SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Of course there will be things that the WW/WH did

with the AP that their BW/BH will never want to do.

Though when it is something the BH never got,

or never got it from his WW, and always wanted it

or at least get to try it to see if he would like

it and the OM got it there is no way any BH is going

to take no from his WW without it causing problems.

Why do we not hear BW complain?

Men are from Mars and women ae from Venus. Women

get more upset over that their WH said ILU to the

OW then the sex part. The emotional issue weighs

more heavily.

With men the emphasis is on the sexual side. Men

are not phased by their WW telling the OM ILU in

comparison.

This is why BW's do support BH's need to get what

the WW gave to the OM. The see it as a woman's

rights issue trumping it was just sex.

Mr Silver told me recently that he would rather initiate, be in control. That when I initiate, it throws off his vibe and makes him lose his- ahem- interest. Maybe that's why this is in my mind lately - I'm still processing what he said. Is this true for other guys - is it a turnoff when your wife initiates? Do you see it as an affront?

No way. I love it.

How long does a ww have to suck it up for the team and fake til we make it? How.long before you heal? And do you think her faking it til you make it is truely healing from infidelity? Is a new stronger marriage made while she's doing it out of obligation? Do you really want a marriage based on obligation instead of true love and passion?

No, but we're never going to get to that point if she starts not being in the mood all the time. I'm not saying I expect sex on demand or that she can never say no. However, if she says no on Monday, better be a good reason to say no on Tuesday. Another no on Wednesday and we are probably heading into a pretty bad place.

If you look at the threads that have gone in depth in this issue, there's a clear divide between how men and women view this. Women, in general, seem to be of the mindset that "You shouldn't do anything sexual for the BH that you don't want to" and men are of the mindset "You need to get with the program". So, I don't believe the message is clear at all....

Understanding what is being communicated and agreeing with it are two different things. It sounds like your position is that until a WW agrees with their BH's view, then it means they aren't getting the message. There are many examples of people clearly getting what is being communicated, they just aren't interested in changing their view.

My views on this aren't at odds with what you are saying about men and women often viewing things differently. It seems that in many cases a WW gets the message clear enough, some just aren't interested or committed to reacting to the message in the way a BH wants or needs.

Would your fWW be able to recount to you what it is you have communicated to her in terms of your wants and needs on this topic?

This is why BW's do support BH's need to get what the WW gave to the OM. The see it as a woman's rights issue trumping it was just sex.

Maybe I misunderstand your point. But, I have seen many, many stories from BW's, who have tormented and anguished over their WH having sex with another women, without the BH using the ILY words. Women have great pain and anger and feelings of rejection when their WH has sex with another women, very much like a man feels. Perhaps the way in which a BH needs heeling vs how a BW needs healing is different, but the posts from BW's sure seem to suggest the pain and disgust and anger, even years later, is very similar.

I may be misreading the first sentence quoted above, but are you saying that BW's do or do not support BH's needs that they get what their WW gave to the OM?

I'm assuming there is a typo or editing error in OldTruck's last sentence. It makes no sense as written.

Like you, I've seen plenty of threads by BW wishing their WH's gave them sexually what the AP got. Same with BH's.

Like you, I've seen plenty of threads by BW wishing their WH's gave them sexually what the AP got. Same with BH's.

I haven't. I'm not being openly hostile, and maybe I've missed them, but I see very few threads with this general theme. I have seen some, but it's not nearly as common as the reverse, at least not from the threads I read. It's so common in WW A's that you'll often see BH's warn the new poster about it, "get ready for it", and that's something I don't think I've ever seen in a BW thread.

Also, I will say, I'd give the same advice to a BW who was in my situation, it's a deal breaker, and your WH needs to understand that and react appropriately. And I think that everyone would agree with me on that statement, BW/BH, WW/WH. I'm happy to dig it up, but we had a thread on this very topic that was 100's of posts long that make it very clear that when a BH is in this situation, many women feel like he shouldn't push the issue. There is/was, in my eyes, a significant double standard here. Most of the board seems to agree that if a BW had been asking her H to give her oral sex for years, he'd always refused, and then after d-day, she finds that he did it every time for the AP, she has every right/expectation that become a big part of their sexual relationship moving forward. If it's a BH, and it's anal sex, not every agrees that BH should have the expectation and make the demand that anal sex now be a big part of their sexual relationship moving forward. I can bump the thread; it was very contentious and I think, wound up the longest thread in the board's history that wasn't a ICR.

