If that makes him feel terrible, he doesn't have to stay married to her. In fact, it might good for him to move on and find someone who is willing to do things the way he likes. It seems to me in such a case this might often be advisable; to me my thinking is otherwise either he is torturing her by forcing her to engage in sex acts that she does not want to, or else she is torturing him by withholding from him something that she is willing to do under other circumstances.

Marriage Builders is not marriage at any cost.

Scotland raised the question of my quotes from the other thread. As I write in a post before the post with the quotes in it:

Frank wrote: Many a BH stay off these threads altogether and only a few newbee male posters offer sympathy for the BH pain and for the position he has been brought into by this particular betrayal. These posters do so in politically incorrect terms and they offer non-MB like advice So they are quickly brought to silence. In the next post I have collected some of the posts on this issue taken from outofkilters thread. The gender difference should be observed in these statements.

Comment: I believed at the time of writing that it should be obvious from these statements that the quotes were not in any way expressions of my point of view, but that this was an attempt to sum up parts of an other thread that was relevant for this one. I am sorry I didn't spell this out so that everybody would know. Perhaps then there would not have been so many DJs as to what my agenda really is.

Scotland raised the question of my quotes from the other thread. As I write in a post before the post with the quotes in it:

Frank wrote: Many a BH stay off these threads altogether and only a few newbee male posters offer sympathy for the BH pain and for the position he has been brought into by this particular betrayal. These posters do so in politically incorrect terms and they offer non-MB like advice So they are quickly brought to silence. In the next post I have collected some of the posts on this issue taken from outofkilters thread. The gender difference should be observed in these statements.

Comment: I believed at the time of writing that it should be obvious from these that the quotes were not in any way expressions of my point of view, but that this was an attempt to sum up parts of an other thread that was relevant for this one.

In the scenario I labelled B there is much pain and many issues on both the ww side of the fence and on the BS side. In this thread I pointed out that there is a lack of understanding from many female posters to the issues and pain on the BH side.

The responses have been very entrenched in the issues on the WW side of the fence and there have been no attempt to penetrate into the BH issues. And there have been no expression on empathy with the position he finds himself in. I am forced to conclude that my original assessment is a correct one. Many female posters are unable to see or empathise with all of the issues a BH in these two scenarios labelled A and B will have to struggle with.





While there have been little empathy nor willingness to try to see these scenarios from the BH side there have been many attacks on the messenger.


Every writer on this thread is familiar with the Harley concept of DJ. Still poster after poster claims to know there is a secret agenda with me to advocate point of views that I repeatedly have stated that I do not support. This is obviously an effective technique in any debate. It renders any position the other part want to communicate dead and worthless. The other part is forced to again and again protect against false accusations rather then talk about the topic at hand.


My next post will address some of your DJ that some posters so freely have judged me by.

So then, to answer some of your DJs:
I have never in this thread supported the view that any person should be forced to do any acts that sexual or otherwise that is against their will. Nor do I have any secret agenda of communicating this statement.

The DJ that have been thrown in my way are far to many to answer all of them. Melody Lane is one of the posters I have held in highest regard here on MB, thus I will answer hers:


Quoting ML:

This is disingenuous. You made a point and now are denying the point you made. There was much more after "of course she is" which was a facetious comment that indicated you most certainly are advocating she perform affair sex with him:

Answer: I suppose you mean that I advocate that she perform acts with him that is against her will. And this I certainly do not advocate. I recognize her right to refuse. The statements following the "of course she is" are intended to show that that if she should choose to exercise that right, her choice will have an impact on the remains of the M and the likelihood of recovery just like exercising other rights she does have.

The choice is hers to make. But the choice will have consequences. Speaking of a generalized type B kind of scenario so as not to be caught up un the case of Outofkilters and her BH I will say this:
I do agree that for her to be forced against her will into a certain kind of sexual acts will build resentment and impair the prospect of recovery.
The two of us apparently do not agree on the consequences of her choosing to refuse to engage with her BH in exciting and thrilling sex of the kind she willingly gave to the OM. I believe you hold on to the politically correct view that this will not influence the chance of recovery. I will say that if so you have no idea whatsoever on how the BH must perceive this choice of hers.

ML also wrote: �I don't think you get that part, Frank, because I don't think you are familiar with Marriage Builders concepts about sacrifice and POJA.�

And:

"Frank, I don't think you understand what it takes to recover a marriage if you think it is ok for her to engage in sexual acts with her husband that disgust her. I understand fully that he is hurt that she engaged in sex acts with him that she won't with her H. That really is irrelevant to what it takes to recover her marriage. You seem to believe the solution is for her to sacrifice on his behalf."


Answer: These statements is based on your DJ that I advocate that the WW should be forced to engage in acts against her will. Which is untrue.


