SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

My following remarks can be referenced to the posting by Candyman66 near the top of page 3 on this thread.

A few years ago a WW who no longer posts here and had ended her affair, but was still undiscovered by her husband, offered her explanation for the sexual disparity between her husband and her AP.

She stated that all of her relationships whether with previous boyfriends, her husband, or her AP were to be seen as singular situations. That each relationship was unique to she and the male partner involved and none was dependent on another. She continued that each relationship had originated in certain circumstances, progressed along individual pathways, and developed its own style and level of emotional and sexual intimacy as she and the particular partner adapted to each others desires and preferences.

Using this reasoning, she maintained that she would never introduce the sexual activities of her affair into her marriage because that would be inauthentic to the relationship she had built and enjoyed with her husband. That she and her husband viewed and valued each other differently than she and the AP viewed and valued each other. I suppose you could argue that her marriage was already inauthentic because of her affair, but that is not the point of my post in this discussion.

Her comments have always stuck in the back of my mind and I have often wondered if her stance would change if her affair was ever revealed. But, I guess we'll never know.

Good Luck!

So, to summarize the advice that should be given to a BH whose sexual fantasies were, are, and always will be deprived, but were of course offered freely to the AP:

If you are a BH, do not ask for or accept any sexual acts that your WW gave to the AP.

The only way that you will know that your WW loves you and only you, and is being authentic, and is not manipulating you into R, will be when she does NOT offer or perform any sexual acts that she offered and performed with the AP.

A whole six pages before were began comparing BHs to coercive rapists! That might be a new record. The incel comparison was a very classy touch too!

Oh for heavens sake. BHs are not rapists. They are allowed to ask for whatever. they. need/want as a condition for R. And BS is allowed to state their wants and needs for the M to continue. A BH is well within his rights to ask for sex as a condition for R. But a ww doesn't have to agree. And if the only reason a ww is agreeing to it is to stay married, then why is that a desirable outcome? And if that's the case and a BH is asking for things that he knows the ww had/has issues with? Yeah to me that starts blurring the line between asking and demanding.

My personal issue on these threads is that it is often heavily implied that a ww better be willing to bend over and take it no matter what in order to 'show' a BH that she's sorry. I am not excusing cheating, I'm not saying any of it is fair, but there's no equivalency for a BW to a wh to explain why this is such an icky feeling conversation to a lot of women. And when you throw into the equation how many women have dealt with sexual harassment/coercion in their pasts to some extent (which I think is probably a pretty good percentage)? These types of threads are almost always gonna split down gender lines.

I agree to an extent. A ww *should* be willing to do whatever it takes to help her BH heal after an A. But my agreement ends when 'whatever it takes' starts meaning BH says "sex" and ww has to say "what hole".

Blahblah, I don't think anyone is arguing with your conclusions about the CW being more adventurous, more Intimate, more accommodating, or more whatever with the OM in these cases. All anyone is arguing against is the idea that demanding, coercing, or manipulating your CW into being the same way with you after is most likely not going to result in the healing that you need.

That would seem to me to be left up to the aggrieved party to what they "need".

If you can't accept that your CW will not willingly and with enthusiasm give to you what she gave to the OM, the only healthy recourse us to D. It sucks. I don't think any of us BPs want that. We are forced into because of the actions of our CPs. It's not fair, but it is what it is.

Logical and I agree, however, to say that the BS does not have the right to demand as a condition of reconciliation (sexual or whatever) is where my issue is. The BS has the right to demand and has the right to divorce with prejudice if declined.

This particular conversation reminds me of the whole Incel movement. When I listen to their anger, entitlement, frustration, bitterness--almost universally pertaining to satisfaction with the opposite sex--I can't help but think, "These poor guys. I wish they would realize that they need to work on changing themselves to stand the best chance of achieving their sexual and relationship goals, not the women they are targeting."

Same thoughts here.

Exactly the same.

Your mask has fallen.....@OwningItNow.

My personal issue on these threads is that it is often heavily implied that a ww better be willing to bend over and take it no matter what in order to 'show' a BH that she's sorry.

Well, my personal issue on these threads is that it is often heavily implied that a BH better be willing to not ask for anything sexual no matter what in order to 'show' a WW that she is the delicate flower that she thinks she is and is not being coerced or manipulated or made to do anything that she shouldn't HAVE to do.

Notice this was in the first paragraph in my response.

A BH is well within his rights to ask for sex as a condition for R.

