SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Whatsright

Or maybe I should just say “my“ WS was not strong enough to take what I was dishing out.

What I wanted to explain is that this ALL proves my point.

Why is assumed that the should be strong enough to take it? Why am I constantly told the BS can get over it. That anyone can overcome anything including rape.

But yet the WS can't take being told off for what they did and that's just Aokay?

I don't see Old truck saying that the WS is selfish or anything negative. No, it's ALL on the BS to be...

PERFECT! Because this is a sugarcoated way of saying the BS should be strong enough to take the A and still be perfect and sweet to the WS, providing sex even though it's NOT guaranteed to be safe even aftee std tests. Doesn't matter if they don't want to. Sex is important.

Nevermind that the WS made sex excruciating. Nevermind that they didn't care about your health. Nevermind that you feel hideous and worthless.

Sex is important so it's the BS responsibility to have it whether they feel like it or not.

What you, which is fair to say of yourself, and oldtruck, who doesn't get to tell BS they need to be perfect to WS like it's so easy,

What you both are saying,

Is that it's OKAY to EXPECT the BS to put aside their feelings even though they're completely entitled to have them and express verbally,

Not only that, you think it's OKAY to expect the BS to manage that task. You don't acknowledge that they physically can't be perfectly calm and loving.

It's not occurring to you oldtruck that the BS isn't superhuman,

But yet... it's OKAY for the WS to be fallible.

So they've cheated. They get the gift of R. That's not enough leeway. They ALSO get to claim that they 'can't take' the BS' pain.

Soo.. the BS can overcome anything. The WS 'can't'. The BS has to 'do work' to overcome the abuse of the WS' cheating. The WS just gets to say they can't take it and not put in effort.

So there you are after offering a gift. And instead of oldtruck showing concern for your pain as the BS who isn't getting the same effort in return. He doesn't say your WS should put in work to be more resilient to support you and be able to take your pain.

No, it's on you and you alone. And he assumed all BS are like you and were capable of reacting the 'right'way.

So yh i understand the concept of sacrificing being right to 'be happy'. (No, putting aside your feeling for an abuser is not happiness. The abuser stopping the abuse and putting you before them would be actual happiness but apparently BS should be happy with always receiving less.)

What I don't understand is why it's being assumed that all BS are capable and should be this wonderful and saint like person, but the WS just doesn't have to.

Why isn't it ok for the BS to say I didn't react perfectly when traumatised. But it's fine for the WS to say I didn't react perfectly when I traumatised my spouse and I didn't do anything about it.

They aren't children. There shouldn't BS saying after one conversation or several after my life was turned upside down, my WS couldn't take it and I lost my chance to reconcile.

There are WS who have given their spouses HPV an chlamydia. Who get a second chance.

How? Why is the forgiveness so one sided?

The BS just doesn't get to be fallible.

Oh and if you can't be kind ot respectful then don't reply because it's completely unfair that I have to be called a banshee when that wouldn't fly in the wayward forum.

And I don't have to call my feelings a rant to get respect. Old truck you don't get to disrespect me because the word rant isn't what I describe my valuable and valid feelings and opinions as.

BS like yourself are gaslighting other BS. And you're the one who claimed BS are punishing WS. So let's not act like I'm accusing the BS of things they don't deserve.

It's so sad and mindblowing that I have to constantly defend the BS because people hold the BS to an impossible standard.

The WS puts in no effort after rightfully being told off by his BS and you think it's the BS' doing and they are accountable. But the WS isn't accountable for causing the BS to be traumatised. The BS is the only one who takes responsibility for others' feelings and actions.

Oh and don't tell me sex is important in a marriage. I know that. I said it. That's why it's so disgusting that a WS ruins that bond.

But instead of supporting the BS in wanting to be safe and feel loved and secure before they're vulnerable with the abusive cheater who doesn't mind giving them stds, you just tell BS they should have it with the WS.

The WS deserves sex but the BS doesn't deserve safe sex or to feel completely comfortable and take the time they need.

They get accused of withholding if they do. But the WS you don't accuse of withholding safe sex.

Do people really not see that this is a one sided relationship?? The BS has to die to make the WS life easy. The WS can shut down and claim they cant take it and thats fine.

It's like, whoops the BS should ahve reacted better. It was in their power to act better but not the WS'. Pathetic double standard.