With men the emphasis is on the sexual side. Men are not phased by their WW telling the OM ILU in comparison.

You certainly nailed it for me. I did ask about ILU's, but, honestly, the answer (which was a yes) was about as "damaging" to me as stubbing my toe on a pillow. I guess I might have been happier if the answer was no, but I heard the answer, accepted it, and haven't really thought about it again until I read your post. It just didn't matter at all to me, they are just words, and it was clear from my WW's and AP's reactions after D-day that "love" wasn't at all what either of them felt towards one another. Putting it another way, it carried no weight because it wasn't real, it was like the difference between talking about sex and having sex, there was no follow through, no actions that indicated it. About as "real" as me professing my undying love for Oldtruck, yes, I can say it, but it just doesn't matter because they are just words. The physical stuff and the lying were the only "real" things in my mind, where you were, who you told, what you did together, protection, together the same day.. That's the stuff that I focused on and hurt me like crazy because it really happened; it wasn't just words, it was action, things that she did that I have to live with. The words didn't hurt me a fraction of the amount that it did finding out she was sitting in our living room talking to me and TXTing him. Couldn't care less what she said to him, it was her actions, ignoring me for him that bother me to this day.

And a WW coming here could easily get a message that will lead to a D

And maybe it should lead to a D, if like sisoon said it’s a fundamental mismatch. Now obviously I can’t speak for all women, but I can’t see a WW doing sexual things with an AP but not wanting to with her BH ever going to actually START wanting to with him—even if he tells her to “get with the program”, then she’s JUST getting with the program. If this hypothetical BH/WW couple wants that sort of marriage, more power to them—none of my business. But if it’s truly the case that she’s just not that into him “that way,” and it’s important to him that she be—then hell yes, get the D, because it’s not fixable. What other option IS there?

[This message edited by Darkness Falls at 7:27 AM, May 25th (Friday)]

And maybe it should lead to a D, if like sisoon said it’s a fundamental mismatch. Now obviously I can’t speak for all women, but I can’t see a WW doing sexual things with an AP but not wanting to with her BH ever going to actually START wanting to with him—even if he tells her to “get with the program”, then she’s JUST getting with the program. If this hypothetical BH/WW couple wants that sort of marriage, more power to them—none of my business. But if it’s truly the case that she’s just not that into him “that way,” and it’s important to him that she be—then hell yes, get a D. What other option IS there?

As much as it pains me to say this, I kind of agree. Because what people are talking about here isn't usually "do it" it's "want to do it". People don't want their WS's to read SI on threat of D, they want them to read SI because they want to, they want to fix it, and they want to get better (intentionally making it non-sexual to get the point across). And the same thing with sexual acts; no man I know wants a woman to do things with him because he forced her, that's worse than a prostitute, and a lot of men find that terribly unattractive (a woman doing things because you paid her, which is a whole lot better than a woman doing things because you forced her).

but I can’t see a WW doing sexual things with an AP but not wanting to with her BH ever going to actually START wanting to with him

Which is why, when I read threads like this, I often think the right answer is "just D". She's never going to want to do them with you, you might get them, but you won't enjoy it and you'll feel awful about it. So just D, it's the only path forward when confronted with this situation. But that's also why I spend time in threads like this, because if the answer is "D" (and it would be for me), people need to understand that. No, he/she won't accept it and move on. It's fine if you don't want to do it, but in many ways, that shows how you feel about your BS vs your AP, and you should D, both for you (to find someone you enjoy those acts with again) and for your BS (so that he/she can find someone). The only option that doesn't lead to D when confronted with this situation is when the WS realizes what they did and willingly offer and desire those things with their BS. And that's why I think these threads matter, because WS can read this and realize "OK, I need to make this a significant part of the R process" rather than "As long as I'm honest and forthcoming, R will go well". Because that 2nd message, IMHO, isn't true, there are things that need to be in place for R, transparency, no contact, and, in my eyes, this falls into that category, it's just not going to work if this isn't in place. And just like a WS who came on and said "I just need to call my AP once a month" to who I would say "You need to get a D, you're not R material" the same message would exist for "I only want to give my AP blowjobs". Well then D, because you're not R material or shouldn't be in the marriage that you're in.