I find it... interesting what you decided to highlight.

Rapists, creepy, using coercion...

Those were givens to be brought up.

But now we have a new one: INCELS!!

Owningitnow, you win the prize for bringing a new, extremely derogatory description of BHes to the discussion!! CONGRATULATIONS!!

[This message edited by GoldenR at 12:17 AM, July 7th (Tuesday)]

A BH is well within his rights to ask for sex as a condition for R.

In my opinion, "asking for" something and "expecting" something are basically the same thing.

You wouldn't "ask for" someone to give you something unless you were "expecting" that they would give it to you.

You wouldn't "expect" someone to give you something unless you "ask for" them to give it to you.

So when you say someone has a right to "ask for sex", in my opinion it's the same as saying they have a right to "expect sex".

Of course, the person being "asked for"/"expected to have" sex has EVERY RIGHT TO SAY NO, but don't sit here and try to tell me that the person being "asked for" sex is not being "expected to have" sex. They absolutely are and they have absolutely every right to say NO to that expectation.

But, if you EllieKMAS were to post the following statement on this thread:

A BH is well within his rights to expect sex as a condition for R.

the thrashing you would take would send this thread to 50 pages in about 10 minutes.

And, instead of WW's, it would actually be BW's thrashing you. WW's don't appear to give two shits about being expected to have sex. They're expecting it to be expected!

This is just a reminder for everyone to post respectfully.

Please refrain from attacking and shaming and making broad generalizations here.

Yeah, comparing a BH who's hurting because their "delicate flower" wife went full porn star with the AP and didn't with them to incels. That may, in fact, take the cake. But hey, at least it's a new one, I was getting tired of the implications of being a rapist or just a cohesive a((hole, not sure about the rest of you guys, but I'm glad I have a new label to chew on.

I have been forced and coerced into performing sexual acts.

Me too. I suspect many/most of us have. Where I think we differ, for me, it wasn't that big a deal, I'd rather be coerced into sex than coerced into drawing up a post-nup, no question about it. I think this is just a difference between individuals though. That said, there are levels and we have to examine them to have a real discussion. Level 1 sexual coercion is something like "I'm horny RIO, why don't you come over here and help me out with that". I didn't feel like sex at the time, but it was obviously something she wanted and at the time I did not. Level 1 financial coercion is "I really love that dress and man, would I LOVE to have it". No explicit threat, just the implication that "if you get this for me, good things will happen" or, looking at the converse, "If you do not get this for me, things won't be as good for you".

Now, let's talk about "level 10" coercion. To me, level 10 sexual coercion is what a long ago poster did, "Give me a BJ in the car right now or get out". I think we can all agree (including him) that was not his finest moment. Or, "your ass, tonight, or I'm filing for a D", again, either at or approaching "level 10". The reason I'm drawing this analogy though, what does "level 10" financial coercion look like to me? "Sign this postnup or I'm leaving". That's about as bad as it gets financially without having a literal gun pointed at your head; and yet... Somehow we're kind of all OK with that, in fact, so much so, that we often recommend it to BS's to "protect themselves" and yet, certainly do not recommend demanding BJ's to "protect themselves". There are plenty of other examples I could give, but, without getting overly wordy, it certainly does appear that "level 10" is fine in A recovery, in fact, most A recovery starts with "level 10" (stop talking to the AP or I'm leaving, telling your work, family and friends and you'll hear from my lawyer". It's only this particular issue where we stop feeling "level 10" is OK and in fact, "level 1" might not be OK either. Which is truly upsetting and unfortunate, I mean, I guess I could have demanded a pre-nup from my WW and been well supported in my decision by most posters, but, well, that's not what I wanted to help me heal.

she maintained that she would never introduce the sexual activities of her affair into her marriage because that would be inauthentic to the relationship she had built and enjoyed with her husband.

Nice of her to decide for her H what kind of relationship he "gets to have" with her. Even nicer because she didn't tell him, so he doesn't even realize what he's missing out on. Glad her A taught her "it's all about you" and that message seems to have stuck into her marriage.

I agree to an extent. A ww *should* be willing to do whatever it takes to help her BH heal after an A. But my agreement ends when 'whatever it takes' starts meaning BH says "sex" and ww has to say "what hole".

