>>If she was my friend, I'd tell her to kick him to the curb >and go find someone who doesn't have so many hangups.


>Tsk tsk. You haven't kicked your spouse to the curb and you don't want to be kicked to the curb for what you have done, right?

LOL, Larry. There's a big difference, though. With my husband and I the problems are related to our behaviors. People can choose to change their behaviors, although it may take learning new skills before they can.

With this guy, it's his attitude and character. He has some deep-seated, sexist double standard. He reminds me of those crazy guys who want to date virgins and get all upset if his girlfriend has a past sexual history, even if he had 50 ONS. Guys like that are just weird and damaged and can't change because it's part of who they are. What woman wants that sort of baggage? Why should she suffer through him being all upset over almost nothing (after all, they were NOT married at the time and not monogamous)? It's not her fault he's a crazy weirdo. Guys like that totally disgust me.

And I know you all sympathize with his pain but at some point you have to say, okay your extreme reaction to such a minor thing makes no rational sense. You should admit you're nuts and not make your spouse suffer for your insanity.

Ok Gimble I am having a hard time with this topic. First off his then girlfriend and he obviously were not committed to their relationship because they were both fooling around. Second she did not have an A because they were not M and he was doing the same thing.

I think when you are at the point they were in their R they wanted to know if he/she is the one. You want to make certain before you say I do and with him cheating then she really had a reason to doubt him being the one and that is maybe why she chose to be with someone else. If he reacts badly to anything she did that he doesn't agree with do you think that is going to make her want to talk to her in the future or hold her tounge? I know it would really make me fear telling him anything if I were in her shoes.

I think it's fair for me to say that she really didn't do anything wrong because they had not committed to one another. So why would he feel like she betrayed him in some way? I think he really needs to get some IC because he cleary has more issues than what he is letting on. That's just my .02

Maybe once she felt like he had committed then she did the same thing. He should let what she has done since they have been M'd determine if she is or is not who she thought she was all this time speak for her instead of what she did before she decided to say I Do. BTW she has done a lot better than he has by the way keeping those vows once they M'd. Not saying that she is without her faults but at least she is not an adulter. Your friend can't say that.

Hi, Aphrodite.

I am puzzled at your response.

So, let me see if I understand this. If you were living with a person (that would be a committed relationship) and they cheated on you, and at some time you cheated on them, then they wanted to marry you, and you knew of their infidelities, it would be okay for you not to tell them of yours?

I have know this guy a long time, and he is not a sexist weirdo.

Quote:"...okay your extreme reaction to such a minor thing makes no rational sense. You should admit you're nuts and not make your spouse suffer for your insanity."

No offense meant, but have you had an affair? An affair, whether there is a ring or not, is no minor thing, regardless of who goes first or how many times. An affair is damaging regardless of who the betrayed is. There are plenty of people on this forum that have been both infidels and betrayers, and it hurts regardless.

Gimble

Hi, DIG.

Thanks for your comments.

Quote: "Not saying that she is without her faults but at least she is not an adulter. Your friend can't say that"

I think you will find people here that have been cheated on in committed relationships that will disagree with your definition of adulterer. Maybe infidel is a better word in that situation. As for my friend being an adulterer, he is. He has also cleaned up his mess. That would make him a "former" wayward husband if we are striving for some sort of accuracy.

God bless,
Gimble

Gimble I respect your POV but do you really think they were in a committed relationship if he and she were screwing around. I would not call that committed. It's like they had an open R but he felt like he was the only that could get his rocks off while she sat at home and waited for his return.

By your definition it was not a committed R. Ask your friend how can he feel they had a committed R before M when he was himself seeing other people? The answer he gives should tell you plenty.

I am sorry for saying he was an adulter but it seems to me that even as a FWS that he was still not as committed to their R as he expected her to be. How is that fair to her or him for that matter?

Hi, DIG.

In their minds, it was a committed relationship. They had setup house and had everything but a ring. He was cheating within the relationship. The difference is the ring.

All the best,
Gimble

Todd.

I would really be interested in hearing more about your situation with your wife. I am especially interested in how you feel being "stuck" in how you relate to and feel about your wife.

As many details about what you have been through and your journey through your feelings as you recovered (to the point that you have) would be greatly appreciated.

MelodyLane.

If I could ask the same of you, would you mind detailing the process you went through?

Thanks much,
Gimble

Gimble"

Now that Orchid, the master at double talk, has weighed in on this, I am going to revisit:


What truths did he know before marriage? He knew that he was screwing whatever was available. He believed she wasn't. Did I get that right? This is clearly a double standard if that was his expectation.

