I think this points to the conclusion that women are generally more deliberate in their interpersonal relationships. I think like many things this has some pros and some cons.

Speaking from the standpoint of a BH trying to get a WW to committ to recovery I think it has the con of almost anything you can say, she has already "asked and answered" the question and it is not in your favor since, obviously she needs to justify her A. The pro from a BH point of view is that people who deliberate a lot also tend to re-evaluate a lot.

I'm just brainstorming, but sometimes I think its these re-evaluation periods where the BH can make inroads. However, I think many shoot themselves in the foot by acting as an "advocate" when these times come. They are advocating what they want.

People, in general, tend to respond to advocacy with advocacy. The problem with advocacy is people usually quit considering the facts and argue just to win. (This why when you tell a WS only 3% of A's make it past 5 years, they ignore that and tell you about their second cousin twice removed who's A is going strong). Aside from ignoring the facts, most people don't trust someone who is advocating. I swear, so many WW's seem to think that their BH is just trying to trick them.

Anyway, I sometimes think the BH ought to use these opportunities to ask questions (switch to "inquiry" mode), rather than advocacy. Never give an opinion, never argue for or against. I wonder if they wouldn't have better results this way. I tend to think one the "best friends" a BH has is his WW's "internal dialogue" if he can just get her to ponder some questions.

AFFAIR GENERALIZATIONS (USUALLY BUT NOT ALWAYS TRUE) ABOUT WWs vs. WHs:

1. Female infidelity (90+%) is vastly the "Romantic Affair" (RA) type as described by Dr. Frank Pittman in "Private Lies". It is very uncommon for WWs to engage in the other types of infidelity -- "accidental" (ONS), philandering, or "marital arrangements" ('open marriages').

2. RAs (no matter by the H or the W) are the most destructive type of infidelity to otherwise salvageable, serviceable, and 'good' marriages. This is because the level of emotional attachment, addictive feel-good 'high', and even 'commitment' to the OP is high and the level of emotional connection to the BS has often eroded to a very low or even non-existent point. The affair-relationships between the WS and the OP are the hardest to break.

3. Men do have 'I fell in love with someone else and out of love with my S' RAs as well. But men are far more likely than women to engage in philandering and 'accidental infidelity' (ONSs, weekenders, short-term sexual-only dalliances).

4. An 'accidental infidel' (usu. a WH) is generally easiest to reconcile and truly recover with. It is about immediate sexual gratification (and post-coital self-mortification) only.

5. If you are married to a philanderer (usu. a WH), he is someone who sees his emotionally-detached serial cheating as a 'birthright' and a 'privilege' to prove himself. He will usually promise to "not do it ever again", but almost always will. Marriage to true philanderers is largely a waste of time and you should D unless you are prepared to give up his sexual exclusivity.

6. WHs are more likely than WWs to enter their A 'incautiously' -- foolishly believing that no one will get hurt and that their W/M won't be affected much. WHs are therefore more likely to 'cake-eat' and to do it for longer. (see #s 3-5, but this is true even of WH-RAs too)

7. WWs are more likely to enter their A (almost always a RA) as an 'exit' from or 'replacement' for their M which they have come to believe 'was over anyway'. Usually the BH has/had NO IDEA that she felt that way.

8. Because of #3-7 and the human female's more emotionally driven, romantic nature (a powerful, stubborn belief that 'feelings' are the best/only guide to follow), WW-affairs are harder to break and WWs are less likely/possible to recover with.

9. The LARGE majority (>80%) of the infidelity discussed by heartbroken BSs here on MB (and the OVERWHELMING majority of those presented by the BH), are ROMANTIC AFFAIRS. The WS is convinced that they "have fallen out of love with their S and into love with the OP -- and that the OP is their 'true' soulmate and partner". They just "can't help how they feel" and are addicted to the high of being 'in love'...no matter how grave the sacrifices or long-term consequences.

10. Unless the RA is caught and Plan A/B'd early, it is very uncommon for either a WH or a WW to voluntarily (TRULY) leave their OP. A RA (esp. one that isn't discovered until it is in full-bloom) usually does not end until the OP dumps the WS OR the RA burns out naturally on its own when there is little/nothing left to sacrifice to it.