And finally Maritalbliss wrote:
�unless you dwell in the underbelly of men who live and die by the best places to find their bait & tackle. You know, the same ones who say "WOMAN, GO GET ME A BEER! Is that you, Frank? Do you need your woman to go get you a beer? Maybe ***edit***

edited to add:
"Your ignorance astounds me. Return to post all you wish; I await your return. You are totally creeping me ***edit***

Answer:
These are the worst DJs I have found on this thread. Do you really believe that this forum is served well by disrespectful posts of this kind?

Markos wrote


In this I agree with you. Not all M should be saved. And as I see it there should be remorse on the WS part for a recovery to really be successful. In particular in cases with a WW and BH we have seen in these forums several cases where a spectacular plan A followed by recovery according to the MB principles did not produce the expected result. The lack of remorse and willingness to invest in recovery from the WW side undermined the efforts from the BH. Bob Pure and his FWW comes first to mind as an example of this.



Edited to add: This is not a comment on the actual case of Outofkilter's and her BH. But rather from the generic example B above. I do hope that Outofkilter's and her BH may overcome their struggles and recover their M.

Wow. Frank is correct at least in one point: Some of you women do NOT GET IT.

As a former BH, I was starved for physical touch, and SF. I would try to initiate, everything from hugs to sex, and got tepid responses for MONTHS. I was starving to death. I was open with her, honest, and she told me it turned her off because I was acting "like a little puppy dog" - too "needy".

I was starved for any scrap of love she tossed my way. Yes, she showed her love in other ways. But not in the ways that mattered - because my top ENs were different. A man who is being physically neglected by his wife loses energy, confidence, self-esteem, and, in my case, spiraled into depression and anxiety - a loss of zest for life.

She wasn't playful, she didn't flirt with me, the spark was totally gone. I felt emasculated, worthless as a man, alone, empty. It was awful.

When I found out that she'd sent hundreds of flirtatious, sexual emails to POSOM, and had been joyously having great sex with him, I can't describe how low it made me feel to know that everything I'd been needing and craving, while she was saying she wasn't in the mood, or it didn't feel right, she was falling over herself to GIVE to the OM.

It cuts you to the core. It stabs at a deep place, a place that you have hidden from everyone except your wife, and eviscerates you.

In our culture (post-feminism) and in THIS AND MANY threads here at MB, the guidance towards women sexually is "if it doesn't feel good, don't do it". Isn't that the most selfish thinking imaginable?

Guess what? I don't "feel like" getting up and going to work every morning. But I still do it. In fact, there are LOTS of things I don't "feel like" doing. But they need to be done, and since I'm a man of responsibility, I do them.

SF is a NEED. It is just as valid as any other need. What if I didn't "feel like" being O&H? Or if I didn't "feel like" having recreational companionship? What would your advice be then, ladies?

It would be along the lines of, "get over yourself; it's a need, and step up and make it happen."

This is NOT to say that I approve of the way that Outofkilter's husband is going about it. The way he is acting is, frankly, nightmarish. So my comment is an "in general" comment, not telling outofkilter that she's wrong and he's right.

In fact, I think Vibrissa summed up how a couple can handle varying levels of sexual desire nicely on HeadHeldHigh's thread, page 5.

Melodylane,

Books?
What books?
I don�t need no stinkin� books!

I learnt everything I know from one of the best, you, but you it appears you have done a bad job.

I think I read for about two years before I first posted.

Many a times here on MB a WS has been told to man up for the team and do what has to be done during recovery.

Many a time a BS has been told to reclaim their spouse by doing what and where the WS and OP went and did.

How good is the advice when it can't apply to all situations equally?

Even in a marriage were there was no affair all forms of SF need to be freely consented to.

On the other hand.

Why should a WW get away with doing her OM for two years while denying SF to her BH. Then say I done with the OM now and will have SF with you BH but I get to chose what SF we do. Then the WW gets to deny to the BH what she freely gave to the OM?

You and others refuse to see this BH�s feelings on this point.

Why should the BH have to accept he�s not going to get what the WW gave the OM for all those years?

Why should this WW expect her BH to take less then what she gave the OM?

How is a BH to be able to understand it�s ok for his WW to deny him what she gave the OM?

I think outofkilter has not comeback here because she was not getting unanimous support on denying her BH what she gave OM. There are more problems then how she did the OM. I hope she calls the Harley�s.

MB way is to find a solution that takes feelings of both into account.

Could we please try to find that kind of solution here for situation where WW has made things with OM but does not want to do these anymore (her feelings) and BH wants to do these things otherwise he is inferior to OM (his feelings).

My opinion is that trying to convince BH that his WW was just out of character during A will not work. How do I know that it was out of character and not the enormous attraction towards OM which I'll never achieve? How can I believe my WW in this?

