SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Here's my situation. Take it for what it's worth

I can't carry a child full term so we don't have children. My WH's affair took place during our failed IVF treatments. I believe there is a strong connection between our fertility struggles and his infidelity. And that hurts a lot.

We are reconciling. Why did I stay? Because I saw the changes he was making to become a better man, a better husband and better partner. I stayed because I love him and he loves me.

I have been in SI for six years. I don't tend to post on threads that talk about this issue because very few people truly understand infertility and don't understand why people without children even think about reconciling when no children are involved.

Thing is, most kids grow up and leave home. I have always wondered what happens to those couples who only "stayed for the children". What kind of relationship do they have after the kids leave if they only stayed for the kids?

I won't ever know...cause I don't have kids. And I guess that's my point. Just like they can't understand my situation, I can't understand their situation. It's not my place to judge one way or the other for their decision because every person has different experiences and values.

Ultimately I would ask everyone on SI to consider that some relationships are worth persevering and preserving even when kids are not involved. Cutting and running is not the decision that is always best for every relationship. Please be respectful of that choice as we childless couples are respectful of your decision to stay even if it is just for the kids

Been cheated on by 3 different men. All relationships were long term and the first two I walked immediately. This last time it felt different and I'm different. Have a dim view of finding a loyal one at this point.

Sigh

Thank you for that perspective, Lowlow. I'm embarrassed that I didn't think of it without you pointing it out, because I have been through infertility, eight years of it. I remember how much I hated the phrase "trying to start a family," because it implied that my H and I weren't a real family if we didn't have kids. I should have been more alert to the marginalization of infertile couples in this debate.

I'm sorry for your struggles with infidelity on top of infertility. I can't imagine going through both at once.

I stayed because I love him

I guess as long as we're complaining about how people's posts land with BS's, I'm going to say that posts like this don't land very well with me.

It states, very clearly and emphatically imo, that BS' who don't stay don't love their partners.

I think there are BS' that don't stay that DO love their partners. They don't stay because they can't stomach loving someone who could look them in the eye and tell them they love them, and then go and have sex with someone else. If that's their idea of love, they can shove it up their ass.

I think there are BS' that leave expressly because they DO love their WS so much, and they need to get away to figure out why:

"Why am I so messed up that I think I'm in love with someone who could do this to me? I don't think I know what love is. I'd better get away and figure out what love really is before I do anything else."

Yet, posts that people stay because they're of love are seen over and over and over again on SI.

The BS hears that BS' that stay, stay because they love their partners. BS' that don't stay, don't.

Or, at least, don't "enough".

lowlow - I'm very sorry to hear of your struggles. Thank you for posting on this thread.

My kids are grown and out of the house and have been for years. So, I didn't stay because of them, I stayed because of our long history together and our friendship. Thing is, I could have that with someone else too, if I were young enough. What I'm saying is the mistrust that still permeates our relationship is a very big tthing to overcome. The resentment is a very big thing to overcome. I'm not sure many can do it and have a very happy marriage - something that all of us deserve. We were able to overcome it ONLY because of our long standing friendship and only because I have known him now for 34 years and knew this was likely an anomaly on his part. I would not have known this had I been married a short amount of time.

So, my advice doesn't really have to do with kids. It has to do with longevity.

It has more to do with safety than love.

[This message edited by sewardak at 5:42 AM, June 12th (Wednesday)]

cheatstroke

It states, very clearly and emphatically imo, that BS' who don't stay don't love their partners.

Nobody has said that on this thread, nor have I seen this writen in other threads. Saying "I stayed because I loved my partner" is not at all the same as saying "if you don't stay, you don't love your partner". People can leave despite loving their partner. Hell, I think people can even leave BECAUSE they love their partner, and that is probably the most selfless form of love that anyone can show.

I think the "I stayed because I loved my WS" is short for "I stayed because I loved and still wanted to be with my WS, and believed we could still be happy together". I for one believe that the vast majority of people here loved/love their spouses very much, whether they stayed together or not is not by itself indicative of their love.

I agree with Sewardak. Having kids may be not a point, expect you want to have one in the near future when recovering from infidelity is still ongoing.

The founder of this page also didn't have any or some have grown ups.

But the history together does matter alot in my opinion.

If you have a 20 year marriage, its a complete other deal than being married 1 or 2 years.

The whole thing is soooo different.

