SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I wouldn't have sex with a random person I just met regardless of attractiveness.

I have and would, but I am not having sex with someone I don't find attractive enough to do my normal whatever. I don't see myself thinking "hot enough for this, but not for that". That is weird to me. It ties into how I do not understand men having sex with women they aren't attracted to. Is masturbation really inferior to that? Because I would choose that every time over sex with someone I don't find attractive. I couldn't enjoy that.

It ties into how I do not understand men having sex with women they aren't attracted to. Is masturbation really inferior to that?

Oh goodness, yes, at least it is for me.

I think part of this is that for me, you'd really have to work HARD at making a negative sexual experience. I'm going to orgasm every time, sex feels good from start to finish, it's relaxing, it makes me tired, and I really like to sleep. There's just very little "downside". It's like eating ice cream, it's always good, it's just a matter of "how good". I think that sex, at least from what I've gathered over the years, for women is more like sushi. Bad sushi is BAD. Like, you'll be wishing for a week you never saw that chunk of tuna, puking your guts up and vowing "I will cook all food" from now on. There's just no analogue of that for me with sex. It's never "bad" it's just varying degrees of good to fantastic.

God this thread is depressing the shit out of me.

All I can think now is how XWH told me that sex with me was just meh, he could "take it or leave it" (with that comment he left it, forever, despite stupidly propositioning me after that) - Jesus, I'm bad ice cream.

Like, he was getting off every time and I was completely unsatisfied but HE felt just meh . . .

(Ok so I know all of that was more about breaking me down as a control and ego thing for him, and my man now treats me like haagen-dazs but it still gets to me).

[This message edited by JanaGreen at 9:46 PM, July 29th (Wednesday)]

Ok so I know all of that was more about breaking me down as a control and ego thing for him, and my man now treats me like haagen-dazs but it still gets to me.

I'm glad you know this, because, yes, in a lot of cases; if your sharing that "I can take it or leave it" stuff, it's really about power and control. It's like walking onto a car dealers lot and seeing EXACTLY the vehicle you want to purchase, right color, right options. You, of course, could go right in, say "that's the one" and start singing paperwork. But if you want to get the best deal, you'll play the coy, "well, I could buy a car today, if you make it worth my while" game. Reducing your exhibited level of interest to put the other party into a more difficult negotiating position. With a car dealer, it's to try to get a lower price, in relationships, it's to try to renegotiate some part of the deal. "I could take or leave sex" might be a gambit to try to get more sex/different sex/different acts; it puts the other person into a position where they are "competing" to try to get you interested again.

Now, there are people who really are take it or leave it with sex; and unfortunately, much like my W, if that was your H, you're not going to be able to get a "good deal". They really don't care if you buy the car today or not, they're not going to so much as wipe a fleck of mud off the hood, if you want to buy this car, there's the price and call me when you're ready to pay it. The first rule of negotiation, whoever cares more about the outcome loses.

Absolutely, I did it, as did most of my friends. Again, because intentionally entering into a relationship with a lopsided disparity means one person or the other has to "make it up" somehow.

I don't know any women who think like this. I do not think you are a rare guy, but this explains a whole lot of threads about the ww doing something different for AP. It seems that there is a lot of projected mentality.

As a woman, MAYBE I had more choices and could be more selective. I tend to think that is also a fallacy but it's one I could possibly make an argument for or against.

But, as a woman, it's more of a binary decision for me. Yes, I would sleep with you, no I would not. I don't think about the disparity of who is hotter, maybe I only slept with guys on my own level? Generally speaking, I think I slept with the entire man - not just his looks, but was he funny? Was he kind? Was he interesting? A man that I might not find initially attractive can make up a whole lot for me in his personality.

To me, attraction is a slower burn, but I don't think all women are like that. Just like I don't think all men are not like that.

I also kind of think this is the kind of thinking that burns off as we age even more. I know guys who were out trying to get in everyone's pants, were targeting less attractive girls, etc. Back in college. They are nothing like this now. Using examples from our youth is often skewed. I mean, when I was on the dating scene people had this whole 3 date rule. If for some reason I had to date again, I would wait much longer before hopping into bed with someone. I know that sounds ironic coming from a ww, but I truly do feel that way. It just comes from knowing and understanding myself a lot better today. I am not someone who can have sex now without pair bonding to that person. So, I think I would be very careful because I don't want to catch feelings for someone that I have not decided to for other reasons. When I was younger casual sex was not an issue for me.

