SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

BTW, I have found this site useful to my healing and marriage, and I think I've been helpful and encouraging to others (mostly, ironically, to people who are original WS'es), but if any deviation from the "traditonal SI way" isn't tolerated then fine, it's not my website.

I do feel that there's maybe more of a religious / dogmatic undertone here than I originally thought, which has become more evident to me through discussion of this topic in particular.

I told my WW that each and every time she chatted with her AP on Facebook, picked up her cell phone and called her, and got into her vehicle and turned the key knowing she was going to see her AP . . . each and every one of those acts was a separate decision, each was an independent choice to cheat. And if I were to be of a mind to have a RA, that decision would be no different: I know better. She knew better, but each and every time she chose to violate her own conscience.

I could not do it.

sewardak --

I am Catholic but i think the notion of marriage is, by and large, the same throughout many religions. It just happens to be one of the big ones in the Catholic church we give a name to. And I think other people not Catholic think of marriage as a big deal as well.

when you stand up and say your vows in any church i think you're making the vow of integrity. to throw that out the windows because the other half screws up?

it's like some are saying the only thing keeping someone faithful is the fidelity of the other person.

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I am finding this all very interesting, and appreciate this conversation. While I can see the truth in what you say about the notion of marriage being similar in many religions, marriage itself is not a religious ceremony. Many people are not married in a church, or as part of a religious and/or sacramental rite. Many people are in relationship agreements that have not been legalized or formalized in front of others. For many people in relationships, the vows they share and the expectations of their unions differ greatly from those given in certain religious contexts. I don't think it necessarily follows that not attaching similar sacramental connotations to the binding of two lives implies that it isn't a big deal to the participants; it just means that those contractual/moral expectations might be different than what you are assuming to be universal.

For example: when my husband and I were married, we had a separate, private vow ceremony followed by the family & friends legal ceremony. Our marital vows were highly specific and personalized, and were made solely to each other. If either of us ever violated those vows, we would be violating a relationship contract made with one another outside of the legal contract we created later. Our agreement would be rendered null by that violation, and not whenever our legal union was dissolved or joint responsibilities settled. It requires no ceremony or ritual to dissolve, although those do exist for closure and healing. (It does require immediate notification of any breakage, and there are consequences laid out for failing to do so.)

Any continuation of that relationship would then recquire a renegotiation of new vows. This was part of our marital agreement, and is not uncommon; many of our friends have similar arrangements. We did not marry the idea of marriage, or make our vows to an ideal or an institution. We each made vows to a specific individual, then subsequently decided to legally merge our lives as well. The two are related, but purposefully separate.

We also vowed to revisit and renegotiate those vows at regular set intervals, to make sure they were still what we wanted and needed. The only lack of integrity would be on the part of the individual breaking the vows outside of the agreed upon process outlined during our initial vow ceremony, which mandates certain procedures to end or alter our union. What keeps us faithful to that agreement is our love, integrity, fidelity, history, desire, and shared goals/experiences/priorities, which I imagine is similar for a lot of people. I don't think that's a bad thing at all, and it has been very successful thus far for my relationship. (Disclaimer: there has been no infidelity in my relationship with my husband.) We both really appreciate being in a union where we always have choice, and feel this structure keeps us actively committed, connected, and growing in ways that benefit the both of us.

As such, in a relationship with vows like ours there would be no lack of integrity or "revenge affairing" on the part of Parter A if Partner B broke the marital contract and a new contract has not been established. The next steps are up to Partner A, and until new vows are negotiated all previous agreements are off. That is one of the rightful consequences of choosing to break those vows; Partner B is no longer entitled to the benefits inherent in that union. The marital contract was never about legal status or religious idealogy, so those considerations are not a determining factor.

I think others on this forum may have similar views and/or vows to this, which might explain some of these discrepancies in perspective on this issue. Others, though, might just feel differently. I think that has to be taken into consideration in any discussion of what happens after relationship agreements are broken.

For the record: we have both repeatedly and freely chosen to be exclusive to one another, and are very happy with those vows. Both of our lives have been touched previously by infidelity in multiple ways, so we gave a lot of thought to what would have meaning and value to us specifically in a relationship agreement.

