# Exposure



## jld

Should what happens in a marriage be discussed and dealt with only within the marriage?

Or should anything and everything in a marriage, at any time, including in the case of sexual/financial/emotional infidelity, be fair grounds for exposure, if either party feels it necessary, for any reason?

Or somewhere in between?

What are the consequences of exposure?

What are your own personal limits on exposure? What are you willing to risk? What, in your opinion, goes too far, if anything?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blondilocks

Your first 4 questions are entirely dependent on the couple involved and their plan of action for their marriage. Although, I believe the spouse of the affair partner has a right to know of the deceit for health reasons.

Telling a seriously ill or dying person of the details of the transgression is going too far. Show some mercy.


----------



## The Middleman

Exposure of infidelity is an absolute requirement. I think at a minimum it should be everyone the wayward and the AP is close with, close friends, coworkers and family. I personally feel it should go further, but once there is a little exposure, it goes wide spread anyway with gossip. The positive consequences of exposure are that it helps end the affair and the shame factor serves as a form of consequence for the transgressions. I never underestimate the value of shame and guilt. I would recommend it regardless of reconcilation being on the table or not.


----------



## arbitrator

*To quote a man, so wise beyond his years: 

"All is fair in love and war!"*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pluto2

No spouse should ever, ever expect their spouse to lie on their behalf.


----------



## Personal

It all depends on who, what, when, where, how and why, aside from this (sort of anony moose) venue my wife and I are intensely private with respect to our marital and sexual relationship.

One thing I've noticed on here is that many suggest exposure in the case of infidelity, which is something I pretty much didn't do when my first wife cheated on me. So to most people at the time, it probably looked like I just left her one day without reason.

If I recall correctly (it was a long time ago - 24 years) the only other person I told about her (physical) infidelity were two close friends from school. Over the years after, I have only mentioned her betrayal to 3 others inclusive of a mate from the Army, my current wife and my and my ex-wife's daughter after she kept pressing for why's after she became an adult.

In person I am usually open with most people about most things, except for things that matter to me emotionally (only a select few are allowed past that wall).


----------



## Wolf1974

Depends on time and circumstance. I know that I didn't share any personal secrets between my X and I. Then the day I found out about her cheating I exposed all of her to everyone and anyone who asked.


----------



## truster

Myself, I'm an open book for the most part. I figure if I'm going to do something that I'm ashamed for my closest friends and family to know about, then I should be rethinking the wisdom of that action. Granted, I have the luck to not be into any pursuits which hurt no one but which certain segments of society don't accept.

Overall, I don't mind respecting my spouse's desire to keep things private if they don't hurt anyone either. If they've had a long week and don't want to go to a family event, I'll cover for that since it's easier for me to tell the family 'no'. However, if they're doing things that cause others pain, I think covering for them is just helping them evade consequences. Again, if you would be ashamed for people to know what it is you're up to, perhaps you're up to no good and you need to face it.


----------



## OpenWindows

Wolf1974 said:


> Depends on time and circumstance. I know that I didn't share any personal secrets between my X and I. Then the day I found out about her cheating I exposed all of her to everyone and anyone who asked.


Here's a good question... 

If you cheat, are ALL of your secrets fair game? That time you got drunk and wet the bed, your foot fetish, the fact that your cousin molested you as a child? Where's the line?

If I thought a person would ever expose those things about me, no matter why, I wouldn't want to be involved with them in the first place.


----------



## arbitrator

*In essence, in the vast majority of marital infidelity episodes, "discovery" of "the traitorous act" by the BS, pretty much initiates "the proverbial beginning of the end" of both their marital and friendship relationship, and to wit, destroys whatever is left of their trust for one another!

It is greatly at this point where the marital "disclosure prohibition" goes out the window and except for maybe the lone exception of their "very minor" children, it stands to reason that outing their betraying spouse largely becomes commonplace to their prior community of mutual relatives, friends, and acquaintances!

Not to even mention the person, albeit the skank or satyr, that the adulterous infidelity occurred with!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I know I"m in the minority, but I consider my personal life my own. If I discovered my wife had cheated, I would most certainly not want anyone else to know. If we got divorced it would be "irreconcilable differences".


----------



## OpenWindows

What if you were sure your partner was cheating, and you blew all their secrets out of the water, and then found out you were wrong?

You can take back the affair accusations, but what about the rest?


----------



## always_hopefull

I exposed my exh's cheating for my own protection, he was telling everyone such horrible stories about me. Now everyone knows the reason we were divorced was him, as he was blaming me. Sadly when I exposed, several of my "friends" informed me he was hitting on them over the years. I wish they would have told me, I could have had 10 years of healing and not 10 more years of an abusive relationship, and yes I view cheating as abuse.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Should what happens in a marriage be discussed and dealt with only within the marriage?


Everything being equal, yes. 

However, things are rarely equal. Sometimes people need support and advice from those close to them.



> Or should anything and everything in a marriage, at any time, including in the case of sexual/financial/emotional infidelity, be fair grounds for exposure, if either party feels it necessary, for any reason?


See, here's the thing.

The person cheating already broke the deal. The secrecy and intimacy are gone. So it's now fair game for the other person to expose it.

Because the deal has been broken. That's part of the gig with an affair -- you broke the bond of intimacy and secrecy. So it's done and dusted.


> Or somewhere in between?


If the betrayed spouse needs support, go for it. If the betrayed spouse is trying to use that to blow up an ongoing affair, go for it. If a betrayed spouse is just trying to enact vengeance...

Well, go for it then, too -- as long as all you are saying is the truth, and it includes your own ****ty behaviour, too.


> What are the consequences of exposure?


You risk the relationship.

Which, in an affair, is already on the line. So it seems a natural consequence.


> What are your own personal limits on exposure? What are you willing to risk? What, in your opinion, goes too far, if anything?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Anything. Having been through it, you know it all comes out in the wash anyway. Even though I kept my ex's affair a secret even after we split, she spilled the beans on every part of our relationship -- and made **** up to boot. So, I tell everyone who asks about her. Her problem, not mine.

I think what you are really after here, JLD, is to enable a cheating wife to not take accountability for her own actions. To project that on her husband as the cause for her affair, and to project also the need for her husband in helping her sweep it all under the rug, nice and neat.


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> What if you were sure your partner was cheating, and you blew all their secrets out of the water, and then found out you were wrong?
> 
> You can take back the affair accusations, but what about the rest?


Accountability is coming clean with the fact that you were wrong, and apologizing for your behaviour.


----------



## always_hopefull

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I know I"m in the minority, but I consider my personal life my own. If I discovered my wife had cheated, I would most certainly not want anyone else to know. If we got divorced it would be "irreconcilable differences".


But what if she was going around town telling various slanderous untruths? Would you correct them? I got tired of the lies one day and said "really?, let me tell you something..." It was so bad, his bf apologized for believing his lies and not being a friend to me.


----------



## OpenWindows

marduk said:


> Accountability is coming clean with the fact that you were wrong, and apologizing for your behaviour.


Sure it is.

But I'm talking about exposing secrets that aren't affair related. You can apologize, but now the whole world knows that your wife likes to be tied and gagged in bed. You can't take that back, and she didn't deserve that.


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> Sure it is.
> 
> But I'm talking about exposing secrets that aren't affair related. You can apologize, but now the whole world knows that your wife likes to be tied and gagged in bed. You can't take that back, and she didn't deserve that.


So then it's on you.

However, I will say that I've had far more issues -- particularly with my current wife -- being far more open about our bedroom shenanigans than I have ever been. And most relationships have been that way.

And, funnily enough, my wife has on more than one occasion been upset with me dropping some minor detail when she's already blabbed in detail about something.

People are all different. My wife is fine to broadcast our sex life to the world, but not fine with me doing so. 

Like I've said, I have personally found in my life that most women have been the same. I have had lots of close friends that were women, and I've dated their friends -- and I know for a fact that every one of those women that I slept with told all their girlfriends about every detail of my body and what I liked to do -- good and bad.

But I digress.

I would recommend talking to your partner about what is secret and sacred, and what is not. And about what other people probably already know about.


----------



## OpenWindows

marduk said:


> I would recommend talking to your partner about what is secret and sacred, and what is not. And about what other people probably already know about.


I agree with this.

I was thinking of a couple of posters who have said that if a partner cheats, ALL secrets and confidences are fair game.

That's a dangerous road to walk down, especially if you have secrets of your own...


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> I was thinking of a couple of posters who have said that if a partner cheats, ALL secrets and confidences are fair game.
> 
> That's a dangerous road to walk down, especially if you have secrets of your own...


I will say this.

Before my wife, in LTRs, I was pretty secretive and closed about relationships. My wife is an open book with friends and family. 

And to be with her, I've had to get used to that. And you know what? It's ok. I now laugh when she drops some zany thing we've done in a crowded room. 

And it's kind of a breath of fresh air, to be honest. People are people. Yes, we have done and do crazy things. And so do other people. Big deal.


----------



## OpenWindows

marduk said:


> I will say this.
> 
> Before my wife, in LTRs, I was pretty secretive and closed about relationships. My wife is an open book with friends and family.
> 
> And to be with her, I've had to get used to that. And you know what? It's ok. I now laugh when she drops some zany thing we've done in a crowded room.
> 
> And it's kind of a breath of fresh air, to be honest. People are people. Yes, we have done and do crazy things. And so do other people. Big deal.


Maybe we're thinking along different lines here. To me, that time someone got drunk and wet the bed is a zany thing they did.

I knew a guy who was cheated on, and he told everyone that his GF was a cheater because she was molested as a child. The molestation was not common knowledge. To me, that was a horrible thing for him to do. And if she hadn't actually cheated... Just no.


----------



## arbitrator

*While I would expose the fact of my partners adultery, along of who, when, and where it occurred, any other details are totally irrelevant to anyone else knowing! Foremostly, anything exposed would have come from absolutely ascertainable, irrefutable fact and truth!

The fact that if my partner liked being bound with fuzzy pink handcuffs would be their own business! If true, it has absolutely no room in my vernacular to anyone that I would ever choose to disclose it to! 

My mantra is that if it's not admissible in a family law courtroom, then it's certainly not admissible in "the court of public opinion!"*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Arb, like richardsharpe, you are a gentleman. I have no doubt you would always be respectful of a woman, no matter the circumstances. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OpenWindows

I believe that it is only morally okay to share info that belongs to me.

For example...

I was cheated on by my BF. 
That is mine, and I can share it.

That BF has a small penis, and wears ladies underwear.
That is his, and off limits.


FTR, I made all that stuff up, my BF is quite nice and wouldn't fit my panties anyway.


----------



## arbitrator

jld said:


> Arb, like richardsharpe, you are a gentleman. I have no doubt you would always be respectful of a woman, no matter the circumstances.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


*Likewise, I'm sure, Ma'am! You are the equivalent by being the absolute, consummate lady that you are! 

Thanks, @jld , for your every compliment and confidence!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> Maybe we're thinking along different lines here. To me, that time someone got drunk and wet the bed is a zany thing they did.
> 
> I knew a guy who was cheated on, and he told everyone that his GF was a cheater because she was molested as a child. The molestation was not common knowledge. To me, that was a horrible thing for him to do. And if she hadn't actually cheated... Just no.


That's just shaming and abusive behaviour.

The cheating... Ok. If that's what happened, that's what happened.

The abuse... Her story to tell.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I think I would still avoid the discussion. Telling slanderous tales generally only makes the person telling the tales look bad.

Also I think of it a bit the way that the government should never respond to any media claim of leaked classified information. (as they did so badly in the Snowdon case). Otherwise you run into the situation:

Her: He likes to wear my panties
Me: Not true

Her: He insists that I call him "daddy"
Me: Not true

Her: He likes to be tied up
Me: No comment.


The problem is that once you start denying such claims, either you have to lie, or you wind up confirming some of them.


Better to just make it clear that your bedroom activities are simply not open for public discussion.




always_hopefull said:


> But what if she was going around town telling various slanderous untruths? Would you correct them? I got tired of the lies one day and said "really?, let me tell you something..." It was so bad, his bf apologized for believing his lies and not being a friend to me.


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *Likewise, I'm sure, Ma'am! You are the equivalent by being the absolute, consummate lady that you are!
> 
> Thanks, @jld , for your every compliment and confidence!*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


They are well-deserved. 

And thank you kindly, as well.


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> Here's a good question...
> 
> If you cheat, are ALL of your secrets fair game? That time you got drunk and wet the bed, your foot fetish, the fact that your cousin molested you as a child? Where's the line?
> 
> If I thought a person would ever expose those things about me, no matter why, I wouldn't want to be involved with them in the first place.


Fair enough and I wouldn't want to be with a cheater. When it comes to that their is no line, you humiliate me and expect the same in return


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Fair enough and I wouldn't want to be with a cheater. When it comes to that their is no line, you humiliate me and expect the same in return


_An eye for an eye . . . makes the whole world blind. _


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> _An eye for an eye . . . makes the whole world blind. _


And the truth shall set you free.

We can play this game all day long, JLD.


----------



## jld

Who's playing a game?

I think we are all just saying what we think.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> _An eye for an eye . . . makes the whole world blind. _


Has nothing to do with revenge but not suprised that's your stance


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Fair enough and I wouldn't want to be with a cheater. When it comes to that their is no line, *you humiliate me and expect the same in return*


This does not sound like revenge?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Who's playing a game?
> 
> I think we are all just saying what we think.


I think what you are seeking is a way for cheating wives to make sure their husbands don't embarrass them with family or friends by disclosing the affair. 

As a way to avoid humiliation and accountability, and to put all that on the husband instead.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Wolf1974

Nope it sounds like telling the truth and defending yourself. When lies are told about you then you have a right to tell the truth. If they find that humiliating ohh well. 

Adult is a tough thing for some. Some can't ever handle that some actions have consequences.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I think what you are seeking is a way for cheating wives to make sure their husbands don't embarrass them with family or friends by disclosing the affair.
> 
> As a way to avoid humiliation and accountability, and to put all that on the husband instead.
> 
> Am I wrong?


Yes, you're wrong.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Nope it sounds like telling the truth and defending yourself. When lies are told about you then you have a right to tell the truth. If they find that humiliating ohh well.
> 
> Adult is a tough thing for some. Some can't ever handle that some actions have consequences.


You know that people already have an idea of your character, correct? So even if lies are told about you, people are unlikely to believe them.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Yes, you're wrong.


So, let's go on the record then with your opinion.

If a wife cheats on a husband, he should go to her, and compassionately ask what he did wrong to make her want to cheat on him, take accountability work on these things, and not tell anyone about the affair.

And hopefully, by that process, she will end her affair, and go back to her husband forevermore.

Right?


----------



## samyeagar

I am who I am, and I behave accordingly. There are many things I wish to keep private between myself and my wife, however if any of those things were to become wide open and public, I would feel no shame or embarrassment.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> You know that people already have an idea of your character, correct? So even if lies are told about you, people are unlikely to believe them.


Nope not true at all in many circumstances. When the lies are told over and over and are pervasive to the point that you are actually wondering if you remembered the past wrong and how she painted you could be the reality ......you question everything about yourself so others will as well. then find out none of it is true and that it was all made up to hide the truth of an affair.....time to tell the truth far and wide. 

It's actually pretty simple. If you don't want exposure you had an affair, just don't have one. But I won't lie to protect the feelings of someone who purposely went out of their way to hurt me and my children. That's silly.


----------



## Wolf1974

And beside JLD you assume the cheater would feel what? Remorse? Embarrassment? Humiliation? That's not in the WS playbook


----------



## ButtPunch

Pluto2 said:


> No spouse should ever, ever expect their spouse to lie on their behalf.


It is this simple.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> So, let's go on the record then with your opinion.
> 
> If a wife cheats on a husband, he should go to her, and compassionately ask what he did wrong to make her want to cheat on him, take accountability work on these things, and not tell anyone about the affair.
> 
> And hopefully, by that process, she will end her affair, and go back to her husband forevermore.
> 
> Right?


He might need to tell others about the affair. It depends on the individual situation.

Exposure is a tool, a very powerful one. I think it needs to be used carefully. 

And his motives are critical.


----------



## Marduk

Wolf1974 said:


> Nope not true at all in many circumstances. When the lies are told over and over and are pervasive to the point that you are actually wondering if you remembered the past wrong and how she painted you could be the reality ......you question everything about yourself so others will as well. then find out none of it is true and that it was all made up to hide the truth of an affair.....time to tell the truth far and wide.
> 
> It's actually pretty simple. If you don't want exposure you had an affair, just don't have one. But I won't lie to protect the feelings of someone who purposely went out of their way to hurt me and my children. That's silly.


My ex said profoundly irrational things, and her family and friends believed her. For a time.

Things that didn't even make sense.

When I heard that, I spoke my truth. And lived it.

And she rapidly was backed into a corner and ran away from everyone. To this day, she denies having an affair, even though her boyfriend told everyone after I did. I once heard a story about a picture of them kissing with a date on it before we even separated surfacing. Another one with her family member finding them on a date when we were freshly separated.

People lie. 

The antidote to lies is not silence. It is to speak and live the truth.

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
- Einstein


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> And beside JLD you assume the cheater would feel what? Remorse? Embarrassment? Humiliation? That's not in the WS playbook


I think some feel all those things. I think most are lost. 

Out for a few hours now.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> He might need to tell others about the affair. It depends on the individual situation.
> 
> Exposure is a tool, a very powerful one. I think it needs to be used carefully.
> 
> And his motives are critical.


Intentionality, as you say, is key.

However, it seems like you're backing away from your original statement.

What should a husband do if he discovers his wife is having an affair? Swallow his pain and his pride and beg forgiveness for failing her?


----------



## OpenWindows

marduk said:


> Intentionality, as you say, is key.
> 
> However, it seems like you're backing away from your original statement.
> 
> What should a husband do if he discovers his wife is having an affair? Swallow his pain and his pride and beg forgiveness for failing her?


I think it would be wise to find out her reasons for cheating before exposing.

At least understand the situation, before you broadcast it to the world. If the betrayed spouse learns some unpleasant truths about themselves (or their spouse) in the process, it may change the way they want to handle the situation.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I think some feel all those things. I think most are lost.
> 
> Out for a few hours now.


My personal experience is that your most and some need to be switched around to make that sentence correct,

I think most don't feel those things. I do agree that some are lost. 

But

I will be straight honest with you when I say...I don't really care if they are lost.

If you purposely come after me, endanger my kids, try to humiliate me and get me fired at work with lies and manipulation..... I will do whatever I have to do to defend myself and my kids from you period.

Now keep in mind this is one circumstance. It doesn't have to be this way cause as I said if you don't want to be exposed as a cheater just don't cheat...it really is that simple. 

I have broken up with plenty of women. 95% of the time hurt things are said because when someone breaks up with you it hurts,,,I get that. But what those other women did was voice that hurt to ME. They didn't try and spread lies about me, endanger my children, or try to get me fired. So when I am asked about them and why we had to break up I generally just say we weren't compatable, and that's enough said. Handle yourself with dignity and get plenty in return.


----------



## samyeagar

One of the most pivotal moments in my life was I sat and talked with Michael Stipe for the better part of an hour. I asked him for an autograph and he asked why I wanted it. I told him I wanted it so my friends would believe me. He asked me...what does it say about your relationship with your friends if you need my name written on a piece of paper for them to believe you? Whether they believe you or not doesn't change the truth that we know.


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> I think it would be wise to find out her reasons for cheating before exposing.
> 
> At least understand the situation, before you broadcast it to the world. If the betrayed spouse learns some unpleasant truths about themselves (or their spouse) in the process, it may change the way they want to handle the situation.


Agreed, with two caveats:

1. If the betrayed spouse needs support or advice , they can go get that support from close friends or family members as needed. If you've been on the wrong end of this, you may not be thinking clearly when this happens. 

2. Think long-term about why you're doing it. And know that the choice is yours alone to make at the end of the day.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Amplexor

jld said:


> Exposure is a tool, a very powerful one. I think it needs to be used carefully.
> 
> And his motives are critical.


I have always stated that in the case of an affair, exposure is a very powerful tool in recovery. It can also be deadly. It is, IMO, the nuclear option. It is not the last resort, but should not be the first arrow out of the quiver. 

In my case, I considered it, but never used it. In the context of my wife's LTEA, it would have played into her hands to family and friends. That I was a dominating, controlling husband that kept her tethered with my Svengali grip. That was part of her narrative to rationalize the affair to herself. My exposing nothing more than repetitive phone calls to some one 1,000 miles away could have played against me with family and friends. A dominating, controlling ass-hat. "After all, she's not doing anything wrong, just talking to a dude on the phone." I managed to kill the affair with other methods and we successfully navigated reconciliation. That does not mean that exposure was not still an arrow in my quiver, it was just further down the road from the processes I tried first. Once she understood that the relationship was a deal breaker for me and I was ready to leave the marriage because of it, it died.

In physical affairs, I think it is more warranted at an earlier stage. Exposure of a PA will tend to have more serious repercussions and embarrassments for the APs. It can drive a wedge between them leaving them scrambling to pick up the pieces in their own lives/marriages and putting as much distance between themselves as possible. If exposure is going to be used in the context of reconciliation it needs to be applied properly. With a full battery of damming evidence and delivered with as much dignity and high moral ground as possible with the end game, the betterment of the marriage. If not, it will be perceived as vindictiveness in an already dead marriage. (Motives) I support exposure, but I do feel it is misapplied or applied too early in many cases. Choose Wisely.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
It amazes me that folks believe intentionally, and methodically destroying their spouses social reputation and earning ability will eventually result in a happy, healthy happy marriage. You can sometimes force someone to stay with you. But not to love you. 

If Isaac Newton had been a psychologist, instead of a physicist, he would have said this. 

Every interpersonal action has an equal and opposite reaction. The more you force mechanical compliance from a partner, the less they love you. 





jld said:


> Should what happens in a marriage be discussed and dealt with only within the marriage?
> 
> Or should anything and everything in a marriage, at any time, including in the case of sexual/financial/emotional infidelity, be fair grounds for exposure, if either party feels it necessary, for any reason?
> 
> Or somewhere in between?
> 
> What are the consequences of exposure?
> 
> What are your own personal limits on exposure? What are you willing to risk? What, in your opinion, goes too far, if anything?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> It amazes me that folks believe intentionally, and methodically destroying their spouses social reputation and earning ability will eventually result in a happy, healthy happy marriage. You can sometimes force someone to stay with you. But not to love you.
> 
> If Isaac Newton had been a psychologist, instead of a physicist, he would have said this.
> 
> Every interpersonal action has an equal and opposite reaction. The more you force mechanical compliance from a partner, the less they love you.


And this is why I would not even consider reconciliation. Not worth the hassle of trying to calculate every possible permutation of every action.


----------



## eric1

The reasons differ depending on instance. If the spouse has horrible parents, for example, it will not do too much. But for 95% of cases

The biggest reason is that expose is the number one tool to kill affairs. It's the bleach to bacteria. The sunlight to Dracula. The nuclear bomb to WWII. Affairs are completely devastating to the betrayed spouse and this is the way to make the life that you don't deserve to somehow start getting back to normal. UPON FINDING OUT ABOUT THE AFFAIR THE ONLY GOAL OF THE BETRAYED IS TO GET OUT OF AN OPEN RELATIONSHIP AS FAST AS POSSIBLE BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Secondly, it's important that everyone understands that a cheater just doesn't blow up their betrayed spouse's life, it blows up the lives of everyone in their support network . If a druggie needs help then their chances or recovery are significantly increased by the involvement of family. The same logic applies here.

With many, and certainly in cases of reconciliation, involving the family is a good faith step on the part of the betrayed of 'owning' their affairs. They'll never be truly remorseful without owning it.

Lastly, as the betrayed, why should you be forced to maintain one ounce of burden of keeping it secret? It's draining. And you never did anything wrong. It's a consequence of deciding to step outside of marriage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> It amazes me that folks believe intentionally, and methodically destroying their spouses social reputation and earning ability will eventually result in a happy, healthy happy marriage. You can sometimes force someone to stay with you. But not to love you.
> 
> If Isaac Newton had been a psychologist, instead of a physicist, he would have said this.
> 
> Every interpersonal action has an equal and opposite reaction. The more you force mechanical compliance from a partner, the less they love you.


Yes and no. 

It depends on the humans involved, but it's been my experience that without the enablement of some kind of natural consequence for actions, human nature is to see your own actions as warranted and your partners as unwarranted. 

And that swings both ways, of course. 

But nobody - and I mean nobody - is a saint who offers of themselves freely without the thought of some kind of return. 

It's a social contract. If you don't like the consequences of breaking the deal, don't make the deal.

Remember, if stats and polls are to be believed, the primary driver for not cheating is the fear that they will get caught. Not out of some sense of altruism. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> It depends on the humans involved, but it's been my experience that without the enablement of some kind of natural consequence for actions, human nature is to see your own actions as warranted and your partners as unwarranted.
> 
> And that swings both ways, of course.
> 
> But nobody - and I mean nobody - is a saint who offers of themselves freely without the thought of some kind of return.
> 
> It's a social contract. *If you don't like the consequences of breaking the deal, don't make the deal*.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The problem most people face is no matter how hard they try, they never even imagine how broad, far reaching, unexpected and enduring those consequences can be. Unfortunately for them, by the time the consequences start, the deed is done, and there are no do overs.


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> The problem most people face is no matter how hard they try, they never even imagine how broad, far reaching, unexpected and enduring those consequences can be. Unfortunately for them, by the time the consequences start, the deed is done, and there are no do overs.


Usually because the rationale is that you won't get caught. 

Except in cases of exit affairs perhaps, where the intention is to get caught.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Usually because the rationale is that you won't get caught.
> 
> *Except in cases of exit affairs perhaps, where the intention is to get caught*.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Even when the intent is to get caught, there are often unforseen, unanticipated, and unintended consequences that can affect the rest of ones life.


----------



## Satya

"Reconciliatory" Exposure - 
The BS exposes en masse to family and friends for the purpose of requesting support in favor of repair of the marriage. WS and BS have talked at length and agreed to this as a humbling measure to ensure they both set out on the path to reconciliation with purpose and focus. 

Nuclear Exposure - 
The BS exposes far and wide, without warning to the WS, with dual purpose: to force the WS to s**t or get off the Pot of Cake Eating and to cause pain on a near equal (or as close as possible) level of the BS's own pain and suffering. Either the WS ends the marriage and cake eating or is embarrassed and shamed into staying, in fear of the repercussions and hardship of divorce. The BS doesn't really care either way, just wanted out of the loony limbo cycle and to shake up the WS into making a choice. BS is and was prepared to carry on either way without fear for his/her future. 

Exposure Lite - 
The BS exposes to very few, close family and/or friends. May or may not warn and/or discuss with WS beforehand. May or may not hope for reconciliation. Mainly needs to share burdens with those who can sympathize or have BS's best interests at heart. Requests absolute secrecy from all he/she exposed to and feels a high level of trust. Is not interested in public shaming of spouse or allowing private matters out in the open. Not working to any particular timetable, but progressing at own pace to determine where to go from here.


----------



## always_hopefull

Wolf1974 said:


> And beside JLD you assume the cheater would feel what? Remorse? Embarrassment? Humiliation? That's not in the WS playbook


My ex isn't embarassed he cheated, he was just mad I enforced my boundaries. His own physician said he has no feelings, therefore no guilt or shame. He didn't care it hurt anyone because he got something out of it. Hell after I found out and were discussing R, he threatened me with divorce if I had an RA, because he didn't want to be married to a cheater. Oh, and he also said he couldn't promise he wouldn't cheat again. So no, not all cheaters will be embarrassed, I'm sure his cheating buddies were actually disappointed he got caught.


----------



## EllisRedding

Alright, so a little confused here, is this thread specifically about cheating? Based on most of the responses it appears the case, and I understand that is a component of jlds question. Can we have marital issues that don't involve banging someone else??? :grin2:

I have never cheated (except for my diet and possibly a few exams in school...) or been cheated on so I can't say with any certainty how I would handle in terms of exposure. If I were ever cheated on I would like to think I would have no issues kicking them to the curb and moving on. If people asked me what happened I wouldn't hide the fact that they cheated, but I would see no reason to go above and beyond with details. Once again though, this is all based on how I would hope I would handle, but real life experience may dictate otherwise.

Now, it terms of discussing non-affair related marital issues, I think you can discuss with someone other then your spouse, but you really need to use some common sense. First off, there are probably some very intimate details about your spouse that needs to be kept between yourselves, so you will need to filter out what you tell others. Also, you need to exercise judgment in who you tell (i.e. it is probably not a good idea to discuss your marital issues with someone who is a friend of both you and your spouse). I do think there is a benefit to discussing marital issues outside of the marriage if not just to clear your head and get the opinion of someone from the outside. To an extent, that is what TAM is for, give members here a chance to discuss issues (mostly in anonymity) which can ultimately help shape the conversation with their spouse. For me that was a big benefit of TAM, being able to discuss some issues and get a clearer direction in my head of all the issues before discussing with my wife.

However, I am not quite sure if the above quite fits in with what you are asking @jld, using the term exposure makes it seem a bit more sinister (i.e. getting 20/20 involved lol)


----------



## Wolf1974

A few posts are now talking about reconciliation after affair exposure. In my case that's not possible and I was only speaking of the ending of a relationship. If you catch your spouse cheating and you know that you want to reconcile then probably best not to expose far and wide under those circumstances.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Intentionality, as you say, is key.
> 
> However, it seems like you're backing away from your original statement.
> 
> What should a husband do if he discovers his wife is having an affair? Swallow his pain and his pride and beg forgiveness for failing her?


Provide the original statement, please.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Wolf1974 said:


> A few posts are now talking about reconciliation after affair exposure. In my case that's not possible and I was only speaking of the ending of a relationship. If you catch your spouse cheating and you know that you want to reconcile then probably best not to expose far and wide under those circumstances.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I was thinking the opposite.

If you are going to reconcile, you need them to know that you won't put up with cheating. That you won't just rug sweep it and not tell anyone about it. 

If you are leaving, why expose unless you just want to humiliate them.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Provide the original statement, please.


Here. And there are many more. Don't be coy.



jld said:


> I don't know that going into reconciliation with a defensive posture is going to be helpful.
> 
> To me, if he needs the help of her parents and his, that says he does not have much authority on his own. Meaning, she does not respect him. Not a good basis for reconciliation.
> 
> In this case, he either needs to earn her respect, or rethink reconciling.
> 
> OP, one really good way to earn her respect is to seek to understand why she cheated in the first place. Encourage absolute openness and honesty. _Put your pride aside and be willing to hear whatever she has to say, no matter how painful._ Work from there.


You are very skilled at avoiding standing up for what you say, JLD. I find it disingenuous.

This is the last time I'm going to fall for the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to me for statements you yourself have made.

If you're going to make statements like this, either stand up to them, or say you're wrong, or show some progression in your thinking to illustrate the shift in position.

This dancing does not suit you. Nor does shifting the burden of proof.


----------



## Marduk

SadSamIAm said:


> I was thinking the opposite.
> 
> If you are going to reconcile, you need them to know that you won't put up with cheating. That you won't just rug sweep it and not tell anyone about it.
> 
> If you are leaving, why expose unless you just want to humiliate them.


If you are leaving, I would almost always recommend exposing the reason for leaving to close friends and family.

Not to shame or humiliate, but so that blame shifting and history re-writing doesn't happen.

In the absence of facts, people will make **** up.


----------



## Marduk

marduk said:


> So, let's go on the record then with your opinion.
> 
> If a wife cheats on a husband, he should go to her, and compassionately ask what he did wrong to make her want to cheat on him, take accountability work on these things, and not tell anyone about the affair.
> 
> And hopefully, by that process, she will end her affair, and go back to her husband forevermore.
> 
> Right?


Answer the question please, @jld.


----------



## Wolf1974

SadSamIAm said:


> I was thinking the opposite.
> 
> If you are going to reconcile, you need them to know that you won't put up with cheating. That you won't just rug sweep it and not tell anyone about it.
> 
> If you are leaving, why expose unless you just want to humiliate them.


Well to me you expose when leaving so the truth is out there, I mean how do you humiliate someone with a willful choice they made? I don't say hey we just didn't get along when truth is they couldn't keep vows. 

And you can expose as a means to say "hey your cheating won't be tolerated " but by staying aren't you already stating the opposite? Cause if you refused to tolerate it you would Have left when it happened. That sounds to me more like revenge than exposure when leaving 

Different perspectives I guess
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Here. And there are many more. Don't be coy.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very skilled at avoiding standing up for what you say, JLD. I find it disingenuous.
> 
> This is the last time I'm going to fall for the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to me for statements you yourself have made.
> 
> If you're going to make statements like this, either stand up to them, or say you're wrong, or show some progression in your thinking to illustrate the shift in position.
> 
> This dancing does not suit you. Nor does shifting the burden of proof.


Marduk, if you reference an "original statement," it is on *you* to provide the statement. 

I have not shifted anything. I wrote that yesterday and I stand by it. 

I think exposing to the parents in most cases, or exposing, period, shows weak authority on the part of the exposer. It is reaching out for help because he or she does not have enough power on their own to effect change in their spouse. 

But there are times when exposure simply must happen for the good of the family. If the wife is running up secret debt, and a word from the husband is not enough for her to stop, then exposing to her parents or close friends or whoever she *will* listen to is a protection for the family. And ultimately the best for *the family* is what I am most likely going to be looking at. 

You do not need to rewrite my statements in your own words, btw. Just quote me instead.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Marduk, if you reference an "original statement," it is on *you* to provide the statement.
> 
> I have not shifted anything. I wrote that yesterday and I stand by it.
> 
> I think exposing to the parents in most cases, or exposing, period, shows weak authority on the part of the exposer. It is reaching out for help because he or she does not have enough power on their own to effect change in their spouse.
> 
> But there are times when exposure simply must happen for the good of the family. If the wife is running up secret debt, and a word from the husband is not enough for her to stop, then exposing to her parents or close friends or whoever she *will* listen to is a protection for the family. And ultimately the best for *the family* is what I am most likely going to be looking at.
> 
> You do not need to rewrite my statements in your own words, btw. Just quote me instead.


So exposure is OK for debt but not for affairs?


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> I think exposing to the parents in most cases, or exposing, period, shows weak authority on the part of the exposer. It is reaching out for help because he or she does not have enough power on their own to effect change in their spouse.
> 
> .


There is nothing weaker than becoming a disingenuous and dishonest person in order to protect someone's feelings. 

With the exception of Santa and Easter Bunny.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> So exposure is OK for debt but not for affairs?


I think it is risky for affairs. I am sure it is sometimes justified, but I would use extreme caution with matters of the heart. 

If, as a result, she no longer trusts you, what is left? You still have to co-parent if you divorce.


----------



## Marduk

Answer my question above please. 

What are you recommending a man to do who just discovered his wife is having an affair?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> If, as a result, she no longer trusts you, what is left? You still have to co-parent if you divorce.


Trust you for what? To lie for her.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> There is nothing weaker than becoming a disingenuous and dishonest person in order to protect someone's feelings.
> 
> With the exception of Santa and Easter Bunny.


With her you should be honest and open. Holding her feet to the fire is quite appropriate. 

But when you feel you have to involve outside parties for you to be able to gain influence over your wife . . . think about how that looks to her and to them. You have no authority. 

How is she supposed to respect that? Do you think they do?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Answer my question above please.
> 
> What are you recommending a man to do who just discovered his wife is having an affair?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Confront her.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Confront her.


And when she goes into full denial, blame shifting, or blatantly refuses to stop?

You know, the standard cheaters script?

Then what?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> And when she goes into full denial, blame shifting, or blatantly refuses to stop?
> 
> You know, the standard cheaters script?
> 
> Then what?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Tell everyone that she is running up debt >


----------



## OpenWindows

ButtPunch said:


> There is nothing weaker than becoming a disingenuous and dishonest person in order to protect someone's feelings.
> 
> With the exception of Santa and Easter Bunny.


Saying your wandering spouse didn't cheat is dishonest.

Just saying it didn't work out is not.

My marriage didn't end over cheating, but the concept still applies...
I could tell everyone who asks that he was a lazy, selfish bastard. But to me, that would achieve nothing but to humiliate him. Instead, I say we weren't happy together. It's not dishonest at all... I just believe the details of our divorce aren't most people's business. Some women would handle it differently, and that's okay.

But let's be clear - declining to expose is not dishonest. Lying about it is dishonest.


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> Tell everyone that she is running up debt >


Dammit I got coffee up my nose!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> Saying your wandering spouse didn't cheat is dishonest.
> 
> Just saying it didn't work out is not.
> 
> My marriage didn't end over cheating, but the concept still applies...
> I could tell everyone who asks that he was a lazy, selfish bastard. But to me, that would achieve nothing but to humiliate him. Instead, I say we weren't happy together. It's not dishonest at all... I just believe the details of our divorce aren't most people's business. Some women would handle it differently, and that's okay.
> 
> But let's be clear - declining to expose is not dishonest. Lying about it is dishonest.


Right. 

So your mom isn't going to be in tears when she gets the news and ask you why you dumped her. 

Or her uncle isn't going to call you up in a rage because you abandoned his niece. 

"It just didn't work out" is fine for aquaintences and new dating partners. Not close friends and family.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> And when she goes into full denial, blame shifting, or blatantly refuses to stop?
> 
> You know, the standard cheaters script?
> 
> Then what?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You have evidence, right?

Show her the evidence.

If you don't have evidence, but it is just a feeling, talk to her.

Marduk, you cannot strong arm everything in life. At some point, there is just one thing holding you and your spouse together: trust. You cannot strong arm trust.


----------



## OpenWindows

marduk said:


> Right.
> 
> So your mom isn't going to be in tears when she gets the news and ask you why you dumped her.
> 
> Or her uncle isn't going to call you up in a rage because you abandoned his niece.
> 
> "It just didn't work out" is fine for aquaintences and new dating partners. Not close friends and family.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I was referring to nuclear exposure. Not exposure lite.

I told my family what I saw fit. He did the same with his.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> You have evidence, right?
> 
> Show her the evidence.
> 
> If you don't have evidence, but it is just a feeling, talk to her.
> 
> Marduk, you cannot strong arm everything in life. At some point, there is just one thing holding you and your spouse together: trust. You cannot strong arm trust.


Been there. 

Doesn't work. 

DARVO.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> I was referring to nuclear exposure. Not exposure lite.
> 
> I told my family what I saw fit. He did the same with his.


100% on board with this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Been there.
> 
> Doesn't work.
> 
> DARVO.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Right. Trying to strong arm people does not work. 

You cannot bully your way into trust, marduk.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Right. Trying to strong arm people does not work.
> 
> You cannot bully your way into trust, marduk.


Funny. 

My wife, friends, family, and coworkers all trust me because I strong arm matters of integrity all the time. I am very clear about it.

In fact, in a funny way, it does what you say a man should do - inspire trust and confidence from my wife.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

So what should a husband do?

He's confronted. With evidence. She's denied it, or reversed it into an invasion of privacy. 

Or simply refuses to stop seeing the other man. 

Then what?

Ask what he can do to be a better husband? How he's failed her?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OpenWindows

marduk said:


> So what should a husband do?
> 
> He's confronted. With evidence. She's denied it, or reversed it into an invasion of privacy.
> 
> Or simply refuses to stop seeing the other man.
> 
> Then what?
> 
> Ask what he can do to be a better husband? How he's failed her?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


He can leave...


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> He can leave...


When you have kids or the house is a marital asset, he cannot leave. 

Nor can he legally force her out. 

But he can start the divorce. Telling his close friends and family why so he can get support and advice. 

In other words... Expose.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Funny.
> 
> My wife, friends, family, and coworkers all trust me because I strong arm matters of integrity all the time. I am very clear about it.
> 
> In fact, in a funny way, it does what you say a man should do - inspire trust and confidence from my wife.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Marduk. I have heard all about the problems you and your wife have had. Be honest with yourself, please.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Marduk. I have heard all about the problems you and your wife have had. Be honest with yourself, please.


I am. 

The problems I had, in fact, seem to be when I don't move from a place of strength. 

And all this is smokescreen jld. As usual. 

What would you have that man do?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

He could work on himself. He could look at the needs his wife's lover is meeting, and start meeting them himself.

This letter explains it:

What to Do with an Unfaithful Wife Letter #1


----------



## OpenWindows

marduk said:


> When you have kids or the house is a marital asset, he cannot leave.
> 
> Nor can he legally force her out.
> 
> But he can start the divorce. Telling his close friends and family why so he can get support and advice.
> 
> In other words... Expose.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There's exposing to an inner circle for support. And then there's exposing to the entire world for revenge.

The first is fine. I don't agree with the second. Many here advocate the "they hurt me, so I will humiliate them" route, but I just can't get on board with that.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> He could work on himself. He could look at the needs his wife's lover is meeting, and start meeting them himself.
> 
> This letter explains it:
> 
> What to Do with an Unfaithful Wife Letter #1


And just turn a blind eye to even an active affair while he does all the work, hoping she stops ****ing the other man at some point?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I am.
> 
> The problems I had, in fact, seem to be when I don't move from a place of strength.
> 
> And all this is smokescreen jld. As usual.
> 
> What would you have that man do?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Marduk, it is not strong to scare your wife, and to act out of fear. It is strong to address her needs, to be someone she can talk to about *anything,* without her fearing you are going to get emotional.

And if you cannot meet her needs, it is strong to let her go, so someone *can* meet them.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> And just turn a blind eye to even an active affair while he does all the work, hoping she stops ****ing the other man at some point?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Read the letter.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Marduk, it is not strong to scare your wife, and to act out of fear. It is strong to address her needs, to be someone she can talk to about *anything,* without her fearing you are going to get emotional.
> 
> And if you cannot meet her needs, it is strong to let her go, so someone *can* meet them.


That is my definition of weakness. Except being able to hear her out - that I agree with. 

But the rest of that is pseudobabble nonsense. 

Strength is having clear boundaries and expectations, high integrity, and doing what you say you're going to do. 

And expecting no less from your spouse.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> It amazes me that folks believe intentionally, and methodically destroying their spouses social reputation and earning ability will eventually result in a happy, healthy happy marriage. You can sometimes force someone to stay with you. But not to love you.
> 
> If Isaac Newton had been a psychologist, instead of a physicist, he would have said this.
> 
> Every interpersonal action has an equal and opposite reaction. The more you force mechanical compliance from a partner, the less they love you.


I totally agree, MEM.


----------



## Marduk

See, you've got this backwards. 

The cheater failed to meet the betrayed spouses need for monogamy, intimacy, trust, accountability, and integrity. 

In this scenario, she failed him. Not the other way around. 

The rest is noise.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> See, you've got this backwards.
> 
> The cheater failed to meet the betrayed spouses need for monogamy, intimacy, trust, accountability, and integrity.
> 
> In this scenario, she failed him. Not the other way around.
> 
> The rest is noise.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I disagree.


----------



## OpenWindows

jld said:


> He could work on himself. He could look at the needs his wife's lover is meeting, and start meeting them himself.


It would be wise for the betrayed spouse to think about these things, even if they don't stay. Too many people write off an affair as the actions of a bad person, without looking at their contributions to the broken relationship. They go on to make the same mistakes with a new partner instead of growing. That new partner might not cheat, but they may just leave.

Some people cheat just for the sake of cheating. But many are unhappy first. We're so quick not to BLAME the betrayed spouse, that we make it really easy for them to rug sweep their own issues.

But now I'm digressing...


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I disagree.


So a wife who cheats on her husband didn't fail him?

He failed her?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ButtPunch

OpenWindows said:


> Saying your wandering spouse didn't cheat is dishonest.
> 
> Just saying it didn't work out is not.
> 
> My marriage didn't end over cheating, but the concept still applies...
> I could tell everyone who asks that he was a lazy, selfish bastard. But to me, that would achieve nothing but to humiliate him. Instead, I say we weren't happy together. It's not dishonest at all... I just believe the details of our divorce aren't most people's business. Some women would handle it differently, and that's okay.
> 
> But let's be clear - declining to expose is not dishonest. Lying about it is dishonest.


Calling someone names is an opinion. Lazy Selfish slob


Lies of omission are still lies.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

OpenWindows said:


> It would be wise for the betrayed spouse to think about these things, even if they don't stay. Too many people write off an affair as the actions of a bad person, without looking at their contributions to the broken relationship. They go on to make the same mistakes with a new partner instead of growing. That new partner might not cheat, but they may just leave.
> 
> Some people cheat just for the sake of cheating. But many are unhappy first. We're so quick not to BLAME the betrayed spouse, that *we make it really easy for them to rug sweep their own issues.*
> 
> But now I'm digressing...


You're not digressing at all. You are speaking truth, and it could help the BSs if they could hear it. 

And their WSs could certainly benefit from their BSs' self-improvement, too.


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> See, you've got this backwards.
> 
> The cheater failed to meet the betrayed spouses need for monogamy, intimacy, trust, accountability, and integrity.
> 
> In this scenario, she failed him. Not the other way around.
> 
> The rest is noise.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This x's 1000. 

Honestly, JLD knows what she's saying is wrong. And she knows you're right Marduk. She knows that she couldn't respect a man who ever let up and showed a moment's emotional weakness. She said as much in MovingFrwd's thread the other day. 

She thinks being a doormat is a sign of strength. It is the opposite. It is the ultimate sign of weakness. She claims to want a doormat, but then is married to a "dom". LMAO. Either Dug's actually a sub, and she's the domme, or she's dishonest about what she wants.

Keep backing her into that corner. Make her defend her inconsistencies.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> So a wife who cheats on her husband didn't fail him?
> 
> He failed her?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


They failed each other, in different ways.

There are some exceptions, like same sex cheating. That is probably more a matter of someone's not being honest with themselves and their partner about their orientation to begin with.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> This x's 1000.
> 
> Honestly, JLD knows what she's saying is wrong. And she knows you're right Marduk. She knows that she couldn't respect a man who ever let up and showed a moment's emotional weakness. She said as much in MovingFrwd's thread the other day.
> 
> She thinks being a doormat is a sign of strength. It is the opposite. It is the ultimate sign of weakness. She claims to want a doormat, but then is married to a "dom". LMAO. Either Dug's actually a sub, and she's the domme, or she's dishonest about what she wants.
> 
> Keep backing her into that corner. Make her defend her inconsistencies.


I don't see any inconsistencies. Yes, I expect men to be strong. I assume they are all dominants. 

But not all are. Some want their wives to take care of them, to keep them emotionally safe. These men are submissives. And they are the ones screaming to high heaven about cheating wives.


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> It would be wise for the betrayed spouse to think about these things, even if they don't stay. Too many people write off an affair as the actions of a bad person, without looking at their contributions to the broken relationship. They go on to make the same mistakes with a new partner instead of growing. That new partner might not cheat, but they may just leave.
> 
> Some people cheat just for the sake of cheating. But many are unhappy first. We're so quick not to BLAME the betrayed spouse, that we make it really easy for them to rug sweep their own issues.
> 
> But now I'm digressing...


All this is fine and good and needs to happen. 

When you're deep in reconciliation or healing in your divorce. 

Not when you're in crisis and the cheating partner is looking to shift it all to you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> They failed each other, in different ways.
> 
> There are some exceptions, like same sex cheating. That is probably more a matter of someone's not being honest with themselves and their partner about their orientation to begin with.


And the person who's failure put the marriage in crisis needs to step forward and take accountability and prove it won't happen again. 

And that's the cheater.

And nothing justifies cheating.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I don't see any inconsistencies. Yes, I expect men to be strong. I assume they are all dominants.
> 
> But not all are. Some want their wives to take care of them, to keep them emotionally safe. These men are submissives. And they are the ones screaming to high heaven about cheating wives.


And yet you said this regarding Wayward Wives:



> if you cannot meet her needs, it is strong to let her go, so someone *can* meet them.


There is nothing "dominant" in this. This is not strength. It is submission. It is weakness You know this. You are being disingenuous at best.


----------



## Marc878

An affair is carried out in secrecy and deceit. Many are so deep they cannot see anything but their own justification and deny the real truth. Exposure shines a bright light on it and in most cases will end the affair. There are always excuses, reasons for justification, etc. That never makes it right.

A lot stem from poor boundaries. People that would have never thought of ever having an affair sometimes starts with an innocent friendship. They get too close for too long. It can happen to anyone. Once it does it becomes an addiction and spouses, kids just don't matter at the time. Nothing does.

Exposure is good for one thing. Snapping people back to reality. A wake up call if you will. It's about the only weapon you have except filing for divorce which in itself is a form of exposure.

Should it be limited. Absolutely. 

The truth has a way of fixing things. You may be able to reconcile, many do. Divorce for some is probably best if the damage is too great but no matter what either way it will get you out of the limbo hell that an affair causes.

Exposure will hurt the betrayer as well as the betrayed. It all depends on the circumstances of how its best applied.

The amount of devastation can never be fully understood by the betrayer as they are not on the receiving end. It also lasts a lifetime.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> And the person who's failure put the marriage in crisis needs to step forward and take accountability and prove it won't happen again.
> 
> And that's the cheater.
> 
> And nothing justifies cheating.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are insisting she soothe and comfort you and make you feel safe. After she just broke your heart.

That sounds risky.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> And yet you said this regarding Wayward Wives:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "dominant" in this. This is not strength. It is submission. It is weakness You know this. You are being disingenuous at best.


I am not being disingenuous at all. Your definitions of strength and dominance are just different than mine.

If you want your wife eating out of your hand, you have to earn her trust. It is as simple as that.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> You are insisting she soothe and comfort you and make you feel safe. After she just broke your heart.
> 
> That sounds risky.


Nope. 

I'm insisting that wives should be expected to have as much integrity and accountability as their husbands do. 

Which I know is the real problem here.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Nope.
> 
> I'm insisting that wives should be expected to have as much integrity and accountability as their husbands do.
> 
> Which I know is the real problem here.


You want her to take care of you, make you feel safe.

Hey, I understand. I want Dug to do the same for me.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> You want her to take care of you, make you feel safe.
> 
> Hey, I understand. I want Dug to do the same for me.


Lol. 

First I'm strong arming everything, now I'm the submissive. 

Which is it? You flip flop more than Trump. And your reasoning is about as sound. 

Let's continue. 

A husband bangs his secretary. His wife finds out, he's unrepentant. She decides to stay or wants to reconcile for whatever reason. 

So she asks him what made him cheat. He says that she's not 25 and hot anymore. 

So her response should be to try to appear young and hot to woo him back?


----------



## ButtPunch

marduk said:


> Lol.
> 
> First I'm strong arming everything, now I'm the submissive.
> 
> Which is it? You flip flop more than Trump. And your reasoning is about as sound.
> 
> Let's continue.
> 
> A husband bangs his secretary. His wife finds out, he's unrepentant. She decides to stay or wants to reconcile for whatever reason.
> 
> So she asks him what made him cheat. He says that she's not 25 and hot anymore.
> 
> So her response should be to try to appear young and hot to woo him back?


Absolutely

She shouldn't ignore his needs or he will be vulnerable to an affair.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ButtPunch

That poor fat girl better lose weight because her hubby now has sexual needs from an attractive woman. 

She better lose that weight right or she won't be meeting his needs. Her actions will cause him to cheat with a less of a fatty.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Lol.
> 
> First I'm strong arming everything, now I'm the submissive.
> 
> Which is it? You flip flop more than Trump. And your reasoning is about as sound.
> 
> Let's continue.
> 
> A husband bangs his secretary. His wife finds out, he's unrepentant. She decides to stay or wants to reconcile for whatever reason.
> 
> So she asks him what made him cheat. He says that she's not 25 and hot anymore.
> 
> So her response should be to try to appear young and hot to woo him back?


You don't think submissives can be controlling? If they don't feel safe, I think that is exactly what they might try to do. People who don't feel powerful will do whatever they can think of to get their needs met.

Which also describes why people turn to exposure.

I don't think she should stay. I think she should leave him.

My sister had a situation like that. In her 40s she started wearing clothing more appropriate for the early 20s to try to get her husband to stop cheating. He had said he wanted her to do that, and I guess she was willing to. 

I don't know if it worked, but they are still married 20 years later. I guess it was worth it to her. I think she would have been happier if she had left him.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> You don't think submissives can be controlling? If they don't feel safe, I think that is exactly what they might try to do. People who don't feel powerful will do whatever they can think of to get their needs met.


urbandictionary:
Submissive
A person in BDSM who submits to a Dominant person. A submissive can be a slave and/or the bottom (the person being tied up or whipped, etc.).

Nope, doesn't describe me.


> Which also describes why people turn to exposure.


Non sequitor. What you describe literally has nothing to do with what we're talking about.


> I don't think she should stay. I think she should leave him.


Clearly. But she wants to stay.


> My sister had a situation like that. In her 40s she started wearing clothing more appropriate for the early 20s to try to get her husband to stop cheating. He had said he wanted her to do that, and I guess she was willing to.
> 
> I don't know if it worked, but they are still married 20 years later. I guess it was worth it to her. I think she would have been happier if she had left him.


Sounds like it worked, so it's what you recommend?

A wife that gets cheated on should look for reasons why she made him cheat rather than have him take accountability for his own affair?

Be clear here, jld.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> urbandictionary:
> Submissive
> A person in BDSM who submits to a Dominant person. A submissive can be a slave and/or the bottom (the person being tied up or whipped, etc.).
> 
> Nope, doesn't describe me.
> 
> Non sequitor. What you describe literally has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
> 
> Clearly. But she wants to stay.
> 
> 
> Sounds like it worked, so it's what you recommend?
> 
> A wife that gets cheated on should look for reasons why she made him cheat rather than have him take accountability for his own affair?
> 
> Be clear here, jld.


I said I think she would have been happier without him. I wish she would have left him. But she did not want to do that. It was not my decision.

If the wife wants to stay, then yes, from what I have read so far over at MB, she is going to have to look at what needs she may not have been meeting and start meeting them.

When you are the BS, and you decide to stay, you automatically become the leader, even if you do not want to be. You were strong enough not to cheat. You have the moral authority. 

You have to use your power wisely. You are now in charge.

And the wisest thing you can do for your marriage is to look at what needs you were not meeting, and get meeting them. Meeting those needs is the way to rebuild the marriage. It is going to be an internal glue for keeping the marriage together, as opposed to an external harness, like keeping a VAR in your spouse's car, or exposure, or monitoring their phone. Meeting their needs will earn your wayward's trust.

Just writing this, I know I could not stay if Dug cheated. I would have no respect for him. If I cannot respect a man, cannot look up to him and admire his character, I could never sleep with him. 

I think you are a sub because you, like many of the guys on TAM, want your wife to take care of you, to keep you emotionally safe. A Dom keeps himself emotionally safe. He does not look to his wife to heal him if there is an affair. I think needing that is submissive.

Not that there is anything wrong with being a male submissive! You need to be who you are, for that is how you will be happiest.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I said I think she would have been happier without him. I wish she would have left him. But she did not want to do that. It was not my decision.
> 
> If the wife wants to stay, then yes, from what I have read so far over at MB, she is going to have to look at what needs she may not have been meeting and start meeting them.
> 
> When you are the BS, and you decide to stay, you automatically become the leader, even if you do not want to be. You were strong enough not to cheat. You have the moral authority.
> 
> You have to use your power wisely. You are now in charge.


Actually, no. I see why you say that, but it doesn't make true.

The one that gets to change the rules or doesn't have to obey them is the one in charge.

And that's the cheater.

Once the cheater decides they want to reconcile, then maybe the betrayed spouse is in charge.


> And the wisest thing you can do for your marriage is to look at what needs you were not meeting, and get meeting them. Meeting those needs is the way to rebuild the marriage. It is going to be an internal glue for keeping the marriage together, as opposed to an external harness, like keeping a VAR in your spouse's car, or exposure, or monitoring their phone. Meeting their needs will earn your wayward's trust.


Actually, I would say the wisest thing you can do for your marriage is make sure you are simultaneously getting your own needs met and being your best. That's all.

If you are at your best, then you will continue to have a healthy marriage unless your spouse makes a bad decision. And if you're happy, you will always make the right decisions yourself.

Making sure your spouse is always happy to make sure they don't cheat is a fool's errand. You can't control your spouse, you can only control yourself. 



> Just writing this, I know I could not stay if Dug cheated. I would have no respect for him. If I cannot respect a man, cannot look up to him and admire his character, I could never sleep with him.


Would you admire him if he stayed with you even if you cheated?



> I think you are a sub because you, like many of the guys on TAM, want your wife to take care of you, to keep you emotionally safe. A Dom keeps himself emotionally safe. He does not look to his wife to heal him if there is an affair. I think needing that is submissive.


Actually, I learned to be safe no matter what my wife did. I no longer rely on her to keep me safe, just like I no longer try to run around making her happy and turning her head hoping she will never cheat.

I be at my best as much as I can based on how I define myself. And I try to be happy.

That's all.

And I think Dug is a sub, because you make the rules he has to live by to keep you with him. And your rule is to have him act dominant.



> Not that there is anything wrong with being a male submissive! You need to be who you are, for that is how you will be happiest.


I am happy.

And at my best.

And I am happy and at my best sometimes when I call BS when I see it, as I am now.


----------



## jld

I wanted to say, too, that I do not disagree with the saying, "The truth will set you free." I believe that.

I am just nervous about how much of other people's truth we should be revealing. And I do think motives are important here.

I also agree that when the truth about some part of our lives comes out, even unintentionally, it can ultimately be very healthy for us. Embarrassing at first, but liberating. 

It is a risky business, exposure. Could go very well, or very poorly.


----------



## Marduk

marduk said:


> A wife that gets cheated on should look for reasons why she made him cheat rather than have him take accountability for his own affair?
> 
> Be clear here, jld.


?

Can you go into more detail, please?

As in, tearful wife confronts her unrepentant husband with proof of his affair, he accuses her of invading his privacy and refuses to stop the affair...

So she gets really humble, and asks him what she can do better to stop the affair? And waits at home while he bangs the other woman, trying to improve herself, hoping day by day he'll stop sleeping with her and come home to him for good?

And he doesn't have to take accountability, apologize, be transparent, show he can be trusted... ever again? Scott free?


----------



## OpenWindows

marduk said:


> A wife that gets cheated on should look for reasons why she made him cheat rather than have him take accountability for his own affair?


If it were my relationship, I would expect both. From either gender.


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> If it were my relationship, I would expect both. From either gender.


In what order?


----------



## OpenWindows

marduk said:


> In what order?


At more or less the same time. If the cheater is unrepentant, there wouldn't be reconciliation. If the WS had unmet needs the BS refused to acknowledge, no reconciliation.

If we're not staying together, I don't really give a flip what my partner does. Not my circus, no longer my monkey.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Actually, no. I see why you say that, but it doesn't make true.
> 
> The one that gets to change the rules or doesn't have to obey them is the one in charge.
> 
> The more emotionally stable one is the one in charge, whether they want to be or not. And that is pretty hard when that person is not naturally dominant.
> 
> And that's the cheater.
> 
> Once the cheater decides they want to reconcile, then maybe the betrayed spouse is in charge.
> 
> I thought it was a given the cheater was staying. To me, it is the BS who is the one deciding to stay or not.
> 
> Actually, I would say the wisest thing you can do for your marriage is make sure you are simultaneously getting your own needs met and being your best. That's all.
> 
> That focus on getting your own needs met just sounds selfish to me. A defensive posture.
> 
> If you are at your best, then you will continue to have a healthy marriage unless your spouse makes a bad decision. And if you're happy, you will always make the right decisions yourself.
> 
> Again, depending on the spouse to meet your needs. But not working to meet their needs. I guess that is submissive, though. Definitely not dominant.
> 
> Making sure your spouse is always happy to make sure they don't cheat is a fool's errand. You can't control your spouse, you can only control yourself.
> 
> But you can influence your spouse. And meeting her needs is creating influence.
> 
> Would you admire him if he stayed with you even if you cheated?
> 
> Of course! Dug is way too secure in himself to leave me. And he knows how needy I am. He would never abandon me.
> 
> But we are not going to be in that situation.
> 
> Actually, I learned to be safe no matter what my wife did. I no longer rely on her to keep me safe, just like I no longer try to run around making her happy and turning her head hoping she will never cheat.
> 
> If that were true, you would not be running around TAM trying to protect men from evil cheating wives!
> 
> Same as me trying to protect women from selfish men. We both feel vulnerable.
> 
> I be at my best as much as I can based on how I define myself. And I try to be happy.
> 
> That's all.
> 
> I think you don't feel you can keep yourself safe. And you don't want to look at your own insecurities, really examine them, and get stronger in yourself. And you still feel sad about how your wife did not keep you safe 15 months ago. That still makes your heart hurt. You don't really trust her, deep down.
> 
> That is how I see you, anyway.
> 
> And I think Dug is a sub, because you make the rules he has to live by to keep you with him. And your rule is to have him act dominant.
> 
> Dug acts like himself, marduk. My efforts to influence him are limited.
> 
> Dug does not depend on me for emotional support. He does not need my help.
> 
> Instead, he helps me, unselfishly. That is strength, to me. That is dominance.
> 
> And where am I going to go? I am a middle-aged homeschooling mother of five who has not worked in 20 years. I need Dug. He does not need me.
> 
> I am happy.
> 
> And at my best.
> 
> And I am happy and at my best sometimes when I call BS when I see it, as I am now.


You always seem so defensive with me, marduk.

And you confuse bossy and domineering with dominant. Dominant is about caring for you wife, not looking to her to care for you.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> ?
> 
> Can you go into more detail, please?
> 
> As in, tearful wife confronts her unrepentant husband with proof of his affair, he accuses her of invading his privacy and refuses to stop the affair...
> 
> So she gets really humble, and asks him what she can do better to stop the affair? And waits at home while he bangs the other woman, trying to improve herself, hoping day by day he'll stop sleeping with her and come home to him for good?
> 
> And he doesn't have to take accountability, apologize, be transparent, show he can be trusted... ever again? Scott free?


That's how it was for . . . most of history, at least in Western civilization, I'm afraid.

But now that women can be financially independent, they do not have to stay. And that is good, because how can anyone respect a man like that?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

The way it worked for my after my H's affair is that we needed both sides looked at. 
His before the affair, the affair itself and the lying that happened, and what would change going forward
and ME before the affair and what would change going forward.

For us, it couldn't be just one or the other. It had to be both to make it work. 
And yes, he had to go NC, be remorseful, transparent, and stop independent behavior along with it.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The way it worked for my after my H's affair is that we needed both sides looked at.
> His before the affair, the affair itself and the lying that happened, and what would change going forward
> and ME before the affair and what would change going forward.
> 
> *For us, it couldn't be just one or the other. It had to be both to make it work.
> And yes, he had to go NC, be remorseful, transparent, and stop independent behavior along with it*.


I think the bolded is the best. But according to this letter, the BH can start meeting the needs, even if the WW is still in contact with the AP:

What to Do with an Unfaithful Wife Letter #1


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> At more or less the same time. If the cheater is unrepentant, there wouldn't be reconciliation. If the WS had unmet needs the BS refused to acknowledge, no reconciliation.
> 
> If we're not staying together, I don't really give a flip what my partner does. Not my circus, no longer my monkey.


My point is this.

First, the cheating spouse must express a desire to reconcile, immediately cease all contact with the affair partner, express regret and remorse for the affair, offer to provide full and complete details of the affair, and offer full transparency and support to the betrayed spouse.

You know, take accountability for their decisions. 

Because the betrayed spouse will likely be in crisis, they will not be thinking straight or emotionally stable. Nor will they likely be ready to receive, or be objective about what they can do to repair whatever they may (and it's just a may) have done to contribute to the affair.

Weeks or months later, when they are no longer in crisis and they both have decided to reconcile, then that discussion can be had -- and gently, without shifting of blame or accountability for what the cheater did.

That's when you have the "I was feeling unloved" or whatever conversation.

Remember -- crisis and blameshifting are common.

And also remember, that no matter what some cheaters say, some people will just cheat. I know one of them, she always has an excuse why she cheats on the next guy. And it doesn't matter if mr next takes the fall for it, she'll still cheat again.

It is 100% on the cheater to take accountability for their decision to cheat, and 100% on the cheater to support the betrayed spouse through this crisis that was caused by their decision.

Then, when heads are cooler, you have a broader discussion.

Smooshing the two together is a recipe for abuse.


----------



## turnera

The more educated you are about cheating and exposure and accountability, the more likely you are to make healthy decisions.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> It is 100% on the cheater to take accountability for their decision to cheat, and *100% on the cheater to support the betrayed spouse through this crisis* that was caused by their decision.


I think a lot of people are going to be really disappointed if they think someone still in or coming out of an addiction is going to be able to do this in the way they expect.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> The more emotionally stable one is the one in charge, whether they want to be or not. And that is pretty hard when that person is not naturally dominant.


Odds are the cheater will only be the one that is even approaching emotionally stable.

Why?

Because they're the only one with full knowledge of what happened, and was in control of what happened, and had prior planning in place.

And even then, it's very likely that _neither_ party is emotionally stable at that moment.


> I thought it was a given the cheater was staying. To me, it is the BS who is the one deciding to stay or not.


Many cheaters think they want to leave when they're in the fog, and once it lifts they desperately want to stay.

Have you even been paying attention? I guess not.



> That focus on getting your own needs met just sounds selfish to me. A defensive posture.


No. Trying to chase your spouse's attention so they don't cheat is defensive. Being happy with yourself and true to yourself is being strong.


> Again, depending on the spouse to meet your needs. But not working to meet their needs. I guess that is submissive, though. Definitely not dominant.


That's the opposite of what I said, nice try though. 

I said being true to yourself and not being dependant on chasing your partner's attention was the point. Explicitly not depending on your partner to meet your needs. You meet your own needs.

I find you increasingly disingenuous.


> But you can influence your spouse. And meeting her needs is creating influence.


There's a difference between intentionally influencing your partner to benefit yourself (manipulation) and naturally influencing your partner to be at their best because you are.

I'm advocating the latter.


> Of course! Dug is way too secure in himself to leave me. And he knows how needy I am. He would never abandon me.


He's so secure that he would stay with you if you cheated on him?

What color is the sky in your world? 

That's the opposite of security.


> But we are not going to be in that situation.


I know, which is why I'm talking to you about it -- this is a very abstract conversation to you. Which is why you don't get it at all.



> If that were true, you would not be running around TAM trying to protect men from evil cheating wives!


Oh, is that what I've been doing?

And here I thought I was trying to help people with situations I've been through.

Or perhaps your crown of thorns is just on a little too tightly.


> Same as me trying to protect women from selfish men. We both feel vulnerable.


I've never seen you do that.

What I have seen you do is tell women that have made mistakes that it's all their husband's fault, and they should leave them instead of try to be better.


> I think you don't feel you can keep yourself safe. And you don't want to look at your own insecurities, really examine them, and get stronger in yourself. And you still feel sad about how your wife did not keep you safe 15 months ago. That still makes your heart hurt. You don't really trust her, deep down.


Oh, if you only knew...

Sure, it makes me sad. It makes her sad. And we've had to do a lot of soul searching about that -- the both of us.

But that's not what I'm talking about here.


> That is how I see you, anyway.


And I see you as having a messianic complex, who listens to nobody about anything that contradicts your viewpoint, and as someone who is becoming increasingly histrionic and damaging to those going through situations that you clearly do not understand.



> Dug acts like himself, marduk. My efforts to influence him are limited.
> 
> Dug does not depend on me for emotional support. He does not need my help.
> 
> Instead, he helps me, unselfishly. That is strength, to me. That is dominance.


Or a doormat.



> And where am I going to go? I am a middle-aged homeschooling mother of five who has not worked in 20 years. I need Dug. He does not need me.
> 
> You always seem so defensive with me, marduk.
> 
> And you confuse bossy and domineering with dominant. Dominant is about caring for you wife, not looking to her to care for you.


If you only knew...

She must be one hell of a domme to out-strongarm me, and so subtle that I don't even realize it. And everyone who knows me is somehow fooled by an act.

Or, you know, you could just be totally wrong. Which seems simpler?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> That's how it was for . . . most of history, at least in Western civilization, I'm afraid.
> 
> But now that women can be financially independent, they do not have to stay. And that is good, because how can anyone respect a man like that?


I'm with you there.

My point is that I don't think you would actually tell a woman that.

I think you would tell her that the affair was his fault, that he was selfish, and she should leave.

And if the genders were flipped, you'd still tell the cheating wife that it was her husband's fault, that he was selfish, and she would leave.

Because it suits you.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think a lot of people are going to be really disappointed if they think someone still in or coming out of an addiction is going to be able to do this in the way they expect.


Precisely.

But just like a drug addict, admitting you have a problem is the first step. You can't proceed without it.

You keep talking yourself in circles jld.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Odds are the cheater will only be the one that is even approaching emotionally stable.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they're the only one with full knowledge of what happened, and was in control of what happened, and had prior planning in place.
> 
> And even then, it's very likely that _neither_ party is emotionally stable at that moment.
> 
> 
> Many cheaters think they want to leave when they're in the fog, and once it lifts they desperately want to stay.
> 
> Have you even been paying attention? I guess not.
> 
> 
> No. Trying to chase your spouse's attention so they don't cheat is defensive. Being happy with yourself and true to yourself is being strong.
> 
> That's the opposite of what I said, nice try though.
> 
> I said being true to yourself and not being dependant on chasing your partner's attention was the point. Explicitly not depending on your partner to meet your needs. You meet your own needs.
> 
> I find you increasingly disingenuous.
> 
> There's a difference between intentionally influencing your partner to benefit yourself (manipulation) and naturally influencing your partner to be at their best because you are.
> 
> I'm advocating the latter.
> 
> 
> He's so secure that he would stay with you if you cheated on him?
> 
> What color is the sky in your world?
> 
> That's the opposite of security.
> 
> I know, which is why I'm talking to you about it -- this is a very abstract conversation to you. Which is why you don't get it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that what I've been doing?
> 
> And here I thought I was trying to help people with situations I've been through.
> 
> Or perhaps your crown of thorns is just on a little too tightly.
> 
> 
> I've never seen you do that.
> 
> What I have seen you do is tell women that have made mistakes that it's all their husband's fault, and they should leave them instead of try to be better.
> 
> Oh, if you only knew...
> 
> Sure, it makes me sad. It makes her sad. And we've had to do a lot of soul searching about that -- the both of us.
> 
> But that's not what I'm talking about here.
> 
> And I see you as having a messianic complex, who listens to nobody about anything that contradicts your viewpoint, and as someone who is becoming increasingly histrionic and damaging to those going through situations that you clearly do not understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Or a doormat.
> 
> 
> 
> If you only knew...
> 
> She must be one hell of a domme to out-strongarm me, and so subtle that I don't even realize it. And everyone who knows me is somehow fooled by an act.
> 
> Or, you know, you could just be totally wrong. Which seems simpler?


Well, better to hear all that than be deaf, I guess.


----------



## always_hopefull

jld said:


> I disagree.


Really? What about someone who is married to a narcissist, or sociopath, or an abuser? You really think that the WS is the victim in a choice to have an affair? Are you of such a narrow minded belief that there are no cheaters who aren't forced into an affair because they weren't having their needs met?

It's ludicrous for you to say expose your wife for spending too much if she won't heed your words, but it's bullying to do the same for cheating? It would make more sense to limit her access to financial resources in order to curb the spending. If my friend's H told me she was spending too much, I'd think he has some serious control issues. Now if he said she cheated, I'd have a serious talk to her, and would most likely terminate the friendship.

If someone's needs aren't being met they should move on and get them met, cheating isn't about getting their needs met, it's about being so selfish you don't give a rat's ass who you hurt in the process, as long as your not inconvenienced.

Are you sure you've never cheated JLD You seem to have the script down pat?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I'm with you there.
> 
> My point is that I don't think you would actually tell a woman that.
> 
> I think you would tell her that the affair was his fault, that he was selfish, and she should leave.
> 
> And if the genders were flipped, you'd still tell the cheating wife that it was her husband's fault, that he was selfish, and she would leave.
> 
> Because it suits you.


Because I see men as dominant, and able to both protect their wives emotionally, and take care of their own emotional safety.

My mistake is forgetting that some men are submissive, and need to be protected emotionally.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Precisely.
> 
> But just like a drug addict, admitting you have a problem is the first step. You can't proceed without it.
> 
> You keep talking yourself in circles jld.


Saying it doesn't make it true, marduk.


----------



## jld

always_hopefull said:


> Really? What about someone who is married to a narcissist, or sociopath, or an abuser? You really think that the WS is the victim in a choice to have an affair? Are you of such a narrow minded belief that there are no cheaters who aren't forced into an affair because they weren't having their needs met?
> 
> I mentioned at least one exception to the cheated because needs were not met rule. Take another look at my posts.
> 
> It's ludicrous for you to say expose your wife for spending too much if she won't heed your words, but it's bullying to do the same for cheating? It would make more sense to limit her access to financial resources in order to curb the spending. If my friend's H told me she was spending too much, I'd think he has some serious control issues. Now if he said she cheated, I'd have a serious talk to her, and would most likely terminate the friendship.
> 
> How do you limit access to financial resources in any sure way?
> 
> I think any time you have to resort to exposure, it weakens your authority. You may see it differently.
> 
> If someone's needs aren't being met they should move on and get them met, cheating isn't about getting their needs met, it's about being so selfish you don't give a rat's ass who you hurt in the process, as long as your not inconvenienced.
> 
> Are you sure you've never cheated JLD You seem to have the script down pat?


Marriage is *all about* meeting needs and getting needs met. I think cheating often comes about because needs were not met. And I understand that that must be hard to hear.

I have been transparent with my husband since the beginning of our relationship, when I accepted his love for me. I think transparency is the best way to avoid cheating. My husband is @Duguesclin, btw.


----------



## always_hopefull

jld said:


> I don't see any inconsistencies. Yes, I expect men to be strong. I assume they are all dominants.
> 
> But not all are. Some want their wives to take care of them, to keep them emotionally safe. These men are submissives. And they are the ones screaming to high heaven about cheating wives.


You forgot a third type of relationship, one where husband and wife are equals in the relationship. It may surprise you to know that many people do not want a Dom/sub relationship, but want a partnership. If my H wanted me to meet his needs to help him stop cheating I'd kick him to the curb. It's abuse to say "meet my needs or I'll hurt you".


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Because I see men as dominant, and able to both protect their wives emotionally, and take care of their own emotional safety.
> 
> My mistake is forgetting that some men are submissive, and need to be protected emotionally.


Or, men and women could be equals. 

I guess that's not on your radar.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Saying it doesn't make it true, marduk.


Step one of aa:
We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.


----------



## jld

always_hopefull said:


> You forgot a third type of relationship, one where husband and wife are equals in the relationship. It may surprise you to know that many people do not want a Dom/sub relationship, but want a partnership. If my H wanted me to meet his needs to help him stop cheating I'd kick him to the curb. It's abuse to say "meet my needs or I'll hurt you".


It sounds like you were very hurt by your husband, ah. I am sorry you went through that.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Or, men and women could be equals.
> 
> I guess that's not on your radar.


No, not really in my default thinking. 

I really do think of men as being responsible for their families. Otherwise, I think too much gets dropped on women.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Step one of aa:
> We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.


Are you an alcoholic, marduk?


----------



## ReturntoZero

jld said:


> No, not really in my default thinking.
> 
> I really do think of men as being responsible for their families. Otherwise, I think too much gets dropped on women.