But we're fine with the converse of that. When a WH says "whatever it takes" and instead of "what hole" the answer is "no holes, ever again". We all support that as "her choice", right? In fact, I think a BW might get kudos for "standing her ground" and "laying down the law" from a lot of posters if she "cuts the cheating a**hole off". Certainly makes me feel a nice warm feeling in my heart thinking about my W's AP being "cut off". I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm illustrating how bipolar this issue seems to me. Any conditions are fine, as long as they aren't sexual. And sexual conditions are fine, as long as they aren't demands. And sexual demands are fine, as long as they are for abstinence from sex and not agreement to sex. And demands for agreement to sex are fine as long as you're very tactful in how you put them and don't make them demands. Ugh.. What?!

In my opinion, "asking for" something and "expecting" something are basically the same thing.

Exactly, we're dancing around semantics and how precisely the message is delivered neglecting the content. I honestly think we all agree that there are right and wrong ways to go about this. And wrong looks awful (the "blow me or get out" poster, for example), I think we all accept that too and agree that's not the right way to do things. But the content of the message, it no different; we're "dressing it up" by talking about our feelings, and why sex or that particular act is important to us, wrapping it up in FOO and long conversations and delivering it with a nice bow of incel for even having the conversation on top. I can't speak for other WW's, but I know mine is far too smart to not see through a 4 hour "loving, soul sharing" conversation about the sex she had in the A and how it made me feel and why it's important to me that I have those experiences with her. I'd much rather treat her like an adult, explain what the issue is (yes for him, no for me is a dealbreaker) and let her make a decision. Not wrap it in a guilt filled/"heartfelt" conversation that goes on for hours/days.

But, and this is the point of all these threads for me, the the message I hope resonates with WH and WW's is to AVOID the conversation at all. Avoid the direct conversation and avoid the 4 hour long "feelings based" conversation and JUST DO IT. Do not make them ask, because, if they ask directly, it's some measure of awful/rapey/and makes the entire thing inauthentic (blow me or get out of the car); if they ask indirectly, it ruins the experience for them (the BS) and honestly, I really feel it's insulting to the WS's intelligence. If I were a WH, and my wife came to me in R and started a long conversation about "feeling secure" and "financial concerns" and lots of other "feely" words, it would drive me nuts. You want a post-nup? Just say it and let me decide. But, EVEN BETTER, and what I would certainly strive to do as a WH, is ME suggesting it by handing her a post-nup I'd taken the effort to have drafted and OFFER it to her. That's the best way to deal with a horrible situation, confront it, head on, and do what it takes to resolve it. Would I want to do it? Of course not, who on earth "wants to" write a post nup?! Would I rather she decide she'd like to try pegging (or some other sexual act I did in the A)? OMG yes. People peg one another all the time for fun, there has to be some way to enjoy it, and I'd figure it out if that was something she wanted. And perhaps that's one of my issues with this whole thing, AFAIK, nobody has ever written a post-nup for fun. Right now, I'm sure there are hundreds of people pegging away, having anal sex with their wives, oral sex, sex in cars, and tons of other kink, FOR FUN. And I'd like to believe at least some of them are doing it, right now, with their H/W and not an AP. People do this stuff all the time, and they do it for their partner or their own enjoyment, including, in the nature of this thread, our WS's who did it, FOR FUN, with the AP. This is not supposed to be punishment, it's supposed to expand the relationship, help the BS heal and bring enjoyment to both parties. Might the enjoyment, in some instances, be one sided? Sure, lots of sexual stuff is that way (oral sex, for example), it's primarily for the receiver. Does that make me a "Betty blow up doll" that I do that for my wife whenever she wants it? Would that situation be different if I'd had an A, did it for the AP, did not do it for my W before the A but then did after? I really don't see it, in fact, if anything, it kind of makes me MORE of an a**hole how I treated my W before my hypothetical A. It shouldn't be defended; and, just a supposition here, but if I came on here as a WS and told a story like that, I suspect it WOULD NOT be defended, either by men or women, as a reasonable way to proceed in R. I anticipate I'd get a whole lot of "You obviously don't love your W RIO, move on" and "Your wife can do so much better" talk, including quite a few "You're an a**hole who can't even see R from where you're standing". Which, IMHO, is exactly what I SHOULD get if I did something like that to my BW.

Following this theory, if a WW has provided full menu with the AP to keep her AP and affair, wouldn't she also provide full menu to the husband to keep her husband and marriage? I'm not seeing the difference.

she got and kept her husband to marry her with limited menu

sex.

she became a WW, gave full menu sex to the OM.

she got caught, she agrees to recover, she knows her BH does

not want to divorce her, she feels confident that her BH is not

going to divorce her. so WW refuses to feed her BH from the

full sex menu.