Disregarding or ridiculing BH feelings about the situation is not the solution and I guess that was the point Frank tries to make.

Arpeggi,

I had that happen to me, for months also. I felt the same way as you did; "eviscerated" describes it well.

I have read many of the flirty texts and emails that used pornographic language to describe what the affairees would like to do to each other. I have also seen loving, emotional words from my H to OW such as "I love you" and "the only reason I am in my marriage is for my kids".

It would never occur to me to claim that some men on this forum DO NOT GET IT because they are men and do not understand how it feels to be the sex-slave wife and the happy, domesticated mother of his kids reading this.

Where do such competitive claims lead us? What is the value in them? I can see none.

No woman here is arguing that a wife should not be a willing an enthusiastic sexual partner to her H simply because she does not feel like it. Dr Harley advises this and suggests resources for women to use to explore the issue of sexual fulfilment, and the women on this thread (and on MB generally) are here to learn and practice Dr Harley's concepts. We do not tell each other not to have sex if we do not feel like it. We discuss how to meet the EN of sexual fulfilment and how to create the conditions that enable us to "feel like it".

This statement is silly, childish and untrue. You do yourself no service by making ridiculous, untrue statements.

Women posters who are on board with Dr Harley's programme always make the point that you make; that all ENs are equally valid and that women do not have the right to deny the EN of sexual fulfilment. We point out also that it would be foolish to deny this EN if they want their husbands to feel love for them.

Also, I doubt that you would get the crude response to just "step up and make it happen" if you did not feel like O&H or RC. I have seen threads here giving the most helpful suggestions about how a couple can find RC that is mutual enjoyable, or why openness and honesty are necessary, especially after an affair, and how this EN can be safely met. Finally, if a man did didn't feel like going to work, posters would take time and trouble to explore why he hated his work and what might be alternative sources of occupation and income.

I have found posters here to be the most kind and painstaking people giving help on all subjects that one could ever hope to meet.

But since it is outofkilter's thread that is sparking Frank's and your comments, and since women are advising the wife NOT to engage in practices that her BH seems to want to humiliate and punish her with, then you ARE "telling outofkilter that she's wrong and he's right".

I 1000% agree with this.....

and I'm willing to bet that the BH in this case didn't jump out of the gate with his DEMANDS...more likely they are coming after rejection after rejection after rejection, more of a build up of FRUSTERATION....having to deal with that after his dealing wiht his WW boinking SOMEONE else...breaking her VOWS....poor guy

Not

ps...I am woman, hear me ROAR.....

Frank, this has nothing to do with being politically correct, something I am not.

And yes we do disagree with the consequences of her refusing to have a type of sex with her H that she finds disgusting, because you disagree with Dr Harley. Dr Harley is a man, Frank. A MAN. So keep that in mind before you dismiss his opinion.

And his opinion is that sex MUST be enjoyable to BOTH partners. She does not want to perform sex acts with her H that she performed with the OM because she is now disgusted by those acts. If her sex life with her own H is disgusting, and she proceeds to have disgusting sex with him she will soon have a big fat aversion to having sex at all. People do not do unpleasant things for long.

The solution is to find a way to make love that makes them BOTH HAPPY. Making one person happy or making sacrifices for the other will lead to resentment which will harm the marriage.

And I will repeat Dr Harley's message again: women need 2 things to be present in order to be willing to have sex: an emotional attachment to the man and the prospect of enjoyment.

So see, Frank, the consequences of her having sex with him in a way she does not enjoy is not the solution and it will not get him what he wants. It will get him just the opposite, a wife who has an aversion to sex.

Do you even own a single Marriage Builders book? Or have you just been reading posts here for 3 years?

"Even in a marriage were there was no affair all forms of SF need to be free freely consented to.
No. No. No. This will not build a happy marriage! SF that is not consensual will cause anger, anxiety and resentment. Some spouses kill their spouse because of this sexual abuse! "

YES YES YES

Need to be freely consented to means that they both want to do "it", whatever "it" maybe. Does not mean they must reach an agreement, or just do it because the other wants to. Even in a marriage without prior infidelity.

Again try to convince me why this BH will be convinced why he should not get what the OM got.

No books

Read all the articles put up on this site by the Harley's. Been here for 5 years. Haven't posted for 5.

"Again try to convince me why this BH will be convinced why he should not get what the OM got."

This BH is hung up on that point. I think threesomes are bad. However whatever this WW did the OM did not hold a gun to her head and force her.

She did it.
She kept going back for more.
Then she kept doing it after her BH knew what she was doing with the OM for another year.
How bad could it of been to do it all that time then continue after her BH found out?

This is what her BH is thinking. Change his mind. What words do you have that will make the BH see the error of his ways?

I see Frank's point as well.