[This message edited by hikingout at 8:05 AM, July 30th (Thursday)]

I think part of this is that for me, you'd really have to work HARD at making a negative sexual experience. I'm going to orgasm every time, sex feels good from start to finish, it's relaxing, it makes me tired, and I really like to sleep. There's just very little "downside". It's like eating ice cream, it's always good, it's just a matter of "how good". I think that sex, at least from what I've gathered over the years, for women is more like sushi. Bad sushi is BAD. Like, you'll be wishing for a week you never saw that chunk of tuna, puking your guts up and vowing "I will cook all food" from now on. There's just no analogue of that for me with sex. It's never "bad" it's just varying degrees of good to fantastic.

Yeah, maybe it is just that simple. I would choose going home and taking care of my own needs over bad sex every time or sex with someone who just isn't attractive to me. I'm just not going to enjoy it if I'm not attracted to the man, which makes it utterly pointless. It sounds like in this scenario, the packaging around the woman means little. She's essentially a masturbatory tool and those don't need to be attractive.

As a woman, MAYBE I had more choices and could be more selective. I tend to think that is also a fallacy but it's one I could possibly make an argument for or against.

Thankfully, we can test it today. You and I both create profiles on some hookup board with our best pictures and the same exact text, basically, "hot guy/girl, looking for some NSA fun with the same". Then we watch the (well, your) messages roll in and start to rank the people by attractiveness. Since we'll only be looking at guys for the first week or two until I finally get someone bored enough to click "thumbs up", I'll be depending on you to rate them all.

There's no "maybe" about it. Unless I was both wildly rich AND famous (think Justin Beiber), I simply wouldn't stand a chance against you, you'd have 100 options to my 1. And even if I was Justin Beiber, I still think the best I could do would be "keep up" with you, and we're into the .000001% (lots of zeros, with a 1 at the end, no idea what the actual number is) of male attractiveness. If you take an equally attractive woman, OMFG, you'll break the Internet with a posting like that.

I don't know any women who think like this. I do not think you are a rare guy, but this explains a whole lot of threads about the ww doing something different for AP. It seems that there is a lot of projected mentality.

I have no doubt that you didn't THINK like this, but, equally, I'm pretty sure that most people (perhaps not you) DID this. You decided "how far" you were going to go with someone based on how attracted you are to them. It's normal, and it's not something to be ashamed of or upset about, it's just how we operate. What I think you're saying is that once you decided "sex", that was the last decision, "sex" to you was anything goes (that you enjoy) for any guy who got to that level. There were no "levels of sex" offered, sex was the "final level" and from there, whatever happened, happened.

Which is reasonable, it's an arbitrary line between making out and sex, just like it's an arbitrary line between sex and anal sex. You can lump all of them together, I certainly do for some things, I wouldn't withhold doggy style sex vs laying on the side sex based on looks, it's the same thing to me, if we're doing A, we might as well be doing B if we both want to. But, for me personally, other things aren't like that, I'd let a woman perform oral sex on me but wouldn't have sex with her or perform oral sex on her. That's a "level" for me, it's sexual contact, but it's limited based on my attraction for the other person.

And yes, I do think that this is where a lot of the misunderstanding comes in. For me personally, it's impossible for me to imagine that "all people I'm willing to have sex with get the same access to whatever they want". There are people I'd do X with but not Y because I'm attracted enough for X, but no way attracted enough for Y. And then when we apply that to an A where someone did more with the AP, well, it all flies right off the rails.

I know guys who were out trying to get in everyone's pants, were targeting less attractive girls, etc. Back in college. They are nothing like this now.

This is probably true in general, but, then apply it to an A. Which is basically a regression to college/high school; it's exactly what the men I know do, the same things that "worked" in college. Try with as many people as you, lower your standards, be a clown and make her laugh. And then, when in bed, push as far as you can for the best sex you can get. It's the same stuff I did in college.

When I was younger casual sex was not an issue for me.

At the time, it wasn't for me either. In fact, I never really thought about it anyway other than "That was fun!" until my W's A and "kibbles" came into my vocabulary. :(

Thankfully, we can test it today. You and I both create profiles on some hookup board with our best pictures and the same exact text, basically, "hot guy/girl, looking for some NSA fun with the same". Then we watch the (well, your) messages roll in and start to rank the people by attractiveness. Since we'll only be looking at guys for the first week or two until I finally get someone bored enough to click "thumbs up", I'll be depending on you to rate them all.

