SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Rideitout, I’m curious as to why your opinion is that the PA part is so much harder for men.

First off, this is only my opinion. But, the PA is much harder for me because it's "real". It really happened, no amount of re-writing history or saying "those feelings weren't actually real" will make it go away. And I, and I think many other men, focus on the "facts". Facts are, penis in vagina, 12 orgasms, etc. "He loved me" we know is likely to be false. I loved him, yes, that could be true, but those feelings will change. They aren't forever. Also, there are lots of people I love in my life (family, etc) and only one person I sleep with. That's kind of a weak one, but, it's something that's experienced outside the bounds of a M, PA stuff isn't.

Why harder on men? Sex is rare commodity for men. It's hard to come by, expensive, takes a lot of work, and highly valued (speaking for myself). In many marriages, it's also rationed out and not given freely (almost every marriage I know of this is a problem). So, it's incredibly painful to know that what was so valuable to me, what was so hard to get was given to another man so easily and without any "strings".

Also, for me, sex is a way to keep score on love. So you did XYZ with the other man and not me? You loved him more. There's a massive thread on this concept, I won't reiterate it, but, women generally don't have this issue (they DO though, there were a few women who chimed in on it, it's just not as common).

Let me speak for myself and say, if I had a PA, I would be giving away something yes, but that thing I was giving away isn't that valuable to my W. She's not all hot/bothered for me. I never turn her down for sex. I'll do anything she wants in bed at any time. She's the one who doesn't care for sex as much, and, because of that, I'd be giving away something that she doesn't value (or at least doesn't value nearly as much as I do). Honestly, before I came to these boards, I thought that in some ways I'd be doing her a favor by having an A so I would stop "bothering her" for sex. And, if she's honest with herself, I think she'd say that my sex drive was a big problem for her, if our frequency was cut in half, she would have been happier.

There are plenty of other reasons too I'm sure, I just tried to explain some of the ways I see it. Now, if I'd given away real emotional intimacy? That would hurt her badly. That's what she's missing in our marriage. That's what she's always after me for. And I think the thought of me spending my time emotionally bonding with another woman and not her would tear her apart. Like the PA has torn me apart.

The physical shit is what basically destroys me as well. He said all he said to get there. The words on both sides were pure BS fantasy. So the PA? Yeah. Because THAT?! They PLANNED it and it was obviously about them at the risk of their marriages. All that you write about how the PA makes you feel? Same here.

Begin T/J

I’m curious as to why your opinion is that the PA part is so much harder for men.

Hi Flatlined. I know you asked RIO, but I thought I would chime in. The reason most men find the PA more difficult is the whole pregnancy thing. A woman will always know she is the mother, but a man may not. In my opinion, this is also the reason that, historically, society has frowned more on woman that have affairs than men.

End T/J

The physical shit is what basically destroys me as well. He said all he said to get there. The words on both sides were pure BS fantasy. So the PA? Yeah. Because THAT?! They PLANNED it and it was obviously about them at the risk of their marriages. All that you write about how the PA makes you feel? Same here.

You nailed it. Now, imagine if your H claimed it wasn't at all about the sex (apologies if you've discussed this already) it was only for the nice words. That'll put you right in the crazy space world that my head is. The shit the destroys me is the shit that you didn't even care about? Oh, spectacular, that makes me feel so much better. And let me generalize this out of WW's, any AP, if you're not the one there for sex, why cross that boundary? In your husband's case, it's probably because he really values sex. But if he claims he didn't/doesn't? Why the hell would you cross that line?

The words are just words. You want pretty words, read a good romance novel, they are much better written than AP drivel. Not that they can't and don't hurt; but, they just don't carry the same weight (not even close) to me that the actions do. The actions are what kill me, either the sex, the sneaking around, the stolen time from our marriage, the gaslighting me.. That's the crap that breaks my will to R. I have nearly every message back and forth from them, and there's pages of "your so special/I love yous". I haven't looked at in a long time, but, even on first reading, it really wasn't that bad. The first time the OM told me most of the sexual details, the where/when/hows? That was like getting kicked in the face.

The reason most men find the PA more difficult is the whole pregnancy thing.

Certainly not what I was thinking, but, I think the root of that feeling, the source of the fear is primal, and yes, I think that certainly is part of the reason why men seem to take the PA stuff worse than women (in general, please, don't take this as assault, it's not!).