Ok, now they get married. Unless told otherwise, they both were monogamous until he had an affair 15 years ago, that he now thinks he wouldn't have had if he had known she cheated on him before they got married. Perhaps because he would not have married her. In other words, he is reaching to place the responsibility for HIS affair on her.

The implications of that are obvious; he blames her or circumstance instead of himself. And as you say, he is the kinda guy who plowed many fields. I wonder if it ever occurred to him that those many fields wanted to be plowed until he read Langley;


Has he really cleaned up his mess? I really don't think so, especially if they entered into marriage where she KNEW he had been cheating. They were BOTH very immature at that point in time. By the social standards of 30 years ago, they both acted in ways that the social conditioning of that time and their immaturity can explain. It was considered normal for a guy to cat around as much as he could and many, many young women got even. This explains the availability of somewhere to cat around <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> And the double standard was extremely normal.

Now leave us look at their marital sexual history. She wanted intimacy, he wanted sex. It was a typical impasse for marriages started 30 years ago, right? It didn't need to happen, but it did and even 20 years ago, help was hard to find.

Now you say that he read Langley's book which provides her version of recognizing female infatuation cycles and a bunch of other stuff. It written in conversational mode and the style is of a woman helping a man understand his wife. It is compelling and just enough off base to screw this guy's thinking all to heck.

Frankly, Langley"s book has nothing to do with your friend's situation and mental hair ball, in my opinion, except in that it explains that some women can crave sex just like a guy but from a different need state which she doesn't explain very well.

His current demons are NOT the ones covered by Langley's book and if he thinks so, it is because he is attempting to hide what his demons really are or he was just taken down the primrose path by Langley. This is just my opinion.

AP may have her own observations about Langley's book as it relates to this guy's issues. She has read it

There have been much speculation about this guy's issues that have caused him to desire his wife less without getting into her physical attributes, something that can make a difference. We must take at face value that he "only" cheated the one time. We must take at face value that he "wants" to have intimacy with his wife, or at least he says he wants sex with her, but has no desire because of what he discovered about her activity BEFORE they got married. Maybe intimacy is the wrong word here. I dunno.

This is, as I have said, a serious hair ball. I can only think of one first step based on a careful read of everything you have said about the guy:

Based on Langley's book, women are sexual beings. This is a true statement. Based on Langley's book, women's sexual excitement can come from an infatuation cycle that lasts about two to three years, maybe more. She does not discuss that same excitement from family attachment and ongoing intimacy built up by a true partnership with her guy except in passing and by reference to other books that someone may or may not read.

Langley makes the point that monogamy is not a natural state for women either. Since this is counter to our social conditioning, she goes on to call for a change in the way we look at relationships, marriage, raising children, etc. She has no solution for those of us who are either 1) socially conditioned already and not ready or able to change to a non-monogamy based relationship or 2) that some people are different from the way she sees us.

Where the lessons of Langley's observations can possibly be applied here (although I don't see that she says it directly) is that your friend's wife may have suppressed her sexuality to one that was strictly social conditioned (wanting intimacy as a base) while your friend stayed on the physical side of the equation. Langley makes no provision for the differences in people. One size fits all, so she may or may not have something that applies, but not through a direct read of Langley.

Other than that, I do not feel as if Langley has any lessons to be applied to this situation. If he is hung up on what he has read there, it is a blind canyon and he needs to search elsewhere.

I do not believe I have much else to contribute to this discussion except that for him to find true intimacy with his wife, he has to give up a bit of his power in the relationship, which he may or may not be willing to do.

Larry

PS edit. . . Since he has read Langley, you might want to do the same thing before you offer up advice based on what I have said here. You may have a different read.

Gimble I respect what they thought but in actuallity that is not were they were living. He may have thought she was committed but he was not. She knew before marriage he was not so maybe she thought that gave her a free pass. What is important is once they got M'd and she knew or thought he was indeed committed to their R heart and soul did she forsake her vows?

What they thought in mind didn't match what they had in their hearts or actions before marriage, however after she said I do she didn't stray. Just because you have a live in lover which is oh so obvious in the begining of their pre marriage relationship doesn't mean that they are exclusive. It is an obvious double standard. How can he hold her accountable for not being faithful when he was doing that exact same thing. How was it ok for him to play the field but not her? He chased quite a few skirts from what you said yet she only strayed once so if you ask me she should be the one with all the doubts and fear of another betrayal not the other way around.