I truly get it, RIO...and by in large, agree with you. I want you to know that. You are understood.

But then again, I’m a woman that lived for almost two decades in a largely sexless marriage - and according to most any woman I’ve ever tried to discuss it with, that makes me an anomaly. I’m also still a sexless woman - nearly four years since the separation/divorce; the scars from it all run very, very deep (and I think that’s partly because of being a denied woman). It’s why I can hold both the perspective of internal validation but also recognize there’s still a need for external validation. It’s hard to find yourself sexually attractive, you know?

Some things people are just not going to understand until theyve actually experienced it. I’ve been pressured into sex before - not raped/forced. Those are two different things. And given the two experiences, denied and ignored or pressured/wanted...I can absolutely tell you which situation I would prefer. I certainly wouldn’t be the only woman I’ve ever known that has given over sex for the “greater good” of the relationship - not by a LONG shot.

I think a sticking point in this thread is the idea of having to do a particular sex act that you find egregious - and that just doesn’t apply to the same degree when that sex act has been done with someone else while in the marriage.

BFTG, I think, in the situation to which you referred, the BP would just have to accept that he will not get what he wants. Can he live with that? It's ok if he can't regardless of the reason why he won't get it. He needs to get completely honest with himself.

Blahblah, I don't think anyone is arguing with your conclusions about the CW being more adventurous, more Intimate, more accommodating, or more whatever with the OM in these cases. All anyone is arguing against is the idea that demanding, coercing, or manipulating your CW into being the same way with you after is most likely not going to result in the healing that you need.

If you can't accept that your CW will not willingly and with enthusiasm give to you what she gave to the OM, the only healthy recourse us to D. It sucks. I don't think any of us BPs want that. We are forced into because of the actions of our CPs. It's not fair, but it is what it is.

sex is not the only reason people do not divorce.

too old to start over

do not want to be a PT dad

financial impact, house, standard of living, retirement,

children's education

there is no fair negotiation from the WW because she

knows that she has all the leverage.

OM did not give WW a house, cars, clothes, vacations,

children, income. Yet WW gave the OM full menu sex.

WW showed she is capable of being a pornstar. All the

OM gave WW was some attention and time.

The BH gave his WW more than the OM. Yet the WW

feels justified giving her BH less than what she freely

gave to her OM.

she got caught, she agrees to recover, she knows her BH does

not want to divorce her, she feels confident that her BH is not

going to divorce her. so WW refuses to feed her BH from the

full sex menu.

No argument from me, your describing economic theory, she can get what she wants for less, or, she doesn't want to "pay" as much for what she gets from the H compared to what she got from the AP. Again, no disagreement, other than the absolutely awful nature of someone doing that math in their head. Plenty of guys do this, I know them; they do the "economic analysis" and come to the conclusion "She ain't leaving, I'm wealthy and we have kids together, she'll never be able to live as good without me" as their "calculus" for having an A or continuing an A after getting caught. Working off pure rational self-interest, it's hard to fault it, if you can "get away" with bringing less to the bedroom with your spouse, or "get away" with AP's on the side because of your other attributes, well.... I guess my only retort would be there's a reason that rational self interest isn't a philosophy that leads to a great deal of cohesion in society. It works, there's no question, and, perhaps if we all adopted it entirely, we could deal with one another on a "level" playing field, but, if that's the guiding principal, "what can I get away it" or "what's the least I can do", well.. I just don't see that as congruent with what we typically advise. And, of course, all actions have an equal reaction in the opposite sex, if you know "what's the least I can do" is the stance of your WS, well.. What's the rational thing for you to do as the BS?

What is INCEL?

INvoluntary CELebate

Le sigh. As usual, missing so much.

to say that the BS does not have the right to demand as a condition of reconciliation (sexual or whatever) is where my issue is.

At no point did I say that the BH doesn't have the right to demand whatever he wants. Any of us has that right. The only caveat to that is the understanding that the other party is not obligated to deliver regardless of the circumstance.

The problem with demanding something and threatening a severe consequence if it is not delivered, is that you will never know if you got the thing because the person really wanted to give it (which I assume based on what has been posted here, most BH's want when it comes to sex), or because they didn't want to suffer the consequences. It is disingenuous.