It's a perception of one's value. If the WW valued the OM enough to do certain things, then when she denies those same things to her BH she is saying with her actions that she valued him far more than her BH.

So folks can try to argue red herrings such as someone should not do things that disgust them. The problem with that argument is the WW has already proven the act doesn't disgust her. After all, if it disgusted her, then she would not have engaged in that act with the OM.

Since she's engaged in that act with the OM, the argument, especially if it was more than a one time event with respect to that act, falls short of being credible.

So I tend to agree, if she freely and without reservation gave something to the OM, but refuses to offer the same to her husband who has made respectful requests for that act, then she is simply acting in a selfish fashion.

Even if she doesn't think she is, the burden of proof is upon her to prove to her betrayed husband that she is not being selfish and is fully committed to meeting his needs and avoiding love busters.

That's a consequence of her decision to have an affair, and she has to demonstrate in a fashion that will be judged (rightly, not the DJ kind of judgment) acceptable to her husband. He is the only one who gets to decide what his perceptions are. No one can, nor should tell him his perceptions are faulty.

If he observed his wife do A with the OM, but refuses his requests for A, then her burden is to prove to her husband how refusing A with him is a loving act, designed to meet his needs and avoid the destruction of romantic love.

That's the bottom line. We can argue about who gets whom, but the truth is that if a WW did some act with an OM that she's refused to do with her husband, especially if it was a recurrent event in the affair that she approached with enthusiasm, then she should expect that her husband will take this as she doesn't value him over the OM.

Indeed, it looks selfish on her part.

Frank:

I understand your POV here. And it isn't limited to just men feeling this way. Women, can and do, wonder why they can't get the same thing that the OM/OW got.

Be it huge amounts of text messages/emails (EN= Conversation) or sex acts that were never given to the betrayed spouse.

As a former OM, I can tell you that I pushed the OW to perform things that she may or may not have been willing to do. She was interested in pleasing ME, and when I was in that A, I was interested in pleasing ME as well, and if it degraded her, it didn't matter because I was HAPPY. (And, it was pretty plain vanilla stuff that we did, however the locations were always "someplace else"...)

And I feel that it is a reasonable expectation that a betrayed spouse GET what the wayward spouse gave away freely. (Be it TM/conversation/affection or SF) IF the wayward one trys to hide behind the cloak of "it reminds me of the affair" then they are using an excuse to keep the A alive. To keep something "Special" between the affair partners. And THAT is the continuing affront to the betrayed spouse every day that the refusal is given.

And this isn't just about degrading sex acts either. No one should submit to degrading activities whether betrayed or formerly wayward. It does NOT build romantic love, as Dr H states clearly.

BUT having submitted or provided them, to someone OUTSIDE of your marriage, and then, in order to protect what was "special" in the A, NOT to even express the willingness to do them with the betrayed spouse is a slap in the face.

A marriage ravaged by infidelty has a LOT of hurdles to clear to get to "normalcy" A betrayed spouse who KNOWS that the wayward spouse provided unlimited amounts of something that is important to the betrayed spouse (affection, conversation, SF, admiration) and then refuses to do the same to the betrayed spouse, should be castigated, not coddled.

LG

TheRoad, you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Frank, I want to emphasize that the goal here is to have a sex life that satisfies BOTH the H and the wife. No one is trying to deprive the husband. But he must be satisfied in a way that pleases HER.

That is achieved by finding ways to make love that satisfy both. If she agrees to his demands to make love in way that disgusts her, she will soon be avoiding all sex with him and there goes their sex life. He will not be happy if she finds sex so unpleasant that she avoids him.

A better solution is to find a way to meet his need of SF that satisfies BOTH.

Here is an excerpt from Dr Harley's article on Sexual Aversion:


Now, in the case of outofkilter, her H uses abusive tactics and bullies her and DEMANDS that she make love to him in the same way as she did in her affair. She has explained to him how those disgust her, yet he persists. Dr Harley addresses this abusive tactic in the same article:

Sexual Aversion

This is what has happened in her marriage. His demands have made the situation worse, not better. This couple is not in love because they have no program of recovery. Because they are not in love, the FWS is not sexually attracted to the H, which rightly upsets him. This causes him to lovebust her, which makes the situation worse.

The solution is to follow this program and fall in love again.

A better solution would be to do MORE THRILLING sexual acts with her H than she did with the OM. She should not bring the degradation of her affair into her nice, clean marriage if it disgusts her. What would make it thrilling is if they were both in love. THEY ARE NOT.

And that is the key, they have to restore the love to the marriage. When a woman is in love, her willingness to try new things goes way up.

I agree that this husband should be sexually fulfilled, but he won't be sexually fulfilled for long if she doesn't enjoy the sex. It is imperative that they BOTH enjoy SF.