11. RAs (and all infidelity types) 'fail' at equally high rates for both male and female affairees...it is exceedingly unlikely that the affair-partners, despite their firm convictions otherwise, will go on to live "happily ever after together".

SDCWoman....this is a good list, BUT I think that you should put a caveat at the top to explain that in THIS case, "RA" refers to "Romantic Affair" rather than "Revenge Affair", as it is often referred to around here.

Because that changes the meaning DRASTICALLY!!!!

Other than that, great article and I *think* I agree with all of it!

I did--it is in item #1 above. ["Romantic Affair (RA)"]

And...I am a MAN (& xBH).

Glad it was explanatory and accurate in your view...thank you :-)

Hahaha...thanks for clarifying! I read your handle VERY differently!!!

I believe that there is a continuum which stretches from Hitler (or female equivalent) at one extreme and Mother Theresa (or male equivalent) at the the other. Hitler would be the most extreme example of a disordered personality I could think of.

Unfortunately people at each end of the spectrum are attracted to one another and many marriages are based on the opposites attract principle. In some cases I think these relationships could work but often deteriorate into a dysfunctional power struggle,

Pepperbands lists which identify types 1 and 2 are also examples of extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. It could be helpful to look at the opposite number i.e. the BH types who are typically m to those WW.

I would guess that a type 1 WW would be M to a type 2 BH and vice versa type 2 WW to type 1 BH I believe that the dynamics of the r would be crucial to the strategies employed to deal with the problems that are inherent in that particular situation

SDCWman,

I too agree with your list however i still believe that it has nothing what so ever to do with being wayward. It is just the difference in men and women in general.

I believe it is the difference in the way the genders see "relationships" in general and an A is a relationship correct? Waywardness is a whole other monster in itself.

So yes women probably enter into affairs more often because of feelings (because they generally enter into any relationship because of emotions) and men probably enter into affairs more often because of sex (because they generally enter into any relationship because of sex).

However in both cases the BS usually does not know that anything is "terribly wrong" and that an affair is either getting ready to happen or is already happening.

And in both cases it depends on a lot of things whether or not the WS returns to the marriage.

This thread has been so helpful for me.....

As I approach my plan B I have a much clearer picture of what I'm up against..... No question about it there isn't a easy way thru this mess.....

One thing that isn't talked about much is protecting your self if divorce is the eventual outcome...


The lawyer I have talked with told me that the longer I am seperated (with out supporting my WW )the greater the chance of faviorable terms in the divorce....

So Plan B becomes Two fold for me...
1) Protects me from more emotional abuse as a result of the A,and gives us our last best chance of recovery.....

2) If we are unable to reconcile I will be giving myself the best chance of a fair split of assets (of course she shouldn't get a dime)

Except when exposure doesn't work. In my case, ever increasing wider rings of exposure short of a billboard outside her apartment did nothing to destroy the affair.

Her parents knew, the OM's wife and I were in contact. Heck, even his alumni association eventually knew, not to mention more and more of her family, friends, co-workers, members at church, other parents in the soccer club, etc.

Short of buying airtime, I don't know how I could have exposed any more than I did.

It didn't matter.

Exposure it good, but it's no guarantee.

I could use some clarification as to what MYOPIA is referring to here...or of what use that would be.....please inform.

The poster seems to be suggesting that a "type 1" WW is/was probably married to a "type 2" BH and vice versa. I don't understand where this comes from or what is being communicated here. The BH HAS NOT had an affair! The WW HAS! The "run-of-the-mill" & "non-run-of-the-mill" types described by Pepperband refer to AFFAIREES, i.e. WAYWARDS! So, how does a BH (or BW for that matter) fit one of these profiles???

I must disagree. I certainly don't believe that "the list" is true in EVERY case of adultery, but it does seem to be so in the vast majority. I say this with a fair degree of confidence from (sadly) personal experience, observations of others in "real" life, observations of many others here on MB, and from numerous published sources written by experienced and respected psychologists/counselors in the field.