I liken it to my H saying that he loves me. He can say it all he wants. He can try to demonstrate it all he wants. After he cheated, I just don't believe. I thought he loved me before. He did not in spite of saying he did. I thought he did things for me before because he wanted to do things for me. Now, I know he did those things for purely selfish reasons, which explains why they always missed the mark. All of the things he said and did before were lies. Why would I believe they are authentic now?

Same with sex, especially if it was acted out with the AP. I think the only way to possibly feel like it is something that your CP really wants to do with you is if they do it spontaneously. Even then, you can't know. Maybe it's not you at all. Maybe they just discovered they really liked it during the course of the A and want to continue doing it. You are available, so they do it with you.

RIO got what he wanted. He admits he doesn't know if it's authentic. He doesn't seem to care much whether or not it is. He just wants the sex. That reduces his wife to a sexual vending machine, imo. That's not to say he doesn't value his W in other ways. But, when it comes to sex, she's basically just a blow up doll for him to do with whatever he pleases.

That is why I say that, in order to have any true peace around this (or any other) issue, you have to either accept what is, or leave the situation. I don't know any other solution.

[This message edited by cocoplus5nuts at 7:47 AM, July 7th (Tuesday)]

I think a sticking point in this thread is the idea of having to do a particular sex act that you find egregious - and that just doesn’t apply to the same degree when that sex act has been done with someone else while in the marriage.

I agree. I don't think is applies to ANY degree, but, in general, we're in agreement. It's even hard to conceive how we can make the assertion "Did it last week with the AP 3 times" and, hold the belief, at the same time "But don't want to do it with you" is anything other than a rejection of the spouse. Of course it is. And of course, it's the WS's right to make that refusal, but it's akin to "No, I'm going to stop sleeping with my AP" as to the level of rejection of the marriage that it represents. Can some people live with it? Sure they can, some people live in entirely one sided open marriages and are happy. Is the right council for a newly busted WH "well, explain to her that you have needs and that this is just "your thing" and "your body" and you make the decisions about it"? Well, if that's the belief you hold as the right way to help a BW recover, it's your belief, but I'm pretty certain that belief will much, much more often lead to D than a BH following the script for recovery that's laid out here or in "How to help your spouse heal" or the 100's of other books out there. Very few recommend "Tell her to live with it" as the correct course of action.

I’ve been pressured into sex before - not raped/forced. Those are two different things. And given the two experiences, denied and ignored or pressured/wanted...I can absolutely tell you which situation I would prefer. I certainly wouldn’t be the only woman I’ve ever known that has given over sex for the “greater good” of the relationship - not by a LONG shot.

You also wouldn't be the only man. I've been pressured into sex quite a bit in my past as well. Including a few times that clearly crossed the line, if I were a woman, it would have been considered rape (given today's laws, back then, it was not the same) without question.

I'm curious, which situation would you prefer, pressured for sex or left alone? I'm not being obtuse, I really want to know and I'm not sure from your tone which is preferable in your eyes.

there is no fair negotiation from the WW because she

knows that she has all the leverage.

Of course. And I think that's a big part of my general point, there's no "fair" negotiation at all after an A. Both the BS and WS are pointing guns at one another, the WS already fired and seriously wounded the BS, but the BS has the WS dead to right, in the sights. They know this, most of them aren't stupid. Everything done after an A becomes somewhere between a "little" and a "whole lot" tainted. The "little" would be things that suddenly just start happening to improve the marriage. The WH starts picking up his clothes off the floor without being asked, the WW cooks dinner more often.. Stuff like that. The "whole lot" would be things where you have to remind the WS "I have you dead to rights and have a loaded gun pointed at you". There's no fixing that, it's upset the power balance and it'll be a long, long time before it's "right" again. But you CAN keep the BS from having to show the gun off and directly make demands/threats/etc. That's the best you can hope for, no, it's not authentic, but, really, what is after an A? And it's a lot more authentic if given without seeing the "gun". A WH going out and buying a BW something she really wants after the A is a nice gesture, sure, she'll think "it's because of what he did" and it might very well be, but a lot of people will receive that gift well and be appreciative. A BW saying "Go f**king buy me a new car or I'm going to D your cheating a**" is something entirely different. Sure, she'll get the car, but it'll be tainted in a way that the freely given car will not be. And, of course, the WS always can say "No, buy your own s**t", it's compelled, but not forced. Forced would be putting a literal gun to the WH's head and marching him down to the car dealership. He always has a choice, he just may not like any of his options, but to that, I have about 0 tears to shed for him.