[This message edited by Rideitout at 10:28 AM, July 1st (Sunday)]

And, a male WS could always get his female AP pregnant, and, from an evolutionary standpoint, divert resources that should have been invested in BS and her offspring. BS might even have to devote her own resources to offspring not her own if she decides to R. Yes, females always know they are a mother. But the pregnancy risk is two sides of the same coin and it is about diverting resources to support offspring.

My marriage wasn't lacking in emotional or sexual intimacy. PAs still hurt me more than anything else I have experienced to date including the loss of 2 pregnancies and 2 cancer diagnoses for my mother. So, it isn't always about a withheld commodity, either.

My WS had sex all over. And, yet, he claims it wasn't about the sex. He claims it was about experiencing rejection throughout his life. Someone having sex with him was implicit approval. Backstory, his father abandoned him as an infant. He was different, as he is on the spectrum, so his mother often rejected him bc he could not conform.

In short, gender lines don't matter. Affairs can develop into nothing but sex but not be about sex no matter what gender WS is.

Betrayal sucks Period. Doesn't matter what gender you are.

[This message edited by Hardroadout at 10:32 AM, July 1st (Sunday)]

Hardroadout,I agree with you that it is a diversion of resources. The HARDEST part for men is that we may NEVER KNOW that the child we are raising isn't ours. Yes NOW there is DNA but back when I was married the first time it hadn't been invented yet! So I will NEVER know wether or not my son was actually mine. She admitted to the affair when she was pregnant so did she start the affair AFTER she was already pregnant or was the pregnancy really his.

THAT is the biggest betrayal of all. With you Ladies, you ALWAYS know if it is yours!!!! For all of history all we men had was YOUR WORD!! In my case I have to rely on the word of a PROVEN LIER!! The constant wondering has become a part of my life. (Son died at 9yrs old). This is the knife that I can NEVER remove from my back and it will ALWAYS bleed.

Owningitnow, I'm not saying sex is very important to YOU. I'm saying that overall, sex is as important to women as it is to men. There are men who do not find sex that important. Gasp. They exist. No one talks about them because it doesn't fit society's general narrative. So you would parallel a man who doesn't find sex important. What I think is lacking here is the way society raises men and women to frame sex, as well as what and how it is appropriate for men and women to talk about. I'm not speaking for all women, I'm speaking for all humans, as a person who has studied humans quite a bit.

I am somebody with tons of boundaries, especially around sex. I didn't believe in premarital sex. I don't believe in sex outside of the marriage. I know that there are social constructs that are made to shame women who like or want sex. They are still very much in existence, and this thread even highlights them. In real life, it is extremely rare for me to talk about sex at all, let alone what I want. Most people think I don't even care that much about it. That is due to the social confines I have grown up in. Once again, I would like to stress how women frame sex is different from men, and how that doesn't make it less important for women than for men.

And, candy, I lost 2 pregnancies due to STI that I did not know I had.

That is a knife I can never remove and it is a wound that will always bleed.

The worst betrayal is the one that happens to you.

It would be nice if betrayed men here would stop trying to out hurt betrayed women.

Betrayal sucks and hits all of us to our core.

[This message edited by Hardroadout at 2:23 PM, July 1st (Sunday)]

The worst betrayal is the one that happens to you.

It would be nice if betrayed men here would stop trying to out hurt betrayed women.

Betrayal sucks and hits all of us to our core.

Never mind. Don't want to thread jack further.

[This message edited by HardenMyHeart at 6:13 PM, July 1st (Sunday)]

HRO, I’m sorry for your losses.

I think one poster summed it up perfectly. It was about the relationship. An immature high school boyfriend/girlfriend thing. It started where all relationships started-with the chase. We want to be desired. I know I wanted to be. Not just by my wife, who I had taken for granted and immune to but by other woman as well. I think that holds true for men and woman. Then the chase leads to a relationship. Most relationships lead to sex, unless you get caught or you stop it. So, absolutely it is not always about sex. It is about having another relationship in addition to your marriage. Pretty fucking simple. My AP was much more sexual than I was. Pretty clear from her comment, teasing, and flirting it was about attention and sex. I mean, your shift manager starts filling you in about her sex life-what is a man to think. She wants to be chased and desired. Dress that way and acted that way. Sex for her I bet was a commodity to get the attention she wanted. Validating her got the attention I wanted. So, in the sick way only selfish people that have the cheater conscience can understand we start a relationship. For the cheating relationship to fill our individual needs that we are too lazy to fill ourselves.