Why am I not seeing tbe accountability for the WS like it is for the BS. Why is there not the forgiveness for the BS that there is for the WS.

There's another side to this Onebiglie, one that I personally lived. I got a lot of advice after my W's A about sex that was some version of "You need to wait for her to be ready", or, one of my personal favorites, "It's going to take some time for her to heal from the A".

Ummm.. WTF? Wait for her to be ready to have sex with her husband again after she's been banging the other M like it was her job? What exactly is she "healing" from?!

So, yes, I agree with your argument, but I'll tell you it cuts both ways. The BS needs to both "be ready to have sex" when the WS decides they are ready again, but also not "decline sex" if the WS offers because, you know.. They are both "healing from the trauma of their A" and also "need sex if they decide they need it".

The right answer, IMHO, is a simple one. The BS decides if, when, how often, and what we're going to do (in bed) for a LONG time after the A. And the onus is on the WS to get it together and either live in a low/no sex relationship (if that's what the BS wants) or go full porn star on a regular basis (if that's what the BS wants).

Gotta wait for the to heal?! ROFL. Yeah, OK; my wife shot me in the chest with a 9mm but was holding it wrong and the slide of the pistol, when she pulled the trigger, hit her hand and cut her. Meanwhile, I'm on the ground grasping for breath and bleeding out, and somehow, we're worried about her cut hand?!!?!

Nope. Sorry; but when you cheat, you lose, for a long time, your sexual autonomy. You just don't have equal standing anymore, while I'd normally be very sympathetic to a man who's in a sexless marriage, tell me that man cheated last year, well, sorry buddy, but "this is what you get". And BS's who are "waiting for their spouse to heal" from the "trauma" they inflicted on themselves with an A... To that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, anyone interested?

So much of these discussions I just don't get. I don't understand why they can be so divisive.

Prior to infidelity, many of us work with concessions for the overall health of the marriage. We give up certain things in exchange for what we consider the greater good of the relationship...whether that be frequency of sex or who does the grocery shopping. Most of us do so believing we are working in a partnership...that we each are making certain concessions. We may not necessarily like it...but we are willing participants in what we think are the boundaries of the relationship.

Until one day we come to the awareness that the boundaries are not what we believed them to be, we are not making equitable sacrifices, we are not actually partnered in the greater good of the relationship. At that point, everything needs to be re-negotiated...usually because what we have discovered calls into question all the previous concessions we have made Why did I give up what I did when this is what I ultimately ended up with? You get to reevaluate whatever it is you really want in/from the relationship, what you will now settle for, what you will now give or sacrifice. Basically, the rules have to be re-written. It's perfectly ok to now say, I want this...or I will no longer give that. It doesn't have to be a consensus...and either partner is free to remove themselves from the treaty. Everybody still retains their own autonomy...so words like "withholding" or "coercive" are really inapplicable to the negotiation.

Does the BS seem to hold a disproportionate part of the power? Maybe it can seem that way but in reality - no. And certainly not when the issue(s) is/are being openly addressed. I think where this gets so muddled is in we don't realize we are no longer negotiating the terms of the prior relationship but rather the terms of the new relationship. And that has to be done within the context of how the experiences you have had now have changed you or what you now want.

It doesn't have to be a consensus...and either partner is free to remove themselves from the treaty. Everybody still retains their own autonomy...so words like "withholding" or "coercive" are really inapplicable to the negotiation.

So much this. Anyone is free to leave the relationship (even without infidelity as part of the equation) if they’re not happy with what they’re getting or giving.

[This message edited by Darkness Falls at 9:33 AM, November 29th (Sunday)]

Everybody still retains their own autonomy...so words like "withholding" or "coercive" are really inapplicable to the negotiation.

Well, IMHO, we're butchering English when we say that actions "requested" of the WS after an A don't flirt with (or totally cross the line) into coercion:

noun

the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

"Stop the A or I'm leaving" is as clear an example as can be provided of this, and yes, it's clearly coercion. I'm not sure why we're so upset about that, we live our lives with the vast majority of activities coerced; "Come in at 8AM or I'll stop paying you", "Don't sleep with other people or I'll leave you", "Don't drive 80MPH on an open highway or I'll arrest you".

Do we all state "Stop the A or I'll leave you"? No, not all of us (although some do). Is it implied? Of course it is, it's like the Godfather, he never says "Kill so-so" he says "So-so is in my way" and someone "takes care of it". But we all know what's implied. There's no requirement for the threat to be explicitly stated.