ETA, slight crisper way to put it.

A WS comes on here and says "I don't want to tell my W the truth about the A. I feel forced, and like I shouldn't have to". And the message they would get is something reasonably similar to "You don't have to, but, if you want to fix your relationship, you need to and you'll never R if you don't". And they we would recommend the W, if she's a poster, get that WH tied up to a polygraph because we all know and accept that lies won't ever lead to a successful R. And that's how it works, in my mind, with this issue as well.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 7:42 AM, May 25th (Friday)]

Agreed.

It's fine if you don't want to do it, but in many ways, that shows how you feel about your BS vs your AP

Exactly. There are other issues that often are in place, notably withholding sex from BH prior to and/or during A. The heart of the matter is this though. It tells the BH that he is second fiddle and for me that is absolutely never going to work. If a WW can't get into sex acts with her BH out of love, then there is no reason to R, it's not salvageable regardless of the reasons she comes up with to justify her actions/decisions/inability.

I just realized this is like people using "the fog" as a justification for things. They are essentially saying she was in a fog during A so she could do them, but now she isn't in the fog so she can't. It's BS. She is just choosing not to and it is due to the way she feels about BH.

Rideitout, with 15 minutes I could probably unearth a half dozen BW threads where she rues the apparent sexual imagination and vigor her WH invested into sex with the AP. Usually under titles like "I'll Have What She's Having" or some such. But SI discourages posting links, so I won't.

I do agree that the theme is more common among BHs. My point is that it is not limited to men. As I've said in other threads, it's a function of desire. No betrayed, male or female, wants to feel less desired than the AP. It doesn't matter that the AP in many cases was a fantasy.

In most of the cases where we've seen successful R here, the betrayed is assured in her/his sense that her/his wayward has genuine sexual desire for the betrayed. In some cases, it's because the sex life between the betrayed and wayward has been strong and the betrayed is not haunted by a worry that there is a lack of desire. In others, it's because the wayward invests a lot of sexual energy into the process of R, and that investment comes from a heartfelt place of actual desire.

I agree that R would not work if the wayward is just capitulating to a checklist of sex acts out of sense of obligation. Both the betrayed and the wayward are going to be unfulfilled from that. The betrayed is going to sense the lack of actual desire, and the wayward is going to feel resentful. I agree that in that case, the logical choice is usually going to be D.

[This message edited by Butforthegrace at 8:31 AM, May 25th (Friday)]

Rideitout, with 15 minutes I could probably unearth a half dozen BW threads where she rues the apparent sexual imagination and vigor her WH invested into sex with the AP. Usually under titles like "I'll Have What She's Having" or some such. But SI discourages posting links, so I won't.

I do agree that the theme is more common among BHs. My point is that it is not limited to men. As I've said in other threads, it's a function of desire. No betrayed, male or female, wants to feel less desired than the AP. It doesn't matter that the AP in many cases was a fantasy.

We're in agreement more than not. And while I would contend those threads are uncommon, and you contend they aren't; that's not the real crux of the issue. The thread you mentioned, I remember reading it, and I remember shaking my head (nodding) at most of the responses. Because, IIRC, the responses were almost all "You deserve what she had" and "Leave him if he can't get his crap together". All things I agreed with, and advice I'd give anyone, BH or BW in that situation, be it a sexual thing/act that's the issue or anything else. Where I think we disagree (maybe not) is that the theme in threads where a man posts that issue is decidedly less clear. By and large, the men post the same message, she needs to get it together (the WW) or you need to D/you deserve everything the AP got and more. But the women, in general, provide a different viewpoint, so far as, in the thread that reached the page limit, to compare expecting a WW to "get with the program" was akin to rape. That's my fundamental issue with this discussion, not that it's exclusively a male issue, but that the message for men (suck it up, you have no right to expect the sex the AP got, is it really that important) is very different than the message that women get (if he bought her flowers, he better buy them for you; if he went down on her and refuses to do it with you, you need to D with maximum prejudice, you have ever right to expect and demand the sex you want, especially if he did it with his AP).