So, they get the victim chair by default.


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,
Every single conflict I've had with M2 that began with a calm, constructive inquiry: why did you do that? 
Produced a positive outcome. 

And every one that began with me projecting an angry, judgmental tone and a harsh statement of what she had done....
Produced a less positive, often highly negative outcome. 

I think I'm going to start a thread on this. On - a strategy for the first talk post discovery. 







marduk said:


> See, you've got this backwards.
> 
> The cheater failed to meet the betrayed spouses need for monogamy, intimacy, trust, accountability, and integrity.
> 
> In this scenario, she failed him. Not the other way around.
> 
> The rest is noise.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> I think the bolded is the best. But according to this letter, the BH can start meeting the needs, even if the WW is still in contact with the AP:
> 
> What to Do with an Unfaithful Wife Letter #1


Yes, IMO me starting the work before his affair ended is what ended his affair as quickly as it did. Had I withdrew, had more anger, pushed him away, he would have continued his affair and we'd probably not be together now (had the affair lasted much longer I would have just left)

She was all fun, all easy, all drinking and talking. If I was only all crying, anger, demands, love busting, then why would he want to be home, around all that?

I had to show him what we could become if he chose to end his affair. I had to be clear that his choice was fixing our marriage and be happy together if he chooses NC and to commit to us or he leaves but I had to show him the good parts, remind him of what we could be.


----------



## always_hopefull

jld said:


> Marriage is *all about* meeting needs and getting needs met. I think cheating often comes about because needs were not met. And I understand that that must be hard to hear.


Actually I think it's difficult for you to accept that someone can cheat on a good person. In over 15 year of marriage, 3 MC's and a MD, they all said my exh wasn't meeting my needs. That he needed to stop taking and start giving. Forgive me for accepting educated prefessionals with numerous years of experience over your personal opinions which are neither based on experience or higher learning.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> Every single conflict I've had with M2 that began with a calm, constructive inquiry: why did you do that?
> Produced a positive outcome.
> 
> And every one that began with me projecting an angry, judgmental tone and a harsh statement of what she had done....
> Produced a less positive, often highly negative outcome.
> 
> I think I'm going to start a thread on this. On - a strategy for the first talk post discovery.


Looking forward to it, MEM.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes, IMO me starting the work before his affair ended is what ended his affair as quickly as it did. Had I withdrew, had more anger, pushed him away, he would have continued his affair and we'd probably not be together now (had the affair lasted much longer I would have just left)
> 
> She was all fun, all easy, all drinking and talking. If I was only all crying, anger, demands, love busting, then why would he want to be home, around all that?
> 
> I had to show him what we could become if he chose to end his affair. I had to be clear that his choice was fixing our marriage and be happy together if he chooses NC and to commit to us or he leaves but I had to show him the good parts, remind him of what we could be.


You did a fabulous job, SGC. Tremendous leadership.


----------



## ReturntoZero

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> Every single conflict I've had with M2 that began with a calm, constructive inquiry: why did you do that?
> Produced a positive outcome.
> 
> And every one that began with me projecting an angry, judgmental tone and a harsh statement of what she had done....
> Produced a less positive, often highly negative outcome.
> 
> I think I'm going to start a thread on this. On - a strategy for the first talk post discovery.


I would use the question, "How was that helpful?" The word "you" provokes immediate defense.


----------



## jld

always_hopefull said:


> Actually I think it's difficult for you to accept that someone can cheat on a good person. In over 15 year of marriage, 3 MC's and a MD, they all said my exh wasn't meeting my needs. That he needed to stop taking and start giving. Forgive me for accepting educated prefessionals with numerous years of experience over your personal opinions which are neither based on experience or higher learning.


I think there are exceptions to the rule of cheating motivated by unmet needs (It was Dr. Harley of Marriage Builders who said that affairs usually happen because of unmet needs). Your husband sounds like one of those exceptions.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Should what happens in a marriage be discussed and dealt with only within the marriage?
> 
> Or should anything and everything in a marriage, at any time, including in the case of sexual/financial/emotional infidelity, be fair grounds for exposure, if either party feels it necessary, for any reason?
> 
> Or somewhere in between?
> 
> What are the consequences of exposure?
> 
> What are your own personal limits on exposure? What are you willing to risk? What, in your opinion, goes too far, if anything?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's hard to answer this without being in the midst of it.. one thing I know is this.... I wouldn't use social media / Facebook to expose anyone .. as I find it very distasteful to air "dirty laundry" of any sort ....it's just NOT the way to go...

HOWEVER...those who are my close friends.. who I've trusted over the years.. If I was betrayed in a way to cause a Break up/ it's over, dead & done..... I'd have an EMOTIONAL NEED to share my side of the story...to be heard.. I feel this would be part of my healing .. that I am understood.. talking things out.. if that person was gone... I would need others to fill that void...

In the sharing.. it would bring me some sort of closure...eventually.. 

Financial infidelity...I'd want to take his head off.. I am very cautious with money..I could see such problems spiraling to every aspect of the marriage -if this was going on also. 

Things unrelated to the Infidelity /Betrayal (family secrets shared once upon a time for instance)... I do not believe I would go there with anyone.. I'd consider that "sacred ground".. you don't break such a trust...there is no point anyway, it's unrelated to the pain. 

But again.. anything/ everything related to MY PERSONAL Betrayal... I'd need to be heard , and share with a few trusted friends... 

The boundaries become MURKY beyond this.. it's something I'd have to sort out in my conscience.. like if/when questions were asked.. how OPEN I would be (probably much depends on who is asking also) to what I'd willingly share.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> Every single conflict I've had with M2 that began with a calm, constructive inquiry: why did you do that?
> Produced a positive outcome.
> 
> And every one that began with me projecting an angry, judgmental tone and a harsh statement of what she had done....
> Produced a less positive, often highly negative outcome.
> 
> I think I'm going to start a thread on this. On - a strategy for the first talk post discovery.


I bet your wife has a lot of trust in you, MEM. You are almost always so patient and calm and understanding. Those are exactly the qualities that would make a wife trust her husband.


----------



## always_hopefull

@jld, just curious, but why start this thread? To me it seems like you like stirring up conflict. It's not like you are even open to discussing others views, or opinions, you just keep repeating your own beliefs, there are always exceptions,always. While you have a non-conventional marriage, you appear to think that your lifestyle and marriage is similar to a conventional marriage, one where a couple has a partnership. It's not, some of your advice can actually be damaging to victims of infidelity who are in conventional marriages.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> It's hard to answer this without being in the midst of it.. one thing I know is this.... I wouldn't use social media / Facebook to expose anyone .. as I find it very distasteful to air "dirty laundry" of any sort ....it's just NOT the way to go...
> 
> HOWEVER...those who are my close friends.. who I've trusted over the years.. If I was betrayed in a way to cause a Break up/ it's over, dead & done..... I'd have an EMOTIONAL NEED to share my side of the story...to be heard.. I feel this would be part of my healing .. that I am understood.. talking things out.. if that person was gone... I would need others to fill that void...
> 
> In the sharing.. it would bring me some sort of closure...eventually..
> 
> Financial infidelity...I'd want to take his head off.. I am very cautious with money..I could see such problems spiraling to every aspect of the marriage -if this was going on also.
> 
> Things unrelated to the Infidelity /Betrayal (family secrets shared once upon a time for instance)... I do not believe I would go there with anyone.. I'd consider that "sacred ground".. you don't break such a trust...there is no point anyway, it's unrelated to the pain.
> 
> But again.. anything/ everything related to MY PERSONAL Betrayal... I'd need to be heard , and share with a few trusted friends...
> 
> The boundaries become MURKY beyond this.. it's something I'd have to sort out in my conscience.. like if/when questions were asked.. how OPEN I would be (probably much depends on who is asking also) to what I'd willingly share.


Can you even imagine Mr. SA walking out on you, or doing crazy stuff with money?

I mean, that would be like Dug doing that stuff to me. Unthinkable.


----------



## turnera

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes, IMO me starting the work before his affair ended is what ended his affair as quickly as it did. Had I withdrew, had more anger, pushed him away, he would have continued his affair and we'd probably not be together now (had the affair lasted much longer I would have just left)
> 
> She was all fun, all easy, all drinking and talking. If I was only all crying, anger, demands, love busting, then why would he want to be home, around all that?
> 
> I had to show him what we could become if he chose to end his affair. I had to be clear that his choice was fixing our marriage and be happy together if he chooses NC and to commit to us or he leaves but I had to show him the good parts, remind him of what we could be.


I'm not sure it's just an issue with not being angry. IMO, the most important issue is letting the cheater see - immediately - that you WILL LEAVE THEM if they don't stop. Wait, what? You won't sit there and feed my ego? That's your job! Maybe I need to rethink this!


----------



## jld

always_hopefull said:


> @jld, just curious, but why start this thread? To me it seems like you like stirring up conflict. It's not like you are even open to discussing others views, or opinions, you just keep repeating your own beliefs, there are always exceptions,always. While you have a non-conventional marriage, you appear to think that your lifestyle and marriage is similar to a conventional marriage, one where a couple has a partnership. It's not, some of your advice can actually be damaging to victims of infidelity who are in conventional marriages.


A discussion of exposure came up on a thread the other day, and to avoid a threadjack, I started this discussion.

We all just share our own thoughts. No one has to agree. A forum offers a variety of perspectives, none of them binding on anyone.


----------



## always_hopefull

jld said:


> I think there are exceptions to the rule of cheating motivated by unmet needs (It was Dr. Harley of Marriage Builders who said that affairs usually happen because of unmet needs). Your husband sounds like one of those exceptions.


You have no idea, I had surgery and came down with pneumonia. I was supposed to be admitted into hospital for iv therapy. Instead my Exh showed up , prefessing his love, yes this was after I found out, and promised to care for me. I was released into his care. When he got me home, he left, told me his friends needed him.....


----------



## jld

always_hopefull said:


> You have no idea, I had surgery and came down with pneumonia. I was supposed to be admitted into hospital for iv therapy. Instead my Exh showed up , prefessing his love, yes this was after I found out, and promised to care for me. I was released into his care. When he got me home, he left, told me his friends needed him.....


I am so sorry he did not care for you the way he should have. He was very selfish. 

Were you able to go back to the hospital for the IV therapy? I bet it would take much longer to get over without that treatment.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

turnera said:


> I'm not sure it's just an issue with not being angry. IMO, the most important issue is letting the cheater see - immediately - that you WILL LEAVE THEM if they don't stop. Wait, what? You won't sit there and feed my ego? That's your job! Maybe I need to rethink this!


Without both I honestly think we wouldn't still be together. 

Knowing I would leave wasn't enough, knowing I'd be willing to work on things if he stayed was the biggest part but one without the other wouldn't have been successful. 

He had to not want to lose me but also remember and see me.


----------



## turnera

But doesn't that also indicate that if he isn't remembering and seeing you...you should be leaving him? HE HAS TO KNOW that he is on borrowed time. That you are sitting on a fence. Else, why should he care?


----------



## 3Xnocharm

jld said:


> Should what happens in a marriage be discussed and dealt with only within the marriage?
> 
> Or should anything and everything in a marriage, at any time, including in the case of sexual/financial/emotional infidelity, be fair grounds for exposure, if either party feels it necessary, for any reason?
> 
> Or somewhere in between?
> 
> What are the consequences of exposure?
> 
> What are your own personal limits on exposure? What are you willing to risk? What, in your opinion, goes too far, if anything?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm responding to this OP without reading the thread yet. 

The term "exposure" to me means revealing a wrongdoing by your partner to EVERYONE as part of the strategy of trying to exact a change in the situation. That should only be done in extreme cases such as an affair, or abuse, or financial betrayal such as gambling away everything you had together. (done with the intent of getting the affair to end, getting the gambler to go to rehab or GA, for example) On the other hand, sharing issues within your marriage with a trusted friend or family member to seek advice, to me, is not exposure. You cannot go around bad mouthing your partner or revealing personal issues to everyone, all that would accomplish is a further breakdown of your marriage. We need to respect our relationships and our partners.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

jld said:


> I said I think she would have been happier without him. I wish she would have left him. But she did not want to do that. It was not my decision.
> 
> *If the wife wants to stay, then yes, from what I have read so far over at MB, she is going to have to look at what needs she may not have been meeting and start meeting them.
> 
> When you are the BS, and you decide to stay, you automatically become the leader, even if you do not want to be. You were strong enough not to cheat. You have the moral authority.
> 
> You have to use your power wisely. You are now in charge.
> 
> And the wisest thing you can do for your marriage is to look at what needs you were not meeting, and get meeting them. Meeting those needs is the way to rebuild the marriage. It is going to be an internal glue for keeping the marriage together, as opposed to an external harness, like keeping a VAR in your spouse's car, or exposure, or monitoring their phone. Meeting their needs will earn your wayward's trust. *
> 
> Just writing this, I know I could not stay if Dug cheated. I would have no respect for him. If I cannot respect a man, cannot look up to him and admire his character, I could never sleep with him.
> 
> I think you are a sub because you, like many of the guys on TAM, want your wife to take care of you, to keep you emotionally safe. A Dom keeps himself emotionally safe. He does not look to his wife to heal him if there is an affair. I think needing that is submissive.
> 
> Not that there is anything wrong with being a male submissive! You need to be who you are, for that is how you will be happiest.


EARNING YOUR WAYWARD'S TRUST???

jld, unless you have been cheated on, or have cheated yourself, you have no business making statements like this because you have no clue. NONE. ZERO. I have seen the damage your advice has done in another thread. You should keep your advice to threads about topics you have experience with, that is what helps us here on TAM, personal experiences by others who have been in our situations. 

Its like me trying to tell my contractor brother in law the best way to build a house.


----------



## always_hopefull

jld said:


> I am so sorry he did not care for you the way he should have. He was very selfish.
> 
> Were you able to go back to the hospital for the IV therapy? I bet it would take much longer to get over without that treatment.


It took me a month of antibiotics, I was beyond debilitated, he would come home and ask what's for dinner. He was beyond an ass hat, he was an ass hat supreme! This is just one of the many instances of his neglect and abuse. I point it out to open the dialogue of needs, not all cheaters are cheating because their spouse is neglecting them, in my case it was the other way around. I mention it because we really don't know everyone's background, or marital history leading to the abuse. To give someone like me the advice to meet my H's needs more because I was failing him would have devestated me, I was already suicidal from years of abuse. It took me over two years of therapy to walk away, I have no regrets and am potentially a poster person for life after divorce. I feel better than I have in 20 years.

In short all I'm saying is, don't assume the BS is at fault for the cheating. Yes we're at fault for a crappy marriage, however none of use deserve the pain of infidelity. I can also assure you almost all BS would tell you if they could make their spouse do anything, it wouldn't be to cheat. By blaming them you could do serious harm to an already fragile and vulnerable person.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

always_hopefull said:


> I can also assure you almost all BS would tell you if they could make their spouse do anything, it wouldn't be to cheat. *By blaming them you could do serious harm to an already fragile and vulnerable person.*


QFT!! This is the point I have been trying to make! AH I am so sorry for what you have been through, I need to go back through your threads. 

I thought this thread was supposed to be about exposure....


----------



## jld

always_hopefull said:


> It took me a month of antibiotics, I was beyond debilitated, he would come home and ask what's for dinner. He was beyond an ass hat, he was an ass hat supreme! This is just one of the many instances of his neglect and abuse. I point it out to open the dialogue of needs, not all cheaters are cheating because their spouse is neglecting them, in my case it was the other way around. I mention it because we really don't know everyone's background, or marital history leading to the abuse. To give someone like me the advice to meet my H's needs more because I was failing him would have devestated me, I was already suicidal from years of abuse. It took me over two years of therapy to walk away, I have no regrets and am potentially a poster person for life after divorce. *I feel better than I have in 20 years.*
> 
> In short all I'm saying is, don't assume the BS is at fault for the cheating. Yes we're at fault for a crappy marriage, however none of use deserve the pain of infidelity. I can also assure you almost all BS would tell you if they could make their spouse do anything, it wouldn't be to cheat. By blaming them you could do serious harm to an already fragile and vulnerable person.


I am really glad you were able to get out, ah. And I am so glad you are feeling so much better now.


----------



## always_hopefull

jld said:


> I have been transparent with my husband since the beginning of our relationship, when I accepted his love for me. I think transparency is the best way to avoid cheating. My husband is @Duguesclin, btw.


So if I may ask, why the interest in MB? I had no clue, nor inclination to educate myself on infidelity until I had no choice.


----------



## Wolf1974

3Xnocharm said:


> EARNING YOUR WAYWARD'S TRUST???
> 
> jld, unless you have been cheated on, or have cheated yourself, you have no business making statements like this because you have no clue. NONE. ZERO. I have seen the damage your advice has done in another thread. You should keep your advice to threads about topics you have experience with, that is what helps us here on TAM, personal experiences by others who have been in our situations.
> 
> Its like me trying to tell my contractor brother in law the best way to build a house.


I agree and this notion about Men being strong and suppose to take It is ridiculous. My X wife was a horrid person. Cheated on me in our house with my kids there while I had surgery. Strength doesn't come from taking that. Strength comes from knowing that's wrong and leaving it behind. Those who have never been cheated on have no clue.


----------



## jld

always_hopefull said:


> So if I may ask, why the interest in MB? I had no clue, nor inclination to educate myself on infidelity until I had no choice.


I didn't come to TAM to read about infidelity, but it is all over the site. You can't really avoid it. And the things I read here, the standard advice, just seemed wrong to me. 

I started presenting what I thought would work better and got a lot of pushback. So I looked online to see if anyone else thought like I did. And that is how I found that Letter #1 that I linked here.

Dr. Harley's approach is not exactly like mine, but close. It focuses on seeking to understand why the person cheated, and how to prevent it from happening again. To me, that is how you solve all problems, not just infidelity.


----------



## always_hopefull

3Xnocharm said:


> QFT!! This is the point I have been trying to make! AH I am so sorry for what you have been through, I need to go back through your threads.
> 
> I thought this thread was supposed to be about exposure....


Yes, this thread is about expose, but the discussion of needs and fault came up and I was explaining to JLD that we cannot automatically blame the BS, that not all WS' aren't getting their needs met. By telling her some of my history I hoped to show her that there is no one fix to infidelity. 

I also explained earlier that I exposed my exh because he was telling horrible stories about me to my/our friends, I did it not out of anger or revenge but as the first step in telling him I will no longer be his victim. In a way, exposure to me was standing up for myself and saying I'm not going to take it anymore. The unfortunate part of exposure led to some friends explaining he had hit on them too. This gave me additional strength to continue my healing process.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I didn't come to TAM to read about infidelity, but it is all over the site. You can't really avoid it. And the things I read here, the standard advice, just seemed wrong to me.
> 
> I started presenting what I thought would work better and got a lot of pushback. So I looked online to see if anyone else thought like I did. And that is how I found that Letter #1 that I linked here.
> 
> Dr. Harley's approach is not exactly like mine, but close. It focuses on seeking to understand why the person cheated, *and how to prevent it from happening again. * To me, that is how you solve all problems, not just infidelity.


Now that's actually very easy to do. Don't stay, no one deserves that, and find a good person to be in a relationship with .


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Now that's actually very easy to do. Don't stay, no one deserves that, and find a good person to be in a relationship with .


Sometimes that is the best thing to do, Wolf.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Sometimes that is the best thing to do, Wolf.


I agree. I have no real idea how people reconcile. My X went from the love of my life to disgusting in one page of texts from her phone. How people can look at thier spouse ever the same is beyond me. I get some do it, but I wouldn't.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

always_hopefull said:


> Yes, this thread is about expose, but the discussion of needs and fault came up and I was explaining to JLD that we cannot automatically blame the BS, that not all WS' aren't getting their needs met. By telling her some of my history I hoped to show her that there is no one fix to infidelity


My comment wasnt aimed at you AH, just the general turn the thread took.  And you are 100% correct in what you said here. 



always_hopefull said:


> I also explained earlier that I exposed my exh because he was telling horrible stories about me to my/our friends, I did it not out of anger or revenge but as the first step in telling him I will no longer be his victim. In a way, exposure to me was standing up for myself and saying I'm not going to take it anymore. The unfortunate part of exposure led to some friends explaining he had hit on them too. This gave me additional strength to continue my healing process.


Good for you!


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I agree. I have no real idea how people reconcile. My X went from the love of my life to disgusting in one page of texts from her phone. How people can look at thier spouse ever the same is beyond me. I get some do it, but I wouldn't.


Yeah, I don't think I could get beyond it, either. I really need to be able to look up to a man to be able to give myself to him. With that kind of breach of character, I don't how that would be possible. 

Then again, there are the issues of kids and financial support. I think that is why lots of people try to reconcile.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Information is freedom


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Yeah, I don't think I could get beyond it, either. I really need to be able to look up to a man to be able to give myself to him. With that kind of breach of character, I don't how that would be possible.
> 
> Then again, there are the issues of kids and financial support. I think that is why lots of people try to reconcile.


Don't forget fear. fear of the unknown causes people to stay. That's why I reject this notion of any BS being weak. A BS has willpower to look into that fear and say I'm worth the risk. But make no mistake it's scary as hell to dissolve your family and start over.

That is strength and if you haven't faced it then you just don't know


----------



## always_hopefull

jld said:


> I am really glad you were able to get out, ah. And I am so glad you are feeling so much better now.


Thank you!


----------



## notmyrealname4

jld said:


> Should what happens in a marriage be discussed and dealt with only within the marriage?
> 
> Or should anything and everything in a marriage, at any time, including in the case of sexual/financial/emotional infidelity, be fair grounds for exposure, if either party feels it necessary, for any reason?
> 
> Or somewhere in between?
> 
> What are the consequences of exposure?
> 
> What are your own personal limits on exposure? What are you willing to risk? What, in your opinion, goes too far, if anything?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I believe in a pretty strict code of privacy in a marriage; I'm only posting here because I don't know who any of you are irl; and vice versa.

In general, overall, keep your marriage issues between yourselves; or a therapist.

With traumatic issues; where your spouse has betrayed you; and basically shattered your life; you should probably reach out to a *trusted few* for support. To protect your emotional sanity.

In my case, specifically. If my husband cheated on me I would tell the other woman's husband. And I'd only do that, since coming to TAM and realizing that I owe it to this guy; since his wife could possibly give him an STD. I'd want to know this myself; so I should do it for others.

I wouldn't tell my family. My late stepfather wouldn't have been interested (he was a cheater himself). My mother and sister would probably get some sort of happiness out of knowing I was cheated on; so I wouldn't give them the satisfaction.

My late grandmother:smile2:, I would have turned to her if I was in that circumstance. What an angel. Bless her.

My husband's family? No. Just doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't think reconciliation would be possible in my case. I'm already too fragile and insecure in the sexual desirability dept. That would be the final blow.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wolf1974 said:


> I agree. *I have no real idea how people reconcile. My X went from the love of my life to disgusting in one page of texts from her phone. How people can look at thier spouse ever the same is beyond me. I get some do it, but I wouldn't*.


Here is the thing with ME....Just imaging how I would / could react.. 

What I can't stomach is *LYING* ... purposeful will full ongoing deception.... *every slippery slope starts with a SECRET*....going behind another's back when we trusted, believed in another's character...

This is so true...









I have far more respect for someone who brings me honesty -when it will HURT THEM, make them look bad... over being secretive, manipulative...living a LIE for their own pleasure & gain... This is the forerunner of every betrayal....

I NEED to see some humility (their struggle in the breakdown)...for understanding WHY people do what they do.. in some cases.. I think forgiveness / working it out IS the right choice.. if true remorse is there & both still love each other..

I had such strong emotions over how our son's EX laid the break up on him..(I was angry ..I felt his pain, the stab in his back for months)... as the girl continued to portray feelings she no longer had.. this is being deceptive to me.. ... she came out smelling like a rose.. while painting him black once she was DONE.... loving him one day, praising him, he was her forever.. then it's OVER the next...discarding him like a piece of trash...

I have no respect for that.... NONE.... BE REAL.. show yourself ANGRY....tell someone what you need & won't put up with!!... 

...so they are at least alerted to where your heart is wandering... respect people enough to be honest with them.....Don't play the part of an angel when you are 2 timing behind someone's back...


----------



## Vinnydee

Personally I wear my heart on my sleeve and not subject is taboo. My wife is the one who does not discuss personal things. In over 40 years she has not told anyone that she is bi and lived with me and her girlfriend. In fact, her girlfriend is bi and she never told anyone too. So when they got together with me, they both found out that they were sexually attracted to each other for many years but said nothing. That is how closed mouthed my wife and our girlfriend are.


----------



## Space Mountain

jld said:


> I have not shifted anything. I wrote that yesterday and I stand by it.
> 
> I think exposing to the parents in most cases, or exposing, period, shows weak authority on the part of the exposer. It is reaching out for help because he or she does not have enough power on their own to effect change in their spouse.





jld said:


> And the wisest thing you can do for your marriage is to look at what needs you were not meeting, and get meeting them. Meeting those needs is the way to rebuild the marriage. It is going to be an internal glue for keeping the marriage together, as opposed to an external harness, like keeping a VAR in your spouse's car, or exposure, or monitoring their phone. Meeting their needs will earn your wayward's trust.



jld,

You reference Doc Harley from Marriage Builder's in your posts. You provide links to his advice "What to Do with an Unfaithful Wife Letter #1" and you have said that Doc Harley thought like you did. That being said, another very important pillar of Marriage Builder's that has not been mentioned is that Doc Harley is also is a firm believer in exposure. If you read further through his site he gives advice on "When Should an Affair Be Exposed?" see the link When Should an Affair Be Exposed

The good Doc himself goes on to say:

_"The issue of exposure comes up when a betrayed spouse has first learned about the affair. Should it be exposed to others, or kept secret? I generally recommend exposure. When should it be exposed? I usually recommend that it be exposed immediately. To whom should it be exposed? I recommend that family, friends, children, clergy, and especially, the lover's spouse be informed. Exposure in the workplace depends on several factors.

There are many reasons for these recommendations, but the primary reason is based on my belief that the more people know about what I do in my most private moments, the safer I am to others. Infidelity is one of the most painful experiences one spouse can inflict on the other, and it's far less likely to take place, or continue to take place, when everyone knows about it."_

One link tells why they are a BS, the other tells what to do when they are a BS. So, while the poor weak betrayed ba$tard is busy trying to meet his WS needs and doing the fools errand pick me dance, he at the same time, should be singing his lungs out to whoever will listen and telling the world that his spouse is screwing around.


----------



## jld

Space Mountain said:


> jld,
> 
> You reference Doc Harley from Marriage Builder's in your posts. You provide links to his advice "What to Do with an Unfaithful Wife Letter #1" and you have said that Doc Harley thought like you did. That being said, another very important pillar of Marriage Builder's that has not been mentioned is that Doc Harley is also is a firm believer in exposure. If you read further through his site he gives advice on "When Should an Affair Be Exposed?" see the link When Should an Affair Be Exposed
> 
> The good Doc himself goes on to say:
> 
> _"The issue of exposure comes up when a betrayed spouse has first learned about the affair. Should it be exposed to others, or kept secret? I generally recommend exposure. When should it be exposed? I usually recommend that it be exposed immediately. To whom should it be exposed? I recommend that family, friends, children, clergy, and especially, the lover's spouse be informed. Exposure in the workplace depends on several factors.
> 
> There are many reasons for these recommendations, but the primary reason is based on my belief that the more people know about what I do in my most private moments, the safer I am to others. Infidelity is one of the most painful experiences one spouse can inflict on the other, and it's far less likely to take place, or continue to take place, when everyone knows about it."_
> 
> One link tells why they are a BS, the other tells what to do when they are a BS. So, while the poor weak betrayed ba$tard is busy trying to meet his WS needs and doing the fools errand pick me dance, he at the same time, should be singing his lungs out to whoever will listen and telling the world that his spouse is screwing around.


SM, did you read post #177?

*I said that Dr. H's approach is close to mine, not exactly the same. *

I think exposure is a powerful tool, and must be used wisely. When it is used to shock a spouse back to reality, by speaking to people they respect and will listen to, when your own authority with them is not enough to do it, I think it can be helpful. 

But to think you can control your spouse's behavior by running around telling everyone and their brother what they have done seems very weak to me. If it comes to that, I don't even know why either of you would want to be together.

I don't think there is any way around building a relationship with your spouse from the inside, by earning their respect and trust, mainly by your own example of good character. 

Trying to control them, through exposing them or monitoring them or threatening them or whatever other external technique you come up with, is going to be of limited effectiveness. The human spirit is not going to accept to be controlled forever.


----------



## Happilymarried25

I don't understand the purpose of telling everyone about your spouses affair if you are staying together. Wouldn't it change how the families feel and treat the cheating spouse? Now if my husband left me for the OW I would tell everyone. Our families, children our friends his job. I would tell for three reasons 1) so everyone knows that he is the cause of our divorce and I don't get blamed for breaking up the family 2) revenge for cheating on me, I want everyone to be upset with him for cheating on me. I wouldn't care if he lost his job, if his family and friends were upset with him and our children won't talk to him (they are adults so it would be their choice if they want to see him or not) 3) I could get sympathy because I'm the victim.


----------



## jld

Happilymarried25 said:


> I don't understand the purpose of telling everyone about your spouses affair if you are staying together. Wouldn't it change how the families feel and treat the cheating spouse?


I am sure it would. I wonder how much they would ultimately respect either of you.



> Now if my husband left me for the OW I would tell everyone. Our families, children our friends his job. I would tell for three reasons 1) so everyone knows that he is the cause of our divorce and I don't get blamed for breaking up the family 2) revenge for cheating on me, I want everyone to be upset with him for cheating on me. I wouldn't care if he lost his job, if his family and friends were upset with him and our children won't talk to him (they are adults so it would be their choice if they want to see him or not) 3) I could get sympathy because I'm the victim.


Not everyone automatically sees the BS as the victim. Some think the WS finally liberated him or herself. 

Just something to consider . . .


----------



## jld

I wrote a few responses yesterday that I never posted, mainly because they have to do with some controversial power balance issues. I would like to offer one thought from them, though.

I think women often expect their husbands to protect them. If the BH exposes the cheating far and wide, the WW may not be willing to reconcile. She may not feel any trust in her husband. And without trust, it is hard to rebuild a relationship. 

When push comes to shove, she knows that he will not have the strength to handle things on his own, but will appeal to people who do have that credibility with her. And that might have been part of why she cheated in the first place.

If you are a BH, and you are planning to expose your wife, and hope to reconcile, think very carefully.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I wrote a few responses yesterday that I never posted, mainly because they have to do with some controversial power balance issues. I would like to offer one thought from them, though.
> 
> *I think women often expect their husbands to protect them. If the BH exposes the cheating far and wide, the WW may not be willing to reconcile. She may not feel any trust in her husband. And without trust, it is hard to rebuild a relationship. *
> 
> When push comes to shove, she knows that he will not have the strength to handle things on his own, but will appeal to people who do have that credibility with her. And that might have been part of why she cheated in the first place.
> 
> If you are a BH, and you are planning to expose your wife, and hope to reconcile, think very carefully.


For the bolded, I would think regardless of gender if you expose the cheater that is going to undoubtedly impact the ability to reconcile (so not a gender issue). However, from your posts it seems like you assume that a possible reconciliation is always wanted? I think the point several posters here have made, they had no desire to reconcile, their spouse was a $h1thead for cheating/breaking their marriage. Worrying about keeping their trust is furthest thing from their mind.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> For the bolded, I would think regardless of gender if you expose the cheater that is going to undoubtedly impact the ability to reconcile (so not a gender issue). However, from your posts it seems like you assume that a possible reconciliation is always wanted? I think the point several posters here have made, they had no desire to reconcile, their spouse was a $h1thead for cheating/breaking their marriage. Worrying about keeping their trust is furthest thing from their mind.


And if that is where they are, that is where they are.

But sometimes people realize the cost involved in divorce, especially when children are involved. And then it becomes about more than just them. And reconciliation starts to have some appeal.

If you want reconciliation to be about more than just tolerating each other's presence in the same house until the kids are 18, you would be wise to try to consider the perspective of your wayward, too.


----------



## OpenWindows

If you have children, they should also be considered in your decision if you want widespread exposure. If the whole town knows what happened, they will be hearing very adult unpleasantness that they may not know how to handle. Little kids get very upset when people speak badly of their parents.

This is even more true if you'll have to co-parent with the wandering spouse. It's hard to keep a civil relationship between divorced parents. It's even harder when revenge and public humiliation are involved.

Widespread exposure should not be a snap decision, and should not be done in a moment of anger.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I didn't really expose and I'm glad I didn't. The Moms know and 1 close friend but his Mom and the friend were told after the affair ended. I think it's important to at least tell a person close to you what is going on so you have some outside support and I know MB says exposure is the most valuable tool but it's the one thing I didn't agree with for my own life (hence not being able to use their forums)

I threatened to tell their work if it continued. 

I think exposure kind of depends on the situation and I do think some people take it to the revenge/punishment side of things vs. trying to save the marriage.


----------



## jld

OpenWindows said:


> If you have children, they should also be considered in your decision if you want widespread exposure. If the whole town knows what happened, they will be hearing very adult unpleasantness that they may not know how to handle. Little kids get very upset when people speak badly of their parents.
> 
> This is even more true if you'll have to co-parent with the wandering spouse. It's hard to keep a civil relationship between divorced parents. It's even harder when revenge and public humiliation are involved.
> 
> Widespread exposure should not be a snap decision, and should not be done in a moment of anger.


Great post, OW.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> And if that is where they are, that is where they are.
> 
> But sometimes people realize the cost involved in divorce, especially when children are involved. And then it becomes about more than just them. And reconciliation starts to have some appeal.
> 
> If you want reconciliation to be about more than just tolerating each other's presence in the same house until the kids are 18, you would be wise to try to consider the perspective of your wayward, too.


Agreed, there are other factors involved such as cost of divorce, children, etc... I wonder how many people truly want to reconcile though (I guess just looking from my POV where there would be zero chance of reconciliation regardless of any factors if it ever happened to me).

If the couple is looking to reconcile, yes it does help for the cheated to understand the cheaters motives, but at the end of the day the accountability still falls on the cheater to make things right as they are the ones who broke the sacred contract (once again, has zip to do with gender).


----------



## jdawg2015

marduk said:


> Everything being equal, yes.
> 
> However, things are rarely equal. Sometimes people need support and advice from those close to them.
> 
> 
> 
> See, here's the thing.
> 
> The person cheating already broke the deal. The secrecy and intimacy are gone. So it's now fair game for the other person to expose it.
> 
> Because the deal has been broken. That's part of the gig with an affair -- you broke the bond of intimacy and secrecy. So it's done and dusted.
> 
> If the betrayed spouse needs support, go for it. If the betrayed spouse is trying to use that to blow up an ongoing affair, go for it. If a betrayed spouse is just trying to enact vengeance...
> 
> Well, go for it then, too -- as long as all you are saying is the truth, and it includes your own ****ty behaviour, too.
> 
> You risk the relationship.
> 
> Which, in an affair, is already on the line. So it seems a natural consequence.
> 
> 
> Anything. Having been through it, you know it all comes out in the wash anyway. Even though I kept my ex's affair a secret even after we split, she spilled the beans on every part of our relationship -- and made **** up to boot. So, I tell everyone who asks about her. Her problem, not mine.
> 
> I think what you are really after here, JLD, is to enable a cheating wife to not take accountability for her own actions. To project that on her husband as the cause for her affair, and to project also the need for her husband in helping her sweep it all under the rug, nice and neat.


JLD has had plenty of time to listen to other viewpoints counter to her own. It's wasted keystrokes to reason with her....

Don't you realize if the man does anything she can justify cheating yet the woman is NEVER to blame. And once the woman rides the bone of another, she thinks the awful husband should accept it and fix things to the woman won't do it anymore. Makes perfect sense, right? What don't you get? LOL


----------



## jld

I think exposure only really has an impact if you expose to people they respect. And what you really want is to be a person your spouse respects. 

I was reading over at MB and they pretty much say to treat a WH like a WW. The BW needs to examine her conscience for ways she was not meeting her husband's needs, and get meeting them.

I think I would rather leave, as I think staying puts the BW in the dominant position, and that looks really hard and unfulfilling to me. But I might be thinking too selfishly. When there are kids involved, you have to think of their best interests, not your own satisfaction. My opinion, anyway.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think exposure only really has an impact if you expose to people they respect. And what you really want is to be a person your spouse respects.
> 
> I was reading over at MB and they pretty much say to treat a WH like a WW. The BW needs to examine her conscience for ways she was not meeting her husband's needs, and get meeting them.
> 
> I think I would rather leave, as I think staying puts the BW in the dominant position, and that looks really hard and unfulfilling to me. But I might be thinking too selfishly. *When there are kids involved, you have to think of their best interests, not your own satisfaction. My opinion, anyway.*


You could argue that staying put is actually not in the best interest of the kids.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Agreed, there are other factors involved such as cost of divorce, children, etc... I wonder how many people truly want to reconcile though (I guess just looking from my POV where there would be zero chance of reconciliation regardless of any factors if it ever happened to me).
> 
> If the couple is looking to reconcile, yes it does help for the cheated to understand the cheaters motives, but at the end of the day the accountability still falls on the cheater to make things right as they are the ones who broke the sacred contract (once again, has zip to do with gender).


Like Esther Perel says, there are many types of betrayal. Before a wife strays, she likely felt betrayed emotionally many, many times.

But all some people can see is sexual betrayal.


----------



## Wolf1974

Happilymarried25 said:


> I don't understand the purpose of telling everyone about your spouses affair if you are staying together. Wouldn't it change how the families feel and treat the cheating spouse? Now if my husband left me for the OW I would tell everyone. Our families, children our friends his job. I would tell for three reasons 1) so everyone knows that he is the cause of our divorce and I don't get blamed for breaking up the family 2) revenge for cheating on me, I want everyone to be upset with him for cheating on me. I wouldn't care if he lost his job, if his family and friends were upset with him and our children won't talk to him (they are adults so it would be their choice if they want to see him or not) 3) I could get sympathy because I'm the victim.


Yeah I'm with you. I wouldn't reconcile but if I did I don't know how I would expose that to everyone. Then you really are just humiliating yourself for what your cheating spouse did. All those reasons you listed but addition that your spouse did this horrid and rotten thing to you and you decided to tolerate it.... Now that I would find embarrassing


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> You could argue that staying put is actually not in the best interest of the kids.


I guess it could help to look at it through the eyes of the children.


----------



## Kivlor

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> Every single conflict I've had with M2 that began with a calm, constructive inquiry: why did you do that?
> Produced a positive outcome.
> 
> And every one that began with me projecting an angry, judgmental tone and a harsh statement of what she had done....
> Produced a less positive, often highly negative outcome.
> 
> I think I'm going to start a thread on this. On - a strategy for the first talk post discovery.


I might have missed it, but I don't see where Marduk said don't ask those questions. It seems to me his point has been that you should make yourself immune to the inevitable blame-shifting that will follow with that question. 

It's one of the reasons exposure is so useful in cheating. Some tasks cannot be accomplished by one man. In situations like these, the WW views you as weak, that's why they did it. They thought that you would do nothing to find out / to stop them. In order to stop it, they have to see you as strong, not weak; and contrary to JLD's crazy, it is not a sign of strength or dominance to just hope / beg for it to stop.

I don't think exposing to everyone is a good idea. Exposing to the people you know / think she'll run to when the sh!t hits the fan, well is critical though because given her nowhere to run and prevented her running around telling lies about how evil you are. Now, from a position of strength, you can negotiate; find out why she thought you were weak and could get away with it; and decide how you want to go forward: with her or without.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I guess it could help to look at it through the eyes of the children.


Yup, and this is coming from someone who had their parents get divorced when I was a kid and actually wanted them to get divorced :wink2:


----------



## jld

jdawg2015 said:


> JLD has had plenty of time to listen to other viewpoints counter to her own. It's wasted keystrokes to reason with her....
> 
> Don't you realize if the man does anything she can justify cheating yet the woman is NEVER to blame. And once the woman rides the bone of another, she thinks the awful husband should accept it and fix things to the woman won't do it anymore. Makes perfect sense, right? What don't you get? LOL


No one is justifying cheating. But trying to understand it can help prevent it.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Yup, and this is coming from someone who had their parents get divorced when I was a kid and actually wanted them to get divorced :wink2:


And sometimes that is how it is. Sometimes the kids know they are better off without their parents together.

Sensitivity to everyone's feelings can be really helpful.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I might have missed it, but I don't see where Marduk said don't ask those questions. It seems to me his point has been that you should make yourself immune to the inevitable blame-shifting that will follow with that question.
> 
> It's one of the reasons exposure is so useful in cheating. Some tasks cannot be accomplished by one man. In situations like these, the WW views you as weak, that's why they did it. They thought that you would do nothing to find out / to stop them. In order to stop it, they have to see you as strong, not weak; and contrary to JLD's crazy, it is not a sign of strength or dominance to just hope / beg for it to stop.
> 
> I don't think exposing to everyone is a good idea. Exposing to the people you know / think she'll run to when the sh!t hits the fan, well is critical though because given her nowhere to run and prevented her running around telling lies about how evil you are. Now, from a position of strength, you can negotiate; find out why she thought you were weak and could get away with it; and decide how you want to go forward: with her or without.


I am not advising hoping or begging. I think examining your own conscience for how you have not the needs her lover has, and then starting to meet them, could start earning you her respect, and trust.


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here is the thing with ME....Just imaging how I would / could react..
> 
> *What I can't stomach is LYING ... purposeful will full ongoing deception.... every slippery slope starts with a SECRET....going behind another's back when we trusted, believed in another's character...
> *
> This is so true...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have far more respect for someone who brings me honesty -when it will HURT THEM, make them look bad... over being secretive, manipulative...living a LIE for their own pleasure & gain... This is the forerunner of every betrayal....
> 
> I NEED to see some humility (their struggle in the breakdown)...for understanding WHY people do what they do.. in some cases.. I think forgiveness / working it out IS the right choice.. if true remorse is there & both still love each other..
> 
> I had such strong emotions over how our son's EX laid the break up on him..(I was angry ..I felt his pain, the stab in his back for months)... as the girl continued to portray feelings she no longer had.. this is being deceptive to me.. ... she came out smelling like a rose.. while painting him black once she was DONE.... loving him one day, praising him, he was her forever.. then it's OVER the next...discarding him like a piece of trash...
> 
> I have no respect for that.... NONE.... BE REAL.. show yourself ANGRY....tell someone what you need & won't put up with!!...
> 
> ...so they are at least alerted to where your heart is wandering... respect people enough to be honest with them.....Don't play the part of an angel when you are 2 timing behind someone's back...


This is probably the thing that gets debated the most over the CWI section. Does it hurt more that your spouse had sex with someone else or that they lied and decieved. I am definitely more in the lied and decieved camp on that. It's never one lie...it was a few months of lying to me, my family , her family, my friends, her friends, my co workers, her co workers, our children. 

The sex part hurts but learning that your life was a lie, that you can be lied to directly to your face and never know, that you can make something (a relationship) and someone (your spouse) the greatest priority in life to find out they aren't doing the same.......that's what send you to therapy. Not that they had sex with someone else. Varying opinions on this obviously


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I wrote a few responses yesterday that I never posted, mainly because they have to do with some controversial power balance issues. I would like to offer one thought from them, though.
> 
> *I think women often expect their husbands to protect them. If the BH exposes the cheating far and wide, the WW may not be willing to reconcile. She may not feel any trust in her husband. And without trust, it is hard to rebuild a relationship.
> *
> When push comes to shove, she knows that he will not have the strength to handle things on his own, but will appeal to people who do have that credibility with her. And that might have been part of why she cheated in the first place.
> 
> If you are a BH, and you are planning to expose your wife, and hope to reconcile, think very carefully.


I think your right on this point. However you seem to miss that men expect women to protect them as well, just in a different way. If you are going to set up a power dynamic in a relationship and call it Dom/sub or parent/child does not the wrong party have consequences to actions. And in this case that is exposure.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Like Esther Perel says, there are many types of betrayal. Before a wife strays, she likely felt betrayed emotionally many, many times.
> 
> But all some people can see is sexual betrayal.


And this is also called blame shifting and rewriting of history. Those two things are in the WS playbook


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I am not advising hoping or begging. I think examining your own conscience for how you have not the needs her lover has, and then starting to meet them, could start earning you her respect, and trust.


When you advise that a BH ask his WW who is still in an affair "what did I do to make you do this?" and "What are your needs I'm not meeting that I should, so you'll come home and leave OM?" you are certainly advocating begging and hoping.

Give up hope. Hope is what helps you lie to yourself and prevents you from taking action. No one will save you, the bad will pile on, unless you stop it yourself.

A Wayward does what they do because they no longer respect you. Respect isn't earned, it's not demanded, it is *commanded*. This person has betrayed you; they've betrayed your family; they've betrayed their oath and integrity. When someone strikes you, strike back ten times harder. They'll respect you for it later. Begging them to stop, that only breeds contempt.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." --Niccolo Machiavelli


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> If you have children, they should also be considered in your decision if you want widespread exposure. If the whole town knows what happened, they will be hearing very adult unpleasantness that they may not know how to handle. Little kids get very upset when people speak badly of their parents.
> 
> This is even more true if you'll have to co-parent with the wandering spouse. It's hard to keep a civil relationship between divorced parents. It's even harder when revenge and public humiliation are involved.
> 
> Widespread exposure should not be a snap decision, and should not be done in a moment of anger.


Agree with you that it should not be done in a moment of pure anger cause you can't take it back. But I absolutley think kids need to know the truth, age appropriate of course. As for now my daughters know mom didn't treat dad well and that's why we arent together. When older they will know the truth. Why that's important is because they need to know :

Actions have consequences
They need to treat their own relationships with dignity and respect
That cheating is an immoral act that should not be condone or ever tolerated 
That dad is not a doormat
That dad wasn't the reason for the divorce

so that's level two exposure but it has to be age apporpriate.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I think your right on this point. However you seem to miss that *men expect women to protect them as well, just in a different way.* If you are going to set up a power dynamic in a relationship and call it Dom/sub or parent/child does not the wrong party have consequences to actions. And in this case that is exposure.


Could you elaborate on the bolded, please?

Oh, I definitely think there are consequences to actions. I think the affair is usually a consequence to needs not being met. But it could just be a consequence of not marrying the right person, too.

Both sides pay the price of an affair, not just one. 

And I don't know why some seem to think there is no fallout on a BS from exposure. In the case of a BH, specifically, it just shows he has no authority over his wife. Who is the person really humiliated there?

Then again, maybe it is best for everyone to see that. Transparency makes us face ourselves.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> And this is also called blame shifting and rewriting of history. Those two things are in the WS playbook


Sounds like they might be in the BS playbook, too.

All depends on your perspective.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I am not advising hoping or begging. I think examining your own conscience for how you have not the needs her lover has, and then starting to meet them, *could start earning you her respect, and trust*.


The respect and trust from such a person has zero value and just not worth the effort to try and get.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Agree with you that it should not be done in a moment of pure anger cause you can't take it back. But I absolutley think kids need to know the truth, age appropriate of course. As for now my daughters know mom didn't treat dad well and that's why we arent together. When older they will know the truth. Why that's important is because they need to know :
> 
> Actions have consequences
> They need to treat their own relationships with dignity and respect
> That cheating is an immoral act that should not be condone or ever tolerated
> That dad is not a doormat
> That dad wasn't the reason for the divorce
> 
> so that's level two exposure but it has to be age apporpriate.


Did you file, Wolf?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> The respect and trust from such a person has zero value and just not worth the effort to try and get.


From *your* perspective, perhaps.

Not everyone may see it that way.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I am not being disingenuous at all. Your definitions of strength and dominance are just different than mine.
> 
> If you want your wife eating out of your hand, you have to earn her trust. It is as simple as that.


I didn't see this until this morning, but I'd like to respond:

Most of us don't want our wife eating out of our hand; we want her to keep her word. Simple as that.

Strength 
1) the ability to resist being moved or broken by a force

2) the quality that allows someone to deal with problems in a determined and effective way.

Antonyms (the opposite of strength):
Cowardice, Idleness, Weakness, Inactivity, Instability

Dominance
Power or influence over others.

There is nothing strong in begging for mercy. It is not strength it is weakness. It is a sign of having been broken by the actions of the one whose mercy you beg.

Words have meaning. Use them well.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Could you elaborate on the bolded, please?
> 
> Oh, I definitely think there are consequences to actions. I think the affair is usually a consequence to needs not being met. But it could just be a consequence of not marrying the right person, too.
> 
> Both sides pay the price of an affair, not just one.
> 
> And I don't know why some seem to think there is no fallout on a BS from exposure. In the case of a BH, specifically, it just shows he has no authority over his wife. Who is the person really humiliated there?
> 
> Then again, maybe it is best for everyone to see that. Transparency makes us face ourselves.


 I couldn't explain the bolded to you because you have a warped notion that men don't have emotions. We do and we expect our wives to be good caregivers our inner self that we share with them.

As with the BH you have it exactly backward. My X was not my slave or my property. I had no Authority of her or her actions. What I did was give her love and respect and gave her my heart and expected her to do the same and she didn't. I feel zero humiliation that she cheated.....why the heck would I ever and I mean EVER feel embarrassed about the choices she made....I know exactly what I brought to our marriage as does she. I have nothing to feel embarrassed about. The only time I could honestly think I would be embarrassed to say what happend is if I stayed. that tells others, hey she can do whatever she wants and I'm too weak to do anything about it.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Sounds like they might be in the BS playbook, too.
> 
> All depends on your perspective.


Not really. History is what history was... Once my X was exposed she admitted all the stuff she made up... She had no reason to lie anymore cause she was exposed


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Did you file, Wolf?


Yes


Ok edit for clarity. This is very shortend version

She told me first she wanted a divorce. It was out of the blue WAW style. When asked why she told all these lies about how I was all these things to her.... She goes further and tells far and wide we are getting divorced and im a "monster". I beg her for counseling and to work on the issues, we have kids we can't divorce. I tell her I had no idea she felt any of this way because she never said anything. I am calling her sister, mom, staff counselor, anyone I can to get some help for her.... The notion that she may be suffering from post pardium depression comes up so I ask her to please go talk to someone. She says she does, more lies.

She turns cold and mean to me and our kids. I am still resilient trying to figure out what the heck is going on. Then something in a pit of my stomach just tells me none of this is right. So I snoop and find out she has been having an affair. I expose. Now suddenly she is apologetic. Admits she made the whole thing up and is leaving me for this guy. So now we are continuing with the divorce that she filed but now I want. She gets dumped by other guy and I refuse to take her back.

So she filed initially I followed through


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Could you elaborate on the bolded, please?
> 
> Oh, I definitely think there are consequences to actions. I think the affair is usually a consequence to needs not being met. But it could just be a consequence of not marrying the right person, too.
> 
> Both sides pay the price of an affair, not just one.
> 
> And I don't know why some seem to think there is no fallout on a BS from exposure. In the case of a BH, specifically, it just shows he has no authority over his wife. *Who is the person really humiliated there?*
> 
> Then again, maybe it is best for everyone to see that. Transparency makes us face ourselves.


I never really could relate to men who feel shame when their wife cheated on them. I didn't feel a bit of shame or embarrassment or humiliation when mine did, and have no problems talking openly and honestly about it. I take zero responsibility for her actions, and that includes spending the emotional energy on feeling humiliated.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> When you advise that a BH ask his WW who is still in an affair "what did I do to make you do this?" and "What are your needs I'm not meeting that I should, so you'll come home and leave OM?" you are certainly advocating begging and hoping.


Not at all. It is empowerment through taking action. Not sitting around trapped in victimhood.



> Give up hope. Hope is what helps you lie to yourself and prevents you from taking action. No one will save you, the bad will pile on, unless you stop it yourself.


You can stop the bad by changing yourself.

And where there is love, there is hope. 



> A Wayward does what they do because they no longer respect you. Respect isn't earned, it's not demanded, it is *commanded*. This person has betrayed you; they've betrayed your family; they've betrayed their oath and integrity. When someone strikes you, strike back ten times harder. They'll respect you for it later. Begging them to stop, that only breeds contempt.


True respect is always and ever *earned.*

No need to beg. Just refocus and become proactive, not defensive.



> "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." --Niccolo Machiavelli


Machiavelli is not the person I would look to for moral direction.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Then again, maybe it is best for everyone to see that. Transparency makes us face ourselves.


Absolutely.....

Exposure is not a punishment. I did not do a full on exposure of my wife because I believed in the just let her go mindset here at tam. I had no interest in trying to get her fired at her job and such. I wasn't out for any kind of revenge. If she wanted someone else, by God he can have her. Don't come to me for sh*t.

However....I didn't lie to my close friends in family either. They know what happened. Even today, if some stranger asks if i have ever been cheated on I will tell the truth. It doesn't shame me, I hold my high tell the truth and say it is what it is. 

I don't lie. I am not a teenager anymore.

Exposure however is very important in Dr. Harley's cuckold plan. That and the financial stress are the only two techniques used to snap a WW out of the fog. Harley allows the WS to cake eat emotionally from her husband but he does expose as to put pressure on the WW. Once the affair is out in the open, it begins to lose it's appeal. The WW begins to appreciate things BS did for financially, etc. She then has a change of heart albeit just 15% of the time. 

So I believe MEM is correct in that it isn't some magic wand that should be waived everytime there is a marital issue.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> *I never really could relate to men who feel shame when their wife cheated on them. I didn't feel a bit of shame or embarrassment or humiliation when mine did, and have no problems talking openly and honestly about it.* I take zero responsibility for her actions, and that includes spending the emotional energy on feeling humiliated.


I appreciate the bolded. I don't think I would feel shame, either. I don't think I could do more than I already do for my husband.

But for those focused on humiliating someone through exposure, I think my comments offer a point of reflection.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Absolutely.....
> 
> Exposure is not a punishment. I did not do a full on exposure of my wife because I believed in the just let her go mindset here at time. I had no interest in trying to get her fired at her job and such. I wasn't out for any kind of revenge. If she wanted someone else, by God he can have her. Don't come to me for sh*t.
> 
> However....I didn't lie to my close friends in family either. They know what happened. Even today, if some stranger asks if i have ever been cheated on I will tell the truth. It doesn't shame me, I hold my high tell the truth and say it is what it is.
> 
> I don't lie. I am not a teenager anymore.
> 
> Exposure however is very important in Dr. Harley's cuckold plan. That and the financial stress are the only two techniques used to snap a WW out of the fog. Harley allows the WS to cake eat emotionally from her husband but he does expose as to put pressure on the WW. Once the affair is out in the open, it begins to lose it's appeal. The WW begins to appreciate things BS did for financially, etc. She then has a change of heart albeit just 15% of the time.
> 
> So I believe MEM is correct in that it isn't some magic wand that should be waived everytime there is a marital issue.


The advantage of transparency is that all sides are seen.

Your hands were not clean in your wife's troubles. That letter she wrote made it clear you were not meeting her needs. Have you ever faced up to that, and asked her forgiveness?


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Not at all. It is empowerment through taking action. Not sitting around trapped in victimhood.
> 
> 
> 
> You can stop the bad by changing yourself.
> 
> And where there is love, there is hope.
> 
> 
> 
> True respect is always and ever *earned.*
> 
> No need to beg. Just refocus and become proactive, not defensive.
> 
> *
> 
> Machiavelli is not the person I would look to for moral direction.*


Why not? His advice is quite prudent. I don't see him advocating immorality.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I didn't see this until this morning, but I'd like to respond:
> 
> Most of us don't want our wife eating out of our hand; we want her to keep her word. Simple as that.
> 
> Different people see that differently, I guess.
> 
> Strength
> 1) the ability to resist being moved or broken by a force
> 
> 2) the quality that allows someone to deal with problems in a determined and effective way.
> 
> Very good definitions!
> 
> Antonyms (the opposite of strength):
> Cowardice, Idleness, Weakness, Inactivity, Instability
> 
> Dominance
> Power or influence over others.
> 
> Yes! Going for positive influence here!
> 
> There is nothing strong in begging for mercy. It is not strength it is weakness. It is a sign of having been broken by the actions of the one whose mercy you beg.
> 
> No one is talking about begging. That is your interpretation.
> 
> Words have meaning. Use them well.
> 
> We are reading the same words, but interpreting them differently.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Why not? His advice is quite prudent. I don't see him advocating immorality.


If you can't see it, I doubt I can explain it.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_hopefull said:


> My ex isn't embarassed he cheated, he was just mad I enforced my boundaries. His own physician said he has no feelings, therefore no guilt or shame. He didn't care it hurt anyone because he got something out of it. Hell after I found out and were discussing R, he threatened me with divorce if I had an RA, because he didn't want to be married to a cheater. Oh, and he also said he couldn't promise he wouldn't cheat again. So no, not all cheaters will be embarrassed, I'm sure his cheating buddies were actually disappointed he got caught.


So he is a sociopath? That's what it sounds like.


----------



## OpenWindows

Kivlor said:


> A Wayward does what they do because they no longer respect you. Respect isn't earned, it's not demanded, it is *commanded*. This person has betrayed you; they've betrayed your family; they've betrayed their oath and integrity. When someone strikes you, strike back ten times harder. They'll respect you for it later. Begging them to stop, that only breeds contempt.
> 
> "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." --Niccolo Machiavelli


What is the difference between demanding respect and commanding it? Or earning and commanding?

In my mind, commanding respect is just demanding it loudly. Or earning it in a big way.


----------



## convert

Exposure is one of the most important tools to use with *infidelity*, especially if you are wanting to try and reconcile, but does have some helpful uses even when divorcing.

Exposure is best at the early stages but with some exposure maybe warranted at a later stage.

Exposure helps kill the affair, even if the affair has ended before DDay exposure can help ensure it stays dead or maybe even help prevent another one in the future.

Exposure is a tool that can be used as a scalpel or a 12 pound sledge hammer depending on the individual and situation.

In my case exposure was the only thing I did right before I came here.
It killed the emotional affair dead in its tracks just before (the night before) it was to go physical.
Exposure also gave me some much needed support

EXPOSURE (at least in my case) was NOT DONE TO BE VINDICTIVE.

I did exposure lite-plus-plus.
first I confronted OM that night at about 10;00 pm at his house

I then in the ensuing days told:
my parents
her parents
her sisters (2) (she has no brothers)
my sisters (2 out of 3) (I have no bothers)
OM's parents (he was single and worked for his mom)
our pastor 
our pastor's wife
OM's pastor 
some of our close friends (about 12)
my boss (encase he notice work slumping)
my boss's secretary (whole office secretary of 4 people) (she notice first and kept asking)


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> The advantage of transparency is that all sides are seen.
> 
> Your hands were not clean in your wife's troubles. That letter she wrote made it clear you were not meeting her needs. Have you ever faced up to that, and asked her forgiveness?


No ones hands are clean JLD. Not even yours. 

It is extremely hard to meet the needs of a drug addict. I tried to point of almost becoming a doormat.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I couldn't explain the bolded to you because you have a warped notion that men don't have emotions. We do and we expect our wives to be good caregivers our inner self that we share with them.
> 
> As with the BH you have it exactly backward. My X was not my slave or my property. I had no Authority of her or her actions. What I did was give her love and respect and gave her my heart and expected her to do the same and she didn't. I feel zero humiliation that she cheated.....why the heck would I ever and I mean EVER feel embarrassed about the choices she made....I know exactly what I brought to our marriage as does she. I have nothing to feel embarrassed about. The only time I could honestly think I would be embarrassed to say what happend is if I stayed. that tells others, hey she can do whatever she wants and I'm too weak to do anything about it.


Clearly she was not able to meet your needs, and neither you hers. To put this back together would have required leadership on one of your parts, seeking to understand what went wrong, and putting together a plan of recovery. It was probably best you two parted ways.


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> What is the difference between demanding respect and commanding it? Or earning and commanding?
> 
> In my mind, commanding respect is just demanding it loudly. Or earning it in a big way.


I think that's why we have different perspectives Open. Cause I see it as you can't demand anything. But when you hold values and when you see stick to your beliefs you command respect
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> No ones hands are clean JLD. Not even yours.
> 
> It is extremely hard to meet the needs of a drug addict. I tried to point of almost becoming a doormat.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are not answering my questions. 

I saw your wife's letter. It was one of the most moving, insightful posts of your thread.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Clearly she was not able to meet your needs, and neither you hers. To put this back together would have required leadership on one of your parts, seeking to understand what went wrong, and putting together a plan of recovery. It was probably best you two parted ways.


You can't put things back together once the trust is gone. My agency is I picked a bad woman and thought I could love her into being a whole and good person. Seems ridiculous to me now but when 25 and naive you think you can do a lot of things you really can't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## convert

jld said:


> He could work on himself. He could look at the needs his wife's lover is meeting, and start meeting them himself.
> 
> This letter explains it:
> 
> What to Do with an Unfaithful Wife Letter #1


This is from Marriage builder.

*and Doctor Harley is a BIG PROPONENT of EXPOSURE*


----------



## OpenWindows

Wolf1974 said:


> I think that's why we have different perspectives Open. Cause I see it as you can't demand anything. But when you hold values and when you see stick to your beliefs you command respect
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I would call that earning respect. To me, commanding is non-negotiable. But you can't FORCE someone to respect you. That's why I was confused.

For example, if you stick to your values, and I think your values are ridiculous, I won't necessarily respect you for sticking to them.

I think it's just semantics. Different words for the same idea.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> You are not answering my questions.
> 
> I saw your wife's letter. It was one of the most moving, insightful posts of your thread.


My wife hates that letter and will tell you there was a lot
Of blame shifting in it. It did not inspire me to want to reconcile.

To answer your question....I accept no responsibility for her affair.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> I would call that earning respect. To me, commanding is non-negotiable. But you can't FORCE someone to respect you. That's why I was confused.
> 
> For example, if you stick to your values, and I think your values are ridiculous, I won't necessarily respect you for sticking to them.
> 
> I think it's just semantics. Different words for the same idea.


Really? So never have you seen or heard of someone who has different beliefs than you but you respect that they do what they say and say what they do?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## convert

ButtPunch said:


> Calling someone names is an opinion. Lazy Selfish slob
> 
> 
> *Lies of omission are still lies.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree


----------



## OpenWindows

Wolf1974 said:


> Really? So never have you seen or heard of someone who has different beliefs than you but you respect that they do what they say and say what they do?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sometimes. But not always.

An extreme example, but I knew a guy who believed beating his kids was appropriate. He did what he said and said what he did. I did not respect that, because his values were ridiculous.

But I have friends of other religions who have beliefs I don't share, and I can respect them upholding that. 

We're just arguing over words though. What you call commanding respect, I call earning.


----------



## jld

OpenWindows said:


> What is the difference between demanding respect and commanding it? Or earning and commanding?
> 
> In my mind, commanding respect is just demanding it loudly. Or earning it in a big way.


Some people equate respect with fear. They think if you intimidate people enough, they respect you.

I think respect is having genuine admiration and trust in someone based on their virtues. You listen to them because you know that what they advise, even if hard, is in the highest interests of all concerned. You are *inspired* by them, not threatened or forced into compliance.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> This is from Marriage builder.
> 
> *and Doctor Harley is a BIG PROPONENT of EXPOSURE*


I covered this in earlier posts.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Are you an alcoholic, marduk?


Lol. No. 

But I do have experience with it in my family.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> No, not really in my default thinking.
> 
> I really do think of men as being responsible for their families. Otherwise, I think too much gets dropped on women.


And that's he problem, jld.

If you would come down off your throne long enough, you'd realize that others don't share your view, and respect it instead of evangelizing yours.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> Every single conflict I've had with M2 that began with a calm, constructive inquiry: why did you do that?
> Produced a positive outcome.
> 
> And every one that began with me projecting an angry, judgmental tone and a harsh statement of what she had done....
> Produced a less positive, often highly negative outcome.
> 
> I think I'm going to start a thread on this. On - a strategy for the first talk post discovery.


I can see that. 

Asking it of someone who's just had the rug pulled out by discovering their partner cheated on them at that moment is too much, and disrespects their emotional processing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

OpenWindows said:


> I would call that earning respect. To me, commanding is non-negotiable. But you can't FORCE someone to respect you. That's why I was confused.
> 
> For example, if you stick to your values, and I think your values are ridiculous, I won't necessarily respect you for sticking to them.
> 
> I think it's just semantics. Different words for the same idea.


It may be semantics. When I think of earning respect, I think of you working for something, expecting it as a reward for your behavior. JLD wants the BS to ask forgiveness for being betrayed, and hopefully earn the respect of the WS through good deeds. This will fail. Every. Time. People respect strength, not weakness. This is weakness. 

Demanding respect involves what it says. Like you pointed out, screaming, etc. It does not work. It can inspire fear, but only a limited, weak version of fear.

Commanding respect is leadership. Being above the need to earn someone's respect, but behaving in such a way that they will have not much choice in respecting you. 

Earn
to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered

Command: 

1) *be in a strong enough position to have or secure (something).*
2) to have authority and control over

Demand
a forceful statement in which you say that something must be done or given to you

In short, being a leader vs being a dictator. Commanding respect is not dictating it. Demanding it is. 

ETA: A Betrayed Spouse has not business earning the respect of their Wayward. They need to command it. Demanding it is just silly.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> My wife hates that letter and will tell you there was a lot
> Of blame shifting in it. It did not inspire me to want to reconcile.
> 
> To answer your question....I accept no responsibility for her affair.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That was not my question. Your wife's affair was only one part of her troubles.

You did not provide the emotional support she needed, as evidenced by what tumbled out of her heart in that letter. That is what I call not meeting her needs.

I feel bad for all your wife has been through in her life. She was not cared for by her parents, and iirc, ended up caring for her younger siblings. Always giving.

I am sure she is grateful to you for not insisting on the legal separation when she got out of treatment. I bet she was terrified of abandonment when she was just getting on her feet. You gave her a safe place to land while she was recovering. You allowed her to see her children every day. I just wish you could have given her emotional support, too.


----------



## Marduk

3leafclover said:


> I was just about to post when I read this. It may have cleared up my confusion a bit, so my questions aren't really in order anymore.
> 
> To me, this sounds more similar to an infantalism dynamic than dominance and submission. There's nothing wrong with that dynamic between two consenting adults, and I realize there can be crossover between it and D/s, but in the case of this portrayal of a "weak" submissive and a secure-without-boundaries "Dominant", I just wasn't seeing it.


Nailed it. 

Insightful. Thank you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Kivlor, we disagree. How about just accepting that?


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> If you can't see it, I doubt I can explain it.


Oh, don't stop there! Please, enlighten me. I'm always interested in learning. 

You've called into question my moral compass. Why don't you back up your claims, instead of just dropping your fallacious ad hominems and running, like a child.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I wrote a few responses yesterday that I never posted, mainly because they have to do with some controversial power balance issues. I would like to offer one thought from them, though.
> 
> I think women often expect their husbands to protect them. If the BH exposes the cheating far and wide, the WW may not be willing to reconcile. She may not feel any trust in her husband. And without trust, it is hard to rebuild a relationship.
> 
> When push comes to shove, she knows that he will not have the strength to handle things on his own, but will appeal to people who do have that credibility with her. And that might have been part of why she cheated in the first place.
> 
> If you are a BH, and you are planning to expose your wife, and hope to reconcile, think very carefully.


Lol!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> And that's he problem, jld.
> 
> If you would come down off your throne long enough, you'd realize that others don't share your view, and respect it instead of evangelizing hours.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Why do you put me on a throne, Marduk? Why do you give me that power?

You do not need to read my posts, nor participate in my threads. We already know we are not going to agree. We don't need to. Presenting different viewpoints is the purpose of a forum.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Oh, don't stop there! Please, enlighten me. I'm always interested in learning.
> 
> You've called into question my moral compass. Why don't you back up your claims, instead of just dropping your fallacious ad hominems and running, like a child.


I called into question Machiavelli's compass. He is not who *I* would emulate.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I can see that.
> 
> Asking it of someone who's just had the rug pulled out by discovering their partner cheated on them at that moment is too much, and disrespects their emotional processing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It might be too much for some. Not necessarily for everyone.

People have the freedom to respond to their spouse's affair as they wish. Here on the forum they get exposed to a variety of ways to do that. They will decide what they want to do.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I called into question Machiavelli's compass. He is not who *I* would emulate.


Which implies questions about mine, as I quote him. Then, when I asked you to explain, you further called mine into question by indicating that I'm incapable of understanding.

You think that you can play the coy insults game, and not be called out. I'm calling you out. Back it up, or back down.

What about Machiavelli is immoral? What about me quoting him would indicate that I'm incapable of understanding?


----------



## Pluto2

People who just discovered their spouse's affair have much less freedom to decide anything than you seem capable of acknowledging.

ETA:don't worry, I'm not staying on your thread


----------



## imtamnew

I love this thread. So many tips I could use in the future.

Thanks.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> That was not my question. Your wife's affair was only one part of her troubles.
> 
> You did not provide the emotional support she needed, as evidenced by what tumbled out of her heart in that letter. That is what I call not meeting her needs.
> 
> I feel bad for all your wife has been through in her life. She was not cared for by her parents, and iirc, ended up caring for her younger siblings. Always giving.
> 
> I am sure she is grateful to you for not insisting on the legal separation when she got out of treatment. I bet she was terrified of abandonment when she was just getting on her feet. You gave her a safe place to land while she was recovering. You allowed her to see her children every day. I just wish you could have given her emotional support, too.


Then why was she calling me every night. 

Emotional support that's why.

When my wife stopped playing the victim is when I started taking her seriously.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Which implies questions about mine, as I quote him. Then, when I asked you to explain, you further called mine into question by indicating that I'm incapable of understanding.
> 
> You think that you can play the coy insults game, and not be called out. I'm calling you out. Back it up, or back down.
> 
> What about Machiavelli is immoral? What about me quoting him would indicate that I'm incapable of understanding?


Kivlor. Read his statement again. How is beating your spouse into oblivion, especially in the context of adultery, for crying out loud, going to be helpful?


----------



## convert

3Xnocharm said:


> EARNING YOUR WAYWARD'S TRUST???
> 
> jld, unless you have been cheated on, or have cheated yourself, you have no business making statements like this because you have no clue. NONE. ZERO. I have seen the damage your advice has done in another thread. You should keep your advice to threads about topics you have experience with, that is what helps us here on TAM, personal experiences by others who have been in our situations.
> 
> Its like me trying to tell my contractor brother in law the best way to build a house.


I agree
I believe if jld had experienced infidelity in her marriage her views would be different.

and before you say it would not, most BS's have said the same thing


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> No one is justifying cheating. But trying to understand it can help prevent it.


If you're not being hypocritical then you should look at ALL the reasons why people cheat, not just emotional ones. 

Sometimes chicks, even married ones, just want to get laid.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> And sometimes that is how it is. Sometimes the kids know they are better off without their parents together.
> 
> Sensitivity to everyone's feelings can be really helpful.


You mean sensitivity to only women and children's feelings, right?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Then why was she calling me every night.
> 
> Emotional support that's why.
> 
> When my wife stopped playing the victim is when I started taking her seriously.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And I am glad you did that for her. I wish her parents had, earlier in life.

I just wish you could have done more, all along.

Question for you, and of course, feel free to not respond. Do you see yourself as playing the victim?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> If you're not being hypocritical then you should look at ALL the reasons why people cheat, not just emotional ones.
> 
> Sometimes chicks, even married ones, just want to get laid.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, that is very shortsighted. 

Cheating is shortsighted, period. I am certainly not defending it.

But to prevent it, we have to look at why it happens.


----------



## Wolf1974

convert said:


> I agree
> I believe if jld had experienced infidelity in her marriage her views would be different.
> 
> and before you say it would not, most BS's have said the same thing


Correct. Most people never assume they will be cheated on. When they do its life altering.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I think there is a problem with refusing to accept any responsibility because how do you repair your marriage without acknowledging what went wrong in the first place?

I understand some people just cheat no matter what, they will be the serial cheaters, no remorse types who had their needs met and still wanted more.

For everyone else, IMO, it started with being vulnerable to have an affair due to both unmet needs and independent behavior. 

So if you can't sit down and say "What led to this?" You're not going to be able to repair it. 

A person's choice to cheat is their own. A marriage being neglected and vulnerable is on both people. Both need to look at where it went wrong and work to affair proof in the future. 

Some people feel like a person who cheated would have done it no matter what, that nothing the other spouse did or didn't do led to the eventual choosing of the affair but I think this is just a way to assign all the blame and be a victim. 
If they are just broke, just morally bad people, it's not you. 

I don't think most BS are horrible people who consciously neglected their spouse but stuff slips. Couples stop spending 15+ hours a week alone time, they stop dating, they stop talking, resentment happens, needs aren't met and someone comes along with a fantasy of having those needs met and the fog seeps in and you're addicted. 

It's a sad, horrible chain of events but IMO the cheating is a symptom and not the disease. Best way to R is to go back, find the cause and treat it. That means the BS has to look in the mirror and figure out how they can improve going forward. If they can't do that there might as well not be an R because eventually it will fail.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> You mean sensitivity to only women and children's feelings, right?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If the man needs it, then the wife needs to provide it.

I think that would be hard, though, and I tend to not even think about it. And fortunately for me, I married a man who does not need it. That is probably not a coincidence.


----------



## convert

convert said:


> Exposure is one of the most important tools to use with *infidelity*, especially if you are wanting to try and reconcile, but does have some helpful uses even when divorcing.
> 
> Exposure is best at the early stages but with some exposure maybe warranted at a later stage.
> 
> Exposure helps kill the affair, even if the affair has ended before DDay exposure can help ensure it stays dead or maybe even help prevent another one in the future.
> 
> Exposure is a tool that can be used as a scalpel or a 12 pound sledge hammer depending on the individual and situation.
> 
> In my case exposure was the only thing I did right before I came here.
> It killed the emotional affair dead in its tracks just before (the night before) it was to go physical.
> Exposure also gave me some much needed support
> 
> EXPOSURE (at least in my case) was NOT DONE TO BE VINDICTIVE.
> 
> I did exposure lite-plus-plus.
> first I confronted OM that night at about 10;00 pm at his house
> 
> I then in the ensuing days told:
> my parents
> her parents
> her sisters (2) (she has no brothers)
> my sisters (2 out of 3) (I have no bothers)
> OM's parents (he was single and worked for his mom)
> our pastor
> our pastor's wife
> OM's pastor
> some of our close friends (about 12)
> my boss (encase he notice work slumping)
> my boss's secretary (whole office secretary of 4 people) (she notice first and kept asking)


immediately after I exposure my ww she was embarrassed, angry and scared she got caught.

eventually she saw it as me fighting for our marriage and respected me for the exposure.
she even admitted it probably would have not stop unless I did what I did.


----------



## convert

marduk said:


> If you're not being hypocritical then you should look at ALL the reasons why people cheat, not just emotional ones.
> 
> Sometimes chicks and guys, even married ones, just want to get laid.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is true

Infidelity can happen in a good marriage where all needs are being met, I know people here don't believe this but it does happen.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Why do you put me on a throne, Marduk? Why do you give me that power?
> 
> You do not need to read my posts, nor participate in my threads. We already know we are not going to agree. We don't need to. Presenting different viewpoints is the purpose of a forum.