We may not necessarily like it...but we are willing participants in what we think are the boundaries of the relationship.

Yes, although sometimes under false pretenses. "I don't know how to cook" and you find out your WH is actually an extremely capable French chef and happily cooked all manner of meals for the AP. But yes, your point stands, we are willing participants in the relationship and we all make sacrifices. If my W was honest with me, "Yes, I do those things in bed, just not with you", I would have made very different decisions in my life, that's for sure.

Anyone is free to leave the relationship (even without infidelity as part of the equation) if they’re not happy with what they’re getting or giving.

I do agree, so long as everyone is honest. However, most of the time, that's not the case. It's a fraudulent transaction. Like selling a new car and the owner then finds out the odometer has been rolled back and the frame was bent. We call that fraud because the car was sold under false pretenses, "This vehicle is new". Just like what my W did, "I don't do that".. False pretenses.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 9:40 AM, November 29th (Sunday)]

RIO - We can easily come to an issue of splitting hairs in the use of the term "coercion" but I'll address it because I personally think it's important within the context of the conversation for one specific reason: manipulation. And that's one area I think BSs DO need to get very clear within themselves.

When you re-define the expectations of the relationship, is it a determination of new boundaries...or is the intent to manipulate a certain outcome or even affect a consequence for the partner?

I think this is also what often happens within those renegotiations and likely at the heart of the OP's point. It's not uncommon for a BS, when defining new boundaries, to be accused of manipulation. That's it's own form of manipulation...and often results in indignant, defensive anger as a response.

(I think it wise for many BSs to keep front and center the idea that they are often already dealing with a partner that doesn't appreciate or respond well to boundaries themselves. Arguing or defending a boundary just further leads to the concept that you don't just inherently have a right to have one...that it must somehow be an acceptable one - and THAT is where coercion comes into play.)

And further, RIO, and as an aside...I think this is where you get into "trouble" sometimes on this board in regards to your sexual expectations of your WW.

It's not so much that I see it as coercion on your part...but when you defend it, it comes across as that.

I do agree, so long as everyone is honest. However, most of the time, that's not the case.

Guess what, Rideitout? Everyone is free to leave even if NOBODY is honest. That's the way it goes.

If you aren't happy, leave.

If you don't like it, leave.

If your needs aren't met, leave.

A BS usually says, "I don't want to D! That's not fair!" So if you are going to value the M more than your dignity, you will keep your M but not your dignity.

As they say in kindergarten, "You get what you get, so don't throw a fit." Or as my H's IC would say, "I know you wish you lived somewhere else, but this is the street you live on." It doesn't matter if we don't like what life throws at us--it is what it is.

A BS does not have to do or accept anything. If you don't like the terms, leave.

There are four types of problem solvers:

1. The problem is mine to own and the solution is mine to own.

2. The problem is not mine to own and the solution is not mine to own.

3. The solution is mine to own, but the problem is not.

4. The problem is mine to own, but the solution is not.

Clearly people who subscribe to #1 and #3 can find their way to peace, but if you subscribe to #2 or #4, you are going to miserable for a long time, maybe forever.

When you re-define the expectations of the relationship, is it a determination of new boundaries...or is the intent to manipulate a certain outcome or even affect a consequence for the partner?

Can you give some examples? I really feel like your drawing lines that don't exist; or are written in invisible ink. Was it a "boundary" that I wasn't going to live with a low sex relationship anymore after the A, or was it coercion, "you're going to step it up, or I'm going to leave"? Honestly, it's both, IMHO, it's my boundary, and you're going to adhere to it if you want to stay married; therefore, you are coerced to comply if you wish to keep this relationship.

Now, the place I can agree, if you're just trying to cause a consequence, that can cross the line for me. The "I won't sleep with her, even though I want to, because she needs to suffer" is over the line for me. Doesn't mean it's not right, or not understandable (it's VERY understandable), but it's clearly just "punishment" (or would have been in my case, I wanted to have sex, denying it to her would have been "punishing her"). More like "cut off nose to spite face" but, whatever.

It's not so much that I see it as coercion on your part...but when you defend it, it comes across as that.