My point exactly...wayward-ism is VERY different than a "typical" romance. Sure, an A is a "relationship" but it is usually entered into & propogated far differently than a typical "dating" romance involving 2 single, discerning, emotionally-stable people. Last I checked, 2 people who date & fall in love (in the normal, healthy way) do NOT feel guilty, do NOT sell-out everything they have & believe in, do NOT hide/deny their romance to much of the outside world, do NOT lie, manipulate, scapegoat, and blame-shift to rationalize something they know is wrong and hurtful, etc., etc. They also do not enter into the relationship (if healthy) from a position of loneliness, neediness, self-entitlement, resentment, or attention-seeking as is so often the case with waywards. How often do you see a WS affair with someone "a huge step down" by any measure? How often do you see a WS affair with an OP that any knowledgeable observer would testify is someone the wayward would never have considered to be suitable romantic-partnership material under "normal" circumstances? It happens all the time!


From "Private Lies" ... this sums it up pretty darn well:

"Surely the craziest and most destructive form of infidelity is the temporary insanity of falling in love. You do this, not when you meet somebody wonderful (wonderful people don't screw around with married people) but when you are going through a crisis in your own life, can't continue living your life, and aren't quite ready for suicide yet. An affair with someone grossly inappropriate—someone decades younger or older, someone dependent or dominating, someone with problems even bigger than your own—is so crazily stimulating that it's like a drug that can lift you out of your depression and enable you to feel things again. Of course, between moments of ecstasy, you are more depressed, increasingly alone and alienated in your life, and increasingly hooked on the affair partner. Ideal romance partners are damsels or "dumsels" in distress, people without a life but with a lot of problems, people with bad reality testing and little concern with understanding reality better.

Romantic affairs lead to a great many divorces, suicides, homicides, heart attacks, and strokes, but not to very many successful remarriages. No matter how many sacrifices you make to keep the love alive, no matter how many sacrifices your family and children make for this crazy relationship, it will gradually burn itself out when there is nothing more to sacrifice to it. Then you must face not only the wreckage of several lives, but the original depression from which the affair was an insane flight into escape.

People are most likely to get into these romantic affairs at the turning points of life: when their parents die or their children grow up; when they suffer health crises or are under pressure to give up an addiction; when they achieve an unexpected level of job success or job failure; or when their first child is born—any situation in which they must face a lot of reality and grow up. The better the marriage, the saner and more sensible the spouse, the more alienated the romantic is likely to feel. Romantic affairs happen in good marriages even more often than in bad ones.

Both genders seem equally capable of falling into the temporary insanity of romantic affairs, though women are more likely to reframe anything they do as having been done for love. Women in love are far more aware of what they are doing and what the dangers might be. Men in love can be extraordinarily incautious and willing to give up everything. Men in love lose their heads—at least for a while...

Any gender-based generalization is both irritating and inaccurate, but some behaviors are typical. Men tend to attach too little significance to affairs, ignoring their horrifying power to disorient and disrupt lives, while women tend to attach too much significance, assuming that the emotions are so powerful they must be "real" and therefore concrete, permanent, and stable enough to risk a life for.

A man, especially a philandering man, may feel comfortable having sex with a woman if it is clear that he is not in love with her. Even when a man understands that a rule has been broken and he expects consequences of some sort, he routinely underestimates the extent and range and duration of the reactions to his betrayal. Men may agree that the sex is wrong, but may believe that the lying is a noble effort to protect the family. A man may reason that outside sex is wrong because there is a rule against it, without understanding that his lying establishes an adversarial relationship with his mate and is the greater offense. Men are often surprised at the intensity of their betrayed mate's anger, and then even more surprised when she is willing to take him back. Men rarely appreciate the devastating long-range impact of their infidelities, or even their divorces, on their children.

Routinely, a man will tell me that he assured himself that he loved his wife before he hopped into a strange bed, that the woman there with him means nothing, that it is just a meaningless roll in the hay. A woman is more likely to tell me that at the sound of the zipper she quickly ascertained that she was not as much in love with her husband as she should have been, and the man there in bed with her was the true love of her life.

A woman seems likely to be less concerned with the letter of the law than with the emotional coherence of her life. It may be okay to screw a man if she "loves" him, whatever the status of his or her marriage, and it is certainly appropriate to lie to a man who believes he has a claim on you, but whom you don't love.