If he keeps pushing her away because he realizes that she could be just as capable as playing games as he is then he is going to end up alone. Even with her not being true she was the more true of the two. So they are still not on an even playing field. No I think what your friend may truly be afraid of is that if she was willing to try and get even back then what is to keep her from wanting to get even now and that is why he is afraid to open up to her. I don't think he liked the fact that two could play that game. He likes it even less now that he has added another ring to his belt.

Yeah I think Ole Boy liked being the player and is afraid to become the played. He doesn't like the thought of reaping what he sowed.

Truth be told I think most WS ( F or otherwise) May fear that their S would do the same thing to them. He maybe afraid also that if she does retaliate that he may not measure up. The fact that he is distant he makes that chance more of a reality. He is very insecure which is why he probably played the field in the first place and the thought of those chickens coming home to roost scares him. He may in fact think becasue she took so long to tell him after the fact that she may have indeed could have already done just that. He just doesn't know and that would make him lose desire because the thought of his W breaking his heart the way he did hers is scaring him to death. To men making love means love and he is to scared to get close to her because of that fear.

In terms of my third-party proxy analysis <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />, I see this as being a power struggle between the two of them. Power struggles tend to make the protagonists tunnel-visioned. Everything that happens on the periphery is pretty much ignored unless it can be 'used' for leverage in the struggle.

If your friend won't alter his dance, the only way that change could be effected is for the other protagonist - the wife - to change her part in it.

In fact, it's possible that's exactly what's happened. These two have a history of withholding important information from each other. The revelation of her premarital fling may have been another step in the power dance, or it may have been her giving up the struggle and handing in her weapons. If that's what she did, then she's refusing to participate in the power struggle, and implicit in that is the challenge to your friend to accept new, honest terms and conditions for their relationship.

Your friend may be resisting the tacit invitation to have an open, honest marriage. He may feel unsafe doing that with her.


By your description, this is a man who has been quite comfortable having sex with women with whom he has little connection. In fact, his history suggests that low-intimacy sex has been a significant turn-on for him, where it may have been an inhibiting factor for many other men. That suggests to me that sex, for him, involves a high level of fantasy, for which a low level of 'reality' is optimal. So I wonder if the problem is really that he is now faced with a sexual relationship in which he can't avoid connection and intimacy, where the reality and complexity of the woman he's in bed with intrude on the necessary fantasy?

He may very well not be able to perform with her, because he has simply never practised the skills of relating intimately to a real, flawed human being....and his wife can no longer be cast in the necessary role in his inner fantasy.

It seems to me that the creation of an honest, solid marriage involves an awful lot of humility, kindness and - especially - the giving up of small positions of power that feel like 'safety'. If one or both won't make themselves vulnerable in this way, or won't make it safe for the other to open themselves up, the marriage may 'survive' but will limp along in an unsatisfactory way with two defended, unhappy people living parallel lives.

Giving up his safety may be where your friend is stuck.

TA

TA you know it's funny that you mentioned them starting over with a new and honest R. I was coming back to add almost that exact thing. I think since they both have problems with faithfullness I think they should come clean about any and everything and wipe the slate clean. They should recommitt to each other the right way and renew their vows and learn from their indescretions. They basically need to start over from scratch and do it right this time. Since now they have more tools to have a better relationship, neither of them have an excuse.

People have different responses to physical actions - some people's bones get broken more easily. So, what might cause a minor injury to one person, can shatter another person's bones. I think expressing such a cavalier attitude toward someone's pain simply because you wouldn't be impacted the same way is short-sighted and somewhat simple-minded.

I have a teenaged friend who broke her leg. It was a simple fracture. The vast majority of people get a cast and a few weeks later they're back to normal. A year later my friend's fracture was still unhealed. She's now gone through 2 operations and her leg is still not healed. She isn't choosing non-healing as an option and she is doing what she knows and/or has been told to do - but at the end of the day her leg is still unhealed.

People's emotions can be the same way. The Todds and Gimble friends of this world aren't simply choosing to be a$$es, they aren't mentally ill - they just find that they are NOT healing the same way most people do.

So far the cast hasn't work.
So far time hasn't worked.

Are there steps to "just get over it"?

Only a fogged out wayward mind would view an affair as "such a minor thing," aphrodite. Why not fix yourself before you try and fix others? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

For example, have you told your husband and other victims about all "your OMs?" Why not start there? You need to get your own crap together before you have anything to offer others. Your posts are clearly that of a foghorn who can't help herself, much less others.

