SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

RIO, TBH, those kind of stories are why I have a strong anti-R bias despite trying to R for years. I think in many if not most relationships the damage and pain are too great and the relationship post-affair is too damaged.

I punched my ex-husband in the face outside a skanky strip club in Atlanta. Was that ok? Of course not. Have I ever in my life done anything like that to someone else? No. The pain made me a different, horrible person. Ive removed the source of that pain from my life (ex is of course still in my life but he's hurting someone new now) and I'm no longer in pain.

[This message edited by JanaGreen at 12:53 PM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

What if the 2nd is more the truth? Does that not matter? I'm pretty sure that my W was absolutely over the moon about "spreading her legs" for another man.. Or at least I was, until "kibbles" became a thing in my mind. I know I'd be pretty over the moon excited about sleeping with someone new because, well, I've slept with someone new before and without exception, I was pretty darn excited about it. So, sure, maybe it happens to NOT be true in my particular case (where she was "just doing it for the kibbles") but I do think it's true in a lot of cases. Painful? Darn right it is. But it's also reality, and reality isn't necessarily out to make you "feel good" it just "is"

Well let me turn this around - what if we don't know what happened yet? What her motivations were? When I see it happening it's by others who are filling in their own blanks with a lot of assumptions. I have seen some people say this only to see the guy they are talking to had a wife that he feels very certain it was an EA only.

Unless you know it's the truth, then why make it worse on the poster?

Honestly, in all my years attending and coaching my kids in sports, I never saw one father act like a dick

One memory that's stuck with me for 40 years is a man shouting at hi son, 'If you kick it at the goalee, you don't eat for a week.'

I've heard similar stuff at Little League games, though nowhere near as bad.

The kid kicked it wide, BTW.

Nature vs Nurture

GrayShades said it better than I can.

This is about logic, epistemology, and not drawing invalid conclusions that lead to counter-productive behavior.

In recovering from being betrayed, you'll be better off if you keep yourself aware of what you and we know and don't know and all shades in between. If you post something, your readers will be better off if you keep yourself and them aware of what you and we know and don't know and all shades in between.

That said, phenomena like BH's pedestalizing their WW's are something we see all the time here.

Fortunately only men fall into that error.

Look, we have gender neutral terms available on SI. I can't understand why they're not used when appropriate. Making the above statement about men makes me think there's some special pleading going on, and special pleading helps no one heal.

If we're talking about sex here, well, pretty much all of recorded history has told the same story. Men fighting other men for sex with more/new women.

First, only a minuscule fraction of a minuscule fraction of history has been recorded. Second, my sense is that a lot of drama in life and in literature revolves around women competing for a man. Third, if you've ever been at an event that is documented, you know that the record is usually different from the evnet.

as you fully admit you have had that kind of commentary on your own thread, it just didn't bother you.

I never saw any misogynistic commentary on my own thread, or I admit I could be misremembering There were a few instances of the "you're being a coward" variety, but these were most certainly outliers and got dealt with pretty handily on my behalf by other men and women alike.

Here’s a tip: Use google’s extended search to look for the terms you ask about on this site. I’m surprisingly amused by who use the term “cumdumpster” – it’s mainly BW describing the OW…

Interesting, but didn't this thread and the comments citing allegedly widespread misogynistic comments on SI, start with the premise that it was primarily perpetrated by brutish men making these comments?

Yet the example you've provided is that of BW's using a crude term regularly. Out of curiosity, I did a Google search as you recommended, and you're right -- it seems to be primarily a term of art deployed by BW's against OW's.

EDIT to add: And now I'm seeing examples of BW's who also like to deploy the "they spread their legs" comments too.

Perhaps this is much more widespread among BW's against OW's than it is among fellow betrayed men talking to other BH's? Food for thought. If so, is that because BW's view OW's as "traitors to the sisterhood" in the feminist sense?

[This message edited by Thumos at 1:19 PM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

I did a Google search as you recommended, and you're right -- it seems to be primarily a term of art deployed by BW's against OW's.

Is it very wrong that this amuses me mightily?