Oh, it was coercion on my part, no need for you to sugar coat it, trust me, I don't. And I feel awful for it every day; which is why I so stridently try to advise others to "do it first", before the BS has to coerce the action. Write a timeline before you're asked, go NC before it's demanded, get a new job to get away from the AP, etc. The way to avoid putting the BS in a situation where they must coerce is to do these things BEFORE they become "do it or get out". But let's call it what it is, I clearly coerced my wife to provide the same type of sex the OM got. I'm not proud of it, and I don't advise others to do it, but, it's clearly what I did. I also coerced her to go NC, to put together a timeline, coerced the truth out of her.. Again, I'm upset about it, but I did what needed to be done. Should I have had to?? OH HELL NO, absolutely not, she put me in that situation. But my actions once in that situation are on me; and I have to live with them every day. Another lovely little takeaway from her A for me.

Everyone is free to leave even if NOBODY is honest.

Of course, but you're missing the forest through the trees. First off, you have no idea if the other person is honest or not, pre-A, I took my wife at her word. And her word was "I don't do that". OK, I did my internal calculus and decided I could live with it. Was I free to leave? Of course I was, just like I could walk out right now because my wife burned the toast this morning. But there's a big difference between "I accidently burned the toast" and "I burn it on purpose hoping you choke to death on it". One is clearly a ridiculous reason to walk out the door, the other the opposite, GTFO now before she kills you RIO!!

It's easy to say, in the 2nd situation, you need to get out. But how do you know if you're in the 2nd situation? Because it could just as easily be a mistake, and walking out for that reason is really, really stupid. Now, I do feel that leaving because of her sexual limits would have been on slightly better footing than the burned toast, but; not a whole lot.

I'd compare this to something like the Madoff scam; sure, people freely gave him their money to invest. But they gave him that money under false pretenses, false income statements, fraudulent filings, etc. Is that "on them"? I suppose, in some ways, it is, but man, does it make it tough to operate if you think that way. Yes, we could have said to them, "You accepted the risk/return profile he presented to you for managing your money, get over it", and that would be true, if he wasn't "doctoring the books" to present something that had no basis in reality. That's what my W did, she "cooked the books" when describing her sexual past/preferences/etc. Should I have done more forensic accounting; gone to her previous BF's and asked them/hacked her phone/hired a PI? Or did I do reasonable diligence and was just taken by a scammer? I tend to think it's more the 2nd than the first.

Can you give some examples?

The difference is so subtle that it can be hard to explain. It's more something that you know within yourself. Probably the best way to differentiate is - how would you have handled it if your desired outcome wasn't obtained? In your case, would you have left your WW...or were you just issuing the threat as a means to try to obtain a certain outcome? In my case, I issued a lot of threats that I knew within myself that I was not necessarily ready to carry out. I threatened and hoped he took me seriously, prayed he didn't challenge me. I KNEW at the time that I wasn't resolved in my boundary. In that sense, what I did wasn't to set a boundary...I was practicing coercion. It was clearly a threat...and *I* was the one that knew that.

Did that help? That's why I say it can be splitting hairs...but it's also very different based on the motivation behind it. That's why we have to get very clear within ourselves. The difference is in our intent...not in how it perceived by the other.

Not to sidetrack the conversation, but I do find it interesting that you attribute the changed relationship with your wife so clearly to coercion. I very much get the impression that you would have left had there not been that change. If so, why frame this as coercion? Does that possibly make you somehow feel more powerful? It's a sincere question...because you also seem to simultaneously struggle with the concept that the value of what you now receive is muted because it was forced. Perhaps re-framing the instigating event of change would subsequently change the value of what you now receive? YOU assign the meaning...it's how we can have a perfectly wonderful relationship with an (unknown) actively cheating spouse and an absolutely horrible, tainted one with a now reformed one.

Thank you for this post, OBL. I agree with all of it. They can't reciprocate adult relationship skills so it's always going to be unfair and lopsided and they will act like the children they are, lashing out when we respond normally to their atrocious behavior. It's a very few WSs, who are capable of catching up maturity-wise.

The WS lives in a concrete world, a fair world. The BS has their world turned upside down. BS are not allowed to cheat, even a RA. So all they can do is wait for the next affair, if it comes, by the WS or a new partner. Doesn't seem fair.