Women may be more concerned with the impact of their affairs on their children than they are with the effect on their mate, whom they have already devalued and discounted in anticipation of the affair...

Some conventional wisdom about gender differences in infidelity is true. Men are able to approach sex more casually than women, a factor not only of the patriarchal double standard but also of the difference between having genitals on the outside and having them on the inside. Getting laid for all the wrong reasons is a lot less dangerous than falling in love with all the wrong people.

Men who get caught screwing around are more likely to be honest about the sex than women. Men will confess the full sexual details, even if they are vague about the emotions. Women on the other hand will confess to total consuming love and suicidal desire to die with some man, while insisting no sex ever took place. I would believe that if I'd ever seen a man describe the affair as so consumingly intense from the waist up and so chaste from the waist down. I assume these women are lying to me about what they know they did or did not do, while I assume that the men really are honest about the genital ups and downs—and honestly confused about the emotional ones.

Women are more likely to discuss their love affairs with their women friends. Philandering men may turn their sex lives into a spectator sport but romantic men tend to keep their love life private from their men friends, and often just withdraw from their friends during the romance.

On the other hand, women are not more romantic than men. Men in love are every bit as foolish and a lot more naive than women in love. They go crazier and risk more. They are far more likely to sacrifice or abandon their children to prove their love to some recent affaire. They are more likely to isolate themselves from everyone except their affair partner, and turn their thinking and feeling over to her, applying her romantic ways of thinking (or not thinking) to the dilemmas of his increasingly chaotic life.

Men are just as forgiving as women of their mates' affairs. They might claim ahead of time that they would never tolerate it, but when push comes to shove, cuckolded men are every bit as likely as cuckolded women to fight like tigers to hold on to a marriage that has been betrayed. Cuckolded men may react violently at first, though cuckolded women do so as well, and I've seen more cases of women who shot and wounded or killed errant husbands. (The shootings occur not when the affair is stopped and confessed, but when it is continued and denied.)

Betrayed men, like betrayed women, hunker down and do whatever they have to do to hold their marriage together. A few men and women go into a rage and refuse to turn back, and then spend a lifetime nursing the narcissistic injury, but that unusual occurrence is no more common for men than for women. Marriage can survive either a husband's infidelity or a wife's, if it is stopped, brought into the open, and dealt with.

I have cleaned up more affairs than a squad of motel chambermaids. Infidelity is a very messy hobby. It is not an effective way to find a new mate or a new life.

It is not a safe treatment for depression, boredom, imperfect marriage, or inadequate gender splendor. And it certainly does not impress the rest of us. It does not work for women any better than it does for men. It does excite the senses and the imaginations of those who merely hear the tales of lives and deaths for love, who melt at the sound of liebestods or country songs of love gone wrong.

I think I've gotten more from infidelity as an observer than all the participants I've seen. Infidelity is a spectator sport like shark feeding or bull fighting—that is, great for those innocent bystanders who are careful not to get their feet, or whatever, wet. For the greatest enjoyment of infidelity, I recommend you observe from a safe physical and emotional distance and avoid any suicidal impulse to become a participant."

EE,

Thanks for that...I have often felt like I was the only one for whom "exposure" did nothing good or productive. [To be fair, my exposure came way LATE due to my own foggy denials of reality and failure to "dig" deeper while we were separated. My WW scapegoated me very well and had me (and everyone else) believing that I was a horrible, unloving H who didn't care and that she had "done everything" and just had to move on...a load of ****!]

OM's wife and kids knew, her (detached) family and friends knew, and everyone at their work (a work-affair, like so many) knew...all before I truly did. She had plenty of time to hide, deny, manipulate, and concoct elaborate false cover-stories ... and then suddenly announce their 'engagement' and affair-age plans "as soon as our divorces are final". Exposure by me didn't matter one bit...except to be turned around on me as 'irrational' and 'desperate' behavior.

I had to laugh at your mention of "church-members" because my WW dragged her (completely disinterested & utterly non-spiritual) OM & kids with her to church while we were separated. Perhaps she was trying to buy penance and assuage her guilt by tithing, acting holy, and pretending to be this happy, wholesome blended family. I heard later that she bawled her eyes out the entire service every week and quit going permanently after a few months, never to return to "the spiritual roots" she claimed to me she was trying to recapture without me. Kinda lends new credence to the old adage about "feeling as uncomfortable as a wh0re in church", huh?

