SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I left off at this post so apologies if someone mentioned this, but the love for AP isn't unconditional. Yeah, a lazy asshole can sometimes score with a wink and a dick pic, but he's still meeting conditions. The whole AP archetype is providing a plethora of things that a BS in a given situation is blind to, particularly the novelty element that some guy you've slept next to for 10 years can no longer provide. There are conditions put on the AP (like "dont tell my spouse") but they're not the same as those placed on the marital partner, and I'd wager that in a lot of cases the list of conditions is smaller due to the aforementioned novelty element picking up a lot of slack when it comes to the WS convincing themselves that this is totally fine.

Edit: Also, hookup sex doesn't hold a candle to passionate "love making" sex. It feels pretty hollow when you're not emotionally invested in each other. Especially after years of getting my fill from that sweet tap of narcissist sex, the kind of romp that directly followed a bout of her emotionally toying with me for kicks. The kind of sex that's like popping an extremely painful zit. It really opened my eyes to the truths behind such stereotypes as "crazy girls are great in bed" and "women only date abusive assholes". Those folks really know how to apply that psychosexual hold.

[This message edited by AbandonedGuy at 9:51 AM, February 27th (Thursday)]

It is healthy for people to have sex with one another with the sex being the prize. It seems so antithetical to what sex should be to make it a trade thing. I know people do it, whether it's for a free meal, money, words or whatever, but I guess I am just never going to understand it. It damages the whole experience to think of it that way.

I agree.

After DDAY and after the initial HB was over... I did know that sex was something needed for connection, and I put effort into that. I think back if it was transactional or not. Maybe so. I definitely knew that without it there was no chance we were going to R, but at the same time we always had sex pretty regularly and it didn't feel inorganic to me. I do think a lot of WS will sex bomb and love bomb, and I don't think I am different in that regard but I guess to me there would be ones who did that and nothing else and that's where it's probably a bigger issue. It would stay transactional which I think that's when further resentments could really take place on both sides.

So much is out of balance after DDAY and it takes time for the WS to really start to "get it" if they are going to. I think H and I were both just floundering around doing the best we could. There wasn't a lot of wondering if it was transactional. I wanted the marriage therefore I gave my efforts in any way I knew would be beneficial. As we have gotten further out, it is not as much a feeling of scrambling so things became more intentional and motivated by better things, or maybe what would be considered healthier things. Sustainable things with proper fuel I guess.

I think maybe for the op I would offer:

1. Have your WS figure out in what ways they were transactional prior to the A. Those could point to some very specific things they need to work to change.

2. Don't worry too much if you are transactional or not right now. Just worry about taking care of what you need.

I personally have a hard time imagining paying money for sex not because I don't think sex is valuable, but because my libido would dry up if I thought I actually had to pay someone to sleep with me. It seems so depressing.

Pretty much exactly what happened to my libido when I realized what I described above. I was getting laid not because someone wanted to f**k me, but because I was "paying" with words. And, of course, that also applies to my wife. I want to sleep with someone who wants to sleep with me, not because I've got the right words to drop, but because they find me attractive and want to have the sexual experience with me. I realized that all my previous sexual experience, which I thought was sex for sex was, in fact, sex for words, just one step (if even) from sex for cash, at least for me.

I know people do it, whether it's for a free meal, money, words or whatever, but I guess I am just never going to understand it. It damages the whole experience to think of it that way.

You can say that again!

particularly the novelty element that some guy you've slept next to for 10 years can no longer provide.

While I was nodding when reading this, I don't think there's ever been a thread with a WW saying she wanted "novelty". Of course that's a common male desire, but the vast majority of WW's here say they were doing it for "the words" and the feelings those words caused. I can't recall a single "just wanted something new in bed" here, although, that is nearly the universal "reason" I know about IRL for an affair.

You did something wrong. You can't undo, but you apologize and make it right. That's basic human expectation, married or not.

Unconditional love is totally different from expecting your partner won't stab you in the back, or if they ever did, your instincts won't allow them to do it multiples times. You self protect to not bleed to death.

