SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

This is why the "R is possible if you want it to be" advice given on here, said to a BH, seriously gets my cackles up.

Literally no one says that. We all know that it takes both WS and BS to be in on R, and that's what everyone here advises. (Also, it's hackles, not cackles.)

You sure as hell wouldn't be encouraging him to get back with his ex-gf.

There's a big difference between a girlfriend and a wife, with whom you have a literal marital contract, assets, significant time investment, significant emotional investment (if you're not an emotional nitwit), family, and the biggie - children who will be affected by the dissolution.

Literally no one says that. We all know that it takes both WS and BS to be in on R, and that's what everyone here advises. (Also, it's hackles, not cackles.)

I don't agree with this at all. I could go back and cite a bunch of threads for evidence, but I think that's go against the SI guidelines.

There's a big difference between a girlfriend and a wife, with whom you have a literal marital contract, assets, significant time investment, significant emotional investment (if you're not an emotional nitwit), family, and the biggie - children who will be affected by the dissolution.

In most every instance though, the end result is the same however. The marriage is dissolved in the end, or the BS ends up staying and being miserable. ETA added after the next post #23: In MOST but not all instances. But D after a miserable few years of false attempts at R is extremely common.

[This message edited by WontBeFooledAgai at 9:54 PM, Thursday, February 20th]

I don't agree with this at all. I could go back and cite a bunch of threads for evidence, but I think that's go against the SI guidelines.

Send me a PM, if you like, with all these threads where people are telling the BH that R is possible if only HE wants it. I'll wait.

In most every instance though, the end result is the same however. The marriage is dissolved in the end, or the BS ends up staying and being miserable.

I disagree. Also, that's a generalization and that is against the rules.

And I'm probably breaking the rules too with this response.

[This message edited by SacredSoul33 at 9:35 PM, Thursday, February 20th]

I think you are referring to new relationship energy(NRE) or honeymoon phase. During that time you still have a lot you don't know about each other so there's an innocent exuberance that allows you to project the notion of "The Man" or "The Woman" onto each other as the two of you engage in the mutual desire of exploring each other physically and emotionally. Eventually that fades and you settle into life as partners with other responsibilities such as kids.

Afterward the idea is to somehow "store" some of that energy within one or more archetypes reserved solely for the purpose of providing romantic validation to your partner. These are the roles that are adorned during date nights, romantic roleplaying, romantic getaway while the kids are at summer camp, etc.

That in a friendship we primarily interact with each other from a place of our individuality. But within romance, there is a desire to be something more timeless. That I want to be a Man (capital M) meeting with a Woman. Maybe even The Man, meeting with The Woman. To enter that dance and tap into something primal. To enter that for times of enchanted moments, and then transition back to our individualities and interact as good friends.

I interpret your use of "friendship" here as all the platonic roles a couple adopt to compliment each other such as runner/musician, pre-med/pre-law, tech-savvy/people person for new relationships and mom/dad, provider/caretaker, yard maintainer/food prepper, etc. for deeply committed ones.

There is a country song "Gettin' You Home", by Chris Young. Describes a date night between two lovers, cut short because both of them realize that they both are lusting after each other and would prefer to be home alone.

I think what this represents is that for the romantic role switch to work, it isn't enough just to slip into the romantic roles, it's necessary to slip out of the "friendship" platonic ones; no more small talk about the wine and steak! The same is true for the committed partners, which is why they ban "kid"-talk during date night. This switching can be taken pretty far, an example being having an affair with your spouse. You and your spouse dress up separately, leave at different times, drive separate cars to the hotel bar and flirt with each other using your middle names before going up to a room.

This is actually how I interpret the pina colada song; it's a couple that is using an elaborate setup to roleplay an affair with each other for fun and romance.

Another way of saying what I'm trying to talk about can be thought of as almost the complete opposite of "soul mates".

I would personally say that it's not the complete opposite but rather the other end of the "soul mates" spectrum. Platonic stuff on one end, romantic on the other. I don't think you completely lose individuality during romantic roles. For example, lets say you move on to have two long term relationships with two different ladies. Both these ladies will at times slip into the role of "The Woman" for you, but the way they individually embody "The Woman" is going to be slightly different.

I think infidelity can be a malignant form of this, people pretending and destroying loyalty and decency in the process. But this theatre can be done within relationship, it doesn’t have to be destructive or taboo.

I agree with this. Dead bedrooms or dead emotional connection are very common precursors to affairs. I think what makes affairs particularly pernicious from this perspective is that they provide a way to step even more firmly outside of those platonic roles due to the unfamiliarity of the AP; this is on top of the NRE. This leads to the very unfortunate reality that WS's will then often do more for their AP's than their spouses. It is a perennial topic of extreme anguish for BS's and I even remember there being lots of fights on SI over this topic a few years ago specifically concerning BH's and wild sex.