Um, I know you are making an example, but this is a weird thing to suggest to a WW. I can assure you I will not be making any profile on any app, ever. But, I do get what you are saying.

There's no "maybe" about it. Unless I was both wildly rich AND famous (think Justin Beiber), I simply wouldn't stand a chance against you, you'd have 100 options to my 1. And even if I was Justin Beiber, I still think the best I could do would be "keep up" with you, and we're into the .000001% (lots of zeros, with a 1 at the end, no idea what the actual number is) of male attractiveness. If you take an equally attractive woman, OMFG, you'll break the Internet with a posting like that.

I don't know if I buy that. The reality of it is I am a middle aged woman. We do tend to lose our sexual relevance as we age in situations where we are being judged superficially. I hear this from my friends all the time, and it's their biggest complaint about online dating. But, generally speaking I still follow what you are saying.

I have no doubt that you didn't THINK like this, but, equally, I'm pretty sure that most people (perhaps not you) DID this. You decided "how far" you were going to go with someone based on how attracted you are to them

Honestly, like I said, it was always binary. I will sleep with them/I will not. If I wasn't interested in sleeping with them I didn't do anything with them sexually to even lead them to believe I was going to sleep with them. That is a dangerous thing for women to do. Not only in the heat of the moment does a guy maybe not take no for an answer, but in the best case scenario we create an angry person calling us a tease.

So, of course I decided whether I was going to sleep with them before it headed in that direction. And, it would have been based on physical attraction to a certain extent. But I can't say I ever slept with someone where I thought there was a disparity between me and him?

But, for me personally, other things aren't like that, I'd let a woman perform oral sex on me but wouldn't have sex with her or perform oral sex on her. That's a "level" for me, it's sexual contact, but it's limited based on my attraction for the other person.

For me, that level would have been based on trust and whether I was comfortable with them. But, if I was willing to sleep with you I wouldn't do it if I wasn't willing to give oral sex. And, if we are using anal as an example - then I would say that is something reserved for a meaningful relationship for many reasons. Not level of attractiveness.

And yes, I do think that this is where a lot of the misunderstanding comes in. For me personally, it's impossible for me to imagine that "all people I'm willing to have sex with get the same access to whatever they want". There are people I'd do X with but not Y because I'm attracted enough for X, but no way attracted enough for Y. And then when we apply that to an A where someone did more with the AP, well, it all flies right off the rails.

Well, I am the opposite. I told the AP early on that I wasn't willing to do what I was saying above. Didn't know him well enough, didn't want to be put in a situation where I was that vulnerable with someone I didn't yet trust or feel comfortable with. Rather than have to answer in the moment, I showed the card right up front. But, it's not hard for me to see why a WW breaks their norm, because I know desperation esculates.

This is probably true in general, but, then apply it to an A. Which is basically a regression to college/high school; it's exactly what the men I know do, the same things that "worked" in college. Try with as many people as you, lower your standards, be a clown and make her laugh. And then, when in bed, push as far as you can for the best sex you can get. It's the same stuff I did in college.

There is no doubt that anyone having an affair reverts back to someone they were in their youth. I fully agree.

I'm probably not the norm because I'm a bit of a hopeless romantic underneath this layer of protective cynicism, but casual sex isn't what I'm looking for. For me, it's a mixture of someone I'm physically attracted to + ticking some of those boxes that suggest fulfillment of the long-lasting and supportive couple fantasy. For guys, there's more weight behind that first factor, which is why we put up with so much bullshit for particularly attractive women; but even if that's what we stereotypically dwell on, there are always always always other factors which play into our attraction. Also, I don't think men are immune from the "slow burn" attraction to women who might not immediately check our boxes.

But anything short of that, and there's nothing going on downstairs. I'm not a walking hard on like I was in my 20s. I don't know how the older gents do it who will chase after whatever comes their way. I've had "you'll do" sex and it's hollow and unfulfilling. I'd rather just take care of myself and get on with my day. Emotional sex is always the best sex. Even dangerous/thrilling sex is still second place at best. Now, emotional + thrilling...I assume that dangerous mixture is what drives many WSs' extramarital behaviors.

Also, it can't be overstated what RIO said about the disparity between the sexual opportunities of men and women.

Also, I don't think men are immune from the "slow burn" attraction to women who might not immediately check our boxes.