Plus never thought of it as a 'term of art' - that's beautiful Thumos!

Do you really think the women who are quoting these things are making it up? And there are men (even you) on this thread that say it's been their experience. I just am not sure why you feel so resistant to it?

Well I'm certainly not calling them liars, but there seems to be something invested in the notion that this is widespread. Like I said, maybe I've just been blind to it, but these extreme misogynistic examples provided in this thread seem more like outliers to me than a common theme on SI.

Plus never thought of it as a 'term of art' - that's beautiful Thumos!

I aim to please, Ellie.

start with the premise that it was primarily perpetrated by brutish men making these comments?

I don't read this to say it is brutish men. I think it's just men trying to get the other men angry and with good intentions. I think you think this is derogatory towards some bh's here...it isn't. I think they have good intentions for filling in their own blanks.

These happen in cycles it seems like, and it does come and go, but it's never gone for long.

Sorry to jump in on this topic so late.

I definitely feel there is a "burn the witch" contingent especially if the WW doesn't submit to the appropriate demands for R. Demands that could be seen as somewhat extreme, for example the polygraph, are given this big weight by some folks on here. "You can't know the truth if you don't have a poly!" I'm not discounting the usefulness of it, I just also don't think it's the be all end all.

That said, I think that the societal expectation that a man sacrifice himself in general (in war, as a provider, for his kids, for his family, etc.) make it much easier for a cheating man to fall completely on his sword. Men are constantly told they are worthless sex driven pigs (those cheating men probably do feel that way). Women are continuously told they deserve to be treated like royalty and have their needs met, so are more likely to blame shift when caught.

It's extremely common in movies and literature for a woman to be romanced out of her committed but lackluster relationship. It's extremely common in movies and literature for a woman to leave her worthless cheating husband. It's very rare to see a "romance" of a man out of a committed relationship, it's usually depicted as a failure of his willpower to resist temptation. It's very rare in movies and literature to see a man leave a worthless cheating wife. So this stages the cheating. For a man it is a failure of willpower. For a woman, it is seen as an excusable offense to get her needs met.

In terms of society as a whole, the cheating witch is most certainly burned more often than the cheating bastard. According to "Not Just Friends", of the people getting counseling in the author's practice: 35% of married couples get divorced if the woman cheats. 27% get divorced if the man cheats (10% for both spouses faithful, and divorce most likely caused by cheating). In "fractions of fractions" that means a woman cheating is 1.3x more likely to lead to divorce than a man cheating. There are a combination of factors here. Men cheating is generally "more condoned", but also more likely to be "just physical". Conversely, it is condoned less for women, and is more likely to be a combined emotional and physical affair.

So I think in the environment here on SI is a reflection of society as a whole. Repairing with a cheating wife is just more likely to be difficult in relation to social pressures (I think internal values and pressures are more FOO related), so we see more people giving advice to throw in the towel.

What if the 2nd is more the truth? Does that not matter? I'm pretty sure that my W was absolutely over the moon about "spreading her legs" for another man.. Or at least I was, until "kibbles" became a thing in my mind. I know I'd be pretty over the moon excited about sleeping with someone new because, well, I've slept with someone new before and without exception, I was pretty darn excited about it. So, sure, maybe it happens to NOT be true in my particular case (where she was "just doing it for the kibbles") but I do think it's true in a lot of cases. Painful? Darn right it is. But it's also reality, and reality isn't necessarily out to make you "feel good" it just "is".

OMG Rideitout! How difficult is this???

How could you possibly know what is true in a complete stranger's life? Just from them posting on this forum? You yourself have admitted that you don't know the truth about your own wife.

So again:

"Your W couldn't wait to spread her legs for that OM."

versus

"It's very likely that she had sex with the OM."

or even

"It's likely that she enjoyed the sex."

Can you see the difference there? Those of us who have spoken up on this thread about this specific issue are trying to say that it's the coarse, vulgar descriptions alleging the absolute truth about someone's life that are a problem for us. When a fresh, JFO BH is reeling from everything he has discovered so far and is trying to find his way through, I cannot imagine that it is at all helpful to be told things like "This isn't her first rodeo, guarantee." "She gave him head every time she saw him, you can bet on it."