I think focusing on “married in the church” and/or the quality of vows causes you to miss the forest for the trees. The primary message was that many are making their fidelity contingent on another’s. The only behavior anyone can control is his/her own; basing it on others’ surrenders a great deal of autonomy and power. That your vows are impenetrable, Rasputina, is awesome though given your presence on SI, one might wonder how such mature evaluation and revision of vows permitted infidelity in the first place. Or are you simply here to school the inferior? (If the latter, I’d caution against smugness; many of us believed our marriages special even as they were being befouled by cheating we don’t suspect.)

solus sto --

I think focusing on “married in the church” and/or the quality of vows causes you to miss the forest for the trees. The primary message was that many are making their fidelity contingent on another’s. The only behavior anyone can control is his/her own; basing it on others’ surrenders a great deal of autonomy and power.

That your vows are impenetrable, Rasputina, is awesome though given your presence on SI, one might wonder how such mature evaluation and revision of vows permitted infidelity in the first place. Or are you simply here to school the inferior?

What's with the unsolicited (and inaccurate) CliffsNotes summarization of other people's thoughts, and the accompanying ad hominem aggression? If you aren't interested in sharing respectful discourse, I'm not interested in engaging with you. I'm also not particularly interested in repeating myself, so I think you will find a good portion of your reply already addressed with a closer reading of my original comments. I welcome further convo that is civil.

doublepost

[This message edited by sewardak at 7:10 AM, November 21st (Tuesday)]

"I think focusing on “married in the church” and/or the quality of vows causes you to miss the forest for the trees. The primary message was that many are making their fidelity contingent on another’s. "

this^^^

"As such, in a relationship with vows like ours there would be no lack of integrity or "revenge affairing" on the part of Parter A if Partner B broke the marital contract and a new contract has not been established"

there would be for me. we think very differently about marriage so not sure we'll come to an agreement or see each other's sides.

my vow was to myself.

if someone hits me i won't hit back. I don't feel a big need for justice. but I can't believe on a surviving infidelity site, some are saying an affair worked for them or the big one - justifying an affair.

sewardak --

"I think focusing on “married in the church” and/or the quality of vows causes you to miss the forest for the trees. The primary message was that many are making their fidelity contingent on another’s. "

this^^^

I picked up on that, thanks. One of my points was that making the presumption that this would be universally viewed as something negative isn't workable, and that it's okay for different people to have different relationship agreements and vows that work for them.

there would be for me. we think very differently about marriage so not sure we'll come to an agreement or see each other's sides.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle

I'm good with that. I don't need to come to agreement with you to see your side, and seeing your side would also not necessarily mean I agree with you. I'm happy you are willing to explore this together.

my vow was to myself.

I truly hope this does not come across as insensitive or inflammatory; that is not my intent at all, but I am having trouble understanding your meaning. And I truly want to understand your perspective. So I will just ask -- were your husband's vows of fidelity similarly made to himself? Does he share your perspective? If your self-directed vows are still intact and his self-directed vows broken, what vows were made and then subsequently broken to you? (I know that promises and expectations obviously were violated, but I can't determine from your comments what those were.)

if someone hits me i won't hit back. I don't feel a big need for justice. but I can't believe on a surviving infidelity site, some are saying an affair worked for them or the big one - justifying an affair.

I can. It seems to me that there is a wide variety of opinions and a lot of divergence of thought on pretty much every aspect of this. I think that's to be expected because, like I said, marriage vows and agreements are not universal.

"I think that's to be expected because, like I said, marriage vows and agreements are not universal."

true. But really not on this site. You have 11 posts so how would you really know what this site stands for? My point from the first post was about this site.

i can see your point and not agree with it so I'm not really sure about the "educated mind" quote? is that a dig that I should be more accepting and that is somehow better?

"So I will just ask -- were your husband's vows of fidelity similarly made to himself? Does he share your perspective? If your self-directed vows are still intact and his self-directed vows broken, what vows were made and then subsequently broken to you? (I know that promises and expectations obviously were violated, but I can't determine from your comments what those were.)"

I don't think my husband and I share the same views about vows. That doesn't matter to me. He broke the vow to be faithful to me. I still consider my vows intact.