I do think that some wayward woman have difficulty admitting that their ego or self esteem was so low that they needed that chase. That they needed to be that wanted and desired and were willing to do anything to fill it. Unless you suffer from unhealthy self esteem or ego, you aren't going to understand what a person is willing to do to get it validated. You aren't going to understand what that desire fills. If you aren't selfish, then you can't understand what a selfish person is willing to do to fill their wants. You aren't going to understand how difficult that is to admit to yourself let alone perfect strangers that you enjoyed getting your wants filled in unhealthy ways. You would have to admit you became a monster for a brief period of time. The cheater isn't looking at their affair in a logical way just like any drug addict doesn't. All they care about is the immediate fix and gratification. We don't look at the future or the past. Just now. Right now. Instant fix.

So, to you much of it doesn't make any sense and it never will because your conscience just doesn't go there.

You aren't going to find your answers here. Only your wife can give you her answer and it depends upon what she wanted and what she was willing to do to get it filled.

Since we are on the sex issue here, I have to wonder if it is easier for WW to want sex with their APs because there really is no history there. No resentments that might get in the way that kills the passion they might have for their husband.

I guess I wonder why betrayed men feel qualified to answer when they are NOT wayward and NOT women?

it took me awhile to unpack this one in my head and see exactly whats so wrong with it.

lets assume someone is a woman, married, with 3 daughters, living in louisville kentucky, and their mother and grandmother is still living. ok?

can this woman speak for women's issues/thoughts/concerns/feelings/insert whatever for ALL women? id imagine a woman in saudi arabia or finland or barbados would have little in common with such a woman and would probably say no and point out that they certainly never authorized this woman to speak for her. so we can safely say that one woman does not and is not capable of encapsulating the "woman experience" world wide.

what about for all women in kentucky? again, id bet the answer is no she cant speak for all women in kentucky.

she cant speak for all women in kentucky either.

i bet her mother, grandmother, and her daughters would all pipe up pretty quickly saying she doesnt speak for them either, tyvm, and that they speak for themselves.

so ultimately this woman's voice is HER voice and only speaks for her. unless of course she was elected or appointed via some democratic institution into a role where she was supposed to speak for women and even then i bet she doesnt speak for most or even all of her constituents.

same goes for a guy.

and this goes the further you break it down.

an american doesnt speak for all americans and frankly michigan and texas have pretty little in common and frankly tarrant county and fort worth (both in texas) dont have all that much in common either.

a 23 year old cant speak for ALL 23 year olds just like a gay male cant speak for all gay males and a stanford law student cant speak for all law students and cant even speak for all stanford law students in their last year who took a corporate law class under professor abc in 2016.

pick your identity politics field (no matter how big or small the field is) and i can show you why that person is no more or less qualified to speak for that group that you or i.

ultimately none of us speak for anyone except ourselves unless appointed or elected to do so and even then they dont really speak for "us all".

thats the way of the world.

so ... people can be both "wayward" and "woman" and still not speak for all waywards nor for all women nor for all wayward women.

much like it was pointed out

Says who?

So please don't speak for all women.

we speak for ourselves.

but just because one is not wayward or woman does not mean one does not have some insight.

a guy can have an insight into a womans behavior and vice versa. just because an adult is an adult doesnt mean they cant figure out whats behind a kid's thought process.

through empathy, sympathy, and the ability to put ourselves into another persons shoes and imgaine their circumstances we can all (to varying degrees) "understand" what another is facing.

of course that doesnt make the outsider looking in a specialist able to speak for a group any more than a member of a group can speak for the group.

a male can offer insights into what he thinks women think. a woman can offer insights into what she thinks women think. neither persons point of view automatically carries more weight. at least it shouldnt.

instead the weight of their argument, their facts, and how persuasive those are should carry the day.