And i think these quotes sum up the gender differences in question. The author even states "Any gender-based generalization is both irritating and inaccurate, but some behaviors are typical."

Although my FWH was not typical in what these quotes say. He has never discussed either the sexual or emotional aspect of the A, he has down played both aspects of the A.

His A partner is described perfectly in the first paragraph. And the second paragraph fits us as well.

And i have not had experiences IRL other than myself (no friends or family besides my two brothers who have never discussed it and both of their wives would have stayed in the marriages it was my brothers who chose to end it) so i am only judging by my experience and by those that i have read on MB (and i do not read all of them just ones that catch my eye), but it seems that there is little difference in wayward men and wayward women to me. They are both equally "a hard thing to figure out".

Well done you, SDCW-man!

"Last I checked, 2 people who date & fall in love (in the normal, healthy way) do NOT feel guilty, do NOT sell-out everything they have & believe in, do NOT hide/deny their romance to much of the outside world, do NOT lie, manipulate, scapegoat, and blame-shift to rationalize something they know is wrong and hurtful, etc., etc. They also do not enter into the relationship (if healthy) from a position of loneliness, neediness, self-entitlement, resentment, or attention-seeking as is so often the case with waywards."

Do you guys know any teenagers?

"I had to laugh at your mention of "church-members" because my WW dragged her (completely disinterested & utterly non-spiritual) OM & kids with her to church while we were separated. Perhaps she was trying to buy penance and assuage her guilt by tithing, acting holy, and pretending to be this happy, wholesome blended family. I heard later that she bawled her eyes out the entire service every week and quit going permanently after a few months, never to return to "the spiritual roots" she claimed to me she was trying to recapture without me. Kinda lends new credence to the old adage about "feeling as uncomfortable as a wh0re in church", huh?"

My wife did a similar thing during her VLTA. She took RCIA classes and converted even. All while running her adultery at normal tilt.

Pep, I remember you writing your H did somewhat the same thing.

When I asked her why she would do such a thing she said something to the effect it all felt good in different ways and maybe she was searching. Note the maybe. She used that word. Like she couldn’t know for herself.

One must be, has to be pretty far along the road to perdition to think like that, to live for a decade like that. It mocks everything good.

Sorta - kinda ....

I was doing RCIA and H was my sponsor while he was a WH and was a WH when he stood at my baptism

I did not find out until later and boy was i

This wayward church attendance thing is rather interesting. In my sitch, OWH is RC, while OW was Jehovah's Witness. Their DD went to catholic school, and OWH took her to church, but OW never participated in any of her religious education. When OW moved in with my WXH, she suddenly started dragging the 2 of them to RC church every weekend - to OWH's church no less. Naturally, they have welcomed WXH into their fold with open arms, pushing OWH aside as a typical WS does (though he still attends). But DD's first communion is coming up and now OWH is finding out that OW wants WXH to be present and part of the ceremony as her "true father". Yes, it's been 2 years and she's still adamant about reparenting both of our kids (mine is 21 and she expects a mothers day gift!!!). I don't know what the church is going to say, but depsite what they say about adultery I have yet to see the RC church so much as acknowledge an adulterous relationship as such. There are posters here who have been tossed from their church in favour of their WS's and OPs. And neither OW or WXH is even catholic!!!!

I would agree that there are many, many commonalities regarding romantic affairs, whether the subject in question is either male or female. Believe me, I am not giving either a "pass" or arguing that either is less irrational, less hurtful, less destructive, or more easy to "figure out" for the BS.

But there are a few key differences that TYPICALLY apply more often to one gender or another.

1. Few would argue (and the Harley's admit) that a WW is generally MORE difficult to R with than a WH.
2. There are STILL social stigmas that make a married female's affair somewhat less "acceptable" than a male's (unfairly so, I admit).
3. Women who "fall in love" with someone outside their M do so generally with a subtly different set of initial motivations and erroneous self-deceits than men do.

And so on...there have to some important differences in commonly-observed female vs. male infidelity to account for the phenomenom described in #1 above, that's all.