SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

There is only ONE thing that creates affairs- two people who want to have an affair. It's not expectations. It's not society. It's just two damaged selfish individuals finding each other.

I suppose this is true insofar as individuals are responsible for moral or immoral decisions because of free will. But it’s also whistling past the graveyard to pretend that a societal infrastructure has no impact. It is quite clear that a societyf is either weak or strong and can have more or less infidelity as a result. When a society has more infidelity, pain and trauma and disorder and narcissism feed more of the same. It has a ramifying effect.

I don’t think it helps to pretend Western society isn’t in some kind of freefall. If it makes people feel better to not acknowledge that, great. Feel better. For a minute. But it’s happening whether you see it or not. In philosophy this is called a brute fact. The underpinnings of Western society are unmoored. This DOES have an impact in the statistical rate of infidelity, just like it has an impact on out of wedlock birthrates, rudderless young men, a coarsening or culture, gratuitous violence etc. I don’t find it useful to compartmentalize the phenomenon of infidelity from these other trend lines.

Nietzsche, that philosopher of juvenile atheists everywhere, actually predicted this and prophesied it would come in the 21st century.

And here we are. I think it’s more helpful to grapple with this reality than to deny it.

[This message edited by Thumos at 10:05 PM, August 21st (Wednesday)]

Can we stop using euphemistic language to talk about “cheaters” “affairs” and such? How about less Orwellian doublespeak down the memory hole? Let’s start a movement! “Abusers” “violators” “liars” “thieves” - instead of “affairs” how about just “adultery” and “violation” - how about we start calling them “vow breakers” (VB’s, VBH’s, and VBW’s) instead of “waywards” (where exactly did this little child lost in the woods term come from???? Was it meant to protect a Vow Breaker’s snowflake sensibilities about their illicit f*cking?? This only feeds into the complete nonsense narrative of “fogs” and making “mistakes” and all the rest that EVERYONE HERE KNOWS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER LOGICALLY INCOHERENT PABLUM.)

So let’s stop it ourselves and give them no quarter and shine the sunlight on this like we would on vampires.

VOW breakers. Liars. Abusers. Violators.

Mmmkay? Thanks.

Wanna give Esther Perel a run for her money? That is the way to do it.

We have adopted euphemistic terminology in service of sociopathy.

I don't think my expectations were unreasonable. I expected nothing more than I was willing to give. Love, loyalty, companionship, friendship and respect. Pretty basic stuff I would think should be expected from the person you make your spouse.

Was it a fairytale? Absolutely not but I never expected it to be. I knew marriage would be work, and an ever changing dynamic. But that's where communication and respect were supposed to come into play. All marriages have their rough patches but the question is whether they get argued over and worked through, or if one spouse decides it's just easier to step outside of the marriage. Then bitch and moan about it's state to the AP while the effort they are placing into the A should be directed at the marriage.

I've said it before, I never for one moment, when taking my vows thought to myself "Holy shit! I only get to be with one man from here on out????" Fidelity wasn't seen as a sacrifice to me. It felt natural. I had my fun years of dating, had other relationships and was ready to settle down after being with him for 6 years and living together for 2 of those years.

We could have had a beautiful marriage. A beautiful life. But as I said to him recently, I got married and he got a roommate. He continued to act as if he was single doing what he wanted when he wanted. It's not that I had unreasonable expectations, he just never should have married anyone.

Thumos, I concur!

"Whistling past a graveyard"...LOL I like that one enough to steal. You paint pictures, like I do.

[This message edited by DashboardMadonna at 12:47 AM, August 22nd (Thursday)]

Malibu,

I understand completely. I grew up in such an abusive home. I wanted a love that I fear doesn't exist...it is a hard thing to swallow.

DashboardMadonna

I increasingly don't think it exists either. But every now and then I see an article about a couple who have been married forever and are pictured holding hands and passing away within hours of each other. As if they literally could not live without their spouse. It's then I say it must exist for a few lucky people.

Overall I believe marriage will eventually fade from society. The internet has opened up a world of people and a Pandoras box of temptation. It simply feels as if the odds are stacked against the practice of marriage. Especially given that so many seem to be easily swayed by that temptation. Loyalty is becoming a novelty and betrayal the new norm.