Like the OP, I haven't experienced growing and lifing togehter for years and years but I'm willing to listen to those who have, because they ALL say that are worlds between 2 years marriage or 20 years. Sharing a whole life together to me I can only listen to those who have because I do think therr are ups and downs we as younger can't even imagine what it feels like.

Nobody has said that on this thread, nor have I seen this writen in other threads

I get that, but below are direct quotes from SI threads:

I stayed BECAUSE I love my spouse and because our relationship was worth savingI stayed because I wanted to be able to tell my children that I tried.I stayed because it was the lesser of two evilsI stayed because he deserved another chance.I stayed because I gave up my career and had a babyI stayed because I was terrified I would be aloneI stayed because I realized that I had tried to reconcile alone before

I don't think any of these people were "interested in how it's landing so far" to BS' that are thinking about leaving.

They say these things because they feel good about their decision, and feel people will respect them for it.

How it lands to a BS that's thinking about leaving, who is probably just as scared about their decision as people who decide to stay, probably never occurs to them.

Do me a favour, cheatstroke, link the threads those direct quotes came from? Please?

So what I'm getting is that maybe posters are telling you to run because they regret that they didn't. And that's why the tone comes across as unequivocal and forceful. The question is, when someone says, "Don't be ambivalent and stuck like me," are we to pin their limbo on their not running, or are there other factors involved? I tend to believe that those who are happy in their reconciliation would be happy in a divorce as well, because they know how to ground and soothe themselves, and how to change course when the situation calls for it. And those who are unhappy in their choice may well be unhappy if they took a different path as well. It's not so much the path we choose but how we walk it.

So if the advice is "Don't choose the unhappy path that I chose because I only did it because of [kids, longevity, money, fear]," this is based on the premise that reconciliation is an unhappy path, or that trust and intimacy can never be restored. And for me, that is a false premise.

Gently, Cheatstroke, nowhere did I say or imply in my post that bs who don't stay don't love their XWS. All I was asking for is for people to consider that just like couples with children chose to reconcile, it is possible for couples without children to reconcile equally and without judgment. I think that's the underlying message in the original post.

Lowlow thanks for sharing your story.

sewardak and Jaci02 I'm confused. So it's not about the kids after all? I don't understand. I don't disagree that longevity matters, it is another factor to consider. My grievance is that there is more respect and understanding for the choice to R when the BS has children than when they don't, regardless of how long they have been in the relationship.

cheastroke

I get that, but below are direct quotes from SI threads:

I stayed BECAUSE I love my spouse and because our relationship was worth saving

I stayed because I wanted to be able to tell my children that I tried.

I stayed because it was the lesser of two evils

I stayed because he deserved another chance.

I stayed because I gave up my career and had a baby

I stayed because I was terrified I would be alone

I stayed because I realized that I had tried to reconcile alone before

I don't think I understand what you mean. I also don't know your story. You sound to me like you are struggling with some major guilt about your inclination to leave. I think we all tend to be a bit more sensitive to posts about people who have followed a different path than ours because it contradicts our choice. However, I don't see how the statements you quoted are unsupportive of leaving. What would be unsupportive would be to reply to a post where a BS mentions they are leaning towards D and say "You should stay because your kids are going to suffer horribly if you divorce". Which is similar to what happens when a childless BS states their inclination to R (or even an unwillingness to D right away). Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority agrees that D is the default after infidelity, and you will find multiple examples of people in all kinds of circumstances who have D'ed, and it seems they get a lot of support (even cheering).

Iris,

Bluntly, I say it because I read stories here about WS who cheated in the first six months, or cheated when the couple was not married yet. The BS forgives them, then the WS goes and cheats on BS again and again after children are born.

These are young couples. I want BS to see that there is more out there while they are young and have more relationship options. Instead of forgiving what is likely to be a poor partner.

I am not going to be more tolerant of these situations. I want to wake these people up to their situations and their risks.

Well actually there are couples who never have children so this will never be a point.

If you know you never want children for what reason ever than, in my opinion its only your choice. Yours alone. You will never be responsible for another human than yourself.

It's also a fact that you never will have added stress to your life because of that.

No sleepless nights, no giving up your job, no gaining wheight, no depending on your partner finacially and so on.

This in my opinion are speaking for pro R.

Because no one gets hurt expect you and you have your job and can still built your carrer, if you want. No added stress to the infidelity demaged marriage.

