Hi All,

My divorce was final August 5, 2005. Our anniversary would have been today at 14 years married with two boys ages 9 and 12. We had both been unfaithful during the marriage, her first then me. She had affair at seven years in and then I did at eleven years in. We have both dated others during the 10 month separation, me very briefly with two women and she did with one guy for six months but had three or four other sexual partners before the six month relationship got started.

We have both been unattatched for the last three weeks and ended up in the sack last Sunday, only two days after the divorce was final. It seems we find it familiar and convienient, sex was always great between us and we have both admitted to each other that we can't seem to find any better than each other but we really don't do well in a marriage together.

Has anyone else experienced something similar with their ex and if so, do you have any advice for me.

Thanx <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

This is a bad, bad, bad-bad-bad idea. This is going to blow up all over you. Don't do it again. There are plenty of people out there who are just as good in bed as you are. Ditto for your ex.

Time of the two of you to either put some emotional (and physical) distance between you for awhile OR begin work on reconciliation. Yeah, you can make your marriage work if you both commit to the life-long effort. If reconciliation is the path you choose, the sex comes much later in the process.

Not to mention the huge confusion it's going to cause your kids. Kids need a pretty clear picture of divorced life (e.g. "Mommy and Daddy couldn't be happy together and so they decided to divorce" vs. "Mommy and Daddy couldn't be happy together, but heck, the hooking up is great - until someone else comes along"). Eek <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

IMO,

AGG

I think what you're describing is extremely common and I think if you poll the members of the "Been There Done That Club", almost all of them would say, STOP IT.....

Even if you manage to hide it from the kids so that they don't get false impressions, YOU ARE HURTING YOURSELF unless you are trying to rebuild your marriage. You are delaying and stopping the healing/grieving process.

OK,

I get the point, kinda. She doesn't want to reconcile and frankly at this point neither do I. However, I hate it when we are at each others throats verbally, attitude wise, etc. We have been working on having a healthly friendship (We were each others best friend for many years) both for our own mental outlook and for the kids. That was working well since we had finished fighting over the terms of the divorce some months ago. We actually ended up in the sack after the first three months of separation but then she met her six month BF.

Sex beteeen us didn't happen again until after the divorce was final. We basically admitted to each other that it was very nice to have a booty call when we were not involved with anyone else.

I guess I'm wondering how I would be hurting myself or her (specifics) as I'm not really emotionally attatched to her anymore nor she to me (this is a woman whom I can't and won't live with anymore). Other than not wanting to give my kids any false hope, I'm wondering what harm it can do if we are both emotionally unattatched to each other but basically just horny for sex.

Thanx

“””I hate it when we are at each others throats verbally, attitude wise, etc.”””

OK, so what does that have to do with bumping uglies?

“””We have been working on having a healthly friendship”””

Healthy friendships do not involve action between or on top of the sheets.

“””I guess I'm wondering how I would be hurting myself or her (specifics) as I'm not really emotionally attached to her anymore nor she to me”””

Well first off, you can only speak for yourself and are in no position to get into her mind and determine at what level her emotional attachment is to you. IMVHO, by not fully acting as divorced people and still having SOME of your needs met by the other then you are preventing yourself from fully healing, grieving, and moving on.

“””Other than not wanting to give my kids any false hope”””

I pray you aren’t involving the kids with this what-so-ever. Definitely no staying over night or anything like that. ******, if it has a chance of screwing them up at all, that in itself is enough to stop.

“””I'm wondering what harm it can do if we are both emotionally unattached to each other but basically just horny for sex.”””

So it is your contention that there is absolutely positively no emotion for you or your x-wife in sex. To which I simply say BULL BUTTER…….. I don’t buy it for a minute. While you two are meeting EN’s for each other, there is no healing.

All Right, Points taken.

I don't want to give my kids false hope by them seeing Mom or Dad staying over for the night. I guess I probably do have some emotional attatchment to my ex but I know it will never work out between us. I know I can't see what's going on in her head but she sure acts like it's only about the sex. This is a woman who wanted a divorce seven years ago during her two affairs and has told me that she will always love me but just can't be married to me. Go figure????

Thank you for your advice....

Must be a some men, some women (notice I didn't generalize<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />) kind of thing to be able to disassociate from the person you're having sex with.

Personally, if my stbx looked in my direction to fulfill that need, as much as I miss sex & having a man in my life, he would be the last person I'd want. It's not anger, hurt, or betrayal, directly, that makes me say that. It's that knowing he didn't want to work on the marriage, wanted a new life without me in it, was certain I couldn't love him in the way he wanted, on & on, made me not love him. I don't want to have sex with a man I can't respect. I'll do it myself thank you.

nams,

I suppose I should have a little more self respect than to fall back in bed with a woman like my ex. Honestly though it was hard to resist because we always had great sex and well there's the familiarity thing (You both know what the other likes in bed after 13 years together).

