On the “meaningless sex” topic, I put quote marks around it bc my WW used that exact phrase. Unfortunately for me, I just don’t have a grid for understanding it. Yes, I can conceptually “get” that people have meaningless sex, or tell themselves that’s what they are doing. But my own experience as a human is, I guess, lacking in this area. I’ve never had meaningless sex. I’ve only had meaningful sex. The only woman I’ve ever had sex with is my WW. It was always meaningful for me. My WW has told me she believes this makes me “immature” about sex, and “that’s your problem” that I was a virgin before her — but I don’t really believe that’s true. It makes me different, but not immature. I also felt that having sex with another man in our home was FRAUGHT with meaning: it defiled the family home, it was willfully planned with a series of deliberate choices, and it was a purposefully emasculating act.
Thumos, I've copied this from your post on another thread to avoid a TJ over there.
The "it was just sex" phrase is uttered very commonly by WW's as a part of their effort to minimize. As I said on the other thread, this is one of the most harmful things a WW can say to her BH. There is in my observation a gulf of understanding about this. For a woman, the availability of sex is about as all-encompassing as the availability of air to breath. In fact women are beleaguered by sexual overtures, to the point where a quotidian part of life for them is fending them off.
This is where empathy, or lack of empathy, matter. A WW with empathy would not ever say this to her BH. Never. The fact that yours not only says it, but uses it to demean and belittle you, indicates that she has no empathy.
Further, in the case of your WW, I don't believe her. I think she is lying about this part. As you note, the circumstances suggest she was excited for the sex with him, she planned for it and anticipated it, and it was part of a bigger emotional relationship that would have likely grown even larger and stronger if you had not caught them out.
The way she treated you post-DDay is most consistent with the thesis that she was angry and resentful toward you for catching her and putting a stop to her romance. You were the fly in her Vaseline.
On the sex part and the gulf of understanding, I often use a cake metaphor. Assume you like it when your wife bakes a cake for you. You enjoy eating the cake, and you feel flattered and affirmed when she invests the time and effort into doing this for you.
If she does this for another man, you are hurt. She promised you, when getting married, that she would bake these cakes only for you, for the rest of your lives together. You trusted her and made yourself emotionally vulnerable to her in reliance on this promise.
It doesn't matter to you whether she got pleasure from baking the cake for another man. You assume she did, because you know she enjoys cake baking generally, and because she chose to invest the time and energy into baking this cake for him.
What hurts is that she did it, that she invested time and energy giving this pleasure to another man. It doesn't make it better if, for her, it was "just cake". If it was "just cake", then when she got married to you, she should not have stated expressly that "I will not ever bake a cake for anybody else but you, until we are parted by death."