So yes it would play a huge role to consider R or D in my opinion. Thats why I sayed that child or not wouldn't matter that much as the age or duration of the marriage, EXCEPT if you want to bring kids into this situation than its a huge matter also. Because of the reasons stated above

Don't choose the unhappy path that I chose because I only did it because of [kids, longevity, money, fear]

woah there. I mentioned longevity, but I'm also very happy.

My grievance is that there is more respect and understanding for the choice to R when the BS has children than when they don't, regardless of how long they have been in the relationship.

I don't see this at all.

I think that's the underlying message in the original post

I think the underlying message of the original post is that BS's who have kids that decide to stay are seen as noble.

The fact that they are seen as noble "lands on" BS's who don't have kids in a bad way. They feel that they are seen as not AS noble, not noble at all, and/or MAYBE even foolish.

The quotes I mentioned are from BS's who decided to stay.

They highlight the nobility of BS's who decided to stay.

They CAN "land on" BS's who decide to leave as the following:

I left BECAUSE I didn't love my spouse and because our relationship wasn't worth saving I left because I didn't feel the need to be able to tell my children that I tried. I left because it was the greater of two evils I left even though he deserved another chance. I left because I kept my career and couldn't care less about my baby I left because I was just fine being alone I left because I realized that I was fine with reconciling alone

I am R neutral. Adultery is grounds for divorce. I will not make those who choose D feel bad for their choice. It's a valid choice.

Adultery does also not require D. Those who choose to R may do so. But I do not think they are particularly noble in doing so. Forgiving the offending spouse on a human level is different than remaining in a marriage with them. Remaining in the marriage is a personal choice, not a noble act.

And men often are told to "burn the witch" so to speak.

A BS who has a serial cheater WS are told to leave.

People dealing with an OC are told to leave.

BS who are young,old,SAHM,employed, childless,and 5 kids, are told to leave.

Being told to run isnt exclusive to childless BS.

OP, you said on a thread in jfo, that people here wont give an unbiased opinion, because we are all posting from our perspective and experience. And you were right. So when people tell a person to run, it's often because the person saying it has either been in similar shoes, or have been here long enough that the outcome is predictable. It has nothing to do with being unsupportive.

Again, when you post, ask that people not tell you to run because you are committed to attempting reconciliation, and 9 out of 10 members will honor that.

Everyone here will get advice they don't like. That doesnt mean you have to take it.

The motto of this site is, take what you need,and leave the rest.

Striver

Iris,

Bluntly, I say it because I read stories here about WS who cheated in the first six months, or cheated when the couple was not married yet. The BS forgives them, then the WS goes and cheats on BS again and again after children are born.

I have read such stories too. Though the common element in most/all of them is exactly what you mention: the BS forgives. Which means they rugsweep, pretend it never happened and never talk about it again. The WS doesn't do any work besides maybe apologizing some and promising they'll never do it again.

I promise you I have zero intention of doing that. Thankfully I have learned a lot from SI. I have decided that I either reconcile, with all that that entails, or I would rather be alone that in a subpar relationship. I have zero intention of having children before that happens. If I can get a happy reconciled marriage, great. If not, I'm gone before we have children.

In my situation, I would take a reconciled marriage with my husband over a new partner any day. But that's me. The way I see it, R is a risk, children or no children, because there is a good chance it won't work. I'm not 100% certain I want to R. I want to take a more calculated risk, so I'll wait and see for a few more months.

I am not going to be more tolerant of these situations. I want to wake these people up to their situations and their risks.

It is my belief that you can inform people about the risks and even recommend D without implying that you don't "tolerate" their choice or inclination.

cheatstroke

It's not that the BS's who stay for the kids are noble. It's the fact that when you don't have kids you are immediately advised to run in such a way that implies or even clearly states that it is the only possible reasonable choice, and that someone is undeserving of empathy for even considering otherwise.

What you are doing is transforming sentences about people's reasons, turning them into a negative, and then assuming the reasons people leave are the negative of why people stay. It's bad logic. It's like if I say "I eat fancy cake because I love it" and you get upset "Oh, so I don't eat fancy cake because I don't love it?". No, I didn't say that, I just gave my reason for eating cake. You can have different reasons for not eating cake that don't mean you don't actually love it.

woah there. I mentioned longevity, but I'm also very happy.

So your happiness in R is related to the reason you chose R to begin with? Someone with a different reason will have a different outcome?