I don't put you on the throne -- you see yourself as on one.

The 'jld's marriage dynamic should be for everyone' throne. 

The 'women should be treated as children' throne.

The 'women should be held accountible by their husbands for nothing' throne.

The 'everyone that doesn't think the way I do, I get to label as a Dom/sub' throne.

The 'I get to promote the mystical marriage builders except the pieces that hold women accountible' throne.

The 'I get to redefine words as I see fit' throne.

That throne. I don't care about your self-imposed life of delusion. I don't care that as a woman, you run around insulting women. I don't care that you feel you get to define a husband's role.

I care when you give terrible advice to those that are vulnerable, and then go on and on about it listening to nobody but yourself. It's like there's an echo chamber here, where the only words you listen to and accept are your own.

Messianic.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Well, that is very shortsighted.
> 
> Cheating is shortsighted, period. I am certainly not defending it.
> 
> But to prevent it, we have to look at why it happens.


Sure.

So what about spouses who just see a hot person who offers sex, and they think they won't get caught, so they go for it?

Recent polls say that about three quarters of both men and women both would cheat if they though they could get away with it.

By your advice, she would take zero accountability for her decision, and the husband should take it all. 

Even though he may have had little or nothing to do with it at all, except trusting her.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Kivlor. Read his statement again. How is beating your spouse into oblivion, especially in the context of adultery, for crying out loud, going to be helpful?





> "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." --Niccolo Machiavelli


You shouldn't strike at people. Machiavelli even qualifies this with "*if *an injury *has* to be done". If someone strikes at you, though, you shouldn't let it go unanswered. It shows moral, physical, emotional and spiritual weakness. It signifies you don't have what it takes to defend yourself, your values, your family. 

When you strike, physically, or metaphorically, you hit with everything (or near everything) you have. It makes the other party unwilling to strike back. It ends the fight. No drawn out tit-for-tat. How often do we see here on TAM where things continue, because the WS doesn't grow a backbone and put a stop to it.

Machiavelli advises to make sure they'll never think to do you harm again. It would be _immoral_ to signal to your WS it is okay for them to break their word to you, to betray your trust, and to throw your family out the window for their pleasure. You will have sanctioned their immorality. They will not stop.

He also recommends not doing anything to inspire hatred when you do strike someone; for hatred demands vengeance. If you've not read "The Prince" I highly recommend it.

The point of his quote is summed up thusly: Sometimes it is a kindness, to be ruthless. It ends a conflict, rather than protracts it.

ETA: Nowhere did anyone advocate "beating your spouse into oblivion". And you're still dodging the question, asking questions instead. Answer JLD. What is immoral in what I've said? What's immoral in his quote?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I don't put you on the throne -- you see yourself as on one.
> 
> The 'jld's marriage dynamic should be for everyone' throne.
> 
> The 'women should be treated as children' throne.
> 
> The 'women should be held accountible by their husbands for nothing' throne.
> 
> The 'everyone that doesn't think the way I do, I get to label as a Dom/sub' throne.
> 
> The 'I get to promote the mystical marriage builders except the pieces that hold women accountible' throne.
> 
> The 'I get to redefine words as I see fit' throne.
> 
> That throne. I don't care about your self-imposed life of delusion. I don't care that as a woman, you run around insulting women. I don't care that you feel you get to define a husband's role.
> 
> I care when you give terrible advice to those that are vulnerable, and then go on and on about it listening to nobody but yourself. It's like there's an echo chamber here, where the only words you listen to and accept are your own.
> 
> Messianic.


Your saying that I think something does not mean I actually think it.

I don't know why what you think I think bothers you so much. You say you don't care, but you seem to care very much. 

I guess I will just leave you to make peace with yourself.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> You shouldn't strike at people. Machiavelli even qualifies this with "*if *an injury *has* to be done". If someone strikes at you, though, you shouldn't let it go unanswered. It shows moral, physical, emotional and spiritual weakness. It signifies you don't have what it takes to defend yourself, your values, your family.
> 
> When you strike, physically, or metaphorically, you hit with everything (or near everything) you have. It makes the other party unwilling to strike back. It ends the fight. No drawn out tit-for-tat. How often do we see here on TAM where things continue, because the WS doesn't grow a backbone and put a stop to it.
> 
> Machiavelli advises to make sure they'll never think to do you harm again. It would be _immoral_ to signal to your WS it is okay for them to break their word to you, to betray your trust, and to throw your family out the window for their pleasure. You will have sanctioned their immorality. They will not stop.
> 
> He also recommends not doing anything to inspire hatred when you do strike someone; for hatred demands vengeance. If you've not read "The Prince" I highly recommend it.
> 
> The point of his quote is summed up thusly: Sometimes it is a kindness, to be ruthless. It ends a conflict, rather than protracts it.
> 
> ETA: Nowhere did anyone advocate "beating your spouse into oblivion". And you're still dodging the question, asking questions instead. Answer JLD. What is immoral in what I've said? What's immoral in his quote?


I think what he meant was what I said: beating someone into oblivion, so he is unable to strike back.

And I think that is completely inappropriate in regard to a spouse's adultery.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> immediately after I exposure my ww she was embarrassed, angry and scared she got caught.
> 
> eventually she saw it as me fighting for our marriage and respected me for the exposure.
> she even admitted it probably would have not stop unless I did what I did.


Don't you think this illustrates what I said, that you did not have the authority on your own to get her to stop?

I am not saying exposure is not useful. It is a powerful tool. And your case is a good illustration of how it can be helpful. You ended up with a spouse that later thanked you for what you did.

Does not mean there might have been a way to avoid the affair in the first place. I don't know your story, but it never hurts to examine your conscience on what you were doing/not doing pre-affair.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> This is true
> 
> Infidelity can happen in a good marriage where all needs are being met, I know people here don't believe this but it does happen.


We gave some examples of that, like same sex attraction.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think there is a problem with refusing to accept any responsibility because how do you repair your marriage without acknowledging what went wrong in the first place?
> 
> I understand some people just cheat no matter what, they will be the serial cheaters, no remorse types who had their needs met and still wanted more.
> 
> For everyone else, IMO, it started with being vulnerable to have an affair due to both unmet needs and independent behavior.
> 
> So if you can't sit down and say "What led to this?" You're not going to be able to repair it.
> 
> A person's choice to cheat is their own. A marriage being neglected and vulnerable is on both people. Both need to look at where it went wrong and work to affair proof in the future.
> 
> Some people feel like a person who cheated would have done it no matter what, that nothing the other spouse did or didn't do led to the eventual choosing of the affair but I think this is just a way to assign all the blame and be a victim.
> If they are just broke, just morally bad people, it's not you.
> 
> I don't think most BS are horrible people who consciously neglected their spouse but stuff slips. Couples stop spending 15+ hours a week alone time, they stop dating, they stop talking, resentment happens, needs aren't met and someone comes along with a fantasy of having those needs met and the fog seeps in and you're addicted.
> 
> It's a sad, horrible chain of events but IMO the cheating is a symptom and not the disease. Best way to R is to go back, find the cause and treat it. That means the BS has to look in the mirror and figure out how they can improve going forward. If they can't do that there might as well not be an R because eventually it will fail.


This is such a great post, SGC, like all your posts. So glad you are on this thread, and on TAM, period.

Just wanted to say that the wife of "the guy" was a serial cheater, and they were able to repair their marriage. He very humbly admitted that he was not paying attention to her, that he was putting his time into his work, instead. 

I have no doubt she sought out those other men to meet the needs he was not meeting. I respected his honesty in admitting that.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I think what he meant was what I said: beating someone into oblivion, so he is unable to strike back.
> 
> And I think that is completely inappropriate in regard to a spouse's adultery.


Again, it is physically applicable or metaphorically so. In this case, we are talking about breaking the WS spirit to hurt you. Exposure is a powerful tool to do just that. You isolate them, turn others on them (before they can blame shift and turn them on you) and then, when they have nowhere to run, no one to turn to; you can negotiate.

An injustice doesn't have to be physical. The injustice they've done to you wasn't inflicted physically, but injustice it is. It should be answered in kind. You don't beat them physically.

Also: "Injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavor of them may last longer."

Machiavelli is about providing insight into how people interact in reality, and how to lead them well--and what not to do. It's the original guide to domination and submission JLD.


----------



## Marduk

convert said:


> This is true
> 
> Infidelity can happen in a good marriage where all needs are being met, I know people here don't believe this but it does happen.


Where it gets really murky, is that at the moment of disclosure, particularly if the betrayed spouse is the one that figures it out and confronts -- is that frequently excuses are made up or problems magnified to justify the cheater's decision, lying, and poor judgement.

There's these pesky ego-protecting mechanisms called projection and rationalization. It's how we don't blow our brains out after making every crappy decision during our life.

A betrayed spouse needs to expect this. It's human nature. It's like when you get caught cheating on a test in grade 1 -- of course you're going to say you didn't do it even though you got caught. And of course the next words out of your mouth are going to be someone else's fault.

It's really your only play to make, as a cheater. Deny as long as possible, and if that doesn't work, make it not your fault. Throw in some tears to try to play the sympathy card.

The only thing I've ever seen getting a cheater to stop cheating and sit down and work honestly on the marriage is to take accountability for their own decision. Because whatever happened leading up to the affair -- the cheating was their decision alone.

Putting all the accountability -- at that moment -- on the betrayed spouse is a recipe for rug sweeping, continuing the affair, or starting a new one.

And why not? It worked the first time.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Your saying that I think something does not mean I actually think it.
> 
> I don't know why what you think I think bothers you so much. You say you don't care, but you seem to care very much.
> 
> I guess I will just leave you to make peace with yourself.


I clearly say I care when I think you are harming the vulnerable.

And since you do not listen to me when I tell you that I'm not a sub, or weak, or want my wife to protect me, or whatever projections you put on me... Why should I give you the same respect?

Do you realize that other people even actually exist?


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> And I am glad you did that for her. I wish her parents had, earlier in life.
> 
> I just wish you could have done more, all along.
> 
> Question for you, and of course, feel free to not respond. Do you see yourself as playing the victim?


When I first came to TAM I did. The good folks here showed me that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Again, it is physically applicable or metaphorically so. In this case, we are talking about breaking the WS spirit to hurt you. Exposure is a powerful tool to do just that. You isolate them, turn others on them (before they can blame shift and turn them on you) and then, when they have nowhere to run, no one to turn to; you can negotiate.
> 
> An injustice doesn't have to be physical. The injustice they've done to you wasn't inflicted physically, but injustice it is. It should be answered in kind. You don't beat them physically.
> 
> Also: "Injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavor of them may last longer."
> 
> Machiavelli is about providing insight into how people interact in reality, and how to lead them well--and what not to do. It's the original guide to domination and submission JLD.


Manipulating people is not my idea of D/s.


----------



## pidge70

jld said:


> This is such a great post, SGC, like all your posts. So glad you are on this thread, and on TAM, period.
> 
> Just wanted to say that the wife of *"the guy"* was a serial cheater, and they were able to repair their marriage. He very humbly admitted that he was not paying attention to her, that he was putting his time into his work, instead.
> 
> I have no doubt she sought out those other men to meet the needs he was not meeting. I respected his honesty in admitting that.


Oh he was paying plenty of attention to his wife. Every damn time he beat her. You do know he liked to slap his wife around right?


----------



## pidge70

marduk said:


> I clearly say I care when I think you are harming the vulnerable.
> 
> And since you do not listen to me when I tell you that I'm not a sub, or weak, or want my wife to protect me, or whatever projections you put on me... Why should I give you the same respect?
> 
> Do you realize that other people even actually exist?


I'm not trying to sound snarky, but why do you bother talking to "her?" 

There is no other way but her own. When you disagree with her, she just turns it around on you. Waste of energy.


----------



## jld

pidge70 said:


> Oh he was paying plenty of attention to his wife. Every damn time he beat her. You do know he liked to slap his wife around right?


Wow. Thanks for mentioning that. 

Now that you bring it up, I faintly recall it. What seemed to be emphasized was how she was a serial cheater, and yet they made it work.

Hearing about his physical abuse really puts that serial cheating in perspective.

Sure would be interesting to X-ray these relationships.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Manipulating people is not *my idea *of D/s.


We've already established that your definition of "dominance" is faulty.

It's more than mere manipulation JLD. It is about being a strong leader and person; one who inspires others around them. It's about preparing for and making yourself near invulnerable to treachery because all humans are treacherous. 

It's not about manipulating, it's about commanding social strength. 

A man following the precepts of The Prince couldn't be more a more dominant leader.

I could suggest a lot of other great reading, to help you grow. You might pick up Meditations by Marcus Aurelius or Letters from a Stoic, by Seneca. Excellent guides to spiritual and emotional *strength*. All three of these books are short and easy to digest.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> We've already established that your definition of "dominance" is faulty.
> 
> It's more than mere manipulation JLD. It is about being a strong leader and person; one who inspires others around them. It's about preparing for and making yourself near invulnerable to treachery because all humans are treacherous.
> 
> It's not about manipulating, it's about commanding social strength.
> 
> A man following the precepts of The Prince couldn't be more a more dominant leader.
> 
> I could suggest a lot of other great reading, to help you grow. You might pick up Meditations by Marcus Aurelius or Letters from a Stoic, by Seneca. Excellent guides to spiritual and emotional *strength*. All three of these books are short and easy to digest.


What we have established is that we define "dominance" differently.


----------



## Wolf1974

convert said:


> This is true
> 
> Infidelity can happen in a good marriage where all needs are being met, I know people here don't believe this but it does happen.


I lived it so I believe you. I think this happens a lot where nothing is wrong with the marriage just gets mundane and one person gets bored and find excitement in the affair or is just a broken person. If it was simply dismissed as "unmet needs" affairs would only happen once, but they don't. most cheaters have a pattern of relationships with affairs. This is about the person not the state of the relationship more often than not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## convert

jld said:


> *Don't you think this illustrates what I said, that you did not have the authority on your own to get her to stop*?
> 
> I am not saying exposure is not useful. It is a powerful tool. And your case is a good illustration of how it can be helpful. You ended up with a spouse that later thanked you for what you did.
> 
> Does not mean there might have been a way to avoid the affair in the first place. I don't know your story, but it never hurts to examine your conscience on what you were doing/not doing pre-affair.


No. It is not about having authority over ones spouse to get them to do something. A marriage should not be looked at as having authority over ones spouse.
I actually exposed to 1/3 on my list before I confronted my ww
and she may have stopped the affair if I just confronted her and not exposed to anyone, I wasn't taking the chance or if she ran off with OM even after exposure that would have gave me the answer I needed to move on.

exposure helped me keep out of a false R, or being in Limbo, which I see a lot here on TAM


----------



## convert

jld said:


> What we have established is that we define "dominance" differently.


Not everyone believes that one spouse should dominate over the other.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> Wow. Thanks for mentioning that.
> 
> Now that you bring it up, I faintly recall it. What seemed to be emphasized was how she was a serial cheater, and yet they made it work.
> 
> *Hearing about his physical abuse* really puts that serial cheating in perspective.
> 
> Sure would be interesting to X-ray these relationships.


This is why one spouse should have the authority over another

you can be emotionally abusive as well as physically abusive just by having the authority.


----------



## convert

always_hopefull said:


> You forgot a third type of relationship, one where husband and wife are equals in the relationship. It may surprise you to know that many people do not want a Dom/sub relationship, but want a partnership. If my H wanted me to meet his needs to help him stop cheating I'd kick him to the curb. It's abuse to say "meet my needs or I'll hurt you".


absolutely


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> What we have established is that we define "dominance" differently.


Once one person gets off the hook for being rational and starts just making stuff up...

The game is done.

JLD you clearly hold yourself accountible for nothing, including respecting other viewpoints, emotional states, logic, or even what words mean.

I'm glad you've set up your life so that those around you allow you to be this way; I sure wouldn't.

I'm out.


----------



## convert

jld,
you say you would leave if your husband if he had an affair, but you would expect him to stay if you had the affair. (everybody is a hypocrite I know)

What if he didn't stay if you had the affair, would you justify that by saying he is weak?

If your husband has the authority in your marriage why wouldn't he be able to make you stay if he had the affair.

or even with his authority why couldn't he have a second wife?

how much authority should one have?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

IMO the only reason JLD's husband has authority is because she fully trusts him to. She has a lot of the control there, he needs to cater to her so she can continue to trust in his authority. If he abused his power he would no longer have that role and he loves her and wants her safe and secure. If he was an angry man, a needy man, a man who needed his ego coddled, or someone who would use his role and power against her, then she wouldn't have the trust needed to follow his lead and therefore wouldn't.


----------



## convert

I will concede if one spouse cheats I believe the other spouse has the authority to expose the affair if they want to


----------



## Bibi1031

always_hopefull said:


> I exposed my exh's cheating for my own protection, he was telling everyone such horrible stories about me. Now everyone knows the reason we were divorced was him, as he was blaming me. Sadly when I exposed, several of my "friends" informed me he was hitting on them over the years. I wish they would have told me, I could have had 10 years of healing and not 10 more years of an abusive relationship, and yes I view cheating as abuse.


This was me too. The X was projecting. Everything he was doing, he told his family it was me. DDay came, and I made sure the actual truth was out to anyone who needed or cared to know. He was beginning to turn my children against me unknown to me. 

Exposure is a must or the betrayer will twist the truth to fit his/her own needs. It's part in of damage control and preserving that "good me" image.

In most cases exposure is for consequences. In my case it was to set the record straight as the marriage was dead at the point where his cheating came to light. It was an exit affair and divorce was the only option in my case as it is for almost every relationship where the betrayer engages in an affair to end the marriage.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> jld,
> you say you would leave if your husband had an affair, but you would expect him to stay if you had the affair. (everybody is a hypocrite I know)
> 
> What if he didn't stay if you had the affair, would you justify that by saying he is weak?
> 
> If your husband has the authority in your marriage why wouldn't he be able to make you stay if he had the affair.
> 
> or even with his authority why couldn't he have a second wife?
> 
> how much authority should one have?


You realize this is all very hypothetical, right? I am reacting emotionally to the thought of his having an affair, which has as close to 0% chance happening as is possible.

My thought is that I could not look up to and respect him anymore. And our dynamic is based on my respect for him.

But we have children. And I have not worked in 20 years. And Dug provides our family with a comfortable lifestyle. So maybe I would think more practically after the initial emotional shock.

Our marriage would become more equal. We would not have the polarity. I don't think it would be nearly as much fun. Not inspiring.

I did not say I would expect him to stay. I just know he would. He is not threatened by me, and not emotionally dependent on me. To him, an affair would just be the natural consequence of neglecting your wife. And he would get to work repairing the neglect.

I think when you have a big crisis in your marriage, you see who each other is. I did not know my husband would cry when our son was diagnosed with cancer. I saw tears streaming silently down his face and I was shocked. And terrified, as was my daughter. We had never seen Dad that way. Just not the man we knew at all.

He never laid any of that on us. I did ask the hospital if there was a counselor who could speak to him, though. I could not help.

He talked to her the next day, just for maybe 20 minutes or so. But he came out feeling great. He was very positive after that. She told him about her own cancer, her treatments, how her twins were only 7 when she got it, and how they were now graduating from high school. She basically told him cancer is not an automatic death sentence anymore. That gave him hope.

I felt frozen in fear seeing Dug cry. He is always so strong, so optimistic, so steady. And he was crying. I thought, always took for granted, that he could handle anything, that nothing would ever shake him, make him sweat. That I could lean on him, always. 

But not only could I not lean on him, I could not even go to him. I just stood there staring. I could not believe I saw those streaming, silent tears, that red face. He had vulnerability, too.

Besides asking if there were a counselor he could talk to, I wrote his boss a letter and asked if he could come to India and be a support to Dug. I was so scared. If the kids and I did not have Dug to lean on, what would we do?

The boss said if he had to come he would, but he really did not want to. I am sure there were problems at the plant here he had to attend to. And he hated India, got sick every time he had to visit.

Then I asked Dug's aunt to come. But she said she could not leave France because her dogs would miss her too much. I just could not believe that.

His dad offered. But nobody really wanted him to come.

So we ended up just going it alone. Dug was okay after we talked to the counselor. He was grieving, in shock, before. Our son's cancer was the worst thing, the only really bad thing, that had ever happened to him.


----------



## convert

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> IMO the only reason JLD's husband has authority is because she fully *trusts* him to. She has a lot of the control there, he needs to cater to her so she can continue to *trust* in his authority. If he abused his power he would no longer have that role and he loves her and wants her safe and secure. If he was an angry man, a needy man, a man who needed his ego coddled, or someone who would use his role and power against her, then she wouldn't have the *trust* needed to follow his lead and therefore wouldn't.


This makes sense
but to lose the authority because you spouse doesn't *trust* you is a lot different then loosing the *trust* because of a spouses infidelity.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> IMO the only reason JLD's husband has authority is because she fully trusts him to. She has a lot of the control there, he needs to cater to her so she can continue to trust in his authority. If he abused his power he would no longer have that role and he loves her and wants her safe and secure. If he was an angry man, a needy man, a man who needed his ego coddled, or someone who would use his role and power against her, then she wouldn't have the trust needed to follow his lead and therefore wouldn't.


I agree with most of this. The part about my having control and his needing to cater to me I disagree with, though.

I could leave him. I would lose a lot, though. And if he is catering to me, it does not feel like it.

It might look like it to other people, though, whose husbands are not as nice, or to men who do not do as much for their wives. And I probably take a lot for granted. I likely just cannot see it.

Marduk, I thought you said you were leaving the thread?


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> IMO the only reason JLD's husband has authority is because she fully trusts him to. She has a lot of the control there, he needs to cater to her so she can continue to trust in his authority. If he abused his power he would no longer have that role and he loves her and wants her safe and secure. If he was an angry man, a needy man, a man who needed his ego coddled, or someone who would use his role and power against her, then she wouldn't have the trust needed to follow his lead and therefore wouldn't.


This is why blind trust is dangerous. Because if you do you never see the punching coming if it ever does come, I agree with you. If JLD had more real life experience I doubt her views would be so narrow. What is unfortunate to me is that she is unwilling to listen to others and learn more about the world. Sounds like she maybe hit the jackpot. Not all of us do.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> This is why blind trust is dangerous. Because if you do you never see the punching coming if it ever does come, I agree with you. If JLD had more real life experience I doubt her views would be so narrow. What is unfortunate to me is that she is unwilling to listen to others and learn more about the world. Sounds like she maybe hit the jackpot. Not all of us do.


Wolf, do you feel like life just happens to you? Do you not feel any agency?


----------



## convert

jld said:


> You realize this is all very hypothetical, right? I am reacting emotionally to the thought of his having an affair, which has as close to 0% chance happening as is possible.
> 
> My thought is that I could not look up to and respect him anymore. And our dynamic is based on my respect for him.
> 
> But we have children. And I have not worked in 20 years. And Dug provides our family with a comfortable lifestyle. *So maybe I would think more practically after the initial emotional shock*.
> 
> yes, most do think of staying for these reasons
> 
> *Our marriage would become more equal*. We would not have the polarity. I don't think it would be nearly as much fun. Not inspiring.
> 
> not always a bad thing
> 
> I did not say I would expect him to stay. I just know he would. He is not threatened by me, and not emotionally dependent on me. To him, an affair would just be the natural consequence of neglecting your wife. And he would get to work repairing the neglect.
> 
> I think when you have a big crisis in your marriage, you see who each other is. I did not know my husband would cry when our son was diagnosed with cancer. I saw tears streaming silently down his face and I was shocked. And terrified, as was my daughter. We had never seen Dad that way. Just not the man we knew at all.
> 
> He never laid any of that on us. I did ask the hospital if there was a counselor who could speak to him, though. I could not help.
> 
> He talked to her the next day, just for maybe 20 minutes or so. But he came out feeling great. He was very positive after that. She told him about her own cancer, her treatments, how her twins were only 7 when she got it, and how they were now graduating from high school. She basically told him cancer is not an automatic death sentence anymore. That gave him hope.
> 
> I felt frozen in fear seeing Dug cry. He is always so strong, so optimistic, so steady. And he was crying. I thought, always took for granted, that he could handle anything, that nothing would ever shake him, make him sweat. That I could lean on him, always.
> 
> But not only could I not lean on him, I could not even go to him. I just stood there staring. I could not believe I saw those streaming, silent tears, that red face. He had vulnerability, too.
> 
> Besides asking if there were a counselor he could talk to, I wrote his boss a letter and asked if he could come to India and be a support to Dug. I was so scared. If the kids and I did not have Dug to lean on, what would we do?
> 
> The boss said if he had to come he would, but he really did not want to. I am sure there were problems at the plant here he had to attend to. And he hated India, got sick every time he had to visit.
> 
> Then I asked Dug's aunt to come. But she said she could not leave France because her dogs would miss her too much. I just could not believe that.
> 
> His dad offered. But nobody really wanted him to come.
> 
> So we ended up just going it alone. Dug was okay after we talked to the counselor. He was grieving, in shock, before. Our son's cancer was the worst thing, the only really bad thing, that had ever happened to him.


this story helps me understand you better

I believe it is OK for a man to cry, your husband had a very good reason to.
I think I would be more shock if he didn't cry


----------



## jld

Do you understand, convert, how scary it was for my daughter and me to see that? How completely shocked we were?

We had to face Dug's humanity.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> I agree with most of this. *The part about my having control and his needing to cater to me I disagree with*, though.
> 
> I could leave him. I would lose a lot, though. And if he is catering to me, it does not feel like it.
> 
> It might look like it to other people, though, whose husbands are not as nice, or to men who do not do as much for their wives. And I probably take a lot for granted. I likely just cannot see it.
> 
> Marduk, I thought you said you were leaving the thread?


Whaaaaaaat,:surprise:
That the part that I thought made sense


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Wolf, do you feel like life just happens to you? Do you not feel any agency?


I have agency in what I have control over. But no one has control over all things. In my relationship I had agency in that I picked her, knowing she had issues, and agency on how I treated her and our relationship. I had no control over how she acted and what she did with it. That's what she had agency over


----------



## convert

jld said:


> Do you understand, convert, how scary it was for my daughter and me to see that? How completely shocked we were?
> 
> We had to face Dug's humanity.


The first time my wife saw me cry was with her infidelity, that shocked her as much as the exposure


----------



## jld

I see you, marduk.


----------



## Wolf1974

convert said:


> The first time my wife saw me cry was with her infidelity, that shocked her as much as the exposure


Wow mine too. She mocked me for it


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I have agency in what I have control over. But no one has control over all things. In my relationship I had agency in that I picked her, knowing she had issues, and agency on how I treated her and our relationship. I had no control over how she acted and what she did with it. That's what she had agency over


You just do not feel you had any influence over her at all?

Maybe you didn't.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> The first time my wife saw me cry was with her infidelity, that shocked her as much as the exposure


What was her reaction when she saw it?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> You just do not feel you had any influence over her at all?
> 
> Maybe you didn't.


What influence do you think I did or could have? If I had power, if I had control she wouldn't have cheated right? So obviously I had none


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> IMO the only reason JLD's husband has authority is because she fully trusts him to. She has a lot of the control there, he needs to cater to her so she can continue to trust in his authority. If he abused his power he would no longer have that role and he loves her and wants her safe and secure. If he was an angry man, a needy man, a man who needed his ego coddled, or someone who would use his role and power against her, then she wouldn't have the trust needed to follow his lead and therefore wouldn't.


This is just it, and what jld fails to see or accept. Through all that she has said since being here, it is clear that dug has authority and power in their relationship...because she has made the decision for them to allow it. Once she chooses to no longer allow it, he no longer has authority. He has no inherent authority on his own. It is granted by jld.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> What was her reaction when she saw it?


she cried too

I had to leave the house (6 hour drive) --- I didn't want to let her see me cry and was too angry --- i didn't want to do or say anything stupid.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

jld said:


> I think exposure only really has an impact if you expose to people they respect. And what you really want is to be a person your spouse respects.
> 
> I was reading over at MB and they pretty much say to treat a WH like a WW. The BW needs to examine her conscience for ways she was not meeting her husband's needs, and get meeting them.
> 
> *I think I would rather leave,* as I think staying puts the BW in the dominant position, and that looks really hard and unfulfilling to me. But I might be thinking too selfishly. When there are kids involved, you have to think of their best interests, not your own satisfaction. My opinion, anyway.


Then for you to push others to reconcile is the highest in hypocrisy!


----------



## Wolf1974

3Xnocharm said:


> Then for you to push others to reconcile is the highest in hypocrisy!


Only if you're a man should you reconcile. The women should just leave apparently


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld.... you know I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, but it has been very difficult for me to read this thread. I'm going to be very plain spoken to you right now. The number of passive aggressive smiling digs at your opposers especially about their marriage efforts, redirection to remain in control of the conversation and blatant contradictions made in this thread by you is mind boggling. You will ask me to point them out and number them one by one WITH justification of my thinking so, but in reality, I don't have the time to commit to that process. What I do see is a number of people pointing out that your advice COULD injure vulnerable persons, so much so, that I encourage you to take their advice into consideration and fully self assess. I know you feel your intent is totally pure, but after some of the comments I have seen on this thread to other posters I respect, that is now in question for me. So, to be fair to you... I'm asking you to stop and self assess. I know you are smart enough to do so and I strongly encourage it. This will be my only post on this thread.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> What we have established is that we define "dominance" differently.


Why don't you offer a valid definition of the word?

I've defined it, linked to a dictionary as a source. 

Here's some Synonyms to "dominant"
Assertive; Commanding; Leading; Powerful; Prevailing; Prevalent

Here's some Antonyms:
Impotent; Incapable; Inferior; Secondary; Subordinate; Weak

Words have meanings JLD. And just because you want it to mean something else really badly, doesn't mean that it does.

Honestly, you must work for the Ministry of Truth by the way you want to shift the meanings of words around as you see fit. Next you'll tell me it's possible for 2+2=5 depending on how you see things.


----------



## Kivlor

> Words have meanings JLD. And just because you want it to mean something else really badly, doesn't mean that it does.


I'd like to further extrapolate on this a moment.

It matters that words have meanings, and that we not just shift them whenever we want, so we can have honest dialogue, rather than disingenuous diatribe.

If every time I say "waffle" I mean "baseball bat", you won't have any clue what I'm talking about when we're playing baseball or when we're having a cheap eat at Waffle House. 

Just because I want a word to mean something else, really really badly, doesn't make it so. I don't get to pick new definitions for every word each day or willy-nilly with a shout and suddenly expect everyone to know what I mean or understand me when I use them wrong. Words have meanings, which are used to express our thoughts. Express yours without being disingenuous.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> she cried too
> 
> I had to leave the house (6 hour drive) --- I didn't want to let her see me cry and was too angry --- i didn't want to do or say anything stupid.


You did not want to be vulnerable to her?


----------



## jld

3Xnocharm said:


> Then for you to push others to reconcile is the highest in hypocrisy!


I encourage men to. But they would not do it if they did not want to. 

Amazing all the influence people think I have.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> This is just it, and what jld fails to see or accept. Through all that she has said since being here, it is clear that dug has authority and power in their relationship...because she has made the decision for them to allow it. Once she chooses to no longer allow it, he no longer has authority. He has no inherent authority on his own. It is granted by jld.


I could leave him. But then I would have to deal with life on my own, which looks pretty scary.

But Dug is very nice, and does not take advantage of my vulnerability.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I could leave him. But then I would have to deal with life on my own, which looks pretty scary.
> 
> But Dug is very nice, and does not take advantage of my vulnerability.


What is it that has made you so afraid of life?


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Why don't you offer a valid definition of the word?
> 
> I've defined it, linked to a dictionary as a source.
> 
> Here's some Synonyms to "dominant"
> Assertive; Commanding; Leading; Powerful; Prevailing; Prevalent
> 
> Here's some Antonyms:
> Impotent; Incapable; Inferior; Secondary; Subordinate; Weak
> 
> Words have meanings JLD. And just because you want it to mean something else really badly, doesn't mean that it does.
> 
> Honestly, you must work for the Ministry of Truth by the way you want to shift the meanings of words around as you see fit. Next you'll tell me it's possible for 2+2=5 depending on how you see things.


The one you gave earlier, power or influence over others, is good.

To me, you want to use that power for your spouse's and family's highest interest, not for your own selfish one. By always examining your conscience, and being open to what your spouse, who knows and loves you best, tells you, you can improve.

Also, you want to get that influence by earning their trust. Healthy dominance has nothing to do with coercion.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> What is it that has made you so afraid of life?


Dug and I were just talking about that on the phone. I am not really sure. But probably the fear of failure.


----------



## karole

jld said:


> I could leave him. But then I would have to deal with life on my own, which looks pretty scary.
> 
> But Dug is very nice, and does not take advantage of my vulnerability.


What are your plans should Dug leave this life before you? (God forbid) I mean, that's a possibility. You make it sound as if you could not exist without him, but you have children to take care of, so what would you do?


----------



## turnera

convert said:


> Not everyone believes that one spouse should dominate over the other.


I DREAM of the day when I am considered an EQUAL in my marriage. My H dominates in EVERY WAY. Yet professes to love me. And conveniently, promptly forgets all the ways in which he dominates and makes me feel inferior.

I HATE the word dominate. Because I've lived it.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I encourage men to. But they would not do it if they did not want to.
> 
> Amazing all the influence people think I have.


I no longer believe that you truly think you have no influence.

Too many people respond to your posts to live in denial over that.

How many times has @MEM11363 said you influenced him. Hell, how many times have I said you influenced me? 

Why else would your responses generate so much controversy? 

If you had no influence, it would be like, "JL who?".



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## turnera

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> IMO the only reason JLD's husband has authority is because she fully trusts him to. She has a lot of the control there, he needs to cater to her so she can continue to trust in his authority. If he abused his power he would no longer have that role and he loves her and wants her safe and secure. If he was an angry man, a needy man, a man who needed his ego coddled, or someone who would use his role and power against her, then she wouldn't have the trust needed to follow his lead and therefore wouldn't.


You just described my life.

My problem is that jld assumes men are healthy like her husband. No fears, no insecurities. It's the other 99% of men out there who are NOT this type of man who cannot handle being 'dominant.' And the women pay for it.


----------



## jld

karole said:


> What are your plans should Dug leave this life before you? (God forbid) I mean, that's a possibility. You make it sound as if you could not exist without him, but you have children to take care of, so what would you do?


That has long been my greatest fear, Karole. 

Yes, I would have to go on. And we have life insurance and other financial protection. 

But I would have to find a full time job with health care benefits. And I would accept my brother's offer to pay for college for our kids. He offered it to everyone in the family, but Dug told him No, that we would pay for our kids ourselves.

But Dug is such a comfort to me. He is so smart and encouraging. So confident and positive. I look up to him and feel safe with him. He is very good to me.

But I do have the kids, and they are a gift. I could just fill my life with them and future grandchildren. That would be very good. That feels very reassuring, actually.

Thanks for helping me recenter.


----------



## jld

turnera said:


> You just described my life.
> 
> My problem is that jld assumes men are healthy like her husband. No fears, no insecurities. It's the other 99% of men out there who are NOT this type of man who cannot handle being 'dominant.' *And the women pay for it.*


This is why I push men to develop their dominance, turnera. I have said it many times. 

When men are not dominant, and by that I mean taking loving, respectful responsibility for their family, the women end up doing even more of the work. And that is a heavy load to carry.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Dug and I were just talking about that on the phone. I am not really sure. But probably the fear of failure.


Of all of the things through your threads and posts, I think the most consistent and underlying theme is that you have many deep seated fears. Do you feel if as if your fear of failure has helped lead to your feelings regarding accountability, that since you have abdicated your authority and power, that you no longer have to fear failure so much since you no longer have any personal power or control?


----------



## jld

turnera said:


> I DREAM of the day when I am considered an EQUAL in my marriage. My H dominates in EVERY WAY. Yet professes to love me. And conveniently, promptly forgets all the ways in which he dominates and makes me feel inferior.
> 
> I HATE the word dominate. Because I've lived it.


See, I see you as the dominant in your marriage. He is the one who drove you into the ground financially. He is the one who refuses to take any responsibility for his own feelings. He expects you to be his mom and his ego stroker.

When you took over the finances, things got much better. Every other step you have taken has improved your family's lot. Your daughter won't even talk to him at times for his babyish behavior, no?

What real leadership has he ever shown?

And how would you *not* be better off without him?


----------



## karole

Tunera, couldn't you just file for bankruptcy to get out from under your debt and then make a clean break? Let me tell you, I worked for a bankruptcy attorney and you would be surprised at the "wealthy" people that file for bankruptcy. It's regular people like us that don't want to file, but sometimes it's necessary and in those cases, you should take full advantage.


----------



## turnera

karole, I'm getting closer to it all the time. It would require a huge upshift in all our lives, so I have to consider it carefully.


----------



## always_hopefull

jld said:


> Wow. Thanks for mentioning that.
> 
> Now that you bring it up, I faintly recall it. What seemed to be emphasized was how she was a serial cheater, and yet they made it work.
> 
> Hearing about his physical abuse really puts that serial cheating in perspective.
> 
> Sure would be interesting to X-ray these relationships.


Which is why we cannot assume all WS cheat because of a negligent spouse. People are 3D, relationships are complicated and cheating is multifactoral. There is no linear response to handling infidelity. Therefore, we as members of this and any other board, need to dispense our advice while we try to do the least amount of harm to an already fragile individual. Blaming the victim without full disclosure can do some serious damage, possibly irreversible.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I no longer believe that you truly think you have no influence.
> 
> Too many people respond to your posts to live in denial over that.
> 
> How many times has @MEM11363 said you influenced him. Hell, how many times have I said you influenced me?
> 
> Why else would your responses generate so much controversy?
> 
> If you had no influence, it would be like, "JL who?".


My views are not mainstream here at TAM. When you see things differently than most, and your views make people question their own views, you are apt to get responses. 

That does not mean the responses will be constructive. Most of the responses I get are defensive. People perhaps find themselves wondering if maybe they are not as sure of their views as they thought they were. 

Far, to me I am one voice in a sea of voices. I try to be as honest and open as I feel comfortable being. If people do not like my voice, they can ignore it. I don't ask people not to express themselves. The whole purpose of a forum is to get a variety of views.


----------



## imtamnew

@jld, Have you ever lived independently. Earning and spending your own money with 0 support from anyone else?


----------



## jld

Early on, right after college. But only for a few months.


----------



## always_hopefull

technovelist said:


> So he is a sociopath? That's what it sounds like.


I'm pretty sure, undiagnosed, but he fits the bill. I heard a new term, narcopath, and hits my ex to a T. I met one of his gf's, she couldn't believe I was his ex, as he had painted me as pretty much crazy. She was a psych nurse and after she met me she realized he was a sociopath and dumped him .


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> My views are not mainstream here at TAM. When you see things differently than most, and your views make people question their own views, you are apt to get responses.
> 
> That does not mean the responses will be constructive. Most of the responses I get are defensive. People perhaps find themselves wondering if maybe they are not as sure of their views as they thought they were.
> 
> Far, to me I am one voice in a sea of voices. I try to be as honest and open as I feel comfortable being. If people do not like my voice, they can ignore it. I don't ask people not to express themselves. The whole purpose of a forum is to get a variety of views.


Honestly I'm surprised if you influence anyone. When you are so dismissive of what other people experience first hand because it doesn't fall within your narrow view of how a relationship should operate it seems much less through provoking and more argumentative for the sake of argument
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## imtamnew

Thanks.

This thread has been very interesting for me.

Its funny but your way of thinking is very similar to the way my wife approaches things.

Infact this might also explain why I find your posts touch a raw nerve. My wife once justified an affair her friend had because her Husband was not available to her in an emotional sense. So when this friend got alone for a couple of months, she got into an EA and later a PA.

I would also like to add that my wife is very charismatic with her friends and a lot of them do turn to her for advice.

Like you, my wife lived independently for a very short amount of time. Barely a year and that was also in a kind of situation that had very little scope for spending money on anything and it was a regimented life. The office was quite far from civilization and the only companions were the colleagues.

Now this Dominant role that you speak of. If I were to dominate my wife, it would be so easy. I am way stronger than her in the physical sense. The sort of alpha guy who very rarely backs down from a physical situation.

I help with chores and take very good care of my kids. My parents adore me and truth be told, my in-laws would disown their daughter and take my side in the event of a fight.

My wife had a very sad upbringing. She was born late and has a couple of older siblings. Her mother when there is a altercation between them has told her that maybe an abortion would have been better than this fight. My father-in-law is a very nice person but a horrible father. I don't think he has ever loved his kids anymore than one loves the kids in a family. Not one of his children has ever felt loved.

My wife's older siblings have horrible marriages and just drag it on.

This dominate your wife thing. I tried it once. But made me feel so bad as a manipulative a$$hole that something inside me died that day.

What you fail to understand is that some women are so broken that they cannot appreciate love and caring.

So I take very good care of the house. I do almost all the stuff you talk about. There is no way my wife will be cheating on me. But and this is the key. I am no longer the husband she could have had.

I will not sleep with someone who wants to be my inferior.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Honestly* I'm surprised if you influence anyone.* When you are so dismissive of what other people experience first hand because it doesn't fall within your narrow view of how a relationship should operate it seems much less through provoking and more argumentative for the sake of argument
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 @farsidejunky

Far, did you see this? You and Wolf see this differently.

And that is the beauty of a forum. Different people present different views. And you don't have to agree with any of it. 

"Take what works for you, and leave the rest."


----------



## jld

im_tam said:


> Thanks.
> 
> This thread has been very interesting for me.
> 
> Its funny but your way of thinking is very similar to the way my wife approaches things.
> 
> Infact this might also explain why I find your posts touch a raw nerve. My wife once justified an affair her friend had because her Husband was not available to her in an emotional sense. So when this friend got alone for a couple of months, she got into an EA and later a PA.
> 
> I would also like to add that my wife is very charismatic with her friends and a lot of them do turn to her for advice.
> 
> Like you, my wife lived independently for a very short amount of time. Barely a year and that was also in a kind of situation that had very little scope for spending money on anything and it was a regimented life. The office was quite far from civilization and the only companions were the colleagues.
> 
> Now this Dominant role that you speak of. If I were to dominate my wife, it would be so easy. I am way stronger than her in the physical sense. The sort of alpha guy who very rarely backs down from a physical situation.
> 
> I help with chores and take very good care of my kids. My parents adore me and truth be told, my in-laws would disown their daughter and take my side in the event of a fight.
> 
> My wife had a very sad upbringing. She was born late and has a couple of older siblings. Her mother when there is a altercation between them has told her that maybe an abortion would have been better than this fight. My father-in-law is a very nice person but a horrible father. I don't think he has ever loved his kids anymore than one loves the kids in a family. Not one of his children has ever felt loved.
> 
> My wife's older siblings have horrible marriages and just drag it on.
> 
> This dominate your wife thing. I tried it once. But made me feel so bad as a manipulative a$$hole that something inside me died that day.
> 
> What you fail to understand is that some women are so broken that they cannot appreciate love and caring.
> 
> So I take very good care of the house. I do almost all the stuff you talk about. There is no way my wife will be cheating on me. But and this is the key.* I am no longer the husband she could have had.*
> 
> I will not sleep with someone who wants to be my inferior.


What does the bolded mean?


----------



## farsidejunky

I watched it with:
@MEM11363
@gridcom
@Hurting71
@UMP
@Eagle3
@marduk (at one time)
@DayOne
@Deejo

Me

That is just off the top of my head.

Say what you want, but there are some prominent and influential TAM'ers on this list.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## imtamnew

I am the roommate. I have no needs that she can fulfill. Neither emotional nor physical.


----------



## jld

Are you in a sexless marriage?


----------



## samyeagar

Of all of the things through your threads and posts, I think the most consistent and underlying theme is that you have many deep seated fears. Do you feel if as if your fear of failure has helped lead to your feelings regarding accountability, that since you have abdicated your authority and power, that you no longer have to fear failure so much since you no longer have any personal power or control?


----------



## imtamnew

Yes. .

But it's a little different than the usually common stories. My wife believes her period will only come if she has an orgasm. So once a month we kiss and makeout. Five mins in total without penentration is enough for me to get her off. I am the world's greatest lover.. Lol

I don't continue once she is done. 

So it is a sex less one but as is the case for everything. Everyone has a different story on it


----------



## jld

Well, the more responsibility one has, the more power they have.

Dug is certainly very kind to me, but he is smarter and obviously has the financial advantage.

He could get along much easier if I died than the reverse, for example.


----------



## jld

im_tam said:


> Yes. .
> 
> But it's a little different than the usually common stories. My wife believes her period will only come if she has an orgasm. So once a month we kiss and makeout. Five mins in total without penentration is enough for me to get her off. I am the world's greatest lover.. Lol
> 
> I don't continue once she is done.
> 
> So it is a sex less one but as is the case for everything. Everyone has a different story on it


Are you happy with that?


----------



## MEM2020

All,
I want to address this matter of influence because it's important. 

The thing I love about TAM is that it's a market place of ideas. 

Perhaps a users guide to TAM might include a section titled: Choose your advisors carefully. My ideal advisor: 

- Successful in their marriage
- Wise 
- Brutally honest 
- Has high standards 
- Overall happy

There are many folks on TAM who are hurt and angry. These are people who feel trapped in bad marriages. They want you to do to your spouse what they wished they could do to their spouse. Punish - hurt - leave them. Issue ultimatums. 

The list of folks who pass my advisor threshold is rather short. 

That said, they DO have influence over me. They do shape my thinking. 

Being cursed with a good memory I have - the equivalent of a football teams library of tapes. Thousands and thousands of interactions. The good, the bad and the ugly. 

So here's the thing. JLD not only met my criteria for an advisor - she told me stuff that aligned to a stupefying level with my tapes. 

JLD would say: M2 is likely thinking or feeling this way or that way when you do X or Y or Z. And the reason is because of this or that. 

So then I'd apply her filter to my tape library - and stare in amazement at the results. 

So yes - I've given her a lot of influence over me. Changed a bunch of stuff. M2 has never loved me more. Never been as fully transparent with me as she is now. 






jld said:


> The one you gave earlier, power or influence over others, is good.
> 
> To me, you want to use that power for your spouse's and family's highest interest, not for your own selfish one. By always examining your conscience, and being open to what your spouse, who knows and loves you best, tells you, you can improve.
> 
> Also, you want to get that influence by earning their trust. Healthy dominance has nothing to do with coercion.


----------



## imtamnew

No. But this is a very important part of my life but not the only part.

My kids fulfill me and I do have some very satisfying hobbies.


One time I remember my wife telling me that same as your last post. That if she died, nothing will change for me. But my death week cause her so many many things to change .


----------



## MEM2020

Not sure that's true. 




jld said:


> Well, the more responsibility one has, the more power they have.
> 
> Dug is certainly very kind to me, but he is smarter and obviously has the financial advantage.
> 
> He could get along much easier if I died than the reverse, for example.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Not sure that's true.


That is very kind, MEM. Thank you.


----------



## Wolf1974

MEM11363 said:


> All,
> I want to address this matter of influence because it's important.
> 
> The thing I love about TAM is that it's a market place of ideas.
> 
> Perhaps a users guide to TAM might include a section titled: Choose your advisors carefully. My ideal advisor:
> 
> - Successful in their marriage
> - Wise
> - Brutally honest
> - Has high standards
> - Overall happy
> 
> There are many folks on TAM who are hurt and angry. These are people who feel trapped in bad marriages. They want you to do to your spouse what they wished they could do to their spouse. Punish - hurt - leave them. Issue ultimatums.
> 
> The list of folks who pass my advisor threshold is rather short.
> 
> That said, they DO have influence over me. They do shape my thinking.
> 
> Being cursed with a good memory I have - the equivalent of a football teams library of tapes. Thousands and thousands of interactions. The good, the bad and the ugly.
> 
> So here's the thing. JLD not only met my criteria for an advisor - she told me stuff that aligned to a stupefying level with my tapes.
> 
> JLD would say: M2 is likely thinking or feeling this way or that way when you do X or Y or Z. And the reason is because of this or that.
> 
> So then I'd apply her filter to my tape library - and stare in amazement at the results.
> 
> So yes - I've given her a lot of influence over me. Changed a bunch of stuff. M2 has never loved me more. Never been as fully transparent with me as she is now.


I really like your criteria for advisor but I would add a couple. 

Open to other viewpoints
Not dismissive of other people or their experiences
Also the successful marriage is a tricky one. What one person calls successful another calls disappointing. Or what about those who had success but lost it. Beneficial to hear from them as well to find out where things went wrong.

Maybe you should start a sticky on advisors. Could really help some here I think that are lost and looking for advice.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 3Xnocharm

jld said:


> I am not advising hoping or begging. I think examining your own conscience for how you have not the needs her lover has, and then starting to meet them, could start earning you her respect, and trust.


That is SICK!!


----------



## Kivlor

3Xnocharm said:


> That is SICK!!


Only if you find weakness to be putrid and repugnant. If it's your thing, it might seem quite appetizing. Personally, I find weakness sickening, so I'm with you. 

Examining how you can avoid another affair--in this relationship, or in the next--that's strength building. Blaming yourself for not being your WS' AP, and trying to become that person for your WS, that's disgusting. It is the opposite of strength, it is pure weakness. 

There's a difference in those two statements, that some of the posters here may miss; but that difference makes them oceans apart.


----------



## jld

3Xnocharm said:


> That is SICK!!


I am not the only one who thinks this. From Letter #1, by Dr. Harley of Marriage Builders:

_*People usually have affairs because their unmet emotional needs are met by their lover.* There is probably something that your wife's lover is doing for her that makes her feel so good that she is willing to sacrifice the happiness of her children, her mother, her sister and you just to get it. What is it? What does her lover do for her that is that important? What does he give her that you have not given her? *Can you change so that you can meet that need?*

The reason she is having trouble deciding between you and her lover is that you both meet different emotional needs. She says she still loves you and that may be the case, particularly since she still makes love to you twice a week. She loves you because you are meeting some of her important needs. Since she says she would leave you both if she had to decide between you, there's a good chance that neither of you meet enough of her needs for her to settle on one of you. *But if you could do for her what this other man is doing, the conflict would be ended and your family would be secure. You would have learned to meet all of her most important emotional needs, ending her affair, and the risk of others*._

What to Do with an Unfaithful Wife Letter #1

All it really requires is putting your pride aside. A small price to pay for keeping your family intact, imo.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> I clearly say I care when I think you are harming the vulnerable.
> 
> And since you do not listen to me when I tell you that I'm not a sub, or weak, or want my wife to protect me, or whatever projections you put on me... Why should I give you the same respect?
> 
> Do you realize that other people even actually exist?


Why am I reminded of this little poem?

"Roses are red, I don't know why.
I'm solipsistic and so am I."


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I am not the only one who thinks this. From Letter #1, by Dr. Harley of Marriage Builders


Ad populum. Just because someone else believes it doesn't make it so. Also, still a sign of weakness.



> All it really requires is putting your pride aside. A small price to pay for keeping your family intact, imo.


All it takes is renouncing who you are, who your Wayward swore their vows to; and then swearing to become as much like their Affair Partner as you can, so they won't be attracted to the AP anymore.

I require integrity of myself and of my partner; a virtue all can surely agree on. Can you see how someone with integrity must see this as non-negotiable? This advice is asking the BS to lie about who they are and conform to their Wayward's every whim and desire. 

The Wayward needs to make a decision: Their Spouse or their AP. There is no middle-ground. There is no room for negotiation. The notion that the BS should become as much like the AP as possible is the WS choosing the AP over their Spouse. The M is done. The person the BS married is gone; if they were ever really there to begin with.

ETA: Think of the message you send your children, if you have any. You are telling them the WS is justified in seeking out their AP and breaking their vows. You teach them to not value integrity. You teach them to value only the most selfish and base of impulses


----------



## 3Xnocharm

jld said:


> I encourage men to. But they would not do it if they did not want to.
> 
> Amazing all the influence people think I have.


Your "influence" is catering to the blubbering betrayed nice guy who already thought he could kiss ass his wife back to him. The see you encouraging that behavior and it never works. Its extremely damaging.


----------



## turnera

3Xnocharm said:


> Your "influence" is catering to the blubbering betrayed nice guy who already thought he could kiss ass his wife back to him. The see you encouraging that behavior and it never works. Its extremely damaging.


*cough*grid*cough*


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I do think you can "nice" your spouse out of an affair, as long as you have the stick as well. 

Meet their needs, be a pleasant person to be around, discuss how you'll both fix the marriage going forward
But be firm that the AP must be gone and they must go NC with them. 

What Are Plan A and Plan B?

IMO a lot of the advice and mindsets in the infidelity board here just aren't productive for what I was trying to do. Too much anger, blaming, punishments and if anyone mentions the other side, what came before the affair, what left the marriage vulnerable to an affair it's just chaos (unless the BS is a woman who wasn't providing sex, that's the only time I've seen more accepted sharing of the situation)


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> All it really requires is putting your pride aside. A small price to pay for keeping your family intact, imo.


I find another effective tool for keeping the family intact, don't bang someone else while you are married


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> I find another effective tool for keeping the family intact, don't bang someone else while you are married


Lol yep 100%. I will stay in the foxhole with my spouse through anything save, hitting me, hitting my kids, cheating. Really isn't that hard to accomplish but like I stated earlier some people can never handle the responsibility of being an adult.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

jld said:


> I am not the only one who thinks this.


So what, that doesnt make it right or okay. The idea of trying to meet the needs of the a$$hole who chose to fvck someone else while married to me makes me want to vomit. And until it happens to you, you have no business saying otherwise.


----------



## Space Mountain

jld said:


> SM, did you read post #177?
> 
> *I said that Dr. H's approach is close to mine, not exactly the same. *
> 
> I think exposure is a powerful tool, and must be used wisely. When it is used to shock a spouse back to reality, by speaking to people they respect and will listen to, when your own authority with them is not enough to do it, I think it can be helpful.
> 
> But to think you can control your spouse's behavior by running around telling everyone and their brother what they have done seems very weak to me. If it comes to that, I don't even know why either of you would want to be together.
> 
> I don't think there is any way around building a relationship with your spouse from the inside, by earning their respect and trust, mainly by your own example of good character.
> 
> Trying to control them, through exposing them or monitoring them or threatening them or whatever other external technique you come up with, is going to be of limited effectiveness. The human spirit is not going to accept to be controlled forever.


jld,

Responding to your response from earlier in the day, since the topic of the thread was exposure and you like to reference Doc Harley and Marriage Builders by placing the blame of an affair on a BS, I was just presenting for reference Doc Harley's view on exposure since it had not been mentioned. It is now clear that you only like some of the ideals of Marriage Builder's and not the whole program. I too only like parts of the Marriage Builder's and not all of it. In fact, I think most of it is a waste of time.

You mention control quite a bit and my opinion on control is that trying to control someone is another fool's errand. As I believe Tom67 and others on here have said many times in the past that you cannot control someone or their actions. You can however control what you will put up with. I would not even attempt to control someone. Controlling someone requires to much effort and ambition and life is way to short waste time on someone who no longer deserves it. If a BS could adopt this mindset, then exposure would probably not be necessary.

That being said, when it comes to reconciliation, a BS view should be that the only chance for reconciliation with a WS would be for the WS to take a number and go to the back of the line and compete with all the potential new love interests to try and win the affection of the BS. This can happen if the WS can by some miracle prove themselves worthy. The WS in my opinion will have the most difficult time because they now have the stigma of damaged goods that they will have to overcome that new love interests do not have.


----------



## imtamnew

JLD, I was quite candid in describing my issues.

Have mentioned couple therapy multiple times. My wife refuses to do that.
Have never pestered for sex.
Take very very good care of her.


So should I have an affair to shake things up?


----------



## Space Mountain

jld said:


> I am not the only one who thinks this. From Letter #1, by Dr. Harley of Marriage Builders:
> 
> _*People usually have affairs because their unmet emotional needs are met by their lover.* There is probably something that your wife's lover is doing for her that makes her feel so good that she is willing to sacrifice the happiness of her children, her mother, her sister and you just to get it. What is it? What does her lover do for her that is that important? What does he give her that you have not given her? *Can you change so that you can meet that need?*
> 
> _


_

The changes that really need to be made would be the locks on all the doors so she could not get back in, the joint bank accounts to my name only, cancel joint credit cards, wills and life insurance beneficiaries to someone worth while. These are just some of the things that come to my mind first._


----------



## Space Mountain

im_tam said:


> JLD, I was quite candid in describing my issues.
> 
> Have mentioned couple therapy multiple times. My wife refuses to do that.
> Have never pestered for sex.
> Take very very good care of her.
> 
> 
> So should I have an affair to shake things up?


im_tam,

Regardless of what people post here, *NOTHING* justifies an affair. Be a rock and show your children that you are a man of integrity. If your marriage is that bad then divorce first.


----------



## MEM2020

Sam,
JLD runs the show round the clock including home schooling 5 children while her husband works remotely. 

SAHM wife responsibilities PLUS home schooling MINUS a husband to help during the week. 





samyeagar said:


> Of all of the things through your threads and posts, I think the most consistent and underlying theme is that you have many deep seated fears. Do you feel if as if your fear of failure has helped lead to your feelings regarding accountability, that since you have abdicated your authority and power, that you no longer have to fear failure so much since you no longer have any personal power or control?


----------



## imtamnew

Space Mountain said:


> im_tam,
> 
> Regardless of what people post here, *NOTHING* justifies an affair. Be a rock and show your children that you are a man of integrity. If your marriage is that bad then divorce first.


If I do cheat on my wife, then the entire blame, reason, failure, stupidity is MINE.

Not planning on cheating right now. But who knows what place I am in when 2026 comes.

But one thing which will not change without doubt is the ownership of such a thing. The cheater and the cheater alone is responsible for the betrayal.

Sex is very important for life and happiness. But its not like food and water that its absence will force you to commit a crime. An affair is without any doubt a CRIME.


----------



## jdawg2015

MEM11363 said:


> Sam,
> JLD runs the show round the clock including home schooling 5 children while her husband works remotely.
> 
> SAHM wife responsibilities PLUS home schooling MINUS a husband to help during the week.


Her situation is a choice....


----------



## eastsouth2000

If this is about an Affair I would say.

I for one believe that Exposure is very important.
-Specially to AP's SO.
-And both sides of the FOO. (cannot understate the value of this.)
-If the children are "mature enough" and they inquire it should be explained the truth.
-If the children are 18yo they must be told the truth.

While exposure to Friends and Relatives or Work Place/Co-workers.
varies depending on the situation.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> You realize this is all very hypothetical, right? I am reacting emotionally to the thought of his having an affair, which has as close to 0% chance happening as is possible.
> 
> My thought is that I could not look up to and respect him anymore. And our dynamic is based on my respect for him.
> 
> But we have children. And I have not worked in 20 years. And Dug provides our family with a comfortable lifestyle. So maybe I would think more practically after the initial emotional shock.
> 
> Our marriage would become more equal. We would not have the polarity. I don't think it would be nearly as much fun. Not inspiring.
> 
> I did not say I would expect him to stay. I just know he would. He is not threatened by me, and not emotionally dependent on me. To him, an affair would just be the natural consequence of neglecting your wife. And he would get to work repairing the neglect.
> 
> I think when you have a big crisis in your marriage, you see who each other is. I did not know my husband would cry when our son was diagnosed with cancer. I saw tears streaming silently down his face and I was shocked. And terrified, as was my daughter. We had never seen Dad that way. Just not the man we knew at all.
> 
> He never laid any of that on us. I did ask the hospital if there was a counselor who could speak to him, though. I could not help.
> 
> He talked to her the next day, just for maybe 20 minutes or so. But he came out feeling great. He was very positive after that. She told him about her own cancer, her treatments, how her twins were only 7 when she got it, and how they were now graduating from high school. She basically told him cancer is not an automatic death sentence anymore. That gave him hope.
> 
> I felt frozen in fear seeing Dug cry. He is always so strong, so optimistic, so steady. And he was crying. I thought, always took for granted, that he could handle anything, that nothing would ever shake him, make him sweat. That I could lean on him, always.
> 
> But not only could I not lean on him, I could not even go to him. I just stood there staring. I could not believe I saw those streaming, silent tears, that red face. He had vulnerability, too.
> 
> Besides asking if there were a counselor he could talk to, I wrote his boss a letter and asked if he could come to India and be a support to Dug. I was so scared. If the kids and I did not have Dug to lean on, what would we do?
> 
> The boss said if he had to come he would, but he really did not want to. I am sure there were problems at the plant here he had to attend to. And he hated India, got sick every time he had to visit.
> 
> Then I asked Dug's aunt to come. But she said she could not leave France because her dogs would miss her too much. I just could not believe that.
> 
> His dad offered. But nobody really wanted him to come.
> 
> So we ended up just going it alone. Dug was okay after we talked to the counselor. He was grieving, in shock, before. Our son's cancer was the worst thing, the only really bad thing, that had ever happened to him.


This post is really sad. Your husband clearly needed some emotional support from you and you went to tremendous effort to find someone else to do it.

Makes me wonder what would happen if your husband became incapacitated in some way and you had to support him for the rest of your life


----------



## samyeagar

MEM11363 said:


> Sam,
> JLD runs the show round the clock including home schooling 5 children while her husband works remotely.
> 
> SAHM wife responsibilities PLUS home schooling MINUS a husband to help during the week.


And I have freely acknowledged numerous time that their marital arrangement works for them. That their respective views and lifestyle compliment the other very nicely. I think that some of the tools she relies on such as empathy and active listening are quite valuable and effective when used properly.

I still stand by my assessment though that applying their broader marital dynamic, thoughts, ways of dealing with each other to more typical marital situations and problems with the average couple could be very damaging not only to the marriage, but also to the individuals involved.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> This post is really sad. Your husband clearly needed some emotional support from you and you went to tremendous effort to find someone else to do it.
> 
> Makes me wonder what would happen if your husband became incapacitated in some way and you had to support him for the rest of your life


I read your post to Dug. He said I did great. He said it was normal for him to cry. He said he was sad and scared to lose our son.

He said he did not ask for my support, and it has never occurred to him that I should have done more than I did. He said that later he felt bad that he had not been there for me, as I was left to manage the other four kids, and my own grief, on my own thsoe first two days.

I knew I was in over my head. I had to ask for professional help for him because I was just hanging on, myself.

The way it turned out, he needed to hear that there was hope that our son could survive his cancer. I could not give that. I thought our son was going to die, too. We were both grieving and in shock, and very scared of losing our son.

Once Dug heard from the counselor that there was indeed hope for our son, he returned to normal. 

Honestly, I think my being able to ask the hospital for help from a professional when my own presence of mind was so shaky was remarkable. And I reached out to his boss and his aunt on his behalf, too. The care was definitely there. But I had to deal with my own grief, too. 

And I had my daughter and the three younger boys at home to take care of, and move to a bigger city near the cancer hospital overnight, too.

And then calling relatives and friends who cried as soon as I said the word leukemia. So I had to comfort them, all the while totally spent and fearful, myself. I did about five calls, and quit. I had no energy to give out.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> And I have freely acknowledged numerous time that their marital arrangement works for them. That their respective views and lifestyle compliment the other very nicely. I think that some of the tools she relies on such as empathy and active listening are quite valuable and effective when used properly.
> 
> I still stand by my assessment though that applying their broader marital dynamic, thoughts, ways of dealing with each other to more typical marital situations and problems with the average couple could be very damaging not only to the marriage, but also to the individuals involved.


What exactly do you think is damaging?


----------



## OpenWindows

This thread has led me to an interesting realization.

Here on TAM, when someone is in a sexless marriage, we talk a lot about how it's not just about getting laid. It's the bonding, the closeness, the meeting of emotional needs that sex provides... that's why sex is so important.

But when someone unhappy in their marriage has sex with someone else, we talk about how it was just sex, they just wanted to get laid.

How do you reconcile those two things? Sometimes it really is about getting laid, but might it sometimes be about getting emotional needs met? If the WS and BS want to stay together, don't those emotional needs deserve some attention on both sides? It seems like if the WS still has unmet needs after reconciliation, they're more likely to end the marriage anyway. Of course, if you don't want to stay together, those needs don't matter.

I'm not writing off the BS's needs here, I just think we've well established that point, so I'm talking more about the other side.

We seem to have this idea on here that sex is just sex when it's cheating, but it's so much more than sex when it's monogamous. I'm not sure we should be so distinctly separating those two things.


----------



## jld

OpenWindows said:


> It seems like if the WS still has unmet needs after reconciliation, they're more likely to end the marriage anyway.


I think initially a lot of WWs, in particular, want to stay together. They undoubtedly feel shame and guilt for putting their children's lifestyle in danger.

But if they felt vulnerable enough to have an affair, I think they really need to ask themselves why they are in that marriage. If they cannot either steel themselves against cheating on their own, and/or the BH cannot meet the needs the lover was meeting, they have no choice but to divorce. 

And this is where lifeistooshort's advice to women to be financially independent is so helpful. If women can support a family on their own, they can decide if the marriage is meeting their needs or not, and proceed accordingly.

This is also very good for men, as it does not allow them to stagnate, as French Fry alluded to recently. They are forced to grow and develop their potential as husbands, rather than taking their wives for granted.


----------



## Kivlor

im_tam said:


> JLD, I was quite candid in describing my issues.
> 
> Have mentioned couple therapy multiple times. My wife refuses to do that.
> Have never pestered for sex.
> Take very very good care of her.
> 
> 
> So should I have an affair to shake things up?


According to what JLD posts, you would be justified. It would be on your BW to find out how she can meet your needs to end the Affair.

Glad to see you realize how crazy that sounds. We're all responsible for our actions.


----------



## OpenWindows

jld said:


> But if they felt vulnerable enough to have an affair, I think they really need to ask themselves why they are in that marriage. If they cannot either steel themselves against cheating on their own, and/or the BH cannot meet the needs the lover was meeting, they have no choice but to divorce.


I absolutely agree. But people in emotional pain sometimes make bad decisions that they regret. And this subset of people is often ignored on threads about infidelity, where we focus more on serial cheaters.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> I read your post to Dug. He said I did great. He said it was normal for him to cry. He said he was sad and scared to lose our son.
> 
> He said he did not ask for my support, and it has never occurred to him that I should have done more than I did. He said that later he felt bad that he had not been there for me, as I was left to manage the other four kids, and my own grief, on my own thsoe first two days.
> 
> I knew I was in over my head. I had to ask for professional help for him because I was just hanging on, myself.
> 
> The way it turned out, he needed to hear that there was hope that our son could survive his cancer. I could not give that. I thought our son was going to die, too. We were both grieving and in shock, and very scared of losing our son.
> 
> Once Dug heard from the counselor that there was indeed hope for our son, he returned to normal.
> 
> Honestly, I think my being able to ask the hospital for help from a professional when my own presence of mind was so shaky was remarkable. And I reached out to his boss and his aunt on his behalf, too. The care was definitely there. But I had to deal with my own grief, too.
> 
> And I had my daughter and the three younger boys at home to take care of, and move to a bigger city near the cancer hospital overnight, too.
> 
> And then calling relatives and friends who cried as soon as I said the word leukemia. So I had to comfort them, all the while totally spent and fearful, myself. I did about five calls, and quit. I had no energy to give out.


It's a difficult one to comment on as I can only imagine the despair you and your husband were feeling at the time but I think something like this would lead to me and my wife grieving and supporting each other as a unit. I hope your son is well and makes a full recovery, I imagine having such a strong foundation under him is very comforting


----------



## EllisRedding

Kivlor said:


> According to what JLD posts, you would be justified. It would be on your BW to find out how she can meet your needs to end the Affair.
> 
> Glad to see you realize how crazy that sounds. We're all responsible for our actions.


I don't know if that is quite true, I thought the assumption was that in either scenario (whether the cheater or cheated on) it was on the Husband to fix everything. If he is the BH he needs to analyze why he drove her to cheat and figure out how to correct his actions to regain her trust so maybe she would consider reconciliation (seriously what???). If he is the cheater she has every right to just walk away since he betrayed her, and it is still on him to try and fix everything.


----------



## jld

OpenWindows said:


> I absolutely agree. But people in emotional pain sometimes make bad decisions that they regret. And this subset of people is often ignored on threads about infidelity, where we focus more on serial cheaters.


Do you mean women who stay in marriages after their affair is discovered, when they should actually leave?

To me an affair is just a sign that something was wrong in the marriage. It was a consequence of those problems.

But to a lot of folks, the affair is the only thing they can see. 

If a woman is married to a man who cannot see past her affair to the reasons she was vulnerable to it, I think she needs to let him go. How is he going to be able to help her?

I am sure you understand this already, Open Windows. I'm singing to the choir when I talk to you, fortunately.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I do think you can "nice" your spouse out of an affair, as long as you have the stick as well.
> 
> Meet their needs, be a pleasant person to be around, discuss how you'll both fix the marriage going forward
> But be firm that the AP must be gone and they must go NC with them.
> 
> What Are Plan A and Plan B?
> 
> IMO a lot of the advice and mindsets in the infidelity board here just aren't productive for what I was trying to do. Too much anger, blaming, punishments and if anyone mentions the other side, what came before the affair, what left the marriage vulnerable to an affair it's just chaos (unless the BS is a woman who wasn't providing sex, that's the only time I've seen more accepted sharing of the situation)


As I said above, SLC, there is an ocean of difference between saying "how can I make sure this doesn't happen again in this relationship--or the next" and asking "how can I be like my WS's AP so they'll want to choose me over their AP"

You can't nice your way out of an Affair. Read Gridcom's thread and you'll see that JLDs advice enacted by most BS here is a sprint towards Perdition. Also, inherently, threatening with the stick is not "nicing" your way out, and is not what JLD is proposing. She thinks you should run back to your Wayward and beg their forgiveness.

After you are certain the Affair is over, or after you have D--if it doesn't end--then, it is wise to ask "what can I do to make sure this doesn't happen again?" Most posters here understand that not neglecting your spouse and your own spousal duties helps keep a marriage together. We just vehemently oppose and indeed reject and refute the claim that the BS should seek forgiveness from the WS for "making them look for an affair". That's silly.

I'm glad I read his thread when I came here; and glad I followed advice from posters like @marduk and @GusPolinski.


----------



## Kivlor

EllisRedding said:


> I don't know if that is quite true, I thought the assumption was that in either scenario (whether the cheater or cheated on) it was on the Husband to fix everything. If he is the BH he needs to analyze why he drove her to cheat and figure out how to correct his actions to regain her trust so maybe she would consider reconciliation (seriously what???). If he is the cheater she has every right to just walk away since he betrayed her, and it is still on him to try and fix everything.


It may be right. I've assumed no misandry on her part, but I've not really seen how she interacts on many female posters' threads in CWI; we get a lot more guys than girls there. I'm still relatively new here.

If I am wrong, then please, let us call her misandry for what it is. Man-hating.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I don't know if that is quite true, I thought the assumption was that in either scenario (whether the cheater or cheated on) it was on the Husband to fix everything. If he is the BH he needs to analyze why he drove her to cheat and figure out how to correct his actions to regain her trust so maybe she would consider reconciliation (seriously what???). If he is the cheater she has every right to just walk away since he betrayed her, and it is still on him to try and fix everything.


I have often advised women to leave if the husband cheats. But what I have read on MB recently has altered my thinking a bit.

Dr. Harley seems pretty convinced that when a man cheats, the same, or nearly the same, rules apply as when a wife cheats. You have to put certain measures in place, like transparency and No Contact, but the wife has to look at how she contributed to his vulnerability to the affair, too.

I was surprised to read this, as I see men as having the power in marriage. But in some cases, women are dominant. And if that is the case, then they would be able to bring the marriage back, and keep their families intact.


----------



## EllisRedding

Kivlor said:


> It may be right. I've assumed no misandry on her part, but I've not really seen how she interacts on many female posters' threads in CWI; we get a lot more guys than girls there. I'm still relatively new here.
> 
> If I am wrong, then please, let us call her misandry for what it is. Man-hating.


In all fairness I definitely don't see jld as a man hater, she just have a very specific view of the role men and women have in relationships (which places a large majority, if not all, of the accountability in a relationship on the male)



jld said:


> I have often advised women to leave if the husband cheats. But what I have read on MB recently has altered my thinking a bit.
> 
> Dr. Harley seems pretty convinced that when a man cheats, the same, or nearly the same, rules apply as when a wife cheats. You have to put certain measures in place, like transparency and No Contact, but the wife has to look at how she contributed to his vulnerability to the affair, too.
> 
> I was surprised to read this, as I see men as having the power in marriage. But in some cases, women are dominant. And if that is the case, then they would be able to bring the marriage back, and keep their families intact.


You keep mentioning keeping their families intact, and I understand that is always a consideration, but there is nothing about the actions of a cheater that shows any sort of consideration for the family. The cheater is willing to jeopardize the health of the BS via bringing home an STD (and likewise could pass along to the kids as per that Herpes thread) and is willing to risk introducing an illegitimate child into the family dynamic. That is just the tip of the iceberg, as others here have stated the hurt that comes along with all the lies and deceits. 

Now understand, like you I have no experience when it comes to cheating and I think similar to you we both have strong marriages. I enjoy these threads simply because it gives me the opportunities to hear different experiences and learn a bit, so I try to be careful about any opinions I post since I am not quite in the position to do so. However, where we differ and from what I have gathered from other posters here, cheating is gender neutral. Yes, if reconciliation is in the cards both parties need to reanalyze exactly what happened. However, it falls mostly on the cheater to fix and regain the trust of the BS/family. It should have nothing to do with who is dominant (which even in reading your post above where you state that "some cases" women are dominant, it still shows the belief that in a majority of cases, regardless of who is wrong, it is the male's responsibility to fix).


----------



## Kivlor

EllisRedding said:


> In all fairness I definitely don't see jld as a man hater, she just have a very specific view of the role men and women have in relationships (which places a large majority, if not all, of the accountability in a relationship on the male).


I see what you're getting at, especially with her last post (#396).

Curious though: If we reversed the roles, and I assumed women should take all responsibility, would not all the women be calling me a misogynistic pig? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Food for thought...


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> This thread has led me to an interesting realization.
> 
> Here on TAM, when someone is in a sexless marriage, we talk a lot about how it's not just about getting laid. It's the bonding, the closeness, the meeting of emotional needs that sex provides... that's why sex is so important.
> 
> But when someone unhappy in their marriage has sex with someone else, we talk about how it was just sex, they just wanted to get laid.
> 
> How do you reconcile those two things? Sometimes it really is about getting laid, but might it sometimes be about getting emotional needs met? If the WS and BS want to stay together, don't those emotional needs deserve some attention on both sides? It seems like if the WS still has unmet needs after reconciliation, they're more likely to end the marriage anyway. Of course, if you don't want to stay together, those needs don't matter.
> 
> I'm not writing off the BS's needs here, I just think we've well established that point, so I'm talking more about the other side.
> 
> We seem to have this idea on here that sex is just sex when it's cheating, but it's so much more than sex when it's monogamous. I'm not sure we should be so distinctly separating those two things.


You then neglected my post then where I talk about how the emotional was far worse than the physical. And the scars left on me are all about her lying and betrayal, NOt that sex occurred with another man.