The paradox, though, is that with the Internet, Tinder, etc. people are actually having less sex than before, according to polls.

So if all of us cosmopolitan Internet users are outbred by the Amish, maybe things change that way?

Shouldn’t we want the following from our partners:

To love us?

To desire us?

To be interested in us?

Shouldn’t we be:

Best friends?

Trusted confidants?

And passionate lovers?

I rarely support anything that Esther Perel, that affair apologist, says.

However, and I think Catwoman already touched on it, we cant be all of those things all the time. There would be times when we get irritated, have no desire, don't want to be passionate, are stressed. A WW sees that and cheats because they have no tolerance for their partner's feelings. All they care about is that they are not getting the attention.

The perception of marriage I often see, even sometimes on SI, is perhaps the most transactional and conditional relationship I have ever seen. It's all about entitlement.

The number of times I have come across "my needs are not being met", when those "needs" are actually desires, illustrate how marriage is perceived. The partner is seen as the instrument of one's happiness. No wonder no one can live up to that.

Malibu agreed.

I don't think I could allow myself to be that vulnerable again. I am very damaged by it all.

I wanted the same things. No one wants to die alone, but it is becoming more of a reality for me. I realize I have to love myself and it is because of this, that I know I have to take the next step.

I disagree with Esther

...I agreed to forgo all others and remain dedicated to her. She made the same agreement.

I think you just agreed with Esther. There would be no “forgoing” if your now WW was The One and not just the one you picked, and vice versa.

Sending strength!

[This message edited by HouseOfPlane at 6:43 AM, August 22nd (Thursday)]

Marriage still holds the stereotype that women become sexless creatures, following childbearing.

It's the root of the Madonna-whore complex, which circles back to a selfish society, in that it perpetuates the "more is more" self-serving mentality.

I'm not sure whose marriage you are living in. In my marriage we had sex well into the third trimester and I made it clear to my wife that as soon as the doctor-imposed no sex following birth period ended, we were going to he having sex. I think there are a lot of husbands like me.

More to the point of this thread, that particular idea is not the heart of Esther Perel's bullshit. Rather Esther Perel says that we live in a consumerist society that promotes shallow consumption for its own sake, a society that promotes and supports sexual variety and experimentation, and that monogamy is anathema to all of this.

I happen to agree with Esther in the abstract. My issue with Esther Perel is the next step. Despite the shallow consumerism of our culture, people still do choose to get married. Most marriage vows incorporate express promises of sexual fidelity.

Esther takes the position that these promises are unrealistic and that there are so many temptations for a spouse that breaking these promises is expected and normal, and therefore acceptible.

I flatly disagree. A person chooses to get married. In making that choice, a person chooses to promise fidelity. In fact the vows recognize that there will be temptation. The promise is to eschew it.

By the way, it's "bear". As in "bear the brunt."

My fundamental issue with Esther is that she explains infidelity in a very clear and cogent way. We understand a lot about infidelity from her explanations. But explaining a thing is not excusing it. Esther tries to normalize infidelity because her fundamental belief is that monogamous marriage is unrealistic. Fine. If that is your belief, then dont get married. Or, get married but draft your own vows that include cheating as an acceptable option.

[This message edited by Butforthegrace at 7:46 AM, August 22nd (Thursday)]

I'm sure many will agree, Esther Pearl=Trigger.

I mean seriously, oh to be a fly in the wall in her own relationships/marriage. Sheesh...

Marriage is what two individuals define it as together with pre-conceived individual ideas based on upbringing, values and morals IMO.

I wanted the basics: trust, respect, faithfulness and to have my best friend by myside until my dying day. Together we would conquer the world.

Alas, I didn't realize part of my conquering the world was against her.....

Most marriage vows incorporate express promises of sexual fidelity.

Esther takes the position that these promises are unrealistic.

I don't think she says that at all.

I think she says that expecting your natural feelings to get turned off is unrealistic. The problem comes from our entitled world, where a lot of people think you should follow your feelings wherever they take you.