IMHO, the message that BW's get is the "right" message, but, even without making that statement, what bothers me is the double standard, both BW vs BH, but also sexual vs non-sexual acts. Some people are more hurt that the AP got flowers every day, I think everyone here would advise a BW or her WH in that case to "start buying flowers you a**" and make your wife feel special! But when it's sexual, the message changes, and that's where I get upset and annoyed; why is buying someone flowers every day inherently more valuable than a blow job? Because it's not, I'd rather have 1 BJ than flowers delivered every day for a year. Is that wrong? Does that make me an animal or shallow? In a lot of these threads, that's what I read, sexual desires and requirements for R are not seen the same way as everything else (which I agree with, they are far more important; but what I'm talking about is the "your a juvenile" undertone to threads where the man is upset his wife did things with the AP that she didn't/won't do with him), and not seen the same way for men vs women (women aren't juvenile for wanting their husbands to go down on them, where men are for wanting anal sex as a typical example).

While I do think the overriding female response is that asking/requesting/insisting on sexual equity between the WW and the BH compared to the WW and AP is on the side of "no way - my body my rules" it should be noted that many of them express sympathy with the BH. That is about as much as you can expect. You are never going to get them 100% on the same page as "get with the program." Trying to do so is only going to make you angry.

Look, I think we all know the answer. The kind of wife that goes all out sexually for the AP and rejects the BH is not wife material. Whoring around for external validation is one thing, inflicting intentional cruelty on the spouse to their face in such a humiliating and degrading way is another.

I truly think the best answer, which has been posted many times before, is to (a) detach, (b) get your shit together, and (c) get as far away from WW as you can. Divorce sucks, but really, it is a far better option that facing that shit everyday. Because you are never going to change her and you are only killing yourself trying.

Rideitout: I once compiled about a half dozen links to threads by BWs where this theme comes up, but discarded it when I realized that SI forbids posting links.

I have observed the reply phenomenon (replies to threads by BH's) you have described. It is my impression, and I'd be interested to hear your view on this, is that the female posters who dispute the idea that a WW should be willing to perform those same acts with the BH are mostly BW, not WW. I have seen a couple of WW on those posts, but in most cases those posters didn't do anything sexually with their AP that they don't also do with their BH.

I can fully understand how a BW would oppose the idea that she should be required to do anything sexually as a condition to R.

I don't believe I have seen a post by a WW who did things sexually with her AP that she has refused her BH, and who then defends this position. Maybe there are such posts. I just don't recall seeing them.

Look, I think we all know the answer. The kind of wife that goes all out sexually for the AP and rejects the BH is not wife material. Whoring around for external validation is one thing, inflicting intentional cruelty on the spouse to their face in such a humiliating and degrading way is another.

I agree. And I think we should call it as such; it's just not fixable, and stop trying to do anything but get a good attorney lined up. Your body, your choice, but don't come on here and say "you tried", because, you didn't. This is a hard requirement for many to consider R, as important to me as NC and a transparent spouse. It's not "trying" if this is a deal breaker for you, it's deciding you want to end your M. And that, IMHO, is the position that we should all take about this issue, generalized to "gave things to AP that BS wanted, but don't want to give them to her/him".

I have observed the reply phenomenon (replies to threads by BH's) you have described. It is my impression, and I'd be interested to hear your view on this, is that the female posters who dispute the idea that a WW should be willing to perform those same acts with the BH are mostly BW, not WW. I have seen a couple of WW on those posts, but in most cases those posters didn't do anything sexually with their AP that they don't also do with their BH.

You may be right. But, here's the rub for me; I'm a BH, and any WH stupid enough to come on here and say "I'm trying to R with my W, but she's upset I bought flowers all the time for the AP and don't for her. I don't really like flowers, what am I supposed to do?!" is going to get the verbal lashing of the decade, not just from me (although I'd be first in line), but from all of us. And I'd expect the same from BW's in relation to this issue, although, perhaps it's just too different for a good comparison.

I can fully understand how a BW would oppose the idea that she should be required to do anything sexually as a condition to R.

And for a BW being pressured by her WH for sexual favors, I'm there with you. But a BW defending a WW's decision to have anal 3 times a day with her AP and then not her H? Nope, not gonna get there. I think the more generalized issue is people opposing the idea that anyone should be required to do anything sexual as a condition of R.