When it comes to reconciliation, which I am a novice at because I don't believe in in, it seems to me that you need to work it from two fronts, the affair and then the bad marriage (if one exists). If you are trying to get the BS to stay then the affair first.


----------



## OpenWindows

Kivlor said:


> I see what you're getting at, especially with her last post (#396).
> 
> Curious though: If we reversed the roles, and I assumed women should take all responsibility, would not all the women be calling me a misogynistic pig? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Food for thought...


JLD believes what she believes. She does not speak for all the women. Many men disagree with her view and think she's a misandrist.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Do you mean women who stay in marriages after their affair is discovered, when they should actually leave?
> 
> *To me an affair is just a sign that something was wrong in the marriage. It was a consequence of those problems.
> *
> But to a lot of folks, the affair is the only thing they can see.
> 
> If a woman is married to a man who cannot see past her affair to the reasons she was vulnerable to it, I think she needs to let him go. How is he going to be able to help her?
> 
> I am sure you understand this already, Open Windows. I'm singing to the choir when I talk to you, fortunately.


Do you feel the same way when a spouse hit thier spouse in anger? Cause guess what that's what they say too, they made me do it.


----------



## OpenWindows

Wolf1974 said:


> You then neglected my post then where I talk about how the emotional was far worse than the physical. And the scars left on me are all about her lying and betrayal, NOt that sex occurred with another man.
> 
> When it comes to reconciliation, which I am a novice at because I don't believe in in, it seems to me that you need to work it from two fronts, the affair and then the bad marriage (if one exists). If you are trying to get the BS to stay then the affair first.


If the BS wants to stay, and is trying to keep the WS from leaving for the AP, then the marriage might need to be addressed sooner, rather than later.

The order of operations depends on the situation. I'm not saying you have to do it in a certain order, just that if you neglect one side, you still won't get your reconciliation.


----------



## ButtPunch

OpenWindows said:


> JLD believes what she believes. She does not speak for all the women. Many men disagree with her view and think she's a misandrist.


She portrays women as helpless victims and her version of a good man is to be emotionless. A Dexter type sociopath with no feelings. 

Men have feelings. Just because they bottle them up don't make them some type of dominant leader.


----------



## Kivlor

OpenWindows said:


> JLD believes what she believes. She does not speak for all the women. Many men disagree with her view and think she's a misandrist.


That is my point. If the many women here saw me saying what she says, but with reversed genders, they would scream "MISOGYNY!" but they don't call her a misandrist for what she says. And that makes them hypocrites. 

Not all women (it was an exaggeration), but any who would call a man a misogynist for reversed views. And I've encountered some of them on other threads here. Their silence is deafening.

It may not be misandry, I think what EllisRedding was saying has value.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> In all fairness I definitely don't see jld as a man hater, she just have a very specific view of the role men and women have in relationships (which places a large majority, if not all, of the accountability in a relationship on the male)


I can think of some men I know or have known who would laugh at the idea I am a "man-hater," whatever that is supposed to be.

What I am *not,* however, is a man-protector. I have to see a man as pretty weak for me to defend him, or be anything other than direct with him. It has happened, though.



> You keep mentioning keeping their families intact, and I understand that is always a consideration, but there is nothing about the actions of a cheater that shows any sort of consideration for the family. The cheater is willing to jeopardize the health of the BS via bringing home an STD (and likewise could pass along to the kids as per that Herpes thread) and is willing to risk introducing an illegitimate child into the family dynamic. That is just the tip of the iceberg, as others here have stated the hurt that comes along with all the lies and deceits.


I read an article once that said that 80% of women's affairs are due to their emotional needs not being met. I think that could easily be fixed by the man's becoming more cognizant of his wife's emotional needs and his due diligence in meeting them. 



> Now understand, like you I have no experience when it comes to cheating and I think similar to you we both have strong marriages. I enjoy these threads simply because it gives me the opportunities to hear different experiences and learn a bit, so I try to be careful about any opinions I post since I am not quite in the position to do so. However, where we differ and from what I have gathered from other posters here, cheating is gender neutral. Yes, if reconciliation is in the cards both parties need to reanalyze exactly what happened. However, it falls mostly on the cheater to fix and regain the trust of the BS/family. It should have nothing to do with who is dominant (which even in reading your post above where you state that "some cases" women are dominant, it still shows the belief that in a majority of cases, regardless of who is wrong, it is the male's responsibility to fix).


I certainly believe in transparency in marriage. Transparency builds trust.

I believe there are power dynamics in every relationship.

When one spouse cheats, the other spouse gains moral authority. They do not always deserve it, but it is there. What they do with this power can begin to heal the marriage, or can drive a less weak cheater away. The really weak ones will probably not be able to leave, not until they get stronger and start to value themselves more.

My opinion at this point is that if a BH cannot examine his conscience for ways he contributed to his wife's vulnerability to an affair, and correct his neglect, the WW should leave him. She is better off without him.

Also, on the subject of sharing our opinions on anything here on TAM, I think participating here is a great way to learn not to take other people's opinions personally. We grow from taking responsibility for our own triggers.


----------



## Kivlor

Wolf1974 said:


> Do you feel the same way when a spouse hit thier spouse in anger? Cause guess what that's what they say too, they made me do it.


Indeed. It's just a sign that something is wrong in the marriage. And the abused spouse should ask the abusing spouse how they can change, to make sure they don't get hit again!

:lol: :rofl:


----------



## OpenWindows

Wolf1974 said:


> Do you feel the same way when a spouse hit thier spouse in anger? Cause guess what that's what they say too, they made me do it.


If I get in a man's face, and scream at him that he's a disgusting $&&$#$%&% etc etc etc, and he slaps me in anger, does the fact that he hit me excuse my behavior?

I'm not saying the hitting, or the cheating, is okay. But it's not a get out of jail free card for the victim either.

Disclaimer - some people hit or cheat for no reason. That's not what I'm talking about here.


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> JLD believes what she believes. She does not speak for all the women. Many men disagree with her view and think she's a misandrist.


Many men and women disagree with her on her views. But I will say this she is at least committed to them. I don't blame her really. I'm still unsure why people take so much stock in someone with a very limited view of life and relationships. Overall I think she is in a great realtionship that works for her but most of us would cringe to be in. I think she is naïve in the same way I once was. I mean when you only know the world one way and you are following all the advice to keep your marriage happy and healthy, you are constantly asking if they are good with everything and the answer is yes you think it's all good to go. Then beyond anything you do yourself it gets blown up. No real reason why.....spouse just decides this isn't for me and leaves. That experience is life altering on how you view yourself, your relationship, marriage as a whole. 

My point being is I don't blame her for being so naïve cause I once was. I felt I was the only guy in the world going through this and that's how I discovered this place. And what I learned from here is that I am not alone and that this is a very common occurrence. I had no idea you could be a good spouse and still get cheated on......why would I? I came here to learn and that means shutting down your own preconvieved notions and listening to others about what they experienced. If you can't do that then you'll be stuck in the same mindset forever....... If her realtionship never fails then great. But if it does I bet she will wish she paid more attention to what others are saying here.


----------



## Pluto2

there is NO excuse for hitting someone. Adults control their temper and their fists.

And adults can also keep their pants on. Really. Its not that big of an inconvenience.


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> If I get in a man's face, and scream at him that he's a disgusting $&&$#$%&% etc etc etc, and he slaps me in anger, does the fact that he hit me excuse my behavior?
> 
> I'm not saying the hitting, or the cheating, is okay. But it's not a get out of jail free card for the victim either.
> 
> Disclaimer - some people hit or cheat for no reason. That's not what I'm talking about here.


Yes 

Because he could have left right? How is it you assume people as a rule just have zero control of themselves. Doing something wrong doesn't give liberty to do the same to others. I have a job I am yelled at and cursed at almost daily, I have had women yell and curse at me, never hit a one

Now yes you can argue that they both are in a bad marriage but that she deserved being hit, nope.


----------



## samyeagar

Kivlor said:


> It may be right. I've assumed no misandry on her part, but I've not really seen how she interacts on many female posters' threads in CWI; we get a lot more guys than girls there. I'm still relatively new here.
> 
> *If I am wrong, then please, let us call her misandry for what it is. Man-hating*.


I honestly don't think she hates men. Quite the contrary in fact. She places virtually all responsibility on men as she sees them as strong, powerful, invulnerable, and sees women as inherently the opposite. She tends to acknowledge that women can be strong, but only when necessary, and only when men fail them...leaving the success or failure of the marriage solely and squarely on the husband. More simply put, men are strong and women are weak.

It seems pretty clear to me that jld is very different in mindset from the majority of women on this site, and dare I say the majority of women in general. There have been a select few women here who have called her out on it.


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> If the BS wants to stay, and is trying to keep the WS from leaving for the AP, then the marriage might need to be addressed sooner, rather than later.
> 
> The order of operations depends on the situation. I'm not saying you have to do it in a certain order, just that if you neglect one side, you still won't get your reconciliation.


This is true and honestly I can't comment on it. I don't believe in reconciliation where abuse or cheating occurs. I would advise anyone against that


----------



## OpenWindows

Wolf1974 said:


> Now yes you can argue that they both are in a bad marriage but that she deserved being hit, nope.


That's exactly my point. Nobody deserves to be hit, or to be cheated on, but it happens anyway. And often it's the results of a bad marriage, not just a bad person.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I see what you're getting at, especially with her last post (#396).
> 
> Curious though: If we reversed the roles, and *I assumed women should take all responsibility*, would not all the women be calling me a misogynistic pig? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Food for thought...


To me that is the thinking of a submissive male. And there is nothing wrong with that.

He needs the protection of a female. And many females are happy with providing it. 

It is all about meeting needs. A submissive male needs to be taken care of, and a dominant female needs to care for him, for both of them to feel fulfilled and be happy.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> As I said above, SLC, there is an ocean of difference between saying "how can I make sure this doesn't happen again in this relationship--or the next" and asking "how can I be like my WS's AP so they'll want to choose me over their AP"
> 
> You can't nice your way out of an Affair. Read Gridcom's thread and you'll see that JLDs advice enacted by most BS here is a sprint towards Perdition. Also, inherently, threatening with the stick is not "nicing" your way out, and is not what JLD is proposing. She thinks you should run back to your Wayward and beg their forgiveness.
> 
> After you are certain the Affair is over, or after you have D--if it doesn't end--then, it is wise to ask "what can I do to make sure this doesn't happen again?" Most posters here understand that not neglecting your spouse and your own spousal duties helps keep a marriage together. We just vehemently oppose and indeed reject and refute the claim that the BS should seek forgiveness from the WS for "making them look for an affair". That's silly.
> 
> I'm glad I read his thread when I came here; and glad I followed advice from posters like @marduk and @GusPolinski.


I am discussing the methods I personally used during and after my husband's affair.

Which included meeting his needs, admitting my faults and looking at all sides and yes, before his affair ended which, IMO, is what ended it as quickly as did it. 

I feel that using this method is why we ended up being successful but there's no place to discuss this or offer this to other posters because so many jump on the angry side of things. All the blame is on the WS and how dare anyone try to say that actions of the BS helped get them there. 

You may think JLD goes too far into that side of things but there's no room for any of it and it just becomes an unproductive mass of ranting, triggering, calling the WS names, telling the BS to divorce, talking in detail about sexual acts a WS must have been doing even when there is no proof at all of them. 
I think that goes too far yet is accepted around here as normal. If you allow for extremes on that side, you have to allow for extremes on the other. 

You can't say that JLD is so harmful and horrible yet a poster who says that a white mark on his wife's panties is 100% semen from an OM that she barebacked because affairs have wild sex (when, BTW, the OP had 0 proof of any affair even after getting VARs and phone records) goes unnoticed. Or that the bruises on her leg are trophies for her to remember to wild sex.
When a poster calls a man's wife a who*re and sl*t.
When posters jump to "divorce her" after one sentence.

If all those things are OK then everything is OK.
If a BS wants to look at himself and hold himself accountable for where he went wrong in the marriage to make it vulnerable to an affair, there should be a place for that here. There's not because people are too focused on anger than helping.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Do you feel the same way when a spouse hit thier spouse in anger? Cause guess what that's what they say too, they made me do it.


We all have to take responsibility for our actions, Wolf, and for our own feelings. We certainly pay the price for them.

A couple has to work together to be happy. Even in what I see as a male-dominant dynamic, the woman has her own influence, too. She does exist.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I can think of some men I know or have known who would laugh at the idea I am a "man-hater," whatever that is supposed to be.


I actually see you as quite the opposite. I actually think you give men too much power and you portray women as inherently weak. Maybe this makes you a misogynistic pig :grin2:



jld said:


> I read an article once that said that 80% of women's affairs are due to their emotional needs not being met. I think that could easily be fixed by the man's becoming more cognizant of his wife's emotional needs and his due diligence in meeting them.


The article references and links are great, but you rely too heavily on them, especially when you have no actual experience with the topic being discussed. I think that is where frustration is coming from with some of the posters here, where you have a tendency to turn back on them their opinions/experiences based on what you read. That may not be your intention, but I do hope you can at least recognize this.



jld said:


> I certainly believe in transparency in marriage. Transparency builds trust.
> 
> I believe there are power dynamics in every relationship.
> 
> When one spouse cheats, the other spouse gains moral authority. They do not always deserve it, but it is there. What they do with this power can begin to heal the marriage, or can drive a less weak cheater away. The really weak ones will probably not be able to leave, not until they get stronger and start to value themselves more.
> 
> *My opinion at this point is that if a BH cannot examine his conscience for ways he contributed to his wife's vulnerability to an affair, and correct his neglect, the WW should leave him. She is better off without him.*


The bolded is where many of us scratch our heads because a) you are making the affair, and more importantly the reconciliation the responsibility of the guy, even if he is the one who is cheated on and b) others here based on their actual experience feel this can be very dangerous.



jld said:


> Also, on the subject of sharing our opinions on anything here on TAM, I think participating here is a great way to learn not to take other people's opinions personally. We grow from taking responsibility for our own triggers.


Agreed on this point. I like to take the opinions posted here, some may help to shape my opinion, other opinions only help to validate how incredibly right and awesome I am :grin2:


----------



## imtamnew

OpenWindows said:


> If I get in a man's face, and scream at him that he's a disgusting $&&$#$%&% etc etc etc, and he slaps me in anger, does the fact that he hit me excuse my behavior?
> 
> I'm not saying the hitting, or the cheating, is okay. But it's not a get out of jail free card for the victim either.
> 
> Disclaimer - some people hit or cheat for no reason. That's not what I'm talking about here.


Exact same scenario played out in my life. 

I HIT MY WIFE.

The next day I called up her sister. Told everything.
Got recommendation for a psychiatrist, who helped me understand what bottling up for so many years was doing to me..... Because of me.
Was not one quick session but a prolonged multiple visit consultation.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> I honestly don't think she hates men. Quite the contrary in fact. She places virtually all responsibility on men as she sees them as strong, powerful, invulnerable, and sees women as inherently the opposite. She tends to acknowledge that women can be strong, but only when necessary, and only when men fail them...leaving the success or failure of the marriage solely and squarely on the husband. More simply put, men are strong and women are weak.
> 
> It seems pretty clear to me that jld is very different in mindset from the majority of women on this site, and dare I say the majority of women in general. There have been a select few women here who have called her out on it.


I have never felt disrespected by JLD as a woman. IMO she respects women who show strength even though she believes men have more power and strength in a marriage. I have never felt like she thinks women should or shouldn't be any specific way.

In many ways my H does have more power. Many Hs do. Physical strength, financial, sometimes they have the upper hand and good men don't use it to their advantage. I believe she wants men to use this power responsibly and have respect for the fact that their wives are less powerful because of it.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> She portrays women as helpless victims and her version of a good man is to be emotionless. A Dexter type sociopath with no feelings.
> 
> Men have feelings. Just because they bottle them up don't make them some type of dominant leader.


A good man takes responsibility for his feelings. He does not expect his wife to take responsibility for his feelings.

I do think women are vulnerable to men. I think this is obvious.

Modern society, through legal protection for women, has tried to mitigate this vulnerability. But nevertheless, women have vulnerability to men.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Should what happens in a marriage be discussed and dealt with only within the marriage?


I would say somewhere in between.




jld said:


> What are the consequences of exposure?


Worst case? You could put a weapon in the hands of a cheating spouse in the form of a viable tort.


----------



## Pluto2

Truth is an absolute defense in tort law.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> We all have to take responsibility for our actions, Wolf, and for our own feelings. We certainly pay the price for them.
> 
> A couple has to work together to be happy. Even in what I see as a male-dominant dynamic, *the woman has her own influence*, too. She does exist.


Only if her husband is strong enough to be open to accepting her influence.


----------



## ButtPunch

Husband punches wife for not cleaning house.

Husband works hard and a clean house is one of his very important needs.

Wife really needs to look real hard at fixing the damage she caused.

She should have met his needs and she would have never got punched.

Ridiculous.....When the shoe's on the other front.

You may say punching and cheating aren't the same thing.

I agree....I would much rather be punched than betrayed.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I have never felt disrespected by JLD as a woman. IMO she respects women who show strength even though she believes men have more power and strength in a marriage. I have never felt like she thinks women should or shouldn't be any specific way.
> 
> In many ways my H does have more power. Many Hs do. Physical strength, financial, sometimes they have the upper hand and good men don't use it to their advantage.* I believe she wants men to use this power responsibly and have respect for the fact that their wives are less powerful because of it.*


Absolutely correct. 

With great power comes great responsibility. _Noblesse oblige._


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I have never felt disrespected by JLD as a woman. IMO she respects women who show strength even though she believes men have more power and strength in a marriage. I have never felt like she thinks women should or shouldn't be any specific way.
> 
> In many ways my H does have more power. *Many Hs do. Physical strength, financial, sometimes they have the upper hand and good men don't use it to their advantage.* I believe she wants men to use this power responsibly and have respect for the fact that their wives are less powerful because of it.


There is very little argument that men are generally physically stronger, frequently financially stronger, and those things really aren't at issue. What is at issue is the arguments that men are stronger emotionally to the point that men, well, as she puts it, strong men are so powerful that they are emotionally invulnerable to women.

I'm not so sure she truly respects women who show strength as much as she feels empathy for them for being in a situation where they have to show any strength in the first place. If the woman has to show strength, especially emotionally, in her relationship, it is because the man has failed to carry her in some way


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> That's exactly my point. Nobody deserves to be hit, or to be cheated on, but it happens anyway. And often it's the results of a bad marriage, not just a bad person.


Well I guess your more reasonable by saying often instead of always but I still disagree and here is why. It still has to do with personal choice not the cause. Neglect and emotional abuse would equate to a bad marriage think we would all agree. But how is it some people have these bad marriages but yet never cheat? Or how is it that people have wonderful marriages yet in a drunken GNO cheat. The answer is choice. You can't absolve a person of it due to circumstance because MANY are in those circumstances and make other choice. 

Cheating isn't a gender issue, or a circumstance issue its a character issue. Some have it and some don't. We all have circumstances but we also have the ability to choose better as well
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> We all have to take responsibility for our actions, Wolf, and for our own feelings. We certainly pay the price for them.
> 
> A couple has to work together to be happy. Even in what I see as a male-dominant dynamic, the woman has her own influence, too. She does exist.


This is all great in theory so what to do when one checks out and doesn't want to work on it?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I actually see you as quite the opposite. I actually think you give men too much power and you portray women as inherently weak. Maybe this makes you a misogynistic pig :grin2:


You're funny, Ellis. 

Indeed, some women are the dominant in their marriages. They protect the man and take responsibility for the marriage. As long as they are happy to do it, good enough.

I just do not want them to feel forced into it and subsequently overloaded because the man was not willing to do anything to help.



> The article references and links are great, but you rely too heavily on them, especially when you have no actual experience with the topic being discussed. I think that is where frustration is coming from with some of the posters here, where you have a tendency to turn back on them their opinions/experiences based on what you read. That may not be your intention, but I do hope you can at least recognize this.


That particular article was written by a therapist. That is a more objective source than someone who is angry and bitter. Experience does not always result in wisdom.



> The bolded is where many of us scratch our heads because a) you are making the affair, and more importantly the reconciliation the responsibility of the guy, even if he is the one who is cheated on and b) others here based on their actual experience feel this can be very dangerous.


I am usually thinking in terms of reconciliation. Since I see men as more powerful, why would I not ask them to use that power to heal their marriages? Especially when the only sacrifice is being willing to understand, be humble, and acknowledge their own faults. 

She will still have to take her own responsibilities, too. I doubt she is proud of the affair.

I think the only danger of my advice is to a person's pride.



> Agreed on this point. I like to take the opinions posted here, some may help to shape my opinion, other opinions only help to validate how incredibly right and awesome I am :grin2:


It is always good to hear honest opinions. Convos are more interesting with a variety of views.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Worst case? You could put a weapon in the hands of a cheating spouse in the form of a viable tort.


Could you elaborate on this, please, ocotillo?


----------



## Wolf1974

ButtPunch said:


> Husband punches wife for not cleaning house.
> 
> Husband works hard and a clean house is one of his very important needs.
> 
> Wife really needs to look real hard at fixing the damage she caused.
> 
> She should have met his needs and she would have never got punched.
> 
> Ridiculous.....When the shoe's on the other front.
> 
> You may say punching and cheating aren't the same thing.
> 
> I agree....I would much rather be punched than cheated on.


As would most people. But for some reason people seem more comfortable blaming a BS for cheating than blaming a abuse victim for Being hit. So hopefully that mirror will get some to stop blaming the victim and address the problem first
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I think the only danger of my advice is to a person's pride.


Breaking my silence on this one because this not true. Many of us here have expressed concern of your advice particularly when that spouse is in abusive situations. So, it is NOT just to their pride. You are unwise to think that it merely stops at someone's pride.


----------



## OpenWindows

Wolf1974 said:


> Well I guess your more reasonable by saying often instead of always but I still disagree and here is why. It still has to do with personal choice not the cause. Neglect and emotional abuse would equate to a bad marriage think we would all agree. But how is it some people have these bad marriages but yet never cheat? Or how is it that people have wonderful marriages yet in a drunken GNO cheat. The answer is choice. You can't absolve a person of it due to circumstance because MANY are in those circumstances and make other choice.
> 
> Cheating isn't a gender issue, or a circumstance issue its a character issue. Some have it and some don't. We all have circumstances but we also have the ability to choose better as well
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Cheating is absolutely a personal choice, and a bad one. I'm not absolving anyone of that. I agree with this.

I had a crappy marriage. My XH ignored and disregarded me. I didn't cheat, I left. But if I had cheated, and he had thrown up his hands and said "Oh well, she's just an awful person", and he had gone on to treat his next wife the same way he treated me, he would have been doing himself a great disservice.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. See SGC's post about how there's no place on TAM for this sort of introspection.

Because "rabble rabble, burn the cheater, rabble rabble" is just how we roll around here.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Breaking my silence on this one because this not true. Many of us here have expressed concern of your advice particularly *when that spouse is in abusive situations. * So, it is NOT just to their pride. You are unwise to think that it merely stops at someone's pride.


Please elaborate.


----------



## ocotillo

Pluto2 said:


> Truth is an absolute defense in tort law.


Truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander, but not necessarily a defense in violations of privacy. 

Simple example:

_MG v JC_ (1991) 

Man suspects his wife of infidelity. He taps the family phone and discovers a same sex affair. He subsequently plays the recording to his wife's family to embarrass and humiliate her. This exposure cost him more than 60K in punitive and compensatory damages. This is a seminal case that is often cited in treatments of the subject.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Please elaborate.


Don't have to. Your track record speaks for itself.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Only if her husband is strong enough to be open to accepting her influence.


I agree. I think women often come up against a brick wall with their husbands.


----------



## farsidejunky

Blossom Leigh said:


> Breaking my silence on this one because this not true. Many of us here have expressed concern of your advice particularly when that spouse is in abusive situations. So, it is NOT just to their pride. You are unwise to think that it merely stops at someone's pride.


Quoting for effect. Please take note of this, JLD. It is what I was alluding to on my posts about influence.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Don't have to. Your track record speaks for itself.


If you are saying that my advice is dangerous for people in abusive situations, it would benefit all of us to hear why.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Quoting for effect. Please take note of this, JLD. It is what I was alluding to on my posts about influence.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Feel free to elaborate, far. 

You see me as a person of influence. I see myself as one voice in a sea of voices.

Just as I may influence others, they influence me, too.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> If you are saying that my advice is dangerous for people in abusive situations, it would benefit all of us to hear why.


Others can elaborate. There are plenty here who know what I'm speaking of.


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> Cheating is absolutely a personal choice, and a bad one. I'm not absolving anyone of that. I agree with this.
> 
> I had a crappy marriage. My XH ignored and disregarded me. I didn't cheat, I left. But if I had cheated, and he had thrown up his hands and said "Oh well, she's just an awful person", and he had gone on to treat his next wife the same way he treated me, he would have been doing himself a great disservice.
> 
> Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. See SGC's post about how there's no place on TAM for this sort of introspection.
> 
> Because "rabble rabble, burn the cheater, rabble rabble" is just how we roll around here.


I agree on many points. And glad to hear you took the high rode. The rabble rabble as you call it is because of the message gets rolled into one here when it needs to be separate and it would take more hold. 

In general not you

First don't assume that the BS is somehow responsible for a bad marriage and definetly NOT responsible for cheating. Yes I have seen both accused here

Second deal with issues separate. Bad marriages exisit of course and they can be delt with. Often bad marriages are the result of two people but it can be one. Again with choice if you want to fix the bad marriage BOTH people have to come to the table to work it. If one is heavily invested and the other checks out that marriage is over.

And yes history is important I couldn't agree with that more. I had a good marriage and was cheated on because of my x wife's issues. I will not ever and I mean ever date anyone who has cheated in the past. I don't care the reason and I have heard them all. The why is because if someone is unhappy I want them to work with me not against me to fix it. Cheaters only want to do what they want to feel good now. Had I been in a bad marriage where we were both miserable and I had agency in that of course I would want to learn and grow and not make the same mistakes again. Very foolish to not learn from your mistakes
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Husband punches wife for not cleaning house.
> 
> Husband works hard and a clean house is one of his very important needs.
> 
> Wife really needs to look real hard at fixing the damage she caused.
> 
> She should have met his needs and she would have never got punched.
> 
> Ridiculous.....When the shoe's on the other front.
> 
> You may say punching and cheating aren't the same thing.
> 
> I agree....I would much rather be punched than betrayed.


I would not accept to be punched. I would not accept any non-consensual aggression, physical or otherwise.

A man is not forced to stay in a marriage. He is always free to leave, cheated on or not.

We all decide our own limits.

If he does hope to reconcile, however, he would be wise to consider what he can do to make it successful. And different people have different opinions on what that might be.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I agree. I think women often come up against a brick wall with their husbands.


Thank you for confirming my understanding of your thought process.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> There is very little argument that men are generally physically stronger, frequently financially stronger, and those things really aren't at issue. What is at issue is the arguments that men are stronger emotionally to the point that men, well, as she puts it, strong men are so powerful that they are emotionally invulnerable to women.


Men's emotional strength is on a continuum. Some can handle more than others.

They can get stronger, though. Learning not to take the emotions of their wife personally, while focusing on the message she is trying to communicate, is a big part of that. Thick skin.



> I'm not so sure she truly respects women who show strength as much as she feels empathy for them for being in a situation where they have to show any strength in the first place. If the woman has to show strength, especially emotionally, in her relationship, it is because the man has failed to carry her in some way


I think women already work very hard in relationships. I hate to put even more on them.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> Thank you for confirming my understanding of your thought process.


You can see that just off the WAW thread. Many women feel powerless to even be just listened to, like they are coming up against a brick wall. 
Many men do as well but there is nothing wrong with stating that "women often come up against a brick wall with their husbands" because it's true.

It seems people want to just discredit everything she says because of the few things they don't agree with.

There are some things JLD and I don't agree on and yet I respect her opinion and can take and leave what applies. I can see the statements that have truth to them, I can understand her compassion.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Men's emotional strength is on a continuum. Some can handle more than others.
> 
> They can get stronger, though. Learning not to take the emotions of their wife personally, while focusing on the message she is trying to communicate, is a big part of that. Thick skin.
> 
> 
> 
> I think women already work very hard in relationships. I hate to put even more on them.


This approach gives the benefit of the doubt to the woman rather than weighing the facts and then making a decision. Then confirmation bias happens.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> I would not accept to be punched. I would not accept any non-consensual aggression, physical or otherwise.
> 
> A man is not forced to stay in a marriage. He is always free to leave, cheated on or not.
> 
> We all decide our own limits.
> 
> If he does hope to reconcile, however, he would be wise to consider what he can do to make it successful. And different people have different opinions on what that might be.


Well if she doesn't want to get punched she would be wise to keep the house clean. 

Abuse is a choice. It is no fault of the victim. There will always be an unmet need that causes them to punch or cheat. It is their personal character defect.


----------



## jld

OpenWindows said:


> Because "rabble rabble, burn the cheater, rabble rabble" is just how we roll around here.


And why so many folks lose years to resentment. 

And what is so sad to me, Open Windows, is that openness and introspection, genuine introspection, could heal them.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You can see that just off the WAW thread. Many women feel powerless to even be just listened to, like they are coming up against a brick wall.
> Many men do as well but there is nothing wrong with stating that "women often come up against a brick wall with their husbands" because it's true.
> 
> It seems people want to just discredit everything she says because of the few things they don't agree with.
> 
> There are some things JLD and I don't agree on and yet I respect her opinion and can take and leave what applies. I can see the statements that have truth to them, I can understand her compassion.


Honestly she would get more traction if so much of the advice wasn't gender bias
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Well if she doesn't want to get punched she would be wise to keep the house clean.
> 
> Abuse is a choice. It is no fault of the victim. There will always be an unmet need that causes them to punch or cheat. It is their personal character defect.


And they are always free to leave. Divorce is legal in every state.

The main thing for most women is having enough money to do so.


----------



## samyeagar

Going back to your fear of failure, the responsibilities you feel in your relationship seem to be objective responsibilities. Teaching the kids, you can objectively measure success. Keeping the house, being a financial steward, again, objectively measurable results, but emotions, especially those of your husband...those are subjective, beyond your control. By finding a man who seemingly has no emotional needs, who is invulnerable to your emotions, you effectively eliminate the possibility of perceived failure in that regard.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

The only time I have read posters agreeing that the BS helped create the situation that led to the WS cheating is when the female BS stopped providing sex. 

If posters believe that cheating is a character flaw that would happen regardless of the situation then a BS refusing to ever have sex with her WS before the affair should have just as little impact as a maleBS who neglected his wife's emotional needs. 

No one is saying that it fits in every single situation but the majority of cheating happens in marriages that were vulnerable to it due to unmet needs and independent behavior. Not spending 15 hours a week together, not building love. 

Those situations are ones where the voice of "let's discuss how we got here so we can repair it" shouldn't be run off and thrown pitchforks at.
There are enough "burn her alive, that's horrible wh*re" to go around, why not let in just a little of the other side that holds BOTH people accountable and tries to fix the marriage as a whole and not just the symptom of cheating?

It's such a scary thought for many BS, that somehow they share blame, because it's easier to be the victim of it all. 

You see it to in men who's wives have just fallen out of love. It has to be cheating, they'll look for months to try to prove it because if it is, it's not me. 

How many marriages do you think are truly saved by saying "your wife is a wh*re, she barebacked her lover, probably in your bed, and made fun of you while doing it. She probably saved her white stained panties as trophies to remember her romps by" to a man who HAD NO PROOF of any affair? That is the mindset here. 
I certainly can't get any support or help along my recovery path in this affair group because of the toxic anger and how unproductive it's become, there is no recovery here. Only divorce or you're a stupid, weak man who's wife will do it again.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> And they are always free to leave. Divorce is legal in every state.
> 
> The main thing for most women is having enough money to do so.


But you don't advocate divorce. You advocate that the victim of abuse take responsibility for being abused.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I just do not want them to feel forced into it and subsequently overloaded because the man was not willing to do anything to help.


Once again, neither in the relationship should feel forced into anything, but then again I believe a healthy relationship involves equality and accountability on both sides.




jld said:


> That particular article was written by a therapist. That is a more objective source than someone who is angry and bitter. Experience does not always result in wisdom.


You are completely missing the point. Many of the posters here are I would say past the anger part and are reflecting on their experiences. Taking what they have experienced and throwing it back at them because some therapist wrote a book is a bit of a stretch, especially when you yourself have no experience in the matter. I would have hoped you could at least see this, but it doesn't sound that way as you seem to believe the "wisdom" of one person trumps personal experiences when the personal experience does not align with what you read ...




jld said:


> I am usually thinking in terms of reconciliation. Since I see men as more powerful, why would I not ask them to use that power to heal their marriages? Especially when the only sacrifice is being willing to understand, be humble, and acknowledge their own faults.
> 
> She will still have to take her own responsibilities, too. I doubt she is proud of the affair.
> 
> *I think the only danger of my advice is to a person's pride..*


Just purely my opinion, but if a guy comes on to TAM distraught because he just found out his wife cheated, I see nothing positive about basically telling him to man up, figure out why he made her cheat, and now try to regain her trust so she might be willing to reconcile (the last part being the biggest joke).


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ButtPunch said:


> But you don't advocate divorce. You advocate that the victim of abuse take responsibility for being abused.


I have seen JLD suggest divorce to several people. Male and female.


----------



## Pluto2

ocotillo said:


> Truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander, but not necessarily a defense in violations of privacy.
> 
> Simple example:
> 
> _MG v JC_ (1991)
> 
> Man suspects his wife of infidelity. He taps the family phone and discovers a same sex affair. He subsequently plays the recording to his wife's family to embarrass and humiliate her. This exposure cost him more than 60K in punitive and compensatory damages. This is a seminal case that is often cited in treatments of the subject.


That's a wiretapping case. 
This thread is (or was) addressing exposure, which usually does not implicate federal and state wiretapping statutes, although it obviously could.
Even within New Jersey, exposure is not actionable. White v. White, 344 N.J.Super. 211, 781 A.2d 85 (2001) (wife accessing cheating scumbag husband's email with skanky girlfriend not actionable).


----------



## OpenWindows

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It seems people want to just discredit everything [ jld ] says because of the few things they don't agree with.


Or they want to take something she says, exaggerate it to an unreasonable point, then demand she defend that exaggerated position.

Gotta love internet forums...


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You can see that just off the WAW thread. *Many women feel powerless to even be just listened to, like they are coming up against a brick wall.
> Many men do as well but there is nothing wrong with stating that "women often come up against a brick wall with their husbands" because it's true.*
> 
> It seems people want to just discredit everything she says because of the few things they don't agree with.
> 
> There are some things JLD and I don't agree on and yet I respect her opinion and can take and leave what applies. I can see the statements that have truth to them, I can understand her compassion.


Yes, gender specific statement often do have the intent and meaning of both genders, even when not explicitly stated. jld on the other hand means it exactly as she states it, that it only goes one way. That the strong man, the SUPERIOR man is in fact invulnerable to women's emotion, while at the same time, women are vulnerable to men's emotions.

When it comes to emotion, it is not a two way street for jld, and the more of a two way street it becomes, the weaker the man, and more burdened the woman is.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I agree on many points. And glad to hear you took the high rode. The rabble rabble as you call it is because of the message gets rolled into one here when it needs to be separate and it would take more hold.
> 
> In general not you
> 
> First don't assume that the BS is somehow responsible for a bad marriage and definetly NOT responsible for cheating. Yes I have seen both accused here
> 
> Second deal with issues separate. Bad marriages exisit of course and they can be delt with. Often bad marriages are the result of two people but it can be one. Again with choice if you want to fix the bad marriage BOTH people have to come to the table to work it. If one is heavily invested and the other checks out that marriage is over.
> 
> And yes history is important I couldn't agree with that more. I had a good marriage and was cheated on because of my x wife's issues. I will not ever and I mean ever date anyone who has cheated in the past. I don't care the reason and I have heard them all. The why is because if someone is unhappy I want them to work with me not against me to fix it. Cheaters only want to do what they want to feel good now. Had I been in a bad marriage where we were both miserable and I had agency in that of course I would want to learn and grow and not make the same mistakes again. Very foolish to not learn from your mistakes
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hmm. Just thinking out loud here. I wonder if any woman out dating thinks to herself, "I sure would not marry a man who got cheated on or who had a WAW. There must have been some reason she left him."

I am sure my mother would have told me never to marry a divorced man. She would have said there was some reason he was divorced.

Again, just thinking out loud.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The only time I have read posters agreeing that the BS helped create the situation that led to the WS cheating is when the female BS stopped providing sex.
> 
> If posters believe that cheating is a character flaw that would happen regardless of the situation then a BS refusing to ever have sex with her WS before the affair should have just as little impact as a maleBS who neglected his wife's emotional needs.
> 
> No one is saying that it fits in every single situation but the majority of cheating happens in marriages that were vulnerable to it due to unmet needs and independent behavior. Not spending 15 hours a week together, not building love.
> 
> Those situations are ones where the voice of "let's discuss how we got here so we can repair it" shouldn't be run off and thrown pitchforks at.
> There are enough "burn her alive, that's horrible wh*re" to go around, why not let in just a little of the other side that holds BOTH people accountable and tries to fix the marriage as a whole and not just the symptom of cheating?
> 
> It's such a scary thought for many BS, that somehow they share blame, because it's easier to be the victim of it all.
> 
> You see it to in men who's wives have just fallen out of love. It has to be cheating, they'll look for months to try to prove it because if it is, it's not me.
> 
> How many marriages do you think are truly saved by saying "your wife is a wh*re, she barebacked her lover, probably in your bed, and made fun of you while doing it. She probably saved her white stained panties as trophies to remember her romps by" to a man who HAD NO PROOF of any affair? That is the mindset here.
> I certainly can't get any support or help along my recovery path in this affair group because of the toxic anger and how unproductive it's become, there is no recovery here. Only divorce or you're a stupid, weak man who's wife will do it again.


Where is this one sided approach being stated here. In the CWI section I see both men and women suffering from infidelity. I see both struggling to understand. I don't see only women being blamed or that sexless marriages get a pass to cheat. Even in this thread I have stated 2 times cheating isn't a gender issue its a character issue.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I have seen JLD suggest divorce to several people. Male and female.


Absolutely. Some people are better off going their separate ways.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Hmm. Just thinking out loud here. I wonder if any woman out dating thinks to herself, "I sure would not marry a man who got cheated on or who had a WAW. There must have been some reason she left him."
> 
> I am sure my mother would have told me never to marry a divorced man. She would have said there was some reason he was divorced.
> 
> Again, just thinking out loud.


Dunno but if anything I have learned here is that those who have no empathy for others pain should be avoided as friends and lovers
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> Yes, gender specific statement often do have the intent and meaning of both genders, even when not explicitly stated. jld on the other hand means it exactly as she states it, that it only goes one way. That the strong man, the SUPERIOR man is in fact invulnerable to women's emotion, while at the same time, women are vulnerable to men's emotions.
> 
> When it comes to emotion, it is not a two way street for jld, and the more of a two way street it becomes, the weaker the man, and more burdened the woman is.


and that is her opinion. Take what you want to out of it and leave the rest. I don't think anyone here has the exact same opinions as I do. That's what a forum is all about. A bunch of different opinions coming together. Running off anyone who dares to be outside the box isn't productive and most posters do just leave and go elsewhere when they are faced with the mob. JLD has toughed it out and stayed, amazingly.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> And they are always free to leave. Divorce is legal in every state.
> 
> The main thing for most women is having enough money to do so.


But she wouldn't even be in this situation if she'd just use some introspection, and realize she should meet the needs of her husband. Clean house, happy hubby, no more abuse. Same as cheating, right?

:lol: :rofl:


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Others can elaborate. There are plenty here who know what I'm speaking of.


I hope they do. Without examples, there is not much to work with.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> This approach gives the benefit of the doubt to the woman rather than weighing the facts and then making a decision. Then confirmation bias happens.
> 
> Lather, rinse, repeat.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I generally see the woman as more vulnerable.

My son told me last week, "Mom, you always protect the underdog."

But sometimes the woman is the dominant, and can take care of herself. That is usually in my blind spot.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> Where is this one sided approach being stated here. In the CWI section I see both men and women suffering from infidelity. I see both struggling to understand. I don't see only women being blamed or that sexless marriages get a pass to cheat. Even in this thread I have stated 2 times cheating isn't a gender issue its a character issue.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As a whole a female BS who rejected her WS sexually for years before the affair will be asked for more accountability than a male BS who refused his WS emotionally. 
I'm not saying you specifically. 

But that isn't so much the point as the one that a BS gets a free pass for anything they have done to lead up to the events of cheating. (The one exception to this being the sexless marriage)
If there is any hint of someone saying anything that would suggest the marriage itself is the illness that led to the cheating as a symptom, they get the mob.


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I have seen JLD suggest divorce to several people. Male and female.


That is a big change for her since she first joined when she just could not conceive of a reason to divorce...back when she flat out couldn't believe or wrap her mind around the thought that all men were not like her husband, and once she started to understand that men are different, the ones who were not like dug were less than, were flawed.

Since then, she does advocate divorce in some cases, but shrouded in...he's submissive, weak, and needs a woman to support him, so she'd be better off without him when addressing men, or he's submissive and weak, so she'd be better off finding a man who is not so needy when addressing women.

Her goto answer for everything was once active listening, then it became empathy, and the latest seems to be that regardless of the situation, the man is weak, vulnerable and submissive.


----------



## tech-novelist

OpenWindows said:


> This thread has led me to an interesting realization.
> 
> Here on TAM, when someone is in a sexless marriage, we talk a lot about how it's not just about getting laid. It's the bonding, the closeness, the meeting of emotional needs that sex provides... that's why sex is so important.
> 
> But when someone unhappy in their marriage has sex with someone else, we talk about how it was just sex, they just wanted to get laid.
> 
> How do you reconcile those two things? Sometimes it really is about getting laid, but might it sometimes be about getting emotional needs met? If the WS and BS want to stay together, don't those emotional needs deserve some attention on both sides? It seems like if the WS still has unmet needs after reconciliation, they're more likely to end the marriage anyway. Of course, if you don't want to stay together, those needs don't matter.
> 
> I'm not writing off the BS's needs here, I just think we've well established that point, so I'm talking more about the other side.
> 
> We seem to have this idea on here that sex is just sex when it's cheating, but it's so much more than sex when it's monogamous. I'm not sure we should be so distinctly separating those two things.


Yes, that is a very interesting observation. Could you start a new thread to discuss it so it doesn't get lost in this active thread?


----------



## OpenWindows

Kivlor said:


> But she wouldn't even be in this situation if she'd just use some introspection, and realize she should meet the needs of her husband. Clean house, happy hubby, no more abuse. Same as cheating, right?
> 
> :lol: :rofl:


And there's my point about exaggerating her position! 

No, she should use some introspection, determine that she did nothing wrong, and leave. The introspection is still a good thing, but the results of it may vary.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Honestly she would get more traction if so much of the advice wasn't gender bias
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, I was surprised to read on MB that when men cheat, women need to look at how they were not meeting their emotional needs. Staying when a man cheats seems risky to me. 

But Dr. Harley seems to think it is possible. And some women here, like SGC and Blossom, have made it work.


----------



## OpenWindows

technovelist said:


> Yes, that is a very interesting observation. Could you start a new thread to discuss it so it doesn't get lost in this active thread?


I'll pass, because I'm no authority on cheating and may be in over my head. I've seen the anger this kind of statement causes around here. You are more than welcome to copy my post or quote me, though.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Honestly she would get more traction if so much of the advice wasn't gender bias
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think men and women are the same. I think it is the differences that attract us to each other. I try to work within those differences.

Traction is not my goal. Giving the best advice I can think of is my goal.


----------



## ButtPunch

OpenWindows said:


> And there's my point about exaggerating her position!
> 
> No, she should use some introspection, determine that she did nothing wrong, and leave. The introspection is still a good thing, but the results of it may vary.


Have you read the book? His Needs Her Needs

This absolutely is an emotional need of men. Very important emotional need for some men.


----------



## ConanHub

OpenWindows said:


> I'll pass, because I'm no authority on cheating and may be in over my head. I've seen the anger this kind of statement causes around here. You are more than welcome to copy my post or quote me, though.


I'm one that has always stated there is no such thing as "it was just sex".

There are always some residue and strings with even a one off.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

samyeagar said:


> I honestly don't think she hates men. Quite the contrary in fact. She places virtually all responsibility on men as she sees them as strong, powerful, invulnerable, and sees women as inherently the opposite. She tends to acknowledge that women can be strong, but only when necessary, and only when men fail them...leaving the success or failure of the marriage solely and squarely on the husband. More simply put, men are strong and women are weak.


That is also misandry, however, as it makes men into beasts of burden for women, rather than fallible human beings who need assistance too.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Going back to your fear of failure, the responsibilities you feel in your relationship seem to be objective responsibilities. Teaching the kids, you can objectively measure success. Keeping the house, being a financial steward, again, objectively measurable results, but emotions, especially those of your husband...those are subjective, beyond your control. By finding a man who seemingly has no emotional needs, who is invulnerable to your emotions, you effectively eliminate the possibility of perceived failure in that regard.


A male submissive would not be attracted to me. He knows instinctively that I cannot carry him. 

Dug wanted to carry me. And I need to be carried. We work within those needs, and it has contributed to the stability of our marriage and family life.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The only time I have read posters agreeing that the BS helped create the situation that led to the WS cheating is when the female BS stopped providing sex.
> 
> If posters believe that cheating is a character flaw that would happen regardless of the situation then a BS refusing to ever have sex with her WS before the affair should have just as little impact as a maleBS who neglected his wife's emotional needs.
> 
> No one is saying that it fits in every single situation but the majority of cheating happens in marriages that were vulnerable to it due to unmet needs and independent behavior. Not spending 15 hours a week together, not building love.
> 
> Those situations are ones where the voice of "let's discuss how we got here so we can repair it" shouldn't be run off and thrown pitchforks at.
> There are enough "burn her alive, that's horrible wh*re" to go around, why not let in just a little of the other side that holds BOTH people accountable and tries to fix the marriage as a whole and not just the symptom of cheating?
> 
> It's such a scary thought for many BS, that somehow they share blame, because it's easier to be the victim of it all.
> 
> You see it to in men who's wives have just fallen out of love. It has to be cheating, they'll look for months to try to prove it because if it is, it's not me.
> 
> How many marriages do you think are truly saved by saying "your wife is a wh*re, she barebacked her lover, probably in your bed, and made fun of you while doing it. She probably saved her white stained panties as trophies to remember her romps by" to a man who HAD NO PROOF of any affair? That is the mindset here.
> I certainly can't get any support or help along my recovery path in this affair group because of the toxic anger and how unproductive it's become, there is no recovery here. Only divorce or you're a stupid, weak man who's wife will do it again.


Decloaking here, because I think I have to.

I have three direct exposures to wives cheating (other than my own).

In case 1, it is as you say. Bad marriage, there was no romance, too much stress, little sense of partnership or mutual respect. A guy picked up on that, and convinced her to start an affair. Husband finds out, and gladly divorces her. Didn't work out well for the wife, though -- her lover was also married, and went running back to his wife. Instead of leaving a bad marriage with her head held up high, she left knowing that whatever the ****ty marriage was, she had to go on knowing that she cheated. And you know what's harder for a single mom than dating after a divorce? Being a single mom dating after a divorce when everybody knows that you were cheating on your husband.

In case 2, they actually had a strong marriage. One day, she just started flirting with guys. I was one of the first ones. It actually took my wife noticing it for me to pay attention -- and then I told the guy. He actually got mad at me, but his wife backed off. And then started sleeping with his close buddy. It all flamed out, husband left her, his buddy went running back to his wife, she was left alone. And in this case, the marriage was actually good. They were talking about renewing their vows, they took trips together, there were always smiling and laughing and joking and romantic together. She just wanted to get laid, and then claimed to fall in love -- and then here's the kicker -- she started to make stuff up about their marriage as an excuse. Stuff we all knew wasn't true, because we were there. A year or so later, my wife ran into her, and they started to talk. She apologized for how everything came down, and she realized that she was in an affair fog, and admitted to making stuff up about the marriage to justify the affair. She actually said it felt like it was true when she was saying it, but she realizes now that she's the one that blew up her marriage.

In case 3, she was a serial cheat (friend of a friend), who also came onto me more than once, and after cheating many times on her husband (she admittedly likes attention), he finds out about one, and cheats on her in a revenge affair. She leaves him immediately, because she "could never be with a cheater."

So... In my experience... One can be as you say -- crappy marriage (it took them both to make it crappy though!) -- but emotional discord made it easy for her to start an affair. One was purely wanting to get laid by someone new. The other was a systematic need for attention and validation.

It happens. And where does it end?

Shouldn't even the cheating spouse who cheats because of an unhappy marriage look to their own behaviour that may have led to the marriage being unhappy? 

See... Marriage is a dynamic. It's turtles all the way down. You can keep going back and back and back to justify your own decisions, but at the end of the day, the decisions are their own.

And I have yet to experience ONE case of a wife cheating where it worked out well for her. Not one. 

Same goes for men who cheat, of course. Even those who's marriages survive -- they're never quite the same.

So acting quickly to end the affair (which may seem nasty and abrupt) is actually the most compassionate thing a husband or wife can do. And the safest way to ensure the affair ends, and it never happens again, is to take accountability for your own behaviour.

Which can't happen when one is in the fog. And can't happen when the betrayed spouse just blindly accepts whatever the one in the fog says -- because it might be 50% true at best. More likely, it's 1% true.


----------



## Kivlor

OpenWindows said:


> And there's my point about exaggerating her position!
> 
> No, she should use some introspection, determine that she did nothing wrong, and leave. The introspection is still a good thing, but the results of it may vary.


I'll assume you're familiar with the concept of irony. The entire statement I made and the ones from BP are to that point.

I don't condone a man hitting his wife for not keeping the house clean. I doubt anyone here does. It is funny that *some posters here would advocate you stay with a spouse who would violate their vows, and abuse your relationship in a far more damaging way than a slap across the face*. And yet, if the man hits the woman; DIVORCE. It's ironic. Doubly because I doubt that's your go-to if a woman strikes her husband.

And now that I've had to explain the joke, you've killed it. :frown2:

Not everything JLD says is wrong, but this is. And it needs to be addressed.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The only time I have read posters agreeing that the BS helped create the situation that led to the WS cheating is when the female BS stopped providing sex.
> 
> If posters believe that cheating is a character flaw that would happen regardless of the situation then a BS refusing to ever have sex with her WS before the affair should have just as little impact as a maleBS who neglected his wife's emotional needs.
> 
> No one is saying that it fits in every single situation but the majority of cheating happens in marriages that were vulnerable to it due to unmet needs and independent behavior. Not spending 15 hours a week together, not building love.
> 
> Those situations are ones where the voice of "let's discuss how we got here so we can repair it" shouldn't be run off and thrown pitchforks at.
> There are enough "burn her alive, that's horrible wh*re" to go around, why not let in just a little of the other side that holds BOTH people accountable and tries to fix the marriage as a whole and not just the symptom of cheating?
> 
> It's such a scary thought for many BS, that somehow they share blame, because it's easier to be the victim of it all.
> 
> You see it to in men who's wives have just fallen out of love. It has to be cheating, they'll look for months to try to prove it because if it is, it's not me.
> 
> How many marriages do you think are truly saved by saying "your wife is a wh*re, she barebacked her lover, probably in your bed, and made fun of you while doing it. She probably saved her white stained panties as trophies to remember her romps by" to a man who HAD NO PROOF of any affair? That is the mindset here.
> I certainly can't get any support or help along my recovery path in this affair group because of the toxic anger and how unproductive it's become, there is no recovery here. Only divorce or you're a stupid, weak man who's wife will do it again.


Great post, SGC. You tell it the way it is. That is leadership.


----------



## OpenWindows

ButtPunch said:


> Have you read the book? His Needs Her Needs
> 
> This absolutely is an emotional need of men. Very important emotional need for some men.


If hitting is his need, then she must decide if she can meet that need. I hope she decides she can't, and that she leaves.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Once again, neither in the relationship should feel forced into anything, but then again I believe a healthy relationship involves equality and accountability on both sides.


Certainly both sides are best served by being as honest as possible with themselves and striving to improve. The stronger we are as individuals, the stronger our marriages will be.



> You are completely missing the point. Many of the posters here are I would say past the anger part and are reflecting on their experiences. Taking what they have experienced and throwing it back at them because some therapist wrote a book is a bit of a stretch, especially when you yourself have no experience in the matter. I would have hoped you could at least see this, but it doesn't sound that way as you seem to believe the "wisdom" of one person trumps personal experiences when the personal experience does not align with what you read ...


I don't think many of the posters here are past the anger. Some are, like SGC and Open Windows. Many still seem quite bitter to me.



> Just purely my opinion, but if a guy comes on to TAM distraught because he just found out his wife cheated, I see nothing positive about basically telling him to man up, figure out why he made her cheat, and now try to regain her trust so she might be willing to reconcile (the last part being the biggest joke).


I think looking at his own hand in his troubles is *exactly* what could help him, when he is ready to see it.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> As a whole a female BS who rejected her WS sexually for years before the affair will be asked for more accountability than a male BS who refused his WS emotionally.
> I'm not saying you specifically.
> 
> But that isn't so much the point as the one that a BS gets a free pass for anything they have done to lead up to the events of cheating. (The one exception to this being the sexless marriage)
> If there is any hint of someone saying anything that would suggest the marriage itself is the illness that led to the cheating as a symptom, they get the mob.


Guess I have been here a few years and don't see it the same way. I have not had the same experience as you here on how women BS are treated different to male BS

I do totally disagree that the bad marriage leads to cheating. So yes I do imagine you get push back on that. Plenty in bad marriages don't cheat. Plenty in good do anyway. If your in a bad marriage and think cheating will fix it good luck to that honestly
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ButtPunch

OpenWindows said:


> If hitting is his need, then she must decide if she can meet that need. I hope she decides she can't, and that she leaves.


Are you blind to the point? 

Unmet needs are no excuse for any type of abuse.

She can't meet his needs he should divorce her, not hit her.

She can't meet his needs he should divorce her, not cheat on her.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I don't think men and women are the same. I think it is the differences that attract us to each other. I try to work within those differences.
> 
> Traction is not my goal. Giving the best advice I can think of is my goal.


No one is saying the same. But both have an equal responsibility to marriage and each other even if that is in different forms 

And that's why I said traction. If you want your advice to help then putting off people with gender bias isn't the way to go my opinion
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Have you read the book? His Needs Her Needs
> 
> This absolutely is an emotional need of men. Very important emotional need for some men.


What is?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> Shouldn't even the cheating spouse who cheats because of an unhappy marriage look to their own behaviour that may have led to the marriage being unhappy?
> 
> See... Marriage is a dynamic. It's turtles all the way down. You can keep going back and back and back to justify your own decisions, but at the end of the day, the decisions are their own.
> 
> And I have yet to experience ONE case of a wife cheating where it worked out well for her. Not one.
> 
> Same goes for men who cheat, of course. Even those who's marriages survive -- they're never quite the same.
> 
> So acting quickly to end the affair (which may seem nasty and abrupt) is actually the most compassionate thing a husband or wife can do. And the safest way to ensure the affair ends, and it never happens again, is to take accountability for your own behaviour.
> 
> Which can't happen when one is in the fog. And can't happen when the betrayed spouse just blindly accepts whatever the one in the fog says -- because it might be 50% true at best. More likely, it's 1% true.


1. Yes, both of them need to look at the events that led up to the cheating. Were EN met? Were they spending 15 hours a week together, Were they still in love? 

Then- Can we move past this? I don't believe, like many others, that a WS needs to be punished for years and just take it without question.
So if the BS can't move past it (and that isn't a fault of theirs) then divorce. It's totally ok. 

If you've decided you're going to put the past in the past and work on the future then you move on to- in what ways can we prevent this from getting so bad again? 

15 hours a week together (more at first) alone
EN being met on both sides
NO independent behavior
Open and honest at all times. 

That goes for both of them. It's not a punishment, it's a new set of house rules that should have been followed a long time ago. 

In MB you can see couples who, yes, were never the same. They were better. That's the goal. To have a better marriage at the end of it all. 
Would it have been better if they both woke up before the cheating and did this work? Of course. But they didn't so you're working with what you got. 

IMO what I did is the reason the affair ended and he got out of his fog and remembered he loved me and wanted to NC and move forward and I believe it can work for others too. Not everyone but the idea isn't "allowed" on the CWI forums so I try to stay away.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> And I have yet to experience ONE case of a wife cheating where it worked out well for her. Not one.


Such cases do exist, and possibly many more cases than anyone knows about because it is likely that many of them are never discovered.

Note that I'm not saying that the possibility of getting away with it clean makes it a good idea, because it doesn't. But saying that it never happens is factually incorrect.


----------



## Wolf1974

I do wonder JLD cause you keep referring to men as dominate or submissive. You do Understand that between those extremes exist the MAJORITY of the men in this world right?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> I don't think many of the posters here are past the anger. Some are, like SGC and Open Windows. Many still seem quite bitter to me.


The reason you see anger is because the experienced posters here know how damaging your infidelity advice is. 

They know how a vulnerable a newly betrayed spouse is to listening to your advice in hopes of saving what was just lost.

No better example of this than Gridcom. Six months of his life wasted in pain and limbo trying to love his wife back to him.


----------



## OpenWindows

ButtPunch said:


> Are you blind to the point?
> 
> Unmet needs are no excuse for any type of abuse.
> 
> She can't meet his needs he should divorce her, not hit her.
> 
> She can't meet his needs he should divorce her, not cheat on her.


All of that is absolutely true. No doubt.

MY POINT is that the needs were still unmet. And if the victim doesn't recognize that, they will probably not meet those needs for the next partner, and will probably lose that better partner because of it. Or they will not recognize that they need to choose partners with more compatible needs, and will continue to choose poorly.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> Guess I have been here a few years and don't see it the same way. I have not had the same experience as you here on how women BS are treated different to male BS
> 
> I do totally disagree that the bad marriage leads to cheating. So yes I do imagine you get push back on that. Plenty in bad marriages don't cheat. Plenty in good do anyway. If your in a bad marriage and think cheating will fix it good luck to that honestly
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Have I once said that I think cheating will fix a bad marriage? Or that male and female BS are treated differently other than a few times where it's that one specific situation?


I have said-
Cheating happens most often in marriages that didn't protect against it.

If you don't want to affair proof a marriage or believe that a bad marriage can lead to being vulnerable to cheating because, a cheater's gonna cheat, nothing you can do about it, then don't use the advice. 
But it's not up to you what people say in a forum. 
It should be allowed as an opinion unless a mod says otherwise.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
This is why you would be in the survivor group in just about any situation. Totally practical. 



QUOTE=jld;14589265]I read your post to Dug. He said I did great. He said it was normal for him to cry. He said he was sad and scared to lose our son.

He said he did not ask for my support, and it has never occurred to him that I should have done more than I did. He said that later he felt bad that he had not been there for me, as I was left to manage the other four kids, and my own grief, on my own thsoe first two days.

I knew I was in over my head. I had to ask for professional help for him because I was just hanging on, myself.

The way it turned out, he needed to hear that there was hope that our son could survive his cancer. I could not give that. I thought our son was going to die, too. We were both grieving and in shock, and very scared of losing our son.

Once Dug heard from the counselor that there was indeed hope for our son, he returned to normal. 

Honestly, I think my being able to ask the hospital for help from a professional when my own presence of mind was so shaky was remarkable. And I reached out to his boss and his aunt on his behalf, too. The care was definitely there. But I had to deal with my own grief, too. 

And I had my daughter and the three younger boys at home to take care of, and move to a bigger city near the cancer hospital overnight, too.

And then calling relatives and friends who cried as soon as I said the word leukemia. So I had to comfort them, all the while totally spent and fearful, myself. I did about five calls, and quit. I had no energy to give out.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> So acting quickly to end the affair (which may seem nasty and abrupt) is actually the most compassionate thing a husband or wife can do. And the safest way to ensure the affair ends, and it never happens again, is to take accountability for your own behaviour.


This can't be said enough. And Marduk, as always, you put it so well.

I always liked the statement: "Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise" _in relation to conflict_. End it quick, so it stops bleeding both sides. It seems simultaneously sadistic and masochistic to draw a conflict out over a long period, making you and the other party hurt more and more, always slowly turning up the heat. 

I apply my advice to both men and women. If catch your spouse cheating, they've struck the first blow. Strike back, swiftly, and with everything you can bring. Make them think twice about protracting this. 

It's not about anger. It's not about revenge. It's not about justice. It's about protecting yourself and what is left of your family and friendships. It's about realizing how much you've already lost, and making sure you stop losing from this point forward.


----------



## ButtPunch

technovelist said:


> Such cases do exist, and possibly many more cases than anyone knows about because it is likely that many of them are never discovered.
> 
> Note that I'm not saying that the possibility of getting away with it clean makes it a good idea, because it doesn't. But saying that it never happens is factually incorrect.


My Grandmother was a cheater. Ended up stealing another woman's husband and living happily ever after until he died. 

Karma doesn't always happen and life isn't always fair.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 1. Yes, both of them need to look at the events that led up to the cheating. Were EN met? Were they spending 15 hours a week together, Were they still in love?


Turns out, when her husband left her, and her lover left her, _only then did she want to work on the marriage._ When she had another guy to run to, he was amazing, and her husband was the devil. When she was alone, she started to have remorse and regret and was nostalgic for what they had. She tried to play this card with her husband, be he had none of it.

He took his opportunity to run from a bad marriage and as a consequence of her cheating, took no accountability for it. Cheating is viewed by many as a get out of jail free card.

How many posters here in bad marriages have said "I wish my spouse was cheating so I could leave?"


> Then- Can we move past this? I don't believe, like many others, that a WS needs to be punished for years and just take it without question.
> So if the BS can't move past it (and that isn't a fault of theirs) then divorce. It's totally ok.


I'm with you there. The betrayed spouse can't emotionally wail on the cheating one forever. Once the cheater takes accountability for their actions, that should never happen again. The betrayed partner must learn to ask for what they need without making it abusive.


> If you've decided you're going to put the past in the past and work on the future then you move on to- in what ways can we prevent this from getting so bad again?


Yup. And the cheater must know that things like triggers and flashbacks can last forever, and what to do to help the betrayed spouse with them.

Because they caused them, you know?


> 15 hours a week together (more at first) alone
> EN being met on both sides
> NO independent behavior
> Open and honest at all times.
> 
> That goes for both of them. It's not a punishment, it's a new set of house rules that should have been followed a long time ago.
> 
> In MB you can see couples who, yes, were never the same. They were better. That's the goal. To have a better marriage at the end of it all.
> Would it have been better if they both woke up before the cheating and did this work? Of course. But they didn't so you're working with what you got.
> 
> IMO what I did is the reason the affair ended and he got out of his fog and remembered he loved me and wanted to NC and move forward and I believe it can work for others too. Not everyone but the idea isn't "allowed" on the CWI forums so I try to stay away.


Good for you, I'm happy it worked out. I know that this path would not work for me, and it sure wouldn't for my wife.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Have I once said that I think cheating will fix a bad marriage? Or that male and female BS are treated differently other than a few times where it's that one specific situation?
> 
> 
> I have said-
> Cheating happens most often in marriages that didn't protect against it.
> 
> If you don't want to affair proof a marriage or believe that a bad marriage can lead to being vulnerable to cheating because, a cheater's gonna cheat, nothing you can do about it, then don't use the advice.
> But it's not up to you what people say in a forum.
> It should be allowed as an opinion unless a mod says otherwise.


Please do tell how to affair proof a marriage. 

I have no idea why your post seems so angry toward me I am trying to understand your point and asking. If you would rather not respond please feel free to
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Decloaking here, because I think I have to.
> 
> I have three direct exposures to wives cheating (other than my own).
> 
> In case 1, it is as you say. Bad marriage, there was no romance, too much stress, little sense of partnership or mutual respect. A guy picked up on that, and convinced her to start an affair. Husband finds out, and gladly divorces her. Didn't work out well for the wife, though -- her lover was also married, and went running back to his wife. Instead of leaving a bad marriage with her head held up high, she left knowing that whatever the ****ty marriage was, she had to go on knowing that she cheated. And you know what's harder for a single mom than dating after a divorce? Being a single mom dating after a divorce when everybody knows that you were cheating on your husband.
> 
> In case 2, they actually had a strong marriage. One day, she just started flirting with guys. I was one of the first ones. It actually took my wife noticing it for me to pay attention -- and then I told the guy. He actually got mad at me, but his wife backed off. And then started sleeping with his close buddy. It all flamed out, husband left her, his buddy went running back to his wife, she was left alone. And in this case, the marriage was actually good. They were talking about renewing their vows, they took trips together, there were always smiling and laughing and joking and romantic together. She just wanted to get laid, and then claimed to fall in love -- and then here's the kicker -- she started to make stuff up about their marriage as an excuse. Stuff we all knew wasn't true, because we were there. A year or so later, my wife ran into her, and they started to talk. She apologized for how everything came down, and she realized that she was in an affair fog, and admitted to making stuff up about the marriage to justify the affair. She actually said it felt like it was true when she was saying it, but she realizes now that she's the one that blew up her marriage.
> 
> In case 3, she was a serial cheat (friend of a friend), who also came onto me more than once, and after cheating many times on her husband (she admittedly likes attention), he finds out about one, and cheats on her in a revenge affair. She leaves him immediately, because she "could never be with a cheater."
> 
> So... In my experience... One can be as you say -- crappy marriage (it took them both to make it crappy though!) -- but emotional discord made it easy for her to start an affair. One was purely wanting to get laid by someone new. The other was a systematic need for attention and validation.
> 
> It happens. And where does it end?
> 
> Shouldn't even the cheating spouse who cheats because of an unhappy marriage look to their own behaviour that may have led to the marriage being unhappy?
> 
> See... Marriage is a dynamic. It's turtles all the way down. You can keep going back and back and back to justify your own decisions, but at the end of the day, the decisions are their own.
> 
> *And I have yet to experience ONE case of a wife cheating where it worked out well for her. Not one.*
> 
> Same goes for men who cheat, of course. Even those who's marriages survive -- they're never quite the same.
> 
> So acting quickly to end the affair (which may seem nasty and abrupt) is actually the most compassionate thing a husband or wife can do. And the safest way to ensure the affair ends, and it never happens again, is to take accountability for your own behaviour.
> 
> Which can't happen when one is in the fog. And can't happen when the betrayed spouse just blindly accepts whatever the one in the fog says -- because it might be 50% true at best. More likely, it's 1% true.


My aunt cheated and it worked out well for her. Got her out of a bad marriage. I don't know that she could have made the break on her own.

My sister cheated on her partner and has been with her AP nearly 30 years. They are very happy together.

A friend in college said her grandparents, who were happily married 50+ years, were affair partners.

Maricha said her aunt married her AP as well.

Still does not make cheating right. But to say it never works out would be false.


----------



## tech-novelist

ButtPunch said:


> My Grandmother was a cheater. Ended up stealing another woman's husband and living happily ever after until he died.
> 
> Karma doesn't always happen and life isn't always fair.


I assume that affair was detected though, as it would be pretty hard to hide stealing another woman's husband.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> What is?


Domestic Duties


----------



## ButtPunch

technovelist said:


> I assume that affair was detected though, as it would be pretty hard to hide stealing another woman's husband.


Correct.....They actually moved away from all their family to Florida.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Such cases do exist, and possibly many more cases than anyone knows about because it is likely that many of them are never discovered.
> 
> Note that I'm not saying that the possibility of getting away with it clean makes it a good idea, because it doesn't. But saying that it never happens is factually incorrect.


To clarify -- I said I've yet _to experience one,_ not that they don't exist. I'm sure that they exist.

However, I struggle to understand how every single person that cheated and ended up in a better situation could not have simply left with their head held high, and ended up in an even better situation.

Even in an exit affair, I think in most cases the person would be better served by just exiting.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I'll assume you're familiar with the concept of irony. The entire statement I made and the ones from BP are to that point.
> 
> I don't condone a man hitting his wife for not keeping the house clean. I doubt anyone here does. It is funny that *some posters here would advocate you stay with a spouse who would violate their vows, and abuse your relationship in a far more damaging way than a slap across the face*. And yet, if the man hits the woman; DIVORCE. It's ironic. Doubly because I doubt that's your go-to if a woman strikes her husband.
> 
> And now that I've had to explain the joke, you've killed it. :frown2:
> 
> Not everything JLD says is wrong, but this is. And it needs to be addressed.


You are not going to die from an affair. But a man who slaps you might progress to actually killing you.

MEM had a great post on this once. There was a report done by the UN that said a man's greatest fear in a relationship was to be embarrassed or have his feelings hurt by a woman. A woman's greatest fear was to be killed by a man. 

Differences in vulnerability.


----------



## ocotillo

Pluto2



Pluto2 said:


> That's a wiretapping case.


Absolutely. 



Pluto2 said:


> This thread is (or was) addressing exposure, which usually does not implicate federal and state wiretapping statutes, although it obviously could.


Yes.

What is the overwhelming advice right here on TAM when a spouse is suspected of infidelity? Isn't it to install keyloggers and other surveillance software on their electronic devices? Isn't it to penetrate and circumvent passwords? Isn't it to install VAR's under the seats of their vehicles and other places? 

How many people on this forum (Besides yourself, obviously) understand the peculiarities of _White v White_? (i.e. The inherent lack of privacy in the unsecured system of email storage AOL was using fifteen years ago.) How many people understand what does and does not constitute interception? How many people understand vicarious consent? 

I understand your point here and am not disagreeing with it. Exposure by its very nature often reveals the *source* of your information though. And if people don't understand that, should we consider exposure in a vacuum?


----------



## MEM2020

SGC,
I can't like this enough. 

And I'm going to emphasize a point here that is a huge deal to me. 

There are posters who compare infidelity to 'abusing' their partner. 

Generally abuse - is something - I do TO someone else. 

Cheating is a betrayal yes. But typically I do it FOR me, not AGAINST you. 






SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 1. Yes, both of them need to look at the events that led up to the cheating. Were EN met? Were they spending 15 hours a week together, Were they still in love?
> 
> Then- Can we move past this? I don't believe, like many others, that a WS needs to be punished for years and just take it without question.
> So if the BS can't move past it (and that isn't a fault of theirs) then divorce. It's totally ok.
> 
> If you've decided you're going to put the past in the past and work on the future then you move on to- in what ways can we prevent this from getting so bad again?
> 
> 15 hours a week together (more at first) alone
> EN being met on both sides
> NO independent behavior
> Open and honest at all times.
> 
> That goes for both of them. It's not a punishment, it's a new set of house rules that should have been followed a long time ago.
> 
> In MB you can see couples who, yes, were never the same. They were better. That's the goal. To have a better marriage at the end of it all.
> Would it have been better if they both woke up before the cheating and did this work? Of course. But they didn't so you're working with what you got.
> 
> IMO what I did is the reason the affair ended and he got out of his fog and remembered he loved me and wanted to NC and move forward and I believe it can work for others too. Not everyone but the idea isn't "allowed" on the CWI forums so I try to stay away.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> You are not going to die from an affair. But a man who slaps you might progress to actually killing you.
> 
> MEM had a great post on this once. There was a report done by the UN that said a man's greatest fear in a relationship was to be embarrassed or have his feelings hurt by a woman. A woman's greatest fear was to be killed by a man.
> 
> Differences in vulnerability.


And those differences should be understood equally and not diminished for either. This is why I stated to you before that women do have some agency in relationship same as a guy does
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> What is the overwhelming advice right here on TAM when a spouse is suspected of infidelity? Isn't it to install keyloggers and other surveillance software on their electronic devices? Isn't it to penetrate and circumvent passwords? Isn't it to install VAR's under the seats of their vehicles and other places?


Ya, the instant "VAR her car" responses have always made me uncomfortable.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> Please do tell how to affair proof a marriage.
> 
> I have no idea why your post seems so angry toward me I am trying to understand your point and asking. If you would rather not respond please feel free to
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No independent behavior
Open and honesty
15 hours a week MINIMUM alone time together
Meet all emotional needs

IMO and based off things I have read and experienced, in those situations your chances of dealing with infidelity is much lower. 
People in love and needs met are less likely to cheat. 

Dr. Harley's Basic Concepts

I've used this metaphor before but I like it,
IMO the situation starts with a small fire in the kitchen. No one does anything about it, it slowly grows and gets bigger. Soon much of the house is in flames and will burn down eventually. A lot of times they see the fire and just think it'll go away on it's own. 
Cheating is like throwing gas on it.
It makes it worse and is just stupid. 

Now you have to deal with the fire, but the whole thing and not just the part that gas was thrown on. If you just put out that spot the rest of the fire keeps burning until your home is destroyed. Best off preventing fires in the first place and/or putting them out when they are tiny.


In the situation where cheating happened because the marriage was vulnerable (and again, this isn't 100% of them, some people are just arsonists for the fun of it)

Cheating is 1 part of the mess, not all of it. 
The problem I see in DWI is the cheating becomes THE issue. The only one, nothing else matters. Nothing else is looked at, worked on or viewed as a cause of the damage.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I do wonder JLD cause you keep referring to men as dominate or submissive. You do Understand that between those extremes exist the MAJORITY of the men in this world right?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's on a scale. I urge men to get higher on the scale by improving their inner security.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> To clarify -- I said I've yet _to experience one,_ not that they don't exist. I'm sure that they exist.
> 
> However, I struggle to understand how every single person that cheated and ended up in a better situation could not have simply left with their head held high, and ended up in an even better situation.
> 
> Even in an exit affair, I think in most cases the person would be better served by just exiting.


The cases I'm familiar with involved minor children whose lives would have been disrupted.

Again, I'm not defending this behavior.


----------



## ButtPunch

OpenWindows said:


> All of that is absolutely true. No doubt.
> 
> MY POINT is that the needs were still unmet. And if the victim doesn't recognize that, they will probably not meet those needs for the next partner, and will probably lose that better partner because of it. Or they will not recognize that they need to choose partners with more compatible needs, and will continue to choose poorly.


....and there will be plenty of time for introspection, counseling and self-improvement after he/she recovers from the emotional trauma.

Timing is everything in this disagreement.


----------



## Marduk

To say people have not died as the result of an affair is plain wrong. My god, what a foolish statement.

How many women have died after the husband finds out she's cheating and flips out and kills her? Even guys with no history of violence?

How many spouses have caught STDs from their spouse caught because they didn't know they were having sex with someone else?

How many suicides because the betrayed spouse feels worthless?

How many children's lives were put into a spiral and their whole life was impacted because of affairs? Or not knowing who their daddy really was? I know of one adult woman who has had daddy issues, drug issues, and was a teenage runaway and addict... After she found out that her dad wasn't really her dad, some random guy she'll never meet was.

Affairs play with people's lives. People die. Even when they don't, the trauma lasts a lifetime. This is real ****, people. This is not abstract moves on a chessboard where if you lose the game you shrug and go onto the next one.

Anyone who says they don't, have no idea.


----------



## Wolf1974

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> I can't like this enough.
> 
> And I'm going to emphasize a point here that is a huge deal to me.
> 
> There are posters who compare infidelity to 'abusing' their partner.
> 
> Generally abuse - is something - I do TO someone else.
> 
> Cheating is a betrayal yes. But typically I do it FOR me, not AGAINST you.