This ^^^

They continue to be able to trust reality as they've always known it - they have a faithful spouse, they can feel confidant they aren't being exposed to STIs when they have marital sex, etc. We lost the world as we knew it but are expected to simple roll with that, being the ever-gracious, giving, need-less mommy or daddy figure. Fuck that noise.

[This message edited by skeetermooch at 10:54 AM, November 29th (Sunday)]

I very much get the impression that you would have left had there not been that change. If so, why frame this as coercion? Does that possibly make you somehow feel more powerful?

To your last question, that's a "hard no". It makes me feel like s**t, and it's probably the biggest issue that I still struggle with today, years after the A.

See, this is where things go into the dictionary for me, I "frame it" as coercion because the definition of the word fits. I obtained something through a threat (in my case implied but it doesn't matter if it's explicit or not, it's still coercion). If I was going to carry through on that threat or not doesn't matter either, there's no "gotta be real serious about it to be coercion". Nope, if someone breaks into my house and puts a gun to my head and demands I give him my money, even if he's thinking "I'll never pull the trigger" and even if he actually NEVER would pull the trigger; it doesn't matter at all to me, I'm still coerced, under threat to do something.

Perhaps there's another word that has a more nuanced meaning that applies here better, but coercion isn't that word. The moment you, either explicitly or imply "do this or else", it's coercion. It doesn't matter if it's your boundary, something done for "revenge", something you truly need to continue the relationship, or in fact, what the reason is at all. "Stop the A or I leave" is a clear use of a threat to change someone's behavior. Is it "your boundary"? Could be, doesn't matter though, the result in the same in the receiver.

I get what you are saying...but it's also where I'm confused in regards to your specific situation. When it comes to defining coercion, intent doesn't matter. But when it comes to burnt toast, it does.

As to the issue of feeling powerful, did it perhaps make you feel powerful at the time? As an aside, many people that struggle with boundaries, do so because they are uncomfortable with owning their own power. They don't feel an inherent right to their own needs and desires because they have been taught earlier in life that they didn't deserve any. They exist without boundaries until that existence becomes intolerable..and then when they draw a line they see that as an abuse of power (rather than simply what they deserve as a basic right). I could make the conjecture that if you feel bad about it, you must have felt it was an abuse of power. Do you not see your WW as having the power to leave?

As to your last post regarding being sold a bad bill of goods...

I recently read a post that described our knowledge as falling into four basic categories:

1. What we know we know.

2. What we know we don't know.

3. What we don't know we don't know.

4. That which is unknowable

Aspects of the questions you are asking tip into the existential realm. A place I seem to be dwelling in much of the time lately. There are things we both don't know and can't know. It's the nature of life...and the biggest challenge we have is not in obtaining the knowledge but rather finding a way to be comfortable in the lack of knowledge. It's coming to understand why we want knowledge...and facing the fear that we feel in not being able to protect ourselves from uncertainty. Supposedly, on the other side of this, we learn that we don't need protection - but I'm not there yet. They say it lies just beyond acceptance and surrender. <shrug>

To continue with the trend of splitting hairs....

Do you think that the distinction could come down to the difference between explaining the natural and logical consequences of an action to someone in order to dissuade them from a destructive course of action vs threading an illogical and disproportionate reaction to someone’s actions?

(That has to be a record for run on sentence btw)

Example: if I warn you not to stick your hand into the fire because you will get a bad burn, am I coercing you not to put your hand in the fire or am I simply explaining to you, and warning you about, the natural and logical consequences of the action?

Am I coercing you? Is the fire?

Like wise, if I explain to my spouse that continued infidelity or lying will result in divorce, is that not also simply explaining and warning about the natural and logical consequences of their actions?

Framing that as coercion seems, while maybe technically semantically accurate, a bit of a stretch.

Likewise, in using RIO’s earlier example of:

"Come in at 8AM or I'll stop paying you"

The employer is simply explaining to the employee the natural and logical consequences of a specific behavior. The employee wouldn’t likely be surprised by this information and is capable of making a choice between the action and the proportional reaction.

If instead the employer said:

“Come in at 8 AM or I’ll kill your fucking children”

I think you could certainly make the case that this statement (an extreme one I realize but useful for illustration purposes) is absolutely coercive. The threatened consequence is not one that logically or naturally follows the action. And it is pretty fucking far from proportional, leaving the employee with no real choice in the matter.