I agree that all relationships are transactional. It's just the terms of the transaction differs for everyone. Whatever both parties agree to. Reciprocity or equivalent exchange depends on the value of the object to the person. I could ask for a dollar in exchange for a house, or a white Maserati in exchange for a red one. Marriage is no exception.

RIO, I agree that to the average male AP, novelty probably means "this new body I'm attracted to", especially given the "screw first, ask questions later" nature of a typical guy's POV on courtship, but I was thinking of novelty in general terms. For others, women or even men with these unmet needs, the novelty element could be "this AP says these super special things that my spouse doesn't, how unique" or even something as simple as "the AP makes me feel this new way that my spouse doesn't, I better chase this feeling". Of course, in the latter case, the WS is simply feeling the new love chemicals and deluding him or herself into thinking it's some extra special emotion they've never encountered (like New Coke!).

While I was nodding when reading this, I don't think there's ever been a thread with a WW saying she wanted "novelty". Of course that's a common male desire, but the vast majority of WW's here say they were doing it for "the words" and the feelings those words caused. I can't recall a single "just wanted something new in bed" here, although, that is nearly the universal "reason" I know about IRL for an affair.

I know you and I have gone round and round on this, but you phrased this in a different way today.

I don't have sex for the words with my husband. I never have. If that had been the case, well we would never have had sex a lot of times. LOL I don't mean that as a slam to him, that's just not who he is, it never has been. It never will be. I will say he does throw me an occasional complement now and again lately, but those are just icing on a really good cake. If your wife is still having sex for words, there is a bigger problem at play here.

You seem to believe that women, or at least your wife, does not have sex with you because she desires to. Yet, you also say she has sex with you just about every day and that you have gotten very creative together. I know you are disillusioned because you don't know what to believe from her, but does your sex life feel like it's not organic? That she does not desire what is happening?

I think as a wife, what I want is not words. And, I want sex, but not just sex. I want the enjoyment that comes from companionship with him specifically. I want to hear what's on his mind. I want to do things we enjoy together, and someone to help carry the burdens of life...and offer those same things in return.

I know her affair killed that for you. You so far have seemed to want R...at some point you and she need to learn to communicate effectively. I don't get a sense that you know what she wants, and I don't necessarily think that's your fault. Has she worked to show up to her own life and put her needs out there or is she tippy toeing around things and seeming to just try to keep you happy? Have you ever contemplated why she would do that? I have come to suspect the reason that you don't understand is that she has never come to understand, and together you have not learned to talk about it? For you to think she did this for words, seems to be an oversimplification of something far more complex.

[This message edited by hikingout at 10:57 AM, February 27th (Thursday)]

Pretty much exactly what happened to my libido when I realized what I described above. I was getting laid not because someone wanted to f**k me, but because I was "paying" with words. And, of course, that also applies to my wife. I want to sleep with someone who wants to sleep with me, not because I've got the right words to drop, but because they find me attractive and want to have the sexual experience with me. I realized that all my previous sexual experience, which I thought was sex for sex was, in fact, sex for words, just one step (if even) from sex for cash, at least for me.

RIO, I hope it's not for words. You deserve better than that.

Affairs are transactional. You are giving with the expectation to receive.

Marriage should not be transactional. You give because you simply love someone, and want them to feel that unconditional love.

So, how do you all reconcile the R process that is COMPLETELY transactional? We can't be in R unless the WS is meeting certain criteria, and true reconciliation is a new marriage that is built on expectations, which completely goes against the idea of a giving relationship. In a healthy, loving relationship, there are no expectations for reciprocity.

Are all WS inherently transactional?

I ask because I'm having a really hard time trying to manage my expectations. I feel like I'm going crazy!

I think that for the purpose of discussing relationships, that maybe the dictionary doesn't give us enough nuance. For me, "transactional" is going to involve "coin". A transactional relationship can only last as long as the "coin" has value. But "reciprocal" is going to be a broader description of a person's qualities. Is my relationship reciprocal in terms of honesty, generosity, energy? Or am I always the one working out a conflict, picking up the check, or scheduling a fun activity?