Thank you for your post!

I don't think this is a good idea at all. It's way too confusing on everyone!
My STBX had mentioned having "EX-SEX". I would rather be dragged by a mac truck down a road full of nails. :-)
Sorry...you need to STOP and start a new life for yourself without her in it.

J-boy. You need to really look yourself in the eye & ask yourself the questions: What is the REAL purpose of sex?

If you were REALLY OK with doing it with her, then you wouldn't have to ask the questions to the group now would you???

What possible good is it going to do for you long term?

How is continuing to have SF outside of the marriage commitment going to help you in ANY future life-long marriage relationship?

How could it ever help your children to be torn inside with false hope?

Best regards,
High Flight

"How is continuing to have SF outside of the marriage commitment going to help you in ANY future life-long marriage relationship?"

Is this to imply that sex has no purpose outside of marriage? I certainly can't agree with that, since sex has been with us for far longer than the institution of marriage.

I can understand that jimmyboy and his wife had a good sexual relationship and that they are still attracted to one another. The point is that if they can still have this level of intimacy, their divorce was probably a mistake and their marriage was salvageable. If they can recognize this, they may be able to work toward reconciliation. If so, they hold off on the sex until they have resolved the core issues and start rebuilding their marital bond. If not, tey must not be having sex, since it will stalemate their recovery processes.

CheckUrheart ~ You assume that sex pre-exists marriage. That is based on evolution which is only a theory. It cannot be proven. Neither can Creation be proven. Either one is a choice of belief.

However, you miss the point: Sexual intimacy of any lasting significance that doesn't "dilute the soul" of the participant can only exist WITHIN the boundaries of a marital commitment.

Your conclusion appears based on a view that sexual relations EQUALS intimacy. This is fatally flawed at best and grossly incomplete. Attraction has little to do with ultimate intimacy.

Good sex does not equal a good marriage.

Your final statement about holding off on sex to work on issues flies in the face of your assumptions that good sex and attraction equals a salvageable marriage. Why hold off if it's so fundamental to their intimacy?

Evolutionary sexuality is always this...circular reasoning.

I will not debate the theory of evolution in this forum, since this is an inappropriate place.

You speak of the mores of Semitic religion, which is some 8000 years old. The speicies Homo sapiens, however has been on the Earth for over 60,000 years. This isn't a "theory" (as you use the word, which is not the same as a scientific theory), but established fact. There was no such concept of marriage way back then. So I don't assume, I know it as a fact.

One must understand the biology that gave rise to the sociology of love and ultimately our modern concept of marriage. Males compete among themselves for females with which to mate. Females do the same, but they have another consideration. To a first approximation, it is to a species best advantage for males to mate with as many females as possible in order to diverify gene flow and maintain a health population. Humans are very complex creatures and our young require a lot of care by their parents, with the burden of providing food for his mate and children falling primarily to the male. So it is not completely to our species atvantage to have our males out there producing offspring with a large number of females, as is the case in species where the male has no real role in the rearing of offspring. So in order to provide adequately for our offspring, it is necessary for male and female to become emotionally bonded to one another. This is the root of the emotion we call love. All of our emotions exist to safisfy a biological perogative.

Now let's look at religion and it's role. Man has long wondered about his origins, his reason for being here, and what lies ahead. This curiosity gave rise to a rich array of mythologies and philosophies. Over the long years, these were combined and revised into the major religions we know today. But Religion serves another purpose beyond the exploration of metaphysical questions. It serves also to insure social cohesion. That need for emotional bonding and working as a team in order to rear our young eventually became codified into the institution of marriage. It addresses important biological and social requirements. Because of this, all major religions developed the institution of marriage seperately.

So you see, High Flight, it really makes no difference if you address this issue from a point of view of religion or science, the end goal is exactly the same, as are the ethics.

I agree that sexual intimacy is only one kind of intimacy. I do not believe it is I, but you who is getting this confused. Sexual intimacy does not require marriage. I also agree that good sex doesn't equal a good marriage, just as a good marriage doesn't necessarily mean good sex.

You must not yourself assume that I proceed on assumtions. I am trained in biology and also in philosophy, sociology, psychology and religion. I have long had a great deal of interest in these subjects and have studied them quite a bit. So I made my comments from knowedge, not assumptions. Moreover, You missed my point. I advised Jimmyboy not to have sex with is ex-wife, not for the reasons you assume, but because there are other more important issues that need to be addressed without lust getting in the way.

Sigh!

