SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Unconventional,

Perhaps you should sit with why placing so much value on a friendship, to the point that losing it could mean divorce or even death, might itself be unhealthy.

I understand that you're not suicidal now. But you've described a future in which losing this friendship could make life no longer worth living.

And I think you make an interesting point. It's not just the experts telling you that your thinking may be self-focused. Your dear friend, someone who supports you and knows you, is also reflecting a similar concern back to you.

I find it somewhat ironic that I'm saying this, given that I've experienced a similar perception from people on this forum myself. The difference is that the people in my own life have actually been in firm opposition to the opinions voiced here.

Do you think there might be a flaw in your reasoning if the people who actually know you are seeing something very different from what you're seeing?

With exceptions, humans are generally social animals. People need people for their lives to hold meaning. A person myself, I need people for my life to have meaning.

For the better part of 3 decades, I had "only" family and the woman who became both my wife and the very center of my family. And that…. was enough for me. Sure, I wanted other friends. At least another friend. But family was enough.

Then I met "my AP." Her friendship opened my eyes to what I had been missing, with no friend in my life. I saw colors I had never seen before—not because my wife was in the slightest lacking, but because—as vital and critical as is a spousal relationship—the spousal relationship isn’t supposed to be a person’s whole world.

Now without my friend, my experience is of a life decolorized. I don’t think that’s because my wife is lacking, and I don’t think that’s a sign of unhealth for me. On the contrary, I think it is a sign that I was changed for the better—for the healthier—through contact with my friend—and that my existence now is a shadow of what it was when my wife and friend were both in my life. I am no worse off than I was before I met my friend, but my experience of this state of being is entirely different. What was normal to me is now muted. There is no turning back for me.

As for my seeing things only through my own eyes, that was a criticism leveled at me by my friend only in her last letter to me—when she saw that I was apologizing but apparently not empathizing enough with my wife.

I have taken that criticism to heart. Once, I insisted on remaining in contact with "my AP." I have not attempted contact with her in months. I am trying to pay my dues. I am listening to audiobooks and reading books on the struggle of BSs in coping with affairs. I am being faithful. I am trying to cultivate greater empathy for my wife’s perspective and to accord her pain weight even though I don’t find her perspective to be reasonable. But I cannot be without "my AP" forever unless and until I try once more to contact her… to plead my case (if she will let me) that I have done the homework she gave me—that I have healed my marriage and regrown my integrity and am a new man, eager to rebuild a safer version of what my friend and I once had—and am still rebuffed.

Absolutely, there could be a flaw in my reasoning! I am far from infallible. That’s precisely why I have engaged here—to have my reasoning challenged.

If you see my reasoning as flawed, please tell me how?

My thinking has evolved at least a handful of times in just the days since my first post here. What hasn’t changed is my commitment to a return to my friend in properly-ordered friendship while any infinitesimally small chance to reestablish that remains.

I will close with this thought, for now:

I have gathered that the position others see when they see through my wife’s eyes is that my friend cannot—under any circumstances—ever return to my life. But that view isn’t rational or justifiable, and without excellent cause, I cannot honor that view, given its cost to me. I guess my love of my wife is just simply not enough.

Is that everyone’s point? My love for my spouse should be so great that I shouldn’t care whether her needs are reasonable or just, how much meeting her needs fully would cost me, or how much I could protect for myself while according her everything that she justifiably ought to require? That any want she expresses and labels as "a need," I should simply move heaven and earth—erasing my own needs—to achieve?

A problem with answering those questions in the affirmative is that a need I have is for my friend to be in my life. So, if what’s good for the gander is good for the goose, then my wife has just as much of an obligation to grant me my friend as I have to relinquish her.

NOTICE:

Premise 1) Marriage creates special obligations toward one’s spouse.

Premise 2) Those obligations sometimes require substantial personal sacrifice.

Premise 3) Preserving the marital relationship is more important than preserving the friendship.

Conclusion) Therefore, the friendship must be relinquished.

BUT ALSO:

Premise 1) Marriage creates special obligations toward one’s spouse.

Premise 2) Those obligations sometimes require substantial personal sacrifice.

Premise 3) Preserving the marital relationship is more important than purging "the AP" from Unconventional’s life.

Conclusion) Therefore, the friendship must be permitted.