I'm not referencing the threads but these are direct quotes from 2 recent BH threads.

All I'm saying is that I have seen, as I posted before, several new BH who were bombarded with posts from BHs insisting that they knew the truth, telling them graphically all the acts that the WW had definitely done. These BHs asked repeatedly for people not to keep posting the same things and more people just piled on until the original poster just left. That is so sad to me.

I just am not sure why you feel so resistant to it? Is it the origins of this thread and feeling like it was in response to something you said? I have not been over to look at the thread you said spurred this on, so maybe I just am missing where or why you feel defensive on it? I see you as a huge supporter of other BH, so I have to say I am a bit surprised. I have actually felt bad for you at times when it's happened on your thread, though you have always been able to handle yourself appropriately and you tell them to buzz off. I don't think really new, raw BH's are always in that position, they haven't had any time to process yet.

Yes, in answer to your first question, although apparently it's against the rules to talk about that here and I've already been admonished. Shhhh.

On the later comment you made, thank you. Yes, I feel I'm a big supporter of BH's and much of my commentary on JFO runs through a combination of slight admonishment of the "time to wake up" variety, the usual checklist of prerequisite actions that need to be taken regardless of R or D, sprinkled with some "don't be me" examples from my own experience, and usually wrapping up with a lot of positive affirmations to help the BH see they are a quality man and there's hope for them beyond this damaged person they are currently married to.

Yes, I've been able to shake almost all of the "you're being a coward" nonsense, although I really feel those were pretty small lin number on my thread.

[This message edited by Thumos at 1:24 PM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

I did a google advanced search on some of the terms in the post directly above mine (HFSSC) and it came back with lots of examples to choose from. But admittedly I have seen worse, and I think I would have a hard time finding some of the really bad things because I cant specifically quote them.

[This message edited by hikingout at 1:27 PM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

When a fresh, JFO BH is reeling from everything he has discovered so far and is trying to find his way through, I cannot imagine that it is at all helpful to be told things like "This isn't her first rodeo, guarantee."

There was a recent divorce in our community. The BH thought the affair had been going on for 6 months and that his WW had had sex with the other man "a few times".

The divorce, and the reason for the divorce, became known. And somehow someone who knew better, when told that it was a 6 month affair, informed the teller that no, in fact the affair had been going on for 4 YEARS and the WW had been meeting the other man for sex at least every few weeks.

This news of course got back to the BH and it was verified that the news was in fact true.

Was it "at all helpful to be told" this after the divorce? My understanding is that the BH definitely thinks so, even though it doesn't change anything.

Should he have been told something like "Buddy, I heard it was going on a lot longer with a lot more encounters", or, "Buddy, I heard she was ("having sex" but using guy term) him a few times a month for 4 years" ?

It sounds like the former, since it would be kinder, and not "Burn the Witch", but the latter is maybe more likely to happen, and could possibly be more helpful to BH? No way to know for any particular BH.

[This message edited by cheatstroke at 9:45 PM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

How could you possibly know what is true in a complete stranger's life? Just from them posting on this forum? You yourself have admitted that you don't know the truth about your own wife.

So again:

"Your W couldn't wait to spread her legs for that OM."

versus

"It's very likely that she had sex with the OM."

or even

"It's likely that she enjoyed the sex."

Can you see the difference there? Those of us who have spoken up on this thread about this specific issue are trying to say that it's the coarse, vulgar descriptions alleging the absolute truth about someone's life that are a problem for us. When a fresh, JFO BH is reeling from everything he has discovered so far and is trying to find his way through, I cannot imagine that it is at all helpful to be told things like "This isn't her first rodeo, guarantee." "She gave him head every time she saw him, you can bet on it."

I'm not referencing the threads but these are direct quotes from 2 recent BH threads.