I do think that "reciprocity" is necessary in a good relationship. When you look at it in the broad terms of character traits and values, it's not "transactional". There's no "coin" involved. It's not tit for tat, or scorekeeping. It's more about compatibility and the willingness to meet your partner's efforts in kind. It's easy to see that if one partner is doing the majority of the work or bringing the majority of the fun, it's an unfair partnership. And even if both partners are equally generous, for example, but one is generous with other people and not at home, it's not reciprocal.

In terms of "expectations", I agree with Ellie, better to have "boundaries". And when we go the extra mile and make Boundary Statements, it's easier to see what's legitimate when we compare it to our willingness to really go to the mat on enforcement. Setting up rules for WS's to follow puts us in an unsustainable parental position with another adult. But, if you translate your needs to boundary statements, you begin to see what's important and what isn't.

For post-infidelity relationships, there's a list of things we don't tolerate from our partners anymore, things like breaking NC with any affair partners and porous boundaries with opposite sex friends. It's pretty easy to think of these things as "rules", but... we can't control other people. We can only control our reaction to the things they do.

So, when a "rule" becomes a "boundary statement", you're talking about what you will (and will not) tolerate within your relationship. ie. "I won't stay in a relationship with someone who won't maintain appropriate boundaries with opposite sex friends and/or former lovers." And you can flesh that out to describe what you mean by "appropriate", but the long and short is that it's about YOU. It's where your bottom line is. It's a boundary you're willing to defend, right up to ending the relationship if necessary.

For me, "expectations" means having your hand out waiting for someone else to fill your needs/wants. I just don't do that anymore. My personal contentment is my responsibility. And post-infidelity, one of my biggest takeaways was not to leave my contentment at the mercy of others. But by the same token, I am no longer at anyone else's disposal for fulfilling expectations either. I can certainly reciprocate within the context of a loving and healthy relationship. But I've learned not to over-give too.

Affairs are transactional. You are giving with the expectation to receive.

Marriage should not be transactional. You give because you simply love someone, and want them to feel that unconditional love.

So, how do you all reconcile the R process that is COMPLETELY transactional? We can't be in R unless the WS is meeting certain criteria, and true reconciliation is a new marriage that is built on expectations, which completely goes against the idea of a giving relationship. In a healthy, loving relationship, there are no expectations for reciprocity.

Are all WS inherently transactional?

I ask because I'm having a really hard time trying to manage my expectations. I feel like I'm going crazy!

The question presented is going to turn on how we define "transaction." Are we using the lexical definition or are we limiting it? In order to answer, we have to have a working definition of transaction.

ChamomileTea I LOVED your response! Thank you!

So, when a "rule" becomes a "boundary statement", you're talking about what you will (and will not) tolerate within your relationship. ie. "I won't stay in a relationship with someone who won't maintain appropriate boundaries with opposite sex friends and/or former lovers." And you can flesh that out to describe what you mean by "appropriate", but the long and short is that it's about YOU. It's where your bottom line is. It's a boundary you're willing to defend, right up to ending the relationship if necessary.

For me, "expectations" means having your hand out waiting for someone else to fill your needs/wants. I just don't do that anymore. My personal contentment is my responsibility. And post-infidelity, one of my biggest takeaways was not to leave my contentment at the mercy of others. But by the same token, I am no longer at anyone else's disposal for fulfilling expectations either. I can certainly reciprocate within the context of a loving and healthy relationship. But I've learned not to over-give too.

You said this SO well CT - thank you!!

Here’s the thing between a rule and a boundary though. Not following through with your boundary. We can create boundaries all we want, but unless we act on that boundary once it’s crossed, it is nothing more than a rule. Something we expect someone else to fall in line with.