Me either. I know a lot of men more like that than anything else in my personal life.

But, I also know that there are always various elements at play. Being with my husband for decades, and him being well into his 50's now, we have had so many ages and stages together. I will say when I have been healthier, he is is noticeably more flirty/after me. Men are visual creatures, that is who they are. But, I don't think during the other times he loved me less. I loved me less, and that probably effected things more than I ever realized.

It's the separation of love and sex I suppose that invokes a lot of this discussion.

I do think what we want as we age is a lot different than what we wanted in our youth and what we focus on changes a lot. I can appreciate that perspective.

As for this:

Also, it can't be overstated what RIO said about the disparity between the sexual opportunities of men and women.

I accept that, I do. I think that some of the online stuff still makes it easier to find women who are just looking for sex than back in our day when you had to go to a bar looking for that arrangement. But, the number of males looking for that versus the number of women may make the supply and demand still not equal. Fair to say that I don't know as I have never been a man ;-)

I'm probably not the norm because I'm a bit of a hopeless romantic underneath this layer of protective cynicism, but casual sex isn't what I'm looking for.

I'm hoping you didn't read it as if I was trying to speak for you, I wasn't, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I know a few guys who I'd put firmly into that "hopeless romantic" category (sadly, also the guys who seem to have terrible luck with women in general), but I'm well aware, they do exist. It just was never "me". I don't really care for romance as it's typically defined, I care a lot about the truth (which I see as emotional intimacy), and a lot about compatibility, but "romance", long baths, love letters, that kind of stuff, just doesn't do much for me. Now, if we define romance as sexual "stuff" then I'm right there with you, but, traditionally defined, I don't get a lot of value from romance; I kind of feel most of it is forced/fake and the "words" do little for me compared to actions. As a side note, I'm well aware that a lot of romance IS NOT fake, I think the reason I think/feel that was is because in the past, when I was using romance in a relationship, it was often fake to get something I wanted rather than something I was really feeling. So I think I associate it with that, which, of course, isn't universally true at all, but it's colored my opinion of romance.

Sometimes we hear/read a version of "cheating doesn't happen in a good marriage", or "cheating only comes out of a bad marriage".

In reading threads here on SI, I do think that there are instances of cheating where the WS is honestly seeking refuge from a bad marriage.

However, in many cases the "bad marriage" is perceived by the WS, but not by the BS. Maybe that's the issue: a WS failing to communicate effectively to the BS. My thinking may have been off because, based on some of the threads, the marriage was objectively bad to any rational observer and the BS was either really thick or not invested in the marriage to fail to realize that before the A started.

This thread triggered me so badly, especially the first part where there was the suggestion that one person has no right to set the sexual agenda for the marriage. I am literally shaking from reading these posts.

What happens when the WS is so horrible before and during the affair (gaslighting, sneaky, unloving, hostile) it kills the desire of the BS.

This happened to me. Our sex life had always been great. Then I lost my brother, my dad and another brother within 2 years. I also went through menopause. It was hard. I wasn't feeling particularly sexual, but we still had sex. I never turned him down, but rarely initiated. I saw two different doctors for help. Oddly, they both asked if everything was OK in my marriage. I remember being pissed off at the question. I am completely transparent with xWH during this time, approximately 4 months; I thought we were working through it together. Toward the end of this time frame he became distant.

I raised the issue with him and explained it was hard for me after experiencing so much loss, but it was even harder when he disconnected. He agreed to work on re-establishing the caring, loving, connection. Except that he didn't. Next thing I knew he got a new phone, new password and I could no longer fingerprint into his phone (mine was still wide open to him). I planned nights out and weekends away to help us connect and he was barely present. I tried initiating sex and he was not interested. I sunk deeper and deeper into depression. Dday came a few months later.

Now he's telling everyone we hadn't had sex in a year, which isn't entirely true, but regardless he SET ME UP!! I told him exactly what I needed in order to feel good about intimacy and he intentionally withheld it. So now it's my fault for setting the sexual agenda? I feel like he wanted to justify his cheating and made me the bad guy on purpose. And let me tell you I was suffering during those months he was disconnected. Really suffering. I never once considered cheating.

”What about the spouse that wants too much sex like my STBX. He used the lack of sex to have his A's even though we were averaging 3x a week. I started to not enjoy sex with my STBX because I always felt hounded for it and it would take forever for him to climax. Who wants to spend 45 minutes having sex when it takes so damn long to the point where I lose interest or am in pain. Maybe I was part of the problem, but now I have no interest in sex since his A's.”