If I offer to buy a car from you for $5000 and you agree, I haven’t coerced you into giving me a car. We have come to an arrangement that is mutually agreeable to both parties. If upon delivery of the car in question I discover that you have removed the engine I might choose to put a stop payment on the check until you decide to put the fucking engine back in. That’s not me coercing you, that’s me trying to hold you to the parameters of the original arrangement. You can choose to comply or you can call the whole thing off. Not coercion in my estimation.

To continue with that same analogy: if upon discovering your treachery with engine I decide that I am now only willing to pay you $4500 for the car? That would also not, in my opinion, be coercion. In that instance the original arrangement has been invalidated by the new circumstances and I am entirely within my rights to create a new arrangement in light of those circumstances. You, as the seller, can either: A. Accept the new arrangement. B. Attempt further negotiations of the arrangement. C. Walk away from the deal entirely.

It’s not coercive, it is the natural and logical process through which flawed, imperfect and ill tempered human beings manage to live in a civilized manner.

HT

The employer is simply explaining to the employee the natural and logical consequences of a specific behavior. The employee wouldn’t likely be surprised by this information and is capable of making a choice between the action and the proportional reaction.

That's a fair distinction. Where this usually comes up is talking about the consequences of the A, often times around sex, but could be around anything the AP got that the BS desires. So, I think it's a "natural and logical consequence" of an A that the BS should expect treatment that is AT LEAST on the same level as what the AP got. And that could be anal sex, or it could be a dozen roses, matters not, but in either case, I have a difficult time thinking it's not a "logical" consequence of the A. You don't like it, leave (which is the coercion part) but one certainly follows from the other.

Example: if I warn you not to stick your hand into the fire because you will get a bad burn, am I coercing you not to put your hand in the fire or am I simply explaining to you, and warning you about, the natural and logical consequences of the action?

No. Coercion requires some threat, implied or otherwise. "Don't stick your hand in the fire or you'll be grounded" is coercion. "Don't stick your hand in the fire or you'll get burned" has no threat associated with it, you're not "promising a negative reaction", you're explaining what will happen if you do it. An affair example would be "Don't have an affair if you don't want to be used like a sex toy". I'm not coercing you not to have an A, I'm explaining what's likely to happen if you do have an A. But the negative result isn't my doing, it's external to me. Now, "Don't have an A or I'll D you so fast your head will spin" is, obviously, coercive.

Nobody wants to feel like they are "forcing" their spouse to do things. But we all do it, to one degree or another, it's simply the way we show, through our actions, the things that we value in the relationship. It's not always a hugely negative thing, but, after an A, it really does get, at least for some (me), seriously twisted up. In my case it was/is sex, I'm not supposed to have to coerce you to want to have sex with me; your supposed to want it as much as I am, it's a mutual benefit of being married for BOTH of us. The A, and the aftermath, has laid bare the reality, at least in my relationship, it's not that at all. And of course, the real mind f**k, the OM didn't have to coerce anything; he showed up, d**k in hand, and was treated to basically anything his mind could think up as the sexual treat of the day.

And it is pretty fucking far from proportional, leaving the employee with no real choice in the matter.

You could just as easily argue that "Stop sleeping with her or I'm going to D you, take you for all your worth, and you'll see your kids once a month" leaves one "no real choice in the matter". I know plenty of guys who've been in that situation, and not a single tear will ever be shed by me for them. Are they being coerced? Of course they are, financially and emotionally. Do I care? Not really. Bed made, lie. And that applies to plenty of dead bedrooms I know of too, "You want to have sex again, fine, see above; pay me a ton of money and say "bye" to your kids". Coerced into accepting a dead bedroom, happens all the time, in fact, I'd argue, it's the majority of cases where this happens. One partner unilaterally decides "Sex over" and the other partner is coerced into going along with it through financial/children/religion or some other means.

I haven't read all the comments (I have a brain injury after several seizures brought about by Serotonin Syndrome in 2018, so I can only read small amounts in a day) but I have to say that no BS aren't expected to be better and no you don't have to have sex with your WS or anyone for that matter. It's okay to be sexually repulsed and to take however long you need to heal. It's also okay to HB and then not be able to have sex with your WS afterwards, healing isn't linear and you shouldn't be expected to do anything with your body you aren't willing to do. Anyone who says otherwise is holding to medieval beliefs about a partner laying there and taking it.

Oh and if you can't be kind ot respectful then don't reply because it's completely unfair that I have to be called a banshee when that wouldn't fly in the wayward forum.