I think the more generalized issue is people opposing the idea that anyone should be required to do anything sexual as a condition of R.

I'm also a BH, and I agree that a WW should not be "required" to do this. She should want to, out of desire for her BH.

To me it doesn't come back to specific acts as much as it does desire. As has been discussed many times, the WW who deprives her BH of sex in favor of the AP, who invests imagination and energy into creating sexual opportunities and adventures with him, she emasculates her BH. Most BH's cannot R if they cannot feel like a man with their WW.

In some way -- that rests on her -- making him feel like a man whom she desires as a man at least as much, or more, than she desired her AP is probably necessary to succeed with R, at least for most men. This is true regardless whether the AP was wholly or in part a figment of her fantasy imagination. It may be via specific acts, or it may be simply a matter of enthusiasm, frequency, etc. For every BH this is likely to differ. But I don't see how R works if this is not part of the equation.

[This message edited by Butforthegrace at 10:24 AM, May 25th (Friday)]

I'm also a BH, and I agree that a WW should not be "required" to do this. She should want to, out of desire for her BH.

To me it doesn't come back to specific acts as much as it does desire. As has been discussed many times, the WW who deprives her BH of sex in favor of the AP, who invests imagination and energy into creating sexual opportunities and adventures with him, she emasculates her BH. Most BH's cannot R if they cannot feel like a man with their WW.

In some way -- that rests on her -- making him feel like a man whom she desires as a man at least as much, or more, than she desired her AP is probably necessary to succeed with R, at least for most men. This is true regardless whether the AP was wholly or in part a figment of her fantasy imagination. It may be via specific acts, or it may be simply a matter of enthusiasm, frequency, etc. For every BH this is likely to differ. But I don't see how R works if this is not part of the equation.

This is probably a good way to frame it.

I'm also a BH, and I agree that a WW should not be "required" to do this. She should want to, out of desire for her BH.

Yes, no question, he/she should want to do it, and should be encouraged to to help the relationship heal. No argument from me at all.

But let's take another recommendation, a poly. We would all tell a BS "demand the poly" and if you don't get it "it tells you what you need to know, walk". Would it be better if the WS came and said "I booked a poly, I want you to know the truth, please write down 5 questions". Of course it would. In fact, I'd probably tell my WS to cancel the poly, because that told me more than the poly itself. But, alas, that's not how these things usually happen. Instead we tell the BS with the lying WS "get a poly, you need to know" and "you deserve the truth". But, when it comes to "hardball" we get very squishy when it comes to sex, it's no longer "that's a completely reasonable requirement, and if you WW doesn't comply, that tells you what you need to know". We don't often encourage WW/WH's to "open their sexual menu" to the BS. And I think we should. It's as reasonable a demand as a poly, a timeline, or anything else that a BS "demands" that's not exactly something the WS "feels like doing". No crap they don't feel like it, they are selfish people, and this is part of helping them heal and helping their spouse heal.

I guess this is mostly to WW's, but, I'd just like the advice for all WS's to change around this. When a WS comes here and says "I had sex with my AP in ways I didn't my BS" I think we should say "That's unfortunate, but make sure you do whatever you did with the AP with the BS and more", not justify it with "well, you were broken, your body, your choice". Because I think a lot of waywards read that and take it to heart, and then find R is messed up. Then the BS starts to demand things, and the entire dynamic is messed up. No, in my eyes, the advice should be "open up a can of f**k-as*" on him/her, and make them see that what the AP got was only the tip of what you were capable of, and only a glimpse of what you want to do with him/her.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 11:55 AM, May 25th (Friday)]

Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't get it. If a WW can give blowjobs and anal (not exactly really risque stuff) to an AP, but just can't for her BH, that makes no sense to me. If you'll do it with some douchebag, what in the world keeps you from doing it with your husband? That's the one who you're supposed to have your fun sexual experiences with. There's something cool about having one person whom you could explore sexuality to any limit you desire for your entire life. Sex is supposed to be a fun thing. It's supposed to be an adventure even in long-term marriages.

Yes, someone "new" is more exciting, but if you'll be a whore for your AP, what makes you think that being a whore for your husband is anything but a great idea to keep things exciting?