ETA: And yes I do think in practical terms it is necessary to a healthy romantic relationship despite the fact that it is a kind of external validation.

[This message edited by mardandra at 1:17 AM, Friday, February 21st]

I'm catching what you're throwing, Ink. And I'm with you. I believe it's normal and healthy to play act at times in a marriage/legitimate LTR. The idea that a woman makes me feel like more than I actually am by the way she interacts with me, and I actually believe in her faith in me and admiration of me and I truly step into that role... that's kind of the ideal I think. And it goes both ways, when she sees what I see in her and fully embraces that inner better self because she gets that I see it and then it starts to become real. In moments at least. I think the way I'm understanding you, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when me and WW go to reunions of guys I fought with she looks at me differently. I am a different man. It's really me that all these stories are being told about, but that's not me day to day or hardly ever. But for a moment in time she sees someone different in me, and she looks at me a little different, and I feel different and act differently. My confidence soars, and I am her Man. I'm not the guy worried over bills or who makes poor decisions day to day at times. And it's really fun to live in that place for a while, even if we know it won't be permanent because it never can be. You've got to come back off that mountain top and live in real life again. But in those moments I'm projecting my idealized self, and she's seeing that idealized self, and I think that's extremely healthy. And you projecting whatever version of yourself that is, even if it's a show to some degree, I think is very healthy.

A Marine sighting!!! I am legitimately so excited! Miss you, brother.

I like where you took that. It reminds me that in a healthy relationship we need to step into something true and real. Your wife wouldn’t look at you in those moments if it was just stolen valor. But she knows that it is legitimately you, a man who stood beside his brothers and defended their lives and your country. So in an affair the wayward might step into a fake self, and their partner doesn’t know the better of it. Stolen valor, nothing more. But I bet OG cleans up real nice and is a hell of a lady to have on an arm, nothing fake about it.

First, even WANTING R with a woman who has proven herself severely disloyal to us, is as far as I see it, a very weak, codependent (but all-too-human) mindset. It is a problem in and of itself! It's not masculine. It's what we used to call in high-school 'being pussy-whipped'.

Sorry to butt in here. But what do you call a woman who takes a man back after he cheated?

The thing I never understood about men calling other men simps, cucks, pussy whipped is why they feel the need to put those labels on people who are in pain and mentally sorting shit out. instead of realizing it’s quite manly to decide what you actually want and try for it despite having had that programming. I could never see ink as pussy whipped or a cuck or a simp for doing the things he thought were right. He held to his values the whole time. He courageously battled using his process that he needed to follow. That dedication isn’t something of a pussy whipped boy. That’s a man who thought it was possible to keep his family in tact and made many sacrifices and kept striving for patience to meet that goal.

And when he looked within and said I am worth more than this, as it became evident the dream he was hoping for wasn’t coming to fruition- he was able to move forward because he had given himself that time to grow and shift perspectives. I just can’t stand that sort of shaming language. He has nothing at all here to be ashamed of. I don’t even think you are aware of how it sounds when you talk like that - it’s like hurling a horrific label on men here who are suffering through it. And I think it bothers me because you are also talking about my husband who is also not weak. Just human.

I get that you want them to get out of it, and sometimes you are even right. But I wish you would reconsider calling betrayed men weak.

Sorry, I needed to say that. Carry on.

[This message edited by hikingout at 1:13 AM, Friday, February 21st]

I want to be clear that I think @InkHulk is a pillar of strength, in how he came out of everything.

But I really strongly feel that we as men need to feel a *taboo* to staying w a woman who has proven herself severely disloyal to us. And that we *all* have weakness and are all susceptible to the hopium and we must guard against that. I am not going to apologize for that.

Sorry for the threadjack...

ETA: Editted out some of what I said in post #20. I did get a bit carried away there....

[This message edited by WontBeFooledAgai at 2:15 AM, Friday, February 21st]

Mardandra: Welcome to the community. I appreciate your thoughts, I think I’m pretty well aligned.

SS33:

This is why the "R is possible if you want it to be" advice given on here, said to a BH, seriously gets my cackles up.

Literally no one says that.

Are you kidding me? This is the STANDARD advice given by the moderators of this site. They have every right to - it’s their forum to do as they please. But please don’t claim nobody says this….

Alright, clearly (to me) OG is saying that the message is NOT that R can be chosen single handedly by the betrayed. I believe that is true, the message here is consistently that it takes two.