When a man says one thing, then immediately goes against what he says, I don't much pay attention to the rest of what he says. You said you wouldn't debate evolution vs creation cause this isn't the appropriate forum. Fine! I agree. Then you took several hundred words to do JUST THAT!

For a "trained biologist, religionist, etc." you need to get your facts nailed down.

Prove to me that mankind has been here for 60,000+ years.
Prove to me that the Semitic religion is "some 8,000 years old."

You regurgitated the oldest evolutionary bunk that exists. The ole male / female / food needs bonding crap. And that's all it is. Crap that Darwin & his followers decided was correct. That's fine for you & you're entitled to subscribe to that theory & ALL that goes with it, including where things are generally headed on this world post-Darwin. Sign up for it, but do NOT shove it down our throats as fact or the only science that exists.

I too have advanced training not at all unlike yours it appears. You won't get by with a simplified positing of a theory as fact - not with me around at least. Cause it won't stand up. BOTH Creation AND Evolution are theories. You pay your money. You take your chances and make your choices. Case closed.

Take a look in the dictionary at "Intimacy". I read, "pertaining to the deepest possible nature; the most essential or innermost, the very closest of friends, confidants or partners". I simply say that it is impossible to achieve this defined level of sexual intimacy outside of the safe boundaries of a committed marriage.

Sexual acts do not require marriage.

TRUE sexual intimacy does require marriage - and an emotionally healthy, spiritually whole marriage at that.

Bottom line. And if you want verifiable proof, all you have to do is look around you. Even secular literature is admitting the results of uncommited sex these days.

And Jimmy, sorry to hijack your post. I won't use your space any further here, and this is all I'll say; but when folks spout unproved theories as facts, I don't stand by and just allow the disservice to other thinking people.

Regards,
High Flight

The point is that if they can still have this level of intimacy, their divorce was probably a mistake and their marriage was salvageable.
These two are not mutually inclusive.
The marriage most likely was salvagable. Most are, but usually one party is not willing). But to say since they have this level of intimacy, the divorce was a mistake is probably incorrect.
If one partner is not willing to make sacrifices/do what is necessary to create/develop/maintain the necessary attitude and actions to make a relationship successful, then often the best action is divorce, again, regardless of the level of intimacy.

HF, you appear to be spoiling for a fight I will not get into. You are way overreacting here and I believe you need to examine why you feel the need to attack someone for no reason - not to mentin insist that others accept you viewpoint. If you don't want to consider mine that is your perogative. Just cool it on the nastiness. It doesn't serve Jimmyboy, which is the prupose of this thread.

CheckUr,

I have absolutely no anomosity towards you whatsoever. I really don't know you. I wish you only the best recovery.

Having said this, I will admit that with this post, it seems to me that it might be you spoiling. You chose to use these sorts of words, like spoiling and fight, not me. I'm not attacking you. I'm entitled to make my observations that you are stating as fact that which is merely theory. I don't have to sit by & watch that happen. We live in a free country. I'm not name calling or attacking you at all. Merely I am pointing out the theory you are positioning as fact.

You say evolution is fact. It's not. It's theory only. From the first, I've stated that Creation is also theory. I've never "insisted" anyone, especially you, accept my point of view on Creation. Quite the contrary I've said you pay your money, you take your choice. Both require belief, because there aren't ultimate facts to recommend either one beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt.

It seems to me that YOU have been the one to try to shove your theory as fact, with no allowance on your part for another point of view. Creation vs Evolution has a long history of debate as we all know. So I won't pretend to resolve it here. Just merely point out the error of the use of evolution as fact, especially in the context of a relationship conclusion you were reaching using evolutionary thinking to bolster a position on human sexuality. That is all.

My bottom line for Jimmy again is simply this: Jimmy, it is my belief that you cannot achieve ultimate healthy and whole sexual intimacy outside of a marriage commitment. You said you're no longer married. Therefore, I would advise you to ceast and desist from any sort of SF with your ex. It hurts you in ways you cannot know. It will harm your kids in manifest ways you can only imagine.

My last word on this. Again, appologies to Jimmy for hijacking your thread.

Yes, but did Adam have a belly button?

No, HF. I never spoil for a fight. It's a pointless endeavor. I in no way tried to shove my point of view off on you, sir. I mearly stated it and that upset you. I'm sorry that that happened. I have made no statements whatsoever about the theory of Evolution and I state quite plainly that I would not debate that issue in this forum. You are the only one here, insisting that we are discussing evolution versus creationism. If you want to argue with someone about this issue, please take it to one of them many fora out their set up for this purpose. My statements in no way address the theory of evolution, but in how sociology derives from biology. I'm sorry you can't make the distiction, but let's not argue about apples with the topic is oranges.