouldn't care at all if a woman did that to me, in fact, I'd be flattered and happy about it (it actually did happen 1-2X with older women, and it was awesome). Just like I didn't care and actually appreciated that a woman would get all dressed up for me, I saw "game" as my makeup, a way to make myself more attractive. We all knew it wasn't real, anymore than her blue eyeliner and ruby red lips were real, but we both appreciated the effort from the other person as a prelude to sex.

What did I learn about women? A whole lot honestly; I learned what to talk about, how to keep the conversation lively (which still serves me today in business), how to plan out and execute plan with a lot of variables (again, still useful today). How to be more attractive, the right jokes to tell, the right time to go from "light to heavy" in a conversation. Honestly, thinking about it right now, a ton of the stuff I learned in trying to bed women are the same exact things that I use today in my professional life to sell and pitch products. Just that the product was "me" instead of a router.

However, all that said, there are logical inconsistencies that I simply cannot close today. Like, if we both enjoy sex the same, why the heck are you making me work this hard for it? Gay men I've known tell me their stories of sex, and, well.. It's a whole different ballgame, nothing at all like what I experienced with women. But the bigger logical inconsistency is A sex vs non-A sex. Is there such a fundamental difference between the two that most A sex is had "for kibbles" and most non-A sex is had "for fun"? If so, I'd love to understand what that fundamental difference is because it would assuage a LOT of my pain about what I did as a young man. But I just can't see how they could be so fundamentally different.

After the PA when they can no longer hide behind their false justifications to have sex with their OM that is when they sing a different tune. They down play the sex. They

regret all the things that they said and did with their OM.

That makes sense oldtruck, but, and you've been here longer than me, but I can't recall many instances where we've seen anyone say that. In fact, I can only point at one, a BW who had a RA and said the sex was great and it was for sex, not to get "the kibble".

Then they use the Ego Kibbles Defense. Which is very similar to the alcohol defense. I was to drunk to realize what I was doing.

Possible. If my wife trotted out "ego kibbles" independently, I'll tell her "try again" and basically write the entire thing off as bulls**t. But, you and I have both been around long enough, it's not "my wife" who's trotting that out, it's 100's or 1000's of WS's (not just WW's, I've seen WH's claim "for the kibbles" and "didn't even really want to have sex" before too). Is it just the "best possible re-write" of the A and a ton of people glom onto it? Perhaps. I really don't know. But I do know and am friendly with enough WW's here and not a single one, even in PM has ever waivered from the "for the kibbles" explanation.

Possible. If my wife Possible. If my wife trotted out "ego kibbles" independently, I'll tell her "try again" and basically write the entire thing off as bulls**t. But, you and I have both been around long enough, it's not "my wife" who's trotting that out, it's 100's or 1000's of WS's (not just WW's, I've seen WH's claim "for the kibbles" and "didn't even really want to have sex" before too). Is it just the "best possible re-write" of the A and a ton of people glom onto it? Perhaps. I really don't know. But I do know and am friendly with enough WW's here and not a single one, even in PM has ever waivered from the "for the kibbles" explanation.out "ego kibbles" independently, I'll tell her "try again" and basically write the entire thing off as bulls**t. But, you and I have both been around long enough, it's not "my wife" who's trotting that out, it's 100's or 1000's of WS's (not just WW's, I've seen WH's claim "for the kibbles" and "didn't even really want to have sex" before too). Is it just the "best possible re-write" of the A and a ton of people glom onto it? Perhaps. I really don't know. But I do know and am friendly with enough WW's here and not a single one, even in PM has ever waivered from the "for the kibbles" explanation.

I can see a WW going back a second time even a third time

when the sex was bad to see if it could get better. I do not

or find it very hard to believe a WW having a PA for 1, 2, 3,

or 4 years when when the sex was bad.

That means a WW would be putting out 50 to 200 times just

to get bad sex. Risking their marriage, family, finances for

bad sex. That does not make sense.

Even if the PA sex was hot, average, or so so. After

D day it is the damage done, the realization of how cheaply

that they sold themselves that causes the WW to devalue

their affair sex and inflate the value of the ego stroking that

they received.

It had nothing to do with how the OM stroked my body, it

was all about how he stroked my ego. Anyone want to buy

ocean front property in Arizona? Cheap.

[This message edited by oldtruck at 11:17 AM, November 30th (Monday)]

not a single one, even in PM has ever waivered from the "for the kibbles" explanation.

Not true, RIO. We’ve never exchanged a PM, true, but I have refuted the “ego kibble” defense enough times to you in open threads regarding my personal situation.

Now, true enough, it wasn’t JUST an affair “just for the sex” because we had previously been in a legit relationship and he wanted to resume that, but I assure you, because I had previously had sex with him (in the aforementioned legit relationship), I had sex during the affair because I definitively wanted that sex.

I'm not labeling anything as anything. It's the English language, and that's what the word "coercion" means (to extract something by force or threat). "Go NC with the AP or I'm filing papers" is a perfect example of coercion. I don't care what you personally want to call it, and if we're redefining words, let's say that and decide what coercion should mean and all agree that the dictionary definition isn't our definition. I'm OK with that too. But mental gymnastics to say "No, my boundary was stop seeing the AP, there's no reason at all much husband/wife should have felt coerced" is, well.. Mental gymnastics. Of course coercion is part of R for most people, many WS's are sh*t eating happy in an A and must be forced to stop through an ultimatum of some sort. I think it's important to be precise here for what a BS should expect, and "setting boundaries but don't coerce" isn't, at least in my experience, at all what they should anticipate. Perfect world, sure, that's what should happen. Real world, it rarely does, as we see from strings of broken NC, further sexual acts, TT, etc. You want to R? Well, good, but I'm not going to be the one to sugar coat it and tell you that it's usually possible without lots of pressure put on the WS and the word for that pressure is "coercion"

That definition is correct and technically any force or threat in order to compel an act is coercion. However, I think Dictionary(dotcom) does a better job at capturing the colloquial meaning, which is what some are attempting to distinguish.

coerce

[ koh-urs ]

verb (used with object), co·erced, co·erc·ing.

1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority,

especially without regard for individual desire or volition.

In these situations, ostensibly, the WS wants to stay married. So gaining compliance through expressing non-negotiable conditions for participation in a joint venture, although is a form of coercion, does not capture the colloquialism because the force or threat is not made compel the individual to act against their own self-described interest or restrain their will since they are free to act in anyway (albeit those actions may result in consequences).

Thanks for that, KingRat.

The BS is choosing to R or D. They are controlling THAT outcome.

I think it's more choosing work towards an outcome.

If one chooses R and one partner stops working, 'trying to control the outcome' would show up as wanting to change the non-working partner into a working partner, complaining about the non-working partner, etc.

Choosing R without trying to control the outcome, in this sort of case, would show up as filing for D because the non-working partner isn't working.

Choosing between R & D is a matter of want.

People try to control the outcome, I think out of a sense of need. The outcome (R, for example) isn't a real need, but it's treated as such by the person who thinks they have to control the outcome.

This discussion brought up a couple of memories of college tests. In one case, the prof designed questions in which he listed 4 things. Students were supposed to identify the one thing that didn't fit with the other 3 and describe what tied the other 3 together. The prof knew what answer he expected.

One student came up with an entirely unexpected answer. The prof shrugged his shoulders and gave the student credit for a correct answer. He wasn't trying to control the outcome.

In another, similar case, the prof got angry and refused to give credit for a correct answer. That was trying to control the outcome.