I expected my H to react the same as i did when our M started to shut down. I expected him to work with me to fix things because I believed he wanted us to work as much as I did.

What I didn't know was that he'd built up years of resentment against me. I didn't know how poor his coping skills were. How his mind worked in these situations. He was as caught up in his head as I was in mine.

But there is a key difference in that my boundaries are healthier, my coping in adversity is healthier, in general I am a stronger, emotionally stronger person than him. Then, as well as today. It's the stories they tell themselves and believe that allow them to cheat, lie, manipulate, the whole ugly performance. And it's character weaknesses that ate behind those twisted stories.

I expected my H to be on a similar emotional and psychological level as I was. Not perfect, but good enough. Maybe this was my big unrealistic expectation and why I never saw it coming until it blew up directly in front of me. All my expectations literally BLEW UP on Dday1. The reality of how wrong I had been about him was my main crisis then, as well as now. The A were just symptoms, the OW just props in his dysfunction.

She has a few valuable observations, but largely I find her to be an apologist for cheaters.

I made it clear to my wife that as soon as the doctor-imposed no sex following birth period ended, we were going to he having sex. I think there are a lot of husbands like me.

I find this to be a troubling statement.

[This message edited by Cheatee at 8:26 AM, August 22nd (Thursday)]

What destroyed said:

I stopped reading after you wrote Esther Perel.

Esther Perel is full of shit.

I started reading again after I saw this.

Esther Perel pops up on here about every 4-6 months.

Didn't read all the posts.

I think it's true that most people have unrealistic expectations of marriage. I don't necessarily agree with her list of expectations.

I think most people don't understand that feelings in a LTR ebb and flow. There are ups and downs. That's when the committment comes in. That part takes work. I think there are very few justifiable reasons to D, infidelity being one of them. The ILYBNILWY excuse is bullshit.

Thumos, I agree with the euphemisms. That's why I use cheater, CP, liar. I only use A for brevity because I sometimes ge tired of typing out, "his cheating."

I think of someone who just wandered off the path when I hear or read wayward. Affair conjures up visions of an afternoon tea or a party. My fch did not have an affair. He lied. He deceived . He cheated. He put me and my children in danger. There is nothing pleasant about that.

Damn autocorrect!

[This message edited by cocoplus5nuts at 1:50 PM, August 22nd (Thursday)]

I expected:

A friend

A confidant

A person whom shared common goals and values

A person in my corner when things got tough

Honesty

Faithfulness

Someone who put us first

Compassion

Ups and downs, but things we would handle TOGETHER and openly.

Someone working toward the marriage.

Someone I could trust with my health, finances, safety, thoughts.

A protector if need be.

Respect.

Communication.

And I expected to be and do those in return.

I had few expectations of M, but fidelity was one of them. I thought fidelity might be difficult, though, and I knew I couldn't predict the future.

As a result, I believe my over-riding expectations were 1) lots of sex and 2) we'd meet problems and solve them together with love.

*****

WRT euphemisms and the decline of western society -

Euphemisms

The way we talk affects our thinking and feeling. IMO, using condemning words makes it easier to slip into Drama Triangles, either as Victim or Persecutor. Condemning language makes it easier to turn others into non-human beings, and that is terribly unhealthy for both the initiators and receivers of the communication. After all, WSes are most definitely human beings.

WRT infidelity, I think non-condemning language fosters healing, and healing is the best way out of infidelity.

Besides, 'wayward' is condemning enough for me.

*****

There is evidence of decline all over the world. It's not just the West. I think Amitav Ghosh explains it very well in his 'Ibis trilogy.' I think Marx and Engels described it, too - the end stage of capitalism - but I haven't read any Marx since 1966, and I haven't verified that.

Ruling class infidelity was the norm while Rome expanded. Polygamy and prostitution was the norm for for people who could afford it in China during consolidation, expansion, and decline. Polygamy is in the Bible. IOW, I think infidelity is neither here nor there WRT the strength of society.

JMO, of course.

[This message edited by sisoon at 10:41 AM, August 22nd (Thursday)]