I guess I wonder why betrayed men feel qualified to answer when they are NOT wayward and NOT women?

it took me awhile to unpack this one in my head and see exactly whats so wrong with it.

lets assume someone is a woman, married, with 3 daughters, living in louisville kentucky, and their mother and grandmother is still living. ok?

can this woman speak for women's issues/thoughts/concerns/feelings/insert whatever for ALL women? id imagine a woman in saudi arabia or finland or barbados would have little in common with such a woman and would probably say no and point out that they certainly never authorized this woman to speak for her. so we can safely say that one woman does not and is not capable of encapsulating the "woman experience" world wide.

what about for all women in kentucky? again, id bet the answer is no she cant speak for all women in kentucky.

she cant speak for all women in kentucky either.

i bet her mother, grandmother, and her daughters would all pipe up pretty quickly saying she doesnt speak for them either, tyvm, and that they speak for themselves.

so ultimately this woman's voice is HER voice and only speaks for her. unless of course she was elected or appointed via some democratic institution into a role where she was supposed to speak for women and even then i bet she doesnt speak for most or even all of her constituents.

same goes for a guy.

and this goes the further you break it down.

an american doesnt speak for all americans and frankly michigan and texas have pretty little in common and frankly tarrant county and fort worth (both in texas) dont have all that much in common either.

a 23 year old cant speak for ALL 23 year olds just like a gay male cant speak for all gay males and a stanford law student cant speak for all law students and cant even speak for all stanford law students in their last year who took a corporate law class under professor abc in 2016.

pick your identity politics field (no matter how big or small the field is) and i can show you why that person is no more or less qualified to speak for that group that you or i.

ultimately none of us speak for anyone except ourselves unless appointed or elected to do so and even then they dont really speak for "us all".

thats the way of the world.

so ... people can be both "wayward" and "woman" and still not speak for all waywards nor for all women nor for all wayward women.

much like it was pointed out

Says who?

So please don't speak for all women.

we speak for ourselves.

but just because one is not wayward or woman does not mean one does not have some insight.

a guy can have an insight into a womans behavior and vice versa. just because an adult is an adult doesnt mean they cant figure out whats behind a kid's thought process.

through empathy, sympathy, and the ability to put ourselves into another persons shoes and imgaine their circumstances we can all (to varying degrees) "understand" what another is facing.

of course that doesnt make the outsider looking in a specialist able to speak for a group any more than a member of a group can speak for the group.

a male can offer insights into what he thinks women think. a woman can offer insights into what she thinks women think. neither persons point of view automatically carries more weight. at least it shouldnt.

instead the weight of their argument, their facts, and how persuasive those are should carry the day.

And one line insistence that ALL WW must be lying about having sex and it not being about sex isn't insightful. Its dismissive of at least SOME of the women, wayward and non-wayward, on this thread who said it can absolutely not be about sex even when there is a lot of sex.

Sorry, read only first page few days ago but couldn't reply at the time.

Me and WW had such discussion multiple times. She always said that she started her As not for the sex. That if that part was excluded, she wouldn't have missed it.

What she went after, was excitement of affair. Adrenaline rush, ego kibbles, danger. She realized that affair means sex. That it is [always] included in the package (she didn't start EA, she wasn't "looking for love", she went straight to PA - which in her mind was the only kind of A).

So she gladly took the whole package.

She used to always say "it was not about sex". She realized that it really was minimization. Since she was ready to take "whole package", it was about the sex too.

I guess I wonder why betrayed men feel qualified to answer when they are NOT wayward and NOT women?

it took me awhile to unpack this one in my head and see exactly whats so wrong with it.

Yes, it's absurd... it's almost comical to see it defended.

And one line insistence that ALL WW must be lying about having sex and it not being about sex isn't insightful. Its dismissive of at least SOME of the women, wayward and non-wayward, on this thread who said it can absolutely not be about sex even when there is a lot of sex.

I'm not sure who said that, but you've made more sweeping generalizations about men in this thread than I've seen from anyone else on any thread on this site.

What she went after, was excitement of affair. Adrenaline rush, ego kibbles, danger.

Which holds true for men too.

which in her mind was the only kind of A).

Interesting point

She used to always say "it was not about sex". She realized that it really was minimization. Since she was ready to take "whole package", it was about the sex too.

That is pretty insightful and a good perspective. My major minimizations were "I am only human and make mistakes" but that takes owning the affair to another level. Whether it was what you wanted or not, that is part of the package so technically if you wanted an affair, you wanted that too. Can't wait to discuss this with my wife.

Thanks for the new insights Darkholeheart, I may be a male wayward but a wayward is a wayward and this stuff can apply to us all. I didn't go into my affair wanting sex either. I just wanted the undivided attention and honestly would have taken it any way given. Never thought of it that way before.