[This message edited by sewardak at 7:49 AM, November 21st (Tuesday)]

Rasputina, I find your vows and the premise interesting.

If either of us ever violated those vows, we would be violating a relationship contract made with one another outside of the legal contract we created later. Our agreement would be rendered null by that violation, and not whenever our legal union was dissolved or joint responsibilities settled. It requires no ceremony or ritual to dissolve, although those do exist for closure and healing. (It does require immediate notification of any breakage, and there are consequences laid out for failing to do so.)

What stands out to me is the part I bolded. You see, that is where the fly is in the ointment. The thing with people breaking their vows is they don't like to disclose that they did so. They don't want to pay the consequences. What makes you think that your husband would disclose to you that he broke one of the vows?

See, we all went into our marriages (well, most of us did) knowing that neither of us was going to break our vows, especially the fidelity one. It happens in open marriages, too. I am totally baffled that cheating occurs in open marriages but it does.

Now, I know you are saying that because of the way you structured your vows that you wouldn't be able to have a revenge affair. But, really, c'mon. That is more of a semantics thing. I understand that you are saying if you had sex with someone else after the contract was broken you would not have lost your integrity or was morally wrong. But, if your sole purpose for having sex with someone else was to hurt your spouse it would still be a revenge affair/sex. If you had sex for any other reason than I would suggest it was an unhealthy coping mechanism at the very least.

Furthermore, most on this site have been in traditional marriages with the traditional vows and didn't/don't have the kind of marital agreement that you do. So even if a BS feels the way you do, they didn't make that kind of agreement with their WS on their wedding day.

Any continuation of that relationship would then recquire a renegotiation of new vows. This was part of our marital agreement, and is not uncommon;

Yeah, that isn't common. Maybe becoming less uncommon, but still not common.

eta: missing sentence

[This message edited by SisterMilkshake at 8:52 AM, November 21st (Tuesday)]

sewardak --

true. But really not on this site. You have 11 posts so how would you really know what this site stands for?

It seems pretty presumptuous to me to speak for a site with tens of thousands of members, but I think the Guidelines and Healing Library do a pretty good job of laying that out:

"SurvivingInfidelity.com® is a place for healing and rebuilding your self-esteem, relationship and self worth after the devastating effects that Infidelity can bring into your life."

"Please show respect for others - people of all types, beliefs, and cultures populate these forums. There will be no political statements or discussions, and no religious debates."

i can see your point and not agree with it so I'm not really sure about the "educated mind" quote? is that a dig that I should be more accepting and that is somehow better?

No, that was just a quote about being able to entertain differing perspectives while retaining your own to set the tone for respectful sharing. Sounds like you feel similarly, so I'm not sure why you are asking if it was a dig.

I don't think my husband and I share the same views about vows. That doesn't matter to me. He broke the vow to be faithful to me. I still consider my vows intact.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions. So much pain and suffering is caused by people not being able to live up to their word, isn't it?

"So much pain and suffering is caused by people not being able to live up to their word, isn't it?"

it truly is.

Seward, you are a good person.

I've thought it for some time, but never posted it. I admire your character.

Hi DevastatedDee,

I'm not on this site as much as I used to be so I haven't read any of your other posts. My schedule is crazy and time is limited these days. Admittedly even in this thread I have only read the first two pages, but this part of your post really struck me.

I'm very sorry that you had this experience. Everyone of my partners that I've had in life has been raped. This reaction that you had is not atypical. Quite common. I've been a victim of CSA myself. I've also been in IC for four years now and have done a lot of heavy lifting. I've been diagnosed with a dissociative disorder and complex PTSD. One thing I have learned is that victims of sexual abuse in all it's different forms act out, often unconsciously, in an effort to "normalize" what they went through. I'm not an armchair IC but I would say based on my experiences it sounds like that's what you could have been doing. "Normalizing" in some way the events that happened to you. In your words "to take sex back".

Could that have been what you were doing with the RA? "Normalizing" your situation?

Guessing that because of what you went through is why you have a different perspective and do not see what other people see in that it was just as bad? That to you perhaps you have to "normalize" in order to protect yourself?