And self serving. She is a fogged out wayward wife so she has a vested interest in dismissing the pain of affair victims. She does it all the time with her own filthy affairs. she is about as credible as the falling down drunk that comes to AA to lecture them about them drinking. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Hokay, there is a reason why the cast hasn't worked but nobody knows why. Knowledge is power. No power there.

There is a reason why Todd hasn't healed, but nobody knows why or at least hasn't told or admitted as the case may be.

There is a reason for Gimble's friend to have the feelings he has and there has been much speculation as to why.

There are reasons why people have affairs. There are reasons why people stay monogamous and others don't. Yet that the reason(s) isn't obvious with either of the above cases doesn't stop outcomes.

The outcome of Todd not moving off of the dime or Gimble's friend feeling as he does is that their spouses are left in Limbo and a lack of intimacy as are Todd and the guy. This may or may not be what any of them deserve or want. But that doesn't stop that outcome.

Life is all about choices. I do note that Tood and the guy's situation involve affairs that happened long ago, which means, as someone posted, that they have no power and must accept what is instead of being able to mold it as they would like for it to be????????? Maybe that is the reason, maybe not.

Larry

Finding out about an affair that happened 30 years ago is probably much harder than finding out an affair that just ended. I do know that those who find out about old affairs are just as devastated as those who find out about new affairs. And not because they are "mentally ill," but because they are normal.

There is an added element to finding out about old affairs. Not only is that BS a victim of the affair, but he is a victim of YEARS OF DECEIT. He has been married to someone he did not really know who lied to him every day via ommission. Married to a person who felt entitled to lie to him about his life.

All affairs involve lies, but older affairs involve YEARS of lying. The kalidescope dramatically shifts the historical context of the marriage when a BS finds out he was being deceived all those years. Things look very different when you know you didn't have all the facts. It is a shock to discover you were tricked into staying with someone you might have otherwise have left if you knew the truth.

So I can very much understand how the pain of an old affair is just as bad, if not worse, than a recent affair.

And I certainly don't dismiss someone's pain who just found out a SHORT YEAR AGO. It takes much more than a year to recover from an affair.

Mel:

In the guy's case, deceit was built upon deceit. In other words, he was as much or more deceitful than she was. Her infidelty was prior to marriage, his was both prior and after.

In Todd's case, it has been three years and three months by his own statement.

Why are we not as equally concerned with the guy's affair 15 years ago in how that is painful for his wife? Why are we not as concerned with how she must have felt if she knew about his affairs before they got married - or whenever she found out about them?

Forgiving if not forgetting is part of the healing process.

Should someone who caved in to their weakness 10 years ago continue to be punished by a spouse who cannot or will not move toward forgiveness? Should the guy's wife lose her opportunity for true intimacy now that they are both coming clean?

Hair balls all and object lessons in the concept that none of us truly know our own minds sometimes or our spouse's.

The sad part of all this is that neither the guy's wife or cruisegonebad is the same person they were years ago. Do we blame teenagers for all the stupid stuff they did before they grew up? Or do we love them anyway and smile?

Larry

I am not following you, Larry. We weren't presented with a problem on her part. Isn't he the one with the problem because he just discovered her affair? What is there to be concerned about with her? Wasnt' she told about his affair some years ago?


I don't think any person should be punished, but if the guy is too devastated to be intimate because he just found out about an affair, he is not "punishing her," that is just a natural consequence of an affair.

Ok Larry and Mel why is no one pointing to the fact that they were not married when she had her fling and the fact that he was doing the same thing? How can he be so hurt when neither of them were faithful. Neither of them have a leg to stand on. What he should judge her on is after the fact they did in fact M she never strayed. How can one partner have and open relationship with any willing participant when involved in a "committed" (and I mean this in the most sarcastic way) R and exspect their partner to only have eyes for them. Not only is that a double standard but he by his friend's addmission use to be a player. When you think you are a ladies man you never think you can be played and I think that is why he is so hung up not because he felt betrayed but because he got out played.

Disagree DIG, having an affair while engaged is just as painful. This did happen to me, and had I known he did this while we were engaged, I would not have married him. He tricked me into marrying him and married me under FALSE pretenses.

Adultery and deciet is wrong no matter who does it, but just because he was adulterous, does not mean she gets a pass on her adultery. Nor does it mean he is supposed to feel good about being tricked.