Anyone who wants me to accept the first argument should be able to tell me why it carries priority over the second. If you can’t, then you need to climb off the "dump the friend bus" until you can give me a different argument that obliges me to accept my wife’s feelings as not only real and worth compassion, but also determinative.

[This message edited by Unconventional at 8:15 PM, Monday, September 28th]

Unconventional,

I don't normally write this type of response, but you specifically invited people to challenge your reasoning, so I'm going to take you up on that invitation.

What follows are some things I've observed that seem, at least to me, to be in tension with some of your stated beliefs and behavior. I'm not presenting them as definitive conclusions about you. I'm genuinely interested in how you reconcile them.

You say you're trying to give your wife's pain weight and cultivate empathy for her perspective, but you also say you don't find her position reasonable. How exactly do you give weight to an objection you've already decided is unreasonable?

And I think this brings me back to what I see as the larger question underneath everything you've written: what does putting your wife first actually require of you when what she needs is directly opposed to what you want?

Going no contact is certainly a sacrifice. But is it the same sacrifice when you believe that, once you've done the work, you will eventually deserve the opportunity to resume contact? In that case, you're giving something up while still expecting that you may eventually get something in return.

Perhaps the more meaningful sacrifice is giving up something you desperately want while accepting that you may never get it back. Isn't that where you find out whether your wife really is the priority?

Your latest post seems to frame the issue as though people need to establish that your wife's position is objectively correct before you have an obligation to accept it. But I'm not sure marriage necessarily works that way. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for our spouse even when we don't believe their preference is objectively necessary or reasonable.

Perhaps I have the same supposed character flaw as your wife in that if my husband cultivated a friendship—male or female, platonic or not—that became such a priority in his life that he would consider divorcing me or ending his life over losing it, I would also object to that individual remaining in his life.

I think that's worth separating from whether losing the friendship would be painful. Of course it would be. But losing a relationship is one kind of loss; making your continued willingness to live contingent on retaining that relationship is something else entirely.

And what about the cost to your wife? She has already experienced having her marriage dishonored by this relationship. If, after everything that happened, she is again told that her needs and sense of safety ultimately cannot outweigh your desire to have this particular person back in your life, how does that feel different from being told that your wants and this relationship take precedence over hers?

I also find it interesting that you describe wanting to show your friend that you've done the work, healed your marriage, and regained your integrity. Your wife is the person you harmed. Shouldn't rebuilding your integrity place greater emphasis on repairing what you damaged with her, rather than demonstrating your growth to the person you hope to have back in your life?

I'm curious how this fits with your Catholic understanding of marriage. I'm not well versed in Catholicism so take this with the understanding of my ignorance to the nuances. You've emphasized that what happened wasn't technically adultery under your understanding of Catholic teaching, yet you're contemplating divorce if you cannot resume the friendship. How do those positions fit together with your understanding of marriage as a one-flesh union?

And then there's your friend's choice. She seems to recognize the precarious position the two of you have been placed in and was ultimately willing to step away and respect your marriage. If she decided that maintaining that distance is what is best, wouldn't it be healthier to cultivate yourself and your capacity for friendship without making your future happiness contingent on either her return or your wife's eventual agreement?

You also previously said that if she hadn't rejected your romantic feelings, you probably wouldn't have ended the relationship yourself. I wonder whether your current claims about your fidelity would look the same if she hadn't made that choice for you.

I assume your wife isn't forbidding you from making other friends. It may be difficult to build meaningful friendships, particularly after having experienced one that felt uniquely important to you, but it isn't impossible. Sometimes we create our own self-fulfilling prophecies.

Ultimately, I have no skin in the game. What you choose to do with your marriage and your friendship is yours to decide.

I do find it interesting, though, that you keep returning here to explain and examine your position while simultaneously maintaining that you don't really belong among "us."

I find myself doing the same. I don't necessarily agree with everything taught in these forums, but I do see wisdom in considering perspectives outside my own. Perhaps this thread has become an invitation for you to do the same.

[This message edited by NotMyIdentity at 8:56 PM, Monday, September 28th]

If you see my reasoning as flawed, please tell me how?

You say you're trying to give your wife's pain weight and cultivate empathy for her perspective, but you also say you don't find her position reasonable. How exactly do you give weight to an objection you've already decided is unreasonable?