Agreed Loukas - that's why boundaries are really hard for a lot of people I think. I know for darn sure that's why they were hard for me for a long time. One thing I am thankful for in this whole shitshow though - I don't think I will have nearly the same trouble with them going forward!

RIO, I didn't read all the responses before I posted. I also haven't read everything since. I can't keep up with these fast moving threads.

Boundaries vs. expectations. I have a boundary for myself. I tell my H I will not allow him to cheat on me. I am not attached to the outcome of that conversation. If he cheats, I leave. I don't stay and try to control him by telling him where he can and can't go or who he can and can't talk to. It's a fine line. It's like the difference between a SO who says, "You can do what you want, but don't expect me to be here if you do that," vs. the SO who chases you down as you walk out the door and tries to block you from leaving.

Want, desire, possibly need, but not expectation. No one else is obligated to do what I want them to do. I can ask them to, but I have to accept that they may not. I ask my H to do the dishes. I don't get butthurt if he says, "No." My H, on the other hand, gets butthurt because he expects me to do the dishes and I don't. He doesn't ask me to do the dishes. He doesn't tell me he's upset that I didn't do the dishes. He just gets mad that I didn't and decides he deserves a girlfriend because I'm mean to him.

So, to answer your other sort of question I just skimmed over, you do need to ask for what you want. If you don't, then you have an unspoken expectation of another person that is completely unfair to her.

Would it be nice if everyone else knew what was important to me and did it? Of course, but that's not how life works. For the life of me, I cannot understand how my boys can walk into the bathroom and not want to clean off all the pee they have sprayed all over the walls. (How does that even happen?!) Thing is that they don't even see it. A clean bathroom is not on the top of priorities for most boys, I guess. They just want to pee quickly and get back to their games. So, I say, "Hey, will you get a rag and wipe down the wall behind the toilet?" Most of the time, when I ask, they will help me.

My H, OTOH, comes home and gets frustrated that the dining room table is again covered with crap. He doesn't ask anyone to help him clean it up. He just starts doing it, the whole time grumbling and banging things around because he has to do it. Except that he doesn't have to do it. All he has to do is ask for help.

Now, in that asking, he also has to be will5to accept a, "No," without getting angry. He's the one who wants the table clean. The rest of us don't care. We're perfectly fine with eating on the couch.

It involves a complete shift in thinking. Usually, letting go of everything you've known and been told. Most people can't do it. They are too afraid they will lose if they don't demand what they want. Another thing is truly understanding the difference between a need and a want. There are very few actual needs in this world, air, water, food, and probably shelter (although, it may be possible to survive without that). Everything else is gravy.

It's a really difficult and nuanced subject, so I'm glad NTSC brought it up. It's very challenging to try to sort out the transactional from the reciprocal, and the expectation from boundary, because in practice and as it relates to the post-infidelity relationship, there's bound to be subjective opinion.

There is a good book on "over-giving" though that I found to be really helpful in terms of making boundaries. It's called "Unhealthy Helping" by Shawn Burn. Boundaries have always been tough for me because I'm a "helper". But she did a good job of pointing out that my "help" is not always as helpful as I think because it can become enabling of unhealthy behaviors in my loved ones. And that's made it easier to say 'no' when I need to.

Boundaries inherently create expectations. If I create a boundary of zero tolerance for infidelity in order to continue in a relationship, then whether it is expressly stated or implied, I have set an expectation of fidelity from my partner in the relationship.

That's why I am suggesting we find a definition for transaction that we all agree with, because we are all essentially saying the same thing. The only difference is how we are defining "transaction."

Definition of transaction

1a : something transacted especially : an exchange or transfer of goods, services, or funds electronic transactions

b transactions plural : the often published record of the meeting of a society or association

2a : an act, process, or instance of transacting

b : a communicative action or activity involving two parties or things that reciprocally affect or influence each other

Using the most broad definition, I believe we are all in agreement and all relationships would fall under its scope.