Really? 


Must have had different marriage vows than I then because mine Included to forsake all others. So by breaking that promise that is directly done to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> The reason you see anger is because the experienced posters here know how damaging your infidelity advice is.
> 
> They know how a vulnerable a newly betrayed spouse is to listening to your advice in hopes of saving what was just lost.
> 
> No better example of this than Gridcom. Six months of his life wasted in pain and limbo trying to love his wife back to him.


How did my advice damage him? He did not even follow it.

I advocated active listening, empathy, humility. Grid continued to show her anger. I told him to focus on meeting her needs. He focused on what he needed from her.

Plan A is excellent for those strong enough to do it.


----------



## samyeagar

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> I can't like this enough.
> 
> And I'm going to emphasize a point here that is a huge deal to me.
> 
> There are posters who compare infidelity to 'abusing' their partner.
> 
> Generally abuse - is something - I do TO someone else.
> 
> Cheating is a betrayal yes. But typically I do it FOR me, not AGAINST you.


So if one is doing it for themselves, that lowers the abuse factor? Waaaay too oversimplified MEM to the point of alluding to emotional abuse not really being abuse.

In pretty much every instance of abuse, physical or emotional, there is something in it for the abuser, at the very least, they are lowering their stress level...blowing off steam if you will


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> I can't like this enough.
> 
> And I'm going to emphasize a point here that is a huge deal to me.
> 
> There are posters who compare infidelity to 'abusing' their partner.
> 
> Generally abuse - is something - I do TO someone else.
> 
> Cheating is a betrayal yes. But typically I do it FOR me, not AGAINST you.


I disagree, Mem. What is the classic line espoused by abusers? 

"Why do you make me do this?"

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

FrenchFry said:


> Gridcom, like everyone on this site needs to realize that we are not professionals and frankly, our advice is like anything else that is free.
> 
> Trying to blame another poster for not having correct advice on a forum is bananas. Get to a.professional and use the forum for a sounding board.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My advice to grid mirrored what his therapist was telling him. He said so in one of his posts.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> No independent behavior
> Open and honesty
> 15 hours a week MINIMUM alone time together
> Meet all emotional needs
> 
> IMO and based off things I have read and experienced, in those situations your chances of dealing with infidelity is much lower.
> People in love and needs met are less likely to cheat.
> 
> Dr. Harley's Basic Concepts
> 
> I've used this metaphor before but I like it,
> IMO the situation starts with a small fire in the kitchen. No one does anything about it, it slowly grows and gets bigger. Soon much of the house is in flames and will burn down eventually. A lot of times they see the fire and just think it'll go away on it's own.
> Cheating is like throwing gas on it.
> It makes it worse and is just stupid.
> 
> Now you have to deal with the fire, but the whole thing and not just the part that gas was thrown on. If you just put out that spot the rest of the fire keeps burning until your home is destroyed. Best off preventing fires in the first place and/or putting them out when they are tiny.
> 
> 
> In the situation where cheating happened because the marriage was vulnerable (and again, this isn't 100% of them, some people are just arsonists for the fun of it)
> 
> Cheating is 1 part of the mess, not all of it.
> The problem I see in DWI is the cheating becomes THE issue. The only one, nothing else matters. Nothing else is looked at, worked on or viewed as a cause of the damage.


Not one of those things will affair proof a marriage. Not one.

I doubt they'd even move the needle on the probability. 10% perhaps.

There is only ONE thing that will affair proof a marriage. And that's two spouses that take accountability for their own behaviour, and deciding not to cheat.

That is all.

You may make yourself feel better by thinking that anything you can do will stop your spouse from cheating...

But it won't.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> It's on a scale. I urge men to get higher on the scale by improving their inner security.


But that's your notion only of inner security. Most don't see that barometer the same as you and still lead successful relationships. And if you advocate for then don't you also have to advise women to trust in the other ? Maybe you do and I just haven't seen it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> You are not going to die from an affair. But a man who slaps you might progress to actually killing you.
> 
> MEM had a great post on this once. There was a report done by the UN that said a man's greatest fear in a relationship was to be embarrassed or have his feelings hurt by a woman. A woman's greatest fear was to be killed by a man.
> 
> Differences in vulnerability.


People plot to kill their partners on occasion, and run off with the AP, with their marital property. It is certainly not uncommon to see extreme depression in folks who try to "nice" their wayward back while the Affair is still ongoing. Many such BS turn to alcohol and drugs to numb themselves. Their lives--financial, social and physical--are certainly at risk.

Most people commit domestic violence (men and women). 
Most people who commit domestic violence never kill anyone.
Most people who commit domestic violence do not inflict critical wounds.
Most domestic violence incidences are not reported to police because they are inconsequential. 

Your life is not in serious danger if he needs to slap you from time to time. Grow up. 

No an abused woman shouldn't stay. But Neither should a man stay if his wife is violent. 

Answer this JLD: would you rather Dug slap you once or twice, or would you rather catch him in an affair with another woman? A man? Several partners?

I'd bet a couple grand that nearly everyone here would choose getting hit over being cheated on. Being hit, the incident is short lived and the pain ends fast. Being cheated on doesn't. It drags on. It hurts and hurts. I've watched it.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> It's on a scale. I urge men to get higher on the scale by improving their inner security.


Aside from being a housekeeper, child care provider, sex partner, do you feel truly needed by dug?


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Plan A is excellent for those strong enough to do it.


I would bet that Michelle Davis' Divorce Busting has a better success rate than Dr. Harley's 15%.


----------



## Wolf1974

marduk said:


> To say people have not died as the result of an affair is plain wrong. My god, what a foolish statement.
> 
> How many women have died after the husband finds out she's cheating and flips out and kills her? Even guys with no history of violence?
> 
> How many spouses have caught STDs from their spouse caught because they didn't know they were having sex with someone else?
> 
> How many suicides because the betrayed spouse feels worthless?
> 
> How many children's lives were put into a spiral and their whole life was impacted because of affairs? Or not knowing who their daddy really was? I know of one adult woman who has had daddy issues, drug issues, and was a teenage runaway and addict... After she found out that her dad wasn't really her dad, some random guy she'll never meet was.
> 
> Affairs play with people's lives. People die. Even when they don't, the trauma lasts a lifetime. This is real ****, people. This is not abstract moves on a chessboard where if you lose the game you shrug and go onto the next one.
> 
> Anyone who says they don't, have no idea.


Exactly. Sent me into a depression. I won't go so far as to say suicidal but I will say if not for the need to keep moving for my kids I would have just never recovered. People who make statements like that have no clue. I have gone personally to many calls or suicide where it occurred after a man has been cheated on and left
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> I can't like this enough.
> 
> And I'm going to emphasize a point here that is a huge deal to me.
> 
> There are posters who compare infidelity to 'abusing' their partner.
> 
> Generally abuse - is something - I do TO someone else.
> 
> Cheating is a betrayal yes. But typically I do it FOR me, not AGAINST you.


Excellent point, MEM.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> No independent behavior
> Open and honesty
> 15 hours a week MINIMUM alone time together
> Meet all emotional needs
> 
> IMO and based off things I have read and experienced, in those situations your chances of dealing with infidelity is much lower.
> People in love and needs met are less likely to cheat.
> 
> Dr. Harley's Basic Concepts
> 
> I've used this metaphor before but I like it,
> IMO the situation starts with a small fire in the kitchen. No one does anything about it, it slowly grows and gets bigger. Soon much of the house is in flames and will burn down eventually. A lot of times they see the fire and just think it'll go away on it's own.
> Cheating is like throwing gas on it.
> It makes it worse and is just stupid.
> 
> Now you have to deal with the fire, but the whole thing and not just the part that gas was thrown on. If you just put out that spot the rest of the fire keeps burning until your home is destroyed. Best off preventing fires in the first place and/or putting them out when they are tiny.
> 
> 
> In the situation where cheating happened because the marriage was vulnerable (and again, this isn't 100% of them, some people are just arsonists for the fun of it)
> 
> Cheating is 1 part of the mess, not all of it.
> The problem I see in DWI is the cheating becomes THE issue. The only one, nothing else matters. Nothing else is looked at, worked on or viewed as a cause of the damage.


Did all those things and still was cheated on. Certainly this can apply to some as a description of a good marriage but sometimes people are damaged and you can't love them whole no matter how much you sacrifice
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

technovelist said:


> The cases I'm familiar with involved minor children whose lives would have been disrupted.
> 
> Again, I'm not defending this behavior.


Tech, you left your first wife for your AP, correct?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> Not one of those things will affair proof a marriage. Not one.
> 
> I doubt they'd even move the needle on the probability. 10% perhaps.
> 
> There is only ONE thing that will affair proof a marriage. And that's two spouses that take accountability for their own behaviour, and deciding not to cheat.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> You may make yourself feel better by thinking that anything you can do will stop your spouse from cheating...
> 
> But it won't.


And I disagree, as do the many people who follow marriage builders (and the ones who wrote it)

For the spouses who became vulnerable to cheat due to unmet needs, making sure those needs are met, they have enough time together to be in love, they do not go out on their own or have passwords on their phones or computers are going to be dramatically less likely to cheat. 

Cheaters are not all just people who woke up one day and thought hey, I'm going to cheat. 
Most of the times a series of events led up to someone else meeting needs that should have been met in the marriage.

So many affairs start as EA, just a little bit of needs being met, then more, then more but they didn't start with the intention of cheating. It was a harmless conversation, until it wasn't anymore but by that time they are all foggy and butterflies.

There's a thread here by a guy, hasn't had sex with his wife in 10 years. No sex.
A woman comes along, gives a little bit of attention, a nice smile and he's starting an emotional affair. 
He's not a bad guy, he didn't set out to do this.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Excellent point, MEM.


Do you believe that emotional abuse is real abuse? Do you believe that a woman can emotionally abuse a man?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> To say people have not died as the result of an affair is plain wrong. My god, what a foolish statement.
> 
> How many women have died after the husband finds out she's cheating and flips out and kills her? Even guys with no history of violence?
> 
> How many spouses have caught STDs from their spouse caught because they didn't know they were having sex with someone else?
> 
> How many suicides because the betrayed spouse feels worthless?
> 
> How many children's lives were put into a spiral and their whole life was impacted because of affairs? Or not knowing who their daddy really was? I know of one adult woman who has had daddy issues, drug issues, and was a teenage runaway and addict... After she found out that her dad wasn't really her dad, some random guy she'll never meet was.
> 
> Affairs play with people's lives. People die. Even when they don't, the trauma lasts a lifetime. This is real ****, people. This is not abstract moves on a chessboard where if you lose the game you shrug and go onto the next one.
> 
> Anyone who says they don't, have no idea.


Clarification:

You aren't going to die from hearing your partner has cheated on you. 

You can die if your partner is physically abusive with you.


----------



## ButtPunch

Or the guy who's wife didn't keep the house clean enough.

He friended this girl. Then the butterflys.

What a victim he was. He couldn't be responsible for his own actions.

If she would have just picked up that mop, none of this would have happened.

SMDH


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I don't think many of the posters here are past the anger. Some are, like SGC and Open Windows. Many still seem quite bitter to me.


I think you see the posters as angry who don't agree with your POV or what you read from a book. So basically, b/c you read a book you know better then these posters here, and once they get through their anger phase they will see the light (as you said, Wisdom trumps experience which to me sounds like a subtle dig at some here)... Maybe I am off base here being an outsider looking in, but I think that this has been mentioned several times yet you are unwilling to at least acknowledge.




jld said:


> I think looking at his own hand in his troubles is *exactly* what could help him, when he is ready to see it.


And what about her? Surely you would give the same advice to a female if she was the cheater or if she was cheated on, correct?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> Did all those things and still was cheated on. Certainly this can apply to some as a description of a good marriage but sometimes people are damaged and you can't love them whole no matter how much you sacrifice
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


and as I mentioned, these people and situations exist. Nothing you can do about it. 

But your situation is not all situations. Some other people can and do benefit from using methods to prevent affairs.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And I disagree, as do the many people who follow marriage builders (and the ones who wrote it)
> 
> For the spouses who became vulnerable to cheat due to unmet needs, making sure those needs are met, they have enough time together to be in love, they do not go out on their own or have passwords on their phones or computers are going to be dramatically less likely to cheat.
> 
> *Cheaters are not all just people who woke up one day and thought hey, I'm going to cheat. *
> Most of the times a series of events led up to someone else meeting needs that should have been met in the marriage.
> 
> So many affairs start as EA, just a little bit of needs being met, then more, then more but they didn't start with the intention of cheating. It was a harmless conversation, until it wasn't anymore but by that time they are all foggy and butterflies.
> 
> There's a thread here by a guy, hasn't had sex with his wife in 10 years. No sex.
> A woman comes along, gives a little bit of attention, a nice smile and he's starting an emotional affair.
> He's not a bad guy, he didn't set out to do this.


Exactly so doesn't that describe character cause Others facing same situation say no to cheating. And then if we accept that as a truth then really the only way you can affair proof is to pick wisely as Dr Laura says. You choose of good character and expect that
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> To say people have not died as the result of an affair is plain wrong. My god, what a foolish statement.
> 
> How many women have died after the husband finds out she's cheating and flips out and kills her? Even guys with no history of violence?
> 
> How many spouses have caught STDs from their spouse caught because they didn't know they were having sex with someone else?
> 
> How many suicides because the betrayed spouse feels worthless?
> 
> How many children's lives were put into a spiral and their whole life was impacted because of affairs? Or not knowing who their daddy really was? I know of one adult woman who has had daddy issues, drug issues, and was a teenage runaway and addict... After she found out that her dad wasn't really her dad, some random guy she'll never meet was.
> 
> Affairs play with people's lives. People die. Even when they don't, the trauma lasts a lifetime. This is real ****, people. This is not abstract moves on a chessboard where if you lose the game you shrug and go onto the next one.
> 
> Anyone who says they don't, have no idea.


This. I missed it somehow. You said what I wanted to, only infinitely better.

My stepmother's cheating killed my father. I've seen other people give up and die from it, or flat out kill themselves. Especially when people like JLD lie to them and try to convince them they can "nice" their Wayward into leaving their Affair Partners and come home.

It's not going to happen.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> and as I mentioned, these people and situations exist. Nothing you can do about it.
> 
> But your situation is not all situations. Some other people can and do benefit from using methods to prevent affairs.


True but I think it has much more to do with who you choose instead of what you do
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Clarification:
> 
> You aren't going to die from hearing your partner has cheated on you.
> 
> You can die if your partner is physically abusive with you.


This is like saying "you're not going to die from me suffocating you, you're going to die from you're body's response to oxygen deprivation." WTF?

ETA: Or your lack of ability to cope with the way I'm treating you.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> But that's your notion only of inner security. Most don't see that barometer the same as you and still lead successful relationships. *And if you advocate for then don't you also have to advise women to trust in the other *? Maybe you do and I just haven't seen it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What does the bolded mean?

I don't advocate that a woman just trust a man. Not that I recall, anyway. That would be dangerous.

I always urge a man to earn her trust. That is how she will be able to truly trust him.


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And I disagree, as do the many people who follow marriage builders (and the ones who wrote it)
> 
> For the spouses who became vulnerable to cheat due to unmet needs, making sure those needs are met, they have enough time together to be in love, they do not go out on their own or have passwords on their phones or computers are going to be dramatically less likely to cheat.
> 
> Cheaters are not all just people who woke up one day and thought hey, I'm going to cheat.
> Most of the times a series of events led up to someone else meeting needs that should have been met in the marriage.
> 
> *So many affairs start as EA, just a little bit of needs being met, then more, then more but they didn't start with the intention of cheating. It was a harmless conversation, until it wasn't anymore but by that time they are all foggy and butterflies.*
> 
> There's a thread here by a guy, hasn't had sex with his wife in 10 years. No sex.
> A woman comes along, gives a little bit of attention, a nice smile and he's starting an emotional affair.
> He's not a bad guy, he didn't set out to do this.


Filling others needs is pretty much zero sum...a person only has so much to give. Receiving fulfillment however is not zero sum. That is why, even in good marriages, people are vulnerable. Even with everything perfect at home, that coworker one sees every day, interacts with every day, forms routines with every day, starts approaching that 15 hours a week. They can receive fulfillment in almost unlimited capacity from multiple sources, but they only have so much to give back, and slowly it starts to become split between the coworker and the spouse, and the needs fulfillment disparity begins...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Excellent point, MEM.


Even if it is 100% wrong.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> What does the bolded mean?
> 
> I don't advocate that a woman just trust a man. Not that I recall, anyway. That would be dangerous.
> 
> I always urge a man to earn her trust. That is how she will be able to truly trust him.


So how do you do it if she is unwilling ?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Clarification:
> 
> You aren't going to die from hearing your partner has cheated on you.
> 
> You can die if your partner is physically abusive with you.


To be fair to your original post on this, you wont die from a slap either.

If you're going to make a comparison, either extrapolate both points or don't. But don't conveniently extrapolate your point and not another, and compare them like apples to apples.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> and as I mentioned, these people and situations exist. Nothing you can do about it.
> 
> But your situation is not all situations. Some other people can and do benefit from using methods to prevent affairs.


Just have to say, I am not sure everyone denying responsibility is being completely honest with themselves.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And I disagree, as do the many people who follow marriage builders (and the ones who wrote it)
> 
> For the spouses who became vulnerable to cheat due to unmet needs, making sure those needs are met, they have enough time together to be in love, they do not go out on their own or have passwords on their phones or computers are going to be dramatically less likely to cheat.
> 
> Cheaters are not all just people who woke up one day and thought hey, I'm going to cheat.
> Most of the times a series of events led up to someone else meeting needs that should have been met in the marriage.
> 
> So many affairs start as EA, just a little bit of needs being met, then more, then more but they didn't start with the intention of cheating. It was a harmless conversation, until it wasn't anymore but by that time they are all foggy and butterflies.
> 
> There's a thread here by a guy, hasn't had sex with his wife in 10 years. No sex.
> A woman comes along, gives a little bit of attention, a nice smile and he's starting an emotional affair.
> He's not a bad guy, he didn't set out to do this.


Direct quote from my wife when I found out about her EA:

"Our marriage was so good that I thought we'd survive even if I got caught."

I thought as you thought. I was wrong.


----------



## ButtPunch

samyeagar said:


> filling others needs is pretty much zero sum...a person only has so much to give. Receiving fulfillment however is not zero sum. That is why, even in good marriages, people are vulnerable. Even with everything perfect at home, that coworker one sees every day, interacts with every day, forms routines with every day, starts approaching that 15 hours a week. They can receive fulfillment in almost unlimited capacity from multiple sources, but they only have so much to give back, and slowly it starts to become split between the coworker and the spouse, and the needs fulfillment disparity begins...


absolutely!

You can only affair proof your marriage by not having an affair. Problem is you
cannot control your partner. 

That's where character comes in.


----------



## samyeagar

Wolf1974 said:


> So how do you do it if she is unwilling ?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Accept the fact that you aren't inspirational enough, and look deep inside to find what you did to cause it, and then inspire her and fill her needs.


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> Even if it is 100% wrong.


Haven't seen you posting much @Blossom Leigh, good to see you back :grin2:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> Filling others needs is pretty much zero sum...a person only has so much to give. Receiving fulfillment however is not zero sum. That is why, even in good marriages, people are vulnerable. Even with everything perfect at home, that coworker one sees every day, interacts with every day, forms routines with every day, starts approaching that 15 hours a week. They can receive fulfillment in almost unlimited capacity from multiple sources, but they only have so much to give back, and slowly it starts to become split between the coworker and the spouse, and the needs fulfillment disparity begins...


Yes and if your needs are met consistently at home, you don't absorb as much of them from others too.

If you eat a huge meal everyday before going to work that has cakes and donuts, you're less likely to crave and want that food vs. if you leave for there starving every day. 
KWIM?

If you truly don't believe that a man who hasn't had sex with his wife in 10 years is more likely to be emotionally swayed than a man who has all his needs met at home then we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Just have to say, I am not sure everyone denying responsibility is being completely honest with themselves.


That is exactly the snarky comments people are talking about. But please by all means do educate me. How have I not been honest with myself ?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Cheaters are not all just people who woke up one day and thought hey, I'm going to cheat.
> Most of the times a series of events led up to someone else meeting needs that should have been met in the marriage.


----------



## Wolf1974

samyeagar said:


> Accept the fact that you aren't inspirational enough, and look deep inside to find what you did to cause it, and then inspire her and fill her needs.


With apologies I accept I failed mind reading 101
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Do you believe that emotional abuse is real abuse? Do you believe that a woman can emotionally abuse a man?


I think unkindness is real. To qualify as _abuse_, to me, the person receiving the unkindness needs to be at a power disadvantage.

Dug would never swear at me or call me names, as he knows how devastating that would be to me. He told me once that his words have more weight than mine. Dug understands the responsibility of being the dominant partner.

I have sworn at him, called him names, screamed, and threatened divorce on several occasions. Yet Dug has never once felt abused.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> Haven't seen you posting much @Blossom Leigh, good to see you back :grin2:


Thanks


----------



## 3Xnocharm

Blossom Leigh said:


> Others can elaborate. There are plenty here who know what I'm speaking of.


No need, everyone gets it but her. 

Im out.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Aside from being a housekeeper, child care provider, sex partner, do you feel truly needed by dug?


No, I don't.

He would dispute that, but I feel I could be very easily replaced. There are many, many wonderful women in this world.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> Direct quote from my wife when I found out about her EA:
> 
> "Our marriage was so good that I thought we'd survive even if I got caught."
> 
> I thought as you thought. I was wrong.


But again, situations are different and _many _of them do involve situation born of unmet needs, independent behavior, no open and honesty, no 15 hours a week together. No one has said all. 

It is in THOSE situations alone that the opinions of accountability and repairing the entire damage and not just the affair and proofing your marriage going forward is productive. 

In the situations where the failure of the marriage led to cheating as a symptom, it shouldn't be met with pitchforks to acknowledge that and work on it. 

The problem comes when every WS is treated like the ones who just go cheat for the heck of it in a perfectly happy marriage with all their needs met.
They aren't.


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,
I like how you give different cases. 

At the deepest point in the fog, M2 had decided that:
1. She wanted a divorce so she could go live happily ever after with the OM
2. But she had no basis for a divorce. So being a good Catholic, she decided that it would be best for me to divorce her

Thing is, I was clueless. We were the 'good marriage' you describe below. Happy and sexual and playful with each other. I didn't know she wanted a divorce. 

But here's the punchline. 

There is absolutely zero chance M2 would have responded to empathy in that situation. She was in the fog. She wanted the OM. And I just happened to be the infuriatingly clueless husband standing in her way. 

So I took her for a walk, and had a very low affect conversation about how I would soon be having sex of a sort with other women. 

And suddenly the board rotated 180 degrees. And this is where I completely agree with Marduk. Because I saw it happen. With my own two eyes. 

In the space of 10-20 minutes M2 made the transit from:
You svck and I want to leave you and go and live with and finally - finally - get to fvck the OM. 

To:
Wait. What did you just say? Hold on a second. YOU are in a sort of virtual sense going to leave me? And WTF - seriously - WTF - you are talking about this like its a minor amendment to a software contract and not - YOU - breaking the bond of monogamy. You don't seem the slightest bit upset. Not even a little. 

And then frantically trying to get a reaction. A real reaction. An emotional reaction from me. 

And instead hearing: 
babe, this isn't about me - this is about what you want. I'm just giving you what you want. 

So yeah - if you have a good marriage - ruthlessness is your friend. 

But I don't mean aggression. And there is a big difference. Aggression is threatening the other person - goal being to achieve some outcome that's good for you.

Ruthlessness is - doing what you need for yourself. 







marduk said:


> Decloaking here, because I think I have to.
> 
> I have three direct exposures to wives cheating (other than my own).
> 
> In case 1, it is as you say. Bad marriage, there was no romance, too much stress, little sense of partnership or mutual respect. A guy picked up on that, and convinced her to start an affair. Husband finds out, and gladly divorces her. Didn't work out well for the wife, though -- her lover was also married, and went running back to his wife. Instead of leaving a bad marriage with her head held up high, she left knowing that whatever the ****ty marriage was, she had to go on knowing that she cheated. And you know what's harder for a single mom than dating after a divorce? Being a single mom dating after a divorce when everybody knows that you were cheating on your husband.
> 
> In case 2, they actually had a strong marriage. One day, she just started flirting with guys. I was one of the first ones. It actually took my wife noticing it for me to pay attention -- and then I told the guy. He actually got mad at me, but his wife backed off. And then started sleeping with his close buddy. It all flamed out, husband left her, his buddy went running back to his wife, she was left alone. And in this case, the marriage was actually good. They were talking about renewing their vows, they took trips together, there were always smiling and laughing and joking and romantic together. She just wanted to get laid, and then claimed to fall in love -- and then here's the kicker -- she started to make stuff up about their marriage as an excuse. Stuff we all knew wasn't true, because we were there. A year or so later, my wife ran into her, and they started to talk. She apologized for how everything came down, and she realized that she was in an affair fog, and admitted to making stuff up about the marriage to justify the affair. She actually said it felt like it was true when she was saying it, but she realizes now that she's the one that blew up her marriage.
> 
> In case 3, she was a serial cheat (friend of a friend), who also came onto me more than once, and after cheating many times on her husband (she admittedly likes attention), he finds out about one, and cheats on her in a revenge affair. She leaves him immediately, because she "could never be with a cheater."
> 
> So... In my experience... One can be as you say -- crappy marriage (it took them both to make it crappy though!) -- but emotional discord made it easy for her to start an affair. One was purely wanting to get laid by someone new. The other was a systematic need for attention and validation.
> 
> It happens. And where does it end?
> 
> Shouldn't even the cheating spouse who cheats because of an unhappy marriage look to their own behaviour that may have led to the marriage being unhappy?
> 
> See... Marriage is a dynamic. It's turtles all the way down. You can keep going back and back and back to justify your own decisions, but at the end of the day, the decisions are their own.
> 
> And I have yet to experience ONE case of a wife cheating where it worked out well for her. Not one.
> 
> Same goes for men who cheat, of course. Even those who's marriages survive -- they're never quite the same.
> 
> So acting quickly to end the affair (which may seem nasty and abrupt) is actually the most compassionate thing a husband or wife can do. And the safest way to ensure the affair ends, and it never happens again, is to take accountability for your own behaviour.
> 
> Which can't happen when one is in the fog. And can't happen when the betrayed spouse just blindly accepts whatever the one in the fog says -- because it might be 50% true at best. More likely, it's 1% true.


----------



## ButtPunch

These MB folks are almost cultish. 

Have any of you been on their site? 

It's crazy town over there.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes and if your needs are met consistently at home, you don't absorb as much of them from others too.
> 
> If you eat a huge meal everyday before going to work that has cakes and donuts, you're less likely to crave and want that food vs. if you leave for there starving every day.
> KWIM?
> 
> If you truly don't believe that a man who hasn't had sex with his wife in 10 years is more likely to be emotionally swayed than a man who has all his needs met at home then we will just have to agree to disagree.


Ok... Let's play the 'what if' game as a thought experiment.

Let's say you have raging sex with your husband for three hours tonight. The next morning, he goes into work, and a blindingly attractive woman freely offers no strings attached sex with zero chance you will ever know. I've had exactly that scenario happen.

Does the fact that you had sex with him the night before enter into the equation? Maybe slightly. It didn't for me.

Does the guy who hasn't had sex for 10 years have a higher chance of saying "yes" than your husband? Probably. But I had that happen in my sexless first marriage, and I didn't cheat.

And we're talking a 1% or 10% difference. The 90-99% difference is your husband's character.

Don't exaggerate your own influence because you have good sex with your husband. You control one thing in this universe: your own decisions.

That is all. Don't kid yourself.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I think unkindness is real. To qualify as _abuse_, to me, the person receiving the unkindness needs to be at a power disadvantage.
> 
> Dug would never swear at me or call me names, as he knows how devastating that would be to me. He told me once that his words have more weight than mine. Dug understands the responsibility of being the dominant partner.
> 
> I have sworn at him, called him names, screamed, and threatened divorce on several occasions. Yet Dug has never once felt abused.


This seems so loony to me. Power advantages aren't static, they are fluid. Besides that, power is meaningless if it is not used. Abuse is abuse.

What did Dug do, if you don't mind my asking, when you treated him like this?

Also, I'm still waiting to see an answer on this:



> Answer this JLD: would you rather Dug slap you once or twice, or would you rather catch him in an affair with another woman? A man? Several partners?


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> I like how you give different cases.
> 
> At the deepest point in the fog, M2 had decided that:
> 1. She wanted a divorce so she could go live happily ever after with the OM
> 2. But she had no basis for a divorce. So being a good Catholic, she decided that it would be best for me to divorce her
> 
> Thing is, I was clueless. We were the 'good marriage' you describe below. Happy and sexual and playful with each other. I didn't know she wanted a divorce.
> 
> But here's the punchline.
> 
> There is absolutely zero chance M2 would have responded to empathy in that situation. She was in the fog. She wanted the OM. And I just happened to be the infuriatingly clueless husband standing in her way.
> 
> So I took her for a walk, and had a very low affect conversation about how I would soon be having sex of a sort with other women.
> 
> And suddenly the board rotated 180 degrees. And this is where I completely agree with Marduk. Because I saw it happen. With my own two eyes.
> 
> In the space of 10-20 minutes M2 made the transit from:
> You svck and I want to leave you and go and live with and finally - finally - get to fvck the OM.
> 
> To:
> Wait. What did you just say? Hold on a second. YOU are in a sort of virtual sense going to leave me? And WTF - seriously - WTF - you are talking about this like its a minor amendment to a software contract and not - YOU - breaking the bond of monogamy. You don't seem the slightest bit upset. Not even a little.
> 
> And then frantically trying to get a reaction. A real reaction. An emotional reaction from me.
> 
> And instead hearing:
> babe, this isn't about me - this is about what you want. I'm just giving you what you want.
> 
> So yeah - if you have a good marriage - ruthlessness is your friend.
> 
> But I don't mean aggression. And there is a big difference. Aggression is threatening the other person - goal being to achieve some outcome that's good for you.
> 
> Ruthlessness is - doing what you need for yourself.


QFT.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## ButtPunch

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> Ruthlessness is - doing what you need for yourself.


What you just called ruthlessness I call just accepting your
circumstances at that moment for what they were.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But again, situations are different and _many _of them do involve situation born of unmet needs, independent behavior, no open and honesty, no 15 hours a week together. No one has said all.
> 
> It is in THOSE situations alone that the opinions of accountability and repairing the entire damage and not just the affair and proofing your marriage going forward is productive.
> 
> In the situations where the failure of the marriage led to cheating as a symptom, it shouldn't be met with pitchforks to acknowledge that and work on it.
> 
> The problem comes when every WS is treated like the ones who just go cheat for the heck of it in a perfectly happy marriage with all their needs met.
> They aren't.


I can get behind that.

As long as the cheater takes 100% accountability for their decision to cheat, and responsibility for the damage that decision caused.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I think you see the posters as angry who don't agree with your POV or what you read from a book. So basically, b/c you read a book you know better then these posters here, and once they get through their anger phase they will see the light (as you said, Wisdom trumps experience which to me sounds like a subtle dig at some here)... Maybe I am off base here being an outsider looking in, but I think that this has been mentioned several times yet you are unwilling to at least


I hear emotion in posts. I certainly do not ask anyone to agree with me. I just say what I think, and others do the same. Everyone has the right to choose their own advisors, as MEM mentioned.

Not all roads lead to Rome, though. Something to keep in mind.



> And what about her? Surely you would give the same advice to a female if she was the cheater or if she was cheated on, correct?


I would advise her never to cheat again. Who needs that drama in their life?

I would also advocate lifelong transparency with her partner. 

Depending on her situation, I might advise her to leave him. People cheat for a reason. If her needs are not going to be met, she would be better off making an exit plan and following through on it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ButtPunch said:


> These MB folks are almost cultish.
> 
> Have any of you been on their site?
> 
> It's crazy town over there.


Their forum sucks, hence why I stay here because as much as I disagree, it's a better option. 

I think one of the main girls has an unhealthy obsession with Dr. Harley and I think they are too close minded and no wiggle room. 

It's like when you agree with the bible but the extremist church group you went to visit was just too much for you. 

If I had my way I would love a R from infidelity forum (different from the R in the divorce section) where people could discuss issues and rebuilding after an A, no "divorce the wh*re" allowed. Positive discussion.

So many people get run off the DWI section here, there is a need for a more productive and less toxic, safe place for people , IMO.

I had to leave the board altogether during the first stages of R after my H's affair. Too toxic.


----------



## Wolf1974

JLD could you please answer my question. What have My x wife and I not been honest about with regards to her affair
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

This entire debate can be narrowed down to a causation versus correlation argument.

The state of the marriage did not cause the affair. But there is often a correlation.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> This. I missed it somehow. You said what I wanted to, only infinitely better.
> 
> My stepmother's cheating killed my father. I've seen other people give up and die from it, or flat out kill themselves. Especially when people like JLD *lie *to them and try to convince them they can "nice" their Wayward into leaving their Affair Partners and come home.
> 
> It's not going to happen. You risk other peoples lives. And you've no care for what you do to them JLD. And that's a horrible thing.


That's a strong word, Kivlor.

People do not die from hearing their partner cheated on them. We all have to take responsibility for our own feelings, and our own actions, even BSs.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> I can get behind that.
> 
> As long as the cheater takes 100% accountability for their decision to cheat, and responsibility for the damage that decision caused.


Yes, I agree. 
They go NC no matter what it takes (quit job, move, lose friends)
They agree to follow the plan of being open, no independent behavior.
They understand that their choice to cheat is on them and that it was a bad choice no matter what the circumstance. 

This is what I got in return from my WS and I am satisfied with that. 

But I had work too and that's the area that I feel is missing from here. 
There's a lot of talk of the work the WS needs to do, that side is taken care of. 
Repairing the marriage
Affair-proofing it going forward
^that's where my focus is because that area is not covered much.


----------



## Wolf1974

farsidejunky said:


> This entire debate can be narrowed down to a causation versus correlation argument.
> 
> The state of the marriage did not cause the affair. But there is often a correlation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


This notion is exactly right in my opinion
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> This entire debate can be narrowed down to a causation versus correlation argument.
> 
> The state of the marriage did not cause the affair. But there is often a correlation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


My life experience tells me that this correlation is a hell of a lot weaker than people want to think it is.

And I get it. It's natural to think "if I'm a great spouse my partner is far less likely to cheat." Because it gives you something that feels intuitively correct to do, and it feels like you have influence on your partner's decision making process when they're confronted with the decision. 

It gives you something to hang onto to make yourself feel safe. So it's natural.

But it's like putting an oar in the water when you're on the Titanic. Could you help steer the boat? Sure. Does it make a big difference? Probably not.

And that delusion of relevance is magnified by the fog. Everybody rationalizes their behaviour, everybody projects. Again, this is natural. If I decide to cheat, the first thing I'm going to say if I got caught is going to be about how my wife is horrible and deserves it, and the new chick is amazing and "I didn't mean for it to happen." Hell, I might even believe it if I say it enough.

So, again, there's a delusion of relevance. 

I challenge everyone here to consider the reality that you control one little corner of the universe alone: and that's the grey matter in your skull -- and even that is marginal at best.

It's probably not a good idea to be a good partner out of a sense of safety, anyway. Be a good human being because it's what you want. Everything else will sort itself out.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> No, I don't.
> 
> He would dispute that, but I feel I could be very easily replaced. There are many, many wonderful women in this world.


Very very few women can handle feeling that way jld. Regardless of the truth of things, most women need to feel at least somewhat close to irreplaceable in their husbands eyes...at least that's what they strive for. In fact, that is at the heart of things like walk away wives. Their husbands have made them feel just as you do...easily replaceable.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> I think unkindness is real. To qualify as _abuse_, to me, the person receiving the unkindness needs to be at a power disadvantage.
> 
> Dug would never swear at me or call me names, as he knows how devastating that would be to me. He told me once that his words have more weight than mine. Dug understands the responsibility of being the dominant partner.
> 
> *I have sworn at him, called him names, screamed, and threatened divorce on several occasions. Yet Dug has never once felt abused.*


You can do what you like. He is the submissive


----------



## Blossom Leigh

It isn't possible for a human to meet the needs of another human fully and 100% of the time, especially as the needs are fluid. Therefore any argument based on 100% affair proofing a marriage by meeting another's needs is inherently flawed. Even with immense effort to do so does not eliminate the risk of an affair. Therefore, the ONLY thing that CAN 100 percent affair proof a marriage is for the person considering having the affair to CHOOSE to not have it.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Most of these needs are wants rather than needs anyway


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Filling others needs is pretty much zero sum...a person only has so much to give. Receiving fulfillment however is not zero sum. That is why, even in good marriages, people are vulnerable. Even with everything perfect at home, that coworker one sees every day, interacts with every day, forms routines with every day, starts approaching that 15 hours a week. They can receive fulfillment in almost unlimited capacity from multiple sources, but they only have so much to give back, and slowly it starts to become split between the coworker and the spouse, and the needs fulfillment disparity begins...


SGC has been pretty clear that people need to do what they can to avoid cheating. If I am trying to lose weight, I am not going to linger by the donut counter. But I would also expect Dug to help by not bringing a dozen home.

Can you avoid cheating all on your own? Yes. You can decide you are not going to do it. No matter how many donuts are all around me at all times, I can steel myself against them. But my partner can make it easier.

Let's be clear: If all I am doing in my marriage is sitting around avoiding cheating, while none of my emotional needs get met, I am unlikely to remain in that marriage very long. A marriage is not just about not cheating.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> So how do you do it if she is unwilling ?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Empathy, kindness, and patience cannot be resisted forever.


----------



## ButtPunch

Julius Beastcavern said:


> Most of these needs are wants rather than needs anyway


Food Shelter Water

Those are needs!


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I hear emotion in posts. I certainly do not ask anyone to agree with me. I just say what I think, and others do the same. Everyone has the right to choose their own advisors, as MEM mentioned.
> 
> Not all roads lead to Rome, though. Something to keep in mind.


It has nothing to do with someone agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion, or choosing you as an "advisor", it has to do with the subtle digs you throw at people who don't agree with you and what you read which has been seen numerous times in this thread.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> Very very few women can handle feeling that way jld. Regardless of the truth of things, most women need to feel at least somewhat close to irreplaceable in their husbands eyes...at least that's what they strive for. In fact, that is at the heart of things like walk away wives. Their husbands have made them feel just as you do...easily replaceable.


My husband's affair did one thing for me.... taught me that I am not easily replaced. When he saw that realization hit me.... it hit him. 

That was his "oh sh*t" moment. 

I think a lot of women get this backwards... its the striving to be his all in all that wrecks things. In my case, I OWN my all in all, therefore I am.... If he wants that... great... if not... move along.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

No one suggested it is 100% affair proof

But in the cases where unmet needs, independent behavior, dishonesty is what led to the marriage itself failing which ultimately made them vulnerable to an affair, meeting those needs, spending that time together, not going out on your own, being open will make the cheating much less likely.

I said in the WAW thread- if you are a WAW, put your walls way up. You are vulnerable to an affair and if someone comes along and gives you a little taste of needs being met, you could make a really bad choice. 
I would say the same for someone in a sexless marriage. They are vulnerable to make bad choices. 

The guy that enjoys the attentions of a woman after 10 years of rejection from his wife is vulnerable. He's not bad, he's not evil. He needs to NOT make the stupid choice to continue with it and hopefully they see it and can back away before it's too late.


----------



## ocotillo

ButtPunch said:


> Food Shelter Water
> 
> Those are needs!


Those are *necessities. *

"Need" is not a synonym for "necessity."


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> To be fair to your original post on this, you wont die from a slap either.
> 
> If you're going to make a comparison, either extrapolate both points or don't. But don't conveniently extrapolate your point and not another, and compare them like apples to apples.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


To be fair to my original post, I said a man who slaps you could progress to actually killing you.

Do you think cheating on a husband is equal to killing a wife, far?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> No one suggested it is 100% affair proof
> 
> But in the cases where unmet needs, independent behavior, dishonesty is what led to the marriage itself failing which ultimately made them vulnerable to an affair, meeting those needs, spending that time together, not going out on your own, being open will make the cheating much less likely.
> 
> I said in the WAW thread- if you are a WAW, put your walls way up. You are vulnerable to an affair and if someone comes along and gives you a little taste of needs being met, you could make a really bad choice.
> I would say the same for someone in a sexless marriage. They are vulnerable to make bad choices.
> 
> The guy that enjoys the attentions of a woman after 10 years of rejection from his wife is vulnerable. He's not bad, he's not evil. He needs to NOT make the stupid choice to continue with it and hopefully they see it and can back away before it's too late.


And this is where meeting needs because you want to and detaching from poor choices of a spouse have to be balanced. BECAUSE at BEST... meeting any "need" only serves to reduce the risk. Ultimately it is final choice to have an affair that seals the deal and WS's would be wise to detach from that choice to act so poorly.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes and if your needs are met consistently at home, you don't absorb as much of them from others too.
> 
> If you eat a huge meal everyday before going to work that has cakes and donuts, you're less likely to crave and want that food vs. if you leave for there starving every day.
> KWIM?
> 
> If you truly don't believe that a man who hasn't had sex with his wife in 10 years is more likely to be emotionally swayed than a man who has all his needs met at home then we will just have to agree to disagree.


Lol, funny you used donuts in your response to him, too.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> To be fair to my original post, I said a man who slaps you could progress to actually killing you.
> 
> Do you think cheating on a husband is equal to killing a wife, far?


No. Of course not.

But someone who is cheated on has a choice to leave.

Someone who is abused has a choice to leave.

Both are wrong, both are damaging, and neither has a high likelihood of leading to death. Although to be fair, I would think the likelihood of death from escalating abuse would be higher.

However, remaining in an abusive marriage AND a marriage rife with infidelity is a choice of the victim.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Empathy, kindness, and patience cannot be resisted forever.


Was for 16 years till she cheated. Dunno about forever


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> That is exactly the snarky comments people are talking about. But please by all means do educate me. How have I not been honest with myself ?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think it is snarky. I think it is an honest thought, politely expressed. 

I doubt you did everything right in your marriage. I cannot examine your conscience for you, but that is what I think.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> That's a strong word, Kivlor.
> 
> *People do not die from hearing their partner cheated on them*. We all have to take responsibility for our own feelings, and our own actions, even BSs.


A lot of betrayed spouses do get suicidal and/or homicidal, maybe not in that order and some even act on it.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> To be fair to my original post, I said a man who slaps you could progress to actually killing you.
> 
> *Do you think cheating on a husband is equal to killing a wife*, far?


I've watched enough episode of Snapped to know that cheating on a husband can also lead to killing the husband...especially if he has life insurance.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I don't think it is snarky. I think it is an honest thought, politely expressed.
> 
> I doubt you did everything right in your marriage. I cannot examine your conscience for you, but that is what I think.


Based on what exactly?

What about any of my posts or my X wife's comments have been deemed as lies?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I don't think it is snarky. I think it is an honest thought, politely expressed.
> 
> I doubt you did everything right in your marriage. I cannot examine your conscience for you, but that is what I think.


Feigned innocence.

Is what I think.


----------



## tech-novelist

convert said:


> A lot of betrayed spouse do get suicidal and/or homicidal, maybe not in that order and some even act on it.


I've never seen a case where it *was *in that order, as preferable as that would be to the other people involved.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Blossom Leigh said:


> And this is where meeting needs because you want to and detaching from poor choices of a spouse have to be balanced. BECAUSE at BEST... meeting any "need" only serves to reduce the risk. Ultimately it is final choice to have an affair that seals the deal and WS's would be wise to detach from that choice to act so poorly.


I don't think you should meet needs so your spouse doesn't cheat. 

I think you should build a solid ground so your marriage doesn't become vulnerable to cheating (or divorce, or a WAS...)

There is a difference IMO.

I also think you can accept your role in making it vulnerable without accepting blame for the affair. 

I have. 

H had a 3 week PA. That, every disgusting and horrible choice he made. Every lie, every move to make me feel crazy, every second he spent away from his home and family to be with her- that's on him. 
The rest of the 9 years I can look in the mirror and find my faults and try to repair them. 

There does not need to be just one or the other. 
It can be BOTH and that is what my position is.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> No one suggested it is 100% affair proof
> 
> But in the cases where unmet needs, independent behavior, dishonesty is what led to the marriage itself failing which ultimately made them vulnerable to an affair, meeting those needs, spending that time together, not going out on your own, being open will make the cheating much less likely.
> 
> I said in the WAW thread- if you are a WAW, put your walls way up. You are vulnerable to an affair and if someone comes along and gives you a little taste of needs being met, you could make a really bad choice.
> I would say the same for someone in a sexless marriage. They are vulnerable to make bad choices.
> 
> The guy that enjoys the attentions of a woman after 10 years of rejection from his wife is vulnerable. He's not bad, he's not evil. He needs to NOT make the stupid choice to continue with it and hopefully they see it and can back away before it's too late.


Again, don't overstate the effect, even the cumulative effect.

If polls are to be believed, between something like 2/3 and 3/4 of men AND women would cheat if they knew they couldn't get caught.

The state of their relationship doesn't enter into the equation. It's if they think they won't get caught, they'll go for it. I would go so far as to say that's actually the primary motivator for those who's character is open to cheating -- not the state of their marriage.

That's it. And it's actually profoundly rational from a biological and ego perspective. Sewing your seeds is obvious. From an ego perspective, being chosen by two mates, and getting sexual and emotional validation from two people is compelling.

Google "men who cheat on hot women." Why did they cheat on them? Because they thought they could.

So what you are dealing with is a profoundly rational choice, all moral hand wringing aside.


----------



## happy as a clam

Blossom Leigh said:


> Feigned innocence.
> 
> Is what I think.


^ ^ ^
THIS.

Honestly folks, why keep taking the bait?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

ButtPunch said:


> Food Shelter Water
> 
> Those are needs!


Although they are _part_ of our basic needs, there's a _lot_ more to human needs than food, shelter and water...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think you should meet needs so your spouse doesn't cheat.
> 
> I think you should build a solid ground so your marriage doesn't become vulnerable to cheating (or divorce, or a WAS...)
> 
> There is a difference IMO.
> 
> I also think you can accept your role in making it vulnerable without accepting blame for the affair.
> 
> I have.
> 
> H had a 3 week PA. That, every disgusting and horrible choice he made. Every lie, every move to make me feel crazy, every second he spent away from his home and family to be with her- that's on him.
> The rest of the 9 years I can look in the mirror and find my faults and try to repair them.
> 
> There does not need to be just one or the other.
> It can be BOTH and that is what my position is.


I think many of the posters here are saying they did build solid foundations and were still surprised to find themselves facing their spouses choice to cheat. And people here telling them otherwise just adds to the punch in the gut the infidelity already serves. 

It is good you are willing to make yourself the best you, that's what I do, but don't make the mistake of thinking the marriage is "that" guarded by your effort. Don't leave yourself hanging out on "that" ledge, lest it break out from under you.


----------



## OpenWindows

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I said in the WAW thread- if you are a WAW, put your walls way up. You are vulnerable to an affair and if someone comes along and gives you a little taste of needs being met, you could make a really bad choice.
> I would say the same for someone in a sexless marriage. They are vulnerable to make bad choices.


I was that wife. I SO get this. I had to keep building that wall higher and higher, because any time a guy gave me a taste of being seen and being heard, my heart screamed for the attention. I knew I couldn't have the attention and it was miserable.

Never underestimate the power of this feeling. NEVER. This feeling what was told me it was time to leave.


----------



## Marduk

Blossom Leigh said:


> Feigned innocence.
> 
> Is what I think.


There is a reason the word disingenuous has been used so many times. 

dis·in·gen·u·ous
ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/
adjective
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> There is a reason the word disingenuous has been used so many times.
> 
> dis·in·gen·u·ous
> ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/
> adjective
> not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly why I refuse bait.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think you should meet needs so your spouse doesn't cheat.
> 
> I think you should build a solid ground so your marriage doesn't become vulnerable to cheating (or divorce, or a WAS...)


Intriguing. 

Can you talk more about that?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> I was that wife. I SO get this. I had to keep building that wall higher and higher, because any time a guy gave me a taste of being seen and being heard, my heart screamed for the attention. I knew I couldn't have the attention and it was miserable.
> 
> Never underestimate the power of this feeling. NEVER. This feeling what was told me it was time to leave.


But you made the choice to leave and not cheat. I applaud your fortitude.:smile2:

Sorry he did that I hope you found someone who treats you better


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Blossom Leigh said:


> I think many of the posters here are saying they did build solid foundations and were still surprised to find themselves facing their spouses choice to cheat. And people here telling them otherwise just adds to the punch in the gut the infidelity already serves.
> 
> It is good you are willing to make yourself the best you, that's what I do, but don't make the mistake of thinking the marriage is "that" guarded by your effort. Don't leave yourself hanging out on "that" ledge, lest it break out from under you.


But for the couples who already _were _spending 15 hours a week together, were open and honest, were meeting emotional needs and not love busting (enough to keep a good sized love bank, no one said 100%) were open and honest, were not having independent behavior-- none of this applies to them. 

Not everything is about every single person or marriage. 

I would give this advice to the specific situation that I felt it fit for. 

Like the WAW thread, people would jump in to say "My wife just left me and I was meeting all her needs, so you all are wrong!!"

No, we are talking about a specific situation. It doesn't apply to you.


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Again, don't overstate the effect, even the cumulative effect.
> 
> If polls are to be believed, between something like 2/3 and 3/4 of men AND women would cheat if they knew they couldn't get caught.
> 
> The state of their relationship doesn't enter into the equation. It's if they think they won't get caught, they'll go for it. I would go so far as to say that's actually the primary motivator for those who's character is open to cheating -- not the state of their marriage.
> 
> That's it. And it's actually profoundly rational from a biological and ego perspective. Sewing your seeds is obvious. From an ego perspective, being chosen by two mates, and getting sexual and emotional validation from two people is compelling.
> 
> Google "men who cheat on hot women." Why did they cheat on them? Because they thought they could.
> 
> So what you are dealing with is a profoundly rational choice, all moral hand wringing aside.


To further complicate and distort the truth, the WS is proven to be dishonest, so anything they say is suspect and deserves increased scrutiny. It is also very well documented that history gets rewritten in the eyes of the WS, often times in the lead up to the affair, but almost certainly in the aftermath, further eroding the objective credibility of the WS. For those around a WS, if any real help is wanted or to be given, giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the state of their marriage does not benefit anyone, and in fact only further enables them.

In the infidelity threads, it is standard to reinforce that the BS is not responsible for the cheating, they did not make the cheater cheat. That is very different from saying that the BS is blameless for the overall state of the marriage...which I think some people mix those things together.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> This seems so loony to me. Power advantages aren't static, they are fluid. Besides that, power is meaningless if it is not used. Abuse is abuse.
> 
> What did Dug do, if you don't mind my asking, when you treated him like this?
> 
> Also, I'm still waiting to see an answer on this:


I did not see that question. I would leave a man who slapped me. Game over.

An affair with a man? Game over. What a shock that would be.

An affair with another woman? If she meets his needs better than I do, he should be with her, not me. 

If he wants to still be with me, he would have to lead the reconciliation. I would have no clue what more I could do for him. I have been all in on this marriage.

I wonder if that is even possible, for a WS to lead a reconciliation.

If it were more than one affair, I would figure I could not meet his needs. I would walk out, free him up to be with the gals who meet his needs. No sense wasting either of our time.

I want to feel successful as a wife. If I cannot please him, I don't want to be with him.

Dug actually starts listening when I get upset. The reason I get upset in the first place is because he is not listening. Totally preventable. And it is getting much better.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But for the couples who already _were _spending 15 hours a week together, were open and honest, were meeting emotional needs and not love busting (enough to keep a good sized love bank, no one said 100%) were open and honest, were not having independent behavior-- none of this applies to them.
> 
> *Not everything is about every single person or marriage*.
> 
> I would give this advice to the specific situation that I felt it fit for.
> 
> Like the WAW thread, people would jump in to say "My wife just left me and I was meeting all her needs, so you all are wrong!!"
> 
> *No, we are talking about a specific situation. *It doesn't apply to you.


I'm glad that you see it this way and I can agree with you on it. Unfortunate not all take this stance.... As in this thread even JLD is basically discounting my experience because it couldn't possibly be true with her preconvieved notions. not one set example of anything when it comes to humans


----------



## OpenWindows

Wolf1974 said:


> But you made the choice to leave and not cheat. I applaud your fortitude.:smile2:
> 
> Sorry he did that I hope you found someone who treats you better


Thank you!

Having walked that ledge, I can understand how a good person, who is feeling very weak and very trapped, can make a very bad decision. Life and love are complicated and messy.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> Intriguing.
> 
> Can you talk more about that?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What do you mean? 

_ I think you should build a solid ground so your marriage doesn't become vulnerable to cheating (or divorce, or a WAS...)_

Is my statement. 

Let's take cheating out for a second because it just riles everyone up.

If you have a marriage that you want to prevent from being vulnerable to divorce in the future, you should invest in your marriage.

Meet their needs, spend time together, build a solid ground.

You're more likely to be faced with a divorce in the future if you don't meet your spouse's needs, spend time, communicate, if you do things that upset the other. 
I think at least most people can agree to that.

Some people will get bored and just divorce for no good reason, I'm not talking about them. 

The ones who are divorcing due to unmet needs could have been better prevented by meeting those needs.

Adding cheating back in:

The choice to cheat specifically is one the WS makes alone

Allowing, choosing or ignoring a marriage growing vulnerable to divorce, cheating, etc - is on both


----------



## Blossom Leigh

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> *But for the couples who already were spending 15 hours a week together, were open and honest, were meeting emotional needs and not love busting (enough to keep a good sized love bank, no one said 100%) were open and honest, were not having independent behavior-- none of this applies to them.
> *
> 
> 
> Not everything is about every single person or marriage.
> 
> I would give this advice to the specific situation that I felt it fit for.
> 
> Like the WAW thread, people would jump in to say "My wife just left me and I was meeting all her needs, so you all are wrong!!"
> 
> No, we are talking about a specific situation. It doesn't apply to you.


That list is laughable in my opinion. I know a lot of people are proponents of those ideas around here, but I end up seeing a lot of people spinning their wheels, deluding themselves that they are affair proofing their marriages. I personally choose to stay centered on who I am, my personal truth, my relationship with God and be good to those around me, choosing to be emotionally present even if we don't get 15 hours a week, bladdy bladdy blah... This is real life with a lot of demands that at times will throw any relationship outside the bounds of that list.... its character and choices that matter in those times above all else.


----------



## convert

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> I can't like this enough.
> 
> And I'm going to emphasize a point here that is a huge deal to me.
> 
> *There are posters who compare infidelity to 'abusing' their partner. *
> 
> Generally abuse - is something - I do TO someone else.
> 
> Cheating is a betrayal yes. But typically I do it FOR me, not AGAINST you.


Infidelity once it is discovered or even suspected is absolutely *emotional and mental* abuse to the betrayed spouse.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY ABUSE


The wayward spouse making the betrayed spouse seem crazy
The betrayed spouse becoming suicidal and/or homicidal because of what their wayward spouse is doing to them.
gas lighting
trickle truth
minimizing
lying
false R's
divorce


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Having walked that ledge, I can understand how a good person, who is feeling very weak and very trapped, can make a very bad decision. Life and love are complicated and messy.


I don't think you are giving yourself enough credit here. Doing the right thing is rarely ever the easy thing. I can totally understand the power of temptation. But when something is wrong it's just wrong and you knew it. Again the adult and responsibility thing. 

I remember in one of rookies threads he or someone said that everyone would cheat if they knew 100% that wouldn't get caught. I said I wouldn't and have actually been in that situation and walked away. I was asked why No one would know. 

How odd a stament to me, "no one would know"..... I would know and I have to live with it and myself for the rest of my life. That is what character is... Doing the right thing even when no one, or you think no one, will ever know


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> You can do what you like. He is the submissive


If my emotion bothered him and he needed me to stop or alter my expression in some way so he could feel emotionally safe, he would be the submissive.

But he doesn't.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

convert said:


> Infidelity once it is discovered or even suspected is absolutely *emotional and mental* abuse to the betrayed spouse.
> IT IS ABSOLUTELY ABUSE
> 
> 
> The wayward spouse making the betrayed spouse seem crazy
> The betrayed spouse becoming suicidal and/or homicidal because of what their wayward spouse is doing to them.
> gas lighting
> trickle truth
> minimizing
> lying
> false R's
> divorce


100% correct


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> It has nothing to do with someone agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion, or choosing you as an "advisor", it has to do with the subtle digs you throw at people who don't agree with you and what you read which has been seen numerous times in this thread.


You see what you want to see, I guess. 

My views are not mainstream, and that makes people both defensive and aggressive towards me. But I think there is value in discussion so I look for the message behind their emotion.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> If my emotion bothered him and he needed me to stop or alter my expression in some way so he could feel emotionally safe, he would be the submissive.
> 
> But he doesn't.


I disagree, by allowing you to rant and rave to your hearts desire he is letting you disrespect him and is therefore acting submissively


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> My husband's affair did one thing for me.... taught me that I am not easily replaced. When he saw that realization hit me.... it hit him.
> 
> That was his "oh sh*t" moment.
> 
> I think a lot of women get this backwards... its the striving to be his all in all that wrecks things. In my case, I OWN my all in all, therefore I am.... If he wants that... great... if not... move along.


He was _extremely_ fortunate in how kindly you treated him.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> If my emotion bothered him and he needed me to stop or alter my expression in some way so he could feel emotionally safe, *he would be the submissive*.
> 
> But he doesn't.


One might also suggest that he is essentially devoid of emotion. Did either of you experience any trauma when you were younger? Could there be trauma that is largely suppressed?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> If my emotion bothered him and he needed me to stop or alter my expression in some way so he could feel emotionally safe, he would be the submissive.
> 
> But he doesn't.


His ability to keep his dignity while you rant and scream in no way absolves you of your behavior. 

I too have the ability now to keep my dignity if my H loses his cool, it does not absolve my H if his choice of behavior, therefore we as a couple made the conscience decision to not behave that way in our home especially in front of our child. 

Someone not listening does not give you license to step into abusive behavior.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> He was _extremely_ fortunate in how kindly you treated him.


And also extremely fortunate for the times when I kicked his ass when he needed it.


----------



## Wolf1974

Blossom Leigh said:


> My husband's affair did one thing for me.... taught me that I am not easily replaced. When he saw that realization hit me.... it hit him.
> 
> *That was his "oh sh*t" moment.
> *
> I think a lot of women get this backwards... its the striving to be his all in all that wrecks things. In my case, I OWN my all in all, therefore I am.... If he wants that... great... if not... move along.


It's interesting to me the different dynamics between a BS when it comes to being male or female. I have heard this stated before that soon as a BS wife finds out about the affair the WS husband is floored that they are calling off the relationship. I mean what the hell did they think would happen? When I learned of my X wife's affair we had no discussion about the divorce because she knew she was toast. Just interesting to me


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> No. Of course not.
> 
> But someone who is cheated on has a choice to leave.
> 
> Someone who is abused has a choice to leave.
> 
> Both are wrong, both are damaging, and neither has a high likelihood of leading to death. Although to be fair, I would think the likelihood of death from escalating abuse would be higher.
> 
> However, remaining in an abusive marriage AND a marriage rife with infidelity is a choice of the victim.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I could see a slap quickly followed by a kick followed by choking.

And then she is dead, on the floor. Would it take more than a minute or two?

Not many people fall over dead minutes after being told their spouse is cheating on them.

Let's not even come close to equating the two. She may not even have time to leave.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Wolf1974 said:


> It's interesting to me the different dynamics between a BS when it comes to being male or female. I have heard this stated before that soon as a BS wife finds out about the affair the WS husband is floored that they are calling off the relationship. I mean what the hell did they think would happen? When I learned of my X wife's affair we had no discussion about the divorce because she knew she was toast. Just interesting to me


That was actually before I was close to calling it off, but it had the same impact.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> A lot of betrayed spouses do get suicidal and/or homicidal, maybe not in that order and some even act on it.


But our actions are all on us, right? Our choices are all 100% on us, is my understanding.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> You see what you want to see, I guess.
> 
> My views are not mainstream, and that makes people both defensive and aggressive towards me. But I think there is value in discussion so I look for the message behind their emotion.


That is fine, you continue to dodge the question/point. I just think it a shame that someone who constantly preaches about looking within is unwilling to do so herself ... Either way we can agree to disagree


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Based on what exactly?
> 
> What about any of my posts or my X wife's comments have been deemed as lies?


I don't hear any ownership in your posts.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> That is fine, you continue to dodge the question/point. I just think it a shame that someone who constantly preaches about looking within is unwilling to do so herself ... Either way we can agree to disagree


Actually I think she does look within.... she just chooses not to show it and redirect to remain in control out of fear and sometimes just because.


I know my words are having an impact on her. Just like her's has impact on me.

I challenge her from time to time and visa versa.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I don't hear any ownership in your posts.


Really? You asked me if I had agency and I told you I did. I picked a very damaged woman and I knew she had cheated on her previous husband and her two serious relationships in school. 

I owned that. I should absolutely chosen a better woman and not one who needed more help than merely love can solve. How is that NOT ownership. I was presented all the information and I ignored it. Already stated that


----------



## MEM2020

Kivlor,
The very last sentence in your post below is over the line. 

It's ok to say: I think what you are telling people is harmful. 

Not ok to assign feelings or intentions to other folks. 

By the way, for a smart guy you are framing human relationships in a manner very consistent with a textbook narcissist. 

This is how 68/sixty eight's husband sees the world. 

I love M2. Don't think I would ever love anyone else the same if she left me. But I don't get to say: if she cheats that 'ruins' my life. If she cheats, that's about her not about me. 



QUOTE=Kivlor;14592737]This. I missed it somehow. You said what I wanted to, only infinitely better.

My stepmother's cheating killed my father. I've seen other people give up and die from it, or flat out kill themselves. Especially when people like JLD lie to them and try to convince them they can "nice" their Wayward into leaving their Affair Partners and come home.

It's not going to happen. You risk other peoples lives. And you've no care for what you do to them JLD. And that's a horrible thing.[/QUOTE]


----------



## EllisRedding

@MEM11363

For a mod, your quoting skills suck >


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> To further complicate and distort the truth, the WS is proven to be dishonest, so anything they say is suspect and deserves increased scrutiny. It is also very well documented that history gets rewritten in the eyes of the WS, often times in the lead up to the affair, but almost certainly in the aftermath, further eroding the objective credibility of the WS. For those around a WS, if any real help is wanted or to be given, giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the state of their marriage does not benefit anyone, and in fact only further enables them.
> 
> In the infidelity threads, it is standard to reinforce that the BS is not responsible for the cheating, they did not make the cheater cheat. That is very different from saying that the BS is blameless for the overall state of the marriage...which I think some people mix those things together.


This brings up an important point on exposure. If our lives could be X rayed, we would all see what we have contributed to the state of our lives at various times. Exposure _exposes._

The question I was wondering about at the beginning of the thread, and am still curious about, is Where is the border between privacy and transparency?

I think transparency between spouses is essential. I think privacy, to build trust, is also essential.

When we involve people outside the marriage, through exposure, we better be careful of our motives. Anything a WS cannot look back on and feel was done out of pure motives is likely to impede a true reconciliation.


----------



## Pluto2

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> I can't like this enough.
> 
> And I'm going to emphasize a point here that is a huge deal to me.
> 
> There are posters who compare infidelity to 'abusing' their partner.
> 
> Generally abuse - is something - I do TO someone else.
> 
> Cheating is a betrayal yes. But typically I do it FOR me, not AGAINST you.


I disagree with you on this.

When my ex was abusive I was one of several he abused (he was an equal opportunity a$$ and liked to spread the joy). He did not do it TO any of us because he hated us. I sincerely doubt he did any of it because he had a desire to hurt us. He abused people FOR him, to make his ego feel better, to pretend for those periods that he was superior and had control, and to exert influence over his world. It was never about doing something TO me, it was all him. He was primarily verbally and emotionally abusive, but there were a few times in became physical. It didn't matter-it was all abuse.

Infidelity is the same. Both are characteristics of self-absorbed personalities that manifest in different arenas.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> This brings up an important point on exposure. If our lives could be X rayed, we would all see what we have contributed to the state of our lives at various times. Exposure _exposes._
> 
> The question I was wondering about at the beginning of the thread, and am still curious about, is Where is the border between privacy and transparency?
> 
> I think transparency between spouses is essential. I think privacy, to build trust, is also essential.
> 
> When we involve people outside the marriage, through exposure, we better be careful of our motives. Anything a WS cannot look back on and feel was done out of pure motives is likely to impede a true reconciliation.


Agree. Motives are crucial if the aim is reconciliation.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Pluto2 said:


> I disagree with you on this.
> 
> When my ex was abusive I was one of several he abused (he was an equal opportunity a$$ and liked to spread the joy). He did not do it TO any of us because he hated us. I sincerely doubt he did any of it because he had a desire to hurt us. He abused people FOR him, to make his ego feel better, to pretend for those periods that he was superior and had control, and to exert influence over his world. It was never about doing something TO me, it was all him. He was primarily verbally and emotionally abusive, but there were a few times in became physical. It didn't matter-it was all abuse.
> 
> Infidelity is the same. Both are characteristics of self-absorbed personalities that manifest in different arenas.


Very well said.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> But our actions are all on us, right? Our choices are all 100% on us, is my understanding.


NO, 

the betrayed spouse becomes suicidal or homicidal by what the wayward spouse has done. 

if that were the case you could say if an abused spouse would just not make her husband mad he would not hit her and that makes no sense.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> This brings up an important point on exposure. If our lives could be X rayed, we would all see what we have contributed to the state of our lives at various times. Exposure _exposes._
> 
> The question I was wondering about at the beginning of the thread, and am still curious about, is Where is the border between privacy and transparency?
> 
> I think transparency between spouses is essential. *I think privacy*, to build trust, is also essential.
> 
> When we involve people outside the marriage, through exposure, we better be careful of our motives. Anything a WS cannot look back on and feel was done out of pure motives is likely to impede a true reconciliation.


privacy for the bathroom, yes

what other privacy do you mean?

If you are talking no VARs, GPS tracker , key loggers. ---- This could be considered transparency to some or at a minimum would end after a few months to be sure the affair is dead/done.

You have to remember most if not all cheaters tend to lie, minimize, gas light and truckle truth
taking the affair underground is common especially when they are in the "FOG"

I think you really have to experience this to know what I mean.


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I disagree, by allowing you to rant and rave to your hearts desire he is letting you disrespect him and is therefore acting submissively


He does not feel disrespected. He told me he has always felt _deeply _ respected by me. 

And the way he uses active listening when I do get upset makes me respect _him_, too. He is very calming to me when he responds with empathy. I relax and we can then discuss productively.

If I felt had to be careful of the words I use around him, the tone of voice, if I felt I had to use "timing" in when I approached him, things of that nature, he would probably feel disrespected. Because those things, to us, would mean I did not think he could handle what MEM calls, "the raw feed." I would be treating him as though he were too fragile to handle my raw self.

But because Dug is emotionally strong, I can be completely transparent with him. My transparency is not going to break him. 

And it is certainly not going to break the marriage! Quite the opposite!


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> One might also suggest that he is essentially devoid of emotion. Did either of you experience any trauma when you were younger? Could there be trauma that is largely suppressed?


His parents said he has always been calm. They said you never knew when Dug had a test in school, because his demeanor was always the same.

The key is that he does not take things personally. He knows that not everyone is as calm as he is, and he does not expect more out of people than they can give.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> And also extremely fortunate for the times when I kicked his ass when he needed it.


That was part of it. 

Discipline is not an unkind thing. It is a service.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> It's interesting to me the different dynamics between a BS when it comes to being male or female. I have heard this stated before that soon as a BS wife finds out about the affair the WS husband is floored that they are calling off the relationship. I mean what the hell did they think would happen? When I learned of my X wife's affair we had no discussion about the divorce because she knew she was toast. Just interesting to me


Ele said once that women are seven times likelier to stay after a husband's affair than the other way around.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> That is fine, you continue to dodge the question/point. I just think it a shame that someone who constantly preaches about looking within is unwilling to do so herself ... Either way we can agree to disagree


I can't look at your truth and call it truth if I don't think it is truth. That would be lying.


----------



## Marduk

Love, like compassion, is tough. Hard. Gritty. 

It is not for the weak. It is not for those with low character or integrity. It is not a game. 

It is a battle. 

Not with each other, but for each other. 

Lovers are warriors. And warriors do not blame others for their own failure. Neither do they take accountability for others failure - they either help them learn from it or end he conflict decisively.

Compassion is not waffling. It is not begging. It is not pleading. Compassion is acting. 

Love is telling your spouse that you no longer believe them if it's true. Love is telling your spouse that they are killing your love for them. 

Love is telling your spouse that you are leaving, because they have no integrity. Not threatening, acting. 

No ultimatums. Warriors do not deliver ultimatums. Warriors have lines that are not crossed, and consequences for crossing them.

Warriors do not control others. Warriors pay attention to others. 

Pay attention to your spouse. Not just make them happy, but pay attention. Their body language or actions will always say more than you will ever find by reading their email or snooping on them.

Warriors are willing to die for others. 

My sensei once told me that I would never really learn how to fight until I learned how to be willing to die to win. 

When I said that didn't make sense, he said that was my problem. I was a skilled fighter because I refused to be beaten. 

But I couldn't take the next step until I was willing to die. 

A warrior is willing to kill his marriage to save it. A warrior is willing to break his or her spouse's heart to get her to see what she is actually doing. A warrior is willing to risk his own shame to expose bad behaviour if that's what needs doing. 

But all these things only happen if it's what's needed to happen. Act with compassion. But do not fail to act.

Love is hard, it is tough. Marriage is not for the feint of heart.

There are many kinds of compassion and love. Just because it feels unpleasant or harsh, doesn't mean it is not loving. 

I expect no less of my wife. I expect her to be a warrior for our marriage, as well. She had to earn her place by my side, just like I have hers. 

There are no freeloaders in life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Ele said once that women are seven times likelier to stay after a husband's affair than the other way around.


I agree and will state why. Women, as a rule, have a better support system emotionally then men. So when the emotional pain of divorce / affairs happens women have sisters, mothers, friends and co workers talk to. The rally call is thrown out and everyone comes a running. The ability to share and be open comes more natural as women are emotional and more comfortable being so.

Men do not do this and honestly it's a disservice to us because we have no support. In my marriage my X was my confidant. My one and only place to fall if needed and I rarely needed to. One of the reasons I was so lost was because I was knocked down emotionally in a way I never had been before and wanted to tell my best friend and confidant. Problem was they were same person.

This is why I stated to you that men and women have different needs in marriage. Your view is men need to be a suit of armor to thier wives and I agree and add women need to protect the one vulnerable weak point of the armor.


----------



## Wolf1974

I am still wanting to know what I am not taking ownership for in my failed relationship.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> That was part of it.
> 
> Discipline is not an unkind thing. It is a service.


I knew it did not serve our child to leave his father in the condition that he was in even if self imposed. So, the 1st choice I made was to create emotional safety for him despite his choice. The 2nd choice I made was to accept my own worth independent of everyone around me, and stand rock solid in that truth. The 3rd choice I made was to no longer tolerate poor abusive behavior in our home.

All three of those decisions along side decisions my H made later helped fuel reconciliation through infidelity AND abuse, successfully to the other side. Also the "how" we progressed was important too, surrounding ourselves with professionals and the church for a long time.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Really? You asked me if I had agency and I told you I did. I picked a very damaged woman and I knew she had cheated on her previous husband and her two serious relationships in school.
> 
> I owned that. I should absolutely chosen a better woman and not one who needed more help than merely love can solve. How is that NOT ownership. I was presented all the information and I ignored it. Already stated that


Good enough. 

To answer your question to me, let me describe to you what I have noticed in a person who, imo, has healed from infidelity. I hear sorrow, but acceptance, in his voice. I hear calmness and peace. I hear openness to questions, never defensiveness or irritation. I hear a sincere wish that his former wife is getting along as well as can be expected.

I remember reading once about a man who had remarried, but said very honestly, that if he could still help his ex, he would. And there was not any longing or disrespect to his current wife in it at all. It was just kindness and caring, just being a good neighbor in this world.


----------



## Pluto2

It is not up to you or anyone else to determine when someone has healed. That is a personal journey and it doesn't look the same for everyone.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> NO,
> 
> the betrayed spouse becomes suicidal or homicidal by what the wayward spouse has done.
> 
> if that were the case you could say if an abused spouse would just not make her husband mad he would not hit her and that makes no sense.


If our actions are all on us, 100% on us, then they are all on us, 100% on us, all the time, no matter what.

If a man's neglecting his spouse and her subsequently choosing to have an affair is all on her, then his hearing she cheated and his subsequently choosing to commit suicide or kill her is all on him.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Good enough.
> 
> To answer your question to me, let me describe to you what I have noticed in a person who, imo, has healed from infidelity. I hear sorrow, but acceptance, in his voice. I hear calmness and peace. I hear openness to questions, never defensiveness or irritation. I hear a sincere wish that his former wife is getting along as well as can be expected.
> 
> I remember reading once about a man who had remarried, but said very honestly, that if he could still help his ex, he would. And there was not any longing or disrespect to his current wife in it at all. It was just kindness and caring, just being a good neighbor in this world.


Let me respond in kind. Many things in life I can accept. And one of the hardest was to accept my fault in this. I mean it took 6 months of therapy for me to say these words... But I picked her

Now if that is all their was to it I would press on hurt but never thinking much on her or it again. But that isn't what happend. She went out of her way to hurt me, out of her way to humiliate me, out of her way to endanger our children. This is not forgivable and I don't nor will I ever forgive her for that. Had she handled things differently EVEN with the cheating things would be different between us. But she didn't and it is what it is. 

Acceptance and moving on is what I have done. But not forgive. So if my posts come across as defense here it's only for the sake of other BS not myself. And don't mistake passion for anger. I can't be angry with her for doing what she is right

I picked her
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

convert said:


> privacy for the bathroom, yes
> 
> what other privacy do you mean?
> 
> If you are talking no VARs, GPS tracker , key loggers. ---- This could be considered transparency to some or at a minimum would end after a few months to be sure the affair is dead/done.
> 
> You have to remember most if not all cheaters tend to lie, minimize, gas light and truckle truth
> taking the affair underground is common especially when they are in the "FOG"
> 
> I think you really have to experience this to know what I mean.


I think it is wisest to handle infidelity, if at all possible, by as strategic and effective exposure as possible. Enough to get the spouse out of the fog, and that's it.

If, afterwards, the spouse wants to share his or her experience, or gives you permission to share it, that is fine. But I think there should be agreement to share it with others. 

Rebuilding can surely be fragile at times. Respecting privacy gives people space to build needed trust.