I believe it was on the last page before this one that I presented two homebuying examples. Under some deadlines, rather than reproduce the argument, I will have to point you to that.

And I think this brings me back to what I see as the larger question underneath everything you've written: what does putting your wife first actually require of you when what she needs is directly opposed to what you want?

I believe marriage obliges each spouse to be willing to make some sacrifices. I believe the answer to your question is it applies in this specific case is highly unclear. I would advocate for a reframing of the question: your question frames my wife’s need for my friend’s exit as a need, but frames my need for my friend’s return as a want. That introduces a subtle bias that is unfair.

Going no contact is certainly a sacrifice. But is it the same sacrifice when you believe that, once you've done the work, you will eventually deserve the opportunity to resume contact? In that case, you're giving something up while still expecting that you may eventually get something in return.

I don’t think I understand what you were asking there.

Perhaps the more meaningful sacrifice is giving up something you desperately want while accepting that you may never get it back. Isn't that where you find out whether your wife really is the priority?

In an important sense, I have already done that. my friend is out of my life. I cannot text her… Call her… Play my video game with her… See her… I have made the sacrifice even though I know my friend was about to quit her job, after which she would need to look for a new job, and that might mean, changing her phone number, her mailing address, and even her email address. It is possible that, in one and 1/2 years, if I go to look for her, I will never again be able to find her.

My question would be: why should I be the only one to sacrifice? I know… I know… I was the one who had the disordered friendship, but what I’m saying is: (a) I’m also offering to commit to not restoring the friendship under its original, unsupervised terms; (2) I know I’m gonna take a lot of flack for this, but I continue to believe that my wife’s unwillingness to work on our marriage years before I ever met my friend means that my wife has a measure of guilt to carry also.

Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for our spouse even when we don't believe their preference is objectively necessary or reasonable.

I agree, but not all sacrifices are equally core. The other night, we went out to dinner. I gave my wife some of my steak because I could see she was eyeing it. I’m not suggesting that that’s remotely in the same league. My whole point is, in fact, the opposite: that was an easy sacrifice. Giving up permanently the only good friend I have had (besides my wife) in 30 years? That’d be a monumental sacrifice. Since everyone seems to think sacrifices of even that magnitude are obligatory, how about I propose a sacrifice my wife could make for me: she could let me have the friendship under the governance of safeguards and transparency.

…if my husband cultivated a friendship—male or female, platonic or not—that became such a priority in his life that he would consider divorcing me or ending his life over losing it, I would also object to that individual remaining in his life.

Then you would have a dead husband.

And what about the cost to your wife? She has already experienced having her marriage dishonored by this relationship. If, after everything that happened, she is again told that her needs and sense of safety ultimately cannot outweigh your desire to have this particular person back in your life, how does that feel different from being told that your wants and this relationship take precedence over hers?

It’s not "my wife’s marriage" that was harmed; it was our marriage and we who were harmed. Still, point taken: It was predominantly my fault.

We can go back and forth over your 2nd point 1000 times. For me, the bottom line is that I have offered a compromise. Not a demand of: I insist on full & unrestricted & private access to my friend. More than "willing," I am enthusiastic to meet my wife’s rational security needs over the friendship, given its history. Marriage is about compromise. We have competing claims: I want my friend and my wife wants security. Why must I accept my wife insisting on treating this impasse as a zero-sum-game? Why not: I get my friend under safeguards and my wife gets security?

I also find it interesting that you describe wanting to show your friend that you've done the work, healed your marriage, and regained your integrity. Your wife is the person you harmed. Shouldn't rebuilding your integrity place greater emphasis on repairing what you damaged with her, rather than demonstrating your growth to the person you hope to have back in your life?

Absolutely!

yet you're contemplating divorce if you cannot resume the friendship. How do those positions fit together with your understanding of marriage as a one-flesh union?

You’re correct on that criticism, but what I’m really contemplating isn’t divorce, but effecting my own death. Now… there’s a thorn there, too—Catholics aren’t supposed to undertake suicide. But there is… a "grey zone" on that one.

And then there's your friend's choice…. If she decided that maintaining that distance is what is best, wouldn't it be healthier to cultivate yourself and your capacity for friendship without making your future happiness contingent on either her return or your wife's eventual agreement?