Rideitout Do you think you can even accept the answers given to you since your view of sex is your love language and how you rate love? You have been here a while and many have told you that they were there for something other than sex and you seem to always dismiss it because it comes across to me that affair = getting sex on the side with you, when people clearly tell you that just isn't true for many people. The emotional affairs do sometimes go somewhere making it worth it for some, no matter how destructive and fake it is. It can last years. Some leave their spouses. When I was in my affair I wasn't thinking about if this was going to be long term or fake. I was just willing to take what I could get till as long as I can get it and for how long I wanted it. You don't have the value on attention/emotional level like some of us, so how can you possibly understand it?

I'd given away real emotional intimacy? That would hurt her badly. That's what she's missing in our marriage. That's what she's always after me for.

You couldn't understand the importance of emotional intimacy your wife was missing in your marriage. Yet you know that is important to her, so why is it so difficult to accept that people will have affairs for more than just sex? If you are closed off on an emotional level, then perhaps that is where your disconnect is in understanding why someone will have affairs for any other reason than sex.

You couldn't understand the importance of emotional intimacy your wife was missing in your marriage. Yet you know that is important to her, so why is it so difficult to accept that people will have affairs for more than just sex? If you are closed off on an emotional level, then perhaps that is where your disconnect is in understanding why someone will have affairs for any other reason than sex.

I'm sure some of this is right. It's not that I'm closed off emotionally, I just don't have much/any emotional needs that aren't already met. Kind of like someone with a low sex drive, they get what they want at home, I don't "need" any more than I already have.

I think I understand why people, women and men, have A's for more than just sex. I also think it's a failure of rationality and imagination because the stats tell us, you're almost never going to get any need that's not sexual consistently met in an A. We all know the story, love, love, love, d-day, "who is that woman", "he chased me", "he forced me into it", "I hate him".. Etc, etc.. What most people will actually get from an A is sex, the "emotional connection" is just one AP saying whatever the other wants to hear to feel good.

But, what I don't get is people who claim the A was for the "emotional connection" and then all they do in the A is sex. That's where it flies off the rails for me; how could you even emotionally connect, 90% of the time you were in the same room, you were having sex, and 90% of the time talking was about sex or the next place to have sex. Where's the emotional connection in that?

Rideitout Do you think you can even accept the answers given to you since your view of sex is your love language and how you rate love? You have been here a while and many have told you that they were there for something other than sex and you seem to always dismiss it because it comes across to me that affair = getting sex on the side with you, when people clearly tell you that just isn't true for many people. The emotional affairs do sometimes go somewhere making it worth it for some, no matter how destructive and fake it is. It can last years. Some leave their spouses. When I was in my affair I wasn't thinking about if this was going to be long term or fake. I was just willing to take what I could get till as long as I can get it and for how long I wanted it. You don't have the value on attention/emotional level like some of us, so how can you possibly understand it?

I can accept it, yes. I feel like I have accepted it. I just don't understand it. That's the part that I'm trying to come to terms with. I think my W is telling me the truth about what she got from it. I just can't square that with the reality of what actually happened in the A (far more porn studio than romance novel).

I bolded a part above, I think my W would agree, but, how did you not think/worry about it being fake? That's really hard for me to understand; I'm taking this huge risk for something that has a pretty good chance of being counterfeit, in fact, closing in on 100% risk; but, I'm still gonna "buy" it. It's like the sexually motivated AP has shiny pieces of glass that he says are diamonds (his/her "love" for you). The emotionally motivated AP has wads of cash (sex) and wants to buy diamonds (love). But, they know there's a high risk of buying counterfeits, they've bought them in the past (previous relationships) and were really hurt when it turned out the diamonds were in fact bits of glass. I guess, at it's core, it's a VERY high trust transaction. You know my money (sex) is real, there's no way to fake that. I have no idea if you're diamonds (emotions) are real or not, in fact, they usually aren't, even when dealing with reputable dealers (normal, non-A relationships). Compound it by the fact that the AP, by virtue of simply being in an A has shown themselves to be morally compromised and willing/able to effectively lie to those close to them (their H/W). And this is the person you're going to trust to sell you a real diamond? That makes no sense at all. Because sex can't be faked, it doesn't require much/any trust from the AP, if we're having sex, we're having sex. But are you getting diamonds? From a KNOWN diamond cheat? The chances are very slim. So, to complete the analogy, why spend the cash?? Why not just look at the diamonds on display? Try them on, wear them maybe, but not buy them? Keep the cash in your back pocket.

I honestly have a feeling that the answer is simple; "I wasn't thinking" or "I wasn't thinking rationally". Which I guess is as good an answer as I can hope for.