Just thinking out loud here.

yop

I hear you, YOP. I'm in IC trying to figure all this out myself. I'm kind of freaked out that I reacted that way, due to my past. I thought I was beyond all that madness. Not gonna lie, I'm still a train wreck and don't know up from down some days, so I can't tell you how correct I am about anything yet, lol. I haven't really enjoyed the convergence of my two worst traumas by any means.

stayed - my goodness, thank you!!

Wow! Hot topic here and lots of good debate. I started a separate thread on this topic that some of you have replied to and then I was pointed here.

Someone said that an A is not only one mistake. I totally agree. It is many, many mistakes. In my wife's case it started with her giving herself the OK to be available for another man to approach her and then the flirting, dancing, rubbing, kissing, exchanging her REAL phone number, continued texting, and talking on the phone, the hiding, and then the final physical affair (although it happened for a few days only), and then the secret, long distance relationship for 2 years up to when I finally had enlightenment (AKA being shot in the stomach kind of pain, hands shaking, hot flashes, ready to pass out).

My WW had plenty of opportunities to correct the course and start steering in the right direction and she chose the lower road. TIME AND TIME AGAIN!

Like I said in my own thread, I do disagree with the comment that a RA is the same thing as an A. NO! IT IS NOT!

Here is why:

In the A situation, your partner loved you, cherished you, and trusted you completely knowing that that he/she had not given you any reason to break your vows. This is in a completely loving context. And I tell you that I was a great husband. I woke up every night to feed my kids with formula and change their diapers for 4 years straight while she slept like a sloth. I have done so much for her that I cannot describe. I know through and through that I have been a good man. Never abused her. Never disrespected her.

However in a RA, that context doesn't exist. There is a thought at the back of your mind that "my partner might take revenge on me because..." of an affair, abuse, or some other mistreatment of that person. So in my mind they are definitely not the same. In one case, it is completely a possibility - almost an anticipation that it might happen - but in the other it is a complete surprise. Imagine the difference in hurt. I think in the RA case, the WW/WH is disappointed at what their OWN actions has cost them and at how it has brought out the worst part out of their spouse. So it's very different.

The hardest part in an RA is collateral damage. OK, you can stay away from married women, who BTW might be in the same situation as you having a POS husband.

But what about your kids? What did they do to be caught up in this god awful shitty mess? That's what holds me back. Karma is a bitch and it comes back in many ways. I don't want to invite her to my home. I know that someday my WW will get hers.

[This message edited by devastated43 at 12:33 PM, November 21st (Tuesday)]

Well, wouldn't the collateral damage assessment have to be made based upon the ultimate outcome?

After d-day for the ~3 months I was going out and dating, we still lived under the same roof and didn't fight in front of them (I think on my end, the lack of fights was due to my not giving a shit and being stone cold certain I was going to D her). The only noticeable difference is that I was going out a few nights a week, whereas before d-day (and now), I always was / always am home. I still saw my kids every day, whereas if I moved out, separated and/or filed for D, there'd have to be some split custody arrangement.

And I have to reiterate, whether anyone else thinks this is healthy or not, there is zero chance, and I mean zero, that I would have considered R if I didn't go see what's out there. Since I coincidentally got into elite shape before d-day, I learned that I had plenty of options. I was thus in a position where I felt that R was a choice among various options, rather than something I'm going to be just grinning and bearing to stay together for the kids, or because D is scary / hard.

What I glean from the OP and some others who share OP's opinion is that my W, myself and my kids would have been better off with divorced parents and shared custody, downgrading their living environment and standard of living, being in a shittier school district, not seeing parents who at one point had some unspecified issues (and didn't have any blow-up fights in front of them), but ultimately learned to be more intimate with each other, etc. ... because of me having morals and maintaining my integrity, being able to look at myself in the mirror and such.

It seems like what's being said is that breaking up the family and going our separate ways because I couldn't bring myself to stay in the relationship but-for what I decided to do would have taught them that I maintained my integrity and have morals, and would be a massive net positive for them ... and that going this route is universally the best thing for all married couples in all situations, regardless of what the outcome might otherwise have been if a BS decided to have an "RA".