----------



## Pluto2

still clueless
see ya


----------



## DayOne




----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I think it is wisest to handle infidelity, if at all possible, by as strategic and effective exposure as possible. Enough to get the spouse out of the fog, and that's it.
> 
> If, afterwards, the spouse wants to share his or her experience, or gives you permission to share it, that is fine. But I think there should be agreement to share it with others.
> 
> Rebuilding can surely be fragile at times. Respecting privacy gives people space to build needed trust.


I agree with this up to the point "only if" the WS possesses the capacity to be so selective in their recovery. If the WS is served by a wider exposure, then the BS should just accept that as part of consequence.


----------



## Marduk

DayOne said:


>


This thread was never just about that though, D1. 

This came directly from jld's advice on two other threads where the wife was cheating, and the guy was looking for help.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I agree and will state why. Women, as a rule, have a better support system emotionally then men. So when the emotional pain of divorce / affairs happens women have sisters, mothers, friends and co workers talk to. The rally call is thrown out and everyone comes a running. The ability to share and be open comes more natural as women are emotional and more comfortable being so.
> 
> Men do not do this and honestly it's a disservice to us because we have no support. In my marriage my X was my confidant. My one and only place to fall if needed and I rarely needed to. One of the reasons I was so lost was because I was knocked down emotionally in a way I never had been before and wanted to tell my best friend and confidant. Problem was they were same person.
> 
> This is why I stated to you that men and women have different needs in marriage. Your view is men need to be a suit of armor to thier wives and I agree and add women need to protect the one vulnerable weak point of the armor.


I guess Dug is on his own then because I am not a protector of men. 

But to your point, if a man only has his wife, and then he leaves her, he has no one. Wouldn't it be wiser to try to salvage and rebuild with the one he has history with?

I would think women would be more likely to stay because they could not afford to leave. This will surely change, though, as women become economically empowered.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I think it is wisest to handle infidelity, if at all possible, by as strategic and effective exposure as possible. Enough to get the spouse out of the fog, and that's it.
> 
> If, afterwards, the spouse wants to share his or her experience, or gives you permission to share it, that is fine. But I think there should be agreement to share it with others.
> 
> Rebuilding can surely be fragile at times. Respecting privacy gives people space to build needed trust.


This is with the intent of rebuilding. But what about if your leaving and don't want to rebuild but instead need to set the record straight ?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OpenWindows

marduk said:


> This thread was never just about that though, D1.
> 
> This came directly from jld's advice on two other threads where the wife was cheating, and the guy was looking for help.


And from one thread where a husband exposed to the wife's workplace, and then threatened to sue the company for the way they handled it.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I guess Dug is on his own then because I am not a protector of men.
> 
> * Missed the point*
> 
> But to your point, if a man only has his wife, and then he leaves her, he has no one. Wouldn't it be wiser to try to salvage and rebuild with the one he has history with?
> 
> _*absolutely not. I mean how to ever trust again ? A cheater lies for months or maybe years, to your face, how could you ever trust them again? How do you ever find them attractive again? My x became so ugly to me like another person. In real therapy you know what they use? They treat this a death. My counseling was handled like my x wife died because essentially she was to me. *_
> 
> I would think women would be more likely to stay because they could not afford to leave. This will surely change, though, as women become economically empowered.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OpenWindows

So Wolf, hypothetically...

Would you handle a one-time transgression differently than an affair that was lied about? If she messed up and came clean without ever lying, could you reconcile?

Not your ex, but a hypothetical woman. I'm just curious, and have no intention of challenging your response.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> *I knew it did not serve our child to leave his father in the condition that he was in even if self imposed. * So, the 1st choice I made was to create emotional safety for him despite his choice. The 2nd choice I made was to accept my own worth independent of everyone around me, and stand rock solid in that truth. The 3rd choice I made was to no longer tolerate poor abusive behavior in our home.


Very practical thinking in the bolded, Blossom. Thinking of the needs of everyone in the family, not just one person. And creating a plan, with a goal.

In your further description I see creating emotional safety, which sounds much to me like MB's meeting your spouse's needs; developing inner security, which is what I think every dominant partner needs to lead the relationship (and the way I see it, the BS is pretty much handed the dominant role because of the moral abdication of the WS); and providing discipline and guidance for the weaker partner to get on a healthier path, also part of the role of the dominant partner.



> All three of those decisions along side decisions my H made later helped fuel reconciliation through infidelity AND abuse, successfully to the other side. Also the "how" we progressed was important too, surrounding ourselves with professionals and the church for a long time.


Profesional help and a supportive community surely make the path of reconciliation easier.

Like SGC, well done. You both kept your families intact.


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> It is not up to you or anyone else to determine when someone has healed. That is a personal journey and it doesn't look the same for everyone.


We all have our own opinions. I am just sharing mine.


----------



## Marduk

OpenWindows said:


> So Wolf, hypothetically...
> 
> Would you handle a one-time transgression differently than an affair that was lied about? If she messed up and came clean without ever lying, could you reconcile?
> 
> Not your ex, but a hypothetical woman. I'm just curious, and have no intention of challenging your response.


It wasn't aimed at me, but I'll answer it anyway.

If my wife came to me and admitted a one night stand right after it happened and asked for my forgiveness, I would probably be a lot more open to reconciliation than a long time affair where she lied to me repeatedly.

With my wife's EA, I'll tell you -- it's not the stuff she disclosed to the other guy, or the emotional intimacy she shared with him that still hurts all this time later.

It's the lies. It's really hard to forget those.


----------



## samyeagar

OpenWindows said:


> So Wolf, hypothetically...
> 
> Would you handle a one-time transgression differently than an affair that was lied about? If she messed up and came clean without ever lying, could you reconcile?
> 
> Not your ex, but a hypothetical woman. I'm just curious, and have no intention of challenging your response.


Oh, I'll bite on this one too. I would not reconcile either a one time transgression immediately confessed, or a long term hidden affair.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I guess Dug is on his own then because I am not a protector of men.
> 
> But to your point, if a man only has his wife, and then he leaves her, he has no one. *Wouldn't it be wiser to try to salvage and rebuild with the one he has history with?*
> 
> I would think women would be more likely to stay because they could not afford to leave. This will surely change, though, as women become economically empowered.


Depends on a) the wife and b) the history.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Let me respond in kind. Many things in life I can accept. And one of the hardest was to accept my fault in this. I mean it took 6 months of therapy for me to say these words... But I picked her
> 
> Now if that is all their was to it I would press on hurt but never thinking much on her or it again. But that isn't what happend. She went out of her way to hurt me, out of her way to humiliate me, out of her way to endanger our children. This is not forgivable and I don't nor will I ever forgive her for that. Had she handled things differently EVEN with the cheating things would be different between us. But she didn't and it is what it is.
> 
> Acceptance and moving on is what I have done. But not forgive. So if my posts come across as defense here it's only for the sake of other BS not myself. And don't mistake passion for anger. I can't be angry with her for doing what she is right
> 
> I picked her
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I appreciate your sharing that, Wolf. It must be hard to talk about such a painful experience. Thank you for opening your heart to us.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I agree with this up to the point "only if" the WS possesses the capacity to be so selective in their recovery. If the WS is served by a wider exposure, then the BS should just accept that as part of consequence.


The BS is in a position of great responsibility. I would just caution that any decision be taken with motives that the WS will later understand to be in his or her best interest.

Certainly if the WS is a pedophile or a violent person or in some other way a threat to society, broader exposure without regard to how it may later be seen by the WS is required.

But for the more typical adult to adult affair, I would encourage strategic exposure, if needed. My opinion.


----------



## Wolf1974

OpenWindows said:


> So Wolf, hypothetically...
> 
> Would you handle a one-time transgression differently than an affair that was lied about? If she messed up and came clean without ever lying, could you reconcile?
> 
> Not your ex, but a hypothetical woman. I'm just curious, and have no intention of challenging your response.


This is an excellent question. she had a drunken one night stand and immediately came home and confessed. Apologized and no blame shifting. 

I'm not trying to be aloof when I say I don't know. It's so hard to know until your there . My gut says yes.

One thing I know for sure I would probably still respect that woman
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ButtPunch

Wolf1974 said:


> Let me respond in kind. Many things in life I can accept. And one of the hardest was to accept my fault in this. I mean it took 6 months of therapy for me to say these words... But I picked her
> 
> Now if that is all their was to it I would press on hurt but never thinking much on her or it again. But that isn't what happend. She went out of her way to hurt me, out of her way to humiliate me, out of her way to endanger our children. This is not forgivable and I don't nor will I ever forgive her for that. Had she handled things differently EVEN with the cheating things would be different between us. But she didn't and it is what it is.
> 
> Acceptance and moving on is what I have done. But not forgive. So if my posts come across as defense here it's only for the sake of other BS not myself. And don't mistake passion for anger. I can't be angry with her for doing what she is right
> 
> I picked her
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I love it. I cannot like this enough.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> The BS is in a position of great responsibility. I would just caution that any decision be taken with motives that the WS will later understand to be in his or her best interest.
> 
> Certainly if the WS is a pedophile or a violent person or in some other way a threat to society, broader exposure without regard to how it may later be seen by the WS is required.
> 
> But for the more typical adult to adult affair, I would encourage strategic exposure, if needed. My opinion.


I personally started strategic and gradually broadened as I needed after my H was emotionally stronger.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> This is with the intent of rebuilding. But what about if your leaving and don't want to rebuild but instead need to set the record straight ?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Obviously what you do in any circumstance is your own decision. And sharing with others as you feel appropriate is certainly your right.

I would just caution you that even if you "set the record straight," people may still have their own opinion of what happened. We can't control what other people think.

I had someone here tell me once that I do not really have five children. I was shocked to read that, but that was what he believed to be true. 

I guess I could have tried to "set the record straight," but I just let it go. When it comes right down to it, does it matter what other people think?


----------



## MEM2020

Pluto,

It absolutely is up to me to assess you as part of assessing how much weight I'm going to give your posts. 

If you sound angry and bitter, I absolutely have the right to assess you as 'not' healed. And you absolutely have the right to: ignore or debate me. 

As for the personal journey - that's true. Except it isn't 'personal' anymore when you come on a public board and share your view point. 

For instance. It's true what you posted earlier. Your ex - his disease drove three distinct behaviors:
- cheating
- emotional abuse
- physical abuse

All of those behaviors were about him. Making himself feel less weak. That is insightful and IME dead on accurate. 

However what you proceeded to DO with it - doesn't work for me. You attempted to erase the distinction between:
- abuse 
and
- selfishness 

And the issue I have with that is huge. Because this is the first step in a very ugly direction. Essentially that path looks like this. If 3 distinct behaviors all FEEL the same to me, than they are equivalent. 

There is a sickness I see spreading through the US/developed world. I don't know what to call it - other than: accelerating victimology 

Here's how it looks. 

If you cheat on me, it is 100% your fault. I have nothing to do with your selfish, fvcked up behavior. 

If you cheat on me, and I kill myself, that is your fault for destroying my life. 

Gosh - how do I get a card puts me in this special club where absolutely everything is someone else's fault. 





Pluto2 said:


> It is not up to you or anyone else to determine when someone has healed. That is a personal journey and it doesn't look the same for everyone.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I personally started strategic and gradually broadened as I needed after my H was emotionally stronger.


Was it for yourself that you broadened? Did you need the support?

Or did you think he needed the support?


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> There is a sickness I see spreading through the US/developed world. I don't know what to call it - other than: *accelerating victimology *


I love this. 

I hear it in the voices of folks who talk a lot about "accountability."

Which they often seem to define as, "*You* have to take responsibility for *my* hurt feelings. Because I apparently cannot take responsibility for them myself."

Risky business to get into, that.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
It's interesting how much passion this topic creates. 

And how the group (if I weren't a mod I would use a different term) wants to suspend you on a cross via perpendicular metallic supports. 

They equate the absence of aggression - with conflict avoidance. With weakness. 






jld said:


> The BS is in a position of great responsibility. I would just caution that any decision be taken with motives that the WS will later understand to be in his or her best interest.
> 
> Certainly if the WS is a pedophile or a violent person or in some other way a threat to society, broader exposure without regard to how it may later be seen by the WS is required.
> 
> But for the more typical adult to adult affair, I would encourage strategic exposure, if needed. My opinion.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Was it for yourself that you broadened? Did you need the support?
> 
> Or did you think he needed the support?


I needed it. There were certain people in my life that I knew would be critical in my path to heal. But, I did not go nuclear.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I love this.
> 
> I hear it in the voices of folks who talk a lot about "accountability."
> 
> Which they often seem to define as, "*You* have to take responsibility for *my* hurt feelings. Because I apparently cannot take responsibility for them myself."
> 
> Risky business to get into, that.


Do you take responsibility for your feelings when you are angry at dug? Or does dug take responsibility for them?


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

I'm going to ask you a question, that will shed a bit more light on yur dynamic with Dug. Since folks seem to have a 'view' of that. 

How often do you call Dug during the workday with urgent requests for his assistance regarding the kids, yourself or any other issues? 

All,
Just for clarity Dug travels full time for work. 







jld said:


> I love this.
> 
> I hear it in the voices of folks who talk a lot about "accountability."
> 
> Which they often seem to define as, "*You* have to take responsibility for *my* hurt feelings. Because I apparently cannot take responsibility for them myself."
> 
> Risky business to get into, that.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> It's interesting how much passion this topic creates.
> 
> And how the group (if I weren't a mod I would use a different term) wants to suspend you on a cross via perpendicular metallic supports.
> 
> They equate the absence of aggression - with conflict avoidance. With weakness.


If that was aimed at me, it's wrong and it missed. 

I think there's plenty of aggression. 

It's just passive aggression and with a pretty pink bow on top. 

And that's not even the bit that bothers me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> I'm going to ask you a question, that will shed a bit more light on yur dynamic with Dug. Since folks seem to have a 'view' of that.
> 
> How often do you call Dug during the workday with urgent requests for his assistance regarding the kids, yourself or any other issues?
> 
> All,
> Just for clarity Dug travels full time for work.


Rarely. I would certainly call if I needed to, though.

He calls me at least once during the day, and often twice, if at all possible (no customers, for example) to say hello.


----------



## MEM2020

*Acceptance versus ruthlessness*

BP,

In the interest of encouraging a razor sharp use of langauge:

- Acceptance is a mental/emotional 'state'
- Ruthlessness pertains to actions. Especially those driven by a singular focus on results





ButtPunch said:


> What you just called ruthlessness I call just accepting your
> circumstances at that moment for what they were.


----------



## Pluto2

MEM11363 said:


> Pluto,
> 
> It absolutely is up to me to assess you as part of assessing how much weight I'm going to give your posts.
> 
> If you sound angry and bitter, I absolutely have the right to assess you as 'not' healed. And you absolutely have the right to: ignore or debate me.
> 
> As for the personal journey - that's true. Except it isn't 'personal' anymore when you come on a public board and share your view point.
> 
> For instance. It's true what you posted earlier. Your ex - his disease drove three distinct behaviors:
> - cheating
> - emotional abuse
> - physical abuse
> 
> All of those behaviors were about him. Making himself feel less weak. That is insightful and IME dead on accurate.
> 
> However what you proceeded to DO with it - doesn't work for me. You attempted to erase the distinction between:
> - abuse
> and
> - selfishness
> 
> And the issue I have with that is huge. Because this is the first step in a very ugly direction. Essentially that path looks like this. If 3 distinct behaviors all FEEL the same to me, than they are equivalent.
> 
> There is a sickness I see spreading through the US/developed world. I don't know what to call it - other than: accelerating victimology
> 
> Here's how it looks.
> 
> If you cheat on me, it is 100% your fault. I have nothing to do with your selfish, fvcked up behavior.
> 
> If you cheat on me, and I kill myself, that is your fault for destroying my life.
> 
> Gosh - how do I get a card puts me in this special club where absolutely everything is someone else's fault.


You addressed me so I will respond, but honestly I am quite done with this. 

First, I am not bitter or angry. Perhaps relating on these boards doesn't show the nuances of one's inner feeling. Oh well. Dismiss my posts if you like. 

Second, I am also no one's victim. I, like Wolf, picked him. I stuck my fabulous children with this person as a father and that is a burden I will carry for a long time.

I didn't cause or create or contribute to his illnesses. 
I did permitted it to continue far too long, to the detriment of myself and my children. But I know I did everything possible to get him help. Since I cannot control other people, I could not force help upon him. All I could do was provide him with avenues for help. 

He did not cheat because of "unmet needs." He cheated because he wanted to and remains un-remorseful for any pain anyone else feels. The one time I attempted to discuss the aftermath of his behavior with him he stated that he owed me no explanation. Perhaps that is part of his ongoing illnesses. IDK. But that is not my concern.

Had I killed myself (which never entered my mind BTW), that would have been my responsibility, as it would have been my action.

I continue to view the abuse and the infidelity as acts of pure selfishness on his part, You have a right to view it anyway you chose.


----------



## MEM2020

That's what I expected. 

Same as me and M2 when I travelled full time except that I only called her at night. 




jld said:


> Rarely. I would certainly call if I needed to, though.
> 
> He calls me at least once during the day, and often twice, if at all possible (no customers, for example) to say hello.


----------



## ButtPunch

*Re: Acceptance versus ruthlessness*



MEM11363 said:


> BP,
> 
> In the interest of encouraging a razor sharp use of langauge:
> 
> - Acceptance is a mental/emotional 'state'
> - Ruthlessness pertains to actions. Especially those driven by a singular focus on results


Engineer here I hated English.

You win but either way it took you giving your wife what she thought she wanted to wake up. 

Therefore you accepted your new reality (wife in love with someone else) and were ruthless in your presentation of it(hey i am going to move on) back at her no?


----------



## MEM2020

Pluto, 

I apologize for combining a specific response to your posts with a general observation about the state of the Union. That was poor form on my part. 

I didn't say you were angry or bitter. I said I had the 'right' to make that assessment. 

FWIW - you don't sound bitter or angry. 



Pluto2 said:


> You addressed me so I will respond, but honestly I am quite done with this.
> 
> First, I am not bitter or angry. Perhaps relating on these boards doesn't show the nuances of one's inner feeling. Oh well. Dismiss my posts if you like.
> 
> Second, I am also no one's victim. I, like Wolf, picked him. I stuck my fabulous children with this person as a father and that is a burden I will carry for a long time.
> 
> I didn't cause or create or contribute to his illnesses.
> I did permitted it to continue far too long, to the detriment of myself and my children. But I know I did everything possible to get him help. Since I cannot control other people, I could not force help upon him. All I could do was provide him with avenues for help.
> 
> He did not cheat because of "unmet needs." He cheated because he wanted to and remains un-remorseful for any pain anyone else feels. The one time I attempted to discuss the aftermath of his behavior with him he stated that he owed me no explanation. Perhaps that is part of his ongoing illnesses. IDK. But that is not my concern.
> 
> Had I killed myself (which never entered my mind BTW), that would have been my responsibility, as it would have been my action.
> 
> I continue to view the abuse and the infidelity as acts of pure selfishness on his part, You have a right to view it anyway you chose.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> It's interesting how much passion this topic creates.
> 
> And how the group (if I weren't a mod I would use a different term) wants to suspend you on a cross via perpendicular metallic supports.
> 
> They equate the absence of aggression - with conflict avoidance. With weakness.


Marduk told me the other day I had my "crown of thorns on too tight."

I guess I should take that as a compliment.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Do you take responsibility for your feelings when you are angry at dug? Or does dug take responsibility for them?


Dug does. He feels it is his responsibility as my husband. 

Outside of the marriage, though, I obviously have to take responsibility for my feelings. It is the only way to really be emotionally independent.

I don't want to be emotionally independent of my husband. It is part of my bond with him.


----------



## MEM2020

*Re: Acceptance versus ruthlessness*

Not trying to win. Just trying to be clear. 

As far as motives go - hmmm - I cannot say for certain how much of my motives were truly self protective vs. emotionally manipulative. 

There was definitely a degree of emotional manipulation in what I did. That isn't nice, but it is true. 




ButtPunch said:


> Engineer here I hated English.
> 
> You win but either way it took you giving your wife what she thought she wanted to wake up.
> 
> Therefore you accepted your new reality (wife in love with someone else) and were ruthless in your presentation of it(hey i am going to move on) back at her no?


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I love this.
> 
> I hear it in the voices of folks who talk a lot about "accountability."


You really do need to get your hearing checked.



jld said:


> *Which they often seem to define as, "*You* have to take responsibility for *my* hurt feelings. Because I apparently cannot take responsibility for them myself."*
> 
> Risky business to get into, that.


Not at all.

I've thought about this on and off over the past few days, and it's obvious that there's a real disconnect here. I can't really figure out why, but hopefully it's due to nothing more than the limitations placed upon all of us by the constraints of an online forum.

I'm at work at the moment, but I'll post a reply later this evening that will *hopefully* clear things up a bit.


----------



## Kivlor

MEM11363 said:


> Kivlor,
> The very last sentence in your post below is over the line.
> 
> It's ok to say: I think what you are telling people is harmful.
> 
> Not ok to assign feelings or intentions to other folks.
> 
> By the way, for a smart guy you are framing human relationships in a manner very consistent with a textbook narcissist.
> 
> This is how 68/sixty eight's husband sees the world.
> 
> I love M2. Don't think I would ever love anyone else the same if she left me. But I don't get to say: if she cheats that 'ruins' my life. If she cheats, that's about her not about me.


I'll edit it for you MEM. You are correct, I don't know JLD's intent; but she is responsible for what she says and does and how she tries to exert influence regardless of her intent; as am I for mine and you for yours. Most everyone here must believe they can influence others to a degree or they wouldn't bother discussing and advising and arguing.

I think many BS do not know how to go forward when DDay hits them. And then someone comes along and says "If you try really hard, and love her with all your heart and show her that you do, she'll stop cheating and come home. Find out what she's getting from her OM and be like him. You just have to wait it out." This advice is harmful to the BS, because it is exactly what they want to hear, and encourages them to ignore reality. I used the story of my father because it is one I experienced, that I can relate as an example. He followed that siren call and it ended in catastrophe. It was his choice; but others called him to it. They had good intentions, but their advice was terrible; and they bear a small portion of the consequences of their actions and advice. 

One final point: even if I were a narcissist MEM, does it make what I said incorrect? Or is that particular personality trait unrelated to the validity of the statements I've made? If they're not related, you're merely engaging in an ad hominem, attacking me rather than my points.

Personally, I think you've mistaken my belief that people interact with and influence each other with narcissism; but that's what a narcissist would say, right? 

Let me leave you with this: No one can make me happy. No one can make me unhappy. No one can make my life better or worse. Good and bad, happy and unhappy; those are choices I make every day; it is who I choose to be. But others don't _feel_ that way. When someone breaks a covenant, an agreement "till death do us part"; it hurts many people emotionally, and that emotional hurt has _physical_ symptoms and consequences. It's very real to them.


----------



## MEM2020

Pluto,
To clarify, I absolutely believe that intense emotional distress can feel worse and even harm you more than say - being pushed. Or some other mild form of physical abuse. 

And I'll even add that chronic emotional distress can be far more damaging to your health than being - pushed (if you aren't afraid the person doing the pushing is going to escalate). 

So what I'm saying is that I fully grasp how damaging emotional abuse can be. I'm just terrified of the idea of using the legal system to address it. It's too subjective. 





Pluto2 said:


> I disagree with you on this.
> 
> When my ex was abusive I was one of several he abused (he was an equal opportunity a$$ and liked to spread the joy). He did not do it TO any of us because he hated us. I sincerely doubt he did any of it because he had a desire to hurt us. He abused people FOR him, to make his ego feel better, to pretend for those periods that he was superior and had control, and to exert influence over his world. It was never about doing something TO me, it was all him. He was primarily verbally and emotionally abusive, but there were a few times in became physical. It didn't matter-it was all abuse.
> 
> Infidelity is the same. Both are characteristics of self-absorbed personalities that manifest in different arenas.


----------



## GusPolinski

For now, @jld, I'd like to ask you the following...

A wife cheats on her husband. The husband, having discovered his wife's infidelity, is understandably upset. Still, he's open to reconciliation and communicates this to his wife. She accepts.

At this point, what would you consider to be acceptable behavior for the wife going forward? What about _unacceptable_ behavior?

What, if anything, should SHE do in order to rebuild her marriage in light of the trauma wrought by her affair?

To what degree should a) the details of her affair and b) the state of her marriage pre-affair impact or influence her behavior while working to reconcile her marriage?

Should she or shouldn't she _actively_ work to assure her husband that the likelihood of a repeat transgression has been so sufficiently mitigated that it's essentially been reduced to near zero? If so, how should she go about doing this?


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> That's a strong word, Kivlor.
> 
> People do not die from hearing their partner cheated on them. We all have to take responsibility for our own feelings, and our own actions, even BSs.


I do want to say thanks for answering my question, I restated because I figured it got lost in the other posts. I may come back with some more questions from your response. There's so much to read since I stopped on page 39, I need to catch up first.

RE: the above quote:

No, outside of heart-attacks, they don't. He followed advice very similar to yours, and thought he could convince his wife to stop sleeping with the entire town. It didn't work. And people with a similar message to the one you've peddled here continued to tell him to try. He broke, emotionally, spiritually; then he gave up on living and now he's gone. He didn't choose his problems, but he did choose how to address them. And he chose poorly. *But to pretend that neither the cheating nor the bad advice he received were tremendous factors--when he was admittedly at the happiest he'd ever been the week before Dday--that's just putting on blinders*. 

Not everyone can just filter out everything that happens to them, distill it, and say "C'est la vie!" Some have a lot more difficulty.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> For now, @jld, I'd like to ask you the following...
> 
> A wife cheats on her husband. The husband, having discovered his wife's infidelity, is understandably upset. Still, he's open to reconciliation and communicates this to his wife. She accepts.
> 
> At this point, what would you consider to be acceptable behavior for the wife going forward? What about _unacceptable_ behavior?
> 
> What, if anything, should SHE do in order to rebuild her marriage in light of the trauma wrought by her affair?
> 
> To what degree should a) the details of her affair and b) the state of her marriage pre-affair impact or influence her behavior while working to reconcile her marriage?
> 
> Should she or shouldn't she _actively_ work to assure her husband that the likelihood of a repeat transgression has been so sufficiently mitigated that it's essentially been reduced to near zero? If so, how should she go about doing this?


I do think the husband's role is more important than the wife's. I am counting on him to lead the reconciliation. But we will focus on her for a moment.

Immediate and complete transparency, forevermore. Honestly, I don't understand why this is not an automatic part of any burgeoning relationship. It should start at the beginning of serious dating, long before engagement or marriage.

This means the husband needs to hear whatever his wife has to say, ideally whenever she feels inspired to say it. He can tell her that it will be easier for him to hear if she speaks as calmly as possible, without swearing at him, etc., but he ultimately needs to hear whatever comes out. He has to focus on the message.

I think it depends, after that, on the nature of the affair. If she did it just for the thrill, just because she was bored, it goes one way. If she was neglected for a long time and the affair came about because of it, that goes a different way.

If it was a thrill affair . . . Sitting at her husband's feet, or sitting beside him, if the other is too humbling, while he cries would not hurt. She needs to see his pain. She needs to see how much he loves her, and how hurt he is by her actions. She may not have realized how much she means to him, and how much he trusted her. That will afflict her conscience. Reaching her heart is key to effecting change in her.

Actually, hearing her husband cry would be good for any wayward wife. She needs to see his pain. She needs to see the fallout of how she used her power.

If she was neglected, and the affair came about because of that, I think she really needs to think hard about whether or not she should reconcile. She needs to talk very clearly with her husband about what she is going to need going forward. Transparency, as always, is crucial, but even more important is his actually listening and acting on what she says. Without his beginning to meet her needs, they are likely to wind up back in the same place and reconciliation will fail.

At this point I think it would be good for the husband to show her a list of ideas that counselors have come up with for affairproofing the marriage, highlighting what he thinks would be good for her to focus on, from his pov, and asking what she thinks he could focus on. It would also be good for him to give her a list of ways of reassuring him going forward, if he needs that (not every husband may need it). 

He needs to be as transparent as she is, including letting her know his trust in her has been compromised. And, if applicable, he needs to tell her that as much as he wants to be able to trust her again, for it to be genuine, she is going to have to earn his trust back. Her genuinely earning his trust back is how they can both feel renewed trust in the marriage. 

He may want to give her a list of his own personal expectations for reconciliation. He may want her to make certain amends. I don't think these should be coerced in any way. And she needs to be allowed to wait until she is ready to do them, whatever they may be. This means he may need to be patient. 

Note: She should not make any amends that she cannot make with a full heart. No just going through the motions, checking off items on his list. That is not ultimately going to satisfy his heart.

I think a conversation where she is asked what *she* feels she needs to be a faithful wife needs to take place. She may volunteer not having OSF, or not going out at night without her husband unless it is to ladies only events, or reading books about how to strengthen one's marriage, etc. She may end up being much harder on herself than her husband would think to be.

I think some good conversations about what each wants out of the marriage, and how to work together to get it, would be in order. 

One thing I would stress to the husband is that he has to be the leader, the example. If he wants his wife to be humble, he has to be an example of humility to her. If he wants his wife to be kind and understanding, he has to be an example of kindness and humility to her. We learn what we live with.

I think reconciliation could be a very healing, very positive beginning for a new, healthy marriage. Transparency and humility, and patience, from both partners, are key.


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,

It wasn't directed at you. 





marduk said:


> If that was aimed at me, it's wrong and it missed.
> 
> I think there's plenty of aggression.
> 
> It's just passive aggression and with a pretty pink bow on top.
> 
> And that's not even the bit that bothers me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
This is fascinating. On one level, I read your post and I go - that makes so much sense. 

And then - on another level I have to contend with the reality of what actually happened. What actually happened was much more of an Esther Perel styled 'mating in captivity' scenario. 

To be fair, I picked a good person. So when her biology conflicted with her vows - she held on - by a thread. But she was going slowly mad with desire. 

The OM - in a bar - in terms of raw attractiveness - he would bury me. That is just an objective fact. 

So the thing Marduk is saying about being ruthless - in my experience - was totally and absolutely effective. Not cruel. Not aggressive. Just completely ruthless. That TURNED M2 ON IN A WAY THAT I HAVE YET TO SEE SINCE. 

Caps for emphasis. I'm not at all put off by this exchange. 

I'm a little too patterned for her. Breaking pattern like that - and then not budging while she screamed and raged at me - made her WANT me. 

And of this I'm certain. I absolutely accepted that the way I broke pattern MIGHT kill the marriage. Thing is I'd rather be single then be in a 'pretend' marriage. 



QUOTE=jld;14598329]I do think the husband's role is more important than the wife's. I am counting on him to lead the reconciliation. But we will focus on her for a moment.

Immediate and complete transparency, forevermore. Honestly, I don't understand why this is not an automatic part of any burgeoning relationship. It should start at the beginning of serious dating, long before engagement or marriage.

This means the husband needs to hear whatever his wife has to say, ideally whenever she feels inspired to say it. He can tell her that it will be easier for him to hear if she speaks as calmly as possible, without swearing at him, etc., but he ultimately needs to hear whatever comes out. He has to focus on the message.

I think it depends, after that, on the nature of the affair. If she did it just for the thrill, just because she was bored, it goes one way. If she was neglected for a long time and the affair came about because of it, that goes a different way.

If it was a thrill affair . . . Sitting at her husband's feet, or sitting beside him, if the other is too humbling, while he cries would not hurt. She needs to see his pain. She needs to see how much he loves her, and how hurt he is by her actions. She may not have realized how much she means to him, and how much he trusted her. That will afflict her conscience. Reaching her heart is key to effecting change in her.

Actually, hearing her husband cry would be good for any wayward wife. She needs to see his pain. She needs to see the fallout of how she used her power.

If she was neglected, and the affair came about because of that, I think she really needs to think hard about whether or not she should reconcile. She needs to talk very clearly with her husband about what she is going to need going forward. Transparency, as always, is crucial, but even more important is his actually listening and acting on what she says. Without his beginning to meet her needs, they are likely to wind up back in the same place and reconciliation will fail.

At this point I think it would be good for the husband to show her a list of ideas that counselors have come up with for affairproofing the marriage, highlighting what he thinks would be good for her to focus on, from his pov, and asking what she thinks he could focus on. It would also be good for him to give her a list of ways of reassuring him going forward, if he needs that (not every husband may need it). 

He needs to be as transparent as she is, including letting her know his trust in her has been compromised. And, if applicable, he needs to tell her that as much as he wants to be able to trust her again, for it to be genuine, she is going to have to earn his trust back. Her genuinely earning his trust back is how they can both feel renewed trust in the marriage. 

He may want to give her a list of his own personal expectations for reconciliation. He may want her to make certain amends. I don't think these should be coerced in any way. And she needs to be allowed to wait until she is ready to do them, whatever they may be. This means he may need to be patient. 

Note: She should not make any amends that she cannot make with a full heart. No just going through the motions, checking off items on his list. That is not ultimately going to satisfy his heart.

I think a conversation where she is asked what *she* feels she needs to be a faithful wife needs to take place. She may volunteer not having OSF, or not going out at night without her husband unless it is to ladies only events, or reading books about how to strengthen one's marriage, etc. She may end up being much harder on herself than her husband would think to be.

I think some good conversations about what each wants out of the marriage, and how to work together to get it, would be in order. 

One thing I would stress to the husband is that he has to be the leader, the example. If he wants his wife to be humble, he has to be an example of humility to her. If he wants his wife to be kind and understanding, he has to be an example of kindness and humility to her. We learn what we live with.

I think reconciliation could be a very healing, very positive beginning for a new, healthy marriage. Transparency and humility, and patience, from both partners, are key.[/QUOTE]


----------



## convert

jld said:


> If our actions are all on us, 100% on us, then they are all on us, 100% on us, all the time, no matter what.
> 
> If a man's neglecting his spouse and her subsequently choosing to have an affair is all on her, then his hearing she cheated and his subsequently choosing to commit suicide or kill her is all on him.


this started because you say people don't die from infidelity
and people do die from Infidelity.
just as you say a man can cause his wife Infidelity then the wayward spouse is certainly can have cause in the husbands choice to commit suicide.

you can't have it both ways


----------



## jld

convert said:


> this started because you say people don't die from infidelity
> and people do die from Infidelity.
> just as you say a man cause his wife Infidelity then the wayward spouse is certainly has cause in the husbands choice to commit suicide.
> 
> you can't have it both ways


convert. See post #649.


----------



## Personal

jld said:


> Julius Beastcavern said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do what you like. He is the submissive
> 
> 
> 
> If my emotion bothered him and he needed me to stop or alter my expression in some way so he could feel emotionally safe, he would be the submissive.
> 
> *But he doesn't.*
Click to expand...

Lest he suffer the consequences?


----------



## GusPolinski

OK, so back to this...



jld said:


> I love this.
> 
> *I hear it in the voices of folks who talk a lot about "accountability."
> 
> Which they often seem to define as, "*You* have to take responsibility for *my* hurt feelings. Because I apparently cannot take responsibility for them myself."*


Precisely what is it in anything that I, @marduk, or anyone else has contributed w/ respect to accountability as it relates to either infidelity or reconciliation that gives you this impression?

Regardless of your answer, you're wrong.

When we talk about accountability as it relates to infidelity (or, to be more accurate, as it relates to reconciliation in the aftermath of infidelity), what we're talking about is requiring acknowledgment from the WS that, while the state of the marriage pre-affair may not have been ideal, his or her decision to cheat is 100% his or hers to own. Ideally, this would be voluntarily given; in fact, the value of such an acknowledgement diminishes if it has to be coerced.

There’s also the notion that the WS, being not only an adult but also a _willing_ partner in said marriage, is responsible for _roughly_ 50% of any dysfunction that existed in the marriage prior to the affair. That said, things like substance abuse, spousal abuse, etc will obviously skew those numbers somewhat, assuming, of course, that any transgressions involving such offenses were NOT committed by both parties. (And, again, if this has to be coerced in any way, it won’t be as meaningful as it would’ve been otherwise.)

When we talk about a WS doing his or her part to aid his or her BS’s healing (i.e. the “heavy lifting”), what we’re referring to is the idea that the WS should absolutely do all the things that could reasonably be expected of a wife or husband in order to communicate love, respect, and devotion, _along w/ an intent to be faithful going forward_, while simultaneously doing NONE of the things that could be seen by any reasonable person as communicating the exact opposite. (See aforementioned statements regarding coercion and diminishing returns).

After all, given that the point of reconciliation is to forge a new, better, and stronger marriage, BOTH parties have a role to play in terms of creating the landscape of that new relationship… correct?

Now… what we’re NOT saying in any of this is that the BS is or should feel entitled to endlessly mope around w/o any sort of aim, direction, or goal. While it’s obvious and understandable that there WILL be a certain amount of pain associated w/ the infidelity from the BS’s perspective, if he or she doesn’t welcome the healing process, it’s not going to begin as optimally as it would otherwise, if at all.

Still, I can tell you from my own experience that nothing helps to accelerate the healing process like a willing, engaged, and remorseful FORMER wayward willing to take accountability for his or her poor behavior. That’s the other half of the equation.

And yes, if the marriage is to be FULLY reconciled, then both the infidelity AND the state of the marriage pre-affair (where applicable) will need to be addressed. After all, neither the affair nor any transgressions committed prior to it offers absolution to either the WS or BS for his or her role in either. This is just common sense.


----------



## GusPolinski

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> It's interesting how much passion this topic creates.
> 
> And how the group (if I weren't a mod I would use a different term) wants to suspend you on a cross via perpendicular metallic supports.
> 
> They equate the absence of aggression - with conflict avoidance. With weakness.





marduk said:


> If that was aimed at me, it's wrong and it missed.
> 
> I think there's plenty of aggression.
> 
> It's just passive aggression and with a pretty pink bow on top.
> 
> And that's not even the bit that bothers me.


Ditto.


----------



## GusPolinski

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> It's interesting how much passion this topic creates.
> 
> And how the group (if I weren't a mod I would use a different term) wants to suspend you on a cross via perpendicular metallic supports.
> 
> They equate the absence of aggression - with conflict avoidance. With weakness.


MEM, a lot of her advice is just toxic. Most of the time she might as well be saying…

“Hi everyone! I live in a harsh underwater environment devoid of sunlight yet surrounded by the extreme heat created by proximity to intense hydrothermal jets that spew hydrogen sulfide into the water.

And it's just great! Seriously… EVERYONE should live down here!”

Now, the bit that she’s leaving out is that she’s an extremophile and therefore unable to live in an other environment. Additionally, 99.9999% of organisms — people included — would not only fail to flourish in her native environment, but would die. And pretty horribly, to boot.


----------



## italianjob

Cosmos said:


> Although they are _part_ of our basic needs, there's a _lot_ more to human needs than food, shelter and water...


Sure... Agreed.

But I think that what the poster wanted to express was that the word "need" is often overused around here.

Not everything that we fancy at one time or antoher in our life is a need.

I might NEED a car to go to work, and I might just love that red Ferrari parked over there.

The car is something I need, the Ferrari is something I fancy. I have a family and people that lives on the money I earn.
So I have other priorieties. I will just fancy the Ferrari, but never go through to buy it. 
Because it's not a need, it's something I fancy at a given moment, not having it will not kill me, but will enable me to pursue my priorities.

And anyway if I steal it, the police will never buy that "unmet need" **** I'd try to feed 'em


----------



## italianjob

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> I can't like this enough.
> 
> And I'm going to emphasize a point here that is a huge deal to me.
> 
> There are posters who compare infidelity to 'abusing' their partner.
> 
> Generally abuse - is something - I do TO someone else.
> 
> Cheating is a betrayal yes. But typically I do it FOR me, not AGAINST you.


Yeah, cheating IS a form of Emotional Abuse, IMO, one of the worse forms if you ask me. But that's only my opinion...

And no I don't think your reasoning here is valid, sorry.

Serial killers usually have nothing against their victims.

They do what they do for themselves, not to do something against them.

By your logic they shouldn't be accused of hurting they victims, after all they are doing it for themselves not against their victims...


----------



## Cosmos

italianjob said:


> Sure... Agreed.
> 
> But I think that what the poster wanted to express was that the word "need" is often overused around here.
> 
> Not everything that we fancy at one time or antoher in our life is a need.
> 
> I might NEED a car to go to work, and I might just love that red Ferrari parked over there.
> 
> The car is something I need, the Ferrari is something I fancy. I have a family and people that lives on the money I earn.
> So I have other priorieties. I will just fancy the Ferrari, but never go through to buy it.
> Because it's not a need, it's something I fancy at a given moment, not having it will not kill me, but will enable me to pursue my priorities.
> 
> And anyway if I steal it, the police will never buy that "unmet need" **** I'd try to feed 'em


I posted an image of Maslows Triangle. I think it states quite clearly what can be considered a 'need.' A need is something that you have to have to develop into a healthy human being, and remain so. A want is something you would like to have.


----------



## italianjob

Cosmos said:


> I posted an image of Maslows Triangle. I think it states quite clearly what can be considered needs.


I know, I was highlighting the fact that I think what that poster meant was that the "unmet needs" argument is often used for things that are not really needs (not even considering the triangle)


----------



## jld

Personal said:


> Lest he suffer the consequences?


Personal. Not every man is afraid of his wife. My husband is certainly not afraid of me.

What do you mean by consequences?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> This is fascinating. On one level, I read your post and I go - that makes so much sense.
> 
> And then - on another level I have to contend with the reality of what actually happened. What actually happened was much more of an Esther Perel styled 'mating in captivity' scenario.
> 
> To be fair, I picked a good person. So when her biology conflicted with her vows - she held on - by a thread. But she was going slowly mad with desire.
> 
> The OM - in a bar - in terms of raw attractiveness - he would bury me. That is just an objective fact.
> 
> So the thing Marduk is saying about being ruthless - in my experience - was totally and absolutely effective. Not cruel. Not aggressive. Just completely ruthless. That TURNED M2 ON IN A WAY THAT I HAVE YET TO SEE SINCE.
> 
> Caps for emphasis. I'm not at all put off by this exchange.
> 
> I'm a little too patterned for her. Breaking pattern like that - and then not budging while she screamed and raged at me - made her WANT me.
> 
> And of this I'm certain. I absolutely accepted that the way I broke pattern MIGHT kill the marriage. Thing is I'd rather be single then be in a 'pretend' marriage.


MEM, would you say that during most of your marriage, your wife has generally not seen you as being very powerful in the relationship?

I'm just trying to understand the dynamic between you two a little better.


----------



## GusPolinski

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> I can't like this enough.
> 
> And I'm going to emphasize a point here that is a huge deal to me.
> 
> There are posters who compare infidelity to 'abusing' their partner.
> 
> Generally abuse - is something - I do TO someone else.
> 
> Cheating is a betrayal yes. But typically I do it FOR me, not AGAINST you.


What was it that you said elsewhere in the thread...?

"If the effect is the same" or something along those lines...? I believe you were talking to @Pluto2.

Did I misread that?

And either way, isn't abuse something that the abuser does for himself or herself? Doesn't it essentially boil down to feeding an insecurity?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 1. Yes, both of them need to look at the events that led up to the cheating. Were EN met? Were they spending 15 hours a week together, Were they still in love?
> 
> Then- Can we move past this? I don't believe, like many others, that a WS needs to be punished for years and just take it without question.
> So if the BS can't move past it (and that isn't a fault of theirs) then divorce. It's totally ok.
> 
> If you've decided you're going to put the past in the past and work on the future then you move on to- in what ways can we prevent this from getting so bad again?
> 
> 15 hours a week together (more at first) alone
> EN being met on both sides
> NO independent behavior
> Open and honest at all times.
> 
> That goes for both of them. It's not a punishment, it's a new set of house rules that should have been followed a long time ago.
> 
> In MB you can see couples who, yes, were never the same. They were better. That's the goal. To have a better marriage at the end of it all.
> Would it have been better if they both woke up before the cheating and did this work? Of course. But they didn't so you're working with what you got.
> 
> IMO *what I did* is the reason the affair ended and he got out of his fog and remembered he loved me and wanted to NC and move forward and I believe it can work for others too. Not everyone but the idea isn't "allowed" on the CWI forums so I try to stay away.


Aside from taking issue w/ some of the terminology that you used, ^this^ sounds reasonable to me.

That said, would you mind providing a bit more detail w/ respect to the "what I did" portion of your reply?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> OK, so back to this...
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely what is it in anything that I, @marduk, or anyone else has contributed w/ respect to accountability as it relates to either infidelity or reconciliation that gives you this impression?
> 
> Marduk and far and MEM and I have had some conversations where this has been discussed.
> 
> Regardless of your answer, you're wrong. Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that.
> 
> When we talk about accountability as it relates to infidelity (or, to be more accurate, as it relates to reconciliation in the aftermath of infidelity), what we're talking about is requiring acknowledgment from the WS that, while the state of the marriage pre-affair may not have been ideal, his or her decision to cheat is 100% his or hers to own. Ideally, this would be voluntarily given; in fact, the value of such an acknowledgement diminishes if it has to be coerced. The value of owning an action or feeling 100% is that it empowers us to either change it, when possible, or at least make a different decision next time. If I stole candy from a candy store, and I 100% own my decision, and don't just say that my friend did it, too, and that somehow makes it all right, then next time, no matter what my friend does, I can quite firmly decide not to do it. I am empowered to act independently of influences around me.
> 
> There’s also the notion that the WS, being not only an adult but also a _willing_ partner in said marriage, is responsible for _roughly_ 50% of any dysfunction that existed in the marriage prior to the affair. That said, things like substance abuse, spousal abuse, etc will obviously skew those numbers somewhat, assuming, of course, that any transgressions involving such offenses were NOT committed by both parties. (And, again, if this has to be coerced in any way, it won’t be as meaningful as it would’ve been otherwise.) 50% is arbitrary. I agree that each situation needs to be looked at individually. Some people have more capability to act independently than others. We do not all have the same degree of strength.
> 
> When we talk about a WS doing his or her part to aid his or her BS’s healing (i.e. the “heavy lifting”), what we’re referring to is the idea that the WS should absolutely do all the things that could reasonably be expected of a wife or husband in order to communicate love, respect, and devotion, _along w/ an intent to be faithful going forward_, while simultaneously doing NONE of the things that could be seen by any reasonable person as communicating the exact opposite. (See aforementioned statements regarding coercion and diminishing returns). To what end? Serious question.
> 
> If she has to do it so he feels safer, he needs to acknowledge his dependence on her.
> 
> If he wants her to do it for her own empowerment, that would not signal dependence to me
> 
> After all, given that the point of reconciliation is to forge a new, better, and stronger marriage, BOTH parties have a role to play in terms of creating the landscape of that new relationship… correct? Yes.
> 
> Now… what we’re NOT saying in any of this is that the BS is or should feel entitled to endlessly mope around w/o any sort of aim, direction, or goal. While it’s obvious and understandable that there WILL be a certain amount of pain associated w/ the infidelity from the BS’s perspective, if he or she doesn’t welcome the healing process, it’s not going to begin as optimally as it would otherwise, if at all. I am sure he is grieving. But for his own empowerment, the more responsibility he can take for his feelings, then the less pain, and more agency, he is going to feel.
> 
> Still, I can tell you from my own experience that nothing helps to accelerate the healing process like a willing, engaged, and remorseful FORMER wayward willing to take accountability for his or her poor behavior. That’s the other half of the equation. I think it depends on the amount of dependence you have on your partner. It is surely on a scale.
> 
> Gus, what I think that you cannot comprehend, because it is not your reality, is that not all men are emotionally dependent on their wives. There are men that are emotionally independent. Their approach to infidelity would likely look very different from yours.
> 
> You and I have a disconnect because you are in a different power dynamic than I am. 50/50 could not work for me, because I am wired to give away power to a man. And a male submissive/female dominant relationship would never work for me, because I cannot take responsibility for a man. It is not just a question of will. It is a question of ability.
> 
> And honestly, that is the problem most men who disagree with me on TAM have with me: they are, to my mind, men desperate for their wives to take emotional care of them. And not only can I not personally do that, but I totally understand why other women would not want to, either. If a woman is not wired that way, it is surely going to be a source of disappointment for her to even be asked to.
> 
> And yes, if the marriage is to be FULLY reconciled, then both the infidelity AND the state of the marriage pre-affair (where applicable) will need to be addressed. After all, neither the affair nor any transgressions committed prior to it offers absolution to either the WS or BS for his or her role in either. This is just common sense. One came about because of the other. You may disagree, but I think this is usually the case.


----------



## jld

italianjob said:


> Sure... Agreed.
> 
> But I think that what the poster wanted to express was that the word "need" is often overused around here.
> 
> Not everything that we fancy at one time or antoher in our life is a need.
> 
> I might NEED a car to go to work, and I might just love that red Ferrari parked over there.
> 
> The car is something I need, the Ferrari is something I fancy. I have a family and people that lives on the money I earn.
> So I have other priorieties. I will just fancy the Ferrari, but never go through to buy it.
> Because it's not a need, it's something I fancy at a given moment, not having it will not kill me, but will enable me to pursue my priorities.
> 
> And anyway if I steal it, the police will never buy that "unmet need" **** I'd try to feed 'em


So sex in marriage is not a need, either?


----------



## italianjob

jld said:


> So sex in marriage is not a need, either?


Sure it is, but more sex, or different sex not necessarily...


----------



## jld

italianjob said:


> Sure it is, but more sex, or different sex not necessarily...


It's not food, air or water, right?


----------



## italianjob

jld said:


> It's not food, air or water, right?


?


----------



## Personal

jld said:


> Personal. Not every man is afraid of his wife. My husband is certainly not afraid of me.
> 
> What do you mean by consequences?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I concur and having said that I also don't presume he fears you at all.

As to consequences...

If your husband were to tell you he found your tantrums unacceptable you would consider him submissive? If you consider him submissive there will be consequences?

Therefore if he wishes to avoid the consequences of being considered submissive by you, he would be obliged to accept your tantrums.

Do you understand that accepting another's tantrums in order to avoid being considered submissive is a submissive act?


----------



## jld

italianjob said:


> ?


Isn't that the argument that you and BP were trying to make? That attention is not a true need? And so neglect is not really a problem?


----------



## jld

Personal said:


> I concur and having said that I also don't presume he fears you at all.
> 
> As to consequences...
> 
> If your husband were to tell you he found your tantrums unacceptable you would consider him submissive? If you consider him submissive there will be consequences?
> 
> Therefore if he wishes to avoid the consequences of being considered submissive by you, he would be obliged to accept your tantrums.
> 
> Do you understand ithat accepting another's tantrums in order to avoid being considered submissive is a submissive act?


There is no acting going on here, Personal. I am about as genuine with my husband, and he with me, as two humans can be.

I get upset when he is not listening. And when I say not listening, I mean repeatedly not paying attention to me. Or completely forgetting what we probably just a short time before spent an hour talking about.

I don't plan on screaming at him. It is not a "strategy." It is definitely organic! Just comes right out in the moment!

He knows perfectly well when I am angry it is because he was not listening, was just totally disregarding my feelings. It is not some shocker.

He is not worried about being considered submissive. He knows he is not. And if I thought he were, I never would have been attracted to him. I cannot take care of a man.

If your wife is yelling at you, you have to look at why. Telling her to stop yelling, rather than just hearing her out (and don't forget, what is screamed out in anger, like something said when drunk--as another poster noted--is often important truth), is just showing your own weakness. It's like leaving the room. It just communicates you can't handle her anger. 

And if you can't, you can't. If you need her to talk to you in a certain way, then that is what you need. If you need her to only approach you when you are able to hear her, then that is what you need. If she loves you and is able to meet your needs that way, then good enough. I am just not that kind of woman.

I guess I am wondering, do a lot of you men worry about what you look like to your wives? I don't think Dug does. I think he is just himself, all the time. 

What you want is to be strong, truly strong. Nothing she says can threaten you, because you are secure in yourself, and secure in your love for her.

When you are secure like that, you feel compassion for her suffering, and you make changes in yourself when you are the cause of it. You don't insist that *she* change. You know that your own behavior will change hers, anyway.


----------



## italianjob

jld said:


> Isn't that the argument that you and BP were trying to make? That attention is not a true need? And so neglect is not really a problem?


Not really, that's your all-or-nothing interpretation. 

I think what BP meant is that it's an argument that is often extended to include anything

Getting adequate attention is an emotional need. Wanting too much is a desire, not a need, taking it to extremes is a pathology.

Not getting enough attention in certain moments of life should be something that happens and that most balanced people can get through without problem, if you go elsewhere as soon as circumstances (somebody's illness, a work problem) make attention diminish for some time, is not getting a need met, is being selfish IMO.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Isn't that the argument that you and BP were trying to make? That attention is not a true need? And so neglect is not really a problem?


I don't think it's a need per say. I won't die without it. I consider it a want. But that's all semantics anyway and there really isn't a point to it. 

I never said neglect isn't a problem. It is a very big problem. So is not cleaning a mans house, cooking for him, staying attractive. Those are "needs" too according to the book and they are just as important as neglect. However, if a husband cheats cause his wife didn't lose the baby weight fast enough wouldn't garner the kind of sympathy as you try to invoke but it should. How important "Needs" are depends on the person.

Have you ever seen a real needy person? I have. I have dated women who I know I could not meet there neediness and still have my own life and hobbies. Those needs are fluid also. They are not set for life they change over time. 

Anyways....The point is......We of the OLD TAM Guard do not have a problem with a BS working on himself, realizing his faults in his failed relationship, counseling for childhood issues, treatment for codependency. I encourage it. 

BUT I DO NOT AGREE WITH A BS BECOMING A CUCKOLD, DOING NOTHING TO END THE AFFAIR, ALLOWING A WS TO CAKE EAT EMOTIONALLY, FINANCIALLY and disgustingly enough SEXUALLY from a BS.

The affair has to be pulverized and the WS out of the fog before I think it is healthy enough for a BS to let his guard down and be vulnerable. I think vulnerability during an ongoing affair shows weakness and pushes the WS deeper into the AP's arms. 

TAM has shown time after time you cannot NICE a WS back. Even Dr. Harley recommends exposure and financial strain to bust up the affair and bring them out of the fog. 

I think your methods are sound once you are certain you have a remorseful WS who wants his/her marriage to succeed. However, someone like Grid's wife. NO WAY!


----------



## Pluto2

GusPolinski said:


> What was it that you said elsewhere in the thread...?
> 
> "If the effect is the same" or something along those lines...? I believe you were talking to @Pluto2.
> 
> Did I misread that?
> 
> And either way, isn't abuse something that the abuser does for himself or herself? Doesn't it essentially boil down to feeding an insecurity?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No I think you got that right. To MEM, apparently, what he perceives as my ex's (as an example) motivations prevail. He perceived my ex's abuse as a disease, and his infidelities as selfishness-so ...... I'm guessing that distinction ought to have warranted different reactions from me......or perhaps MEM believed that my perceptions of those events were self-motivated, hence selfish (as in self-interested).

Clearly, not every one who abuses a spouse, cheats, And not everyone who cheats engages in separate acts of emotional/physical abuse.

I believe attempts to shift responsibility for your infidelity or your situation in life, and foisting that responsibility on to your spouse is a form of emotional abuse. It is an attempt to make yourself feel better, superior, or justified while purposefully inflicting emotional harm on another. When my ex exploded and yelled at me that his ED was my fault because I wasn't any good-that was a form of blame-shifting and an example of emotional and verbal abuse. He did not want to take any ownership for his physical or emotional health.

When a spouse says they crawled in bed with another person because you didn't meet my emotional needs---I see no difference. If your needs are being met, fix it. If you choose to fix that through infidelity-own it.

Good luck Gus.
While several posters have said this forum is a place to present different views, there remains very little openness.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

GusPolinski said:


> Aside from taking issue w/ some of the terminology that you used, ^this^ sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> That said, would you mind providing a bit more detail w/ respect to the "what I did" portion of your reply?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Before the affair ended:
I admitted my faults and acknowledged that some of my failings left him vulnerable for an affair.
I agreed to let go of past resentments and make the changes needed if we were to go forward. 
I showed him what he would be missing if he chose to not NC the affair (was myself at home, continued to meet his needs)

Along with that I made it clear what would change going forward (the time together, the openness, the stopping independent behavior)

He ended his affair that week (the previous 2 I was a wreck, pushing him away with my emotions and having a breakdown) but I didn't get the whole truth for about another week and full NC came just after that.

Since then he has shown true remorse, he understand what a stupid choice he made and that no matter what is going on, that choice was wrong. 
He's humiliated by his choice, he hates what he did, he doesn't excuse it in anyway. 
He stopped all IB just on his own. I don't have to ask or remind him. If I don't want to go somewhere with him, he just doesn't want to go.
He doesn't have any passwords, I can go through whatever I want although I haven't felt the urge to in a while now, I still get all his texts because I keep forgetting to shut it off. 
I can talk about it when I need to, he reassures me when he needs to. 

Our marriage now is better than it ever was. Not perfect and we still have some work to do but we are both putting in the effort. We see what happens when you get complacent and resentful and if we want to avoid that ever happening again, we have to keep making effort. 


1 important fact- it wasn't until after he was out of his fog that he really saw what he had done, he wasn't able to give me the kind of remorse and understanding that I needed until after. So my admitting my own faults was a bit of a free pass for him at that time, not to continue the affair but as a cracked open door that he could feel like if he chose to stop the affair, he could come back in and not get his nose whacked with a newspaper. 
It was me doing the work until his fog was gone. I had to listen to a lot of blameshifting, gas lighting during that time. I pushed through and demanded only that he go NC and work on us. 

Once he was out of his A and the fog gone, I got everything I needed in return (without having to ask for it) and he will constantly tell me how amazed he is that I "did that for him" and how horrible he was when I was being so loving. 

People don't like being scolded or told they are wrong. They can push back, get defensive. I gave him love and a little bit of time until he woke up and thought "OMG, what did I just do" on his own. I couldn't demand remorse, I couldn't lecture him into it. I had to create a safe place at home for when he figured that out. 

If I continued to be the angry, pushing away, "how dare you" woman at home, I would have been confirming his ideas that "ya, I totally had to cheat because home life is so demanding and stressful, she won't meet any of my needs and worse, if I go back now she'll have even MORE ammo to use against me"

OW- no kids, no bills (lived with family), no stress, drank everyday and went to bars, spending money on slot machines. That feels and looks good for the 40 year old man who's home life is negativity and chores and kids and demands. 

I'm not going to compete with that, I'm going to show him why me and the home, and the kids and the chores are a better choice. I'm going to understand his need for some more recreation time, more praise, more admiration and include it in with the family and the wife and home.
At that point it was a no brainer for him.


----------



## jld

italianjob said:


> Not really, that's your all-or-nothing interpretation.
> 
> I think what BP meant is that it's an argument that is often extended to include anything
> 
> Getting adequate attention is an emotional need. Wanting too much is a desire, not a need, taking it to extremes is a pathology.
> 
> Not getting enough attention in certain moments of life should be something that happens and that most balanced people can get through without problem, if you go elsewhere as soon as circumstances (somebody's illness, a work problem) make attention diminish for some time, is not getting a need met, is being selfish IMO.


Who decides what "too much" is?

There are needs. You try to meet them, and get them met. If you can't, the marriage is likely to dissolve someday, or be really unhappy if it does survive.


----------



## italianjob

jld said:


> Who decides what "too much" is?
> 
> There are needs. You try to meet them, and get them met. If you can't, the marriage is likely to dissolve someday, or be really unhappy if it does survive.


Not all of them are needs, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I don't think it's a need per say. I won't die without it. I consider it a want. But that's all semantics anyway and there really isn't a point to it.
> 
> I never said neglect isn't a problem. It is a very big problem. So is not cleaning a mans house, cooking for him, staying attractive. Those are "needs" too according to the book and they are just as important as neglect. However, if a husband cheats cause his wife didn't lose the baby weight fast enough wouldn't garner the kind of sympathy as you try to invoke but it should. How important "Needs" are depends on the person.
> 
> Have you ever seen a real needy person? I have. I have dated women who I know I could not meet there neediness and still have my own life and hobbies. Those needs are fluid also. They are not set for life they change over time.
> 
> Anyways....The point is......We of the OLD TAM Guard do not have a problem with a BS working on himself, realizing his faults in his failed relationship, counseling for childhood issues, treatment for codependency. I encourage it.
> 
> BUT I DO NOT AGREE WITH A BS BECOMING A CUCKOLD, DOING NOTHING TO END THE AFFAIR, ALLOWING A WS TO CAKE EAT EMOTIONALLY, FINANCIALLY and disgustingly enough SEXUALLY from a BS.
> 
> The affair has to be pulverized and the WS out of the fog before I think it is healthy enough for a BS to let his guard down and be vulnerable. I think vulnerability during an ongoing affair shows weakness and pushes the WS deeper into the AP's arms.
> 
> TAM has shown time after time you cannot NICE a WS back. Even Dr. Harley recommends exposure and financial strain to bust up the affair and bring them out of the fog.
> 
> I think your methods are sound once you are certain you have a remorseful WS who wants his/her marriage to succeed. However, someone like Grid's wife. NO WAY!


Grid's wife likely felt disconnected for a long time before her affair. It was always going to be a challenge to come back from that. But when a man loves a woman, it is always worth trying.

And letter #1 shows a man one way to do it.

And, with SGC, I would say that TAM's specialty is showing you how to get divorced, not how to truly repair and rebuild a marriage.


----------



## happy as a clam

jld said:


> *I don't plan on screaming at him.* It is not a "strategy." It is definitely organic! *Just comes right out* in the moment!


With all due respect, this sounds like a horrid dynamic for poor Dug. Uncontrolled screaming wouldn't work for my guy...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> There is no acting going on here, Personal. I am about as genuine with my husband, and he with me, as two humans can be.
> 
> I get upset when he is not listening. And when I say not listening, I mean repeatedly not paying attention to me. Or completely forgetting what we probably just a short time before spent an hour talking about.
> 
> I don't plan on screaming at him. It is not a "strategy." It is definitely organic! Just comes right out in the moment!
> 
> He knows perfectly well when I am angry it is because he was not listening,* was just totally disregarding my feelings.* It is not some shocker.
> 
> He is not worried about being considered submissive. He knows he is not. And if I thought he were, I never would have been attracted to him. I cannot take care of a man.
> 
> If your wife is yelling at you, you have to look at why. Telling her to stop yelling, rather than just hearing her out (and don't forget, what is screamed out in anger, like something said when drunk--as another poster noted--is often important truth), is just showing your own weakness. It's like leaving the room. It just communicates you can't handle her anger.
> 
> And if you can't, you can't. If you need her to talk to you in a certain way, then that is what you need. If you need her to only approach you when you are able to hear her, then that is what you need. If she loves you and is able to meet your needs that way, then good enough. I am just not that kind of woman.
> 
> I guess I am wondering, do a lot of you men worry about what you look like to your wives? I don't think Dug does. I think he is just himself, all the time.
> 
> What you want is to be strong, truly strong. Nothing she says can threaten you, because you are secure in yourself, and secure in your love for her.
> 
> When you are secure like that, you feel compassion for her suffering, and you make changes in yourself when you are the cause of it. You don't insist that *she* change. You know that your own behavior will change hers, anyway.


Do you think that sometimes dug, maybe even on a subconscious level, seems to disregard your feelings just to provoke your response because he has no feelings of his own? Sort of like a diabetic who needs to take insulin because their body is simply incapable of making its own?

Are you terrified of emotion in men because there may be some expectation implied that you need to do something, and are afraid of failing to do the right thing?

The more that you reveal through your writing here, I can help but see a picture forming of a very insecure and scared little girl.


----------



## italianjob

jld said:


> Grid's wife likely felt disconnected for a long time before her affair. It was always going to be a challenge to come back from that. But when a man loves a woman, it is always worth trying.
> 
> And letter #1 shows a man one way to do it.
> 
> And, with SGC, I would say that TAM's specialty is showing you how to get divorced, not how to *truly* repair and rebuild a marriage.


I don't think your advice would *truly* repair anything in that case

To give up your self esteem and your sense of self, so the other spouse can have his/her way and stay is not *truly repairing* and it won't make for an happy situation in the long run


----------



## Personal

@jld I'm in bed with a head cold that is keeping me up, while using the iPad as my wife is snoozing next to me. So I can't quote easily to address your response properly like if I were using my desktop or laptop computer so I will respond properly later.

That said I just wanted to say I don't think you are acting at all, and I also don't think your losing it on occasion is anything but an expression of in the moment heartfelt frustration while wanting him to understand you to your core.

Anyway the bit about worrying what one's wife looks like I have no idea what other men think, look in a kaleidoscope and you'll get a smorgasbord of answers. As to myself I am who I am, my wife accepts that or she doesn't, it's not something I've ever worryied about. Likewise I don't insist my wife be anything other than who she is even as we have both changed through many years.

Anyway as I said proper response later.

P.S. You haven't answered my last question.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Grid's wife likely felt disconnected for a long time before her affair. It was always going to be a challenge to come back from that. But when a man loves a woman, it is always worth trying.
> 
> And letter #1 shows a man one way to do it.
> 
> And, with SGC, I would say that TAM's specialty is showing you how to get divorced, not how to truly repair and rebuild a marriage.


Well.....after infidelity divorce is going to be the most common ending.

Let's be real here. That's not a TAM thing. That's an infidelity thing.

Believe it or not sometimes divorce is a success. I believe my story was a reconciliation success for like 4 years now. There are many others too. Reconciliation is always going to be a long shot after infidelity no matter what method you try. 

I believe divorce after infidelity is most commonly the right answer. The reason I reconciled with my wife was because I truly believed she was not a selfish person who placed her needs above her husbands and children but a woman who lost control of her life thru a mind altering drug addiction and made some really poor decisions as a result.

Grid's wife.....She's just plain selfish and entitled. She is doing him a favor.


----------



## jld

happy as a clam said:


> With all due respect, this sounds like a horrid dynamic for poor Dug. Uncontrolled screaming wouldn't work for my guy...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Would he leave you?


----------



## ButtPunch

italianjob said:


> I don't think your advice would *truly* repair anything in that case
> 
> To give up your self esteem and your sense of self, so the other spouse can have his/her way and stay is not *truly repairing* and it won't make for an happy situation in the long run


NO it is total manipulation.


----------



## EllisRedding

happy as a clam said:


> With all due respect, this sounds like a horrid dynamic for poor Dug. Uncontrolled screaming wouldn't work for my guy...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lol, hate to be the bearer of bad news but sounds like you have a weak/insecure guy. Only when he is willing to accept childlike tantrums from an adult will he finally rise to power and accept his place at the throne :grin2:


----------



## ButtPunch

EllisRedding said:


> Lol, hate to be the bearer of bad news but sounds like you have a weak/insecure guy. Only when he is willing to accept childlike tantrums from an adult will he finally rise to power and accept his place at the throne :grin2:


Exactly........I get that feeling as well.

The number one way a woman controls a man is to let them think they are in control.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> Grid's wife likely felt disconnected for a long time before her affair. It was always going to be a challenge to come back from that. But when a man loves a woman, it is always worth trying.
> 
> And letter #1 shows a man one way to do it.
> 
> And, with SGC, *I would say that TAM's specialty is showing you how to get divorced, not how to truly repair and rebuild a marriage.*


I would say TAM's speciality at least in CWI (coping with infidelity) is:
confirming the affair we have had a few posters, (very few) that suspected and it was not an affair.
stopping the affair (you can't save a marriage with an on going affair (you can't reconcile with an on going affair))
and letter #1 may be one way but it is the worst way and just plan [email protected] It did not work for me.
protecting one self from a false R
keeping yourself out of limbo
be willing to lose your marriage to save it.

and even with divorce their still can be R


----------



## happy as a clam

samyeagar said:


> The more that you reveal through your writing here, I can help but see a picture forming of a very insecure and scared little girl.


:iagree:


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Do you think that sometimes dug, maybe even on a subconscious level, seems to disregard your feelings just to provoke your response because he has no feelings of his own? Sort of like a diabetic who needs to take insulin because their body is simply incapable of making its own?
> He does not try to provoke me. When he thinks about my feelings, he is gentle with them. He is just very much into his own thoughts and interests, and sometimes I get left behind.
> 
> Are you terrified of emotion in men because there may be some expectation implied that you need to do something, and are afraid of failing to do the right thing? I can't handle neediness in men. And I seem to define that much more liberally than most.
> 
> I cannot take care of a man. I am not attracted to what I see as needy men. It must be an instinct that that is not the kind of man who can take care of me, and I absolutely need that.
> 
> The more that you reveal through your writing here, I can help but see a picture forming of a very insecure and scared little girl. Yes, very much the scared and insecure little girl. But Dug is okay with that.


----------



## Pluto2

@jld, in all honesty, what are you going to do if, one day Dug, wants more than a scared and insecure little girl for a partner?


----------



## happy as a clam

jld said:


> Yes, very much the scared and insecure little girl. But Dug is okay with that.


Fair enough, but I would venture to say that most women do not view themselves as "scared and insecure little girls."

So please stop offering advice to men whose wives cheated on them under your assumption that their wives are just scared little girls.

It is very harmful to make these assumptions when you don't know these people from Adam.


----------



## jld

Personal said:


> Do you understand that accepting another's tantrums in order to avoid being considered submissive is a submissive act?


He is not trying to avoid anything. And he is certainly not worried about being considered submissive. He knows he is not. I already answered this question.

I think submissive would be insisting she stop screaming, or leaving the room if she does. In short, being reactive to her, and needing her to calm *you* by altering *her* behavior. Because otherwise you do not feel safe with her. See the neediness? 

Neediness is submissive. It is depending on someone instead of providing it yourself.

I think a dominant approach is to listen to her and calm her by seeking to understand why she is screaming. Staying with her is reassuring to her. It shows her that no matter how angry she gets, you are strong enough, and love her enough, to stay present with her.

Lol, sounds like my signature.

Sorry you are sick, btw.


----------



## convert

samyeagar said:


> Do you think that sometimes dug, maybe even on a subconscious level, seems to disregard your feelings just to provoke your response because he has no feelings of his own? Sort of like a diabetic who needs to take insulin because their body is simply incapable of making its own?
> 
> *Are you terrified of emotion in men* because there may be some expectation implied that you need to do something, and are afraid of failing to do the right thing?
> 
> The more that you reveal through your writing here, I can help but see a picture forming of a very insecure and scared little girl.


jld, you said you were shocked when your husband cried on learning you son had cancer.
I think this is the most natural response a person man or women would have.
again I would be more shocked if he didn't cry or show any emotion.

Did you cry upon learn this news?


----------



## convert

happy as a clam said:


> Fair enough, but I would venture to say that most women do not view themselves as "scared and insecure little girls."
> 
> So please stop offering advice to men whose wives cheated on them under your assumption that their wives are just scared little girls.
> 
> It is very harmful to make these assumptions when you don't know these people from Adam.


I agree

happy-as-a-clam, you being the exact opposite of a scared little girl @ 3 set of 10 military style pull-ups @ 50 years of age:grin2:


----------



## happy as a clam

convert said:


> I agree
> 
> happy-as-a-clam, you being the *exact opposite of a scared little girl* @ 3 set of 10 military style pull-ups @ 50 years of age:grin2:


Why thank you, @convert!

You are correct... I view myself as a confident, mature, *grown woman*. And very proud to be one .


----------



## ocotillo

ButtPunch said:


> I don't think it's a need per say. I won't die without it. I consider it a want. But that's all semantics anyway and there really isn't a point to it.


With respect, BP, it is not a matter of semantics. 

Sematics is the logic of meaning. "Abstain from wine" is a semantic equivalent to, "Do not drink wine." The words are different, but the basic meaning is the same.

You appear to be confusing two different meanings; "Need" and "Necessity." 

Food, air, water, shelter, warmth, etc. are *necessities* because we will die without them. 

Human are social creatures with needs that go far beyond the objective and material though. 

If, for example, you were to be locked up in a small, dimly lit grey prison cell, with no window, a solid door, nothing to read, nothing to see, nobody to talk to, not even the guard who periodically slips food through a slot in the door, you would probably lose your mind in less than a year. 

Human conversation is not a necessity in the sense that you will die without it, but it is a need in the sense that it is important to your mental health.

And that's the distinction we're talking about here. It's a distinction of definition, not semantics.


----------



## jld

italianjob said:


> I don't think your advice would *truly* repair anything in that case
> 
> To give up your self esteem and your sense of self, so the other spouse can have his/her way and stay is not *truly repairing* and it won't make for an happy situation in the long run


I disagree. 

Both partners need to work together to identify their needs and then start meeting them.

I think a lot of what we are arguing about here is pride. Pride has no place in marriage. Vulnerability, absolutely. But pride, no.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> *He does not try to provoke me. When he thinks about my feelings, he is gentle with them. He is just very much into his own thoughts and interests, and sometimes I get left behind. *


I think this is part of the disconnect many feel with you. Many, if not most women here say the exact same thing as a huge problem in their relationships...feeling left behind, not feeling heard, their husbands being self absorbed. While it seems to evoke strong emotion in you, are you dependent on feeling those emotions? Would you feel safe in your relationship if dug didn't completely disregard you at times? Do you think on possibly a subconscious level you need to feel disregarded as a way to compensate for dugs lack of emotion? That you need him to get lost in his own world, leaving you behind so you can see him stand and take your emotional outburst so you can be reminded that he loves you and cares for you? That if he did stop disregarding you, your feelings would not be evoked, and since he is largely devoid of feelings, there would be no feelings left in the relationship, including love and safety?

Which leads to the following...



> *I cannot take care of a man. I am not attracted to what I see as needy men. It must be an instinct that that is not the kind of man who can take care of me, and I absolutely need that.*


You tolerate what many others would chose not to.


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> I think a lot of what we are arguing about here is pride. Pride has no place in marriage. Vulnerability, absolutely. But pride, no.


I am unable to find words sufficient enough to express the degree to which I disagree with this.

which is probably why I disagree with your advice to BS.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Well.....after infidelity divorce is going to be the most common ending.
> 
> Let's be real here. That's not a TAM thing. That's an infidelity thing.
> 
> Believe it or not sometimes divorce is a success. I believe my story was a reconciliation success for like 4 years now. There are many others too. Reconciliation is always going to be a long shot after infidelity no matter what method you try.
> 
> I believe divorce after infidelity is most commonly the right answer. The reason I reconciled with my wife was because I truly believed she was not a selfish person who placed her needs above her husbands and children but a woman who lost control of her life thru a mind altering drug addiction and made some really poor decisions as a result.
> 
> Grid's wife.....She's just plain selfish and entitled. She is doing him a favor.


She is seeing the practical reality of life without him. I think he is going to see it without her, too.

I think people can grow more through reconciliation, if it's a real one, than through divorce. Yes, divorce is freeing. And there are certainly times when it is the healthiest choice. But in reconciliation, each partner is forced to examine him or herself pretty deeply. Problems are not usually one-sided. And if they are, one would wonder why the other stays.

In your marriage, it seems to me like your wife has done most of the work in the reconciliation. The rigorous honesty required in 12 step programs has surely been helpful to her. Have you worked through any of that material, BP?


----------



## italianjob

jld said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Both partners need to work together to identify their needs and then start meeting them.
> 
> I think a lot of what we are arguing about here is pride. Pride has no place in marriage. Vulnerability, absolutely. But pride, no.


Pride and Self Esteem are two very different things. You can't really live well with yourself without the second.