All I'm saying is that I have seen, as I posted before, several new BH who were bombarded with posts from BHs insisting that they knew the truth, telling them graphically all the acts that the WW had definitely done. These BHs asked repeatedly for people not to keep posting the same things and more people just piled on until the original poster just left. That is so sad to me.

It's sad to me too... and completely unnecessary. I have to assume that this is NOT the sort of commentary these people use in mixed company in real life, so it's not like they're incapable of stating their opinions without offending vulgarity. But for some reason, they CHOOSE it.

Was it "at all helpful to be told" this after the divorce? My understanding is that the BH definitely thinks so, even though it doesn't change anything.

Seems about par for the course.

I would definitely want to be told. It might add to my pain, but it would also fill in a "black hole" of information in my life, and would certainly help solidify all the reasons for the divorce.

One of the things I appreciate about SI is the ability to laugh at ourselves. CT stated she felt there was an imbalance in how WW’s were treated by posters as opposed to WH’s. She asked SI whether WW’s for there opinion on whether WW’s were treated with more contempt by posters. A simple straight forward request for opinions. She later clarified that she was hoping to get a discussion of the treatment of new BH’s with posts that describe the new BH’s WW in the most crass and vulgar terms leading the new BH to head for the hills and not receive further report. CT never stated that brutish BH’s we’re responsible for the vulgar posts. That was a huge assumption. And in fact a search of the history here will show lots of BW’s posting vulgar and crass descriptions of WW’s to a new BH over the years.

I believe the point CT was trying to make was for posters to just stop and think before posting. To ask: “Is this the best way to make my point.“ I admitted earlier that I have been guilty of posting vile and crass descriptions to a new BH. It was selfish and I wanted to communicate the outrage I felt for his situation. But my effort was counterproductive. And when he abruptly left, I felt like I had contributed to the failure to provide support. Of course, moderating your speech in a post is a form of voluntary censorship and everyone is encouraged to speak their minds. But introspection and thought before posting is not a weakness if you are trying to reach a new BH.

But what has followed ironically is 18 pages of digression, minimizing (“I have never seen posts like that”. “Are you sure this is a problem?”), rationalizing and excusing, and the classic from a poster telling CT: “to get over it”. C’mon people on an infidelity forum that is hilarious. I’m not sure what she was supposed to get over. She stated her observation and asked for opinions.

The people who post here in my experience are exceedingly bright, experienced people. Much more to offer than me. I learn something here every time I visit. Do I get defensive a times. Absolutely. But in the interest of being of assistance to future new BH’s and BW’s, I hope that asking people to consider their words and how it may help or turn off a new BS before posting is not a bridge too far.

[This message edited by fareast at 3:07 PM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

But what has followed ironically is 18 pages of digression, minimizing (“I have never seen posts like that”. “Are you sure this is a problem?”), rationalizing and excusing, and the classic from a poster telling CT: “to get over it”. C’mon people on an infidelity forum that is hilarious

No I really wanted to know. I think it's relevant to the discussion.

Was it "at all helpful to be told" this after the divorce? My understanding is that the BH definitely thinks so, even though it doesn't change anything.

Should he have been told something like "Buddy, I heard it was going on a lot longer with a lot more encounters", or, "Buddy, I heard she was ("having sex" but using guy term) him a few times a month for 4 years" ?

This isn't the same thing. When someone on this board says "this isn't her first rodeo, guaranteed", he doesn't have confirmation of that. It's supposition, and just like a great deal of the supposition on so many BH threads, it's designed to further besmirch the WW and inflame the new BH. Usually, the facts are already bad enough... but then we have to go on for pages and pages of supposition on her motives and her actions.

I believe the point CT was trying to make was for posters to just stop and think before posting.

What about this hypothetical scenario:

A poster or three writes: “where’s your anger? Get very angry with you WW”

The next day, the BH hits his WW. She ends up in the hospital.

Question: are those posters legally liable (in the U.S.)?

Was there not a case of a women going to trial because she encouraged someone to suicide over social media?

In an semi-unrelated note, a poster in “that” thread suggested that the WW should prostitute herself so that the BH gets more money in the D settlement... Really?