And I don't have to call my feelings a rant to get respect

I want to try and reply again, and first I want to apologize for my sarcasm when I replied earlier. Your pain and anger radiate through every post and I know when I have been in that place, the way that I responded earlier would have been anything but helpful.

I’ve been here a long time and tend to think that everyone knows my story, which is pretty arrogant of me when I think about it. So a brief introduction: I grew up in a chaotic home because of my mom’s mental illness. Raging, out of control bipolar disorder. And borderline personality disorder. Discovered fairly recently that my dad, who now has dementia, was a SA who cheated on my mom compulsively. I was sexually abused by an uncle. Got pregnant at age 19 in a very sketchy situation and I was betrayed by the father as well as his command (He was in the Army and made up a horrible story that was determined to be the official truth). I gave up my baby for adoption. My first H left me with a newborn while he was stationed in another area and supposedly traveling constantly. When I discovered the OW he’d been living with for months, the last thing either of them said to me was the OW asking about the kid I gave away so I could stay in college. When I met my current H, he was supposed to be the one. The one who would never break me. Never hurt me or betray me or abuse me. But he did. And not just once. 4 different OW in 14 years.

I’m telling you all this because I want you to know I understand pain and betrayal and anger.

I was confused with the thread because I wasn’t sure who it was directed toward. I went back to the original post and I think I’m understanding now. You feel that here on SI you and/or BS in general are expected to be perfect and forgiving while allowing for the WS failings. Is that right?

If I’m understanding you correctly, I apologize for any part I’ve played in that. R is freaking hard. And there is SO much that is unfair. Healing from my first M was hard, but much less complicated because the source of my pain was not in my home. In fact, I’ve literally seen my XH one time since my son’s first birthday. My R with my current H, JM, has been much less difficult than many others have experienced because he has not wavered in his remorse or commitment to our rebuilding and healing. Not everyone gets that and I know it.

So, here at SI, as in all areas of life, we tend to bring our own experiences to the discussion. We’ve also seen many members here and we know what tends to work. I know you don’t like the terms “rant” and “vent” but that is why Sisoon asked if you were venting. Because sometimes we just need to get all of the anger and pain and ugly out. To write or speak the words that are whirling inside our heads. And when I’m in that place, I really don’t want to hear solutions. Or explanations. I just want to be heard and for someone to say I’m not crazy to feel that way.

And that’s perfectly valid. I’m sorry that you felt disrespected by those terms.

If I’m still not understanding you, I’m sorry.

It's so sad and mindblowing that I have to constantly defend the BS because people hold the BS to an impossible standard.

Why do you have to defend anyone else? How are YOU feeling about YOUR situation? I don't know where you are on this awful roller coaster. If someone is pressuring you to do things you aren't comfortable with (like sex with your WS), they obviously aren't paying attention to the pain you are in, and probably should be ignored.

Speaking from personal experience I aimed my anger at pretty much everyone other than my xWS. Including the people at SI. I look back at some of the things I said on SI a year ago and cringe. I wish I placed more of that anger where it belonged....at my betrayer.

For the record, I agree with most of what you've been saying. IMHO BS's do put way too much pressure on themselves. I was guilty of it as well. Pressure to do everything right, while picking up the pieces of what's left of life.

As far as what the WS's (me included) experience in the wayward forum, I also wonder why more 2x4's aren't thrown. But then I see a new wayward show up, get hammered and then they disappear. Never to post again. Did they deserve the 2x4's? Oh yeah. But is that WS or more importantly their BS, any better off now?

None of this is fair! Some choose to treat their WS with kid gloves. Some literally beat the shit out of them. Some divorce. Many stay in limbo. It all fucking sucks.

Something said often to wayward spouses is to let go of the outcome. I wish most betrayed spouses would also figure out how to adopt that mantra (me included). Imagine if you did? How on earth could you be accused of coercion while setting a boundary? The boundary is set to protect oneself, not control another person.

Rideitout,

You seem to believe you coerced your WS into doing sexual acts. You seem to feel guilty and bad about it. Why do you feel the need to label other people's safe boundaries as coercion too?

Sorry; but when you cheat, you lose, for a long time, your sexual autonomy.

I completely disagree. Nothing a person can do, should ever result in becoming your sex slave. No wonder you feel awful about it.