[This message edited by KingRat at 1:30 PM, February 27th (Thursday)]

Yes KingRat you have. But you are not controlling your partner. You have set a boundary for yourself that outlines a reasonable expectation that you have communicated to your partner. Whether they choose to respect that is on them. If they do - great! If they don't, then you have to decide if you'll stick to your bottom line.

Either way, I don't think that clear boundaries and clearly communicated and reasonable expectations are in any way controlling. I personally think that is a healthy thing in a relationship. Any relationship, not just romantic ones.

I understand what you are saying but expectations are not inherently controlling or coercive in regards to whom they may affect assuming each party has equal bargaining power (which is a threshold matter in any healthy relationship). If I list an item for $50, and expect anyone who wishes to purchase it to give me $50. While I am controlling the price (my boundary), no one has to accept my offer. This assumes my price is FMV and I do not have a monopoly on such goods.

You seem to believe that women, or at least your wife, does not have sex with you because she desires to. Yet, you also say she has sex with you just about every day and that you have gotten very creative together. I know you are disillusioned because you don't know what to believe from her, but does your sex life feel like it's not organic? That she does not desire what is happening?

Because I don't believe it. It's basically the same sex/frequency/etc that the OM got, which, taking the A away, would be AWSOME, like top 1% for any survey I've ever seen on marital sex.

Problem is this, my wife did all this with the OM, and then turned around and said "I didn't even want to sleep with him, I just wanted him to keep paying attention to/liking me" (translation, deliver kibbles). How is what we're doing now any different? Same acts, same frequency, I'm delivering the "kibble" now. It's the same thing. And, to be honest, I'd kind of prefer to leave money by the nightstand, at least then we all agree it has value. The "kibbles" I'm delivering feel like Monopoly money to me, not because they aren't true, but because I feel like they have no value. At least if I dropped a 100 by the nightstand, I'd feel like it was an equal trade. I'm saying it this way intentionally, not because I feel like my W is a prostitute, but because I feel like I'm visiting a prostitute. I realize that's a strange distinction, but I don't see her that way, but I do see myself that way, if that makes any sense at all.

Except, of course, it's my W, and, unlike a prostitute, I really do care about her happiness. So, it's really hard to know what to do and make of it all when you're confronted with the harsh reality of "words for sex" that's present in at least some (and I think a lot) of affairs.

I don't think that clear boundaries and clearly communicated and reasonable expectations are in any way controlling.

I really think we're trying to draw a distinction that does not exist. My "boundary", "I will not accept any further communication with the OM". You think that's not "controlling"? If so, OK, maybe we do agree, but, when the boundaries are about the affair, NC, timelines, better/kinkier sex.. While everyone has a CHOICE, I think it's clear we've crossed into the "trying to control" area with a lot of these things. Is "You will write me a timeline or I'm leaving" an inherently different statement than "My boundary is I won't live my life not knowing what you did during the A" (either said alone or with the express threat of "and you're going to tell me or I'm going to leave"). We try to draw lines here that I don't think exist. Yeah, 180 them, right? That's all about your boundaries. Sure, that's one what to think about it, but it's also about putting the other person into pain/crisis so they "snap out of it". And examining one side of the coin without the other seems very myopic. We get into this same conversation talking about sex after the affair and "demands" vs "boundaries" vs "requests". Sure, there are "nicer" ways to put things, "blow me or walk home" (as a BH here did years ago) is very low on the "nice way to put it" category. But I think we give WS's too little credit, you think that saying it differently changes the nature of "do it or get out"? I'm pretty sure my wife, and I suspect a lot of WS's are smart enough to read through the implied threat under it.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 1:56 PM, February 27th (Thursday)]

I don't think expectations are inherently controlling, in regards to limiting the other person's ability to have a meaningful choice. Having the expectation: I will not permit "x" to be done to me is not the same as I will not permit you to do "x," even if a third party consents. Just like my example, I will not sell this for less than $50, is not the same is I expect you not to purchase the item from someone else for less than $50. If someone is willing to sell it to you for cheaper and price is your main concern, then you would be foolish not to buy it from that person.