You confuse them all of the time, that's your mistake n. 1


----------



## jld

italianjob said:


> Not all of them are needs, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


My feeling is that if sex is a need, then attention is, too.

I think nature provides balance and natural interplay between the sexes. Give her attention, get enthusiastic sex. Risky to try to short circuit the process.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> NO it is total manipulation.


How so?


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Exactly........I get that feeling as well.
> 
> The number one way a woman controls a man is to let them think they are in control.


I think *some* women are this way. The amount of care they feel they need to provide so that he does not feel threatened by them indicates it.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> I would say TAM's speciality at least in CWI (coping with infidelity) is:
> confirming the affair we have had a few posters, (very few) that suspected and it was not an affair.
> stopping the affair (you can't save a marriage with an on going affair (you can't reconcile with an on going affair))
> and letter #1 may be one way but it is the worst way and just plan [email protected] It did not work for me.
> protecting one self from a false R
> keeping yourself out of limbo
> be willing to lose your marriage to save it.
> 
> and even with divorce their still can be R


But divorce is expensive and disruptive. If it can be avoided, at least when children are involved, why not?


----------



## GusPolinski

happy as a clam said:


> With all due respect, this sounds like a horrid dynamic for poor Dug. Uncontrolled screaming wouldn't work for my guy...


In all fairness, _most_ fathers probably expect to see at least _some_ of this in their daughters from time to time.


----------



## ButtPunch

ocotillo said:


> With respect, BP, it is not a matter of semantics.
> 
> Sematics is the logic of meaning. "Abstain from wine" is a semantic equivalent to, "Do not drink wine." The words are different, but the basic meaning is the same.
> 
> You appear to be confusing two different meanings; "Need" and "Necessity."
> 
> Food, air, water, shelter, warmth, etc. are *necessities* because we will die without them.
> 
> Human are social creatures with needs that go far beyond the objective and material though.
> 
> If, for example, you were to be locked up in a small, dimly lit grey prison cell, with no window, a solid door, nothing to read, nothing to see, nobody to talk to, not even the guard who periodically slips food through a slot in the door, you would probably lose your mind in less than a year.
> 
> Human conversation is not a necessity in the sense that you will die without it, but it is a need in the sense that it is important to your mental health.
> 
> And that's the distinction we're talking about here. It's a distinction of definition, not semantics.


I just looked up necessity in an online thesaurus..... need is what it gave me.


----------



## happy as a clam

samyeagar said:


> Would you feel safe in your relationship if dug didn't completely disregard you at times? Do you think on possibly a subconscious level you need to feel disregarded as a way to compensate for dugs lack of emotion? That you need him to get lost in his own world, leaving you behind so you can see him stand and take your *emotional outburst* so you can be reminded that he loves you and cares for you?


Bingo! 

It seems to me that jld has unmet FOO issues that require her to _act out_ (screaming at Dug) in order to get those unmet needs met. That's why she feels like a scared little girl. It's a dynamic that works for very few couples because most normal relationships cannot survive repeated acting out by one partner or the other. Hence, Gus's astute observation that less than 1% of people could thrive in this type of dynamic.

Acting-out is best treated through intensive therapy. Not more screaming.



samyeagar said:


> You tolerate what many others would choose not to.


Bingo even more.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> But divorce is expensive and disruptive. If it can be avoided, at least when children are involved, why not?


A dysfunctional marriage is more damaging to kids emotional well being and upbringing than divorce.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> But *divorce is expensive and disruptive*. If it can be avoided, at least when children are involved, why not?


It does not have to be, and dysfunctional marriage can be just as disruptive if not more with the children.

I agree with you Buttpunch, I post above before I saw your post.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> But divorce is expensive and disruptive. If it can be avoided, at least when children are involved, why not?


If the WS refuses to not only change his or her destructive behavior, but also to work to repair the damage wrought by it... then why _should_ divorce be avoided?


----------



## samyeagar

happy as a clam said:


> Bingo!
> 
> It seems to me that jld has unmet FOO issues that require her to _act out_ in order to get these unmet need met. That's why she feels like a scared little girl. It's a dynamic that works for very few couples because most normal relationships cannot survive repeated acting out. Hence, Gus's astute observation that less than 1% of people could thrive in this type of dynamic.
> 
> Acting-out is best treated through therapy.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo even more.


Sort of a variation on why some people cut themselves...to feel the pain to remind themselves that they are alive. Only with jld, it is emotional cutting, and she has an emotionless partner in dug that enables her to continue without challenging her.


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> @jld, in all honesty, what are you going to do if, one day Dug, wants more than a scared and insecure little girl for a partner?


Not worried about it. Been together 22 years, married 21 years. If he weren't happy with my nature, he would have left me long ago.

He just called as I was writing this. I read him your question and he laughed. He said I may feel, and see myself, as scared and insecure, but that is not how he sees me.


----------



## jld

happy as a clam said:


> Fair enough, but I would venture to say that most women do not view themselves as "scared and insecure little girls."
> 
> So please stop offering advice to men whose wives cheated on them under your assumption that their wives are just scared little girls.
> 
> It is very harmful to make these assumptions when you don't know these people from Adam.


On a forum, there are going to be a variety of views. That is the point of a forum.


----------



## happy as a clam

jld said:


> On a forum, there are going to be a variety of views. That is the point of a forum.


Of course there are different views. But your views are loaded with _assumptions_ (that women are inherently like you -- scared little girls). Your assumptions are very unfair to the men who are posting.

And I'm fully aware of the point of a forum, thank you.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> On a forum, there are going to be a variety of views. That is the point of a forum.


That's right....and when I advise someone to slap their wife around to teach her a lesson I expect I will get lambasted for it by a litany of opposing views. 

Similar to what happens when you post on the infidelity board.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> jld, you said you were shocked when your husband cried on learning you son had cancer.
> I think this is the most natural response a person man or women would have.
> again I would be more shocked if he didn't cry or show any emotion.
> 
> Did you cry upon learn this news?


Of course. I had been crying the month before, when I had gone on the internet and started researching his symptoms. Dug had told me I was overreacting as I sat on the floor, sobbing.

It's a long story, nightmare actually, but we were in India and the doctor I took him to initially turned out to not actually be a doctor. When I finally demanded a blood test, and we got the results, we were in shock. I had been right, and Dug should have listened to me, not told me I was just being emotional and overreactive.


----------



## ocotillo

ButtPunch said:


> I just looked up necessity in an online thesaurus..... need is what it gave me.


You said earlier on this thread that English was not your thing. Do I need to explain what a thesaurus is?  

There is some overlap between the range of meanings the two words can have, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the area where they do not overlap. 

If you had gone to the Wikipedia entry for the word, "need," you would have read an explanation similar to what I gave.

Or, you could go to a real dictionary. Here is definition #2 from _Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged_: "a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary" which is even more subjective.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> He needs to be as transparent as she is, including letting her know his trust in her has been compromised. And, if applicable, he needs to tell her that as much as he wants to be able to trust her again, for it to be genuine, she is going to have to earn his trust back. Her genuinely earning his trust back is how they can both feel renewed trust in the marriage.


If this is true, this is a giant change in your position, and your posts to both husbands and wives in cases of female infidelity should have a siesmic difference than what we've been seeing. 

That is, if you're being genuine.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> Not worried about it. Been together 22 years, married 21 years. If he weren't happy with my nature, he would have left me long ago.
> 
> He just called as I was writing this. I read him your question and he laughed. He said I may feel, and see myself, as scared and insecure, but that is not how he sees me.


Please don't misunderstand. I'm happy you and Dug found each other and are happy in your relationship.

I was married 28 years. During that time my ex changed dramatically. It happens. I don't believe you, or any person, should be wholly unprepared for life.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I think this is part of the disconnect many feel with you. Many, if not most women here say the exact same thing as a huge problem in their relationships...feeling left behind, not feeling heard, their husbands being self absorbed. While it seems to evoke strong emotion in you, are you dependent on feeling those emotions? No. Would you feel safe in your relationship if dug didn't completely disregard you at times? Of course. He is really focusing on being more attentive and I am much happier. Do you think on possibly a subconscious level you need to feel disregarded as a way to compensate for dugs lack of emotion? No, not at all. That you need him to get lost in his own world, leaving you behind so you can see him stand and take your emotional outburst so you can be reminded that he loves you and cares for you? No. Again, he is really making efforts these days, and I am much happier. That if he did stop disregarding you, your feelings would not be evoked, and since he is largely devoid of feelings, there would be no feelings left in the relationship, including love and safety? No, it has been great the last few months. He spends more time on my interests, and I feel happy and loved. Much more secure, actually.
> 
> Which leads to the following...
> 
> 
> 
> You tolerate what many others would chose not to. That is interesting to me. Would you like to elaborate?


----------



## jld

happy as a clam said:


> Bingo!
> 
> It seems to me that jld has unmet FOO issues that require her to _act out_ (screaming at Dug) in order to get those unmet needs met. That's why she feels like a scared little girl. It's a dynamic that works for very few couples because most normal relationships cannot survive repeated acting out by one partner or the other. Hence, Gus's astute observation that less than 1% of people could thrive in this type of dynamic.
> 
> Acting-out is best treated through intensive therapy. Not more screaming.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo even more.


My therapist says it works for Dug and me.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> My therapist says it works for Dug and me.


What do you need a therapist for?


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> A dysfunctional marriage is more damaging to kids emotional well being and upbringing than divorce.


But it does not have to *remain* a dysfunctional marriage. That is what the MB materials are trying to help with.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> If the WS refuses to not only change his or her destructive behavior, but also to work to repair the damage wrought by it... then why _should_ divorce be avoided?


I think *both* spouses need to work on their dysfunctions. That is the most efficient path.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Sort of a variation on why some people cut themselves...to feel the pain to remind themselves that they are alive. Only with jld, it is emotional cutting, and she has an emotionless partner in dug that enables her to continue without challenging her.


You're overthinking, Sam.

I get upset when he does not pay attention to what I have said many, many times. Dug can kind of be the absent-minded professor. 

It does not bother him that I get upset with him, as he knows that if he had paid attention in the first place, it would not have come to that.


----------



## happy as a clam

jld said:


> My therapist says it works for Dug and me.


Perhaps your therapist needs a therapist.

SMH...


----------



## convert

jld said:


> On a forum, there are going to be a variety of views. *That is the point of a forum*.


The point of the forum is to try and help people
at least to do no more harm


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> But it does not have to *remain* a dysfunctional marriage. That is what the MB materials are trying to help with.


TOO late.....by this point the marriage is over.

Only when both spouses are willing to work will MB help.


----------



## happy as a clam

jld said:


> That is what the MB materials are trying to help with.


Ahhhh, now we're finally getting somewhere...

*TAM is NOT Marriage Builders!!!!!! They have their own website. * :banghead: :banghead:


----------



## jld

happy as a clam said:


> Of course there are different views. But your views are loaded with _assumptions_ (that women are inherently like you -- scared little girls). Your assumptions are very unfair to the men who are posting.
> 
> And I'm fully aware of the point of a forum, thank you.


Everyone is going to bring their assumptions, projections, emotions, experience, ideals, etc. to a forum. It's a big tent.

I think the best way to handle this is, "Take what works for you, and leave the rest."


----------



## convert

jld said:


> Of course. I had been crying the month before, when I had gone on the internet and started researching his symptoms. Dug had told me I was overreacting as I sat on the floor, sobbing.
> 
> It's a long story, nightmare actually, but we were in India and the doctor I took him to initially turned out to not actually be a doctor. When I finally demanded a blood test, and we got the results, we were in shock. I had been right, and Dug should have listened to me, not told me I was just being emotional and overreactive.


very understandable,
but why get shocked at Dug when he showed his emotions?


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> That's right....and when I advise someone to slap their wife around to teach her a lesson I expect I will get lambasted for it by a litany of opposing views.
> 
> Similar to what happens when you post on the infidelity board.


I think the only thing people really object to is their pride being hurt. And that is not even intentional.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> I think *both* spouses need to work on their dysfunctions. That is the most efficient path.


This is a huge shift from your normal pov.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

GusPolinski said:


> If the WS refuses to not only change his or her destructive behavior, but also to work to repair the damage wrought by it... then why _should_ divorce be avoided?


IMO, what I get from JLD is that the BS should open the doors the reconciliation in a safe, open way, being open to accepting their faults in the breakdown of the marriage and allowing the possibility of moving past it together and working towards a better marriage in the end. 

I'm not sure if you read my post back to you but I agree with this POV, it worked for me. I don't think it should just be dismissed. 

To me, it's not a man vs woman thing. Someone does something horrible, you can go the route of "Bad! BAD WIFE! You admit you were bad right now" and IMO that leads to defensiveness. "You were bad too, look at all this stuff you did, not my fault" It's a natural human reaction.

Or you can take another approach, one like JLD is suggestion, one like I did and be open "I know our marriage was failing, that is both our faults. Here are some things we can do differently going forward but an affair does not fit. If you want to work on this, I am willing, let's talk about your needs, what we can do to prevent this from happening again, but your AP needs to go"

That openness is what, IMO, led to the _natural _and true remorse that I got back. Not because I made him or nagged it out of him but because he had a safe and open place to let go of his defensiveness and feel it and he does. It makes him sick to his stomach, almost as much as it does me.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> I think the only thing people really object to is their pride being hurt. And that is not even intentional.


I doubt anyone's pride is being hurt by your pov. They just vehemently disagree and voice their pov back at you.

I don't think I see your point.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> If this is true, this is a giant change in your position, and your posts to both husbands and wives in cases of female infidelity should have a siesmic difference than what we've been seeing.
> 
> That is, if you're being genuine.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I said, "if applicable," marduk. Did you see what I wrote about not every man needing that?

I spend over an hour on that post. I really tried to think it through, for what men who are not like my husband might need.


----------



## happy as a clam

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Or you can take another approach, one like JLD is suggestion, one like I did and be open "I know our marriage was failing, that is both our faults. Here are some things we can do differently going forward but an affair does not fit. If you want to work on this, I am willing, let's talk about your needs, what we can do to prevent this from happening again, but your AP needs to go".


There's nothing wrong with this approach, ASSUMING THE AFFAIR IS OVER. But jld offers up this platter to men whose wives are still ACTIVELY ENGAGED in an affair.

Was your husband's affair already over when you approached him with these words? Or was he still hot and heavy for the OW? Were you this open to reconciliation while he was still banging the other woman?


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> Please don't misunderstand. I'm happy you and Dug found each other and are happy in your relationship.
> 
> I was married 28 years. During that time my ex changed dramatically. It happens. I don't believe you, or any person, should be wholly unprepared for life.


I have a teaching degree. My skills are still pretty good. 

Or maybe I could get some kind of entry level job in a company.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> What do you need a therapist for?


Anxiety. My son's cancer came back a few years ago. I have dealt with a lot of anxiety.

I have not seen her for a year, though.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

happy as a clam said:


> There's nothing wrong with this approach, ASSUMING THE AFFAIR IS OVER. But jld offers up this platter to men whose wives are ACTIVELY engaged in an affair.
> 
> Was your husband's affair already over when you approached him with these words? Or was he still hot and heavy for the OW?


He was actively in his affair when I began this. It is, IMO, what got him out of it as his fog as quickly as it did afterwards. 

Like I said, had I been a b8tchy, demanding, no need giving, no understanding, no safe place to really R wife at that time, I don't believe we would have R'd. I would have just given him more excuses for his behavior. I was that, for 2 weeks. Didn't do anything but push him further towards his AP.

Once I opened the door with some safety and understanding, he came through it on his own. Once his fog was all gone, I got the true remorse that I needed to hear from him.


----------



## ButtPunch

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Or you can take another approach, one like JLD is suggestion, one like I did and be open "I know our marriage was failing, that is both our faults. Here are some things we can do differently going forward but an affair does not fit. If you want to work on this, I am willing, let's talk about your needs, what we can do to prevent this from happening again, *but your AP needs to go*"
> 
> That openness is what, IMO, led to the _natural _and true remorse that I got back. Not because I made him or nagged it out of him but because he had a safe and open place to let go of his defensiveness and feel it and he does. It makes him sick to his stomach, almost as much as it does me.


That's great and all but the key thing here is the AP has to go. More times than not this does not happen and interestingly enough it seems harder for women than men to leave their AP's. Just from my experiences here on TAM. I don't have solid studies to back that up.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> The point of the forum is to try and help people
> at least to do no more harm


I think a lot of unnecessary harm is done in CWI, and not by me.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> TOO late.....by this point the marriage is over.
> 
> Only when both spouses are willing to work will MB help.


Are you going to answer the questions I asked you?


----------



## jld

happy as a clam said:


> Ahhhh, now we're finally getting somewhere...
> 
> *TAM is NOT Marriage Builders!!!!!! They have their own website. * :banghead: :banghead:


Several people here recommend their materials, including Rose, turnera, SGC. Ele even has them in her sig.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Are you going to answer the questions I asked you?


I must have missed them. They were?


----------



## jld

convert said:


> very understandable,
> but why get shocked at Dug when he showed his emotions?


He was always so calm, so steady. I had never seen him cry.

I think it just reinforced how grave the situation was. I was looking for reassurance, and I just was not finding it at all. I was terrified of losing my son. And I thought it was all my fault.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I said, "if applicable," marduk. Did you see what I wrote about not every man needing that?
> 
> I spend over an hour on that post. I really tried to think it through, for what men who are not like my husband might need.


Recognizing that it is likely more applicable to the majority of people than your normal advice is wisdom, JLD.

You repeat time and again that most people are not like you and Dug. 

Again, if this is genuine, logic dictates that you have either changed your position and your future actions will reflect that change, or not.

Otherwise, one must conclude that it is disingenuous.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> This is a huge shift from your normal pov.


I do lean on the husband. I think when the husband gets serious about improving the marriage, things can change quickly.

But MB says that when a man cheats, his wife needs to look at herself, too. And some women are indeed the dominant in their marriage. I have been slow to coming to see that, but it is there.

Still is not my default thinking, though.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ButtPunch said:


> That's great and all but the key thing here is the AP has to go. More times than not this does not happen and interestingly enough it seems harder for women than men to leave their AP's. Just from my experiences here on TAM. I don't have solid studies to back that up.


With R the new house rules include no independent behavior. No lies, no hiding. Everything is open, both of you. 

You're spending _more _than 15 hours a week alone together building love, you're going on dates, you're meeting each other's needs. 

Your WS has gone total NC, quit jobs if they had to, lost friends if they had to, blocked numbers, changed numbers. There should be no reason for them to ever be anywhere around each other and if they have to be, move. 

With the above, IMO, continuing the affair is more difficult but if it happens then I would just say game over and be done. 

I gave a good chance, I'm not giving another.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> IMO, what I get from JLD is that the BS should open the doors the reconciliation in a safe, open way, being open to accepting their faults in the breakdown of the marriage and allowing the possibility of moving past it together and working towards a better marriage in the end.
> 
> I'm not sure if you read my post back to you but I agree with this POV, it worked for me. I don't think it should just be dismissed.
> 
> To me, it's not a man vs woman thing. Someone does something horrible, you can go the route of "Bad! BAD WIFE! You admit you were bad right now" and IMO that leads to defensiveness. "You were bad too, look at all this stuff you did, not my fault" It's a natural human reaction.
> 
> Or you can take another approach, one like JLD is suggestion, one like I did and be open "I know our marriage was failing, that is both our faults. Here are some things we can do differently going forward but an affair does not fit. If you want to work on this, I am willing, let's talk about your needs, what we can do to prevent this from happening again, but your AP needs to go"
> 
> That openness is what, IMO, led to the _natural _and true remorse that I got back. Not because I made him or nagged it out of him but because he had a safe and open place to let go of his defensiveness and feel it and he does. It makes him sick to his stomach, almost as much as it does me.


I really wish TAM would open that subforum that you spoke of. You would be a wonderful resource there, SGC. So kind, so understanding, and so effective.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> I think a lot of unnecessary harm is done in CWI, and not by me.


:|

can you give a few examples of the unnecessary harm? (not specific posters)


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> IMO, what I get from JLD is that the BS should open the doors the reconciliation in a safe, open way, being open to accepting their faults in the breakdown of the marriage and allowing the possibility of moving past it together and working towards a better marriage in the end.
> 
> I'm not sure if you read my post back to you but I agree with this POV, it worked for me. I don't think it should just be dismissed.
> 
> To me, it's not a man vs woman thing. Someone does something horrible, you can go the route of "Bad! BAD WIFE! You admit you were bad right now" and IMO that leads to defensiveness. "You were bad too, look at all this stuff you did, not my fault" It's a natural human reaction.
> 
> Or you can take another approach, one like JLD is suggestion, one like I did and be open "I know our marriage was failing, that is both our faults. Here are some things we can do differently going forward but an affair does not fit. If you want to work on this, I am willing, let's talk about your needs, what we can do to prevent this from happening again, but your AP needs to go"
> 
> That openness is what, IMO, led to the _natural _and true remorse that I got back. Not because I made him or nagged it out of him but because he had a safe and open place to let go of his defensiveness and feel it and he does. It makes him sick to his stomach, almost as much as it does me.


See, here's where it all goes sideways again.

If you want to think about what is _natural_, it is natural for a betrayed spouse to be upset when discovering infidelity. 

It feels like your world is upside down. It feels like the person you trusted and invested in most in this world has picked someone they like better. It feels like the person you've gambled years or decades of your life on just threw it away. It feels like you've been living and believing in a lie. It feels like you're the stupidest person on earth because you missed it. It feels like your life is totally out of your control.

And a natural response to that is pain and disorientation.

And a natural response to pain is anger. And a natural response to disorientation is to act out to gain some kind of level playing ground, some kind of assertion of control over their life.

And for anyone who is caught or discloses their affair, I'd say to expect it and to recieve that for what it is. A response to the pain inflicted by the decisions that they made.


----------



## ButtPunch

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> With R the new house rules include no independent behavior. No lies, no hiding. Everything is open, both of you.
> 
> You're spending _more _than 15 hours a week alone together building love, you're going on dates, you're meeting each other's needs.
> 
> Your WS has gone total NC, quit jobs if they had to, lost friends if they had to, blocked numbers, changed numbers. There should be no reason for them to ever be anywhere around each other and if they have to be, move.
> 
> With the above, IMO, continuing the affair is more difficult but if it happens then I would just say game over and be done.
> 
> I gave a good chance, I'm not giving another.


AMEN......Good luck to you in your R. 

People think the 180 is yelling BAD BAD SPOUSE. It is not. The 180 is being cheerful to her but not vulnerable. it is not pitchforks and brimstone. It is accepting your spouse loves someone else and moving on in order to heal emotionally and be able to think more rationally.

JUST LET THEM GO


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I doubt anyone's pride is being hurt by your pov. They just vehemently disagree and voice their pov back at you.
> 
> I don't think I see your point.


People don't want to think they are wrong. They want to believe they are right and did not do anything to contribute to the breakdown of their marriage. It was all the fault of the other.

The problem with that is that we then think we have no influence over our situation. If we have no influence, we are totally at the mercy of our partner. And feeling that sort of powerlessness would naturally lead to anger, blame, and bitterness.

If we say, "You know what, I contributed to your vulnerability to that affair. I could have done things differently. I didn't know my neglect/abuse/whatever might end up with your having an affair. I had known that, I would have tried a lot harder. I'm sorry. I don't want to do that again. Can you help me learn to better meet your needs?" that is an opening to our own growth.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> He was actively in his affair when I began this. It is, IMO, what got him out of it as his fog as quickly as it did afterwards.
> 
> Like I said, had I been a b8tchy, demanding, no need giving, no understanding, no safe place to really R wife at that time, I don't believe we would have R'd. I would have just given him more excuses for his behavior. I was that, for 2 weeks. Didn't do anything but push him further towards his AP.
> 
> Once I opened the door with some safety and understanding, he came through it on his own. Once his fog was all gone, I got the true remorse that I needed to hear from him.


You can't predict what would have happened.

If you had thrown him out on his ass, which he deserved, the affair could have been done within 10 minutes instead of two weeks.

I mean, one could easily take the perspective that your husband got a free pass by you to screw another woman for two weeks and then come home to open arms as long as he was remorseful. I know lots of guys that know that if they put on the waterworks if they get busted and swear they'll never do it again, their wife will take them back. At least once or twice. Maybe three times.

And it may have ended for reasons that have nothing to do with you rolling out the red carpet. 

Just food for thought. Causation and correlation are two different things.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> That's great and all but the key thing here is the AP has to go. More times than not this does not happen and interestingly enough it seems harder for women than men to leave their AP's. Just from my experiences here on TAM. I don't have solid studies to back that up.


It certainly makes things easier. But Wazza waited out his wife's affair, and 25+ years on, they are very happy. No divorce, no disruption of the lives of the kids, no money lost. 

That is why I like linking Letter #1. It gives hope to people in what might feel like hopeless situations. Where there is love, there is hope.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I must have missed them. They were?


Can you go back and read my post to you? Are you asking me to find it for you?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> See, here's where it all goes sideways again.
> 
> If you want to think about what is _natural_, it is natural for a betrayed spouse to be upset when discovering infidelity.
> 
> It feels like your world is upside down. It feels like the person you trusted and invested in most in this world has picked someone they like better. It feels like the person you've gambled years or decades of your life on just threw it away. It feels like you've been living and believing in a lie. It feels like you're the stupidest person on earth because you missed it. It feels like your life is totally out of your control.
> 
> And a natural response to that is pain and disorientation.
> 
> And a natural response to pain is anger. And a natural response to disorientation is to act out to gain some kind of level playing ground, some kind of assertion of control over their life.
> 
> And for anyone who is caught or discloses their affair, I'd say to expect it and to recieve that for what it is. A response to the pain inflicted by the decisions that they made.


I get it. I spent 2 weeks not sleeping, not eating, going out of my mind. I wandered around town in my pj bottoms and a t-shirt in the middle of the night because I couldn't sit, couldn't sleep, I didn't know what to do with myself. I wanted to scream and pull my hair out, then I'd want to murder him, then I'd want him to hold me while I cried. It was a nightmare.

BS needs care and support here. Tell someone, if you have someone. See a Dr, get something to help you sleep. Try to eat and pick healthy foods, make a journal. Music and power walking helped me but maybe some punching bags or gym, yoga. Whatever you need at this time. 

Once I was a little more clear headed (as I said, 2 weeks) I could manage this better and it worked, for me.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I do lean on the husband. I think when the husband gets serious about improving the marriage, things can change quickly.
> 
> But MB says that when a man cheats, his wife needs to look at herself, too. *And some women are indeed the dominant in their marriage. I have been slow to coming to see that, but it is there.*
> 
> Still is not my default thinking, though.


I think by how you define dominant, the vast majority of women are on some level of dominance higher than you are, and they would be extremely unhappy in their marriages if they had to operate under your dynamic. I have seen time and time again here when women talk about what they find attractive, and dug, as you describe him, is the antithesis of attractive in many ways for many women.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> If we say, "You know what, I contributed to your vulnerability to that affair. I could have done things differently. I didn't know my neglect/abuse/whatever might end up with your having an affair. I had known that, I would have tried a lot harder. I'm sorry. I don't want to do that again. Can you help me learn to better meet your needs?" that is an opening to our own growth.


In a perfect world, yes we wish that would work.

However, experience shows that behavior just further pushes WS deeper into AP's arms. I don't know if it's conscious or subconscious but it does not bring out the best in a WS.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
M2 is the dominant personality inside the marriage and certainly she knows that. 

A challenge that we have was that when socializing - even with her extended family which is large - I was more socially dominant. 

If she's included in - whatever is happening - M2 is a stellar team mate, collaborator. If she feels left out, jealousy and competitiveness kick in. And bad stuff starts to happen. 

And I don't mean bad stuff as in - dead pets or sugar in the gas tank. I mean more like - she'll suddenly remember something embarrassing and personal - that I have done - and decide to share that with the group. The kind of thing where after it transpires - when you leave the room people say: what the fvck was THAT? 

And the answer is that was a combo of garden variety jealousy, mixed with a bit of vindictiveness and a childish lack of restraint. 

Ten years ago - that type stuff would spike my blood pressure. Now I just look over and say: you can tell me if you feel neglected. 








jld said:


> MEM, would you say that during most of your marriage, your wife has generally not seen you as being very powerful in the relationship?
> 
> I'm just trying to understand the dynamic between you two a little better.


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> People don't want to think they are wrong. They want to believe they are right and did not do anything to contribute to the breakdown of their marriage. It was all the fault of the other.
> 
> The problem with that is that we then think we have no influence over our situation. If we have no influence, we are totally at the mercy of our partner. And feeling that sort of powerlessness would naturally lead to anger, blame, and bitterness.
> 
> If we say, "You know what, I contributed to your vulnerability to that affair. I could have done things differently. I didn't know my neglect/abuse/whatever might end up with your having an affair. I had known that, I would have tried a lot harder. I'm sorry. I don't want to do that again. Can you help me learn to better meet your needs?" that is an opening to our own growth.


One person's growth! Or an opening to co-dependence? Believing you can control another with your actions is not healthy.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Recognizing that it is likely more applicable to the majority of people than your normal advice is wisdom, JLD.
> 
> You repeat time and again that most people are not like you and Dug.
> 
> Again, if this is genuine, logic dictates that you have either changed your position and your future actions will reflect that change, or not.
> 
> Otherwise, one must conclude that it is disingenuous.


Your judgment that I am disingenuous is up to you, marduk.

When do I say that most people are not like Dug and me? We are humans like everyone else. But it does seem like Dug is emotionally stronger than most men. Men could surely try to improve, though.

Do you even read my posts in their entirety? I mentioned about reading on MB that when men cheat, it doesn't have to necessarily be the end of the marriage. My thought is that he has to go, because you just can't trust him anymore. But Dr. H seems to think that women have fault in why men cheat, too. I did not see women as having that kind of influence.

ETA: Okay, I went back and saw that I posted about what I read on MB after you did. Sorry about that.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> It certainly makes things easier. But Wazza waited out his wife's affair, and 25+ years on, they are very happy. No divorce, no disruption of the lives of the kids, no money lost.
> 
> That is why I like linking Letter #1. It gives hope to people in what might feel like hopeless situations. Where there is love, there is hope.


No this isn't true. I remember WAZZA's story. The affair was over with zero contact when they decided to reconcile. 

What WAZZA accepted was the fact that she didn't seem remorseful enough to the TAM GUARD. It took several years before the remorse came thru. The affair was dead and gone.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I get it. I spent 2 weeks not sleeping, not eating, going out of my mind. I wandered around town in my pj bottoms and a t-shirt in the middle of the night because I couldn't sit, couldn't sleep, I didn't know what to do with myself. I wanted to scream and pull my hair out, then I'd want to murder him, then I'd want him to hold me while I cried. It was a nightmare.
> 
> BS needs care and support here. Tell someone, if you have someone. See a Dr, get something to help you sleep. Try to eat and pick healthy foods, make a journal. Music and power walking helped me but maybe some punching bags or gym, yoga. Whatever you need at this time.
> 
> Once I was a little more clear headed (as I said, 2 weeks) I could manage this better and it worked, for me.


I'm so sorry... I know the pain.

But still -- free pass. I know plenty of guys that would laughingly take the two week free pass offer and give a few months or a year of reconciliatory work where the wife takes half the heat for it if they thought they could get away with it. Plenty.

And I'm sure they'd keep doing it until they got the boot. Because what works once is likely to work a second time.

I dunno. It's complex. I think you did what was right for you. And I think your husband abused your trust and was emotionally abusive during this time. And while I'm not big on retribution, I'm not sure how I could be sure things have changed if I took the blame for their decisions and welcomed them back with open arms.


----------



## GusPolinski

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> IMO, what I get from JLD is that the BS should open the doors the reconciliation in a safe, open way, being open to accepting their faults in the breakdown of the marriage and allowing the possibility of moving past it together and working towards a better marriage in the end.
> 
> I'm not sure if you read my post back to you but I agree with this POV, it worked for me. I don't think it should just be dismissed.
> 
> *To me, it's not a man vs woman thing. Someone does something horrible, you can go the route of "Bad! BAD WIFE! You admit you were bad right now" and IMO that leads to defensiveness. "You were bad too, look at all this stuff you did, not my fault" It's a natural human reaction.*
> 
> Or you can take another approach, one like JLD is suggestion, one like I did and be open "I know our marriage was failing, that is both our faults. Here are some things we can do differently going forward but an affair does not fit. If you want to work on this, I am willing, let's talk about your needs, what we can do to prevent this from happening again, but your AP needs to go"
> 
> That openness is what, IMO, led to the _natural _and true remorse that I got back. Not because I made him or nagged it out of him but because he had a safe and open place to let go of his defensiveness and feel it and he does. It makes him sick to his stomach, almost as much as it does me.


To be clear, I'm not advocating for this (the part in bold) at all.

There IS a middle ground.

It IS possible, having expressed a desire to reconcile, for a BS to demonstrate compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and understanding while simultaneously holding his or her WS accountable for his or her behavior AND expecting that he or she do the same.

_I know this because this is precisely how I conducted (or -- to use @jld's terminology -- *led*) the reconciliation of my marriage._

Still, it would not have been successful had my wife not been a WILLING participant.

I'd also add that, prior to discovering my wife's EAs, there was absolutely no indication whatsoever that our marriage was "failing".


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> You can't predict what would have happened.
> 
> If you had thrown him out on his ass, which he deserved, the affair could have been done within 10 minutes instead of two weeks.
> 
> I mean, one could easily take the perspective that your husband got a free pass by you to screw another woman for two weeks and then come home to open arms as long as he was remorseful. I know lots of guys that know that if they put on the waterworks if they get busted and swear they'll never do it again, their wife will take them back. At least once or twice. Maybe three times.
> 
> And it may have ended for reasons that have nothing to do with you rolling out the red carpet.
> 
> Just food for thought. Causation and correlation are two different things.


I know him well enough to know it. 

We've talked enough to know it. 

If you attack him he get's his defenses up. If you talk to him with understanding and room for him to express himself, he will. 

There was no waterworks and a promise to never do it again. It is a continual show of true remorse and the actions to back it up. Thanking me and apologizing for what I went through during that time to open that door. Understanding how hard that must have been for me. 

Had I kicked him out, we wouldn't be together. My choice. We separated once before. If he ever goes again he's not coming back in. It's too hard on the kids. It is leave forever or stay and fight. 

Had I pushed him away he would have gone to AP who was more than willing to meet his needs and comfort him.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I think *both* spouses need to work on their dysfunctions. That is the most efficient path.


It also has the benefit of being the only path that holds any merit.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> :|
> 
> can you give a few examples of the unnecessary harm? (not specific posters)


So much paranoia. So much pushing of divorce. So much self-righteousness and bitterness. So little inner security and compassion and willingness to look at one's own hand in a partner's vulnerability.

There is almost no empowerment there. It is defensiveness, all around. Total weakness.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Your judgment that I am disingenuous is up to you, marduk.


I judge people by their actions, not their words.

And your words and actions frequently do not align.

If I see you recommend to a cheating wife that she humbly offer remorse and ask forgiveness -- while taking accountability -- I may change my mind. Or that a husband should demand it.

But I think I'll be waiting a long time.



> When do I say that most people are not like Dug and me? We are humans like everyone else. But it does seem like Dug is emotionally stronger than most men. Men could surely try to improve, though.


Insensitivity is not strength.

Nor is ignoring other people's opinions about themselves.

And I know you don't have Dug on quite a high a pedastal as you pretend you do, JLD. Be honest.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> I'm so sorry... I know the pain.
> 
> But still -- free pass. I know plenty of guys that would laughingly take the two week free pass offer and give a few months or a year of reconciliatory work where the wife takes half the heat for it if they thought they could get away with it. Plenty.
> 
> And I'm sure they'd keep doing it until they got the boot. Because what works once is likely to work a second time.
> 
> I dunno. It's complex. I think you did what was right for you. And I think your husband abused your trust and was emotionally abusive during this time. And while I'm not big on retribution, I'm not sure how I could be sure things have changed if I took the blame for their decisions and welcomed them back with open arms.


If my H wanted free sex there was more than enough of that at home for him, plus I am hotter, younger, more his body type and much better at it. 

The need he was missing was praise and admiration and recreational companionship. That's what I stopped doing (because I was a WAW who wasn't getting MY needs met) which is what he found in his AP. 

Had I not been willing to understand this need and agree to provide it if we move forward we wouldn't be together.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I know him well enough to know it.
> 
> We've talked enough to know it.
> 
> If you attack him he get's his defenses up. If you talk to him with understanding and room for him to express himself, he will.
> 
> There was no waterworks and a promise to never do it again. It is a continual show of true remorse and the actions to back it up. Thanking me and apologizing for what I went through during that time to open that door. Understanding how hard that must have been for me.
> 
> Had I kicked him out, we wouldn't be together. My choice. We separated once before. If he ever goes again he's not coming back in. It's too hard on the kids. It is leave forever or stay and fight.
> 
> Had I pushed him away he would have gone to AP who was more than willing to meet his needs and comfort him.


So he showed empathy for hurting you but has never committed to not cheating on you again?

How is that true remorse?

I'm confused.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> AMEN......Good luck to you in your R.
> 
> People think the 180 is yelling BAD BAD SPOUSE. It is not. The 180 is being cheerful to her but not vulnerable. it is not pitchforks and brimstone. It is accepting your spouse loves someone else and moving on in order to heal emotionally and be able to think more rationally.
> 
> JUST LET THEM GO


A poster did a thread on the 180 once. He said it is a good way to end up divorced.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ButtPunch said:


> AMEN......Good luck to you in your R.
> 
> People think the 180 is yelling BAD BAD SPOUSE. It is not. The 180 is being cheerful to her but not vulnerable. it is not pitchforks and brimstone. It is accepting your spouse loves someone else and moving on in order to heal emotionally and be able to think more rationally.
> 
> JUST LET THEM GO


I don't think that's what 180 is. I think that's what the crowd of "she needs to be punished forever and take it with a smile on her face, never shift any blame to you and thank you daily for forgiving her horrible ways and the chance to make it up to him" posters feel. 

But had I wanted to let my H go, I would have.


----------



## happy as a clam

marduk said:


> And I know you don't have Dug on quite a high a pedastal as you pretend you do, JLD. Be honest.


Gotta agree with this. Screaming at someone is usually borne out of 1) emotional immaturity, or 2) resentment towards that person. Or both.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> So he showed empathy for hurting you but has never committed to not cheating on you again?
> 
> How is that true remorse?
> 
> I'm confused.


Of course he has committed to that but it wasn't a "I'm so sorry, I'll never do it again" waterworks moment. It is a series of choices and how he expresses to me continually that show me that he won't do it again. 

He chose to stop going out with the boys. He chose to be open and honest. He chose to start dating me again. He tells me how remorseful he is, how stupid it was and he commits - with a plan- that he'll never do it again. Not just words, not just tears.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If my H wanted free sex there was more than enough of that at home for him, plus I am hotter, younger, more his body type and much better at it.


It is a misconception that this frequently matters.

What matters is that it's somebody that's not you. And that is a biological drive to sew your oats as widely as possible. And it's the desire of the new.

People often affair down, and often do it purely for sex. People are often confused why someone throws a marriage away for someone who isn't as attractive as they are.

To think that this protects you in any way at all is to ignore human nature, I think.


> The need he was missing was praise and admiration and recreational companionship. That's what I stopped doing (because I was a WAW who wasn't getting MY needs met) which is what he found in his AP.


Again, just to caution you -- the affair partner does not need to meet the needs of the cheating person.

They only have to meet the needs that they aren't getting, or provide a net benefit to that person. Think about it.

Nobody can ever meet another human being's needs 100%. If this were true, people wouldn't need friends and family, wouldn't need hobbies, wouldn't need outside interests.

So, to start with, in one sense it actually becomes easier to have an affair with someone who's needs are _almost all_ being met.

If I give my wife 95% of what she needs or wants, some other guy only needs to give her 5%. That's easy.

If I give my wife 100% of what she needs, some other guy only needs to give her 1% for her to be OVER THE TOP sexually, emotionally, or even just to stroke her ego.

It is human nature. Kings had harems for a reason.


> Had I not been willing to understand this need and agree to provide it if we move forward we wouldn't be together.


I'm glad it worked out for you. I'm just concerned about the illusion of control and safety over him cheating again. It's very much in his hands, not yours.


----------



## ButtPunch

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think that's what 180 is. I think that's what the crowd of "she needs to be punished forever and take it with a smile on her face, never shift any blame to you and thank you daily for forgiving her horrible ways and the chance to make it up to him" posters feel.
> 
> But had I wanted to let my H go, I would have.


I will say this. I have read thousands of these threads and the stronger a man deals with finding out about infidelity the more likely it is for him to have the opportunity to reconcile and to take advantage of that opportunity.

The men who try take the nice guy, I will always love you approach, fail time and time again.


----------



## samyeagar

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> M2 is the dominant personality inside the marriage and certainly she knows that.
> 
> A challenge that we have was that when socializing - even with her extended family which is large - I was more socially dominant.
> 
> If she's included in - whatever is happening - M2 is a stellar team mate, collaborator. If she feels left out, jealousy and competitiveness kick in. And bad stuff starts to happen.
> 
> And I don't mean bad stuff as in - dead pets or sugar in the gas tank. I mean more like - she'll suddenly remember something embarrassing and personal - that I have done - and decide to share that with the group. The kind of thing where after it transpires - when you leave the room people say: what the fvck was THAT?
> 
> And the answer is that was a combo of garden variety jealousy, mixed with a bit of vindictiveness and a childish lack of restraint.
> 
> *Ten years ago - that type stuff would spike my blood pressure. Now I just look over and say: you can tell me if you feel neglected.*


Why after ten years have you learned to essentially ignore her behavior without learning how not to provoke it in the first place?

This reminds me of something my wife and I talked about recently. Over the course of our relationship we have talked about a great many things, and one of her frustrations, of all things, was that I don't do many things that ever irritate her, and the very few things I do, she wouldn't tell me because she needs the reminder that I'm human and to help her feel on a more level playing field.

The very first thing she ever told me that annoyed her was that I didn't say bless you when she sneezed. From that point on, not once have I not said it.

Just the other night, we were watching the newlywed game of all things, and she let slip that it annoys her that I leave the sink full of dishwater after I get done with the dishes. Since then, it's been drained every time.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Of course he has committed to that but it wasn't a "I'm so sorry, I'll never do it again" waterworks moment. It is a series of choices and how he expresses to me continually that show me that he won't do it again.
> 
> He chose to stop going out with the boys. He chose to be open and honest. He chose to start dating me again. He tells me how remorseful he is, how stupid it was and he commits - with a plan- that he'll never do it again. Not just words, not just tears.


Has he specifically vowed to never do it again?

Has he specifically vowed that if it does, what he will do?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I think by how you define dominant, the vast majority of women are on some level of dominance higher than you are, and they would be extremely unhappy in their marriages if they had to operate under your dynamic. I have seen time and time again here when women talk about what they find attractive, and dug, as you describe him, is the antithesis of attractive in many ways for many women.


I think there is a difference between a dominant power orientation, and being the de facto dominant in a relationship. Many women may be the de facto dominant, not because they want to be, but because the husband is not taking responsibility for the relationship. Lots of gals are in that position. It is a heavy load.

To me, if I had to be the dominant in the relationship, I would not stay. Much easier to carry just myself.

Dug is a very kind man. Really, he would have been fine in a 50/50 relationship. But that is not my marital orientation. I kept giving him power, and he finally took it.

Neither of us knew any D/s terms at that time, either. We were not analyzing things. I just kept trying to please him, and being vulnerable to him, and he finally realized that I needed him to be more than just half the power in the relationship.

If he could not have handled it, or if it would have been distasteful to him, we never would have gotten off the ground. I don't think he would have even been attracted to me.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> A poster did a thread on the 180 once. He said it is a good way to end up divorced.


I bet it has a better success rate than MB's 15%.

The point of the 180 isn't not to divorce anyway. It is to heal. When someone is cheating, you are supposed to get a divorce. Rarely should a couple work it out. Their has to be circumstances that warrant it. 

I would guess only 15% of marriages that have infidelity should be saved. Most of the time the BS should just go find someone who knows what love truly is.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> You can't predict what would have happened.
> 
> If you had thrown him out on his ass, which he deserved, the affair could have been done within 10 minutes instead of two weeks.
> 
> I mean, one could easily take the perspective that your husband got a free pass by you to screw another woman for two weeks and then come home to open arms as long as he was remorseful. I know lots of guys that know that if they put on the waterworks if they get busted and swear they'll never do it again, their wife will take them back. At least once or twice. Maybe three times.
> 
> And it may have ended for reasons that have nothing to do with you rolling out the red carpet.
> 
> Just food for thought. Causation and correlation are two different things.


Do you see that SGC was not looking at just the affair? She was looking at the whole relationship.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> When do I say that most people are not like Dug and me? We are humans like everyone else. *But it does seem like Dug is emotionally stronger than most men*. Men could surely try to improve, though.


Quite the generalization there ... Dug may be "emotionally strong" for your marriage and what you need, and that is perfectly fine. That however does not make him emotionally stronger than most men. I think marduk did a great job explaining, but I personally do not see a lot of strength in what you have described.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> In a perfect world, yes we wish that would work.
> 
> However, experience shows that behavior just further pushes WS deeper into AP's arms. I don't know if it's conscious or subconscious but it does not bring out the best in a WS.


It seems to have worked for SGC.

I honestly wonder how many times it has even been suggested. Certainly not over in CWI.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> It is a misconception that this frequently matters.
> 
> What matters is that it's somebody that's not you. And that is a biological drive to sew your oats as widely as possible. And it's the desire of the new.
> 
> People often affair down, and often do it purely for sex. People are often confused why someone throws a marriage away for someone who isn't as attractive as they are.
> 
> To think that this protects you in any way at all is to ignore human nature, I think.
> 
> 
> Again, just to caution you -- the affair partner does not need to meet the needs of the cheating person.
> 
> They only have to meet the needs that they aren't getting, or provide a net benefit to that person. Think about it.
> 
> Nobody can ever meet another human being's needs 100%. If this were true, people wouldn't need friends and family, wouldn't need hobbies, wouldn't need outside interests.
> 
> So, to start with, in one sense it actually becomes easier to have an affair with someone who's needs are _almost all_ being met.
> 
> If I give my wife 95% of what she needs or wants, some other guy only needs to give her 5%. That's easy.
> 
> If I give my wife 100% of what she needs, some other guy only needs to give her 1% for her to be OVER THE TOP sexually, emotionally, or even just to stroke her ego.
> 
> It is human nature. Kings had harems for a reason.
> 
> I'm glad it worked out for you. I'm just concerned about the illusion of control and safety over him cheating again. It's very much in his hands, not yours.


I do not have any worry that he just wanted to get laid. There was plenty of other women he could have picked over the years if that was his issue. We're not talking about someone who would have any issue picking up a woman if he wanted to.

This one happened to come at a time when our relationship was at it worst point. 

I know what his EN are because we talked about it several times in the 9 years before. I stopped meeting them because he stopped meeting mine. She didn't just happen to give him _something _I wasn't. She happened to provide the combination of needs that mattered most to him that I wasn't giving at the time. 

No one can ever be 100% that their spouse will not cheat. I am comfortable with my trust level in my H. Comfortable with the work we are doing to prevent another black hole from forming in our marriage and I'm fine with walking away if I ever get to that point. 

You have the idea that people who cheat, just do. Nothing helped build the path to get them there, they just wanted to do it so they did. I believe these people exist. I just don't think it's all, or even most, of them.

I think most people have unmet needs, have someone give them that need, fall into this butterfly, love feeling fog fantasy land and justify what they are doing. 
This is how I believe many affairs begin
Coping with Infidelity: Beginning (Part 1)


----------



## samyeagar

EllisRedding said:


> Quite the generalization there ... Dug may be "emotionally strong" for your marriage and what you need, and that is perfectly fine. That however does not make him emotionally stronger than most men. I think marduk did a great job explaining, but I personally do not see a lot of strength in what you have described.


One can not hurt what is already dead.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> M2 is the dominant personality inside the marriage and certainly she knows that.
> 
> A challenge that we have was that when socializing - even with her extended family which is large - I was more socially dominant.
> 
> If she's included in - whatever is happening - M2 is a stellar team mate, collaborator. If she feels left out, jealousy and competitiveness kick in. And bad stuff starts to happen.
> 
> And I don't mean bad stuff as in - dead pets or sugar in the gas tank. I mean more like - she'll suddenly remember something embarrassing and personal - that I have done - and decide to share that with the group. The kind of thing where after it transpires - when you leave the room people say: what the fvck was THAT?
> 
> And the answer is that was a combo of garden variety jealousy, mixed with a bit of vindictiveness and a childish lack of restraint.
> 
> Ten years ago - that type stuff would spike my blood pressure. Now I just look over and say: you can tell me if you feel neglected.


I am really glad things have gotten better, MEM. Now I think it would be good to tackle the jealousy.

Jealousy is insecurity, right? We don't feel good enough in ourselves, just as we are. We think we are inadequate. And when we see someone who is adequate, we want to be like them.

But sometimes we cannot. We just do not have what it takes.

So the answer is self-acceptance and self-love, right? Somehow we have to start seeing ourselves as being enough, just as we are. Yes, we can improve some things, but ultimately we have value just by being ourselves.

MEM, what do you think you could do to foster a sense of that in M2?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> Has he specifically vowed to never do it again?
> 
> Has he specifically vowed that if it does, what he will do?


Of course. Many times.
He's also said many times that he could never expect me to do that again and that he knows this is a one time offer.

But words mean little to me, I like actions so that's where I feel his remorse. 
"I'll never do it again" means nothing if he didn't work on the plan to make sure of it.


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> One person's growth! Or an opening to co-dependence? Believing you can control another with your actions is not healthy.


Offering to work together is not *controlling.* 

If I say to you, "BP, you seem to be offended by what I am saying. My intent is not to offend you. Is there some way I could communicate with you that would allow you to hear my message, but without your feeling offended?" is that controlling?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Do you see that SGC was not looking at just the affair? She was looking at the whole relationship.


Do you see that her husband put her through two weeks of trauma that may have been avoided with a 10 minute confrontation and action?

He very well could have just thought "I'll take the new gal for a two week road test to see if I want to keep her" and he decided he didn't like her after all. For someone good enough to act innocent during an affair, he could certainly be acting through his reconciliation enough to keep his marriage after he got away with his fling. Or the other woman started to have remorse and dumped him.

Rather than a "OMG I'm blowing my whole life up and ripping my family apart, what the hell am I doing? I'm so sorry, I'll end the affair immediately please give me a chance!"

That kind of realization can be life changing, and compassionate. For everyone, not just the person cheating.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> It seems to have worked for SGC.
> 
> I honestly wonder how many times it has even been suggested. Certainly not over in CWI.


1. No offense to SGC but she is in her first year of reconciliation. On TAM I have learned to not take them seriously until at least 3 years have elapsed.

2. That's the method (begging pleading nice her back) most men do naturally until they come to CWI and are told differently. I honestly don't care if the couples stay or divorce. That is really fate. The 180 and MB are all just manipulation tactics to get their spouses back. The WS has to want to come back. Plain and simple. Best to just detach and let the chips fall where they may. Manipulation with kindness and humility as you suggest or using the 180 to make yourself "more interesting" will be a short lived solution.


No better example than unbe. He used our 180 and MAP to make himself more attractive to his WS. She took interest and with our help he reconciled. What he didn't do was the necessary work on himself so now two years later he's posting again with the same problems.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Of course. Many times.
> He's also said many times that he could never expect me to do that again and that he knows this is a one time offer.
> 
> But words mean little to me, I like actions so that's where I feel his remorse.
> "I'll never do it again" means nothing if he didn't work on the plan to make sure of it.


PHEW!

OK. I'm relieved. And happy for you!

I'd love to talk to your husband sometime.


----------



## MEM2020

Gus,
Well - the interesting thing about this is - in a non affair context the compassionate, calm and patient approach has had a huge positive impact on our marriage. 

Despite all her positive qualities - and they are numerous - M2 has severe abandonment issues. 

That said, and I've repeated this ad nauseum over the years, when M2 fell in love with the OM she was in the fog like anyone in that situation. And she ran the same basic plays you'd expect. 

Her first big play was: Plan B

The goal of running the Plan B play is to get your spouse to agree to sitting in the Plan B chair while you pursue your NEW primary relationship. 

Being a flesh and blood person - my initial reaction to that was intense hurt immediately followed by absolute fury. 

Recognizing I couldn't force M2 to retain me as Plan A, I decided that in the interest of sanity and symmetry that it was best for her to sit in MY plan B seat, while I sat in hers. 

And faced with an immediate, clear cut demotion to being MY plan B, M2 retreated. 

Really - all I did was insist that she would experience the same consequence she was attempting to unilaterally force on me. 

As far as biology goes - this was by far the kindest thing I could have done to her. She went from feeling an intense aversion to sleeping with me to having an intense desire to sleep with me. 

I believe the aversion was caused by that thing people talk about. She had reached the point where she wanted to be monogamous with the OM. Hadn't slept with him yet. But only because he hadn't asked. She was preemptively trying to evict me from the marital bed so she could tell him that she and I were no longer sleeping together. 

It was a simple plan. I don't blame her for it. 

And before anyone else does - I suggest you ask yourself a question. Have you ever been in daily proximity to someone you feel a strong physical attraction for? If so, was it for 3 years? How did you deal with it? 





GusPolinski said:


> MEM, a lot of her advice is just toxic. Most of the time she might as well be saying…
> 
> “Hi everyone! I live in a harsh underwater environment devoid of sunlight yet surrounded by the extreme heat created by proximity to intense hydrothermal jets that spew hydrogen sulfide into the water.
> 
> And it's just great! Seriously… EVERYONE should live down here!”
> 
> Now, the bit that she’s leaving out is that she’s an extremophile and therefore unable to live in an other environment. Additionally, 99.9999% of organisms — people included — would not only fail to flourish in her native environment, but would die. And pretty horribly, to boot.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> Do you see that her husband put her through two weeks of trauma that may have been avoided with a 10 minute confrontation and action?
> 
> He very well could have just thought "I'll take the new gal for a two week road test to see if I want to keep her" and he decided he didn't like her after all. For someone good enough to act innocent during an affair, he could certainly be acting through his reconciliation enough to keep his marriage after he got away with his fling. Or the other woman started to have remorse and dumped him.
> 
> Rather than a "OMG I'm blowing my whole life up and ripping my family apart, what the hell am I doing? I'm so sorry, I'll end the affair immediately please give me a chance!"
> 
> That kind of realization can be life changing, and compassionate. For everyone, not just the person cheating.


The first 2 weeks I was NOT doing this "plan". I was pushing him away, demanding, anger, a mess. 

The week I started the plan is the week he ended it. Full NC, fog lifting and the whole truth came about a week after that.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> No this isn't true. I remember WAZZA's story. The affair was over with zero contact when they decided to reconcile.
> 
> What WAZZA accepted was the fact that she didn't seem remorseful enough to the TAM GUARD. It took several years before the remorse came thru. The affair was dead and gone.


Without Wazza's coming here to tell us himself, I am going to go by my own memory of posts he has made. 

He said the affair went on for a few years, four to my memory, and he stayed the whole time. He was hurt. But when it was over, he was still there. He had not wanted to disrupt his children's lives.

I think you distinguish between reconciling and just not divorcing. That is probably a good distinction. I am okay with just putting off the divorce and waiting and working, a la Letter #1, for true reconciliation to happen. Most in CWI do not seem to be.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> To be clear, I'm not advocating for this (the part in bold) at all.
> 
> There IS a middle ground.
> 
> It IS possible, having expressed a desire to reconcile, for a BS to demonstrate compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and understanding while simultaneously holding his or her WS accountable for his or her behavior AND expecting that he or she do the same.
> 
> _I know this because this is precisely how I conducted (or -- to use @jld's terminology -- *led*) the reconciliation of my marriage._
> 
> Still, it would not have been successful had my wife not been a WILLING participant.
> 
> I'd also add that, prior to discovering my wife's EAs, there was absolutely no indication whatsoever that our marriage was "failing".


What have you realized in retrospect?


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I know him well enough to know it.
> 
> We've talked enough to know it.
> 
> If you attack him he get's his defenses up. If you talk to him with understanding and room for him to express himself, he will.
> 
> There was no waterworks and a promise to never do it again. It is a continual show of true remorse and the actions to back it up. Thanking me and apologizing for what I went through during that time to open that door. Understanding how hard that must have been for me.
> 
> Had I kicked him out, we wouldn't be together. My choice. We separated once before. If he ever goes again he's not coming back in. It's too hard on the kids. It is leave forever or stay and fight.
> 
> Had I pushed him away he would have gone to AP who was more than willing to meet his needs and comfort him.


In some ways this sounds like Blossom's story. She said if he wanted to stay, he had to "stay different."


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> It also has the benefit of being the only path that holds any merit.


*One* can start working on the dysfunctions, Gus. It does not have to be a mutual endeavor at the beginning.

And in reality, sometimes only one person ever works on the marriage.


----------



## MEM2020

Sam,

That is very good on your part. Good habits. 

Jealousy is a much trickier thing. It's half driven by what I. Doing and half by what she's doing. If M2 is having fun in the other room, she doesn't care that I'm not present. But if she isn't having fun and walks into a room where people are focused on me and we're all laughing - that sometimes provokes a reaction. 



samyeagar said:


> Why after ten years have you learned to essentially ignore her behavior without learning how not to provoke it in the first place?
> 
> This reminds me of something my wife and I talked about recently. Over the course of our relationship we have talked about a great many things, and one of her frustrations, of all things, was that I don't do many things that ever irritate her, and the very few things I do, she wouldn't tell me because she needs the reminder that I'm human and to help her feel on a more level playing field.
> 
> The very first thing she ever told me that annoyed her was that I didn't say bless you when she sneezed. From that point on, not once have I not said it.
> 
> Just the other night, we were watching the newlywed game of all things, and she let slip that it annoys her that I leave the sink full of dishwater after I get done with the dishes. Since then, it's been drained every time.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> There is no acting going on here, Personal. I am about as genuine with my husband, and he with me, as two humans can be.
> 
> I get upset when he is not listening. And when I say not listening, I mean repeatedly not paying attention to me. Or completely forgetting what we probably just a short time before spent an hour talking about.
> 
> I don't plan on screaming at him. It is not a "strategy." It is definitely organic! Just comes right out in the moment!
> 
> He knows perfectly well when I am angry it is because he was not listening, was just totally disregarding my feelings. It is not some shocker.
> 
> He is not worried about being considered submissive. He knows he is not. And if I thought he were, I never would have been attracted to him. I cannot take care of a man.
> 
> If your wife is yelling at you, you have to look at why. Telling her to stop yelling, rather than just hearing her out (and don't forget, what is screamed out in anger, like something said when drunk--as another poster noted--is often important truth), is just showing your own weakness. It's like leaving the room. It just communicates you can't handle her anger.
> 
> And if you can't, you can't. If you need her to talk to you in a certain way, then that is what you need. If you need her to only approach you when you are able to hear her, then that is what you need. If she loves you and is able to meet your needs that way, then good enough. I am just not that kind of woman.
> 
> I guess I am wondering, do a lot of you men worry about what you look like to your wives? I don't think Dug does. I think he is just himself, all the time.
> 
> What you want is to be strong, truly strong. * Nothing she says can threaten you, because you are secure in yourself, and secure in your love for her.
> *
> When you are secure like that, you feel compassion for her suffering, and you make changes in yourself when you are the cause of it. You don't insist that *she* change. You know that your own behavior will change hers, anyway.


Tell that to John Bobbitt. And not all yelling is based in rationality either.

I believe there is a misconception here that women are not capable of severe harm to a man. Court and criminal records would not bear out that thinking, to be fair.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> What have you realized in retrospect?


That I took the correct approach.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I judge people by their actions, not their words.
> 
> And your words and actions frequently do not align.
> 
> If I see you recommend to a cheating wife that she humbly offer remorse and ask forgiveness -- while taking accountability -- I may change my mind. I have said that. You may not have seen it, but I have said it. And you know perfectly well that if I were in that situation I would be begging for forgiveness. Honestly, marduk, talk about disingenuous. You ought to know.Or that a husband should demand it. That problem with demanding it is that it might be done out of fear. If it is done out of anything other than a full heart, it will not be meaningful.
> 
> You cannot demand and control your way to a true reconciliation.
> 
> But I think I'll be waiting a long time.
> 
> 
> Insensitivity is not strength. I never said it was.
> 
> Not taking people's emotions personally, but looking past them to their hurt, and how you can help them with it, is.
> 
> Nor is ignoring other people's opinions about themselves.
> 
> And I know you don't have Dug on quite a high a pedastal as you pretend you do, JLD. Be honest. I have my own struggles. I do respect and admire him very much. But sometimes I get very frustrated.
> 
> All these words -- disingenuous, pretend, others I cannot think of-- just mean you have no trust in me. And that probably makes sense, because I have no trust in you, either.


----------



## farsidejunky

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think that's what 180 is. I think that's what the crowd of "she needs to be punished forever and take it with a smile on her face, never shift any blame to you and thank you daily for forgiving her horrible ways and the chance to make it up to him" posters feel.
> 
> But had I wanted to let my H go, I would have.


Mischaracterization. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> In some ways this sounds like Blossom's story. She said if he wanted to stay, he had to "stay different."


Correct.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think that's what 180 is. I think that's what the crowd of "*she needs to be punished forever and take it with a smile on her face, never shift any blame to you and thank you daily for forgiving her horrible ways and the chance to make it up to him" *posters feel.
> 
> But had I wanted to let my H go, I would have.


BP, is the bolded what your wife is living?


----------



## jld

happy as a clam said:


> Gotta agree with this. Screaming at someone is usually borne out of 1) emotional immaturity, or 2) resentment towards that person. Or both.


I have my own frustrations. But he is really paying attention these days, and I feel much, much better.

But it really is on him. I can't help him. He has to take the initiative to make it better.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> He said the affair went on for a few years, four to my memory, and he stayed the whole time. He was hurt. But when it was over, he was still there. He had not wanted to disrupt his children's lives.
> 
> .


She did have a long term affair but WAZZA was unaware. Upon discovery, she did end the affair "out of respect" i believe the term she used. She however wasn't very remorseful and Wazza accepted that because he really really didn't want to be a part time Dad and go thru the financial shock of divorce.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I will say this. I have read thousands of these threads and the stronger a man deals with finding out about infidelity the more likely it is for him to have the opportunity to reconcile and to take advantage of that opportunity.
> 
> The men who try take the nice guy, I will always love you approach, fail time and time again.


It depends on why she had the affair. If I had an affair and my husband used any of what CWI encourages, we would just end up divorced.

Connection is what you want, not punishment and destruction and even more negativity.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I bet it has a better success rate than MB's 15%.
> 
> The point of the 180 isn't not to divorce anyway. It is to heal. When someone is cheating, you are supposed to get a divorce. Rarely should a couple work it out. Their has to be circumstances that warrant it.
> 
> I would guess only 15% of marriages that have infidelity should be saved. *Most of the time the BS should just go find someone who knows what love truly is*.


I thought Ele said the success rate was higher than that.
@EleGirl Do you know what the success rate at MB is?

I am concerned that by the bolded you mean will take care of him while he just pursues his own interests.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> BP, is the bolded what your wife is living?


Certainly not. 

I don't believe that is what CWI teaches either.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Quite the generalization there ... Dug may be "emotionally strong" for your marriage and what you need, and that is perfectly fine. That however does not make him emotionally stronger than most men. I think marduk did a great job explaining, but* I personally do not see a lot of strength in what you have described*.


Would you like to elaborate?


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> BP, is the bolded what your wife is living?





jld said:


> I thought Ele said the success rate was higher than that.
> 
> @EleGirl Do you know what the success rate at MB is?
> 
> I am concerned that by the bolded you mean will take care of him while he just pursues his own interests.


I mean someone who will not put their own needs above that of the family. A giver not a taker. Someone who takes joy in loving not someone who needs to be loved.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I have my own frustrations. But he is really paying attention these days, and I feel much, much better.
> 
> But it really is on him. I can't help him. He has to take the initiative to make it better.


And it's taken 22 years to get to this point? Or is this a case of...it's just around the corner, and just around the next corner, and the next...

Has it occurred to you that despite what he says, dug doesn't actually care so much as he has just learned how to play the game?


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I do not have any worry that he just wanted to get laid. There was plenty of other women he could have picked over the years if that was his issue. We're not talking about someone who would have any issue picking up a woman if he wanted to.
> 
> This one happened to come at a time when our relationship was at it worst point.
> 
> I know what his EN are because we talked about it several times in the 9 years before. I stopped meeting them because he stopped meeting mine. She didn't just happen to give him _something _I wasn't. She happened to provide the combination of needs that mattered most to him that I wasn't giving at the time.
> 
> No one can ever be 100% that their spouse will not cheat. I am comfortable with my trust level in my H. Comfortable with the work we are doing to prevent another black hole from forming in our marriage and I'm fine with walking away if I ever get to that point.
> 
> *You have the idea that people who cheat, just do. Nothing helped build the path to get them there, they just wanted to do it so they did. *I believe these people exist. I just don't think it's all, or even most, of them.
> 
> I think most people have unmet needs, have someone give them that need, fall into this butterfly, love feeling fog fantasy land and justify what they are doing.
> This is how I believe many affairs begin
> Coping with Infidelity: Beginning (Part 1)


I think people tell themselves the bolded because they do not want to take any responsibility at all for their marital troubles. Much easier to blame the cheater completely than look at their own hand in the mess.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> It depends on why she had the affair. If I had an affair and my husband used any of what CWI encourages, we would just end up divorced.
> 
> Connection is what you want, not punishment and destruction and even more negativity.


I am sorry JLD. 

I CAN PROMISE YOU THIS.

YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU'D DO UNTIL YOU HAVE LIVED IT.

CAN I GET AN AMEN.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> One can not hurt what is already dead.


He is not dead! Come on, Sam.

He is low emo. Most guys on TAM are high emo. 

What kind of guy is on a relationship message board? A high emo guy!


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> He is not dead! Come on, Sam.
> 
> He is low emo. Most guys on TAM are high emo.
> 
> What kind of guy is on a relationship message board? A high emo guy!


LOL Dug is on TAM


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Do you see that her husband put her through two weeks of trauma that may have been avoided with a 10 minute confrontation and action?
> 
> He very well could have just thought "I'll take the new gal for a two week road test to see if I want to keep her" and he decided he didn't like her after all. For someone good enough to act innocent during an affair, he could certainly be acting through his reconciliation enough to keep his marriage after he got away with his fling. Or the other woman started to have remorse and dumped him.
> 
> Rather than a "OMG I'm blowing my whole life up and ripping my family apart, what the hell am I doing? I'm so sorry, I'll end the affair immediately please give me a chance!"
> 
> That kind of realization can be life changing, and compassionate. For everyone, not just the person cheating.


I think she did great. My only concern for SGC is that I don't think her husband is worthy of her. And she knows that.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> 1. No offense to SGC but she is in her first year of reconciliation. On TAM I have learned to not take them seriously until at least 3 years have elapsed.
> 
> 2. That's the method (begging pleading nice her back) most men do naturally until they come to CWI and are told differently. I honestly don't care if the couples stay or divorce. That is really fate. The 180 and MB are all just manipulation tactics to get their spouses back. The WS has to want to come back. Plain and simple. Best to just detach and let the chips fall where they may. Manipulation with kindness and humility as you suggest or using the 180 to make yourself "more interesting" will be a short lived solution.
> 
> 
> No better example than unbe. He used our 180 and MAP to make himself more attractive to his WS. She took interest and with our help he reconciled. What he didn't do was the necessary work on himself so now two years later he's posting again with the same problems.


You are talking about unbelievable? I only ever see him complaining about his marriage.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Gus,
> Well - the interesting thing about this is - in a non affair context the compassionate, calm and patient approach has had a huge positive impact on our marriage.
> 
> Despite all her positive qualities - and they are numerous - M2 has severe abandonment issues.
> 
> That said, and I've repeated this ad nauseum over the years, when M2 fell in love with the OM she was in the fog like anyone in that situation. And she ran the same basic plays you'd expect.
> 
> Her first big play was: Plan B
> 
> The goal of running the Plan B play is to get your spouse to agree to sitting in the Plan B chair while you pursue your NEW primary relationship.
> 
> Being a flesh and blood person - my initial reaction to that was intense hurt immediately followed by absolute fury.
> 
> Recognizing I couldn't force M2 to retain me as Plan A, I decided that in the interest of sanity and symmetry that it was best for her to sit in MY plan B seat, while I sat in hers.
> 
> And faced with an immediate, clear cut demotion to being MY plan B, M2 retreated.
> 
> Really - all I did was insist that she would experience the same consequence she was attempting to unilaterally force on me.
> 
> As far as biology goes - this was by far the kindest thing I could have done to her. She went from feeling an intense aversion to sleeping with me to having an intense desire to sleep with me.
> 
> I believe the aversion was caused by that thing people talk about. She had reached the point where she wanted to be monogamous with the OM. Hadn't slept with him yet. But only because he hadn't asked. She was preemptively trying to evict me from the marital bed so she could tell him that she and I were no longer sleeping together.
> 
> It was a simple plan. I don't blame her for it.
> 
> And before anyone else does - I suggest you ask yourself a question. Have you ever been in daily proximity to someone you feel a strong physical attraction for? If so, was it for 3 years? How did you deal with it?


MEM, I get that it was a shock her into reality, Treat other people as you would like to be treated move, but I really wish you had not felt the need to do that. I think anything of that nature, coercion--because I do think it was a threat--can backfire. It just looks very risky to me.


----------



## GusPolinski

samyeagar said:


> And it's taken 22 years to get to this point? Or is this a case of...it's just around the corner, and just around the next corner, and the next...
> 
> Has it occurred to you that despite what he says, dug doesn't actually care so much as he has just learned how to play the game?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

If my R fails then I can walk away feeling good that I did what I thought was best and with my head held high. It's not a failure to me. I have had (so far) 7 more months of being a family, of being loved, of making an effort for myself and kids. That's all that matters to me.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Sam,
> 
> That is very good on your part. Good habits.
> 
> Jealousy is a much trickier thing. It's half driven by what I. Doing and half by what she's doing. If M2 is having fun in the other room, she doesn't care that I'm not present. But if she isn't having fun and walks into a room where people are focused on me and we're all laughing - that sometimes provokes a reaction.


Why is she jealous of you? I really do not understand that.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> He is not dead! Come on, Sam.
> 
> He is low emo. Most guys on TAM are high emo.
> 
> What kind of guy is on a relationship message board? A high emo guy!


LOL. Dug is _no_ emo.

Can't say I blame him, though.


----------



## convert

ButtPunch said:


> She did have a long term affair but WAZZA was unaware. Upon discovery, she did end the affair "out of respect" i believe the term she used. She however wasn't very remorseful and Wazza accepted that because he really really didn't want to be a part time Dad and go thru the financial shock of divorce.


agreed.
if I remember right he discovered the long term affair then it ended.
He did not sit around while it ran its course. although it went on so long it may have naturally ran its course and is one reason she ended it so quickly


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

I'll try and answer this as best I can. M2 is a nurse for opthalmology. She is truly exceptional at this. Her initial certification was at Georgetown - where 8 people started in the program and only one graduated. 

I routinely ask her about her day and give her honest, positive feedback. And sorry but I am going to brag here for a moment. 

She has days - where she comes home and tells me something and my reaction is: that would make a good episode on House

One day she tells me about this patient - their intra ocular pressures were high despite recently having had glaucoma surgery. That never happens. So she asks the patient: anything else unusual about your eyes or your vision. 

Patient says: my eyes changed color

In the modern world of medicine - that kind of comment gets routinely dismissed. The medical folks typically think either:
- the patient is looney toons 
Or
- they are just wrong

Or worse - they are in a hurry - it doesn't fit what they know - so they don't respond to it. 

But M2 is a good judge of character. And her default assumption is the patient is telling the truth unless they give her good reason to think otherwise. People lie about smoking all the time. But eye color. Why lie about that?

So she asks the patient: what color did your eyes used to be?

Patient used to have dark brown eyes. Now she has very light brown eyes. M2 talks to the doctor. Says: I think her pigment is falling off her eye, clogging her drainage ducts. Doctor says: no such thing

M2 comes home tells me all this - I google it and less than a minute later am reading about that exact condition. Rare but very real. It is exactly why this woman's surgery isn't working out too well. 

I made a big deal out of that. I have told ALL our friends that story. And in the day to day - I provide positive feedback. 

But here's the thing about people. They are nothing if not consistent. She had a legitimate issue with her compensation where she was working. We discussed how to handle it. 

She did what I suggested. They blew her off. She got a 25% raise by switching jobs. At the point she resigned her boss offered her an immediate 35% increase. M2 declined (I'm glad she did). 

But by then she is internally torqued. So despite my gentle and persistent feedback to REFRAIN from discussing her salary with co workers - she tells a FEW people about the counter offer. 

Well yesterday it got back to her ex boss. Who is officially livid. 

Why did she tell them? Insecurity. She needed for them to know how highly valued she was. But in doing so - she will now never get a reference from her old boss. 

She isn't just good, she is GREAT at her job. Does she know (in her head) that. Yes. Does she believe (in her heart) that? No. 

And that's why I am so confident that folks are more driven by their beliefs than what they 'know' or 'think'. 







jld said:


> I am really glad things have gotten better, MEM. Now I think it would be good to tackle the jealousy.
> 
> Jealousy is insecurity, right? We don't feel good enough in ourselves, just as we are. We think we are inadequate. And when we see someone who is adequate, we want to be like them.
> 
> But sometimes we cannot. We just do not have what it takes.
> 
> So the answer is self-acceptance and self-love, right? Somehow we have to start seeing ourselves as being enough, just as we are. Yes, we can improve some things, but ultimately we have value just by being ourselves.
> 
> MEM, what do you think you could do to foster a sense of that in M2?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Tell that to John Bobbitt. And not all yelling is based in rationality either.
> 
> I believe there is a misconception here that women are not capable of severe harm to a man. Court and criminal records would not bear out that thinking, to be fair.


I think that is outside of my thinking. It is surely true, but not the kind of women I spend time with or really have much knowledge of.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

LOL this is all I can picture when I see all this emo talk.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> That I took the correct approach.


The door is closed to any reflection on what you might have contributed to her vulnerability?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Mischaracterization.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Disagree.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> MEM, I get that it was a shock her into reality, Treat other people as you would like to be treated move, but I really wish you had not felt the need to do that. I think anything of that nature, coercion--because I do think it was a threat--can backfire. *It just looks very risky to me*.


You seem to be very risk averse, possibly tied back to you fear of failure? You can't fail when there is no risk. It almost seems as if you have a fear of losing control. I know that is counter to some of the specific things you say, but in aggregate, it feels as if you have a very strong need for structure, and feel very insecure and afraid of things that are beyond your control...such as emotion in men, in particular your husband.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> She did have a long term affair but WAZZA was unaware. Upon discovery, she did end the affair "out of respect" i believe the term she used. She however wasn't very remorseful and Wazza accepted that because he really really didn't want to be a part time Dad and go thru the financial shock of divorce.


I wish he would talk about it. I gave him a few shout outs on Grid's thread but he never responded.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Certainly not.
> 
> I don't believe that is what CWI teaches either.