WBFA is objecting to the idea that R is even encouraged at all. That is his long held and defended stance.

We’ve done this dance before, haven’t we, friends?

Yes. I mostly leave whatever he says be. I know he won’t change but sometimes what he writes gets completely out of control. He even saw it and said he changed it which I appreciate his self reflection. I don’t really mind his position that divorce immediately to him is the best option. It is actually the position of several posters and that is their prerogative. But what he wrote initially got me. Taking labels of boys and trying to place them on men. Boys say pussy whipped because they are mad their friend is handing out more with their girlfriend than coming out with the boys. Using it to describe men who are making complicated choices is… well, you probably get it. Carry on. Enough said.

Alright, clearly (to me) OG is saying that the message is NOT that R can be chosen single handedly by the betrayed. I believe that is true, the message here is consistently that it takes two.

Nailed it, Ink. Thank you. I can't think of a single instance where someone has told a new BH with an actively wayward W (either still cheating or not doing "the work") that if he wants R he can make it happen. You quoted part of what I said, gr8ful, but you left the important part off. Here's my full quote, from the first post on this page:

Literally no one says that. We all know that it takes both WS and BS to be in on R, and that's what everyone here advises.

Show me where people are telling new BSs that if they alone want R badly enough, they can achieve it. I'll wait.

[This message edited by SacredSoul33 at 5:14 PM, Friday, February 21st]

I am going to get back to the original topic. What do you want, InkHulk? A casual relationship (single or plural) that is primarily sexual, that may later change to a committed one? But anyways YES, you deserve physical chemistry and carnal lust, if that is your desire.

[This message edited by WontBeFooledAgai at 8:01 PM, Friday, February 21st]

What Marine said got me thinking about an aspect of my marriage.

Due to a combination of a shambolic upbringing and being Bi, and being estranged from her father since she was a teenager (following her mother cheating), she doesn’t seem to have spent her formative years dreaming of Mr Right and white picket fences. More about getting out of there and distinguishing herself in some way.

I think that has had good and bad aspects.

But sometimes it has felt like pushing shit uphill. Everything built with our own hands from scratch. It was never like she had an image of her dream guy, that I matched it, and got a flood of unearned good vibes through projection on me.

I imagine that might make things easier sometimes. I have a limited frame of reference because we have been together 28 years and I only had one prior girlfriend.

I love Marine's post. Very well said.

@WBFA, @gr8ful:

I hereby give you permission to cite your evidence. I ask you to cite your evidence. Doing so may change what I write.

*****
** Member to Member **

@WBFA

First, even WANTING R with a woman who has proven herself severely disloyal to us, is as far as I see it, a codependent (but all-too-human) mindset. It is a problem in and of itself!

You have very little actual evidence about BSes on SI or anyplace else, for that matter. You know only what people tell you about themselves, and you don't believe any positive comments about R.

I don't know if co-d is in the current DSM, but I do know therapist, and many say a lot of people are co-d - that is, a lot of people adjust their own behavior in the hope/expectation their behavior will elicit the exact response they want. Are you trained in diagnosing psych conditions?

Note: I would be OK if you had written something like, 'I think a lot of the people who want to R are co-d.' But that's not what you wrote.

Further, what makes wanting R a problem? The effect of wanting on behavior may be a problem, but wanting in itself, not so much and maybe not at all.

The marriage is dissolved in the end, or the BS ends up staying and being miserable. ETA added after the next post #23: In MOST but not all instances. But D after a miserable few years of false attempts at R is extremely common.

Again, cite your evidence. The evidence I see is that most couples stay together after infidelity, but that info is from surveys of self-selected respondents, so the info probably isn't applicable to populations in general.

But what led you to write the absolute statement?

What keeps you from seeing and really taking note of the people who have R'ed?

*****

@Ink:

Are you saying that you think there are no gender role elements involved in romance and attraction? That it’s all about just individual to individual relating?

Hmmm ... I’m intrigued by Tantra, though not intrigued enough to do enough research to start to understand it. Playing with gender roles is, IIRC, a part of Tantra.

I think 'it' really IS almost totally about individuals relating to each other. The individuals set their own boundaries, though.

I was brought up thinking the male has to arrange dates, and that's what I did. It turns out my W does it better than I do, so she does most of it now. One female former member of SI enjoyed working with power tools. I have no experience with anything more powerful than a 1/4" drill. If I need something done with power tools, and she were around, I'd defer to her. Sometimes acting stereotypically works; sometimes it doesn't.

In that sense. it really comes down to what the individuals want to give and get, IMO.