You're literally the poster marriage for my comments above about mismatched libidos. Your WH isn't wrong for wanting sex more than 3x a week and for long sessions (if that's how you define 45 min sessions- I would not) and more than you are wrong for not wanting it. The affairs are wrong. But having a very high sex drive is not. I would say your WH could probably use some work on his skills as a sex partner if his idea of sex is boring your or dissatisfying you, but shaming someone for their frequency of desire isn't cool either. You should not be in pain after only 45 minutes of sex, but it sounds like he was much more fixated on his needs rather than yours.

I just wanted to speak to this. Delayed ejaculation is a medical condition and it sounds like it could be at play here. There is nothing wrong with the poster, sex with a man with delayed evacuation can hurt!

Delayed ejaculation is not a matter of mismatched sex drives. It can be hell on a partner. I ended a relationship over it so maybe that’s why I find your comment triggering (and I’m a sex twice per day kind of person in most relationships). Seriously it’s awful. Sex stops being fun, it’s this marathon where the entire focus is making him finish. Usually they can only ejaculate in a few different positions so you’re just pounded in the same way for 45 minutes to an hour. You end up bleeding. It hurts for days afterwards. Then the next time it’s worse because your body tenses in anticipation. I thought there was something wrong with me and was very hesitant to have sex with a new partner.

I didn't have sex with my stbxww for a long time. Maybe 3 times in 2 years.

I did not want to have sex with her. I did not have those feelings for her any more. Those feelings were smashed to bits on the anvil of infidelity.

I wanted her to help me heal the relationship and my feelings toward her.

But she found it easier and more satisfying to have A's and ignore me and my family.

She even asked me if she could continue having EA's while we stayed married.(in very vague language in a note)

I said, "so you want an open marriage then?" She said no. So I guess I was supposed to let her play while I stayed at home and was the dutiful idiot. I said absolutely not, and we could divorce now if that didn't work for her. She said she wanted to stay and work on things and go to IC. She didn't.

What can I say? I tried. She didn't.

I'm happy to be getting a divorce.

[This message edited by Idiotmcstupid at 10:04 AM, August 11th, 2020 (Tuesday)]

IIRC, Shirley Glass wrote that As happen in good Ms when the WS lacks boundaries. That was true for my W.

In surveys, lots of WSes have said they were happy in their Ms. My W thought she could keep our good M and just add another good 'romantic' relationship.

Ms and similar relationships (without benefit of clerical or state support) don't cause As, except insofar as one can't cheat on a partner unless one has a partner.

After DD was born it was like a switch flipped and suddenly I was the very last thing on her priority list. I chose not to cheat and instead spent years foolishly trying to make things work, but I don't feel much in the way of sympathy for women who do this to their husbands and end up being cheated on. That's probably going to be controversial on this website, but it's my personal opinion that to ignore your spouse emotionally and physically is a serious betrayal in its own right. "To have and to hold" is just as much a part of your vows as "forsaking all others" and if you were treating your spouse like a roommate and they have an affair, you don't exactly occupy moral high ground if you were breaking your vows and being a shitty spouse too. Of course, I'm not sure what the point of trying to rebuild a marriage that far gone would be either.

Lots of comments about women having babies and then not as sexually interested in their husbands afterwards. So I wanted to take a minute to point something out. You all know women have hormones that kick into high gear regarding their children, the nurturing thing, right? Well, when hubby starts acting like a child than a partner, Momma subconsciously begins to view him as a child and develops nurturing hormones toward him which of course would counteract any sexual feelings she has toward him.

Just something to think about.

My wife's A's started after DD was born, like right after.

But I took care of the child all day and she had trouble bonding w the child so that confuses me.

Lots of comments about women having babies and then not as sexually interested in their husbands afterwards. So I wanted to take a minute to point something out. You all know women have hormones that kick into high gear regarding their children, the nurturing thing, right? Well, when hubby starts acting like a child than a partner, Momma subconsciously begins to view him as a child and develops nurturing hormones toward him which of course would counteract any sexual feelings she has toward him.

You gave me some food for thought. Right after our daughter was born my STBX started going out with co-workers and staying out late. My daughter was colicky and I was averaging about 3 hours of sleep a day. My STBX reminded me of a rebellious teenager and I was completely turned off. It just spiraled from there.