Yes. It would help me out here greatly if human beings were fungible goods. It would be just grand if all I needed that I got from the friendship was a commodity. Let’s just pretend that what I really had was a sexual affair—because it makes the example so much simpler. That all I really "needed and got" out of the relationship was… idk… anal sex. Well… maybe my wife wouldn’t be all that keen on the idea, but maybe she’d "have a go" from time-to-time to keep me faithful. Throw me a boner, as it were. Well, gosh! That’d make this whole conundrum into a blessedly "easy fix," wouldn’t it? Only… what I, in fact, obtained from the relationship that was so vitally precious to me wasn’t ass. That’s not how I value people. To be honest, I would hate to be the sort of person who values relationships transactionally. I honestly feel offended when people treat my friend like a shopping list. I almost want to respond—rhetorically: Well, how about I kidnap your child? It’ll be ok; just tell me what you got out of your relationship with your child and I’ll just get you another child to replace the one I stole! My friend was, and is, an whole person!!!! What I want most isn’t really reducible to praise… or emotional support or being seen or any other set of qualities or goods. What I want is "my AP."

There’s another layer to my vehement objection to this sort of thought. The issue here is far more subtle and so arguably less egregious. I love my wife for the person that she used to be. Speaking of "asses," what an ass I would be if I tried to impose on my wife a responsibility of being like someone else. Imagine: Well, gosh, Honey! If you could maybe just dress more like my friend did... Or maybe: Would you be willing to laugh like "my AP," sometimes? You know, she had this kinda… sexy little laugh that... just made my pulse quicken!

No. Just... no. I would never do that to my wife. I never wanted to turn "my AP" into my wife, and my wife was perfect, just as she used to be. When I give my wife any asks to change, they won’t be to change into "my AP." My asks will be to become again in character who my wife used to be.

I must go. More later if I can find the time.

[This message edited by Unconventional at 12:20 AM, Tuesday, September 29th]

To be fair, I feel no need to debate you on your objections to my questions.

I think at this point, one of the kindest things you could do is be honest with your wife that restoring this friendship is a condition of your continued commitment to reconciliation.

That would give her the freedom to decide whether she wants to invest another eighteen months in the marriage or not.

Honestly, given how clearly you've articulated your position here, perhaps having her read what you've written would be more appropriate than a twenty-page letter. At least then she'd have the opportunity to make that decision with the full picture.

Believe it or not, I’ve previously considered that idea also. Because I have to heat up dinner anyhow, I can respond to your latest suggestion, very succinctly. The reason that I do not want to tell my wife about my plan yet is that there actually is a legitimate need—empirically supported (though I won’t say "proven")—for my wife to have "my AP" out of our lives in order for us to heal together as a married couple. The current arrangement gives us an ability to heal together that we would not have if my wife knew about my "countdown clock." I have received advice that, when my wife said things like: "You can have her back when I am dead, but no sooner" that she may have been speaking from a place of acute pain and rage, rather than from the soothing calm of a secure marriage. I’m hoping the landscape will look different to my wife in 18 months.

I have to react to this (2nd post down): https://www.survivinginfidelity.com/profile/blog/?UserID=86894 .

I don't want to react; I have to...

GotTheMorbs wrote (my bolding):

I think what is important to consider is the WS's relationship to the boundary of NC over time. Initially they may feel like their spouse is policing them, and they're only maintaining NC because their BS won't "let" them. Then it may become that maintaining NC can be difficult at times, but they know it's important because they don't want to hurt their BS any further. Then maybe it becomes, "I don't even want contact with AP because s/he isn't someone I want in my life, even if I'm perfectly capable of behaving appropriately around them," in which case NC doesn't even feel like a restriction anymore.

Just so it's "out there": if I ever talk like that bolded line of text...

...I beg of you--PLEASE SHOOT ME. For real.

I may literally vomit .

Sincerely,

Unconventional

[This message edited by Unconventional at 12:10 AM, Tuesday, September 29th]

Would you like me to respond or not? I've been trying very very hard to be respectful of the boundary you've stated here, but I feel like if you're going to cite me directly and don't want a response, that's for sure rage bait territory. So I figure I'd ask directly.

[This message edited by GotTheMorbs at 12:23 AM, Tuesday, September 29th]