[This message edited by SilverLinings55 at 3:27 PM, November 21st (Tuesday)]

"What I glean from the OP and some others who share OP's opinion is that my W, myself and my kids would have been better off with divorced parents and shared custody, downgrading their living environment and standard of living, being in a shittier school district, not seeing parents who at one point had some unspecified issues (and didn't have any blow-up fights in front of them), but ultimately learned to be more intimate with each other, etc."

omg. really? we never said that. what i am saying is offering your WS some grace and mercy and not taking your pound of flesh - unless the tit for tat, justice at all cause it what you're looking to teach your kids.

Look, I've been clear throughout that - regardless of what you or anyone else thinks about me as a person - I wouldn't have ever considered R but-for having an "RA".

In this context, my analysis of your position remains sound. In order to maintain my integrity, morals, etc., I'd have had to D her and then start dating ~1 year or more from now when the D was final.

I understand what your position is regarding the best possible example for the kids would have been me just forgiving her 5 A's (at least 5 that I'm aware of) over ~4 years (that I'm aware of), 2 of them LTA's, one of the OM's being brought into our home and marital bed, etc., but that just wasn't going to happen.

So then the only way to go using that standard of morality would be to D.

bluesyeyes said

Yup, she posted and will get many replies.

All good here, too. Your replies are as valid as anyones.

My reply was i didn’t think she was smug. And, I know the definition of smug.

Oh ok. I just had to check because the definition of smug appeared to be seeping out of almost every post of hers. But that is a perfect example of how we all view things in our unique ways based on our own experiences. I did not mean to offend you with the definition. Apologies.

sewardak said:

But saying "no offense but..," and then posting a litany of offenses is pretty PA. So is saying sorry when you're really not sorry.

I stand by my first point and I've been here a while. I'm shocked by how many ppl, posting lately, think a RA is ok, understandable and justifiable.

You're right. I was caught off guard that fellow BS was coming off (to me) so high and mighty that I did not formulate my reply as well as I would have liked. It was passive aggressive but I stand by the main point of it. To say that RA is worse is just stupid IMO.

Not everyone has a remorseful or even sorry WS. So if you are viewing this whole entire topic on the very narrow viewpoint of a WS who is bending over backwards to make amends than I can maybe see why you'd say what you said. Some of us are stuck in limbo for long periods of time. Some of us have extenuating circumstances that lead to different outcomes/options. Some of us have spouses that even encourage an affair or won't give up their AP and don't care what's happening either way. You made a comment that you did not make your vows to your husband but to the institution of marriage itself. I didn't. My vows were made to my husband and my husband only. I married at the Biltmore in santa barbara across from the ocean, not a church. I really don't care about any of the rest of it. He broke his vows and continued being an asshole for a long time after DDAY. I know, I know.. "Well just divorce then". But guess what? I was and am in pain over that outcome. I don't want to lose my family, I don't want to divorce the only man I've loved for as long as I can remember. It's not what I wanted at all and still don't despite being on that path anyway. I still have the smallest hope that he wakes up from his midlife crisis/fog, and realizes what he's done. But I can sure as shit assure you that if I had relations with another man in this past year when I'm only just now starting to feel like I'm coming out of what I can only describe as a manic coma (while my husband has been fence sitting and continuing on with his AP here and there) that it's not worse than what my husband did to me. And for you to say something like that is hurtful and, I think, unwise. I can only assume that you didn't think long enough before making that statement. And not all extra marital relationships after dday are revenge affairs. I'd be willing to bet very few of them are. I'd be willing to bet that most of them happen with well meaning intentions (albeit misguided) in hopes to heal and feel loved. When someone's spouse has been in a LTA it's probably safe to assume the BS hasn't felt a real connection or love in a while, usually the length of the affair, and I can totally see how people would long for that and think it could help them cope with their world crumbling.

I posted an analogy in the beginning of this thread that nobody replied to. Had to do with a layperson waving a gun around and threatening a crowd causing severe panic and chaos, and someone who just came back from war doing the same thing. Someone who had been through life changing events after being shot at for long periods of time. Are you going to tell the vet that what he did was worse because he should know how it feels to be shot at? Or are you going to take into account that he's probably a good person who can't think clearly whatsoever because he's been attacked over and over? Neither are ok, but apples and oranges.

You came on here like a bulldozer with a very black & white opinion that wreaked of superiority. People are in enough pain here, don't you think?