What are you doing for the reconciliation?

To me it looks like she is doing most of it.


----------



## MEM2020

Gus,

That is a mean thing to say. Not the 'no emo' part. The second bit. 

And if Dug were 'no' emo, he wouldn't have reacted like he did when their son was diagnosed with cancer. 




GusPolinski said:


> LOL. Dug is _no_ emo.
> 
> Can't say I blame him, though.


----------



## ButtPunch

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping-infidelity/35966-marriage-builders-plan-b.html

Oldie but goodie

Morituri is one of my favorite posters and when he posted the JUST LET HER GO spill to me
I had an epiphany. Did it bring my wife back to me? Who knows? I wasn't going to let my WS
dictate my life to me though. No more victimhood for me. No more it's not fair. 

Special thanks to CONRAD too.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I mean someone who will not put their own needs above that of the family.* A giver not a taker. Someone who takes joy in loving not someone who needs to be loved.*


That describes a dominant. He has a need to take care of someone. The submissive has the need to be taken care of.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> What are you doing for the reconciliation?
> 
> To me it looks like she is doing most of it.


Please.....One year of IC

over a year of MC. 

Been on tam for years. 

Countless books 

I don't see my wife working any harder than I have once I felt
she had earned my trust again.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> And it's taken 22 years to get to this point? Or is this a case of...it's just around the corner, and just around the next corner, and the next...
> 
> Has it occurred to you that despite what he says, dug doesn't actually care so much as he has just learned how to play the game?


He definitely cares about me. He loves me very much.

But he does not have very many needs, and certainly not emotional ones. So it is not in his default thinking to think I do. And that has been a big source of hurt for me over the years.

He really is making efforts, though. And he has so much insight, when he takes time to share it with me.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> That describes a dominant. He has a need to take care of someone. The submissive has the need to be taken care of.


I respect your opinion but do not get into the femdom thing. I will leave it at that. Takers don't make good spouses or parents imo.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You have the idea that people who cheat, just do. Nothing helped build the path to get them there, they just wanted to do it so they did. I believe these people exist. I just don't think it's all, or even most, of them.
> 
> I think most people have unmet needs, have someone give them that need, fall into this butterfly, love feeling fog fantasy land and justify what they are doing.
> This is how I believe many affairs begin


OK. Given what has happened in two marriages now, I've kinda dug in on this issue. Talked to psychologists, talked to psychiatrists, talked to people that I know have cheated, including extended family members who were very candid with me -- more candid than even with their spouses in some cases, I think.

I think some people are just not wired to be monogamous. Of those people, I think some didn't realize it, and wanted to honestly make a go of being married, and just couldn't do it. Sometimes though, and I have one example of this that I know fairly well, people are just non-monogamous but like the benefits of pretending to be monogamous. In other words, stacking the deck to get the benefits of both.

Setting all the naturally non-monogamous people aside, I think that there's a large contingent of folks that think they would never cheat, but haven't really ever been put in a position where they could and have a reasonable expectation of getting away with it.

And here's where the interesting bit comes in with how humans are wired.

We have built within us a deep sense and drive for fairness and equity -- and it's hard wired:
Research Shows Human Sense Of Fairness Evolved To Favor Long-Term Cooperation - Georgia State University News

This is actually some of what drives us not to cheat, but *also to cheat.* If I get the sense that I'm not getting my due in marriage or life, one can easily conclude that it would be 'fair' to cheat. Because my wife doesn't pay attention to me. Because my sex life is boring. Or -- because I see other guys/girls get hot sex on the side, why not me?

So there's that bit -- the sense of social equity or justice. Double sided, that.

And then there's the whole part of our neocortex that is entirely devoted to rationalization.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)

This is where we decide to do something, *and then come up for reasons to justify it.* These reasons can have little or nothing to do with the reasons for making the decision -- which can, in fact, be random.

Human beings are not discrete. Our minds are not any one thing. 'I' am not 'I', I'm actually 'we.' Our behaviour is predictable statistically, but at a granular moment by moment measurement, there is a random component that cannot be accounted for. Call it free will, call it quantum effects in the mind, call it non-determinism, but it's there.

Add to that the fact that human beings have a drive to procreate, and a drive to seek emotional connection and support from other humans...

And it might be as simple as "you're sexy" or "I'm lonely" or "I'm jealous" or there might be _no reason at all._ Everybody has an off day and makes stupid decisions. This might just be one of them.

And then -- that leaves the subset of affairs that have an actual actual driver that one could logically attribute some causation to having an affair. Here's what studies seem to say are the drivers for a person choosing to cheat:



> *Lack of sexual satisfaction in your primary relationship. This was the most common reason cited by individuals in the Omarzu study. Recall that the large majority of the sample were women. Both women and men who enter into affairs are hoping to improve their sex lives.* They may enjoy many other mutual activities but, for whatever reason, the sex is not working out for them.
> 
> *2. Desire for additional sexual encounters. This was a relatively infrequent reason cited by the individuals in this study. It’s possible that more people had this as a reason but didn’t want to admit to it as it is not a very socially desirable wish to articulate. For example, one man in the study stated that he felt he needed more sex in his life to reward him for performing well at his job.*
> 
> *3. Lack of emotional satisfaction in your primary relationship.* Seeking emotional intimacy can be nearly as compelling a reason to have an affair as can seeking physical intimacy. Participants who stated the need for emotional closeness in an affair felt they were lacking a connection to their primary partners.
> 
> 4. Wanting emotional validation from someone else. Being appreciated is a key factor in the emotional connection that partners feel toward each other. Partners may grow apart and, as they do, fail to acknowledge the needs that both have in their relationship.
> 
> 5. Falling out of love with your partner. This was a relatively insignificant reason in the Omarzu study, perhaps because “love” is so difficult to define. In the grand scheme of things, having sexual and emotional intimacy seems to trump love.
> 
> 6. Falling in love with someone new. Very few people indicated that they had fallen head over heels for the person with whom they had the affair. Again, emotional intimacy plus sexual closeness seems to be a more important factor that leads partners to stray.
> 
> 7. Your wanting to seek revenge. In a relationship that is already suffering, the desire to hurt a partner who is (or is perceived as) cheating seems to raise the stakes significantly from mere lack of intimacy. Hollywood enjoys exploiting this category (think “American Beauty”), but in reality very few participants cited this as the main cause of their affairs.
> 
> 8. You’re curious and want new experiences. People who cited this reason felt that they wanted something new, this motivation went beyond curiosity and into some type of contest to measure their sexual prowess. It might have been less complicated for them to compete on the tennis court or golf course, but the allure of someone and something new led them to choose this particular form of challenge.


Note that the emotional stuff places in at 3 and 4 on the list -- far, far behind looking to get laid more or better.

And even that needs to be taken with a grain of salt -- because people rationalize _after they make a decision._

And even when you just want more or hotter sex, I know of at least one case where the woman wanted kinkier sex, but couldn't bring herself to tell her husband -- not because he couldn't hear it or didn't create an environment where she could -- but because "wives don't do that stuff with their husbands."

Don't kid yourself. You can't control your partner.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I am sorry JLD.
> 
> I CAN PROMISE YOU THIS.
> 
> YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU'D DO UNTIL YOU HAVE LIVED IT.
> 
> CAN I GET AN AMEN.


Gosh, I thought for a minute there I was getting an actual apology. 

No, I have not experienced infidelity in my marriage. But Dug and I are not clueless about possible reactions, either. It's not like we do not know each other at all.


----------



## MEM2020

For years and years and years I heard: 

I'm afraid of the water. Therefore I don't like to do things like rafting etc. 

One family vacation my BIL and I go rafting have a great time. That night he and I are yukkin it up about our day. Planning to go kayaking tomorrow. M2 says in this hesitant little girl voice: would it be ok if I come? 

Without hesitation I say: that would be fantastic - my BIL nods. 

This was the day when I learned that M2's fear of being left out - kids have a acronym FOMO - fear of missing out - the day I learned that M2 has a greater FOMO than of death by drowning. 

We had a blast. My BIL and I both accidentally rolled our kayaks. M2 ended the day dry. We still laugh about it. 

Didn't Cain kill Abel over jealousy. Can you really explain it? 

She's Cain, I'm Abel. I feel sorry for her. Jealousy sucks. 





jld said:


> Why is she jealous of you? I really do not understand that.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> LOL Dug is on TAM


Not because he sought it out.


----------



## GusPolinski

Sooooo...



GusPolinski said:


> Precisely what is it in anything that I, @marduk, or anyone else has contributed w/ respect to accountability as it relates to either infidelity or reconciliation that gives you this impression?





jld said:


> Marduk and far and MEM and I have had some conversations where this has been discussed.





GusPolinski said:


> Regardless of your answer, you're wrong.





jld said:


> Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that.


LOL. We disagree on a LOT. That's been obvious for a while. Still, I consider myself to be a pretty reasonable person, so I've been _trying_ to come up w/ something other than "Well, she's just f*cking crazy..." w/ respect to _why_.

I think that I've finally realized, though, that I'm just going to have to settle for that.



GusPolinski said:


> When we talk about accountability as it relates to infidelity (or, to be more accurate, as it relates to reconciliation in the aftermath of infidelity), what we're talking about is requiring acknowledgment from the WS that, while the state of the marriage pre-affair may not have been ideal, his or her decision to cheat is 100% his or hers to own. Ideally, this would be voluntarily given; in fact, the value of such an acknowledgement diminishes if it has to be coerced.





jld said:


> The value of owning an action or feeling 100% is that it empowers us to either change it, when possible, or at least make a different decision next time. If I stole candy from a candy store, and I 100% own my decision, and don't just say that my friend did it, too, and that somehow makes it all right, then next time, no matter what my friend does, I can quite firmly decide not to do it. I am empowered to act independently of influences around me.


This is a direct contradiction to the "One came about because of the other" feedback that you provided later in your reply.

Still, I don't disagree.

Either way, that you tend to exalt the emotional state of the wayward above that of the betrayed is very telling.



GusPolinski said:


> There’s also the notion that the WS, being not only an adult but also a willing partner in said marriage, is responsible for roughly 50% of any dysfunction that existed in the marriage prior to the affair. That said, things like substance abuse, spousal abuse, etc will obviously skew those numbers somewhat, assuming, of course, that any transgressions involving such offenses were NOT committed by both parties. (And, again, if this has to be coerced in any way, it won’t be as meaningful as it would’ve been otherwise.)





jld said:


> 50% is arbitrary. I agree that each situation needs to be looked at individually.


I'd agree.



jld said:


> Some people have more capability to act independently than others. We do not all have the same degree of strength.


I have no desire to be married to a child, nor will I tolerate childish behavior from my wife for the sake of having a woman in my life.

I married a woman, and I expect my wife to conduct herself as such. Should she again prove herself to be incapable of the integrity, resolve, or "strength" necessary to do so, we will divorce.

Additionally, I'd advise any BH -- or, for that matter, BS -- to take the same approach.



GusPolinski said:


> When we talk about a WS doing his or her part to aid his or her BS’s healing (i.e. the “heavy lifting”), what we’re referring to is the idea that the WS should absolutely do all the things that could reasonably be expected of a wife or husband in order to communicate love, respect, and devotion, along w/ an intent to be faithful going forward, while simultaneously doing NONE of the things that could be seen by any reasonable person as communicating the exact opposite. (See aforementioned statements regarding coercion and diminishing returns).





jld said:


> To what end? Serious question.
> 
> If she has to do it so he feels safer, he needs to acknowledge his dependence on her.
> 
> If he wants her to do it for her own empowerment, that would not signal dependence to me


Seriously?

It's both, but it's not any sort of "dependence" that drives the conversation.

I do not rely on my wife to govern, manage, regulate, or sustain my emotional health and well-being.

If, however, she expects me to fully invest myself in our marriage, then she needs to demonstrate the same commitment to me. After all, I need to know -- or rather, to _feel_ -- that my investment will not be abused, squandered, taken for granted, or used as a bulwark against any reasonable suspicion of infidelity.



GusPolinski said:


> After all, given that the point of reconciliation is to forge a new, better, and stronger marriage, BOTH parties have a role to play in terms of creating the landscape of that new relationship… correct?





jld said:


> Yes.





GusPolinski said:


> Now… what we’re NOT saying in any of this is that the BS is or should feel entitled to endlessly mope around w/o any sort of aim, direction, or goal. While it’s obvious and understandable that there WILL be a certain amount of pain associated w/ the infidelity from the BS’s perspective, if he or she doesn’t welcome the healing process, it’s not going to begin as optimally as it would otherwise, if at all.





jld said:


> I am sure he is grieving. But for his own empowerment, the more responsibility he can take for his feelings, then the less pain, and more agency, he is going to feel.


OK, so he takes responsibility for his feelings. To what degree should he allow his WW's inability, failure, refusal, or whatever to do all the things that would demonstrate affection, commitment, and respect impact his decision to stay in the marriage?



GusPolinski said:


> Still, I can tell you from my own experience that nothing helps to accelerate the healing process like a willing, engaged, and remorseful FORMER wayward willing to take accountability for his or her poor behavior.
> 
> That’s the other half of the equation.





jld said:


> I think it depends on the amount of dependence you have on your partner. It is surely on a scale.


You think wrong.



jld said:


> Gus, what I think that you cannot comprehend, because it is not your reality, is that not all men are emotionally dependent on their wives. There are men that are emotionally independent. Their approach to infidelity would likely look very different from yours.


Ignoring your blatant -- and possibly intentional -- misunderstanding of what constitutes emotional dependence/independence, I'll say this...

You're correct. They'd simply divorce.



jld said:


> You and I have a disconnect because you are in a different power dynamic than I am. 50/50 could not work for me, because I am wired to give away power to a man. And a male submissive/female dominant relationship would never work for me, because I cannot take responsibility for a man. It is not just a question of will. It is a question of ability.
> 
> And honestly, that is the problem most men who disagree with me on TAM have with me: they are, to my mind, men desperate for their wives to take emotional care of them. And not only can I not personally do that, but I totally understand why other women would not want to, either. If a woman is not wired that way, it is surely going to be a source of disappointment for her to even be asked to.


Ugh. You are so very hilariously wrong.

First off, I'd imagine that very few marriages are 50/50. If there is any sort of measureable, quantifiable power dynamic in my marriage, it's probably something like 70/30 in my favor. Maybe 65/35. But this imbalance doesn't give my wife any latitude in terms of conducting herself in a manner inconsistent w/ that of a mature, principled adult responsible for her own behavior, nor to claim otherwise when caught engaging in such behavior. Nor does it give me any degree of free reign to treat her or interact w/ her in such a way that is inconsistent w/ the affection, commitment, and respect due to a wife from her husband.

Now... if, as a natural, _organic_ result of her actions, I find myself inclined to deny her any of this, and there is not a change in her behavior sufficient enough that it would allow me to reverse course, so to speak, we will divorce.

All any of us ask is that our wives (if they expect to remain in marriage w/ us, anyway) do the things that demonstrate the affection, devotion, and respect that a wife SHOULD have for her husband, along w/ none of the things that demonstrate a lack or absence of such. And this is especially true where reconciliation is concerned.

That's it. That's all. Nothing else.

All of this is just common sense, and I fail to see how any of it makes any of us "emotionally dependant" upon our wives.

It would be one thing if we just couldn't live w/o them, but that's not the case.



GusPolinski said:


> And yes, if the marriage is to be FULLY reconciled, then both the infidelity AND the state of the marriage pre-affair (where applicable) will need to be addressed. After all, neither the affair nor any transgressions committed prior to it offers absolution to either the WS or BS for his or her role in either. This is just common sense.





jld said:


> One came about because of the other. You may disagree, but I think this is usually the case.


OK, so you've just started The Blame Game™. How far back do you take it? Either way, this is little more than an attempt at absolving the wayward of any accountability due him or her as a result of his or her destructive behavior.

Unless, of course, the wayward is male.

Er... sorry... I meant to say "the dominant spouse".

And you know... I don't think I'll bother to wait around for your reply. There's no point. You're just crazy.

I think I'll just take my ball and go home now.

Craster... er... I mean @Duguesclin...

Good luck to you, sir. I hope for your sake that at least one of your girlfriends isn't quite as crazy as your wife.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> LOL. Dug is _no_ emo.
> 
> Can't say I blame him, though.


He is *low* emo, not no emo.

And he loves me very much, in that low emo way.


----------



## MEM2020

In that dimension there is no contest. I take care of M2. Happy to do it. 

She takes care of me when I ask. I just don't ask very often. 





jld said:


> That describes a dominant. He has a need to take care of someone. The submissive has the need to be taken care of.


----------



## JohnA

Hi JLD,

Read the first several pages, jumped to the back to post on the why expose and see the subject has changed. So a comment and a question, 

First exposure is at it's root a request a person live up to their stated principles to you and others when they have violated them. Good friends and family help us live up to higher standard. Not just because they may lecture us, but because their good opinion of us matter to us. Some times our conscience is a little voice in the back of your head saying do I really want to explain this to the people that matter to me in my life. 

My question for you: I don't understand the very narrow view of your statement to MEM on your post #870. To me MEM's action simply said if I am not the guy for you, I accept it and will more on. I won't lecture or condemn but I will attempt to move on and find a person who feels about me as I feel about them. If things change and you feel you can commit and give me this, let's talk again, until then be well. 

To me this is a very healthy response. And yes, being honest and letting those closest to us understand the why is part of the process.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> agreed.
> if I remember right he discovered the long term affair then it ended.
> He did not sit around while it ran its course. although it went on so long it may have naturally ran its course and is one reason she ended it so quickly


 @Wazza

Can you confirm or deny? Did you not know about the affair while it was going on?


----------



## GusPolinski

MEM11363 said:


> Gus,
> 
> That is a mean thing to say. Not the 'no emo' part. The second bit.
> 
> And if Dug were 'no' emo, he wouldn't have reacted like he did when their son was diagnosed with cancer.


The truth isn't always nice, MEM.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> And that's why I am so confident that folks are more driven by their beliefs than what they 'know' or 'think'.


Could you elaborate on this, please, MEM? It sounds interesting.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> You seem to be very risk averse, possibly tied back to you fear of failure? You can't fail when there is no risk. It almost seems as if you have a fear of losing control. I know that is counter to some of the specific things you say, but in aggregate, it feels as if you have a very strong need for structure, and feel very insecure and afraid of things that are beyond your control...such as emotion in men, in particular your husband.


Well, I do have a great need for safety. I guess that could be considered control.

I just don't trust emotion in men. Imagine you worked for a company where the president was emotional and needy. How sure would you be of the future of the business, or your job?


----------



## StilltheStudent

Random thought given some of the comments I have read from JLD during my lurking.

Dug is not no or low-emotion.

He has simply adapted to a situation in which he is married to an, at times, highly emotional women who needs constant support, and has realized that if he were to engage in normal emotional behaviors it would unbalance his marriage, which would jeopardize his ego-driven need for the marriage to succeed, as it is a reflection, in both his mind and his wife's, of his personal worth as a human being.

Dug cannot allow his marriage to fall apart because for it to do so would be to indicate an immense personal failure.

Therefore, he strikes the path necessary to offset JLD, who has been quite upfront about her emotional and dependent nature over the years here on TAM.

Just a thought.


----------



## MEM2020

Marduk,
This is just TRUE. 

Thing is - you and I share a very specific experience with an identical outcome. 

For the moment - let's accept that we have the self image we desire. And then there's reality. 

Here's reality. I repeatedly had opportunities to cheat on M2 where there was ZERO chance of discovery. 

Didn't do it. Not because I didn't have a sexual response. I did. I was turned on. My biology was telling me to mate. But the loyalty gene combined with the love thing - stopped me. 

And I totally agree that many folks will cheat opportunistically. And many who primarily see marriage as a tool for financial stability. 

Absent her fear of hellfire and damnation M2 would have opportunistically cheated by now. She isn't a 'bad' person by any stretch. But her nature puts her in the middle group. 





marduk said:


> OK. Given what has happened in two marriages now, I've kinda dug in on this issue. Talked to psychologists, talked to psychiatrists, talked to people that I know have cheated, including extended family members who were very candid with me -- more candid than even with their spouses in some cases, I think.
> 
> I think some people are just not wired to be monogamous. Of those people, I think some didn't realize it, and wanted to honestly make a go of being married, and just couldn't do it. Sometimes though, and I have one example of this that I know fairly well, people are just non-monogamous but like the benefits of pretending to be monogamous. In other words, stacking the deck to get the benefits of both.
> 
> Setting all the naturally non-monogamous people aside, I think that there's a large contingent of folks that think they would never cheat, but haven't really ever been put in a position where they could and have a reasonable expectation of getting away with it.
> 
> And here's where the interesting bit comes in with how humans are wired.
> 
> We have built within us a deep sense and drive for fairness and equity -- and it's hard wired:
> Research Shows Human Sense Of Fairness Evolved To Favor Long-Term Cooperation - Georgia State University News
> 
> This is actually some of what drives us not to cheat, but *also to cheat.* If I get the sense that I'm not getting my due in marriage or life, one can easily conclude that it would be 'fair' to cheat. Because my wife doesn't pay attention to me. Because my sex life is boring. Or -- because I see other guys/girls get hot sex on the side, why not me?
> 
> So there's that bit -- the sense of social equity or justice. Double sided, that.
> 
> And then there's the whole part of our neocortex that is entirely devoted to rationalization.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)
> 
> This is where we decide to do something, *and then come up for reasons to justify it.* These reasons can have little or nothing to do with the reasons for making the decision -- which can, in fact, be random.
> 
> Human beings are not discrete. Our minds are not any one thing. 'I' am not 'I', I'm actually 'we.' Our behaviour is predictable statistically, but at a granular moment by moment measurement, there is a random component that cannot be accounted for. Call it free will, call it quantum effects in the mind, call it non-determinism, but it's there.
> 
> Add to that the fact that human beings have a drive to procreate, and a drive to seek emotional connection and support from other humans...
> 
> And it might be as simple as "you're sexy" or "I'm lonely" or "I'm jealous" or there might be _no reason at all._ Everybody has an off day and makes stupid decisions. This might just be one of them.
> 
> And then -- that leaves the subset of affairs that have an actual actual driver that one could logically attribute some causation to having an affair. Here's what studies seem to say are the drivers for a person choosing to cheat:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the emotional stuff places in at 3 and 4 on the list -- far, far behind looking to get laid more or better.
> 
> And even that needs to be taken with a grain of salt -- because people rationalize _after they make a decision._
> 
> And even when you just want more or hotter sex, I know of at least one case where the woman wanted kinkier sex, but couldn't bring herself to tell her husband -- not because he couldn't hear it or didn't create an environment where she could -- but because "wives don't do that stuff with their husbands."
> 
> Don't kid yourself. You can't control your partner.


----------



## MEM2020

Dug travels full time. 

JLD almost never calls him for 'help'.

How does that equal needing constant support? 





StilltheStudent said:


> Random thought given some of the comments I have read from JLD during my lurking.
> 
> Dug is not no or low-emotion.
> 
> He has simply adapted to a situation in which he is married to an, at times, highly emotional women who needs constant support, and has realized that if he were to engage in normal emotional behaviors it would unbalance his marriage, which would jeopardize his ego-driven need for the marriage to succeed, as it is a reflection, in both his mind and his wife's, of his personal worth as a human being.
> 
> Dug cannot allow his marriage to fall apart because for it to do so would be to indicate an immense personal failure.
> 
> Therefore, he strikes the path necessary to offset JLD, who has been quite upfront about her emotional and dependent nature over the years here on TAM.
> 
> Just a thought.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Please.....One year of IC
> 
> over a year of MC.
> 
> Been on tam for years.
> 
> Countless books
> 
> I don't see my wife working any harder than I have once I felt
> she had earned my trust again.


I guess just don't see it. Your wife sounds sincere, like she is really trying to be honest with herself. That is what leads to growth.

Again, have you worked through any of the 12 step materials?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Would he leave you?


As I guy I would if you did that to me. That's just beyond disresptful to me.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I respect your opinion but do not get into the femdom thing. I will leave it at that. Takers don't make good spouses or parents imo.


I think you are *living* the femdom thing. And I say that with great respect to your wife. She is a fine gal.


----------



## MEM2020

She knows she is the best nurse. Her boss had just confirmed it by offering to make her the highest paid tech. 

But she has this compulsive need to TELL her coworkers that: Mommy loves me the best

How do you think that made THEM feel? And how do you think Mommy feels about being outed? 

They feel unloved and Mommy feels betrayed. 

This is scorpion behavior. From that story where the scorpion stings the frog mid stream and they both drown. 





jld said:


> Could you elaborate on this, please, MEM? It sounds interesting.


----------



## StilltheStudent

JLD has said (and please correct me if this is no longer true) that her entire marriage rests on DUG's strength. She has directly stated that their marriage would be fundamentally different and likely suffer is she was forced to assume even half the responsibility for it and that the entire marriage has proceeded on DUG's plans.

She has also said she entered her marriage with no expectations and basically followed along with Dug's strength because she needed it for stability.

Add to that her other comments about Dug's apparently non-emotional nature, how she described seeing Dug cry over their son's cancer as "really scary" in the past, and how she always, and I mean always, holds men responsible for protecting and at-time controlling women, to the point that it makes women in her mind seem like little girls, it becomes quite obvious.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> And you know perfectly well that if I were in that situation I would be begging for forgiveness.


What you have said is that if you cheated, you would think it was Dug's fault for failing you, and that he should be the one approaching you for forgiveness for failing you.

Or have I profoundly misunderstood?



> Honestly, marduk, talk about disingenuous. You ought to know.Or that a husband should demand it. That problem with demanding it is that it might be done out of fear. If it is done out of anything other than a full heart, it will not be meaningful.


Quite often, fear makes one realize what one is actually doing.

The fog is interesting. Unicorns and rainbows and everything will all work out if the spouse would just get out of the way.

Fear clears the fog, because it is a response to reality. 

Do people drive the speed limit out of a sense of abstract social obligation, or out of a fear that they could get caught or hurt someone?



> You cannot demand and control your way to a true reconciliation.


This is true, and we both know that I have learned this lesson well.

But we also both know that that's not at all what I'm talking about.


> Insensitivity is not strength. I never said it was.


Is Dug sensitive to his own emotional state?

Is he able to predict how his emotions drive his behaviour, and what emotions in you will be triggered by that?

Is he able to articulate how your behaviours trigger his emotions?


> Not taking people's emotions personally, but looking past them to their hurt, and how you can help them with it, is.


It is fundamentally impossible to not take a sudden discovery that your spouse is cheating and lying personally. It is the definition of personal.

That is, if your personality is invested and entangled in the marriage.


> All these words -- disingenuous, pretend, others I cannot think of-- just mean you have no trust in me.


I do not trust your intentions.

Because the easiest answer when I take a step back and look at your behaviour is that it looks judgemental. It looks like you feel you have the authority to label people as 'doms' or 'subs'. 

It also looks as if you are offering your model of a marriage -- which you admit is not the norm -- as the solution. Or barring that, that the woman become the Dom and protect the man.

When the reality is what I'm saying is that the woman is as accountible for her own behaviour as the man is accountible for his.


> And that probably makes sense, because I have no trust in you, either.


The time where I cared about having your trust ended the moment that you started not speaking truthfully about my relationship, who I am, started backtracking on your own statements without being honest about that, or, quite frankly, just making stuff up -- like "I define this word to be the exact opposite of what the definition is" and sticking your tongue out at the whole dialectic process.

And -- I know very well -- that when you pretend to 'not know something' or 'you're just one voice' that that is just a convenience for you to rationalize your own behaviour.

Instead of being honest.

You have always asked me to dig deep and be honest with my own intentions.

All I ask is the same. 

Barring that, because I've long since concluded that you're unwilling to do that in an accountible fashion, all I ask is that you do not act in a way that is harmful to those vulnerable to your core message -- which is that the betrayed husband caused, and should be accountible for, and should beg forgiveness for, his wife's affair.


----------



## Wolf1974

GusPolinski said:


> In all fairness, _most_ fathers probably expect to see at least _some_ of this in their daughters from time to time.


Count on me to raise good daughters Gus. I would never tolerate uncontrolled emotional screaming. That would be a failure as a father to let them ever think that's ok


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Dug travels full time.
> 
> JLD almost never calls him for 'help'.
> 
> How does that equal needing constant support?


I struggle as well how it makes him the Dom.

How does one command a kingdom he is most frequently not in?

By putting the queen in charge.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> OK. Given what has happened in two marriages now, I've kinda dug in on this issue. Talked to psychologists, talked to psychiatrists, talked to people that I know have cheated, including extended family members who were very candid with me -- more candid than even with their spouses in some cases, I think.
> 
> I think some people are just not wired to be monogamous. Of those people, I think some didn't realize it, and wanted to honestly make a go of being married, and just couldn't do it. Sometimes though, and I have one example of this that I know fairly well, people are just non-monogamous but like the benefits of pretending to be monogamous. In other words, stacking the deck to get the benefits of both.
> 
> Setting all the naturally non-monogamous people aside, I think that there's a large contingent of folks that think they would never cheat, but haven't really ever been put in a position where they could and have a reasonable expectation of getting away with it.
> 
> And here's where the interesting bit comes in with how humans are wired.
> 
> We have built within us a deep sense and drive for fairness and equity -- and it's hard wired:
> Research Shows Human Sense Of Fairness Evolved To Favor Long-Term Cooperation - Georgia State University News
> 
> This is actually some of what drives us not to cheat, but *also to cheat.* If I get the sense that I'm not getting my due in marriage or life, one can easily conclude that it would be 'fair' to cheat. Because my wife doesn't pay attention to me. Because my sex life is boring. Or -- because I see other guys/girls get hot sex on the side, why not me?
> 
> So there's that bit -- the sense of social equity or justice. Double sided, that.
> 
> And then there's the whole part of our neocortex that is entirely devoted to rationalization.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)
> 
> This is where we decide to do something, *and then come up for reasons to justify it.* These reasons can have little or nothing to do with the reasons for making the decision -- which can, in fact, be random.
> 
> Human beings are not discrete. Our minds are not any one thing. 'I' am not 'I', I'm actually 'we.' Our behaviour is predictable statistically, but at a granular moment by moment measurement, there is a random component that cannot be accounted for. Call it free will, call it quantum effects in the mind, call it non-determinism, but it's there.
> 
> Add to that the fact that human beings have a drive to procreate, and a drive to seek emotional connection and support from other humans...
> 
> And it might be as simple as "you're sexy" or "I'm lonely" or "I'm jealous" or there might be _no reason at all._ Everybody has an off day and makes stupid decisions. This might just be one of them.
> 
> And then -- that leaves the subset of affairs that have an actual actual driver that one could logically attribute some causation to having an affair. Here's what studies seem to say are the drivers for a person choosing to cheat:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the emotional stuff places in at 3 and 4 on the list -- far, far behind looking to get laid more or better.
> 
> And even that needs to be taken with a grain of salt -- because people rationalize _after they make a decision._
> 
> And even when you just want more or hotter sex, I know of at least one case where the woman wanted kinkier sex, but couldn't bring herself to tell her husband -- not because he couldn't hear it or didn't create an environment where she could -- but because "wives don't do that stuff with their husbands."
> 
> Don't kid yourself. You can't control your partner.


I am just amazed at the lengths that some people will go to to avoid taking any responsibility for their partner's vulnerability to infidelity.


----------



## GusPolinski

Wolf1974 said:


> Count on me to raise good daughters Gus. I would never tolerate uncontrolled emotional screaming. That would be a failure as a father to let them ever think that's ok


Fair enough, but there's a difference between tolerating the behavior and understanding that it may happen from time to time.

Either way, what I was doing is drawing a direct parallel between jld's marriage and your typical father/daughter relationship.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> This is just TRUE.
> 
> Thing is - you and I share a very specific experience with an identical outcome.
> 
> For the moment - let's accept that we have the self image we desire. And then there's reality.
> 
> Here's reality. I repeatedly had opportunities to cheat on M2 where there was ZERO chance of discovery.
> 
> Didn't do it. Not because I didn't have a sexual response. I did. I was turned on. My biology was telling me to mate. But the loyalty gene combined with the love thing - stopped me.
> 
> And I totally agree that many folks will cheat opportunistically. And many who primarily see marriage as a tool for financial stability.
> 
> Absent her fear of hellfire and damnation M2 would have opportunistically cheated by now. She isn't a 'bad' person by any stretch. But her nature puts her in the middle group.


I neglected to mention the 1/3 to 1/4 of us that just won't cheat. I'm one of them, as are you. As are Far and D1 and a number of others I know.

Leave, sure. But cheat? No. 

I think it's an inbuilt sense of integrity and accountability.

I simply couldn't live with myself -- even if my wife deserved a divorce.


----------



## Wolf1974

Pluto2 said:


> One person's growth! Or an opening to co-dependence? Believing you can control another with your actions is not healthy.


And in the end no one does. You may THINK you have control but you don't. What you can control is yourself and your actions. You HOPE your spouse will do right by you but no promises on that obviously


----------



## StilltheStudent

marduk said:


> I struggle as well how it makes him the Dom.
> 
> How does one command a kingdom he is most frequently not in?
> 
> By putting the queen in charge.


That is the part that perplexes me.

I am beginning to get the feeling that, in relationships like the one JLD describes, what seems on the outside as emotional dependency, is in fact a gambit to force one partner to shoulder all of the burden of the relationship thereby alleviating any of the responsibility from the other.

Maximum freedom is freedom from responsibility.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I am just amazed at the lengths that some people will go to to avoid taking any responsibility for their partner's vulnerability to infidelity.


Do you think Dug's fidelity has anything to do with your behaviour?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Your judgment that I am disingenuous is up to you, marduk.
> 
> When do I say that most people are not like Dug and me? We are humans like everyone *else. But it does seem like Dug is emotionally stronger than most men. Men could surely try to improve, though.
> *
> Do you even read my posts in their entirety? I mentioned about reading on MB that when men cheat, it doesn't have to necessarily be the end of the marriage. My thought is that he has to go, because you just can't trust him anymore. But Dr. H seems to think that women have fault in why men cheat, too. I did not see women as having that kind of influence.
> 
> ETA: Okay, I went back and saw that I posted about what I read on MB after you did. Sorry about that.


see this is the thing I find ultra fascinating. You berate him verbally and he takes it. You see him strong for this but if I as a thrid party watched that I'm thinking this guy needs to grow a pair of balls. I would bet a majority of men and women who watch a guy get yelled at by his wife and just stand there like a whipping post would feel the same way.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> He definitely cares about me. He loves me very much.
> 
> But he does not have very many needs, and certainly not emotional ones.  So it is not in his default thinking to think I do. And that has been a big source of hurt for me over the years.
> 
> He really is making efforts, though. And he has so much insight, when he takes time to share it with me.


This is not indicative of someone who could function well in a 50/50 relationship as you said dug could. If he could, then he definitely has emotional needs. I know he has said he doesn't when you have talked about it, and I guess, all you have to go on is what he says, but do you really pay attention to things beyond the words? Or are you so afraid of seeing something you don't want to see, that you simply don't look? Could it be that he endures your emotion because he is dependent on you and is afraid of losing you?


----------



## Marduk

Wolf1974 said:


> see this is the thing I find ultra fascinating. You berate him verbally and he takes it. You see him strong for this but if I as a thrid party watched that I'm thinking this guy needs to grow a pair of balls. I would bet a majority of men and women who watch a guy get yelled at by his wife and just stand there like a whipping post would feel the same way.


Don't forget -- she didn't find Dug this way.

She told Dug that to be with her meant tolerating this behaviour, and shouldering 100% accountability for the entire relationship, her behaviour, and her decisions. Or she wouldn't be with him.

If that isn't an ultimatum and control, then I just don't know what those words mean.


----------



## jld

JohnA said:


> Hi JLD,
> 
> Read the first several pages, jumped to the back to post on the why expose and see the subject has changed. So a comment and a question,
> 
> First exposure is at it's root a request a person live up to their stated principles to you and others when they have violated them. Good friends and family help us live up to higher standard. Not just because they may lecture us, but because their good opinion of us matter to us. Some times our conscience is a little voice in the back of your head saying do I really want to explain this to the people that matter to me in my life.
> 
> My question for you: I don't understand the very narrow view of your statement to MEM on your post #870. To me MEM's action simply said if I am not the guy for you, I accept it and will more on. I won't lecture or condemn but I will attempt to move on and find a person who feels about me as I feel about them. If things change and you feel you can commit and give me this, let's talk again, until then be well.
> 
> To me this is a very healthy response. And yes, being honest and letting those closest to us understand the why is part of the process.


I think he was either threatening his wife with a divorce or with an open marriage if she went with her AP. I don't think threats are the way to go. I understand he got some great sex out of it, but I still think coercion in marriage is unhealthy.

I think non-violent, non-coercive approaches are the way to go.

ETA: I can understand that to MEM, it did not seem like a threat. But I think it felt that way to his wife.


----------



## GusPolinski

marduk said:


> Do you think Dug's fidelity has anything to do with your behaviour?


I have what I think is an even better question...

He spends extended periods of time apart from a histrionic wife that verbally berates him when he IS at home.

Based on that alone, does anyone honestly believe that he IS faithful?


----------



## Wolf1974

GusPolinski said:


> Fair enough, but there's a difference between tolerating the behavior and understanding that it may happen from time to time.
> 
> Either way, what I was doing is drawing a direct parallel between jld's marriage and your typical father/daughter relationship.


I agree that's what she has.. But when you posted that it made me wonder what kind of father she was raised by as well


----------



## Wolf1974

marduk said:


> Don't forget -- she didn't find Dug this way.
> 
> She told Dug that to be with her meant tolerating this behaviour, and shouldering 100% accountability for the entire relationship, her behaviour, and her decisions. Or she wouldn't be with him.
> 
> If that isn't an ultimatum and control, then I just don't know what those words mean.


I know It almost sounds like that crackpot lady maisto or whatever her name is. This is just a productive form of manipulation perhaps


----------



## Marduk

GusPolinski said:


> I have what I think is an even better question...
> 
> He spends extended periods of time apart from a histrionic wife that verbally berates him when he IS at home.
> 
> Based on that alone, does anyone honestly believe that he IS faithful?


That was my point.

Look -- I don't doubt Dug's been faithful.

It's just that jld's behaviour is the _exact opposite_ of what Harley says a woman should do to make sure he is faithful.

And yet he probably is.

And if she thinks she influences Dug's fidelity, then he isn't the Dom, because she's in charge of her own fidelital safety.

It's one on a whole heap of paradoxes in her position.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

GusPolinski said:


> I have what I think is an even better question...
> 
> He spends extended periods of time apart from a histrionic wife that verbally berates him when he IS at home.
> 
> Based on that alone, does anyone honestly believe that he IS faithful?


Dug has said a few times that he would rather hear it all, all the emotion, so he knows what she's feeling than have her bottle it all up and not know what's wrong. He doesn't mind it. 

He worded it much better, I'm sure someone can find it and quote him but he's a grown man. If he didn't love a respect JLD for who she is, he can leave. 

This kind of talk, and not just you, IMO has gone over the line.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> I think he was either threatening his wife with a divorce or with an open marriage if she went with her AP. I don't think threats are the way to go. I understand he got some great sex out of it, but I still think coercion in marriage is unhealthy.
> 
> I think non-violent, non-coercive approaches are the way to go.
> 
> ETA: I can understand that to MEM, it did not seem like a threat. But I think it felt that way to his wife.


I didn't see it as a coercive tactic or a threat even if it may have been.

I saw it as treating her as she was treating him.

do unto others as they do to you:grin2:

anyway, it worked


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

As gently as possible.

I believe that people are saying: If your spouse is either wired to be non monogamous or is very much wired for opportunistic cheating, that is a totally different situation than the one where the marriage itself has gotten really bad. 

Let me try and frame this differently. In Jakarta - with daily opportunities to cheat and no chance of being caught - I didn't. 

But when M2 gave me some version of: I'm not in love with you any more. 

I said: Well let's accept that monogamy is no longer a requirement between us. 

Maybe the simplest statemtment about it would be: Well if you don't really love me anymore, I don't get why you would care who I sleep with. 

Our marriage wasn't messed up. M2 just desperately wanted to have sex with the OM. And she is monogamous - couldn't sleep with both of us in parallel. So she had a legitimate need to stop having sex with me. 

Her desire to fvck Dan was solely driven by his hotness and their long term proximity. It wasn't driven by me. 






jld said:


> The door is closed to any reflection on what you might have contributed to her vulnerability?


----------



## jld

StilltheStudent said:


> Random thought given some of the comments I have read from JLD during my lurking.
> 
> Dug is not no or low-emotion.
> 
> He has simply adapted to a situation in which he is married to an, at times, highly emotional women who needs constant support, and has realized that if he were to engage in normal emotional behaviors it would unbalance his marriage, which would jeopardize his ego-driven need for the marriage to succeed, as it is a reflection, in both his mind and his wife's, of his personal worth as a human being.
> 
> Dug cannot allow his marriage to fall apart because for it to do so would be to indicate an immense personal failure.
> 
> Therefore, he strikes the path necessary to offset JLD, who has been quite upfront about her emotional and dependent nature over the years here on TAM.
> 
> Just a thought.


He feels responsible for the marriage. He feels responsible for the family. He really wanted to marry me and have children with me. Dug does not take that lightly. 

That is also why he urges men to look at their own hand in their wife's vulnerability to an affair, rather than to divorce because their pride is hurt. He thinks it is important, whenever possible, to keep the family intact. Somebody has to think of the kids.

I think what you may see, Student, as normal emotional behavior, is high emo to Dug. And he is not high emo. That is just the fact.

I read your post to him just now. He said he has grown a lot emotionally since being with me. He said before he met me, he never expressed his emotions.


----------



## GusPolinski

Wolf1974 said:


> I agree that's what she has.. But when you posted that it made me wonder what kind of father she was raised by as well


LOL. He probably has some ownership here as well.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> As I guy I would if you did that to me. That's just beyond disresptful to me.


To you that might be disrespectful. To Dug it means I am reaching out, seeking connection.


----------



## GusPolinski

marduk said:


> That was my point.
> 
> Look -- I don't doubt Dug's been faithful.
> 
> It's just that jld's behaviour is the _exact opposite_ of what Harley says a woman should do to make sure he is faithful.
> 
> And yet he probably is.
> 
> And if she thinks she influences Dug's fidelity, then he isn't the Dom, because she's in charge of her own fidelital safety.
> 
> It's one on a whole heap of paradoxes in her position.


Agreed.

And I think I've arrived at an epiphany of sorts w/ respect to her continued presence here, at least w/ respect to the narrative that she's been spinning since she arrived here...

She's desperate for validation.

She wants others to see the dynamics of her marriage as not only acceptable, tolerable, or even normal, but preferable and healthy.

Seems to be a pretty hard sell thus far.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Steady on Gus. 

JLD highlights how Dug handles their conflicts. That doesn't imply frequent conflict. 





GusPolinski said:


> I have what I think is an even better question...
> 
> He spends extended periods of time apart from a histrionic wife that verbally berates him when he IS at home.
> 
> Based on that alone, does anyone honestly believe that he IS faithful?


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> She knows she is the best nurse. Her boss had just confirmed it by offering to make her the highest paid tech.
> 
> But she has this compulsive need to TELL her coworkers that: Mommy loves me the best
> 
> How do you think that made THEM feel? And how do you think Mommy feels about being outed?
> 
> They feel unloved and Mommy feels betrayed.
> 
> This is scorpion behavior. From that story where the scorpion stings the frog mid stream and they both drown.


She is insecure. She needs to work to develop more personal security.

Again, it is that self-love and self-acceptance thing. 

And really, both she and they seem immature.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I thought Ele said the success rate was higher than that.
> 
> @EleGirl Do you know what the success rate at MB is?
> 
> I am concerned that by the bolded you mean will take care of him while he just pursues his own interests.


Yes, the success rate of martial recovery after an affair is much higher than 15%.

When a couple gets no outside help, it's about 56%.

When a couple goes to counseling it's about 70%.

At TAM, the success rate seems to be in the lower single digits.


----------



## Marduk

GusPolinski said:


> Agreed.
> 
> And I think I've arrived at an epiphany of sorts w/ respect to her continued presence here, at least w/ respect to the narrative that she's been spinning since she arrived here...
> 
> She's desperate for validation.
> 
> She wants others to see the dynamics of her marriage as not only acceptable, tolerable, or even normal, but preferable and healthy.
> 
> Seems to be a pretty hard sell thus far.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That is astoundingly insightful. Thank you. 

I'm putting the pieces together now.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Yes, the success rate of martial recovery after an affair is much higher than 15%.
> 
> When a couple gets no outside help, it's about 56%.
> 
> When a couple goes to counseling it's about 70%.
> 
> At TAM, the success rate seems to be in the lower single digits.


How would we measure that last part - people seem to just vanish. 

I assume some of the reasons are that it worked out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

MEM11363 said:


> Steady on Gus.
> 
> JLD highlights how Dug handles their conflicts. That doesn't imply frequent conflict.


Which leads me to wonder just how much physical, interpersonal interaction they have. Is their dynamic contingent on limited interaction? How would things change if dug was home the vast majority of the time?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Do you think Dug's fidelity has anything to do with your behaviour?


He is certainly a faithful spouse. I don't see him as vulnerable to cheating at all.

How much of that is due to my meeting his needs? Interesting question.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> To you that might be disrespectful. To Dug it means I am reaching out, seeking connection.


But that's the point. He is who he is and you are who you are. You seem to have problems accepting the fact that you are not the majority but rather both outliers in world. When you say things like most men then it's not accurate because most men would not tolerate that. 

It's fine to carve out your own corner of the world and make life however you want. but you have to understand that the rest of the world operates differently. And honestly thank god it does. 

I'm not picking on the man at all mind you. I assume he is happy with you or her wouldn't stay. But the day my kiddo almost dies and my wife isn't there to support me would be the day I'm out. A repeated pattern of being a whipping boy for your uncontrolled emotions while I contrary get to have none of my own...same thing.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> He is certainly a faithful spouse. I don't see him as vulnerable to cheating at all.
> 
> How much of that is due to my meeting his needs? Interesting question.


Then answer it. 

Do you believe you have influence over his fidelity?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk said:


> How would we measure that last part - people seem to just vanish.
> 
> I assume some of the reasons are that it worked out.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think people who want to R in ways that would seem weak to the TAM community (like mine was) they find a different path. I stepped away, maybe some of them go elsewhere.

Being told over and over again that your wife's a wh*re and you're a wimp isn't much fun.

Sad because TAM doesn't see many examples of other methods working so they assume they don't.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> see this is the thing I find ultra fascinating. You berate him verbally and he takes it. You see him strong for this but if I as a thrid party watched that I'm thinking this guy needs to grow a pair of balls. I would bet a majority of men and women who watch a guy get yelled at by his wife and just stand there like a whipping post would feel the same way.


Because you feel scared of it. He does not.

To Dug, when I am upset it feels like a mosquito bite, or a bee sting. Not some tragedy where he has to go rushing out of the room or demand I calm down, so he can feel safe.

Why be scared of a woman's emotion?

I remember when I first started reading relationship forums, and heard the "advice" to leave the room. I could not believe it. I showed it to Dug and our daughter, and they could not believe it, either. We all said the same thing, "That is so wrong."

Here she is, completely vulnerable, and the man abandons her. I just cannot believe anyone could be so cruel. And that other people would sanction it!


----------



## Pluto2

EleGirl said:


> Yes, the success rate of martial recovery after an affair is much higher than 15%.
> 
> When a couple gets no outside help, it's about 56%.
> 
> When a couple goes to counseling it's about 70%.
> 
> At TAM, the success rate seems to be in the lower single digits.


Funny, because I heard Harley quote the 15% success rate.

ETA: but I believe he was referring to the Plan A success rate


----------



## StilltheStudent

jld said:


> He feels responsible for the marriage. He feels responsible for the family. He really wanted to marry me and have children with me. Dug does not take that lightly.


I definitely get that sense from your posts and his comments. It sounds like family is the end-goal for him and therefore anything that it takes to keep the family together is worth it.



jld said:


> That is also why he urges men to look at their own hand in their wife's vulnerability to an affair, rather than to divorce because their pride is hurt. He thinks it is important, whenever possible, to keep the family intact. Somebody has to think of the kids.


Infidelity is not a disease which strikes you because of a weakened immune system.

Infidelity is a choice to betray your spouse in the most visceral way imaginable and for entirely selfish reasons.



jld said:


> I think what you may see, Student, as normal emotional behavior, is high emo to Dug. And he is not high emo. That is just the fact.
> 
> I read your post to him just now. He said he has grown a lot emotionally since being with me. He said before he met me, he never expressed his emotions.


Interesting. 

Reading your posts I feel like you and Dug do not believe in one thing:

Self-Respect.

You describe the fallout from infidelity as a strike to the _ego_.

As though it is nothing more than losing a baseball game or getting called out in public for arrogance.

And that it should be dealt with in a similar way.

The same comes out when you describe how Dug and men in general should accept emotionally unstable women verbally abusing them and otherwise acting like children.

Personally, I think that if a man has confidence and self-respect, a value in his own person and maturity, he demands the same from those around them.

He does not coddle and definitely does not validate unacceptable behavior.

He also expects maturity and rationality of those around him or else he removes them from his life.


----------



## Pluto2

MEM11363 said:


> Steady on Gus.
> 
> JLD highlights how Dug handles their conflicts. That doesn't imply frequent conflict.


Must have been Gus's perception, to which he is entitled.


----------



## Wolf1974

Could you ask Dug, when you and he have Time of course, what he gets out of being married to you? Perhaps that would help some of us understand the motivation.

Reason I ask is because intimacy is the one thing that binds a married couple vs just causal hook up style relationships. Intimacy as in sharing thoughts and fear, hopes, dreams that kind of stuff. So if he isn't going to or can't share those things with you why stay at all?

I mean sex, kids, co-habitation can all happen without marriage. Intimacy is really what sets it apart.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Because you feel scared of it. He does not.
> 
> To Dug, when I am upset it feels like a mosquito bite, or a bee sting. Not some tragedy where he has to go rushing out of the room or demand I calm down, so he can feel safe.
> 
> Why be scared of a woman's emotion?
> 
> I remember when I first started reading relationship forums, and heard the "advice" to leave the room. I could not believe it. I showed it to Dug and our daughter, and they could not believe it, either. We all said the same thing, "That is so wrong."
> 
> Here she is, completely vulnerable, and the man abandons her. I just cannot believe anyone could be so cruel. And that other people would sanction it!


You're doing it again, JLD.

There is a profound difference between fearing your spouse's behaviour and demanding respectful behaviour.

Respect -- as a requirement -- does not equate with fear.

You seek to find dismissive or insulting labels where there are none.

To me, and to many others, not demanding respect as a requirement for a relationship is weakness, not strength. And it is not driven by fear, or selfishness, or a need to be protected.

It is driven by integrity.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Because you feel scared of it. He does not.
> 
> To Dug, when I am upset it feels like a mosquito bite, or a bee sting. Not some tragedy where he has to go rushing out of the room or demand I calm down, so he can feel safe.
> 
> Why be scared of a woman's emotion?
> 
> I remember when I first started reading relationship forums, and heard the "advice" to leave the room. I could not believe it. I showed it to Dug and our daughter, and they could not believe it, either. We all said the same thing, "That is so wrong."
> 
> Here she is, completely vulnerable, and the man abandons her. I just cannot believe anyone could be so cruel. And that other people would sanction it!


Your projecting. is no fear involved. Just the expectation that I treat someone with respect and expect the same in return. Those who can't control themselves are the people scared.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> This is not indicative of someone who could function well in a 50/50 relationship as you said dug could. If he could, then he definitely has emotional needs. I know he has said he doesn't when you have talked about it, and I guess, all you have to go on is what he says, but do you really pay attention to things beyond the words? Or are you so afraid of seeing something you don't want to see, that you simply don't look? Could it be that he endures your emotion because he is dependent on you and is afraid of losing you?


Sam. "Endures"?

Not everyone is so greatly affected by a wife's emotions.

By doing fine in a 50/50, I mean he would be okay with a more emotionally independent woman.

He tells me he would not want to be in that kind of relationship, though. Not after being with me, I think.

Maybe it is hard to understand Dug if you don't know him. He just does not take things personally.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Don't forget -- she didn't find Dug this way.
> 
> She told Dug that to be with her meant tolerating this behaviour, and shouldering 100% accountability for the entire relationship, her behaviour, and her decisions. Or she wouldn't be with him.
> 
> If that isn't an ultimatum and control, then I just don't know what those words mean.


I did not tell him any such thing. Where did you get that?

Did you just make it up?


----------



## StilltheStudent

I do not refuse to accept disrespect from people, including my wife, because I am afraid of them.

I refuse to accept it because I have enough self-respect to recognize that I need not deal with it and that I will not validate unacceptable and childish behavior and that by doing so it means I will have to continue dealing with it in the future.

It is weakness and fear that prevents someone from confronting disrespect.

You have this fundamentally backwards JLD.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> I have what I think is an even better question...
> 
> *He spends extended periods of time apart from a histrionic wife that verbally berates him when he IS at home.*
> 
> Based on that alone, does anyone honestly believe that he IS faithful?


Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. We probably have one of the calmest multi-child households ever.

And Dug is 100% faithful. My gosh, Gus.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> I guess just don't see it. Your wife sounds sincere, like she is really trying to be honest with herself. That is what leads to growth.
> 
> Again, have you worked through any of the 12 step materials?


I am not an addict.


----------



## GusPolinski

Pluto2 said:


> Must have been Gus's perception, to which he is entitled.


LOL... I see what you did there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. We probably have one of the calmest multi-child households ever.
> 
> And Dug is 100% faithful. My gosh, Gus.


How is it calm if you yell at him when you are upset?

Do any of your kids speak to you this way? Do any of them speak to him this way?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Sam. "Endures"?
> 
> Not everyone is so greatly affected by a wife's emotions.
> 
> By doing fine in a 50/50, *I mean he would be okay with a more emotionally independent woman*.
> 
> He tells me he would not want to be in that kind of relationship, though. Not after being with me, I think.
> 
> Maybe it is hard to understand Dug if you don't know him. He just does not take things personally.


As he is now, I'm not so sure an emotionally independent woman would be ok with him.


----------



## convert

EleGirl said:


> Yes, the success rate of martial recovery after an affair is much higher than 15%.
> 
> When a couple gets no outside help, it's about 56%.
> 
> When a couple goes to counseling it's about 70%.
> 
> At TAM, the success rate seems to be in the lower single digits.


I still like TAM much more than MBs and plus you are here on TAM EleGirl


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Agreed.
> 
> And I think I've arrived at an epiphany of sorts w/ respect to her continued presence here, at least w/ respect to the narrative that she's been spinning since she arrived here...
> 
> She's desperate for validation.
> 
> She wants others to see the dynamics of her marriage as not only acceptable, tolerable, or even normal, but preferable and healthy.
> 
> Seems to be a pretty hard sell thus far.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am trying to help people like you, Gus. I think elements of my marriage, particularly the attitude of my husband, could help the men here.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Then answer it.
> 
> Do you believe you have influence over his fidelity?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have never thought so. Dug is a moral man.

But my satisfying him may have an influence, too. It certainly does not hurt!


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I am trying to help people like you, Gus. I think elements of my marriage, particularly the attitude of my husband, could help the men here.


Do you think your way of how you handle relationships is the superior way to how the rest of the world operates JLD?


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I am trying to help people like you, Gus. I think elements of my marriage, particularly the attitude of my husband, could help the men here.


Thank you SO MUCH for that.

I haven't laughed that hard all year.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I did not tell him any such thing. Where did you get that?
> 
> Did you just make it up?


Sigh. Again with the smokescreens and the shifting of the burden of proof?



jld said:


> I think there is a difference between a dominant power orientation, and being the de facto dominant in a relationship. Many women may be the de facto dominant, not because they want to be, but because the husband is not taking responsibility for the relationship. Lots of gals are in that position. It is a heavy load.
> 
> To me, if I had to be the dominant in the relationship, I would not stay. Much easier to carry just myself.
> 
> Dug is a very kind man. Really, he would have been fine in a 50/50 relationship. But that is not my marital orientation. I kept giving him power, and he finally took it.
> 
> Neither of us knew any D/s terms at that time, either. We were not analyzing things. I just kept trying to please him, and being vulnerable to him, and he finally realized that I needed him to be more than just half the power in the relationship.
> 
> If he could not have handled it, or if it would have been distasteful to him, we never would have gotten off the ground. I don't think he would have even been attracted to me.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I am trying to help people like you, Gus. I think elements of my marriage,* particularly the attitude of my husband, could help the men here*.


Yet, many, many women are here precisely because their husbands attitudes are like yours.


----------



## Wolf1974

:grin2: I really like this thread. The sociologist in me can't get enough of it


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I am not an addict.


Being rigorously honest with oneself can benefit anyone, BP.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Yet, many, many women are here precisely because their husbands attitudes are like yours.


I don't mean the failing to pay attention part, Sam.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Sigh. Again with the smokescreens and the shifting of the burden of proof?


Nothing in there supports what you said earlier about my supposedly giving him an ultimatum.

You made it up. Admit it.


----------



## ButtPunch

StilltheStudent said:


> I do not refuse to accept disrespect from people, including my wife, because I am afraid of them.
> 
> I refuse to accept it because I have enough self-respect to recognize that I need not deal with it and that I will not validate unacceptable and childish behavior and that by doing so it means I will have to continue dealing with it in the future.
> 
> It is weakness and fear that prevents someone from confronting disrespect.
> 
> You have this fundamentally backwards JLD.


I agree with you. Dug doesn't want to be a failure so he does what he has to to survive. Can you imagine the ruin if had divorced with five kids and alimony on top of that. He will weather a hurricane before snapping. He will submit to jld and be the man she wants hell he has too or he is a failure. Reminds me of that referee getting screamed at commercial.

This explains the travel. He can relax and be himself. I would work weekends too.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Do you think your way of how you handle relationships is the superior way to how the rest of the world operates JLD?


I think a male-dominated relationship, in which the dominance is unselfish and based on earning and maintaining the trust of the woman, offers a lot of satisfaction and stability that I do not necessarily see often on TAM.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Being rigorously honest with oneself can benefit anyone, BP.


That doesn't make sense to me. 

I am not an addict. Why would I work the 12 steps. 

My wife is. She did. Now she helps other addicts. 

What's your point.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I agree with you. Dug doesn't want to be a failure so he does what he has to to survive. Can you imagine the ruin if had divorced with five kids and alimony on top of that. He will weather a hurricane before snapping. He will submit to jld and be the man she wants hell he has too or he is a failure. Reminds me of that referee getting screamed at commercial.
> 
> This explains the travel. He can relax and be himself. I would work weekends too.


This is crazy.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> That doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> I am not an addict. My wife is.
> 
> What's your point.


I don't think you are honest with yourself. 

Rigorous honesty benefits everyone, not just addicts.

Not that we aren't all addicts in our own right.


----------



## Wolf1974

ButtPunch said:


> I agree with you. Dug doesn't want to be a failure so he does what he has to to survive. Can you imagine the ruin if had divorced with five kids and alimony on top of that. He will weather a hurricane before snapping. He will submit to jld and be the man she wants hell he has too or he is a failure. Reminds me of that referee getting screamed at commercial.
> 
> This explains the travel. He can relax and be himself. I would work weekends too.


I don't know. That's why I asked her to ask him what he gets out of the marriage. They don't have a Dom sub relationship it is
To me more like a parent child one where the child is running the roost so to speak. Something about this dynamic he must like. And he, as a traveled man, must realize that if he ever lost JLD it would be near impossible to find a dynamic like that again.

I'm speculating but that's how I see it.


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> Being rigorously honest with oneself can benefit anyone, BP.



think you just jumped the shark on that one.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Gus,
> 
> That is a mean thing to say. Not the 'no emo' part. The second bit.
> 
> And if Dug were 'no' emo, he wouldn't have reacted like he did when their son was diagnosed with cancer.


Mem, I would urge caution on favoritism.

I appreciate JLD in many ways, even if we frequently have spats in threads. She knows this.

However, Gus is being no less blunt than JLD.

You are scolding one while overlooking the other for the same infraction.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I think a male-dominated relationship, in which the dominance is unselfish and based on earning and maintaining the trust of the woman, offers a lot of satisfaction and stability that I do not necessarily see often on TAM.


And how do you ever have trust if you don't respect? Seems to me those two things have to go hand in hand. I have never trusted someone I had zero respect for


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I just don't trust emotion in men. Imagine you worked for a company where the president was emotional and needy.


jld,

You make allusions to Christian theology now and then and appear to be influenced by it.

Do you see a difference between the emotions of a character like Jesus and one like Zeus, for example? 

The Jesus character openly weeps over the fate of Jerusalem and for his friend, Lazarus; he feels compassion towards people in general; feeds the hungry, heals the sick; is attentive to women and children; experiences anger when it is appropriate, etc. 

Zeus on the other hands toys with people; ruins their lives; has a penchant for rape; is vengeful; metes out horrible punishments grossly disproportionate to the crime, etc. 

Is it emotion in and of itself that you don't trust or is it more specifically, emotion as a vehicle of selfishness?


----------



## ButtPunch

StilltheStudent said:


> Random thought given some of the comments I have read from JLD during my lurking.
> 
> Dug is not no or low-emotion.
> 
> He has simply adapted to a situation in which he is married to an, at times, highly emotional women who needs constant support, and has realized that if he were to engage in normal emotional behaviors it would unbalance his marriage, which would jeopardize his ego-driven need for the marriage to succeed, as it is a reflection, in both his mind and his wife's, of his personal worth as a human being.
> 
> Dug cannot allow his marriage to fall apart because for it to do so would be to indicate an immense personal failure.
> 
> Therefore, he strikes the path necessary to offset JLD, who has been quite upfront about her emotional and dependent nature over the years here on TAM.
> 
> Just a thought.


Not crazy......Makes a lot of sense.


----------



## StilltheStudent

jld said:


> I think a male-dominated relationship, in which the dominance is unselfish and based on earning and maintaining the trust of the woman, offers a lot of satisfaction and stability that I do not necessarily see often on TAM.


Yes, this is a great arrangement.

For the woman.

She gets to enjoy the stability and the satisfaction of her husband's efforts while the man gets the "freedom" of being solely responsible for it all and dealing with the constant stress of recognizing that his emotions and reactions must bend to the end goal of maintaining the status quo and dealing with her outbursts.

It presumes men should be stoic father-figures their entire lives and never relax, always be on guard.

It presumes that women are emotionally unstable, weak, need protection, and cannot shoulder the burden of maintaining a stable mature relationship on their own.

There is a reason your advice is generally seen as problematic JLD.

It is built on the notion that relationships should be co-dependent arrangements in which women are children and men are tireless father figures.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I don't know. That's why I asked her to ask him what he gets out of the marriage. They don't have a Dom sub relationship it is
> To me more like a parent child one where the child is running the roost so to speak. Something about this dynamic he must like. And he, as a traveled man, must realize that if he ever lost JLD it would be near impossible to find a dynamic like that again.
> 
> I'm speculating but that's how I see it.


There are a lot of different types of D/s relationships, not just one.

And really, every relationship has a power dynamic, whether people realize it or not.


----------



## ButtPunch

Pluto2 said:


> think you just jumped the shark on that one.


I'm still lost. I am not an addict. Why would I join AA?

Over my head?


----------



## StilltheStudent

jld said:


> This is crazy.


If Dug came to you one day and said that he cannot take the emotional stress and that he needed you to take the lead for the foreseeable future, what would happen to your relationship?


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> And how do you ever have trust if you don't respect? Seems to me those two things have to go hand in hand. I have never trusted someone I had zero respect for


Respect is not fear. Do you think I fear MEM?

I respect MEM. He is smart and kind. I trust him.

I feared my dad. I never would have raised my voice to my dad. 

My dad could not handle any opposition, much like the men on this thread. He would have become belligerent, much like some of the men on this thread.

My dad's self-image was too weak to handle any challenge to his authority. He undoubtedly would have seen many things much like the men on this thread. And I find that very sad.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I don't mean the failing to pay attention part, Sam.


Not paying attention is only part of it. It is the fact that you do not feel needed. That you feel powerless. That you feel as if you can not influence him. That you are scared of him having emotions. What you have self described is someone who is largely just a hanger on in the relationship. That dug leads his life and allows you to come along with him. That if your marriage ended, he would be bothered by the loss of family, but not about losing you as a person.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I have never thought so. Dug is a moral man.
> 
> But my satisfying him may have an influence, too. It certainly does not hurt!


That's not really an answer.

If he's a moral man, he wouldn't cheat, like me or MEM or Far or D1.

And you would have no (or very little) influence on his decision to cheat or not.

I suspect he would be like me -- wouldn't cheat even if it was bad.

Right?


----------



## GettingIt_2

Hope no one minds if I chime in here with an observation. 

While I think that both sides on this thread are making honest efforts to express themselves, I think everyone is also focused on making sure they are understood on their own terms. It's frustrating to be misunderstood, or to feel that one's position is being misrepresented. 

Much of the posturing on both sides seems to occur about the relative power orientations of a married couple--i.e. who is the Dominant, who is the submissive. The language is fraught for several different reasons, but mostly because there is no standardization, and the terms morph depending on context. There are the dictionary definitions, there is common usage in the BDSM and D/s communities (although much disagreement there, too), there is the very general (outdated but still influential) cultural understanding that men are dominant and women submissive in relationships, and then there are self-adopted power orientations. That is, how we think of ourselves (if indeed we think we have a power orientation in the first place.)

The latter category of meaning (self-orientation) is where the hurt feelings and defensiveness and insecurity creep in to cloud communication in this thread, IMO. JLD is the submissive in her relationships 1) because she self identifies as such and 2) because she has a partner who agrees with her assessment. Their D/s arrangement is also based on their mutual understanding of Dug as the Dominant. 

JLD feels secure with Dug because she feels powerless with him. The conditions set by Dug's dominance under which she feels powerless and secure are not the conditions under which I, or other self-identified submissives would feel powerless and secure. Her attraction to Dug as the Dominant are not based on the same attributes that would attract me other other subs to a Dominant. You can basically render it down to attractiveness. There are lots of people out there who self-identify as a heterosexual woman. But we are not all attracted to the same type of man. 

Lots of subs have dominant personalities (I would say that both JLD and I fall into that category.) But that is different than being THE submissive or THE Dominant in a relationship. 

JLD and I have had many the long and, ultimately, frustrating discussion about our power orientations because what we need from our husbands in order to feel secure (powerless) is different. In other words, what we consider to be Dominant is different. What sends JLD running for the hills I need from my man. What she finds highly attractive in Dug makes me cringe. In her marriage, I could not thrive because I would feel unneeded. I love pleasing my husband. I love making him happy. I hate it when I don't or can't. I very much want to understand how he ticks so I can "get it right." I was very unhappy before I understood him as well as I do now. In my marriage, JLD would have a lot less frustration with not feeling heard, but she would also be expected to listen and to work on being a better and more efficient communicator. In short, she would be expected to challenge her notions that emotional intimacy and transparency in a marriage flows only one way. 

I don't mind that JLD thinks I'm a Domme and I doubt she minds that I think she is one because we both are pretty dang happy with our dynamics and the care we get from our husbands. I have no doubt that Dug loves her and is faithful to her. I think he understands that some aspects of her personality and emotional make up must be considered in order for the marriage to succeed. And JLD gives Dug the same understanding. What they have is acceptance for one another. Dug also knows what a strong woman JLD is, and he relies on that strength. It does not look the same as his strength, but I for one probably could not deal as she has with the cards the universe (meaning a child with cancer) and the demands of Dug's job has placed on her. Dug is wise to ask no more of her. By the same token, Dug has the universe and his job to deal with. JLD will help him by not making his habitual inattentiveness a boundary on her love. 

That being said, I think JLD might consider leaving terminology of personal power orientations aside if she's interested in improving communicating her position on how a male BS should work on himself. She has many valid points (I think they apply to both genders, but then again I'm curious about and interested in the emotional make up of men and it doesn't affect my assessment of them as attractive). Her points are often lost by the distraction of assigning power orientations to people who self-identify differently, or who don't self-identify as one or the other at all, but who do feel influenced by the cultural assignment. It's fine to talk about who has emotional needs that need to be met, and which are needs vs wants, or which are really expressions of insecurity vs. valid boundaries. Opinion on all of that will still be the same without the dissonance of feeling that the other person has fundamentally (and perhaps antagonistically) misunderstood a crucial aspect of who we are. 

Think of it this way: A thread has started in which a man is looking for advice on how to tweak his dosages of Viagra and Cialis to better perform for his wife. If I hop on and say, "Well, the issue isn't the dosages, but that you're gay, see, and you keep expecting to be able to get it up for your wife, when it's just not going to work that way. You need to ask her to get a strap on if this marriage is going to work." His predictable objections are not rooted in insecurity over his orientation, but in feeling that if he is not understood on that point, the advice he receives will be useless. 

Okay, so that example is a bit over the top, but I hope it sorta gets my long and rambling point across.


----------



## jld

StilltheStudent said:


> If Dug came to you one day and said that he cannot take the emotional stress and that he needed you to take the lead for the foreseeable future, what would happen to your relationship?


He is not emotionally stressed. And nothing is going to happen to our relationship.

You know he has laughed at most of the posts on this thread? He can't believe how easily intimidated some men get by women.


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> Mem, I would urge caution on favoritism.
> 
> I appreciate JLD in many ways, even if we frequently have spats in threads. She knows this.
> 
> However, Gus is being no less blunt than JLD.
> 
> You are scolding one while overlooking the other for the same infraction.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Gently MEM.

This is true.

You have a blind spot here, my friend. Who I respect very much.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> There are a lot of different types of D/s relationships, not just one.
> 
> And really, every relationship has a power dynamic, whether people realize it or not.


I agree on both points but you don't have a conventional realtionship. You don't even have conventional Dom sub relationship. So my point stands that if you both divorced tomorrow both would struggle to find other partners willing to form this kind of relationship again


----------



## StilltheStudent

jld said:


> He is not emotionally stressed. And nothing is going to happen to our relationship.
> 
> You know he has laughed at most of the posts on this thread? He can't believe how easily intimidated some men get by women.


I was not asking you if this was about to happen.

That you refuse to even countenance this as a possibility tells me that, if this ever did happen, I have little doubt your relationship would probably fall apart immediately.

Or do you think you could handle it?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Nothing in there supports what you said earlier about my supposedly giving him an ultimatum.
> 
> You made it up. Admit it.


It was an implicit ultimatum, was it not?

You could not be with him if it were 50/50, even though he could be with someone like that. You kept giving accountability to him, and you wouldn't have stayed with him if he couldn't have taken it.

Is this not true?

Do you not think at some point he came to the conclusion -- do I decide to take it even though it as as you say not his default position and keep JLD, or do I stay the same as I am and lose her?

ul·ti·ma·tum
ˌəltəˈmādəm/
noun
a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.

Or would you have stayed with him if he refused to take all the accountability for the relationship?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Respect is not fear. Do you think I fear MEM?
> 
> I respect MEM. He is smart and kind. I trust him.
> 
> I feared my dad. I never would have raised my voice to my dad.
> 
> My dad could not handle any opposition, much like the men on this thread. He would have become belligerent, much like some of the men on this thread.
> 
> My dad's self-image was too weak to handle any challenge to his authority. He undoubtedly would have seen many things much like the men on this thread. And I find that very sad.


Hmm I see a pattern forming here

I never said Anything about fear. I don't berate my GF because I fear her. I don't do it because of love and respect her. She does same for me. no fear 

Your projecting again but it is painting a picture


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> I think a male-dominated relationship, in which the dominance is unselfish and based on earning and maintaining the trust of the woman, offers a lot of satisfaction and stability that I do not necessarily see often on TAM.


I think this is the funniest thing because a lot of TAM agrees that the man should be the leader, the strong, stable one. The one who takes control.

But then you get jumped on for _your own way_ of doing just that. 

IMO you feel that the leader role involves more responsibility and accountability, more strength.

It's one thing if someone says "I don't agree that either partner should lead, both should be equal"

but I don't get 

"Men need to be the leader, they need to be tough, strong alpha men but how dare _you _JLD for suggesting they be more emotionally strong, take more responsibility and direction for the marriage!"


----------



## EllisRedding

ButtPunch said:


> I'm still lost. I am not an addict. Why would I join AA?
> 
> Over my head?


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think this is the funniest thing because a lot of TAM agrees that the man should be the leader, the strong, stable one. The one who takes control.
> 
> But then you get jumped on for _your own way_ of doing just that.
> 
> IMO you feel that the leader role involves more responsibility and accountability, more strength.
> 
> It's one thing if someone says "I don't agree that either partner should lead, both should be equal"
> 
> but I don't get
> 
> "Men need to be the leader, they need to be tough, strong alpha men but how dare _you _JLD for suggesting they be more emotionally strong, take more responsibility and direction for the marriage!"


Because they don't really want to be leaders. They want to be babied and kept safe by their wives. They are the little boys who wear the super hero capes and play in the sandbox and backyard, but then go in and get a hot meal made by Mommy and have a story read to them and get tucked in with a good night kiss.

And *they* think it is appalling that *I* am a little girl in *my* relationship!!


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think this is the funniest thing because a lot of TAM agrees that the man should be the leader, the strong, stable one. The one who takes control.
> 
> But then you get jumped on for _your own way_ of doing just that.
> 
> IMO you feel that the leader role involves more responsibility and accountability, more strength.
> 
> It's one thing if someone says "I don't agree that either partner should lead, both should be equal"
> 
> but I don't get
> 
> "Men need to be the leader, they need to be tough, strong alpha men but how dare _you _JLD for suggesting they be more emotionally strong, take more responsibility and direction for the marriage!"


Ehh

Probably has a lot more to do with the attitude that her way is the best way and we are all wrong ....

By all I mean the 98 % out there 

Besides you can only lead when someone agrees to follow. Many won't


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Hmm I see a pattern forming here
> 
> I never said Anything about fear. I don't berate my GF because I fear her. I don't do it because of love and respect her. She does same for me. no fear
> 
> Your projecting again but it is painting a picture


Exploring your emotions can be very helpful. Emotions are teachers. We have them for a reason.

Shutting them off or forbidding their expression prevents us from learning from them.


----------



## farsidejunky

In fairness, all od this talk about Dug is sort of misplaced.

Dug is simply highly principled and disciplined. It isn't hard to get. I know the type. 

They are honorable people, even if I frequently disagree with both of them.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## StilltheStudent

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think this is the funniest thing because a lot of TAM agrees that the man should be the leader, the strong, stable one. The one who takes control.
> 
> But then you get jumped on for _your own way_ of doing just that.
> 
> IMO you feel that the leader role involves more responsibility and accountability, more strength.
> 
> It's one thing if someone says "I don't agree that either partner should lead, both should be equal"
> 
> but I don't get
> 
> "Men need to be the leader, they need to be tough, strong alpha men but how dare _you _JLD for suggesting they be more emotionally strong, take more responsibility and direction for the marriage!"


There is a difference between being a confident leader who is capable of being in control when it is called for and never having a partner capable of shouldering the burden with you in life.

A lot of women seem to want to be the more-submissive partner in many portions of relationships we see here on TAM, but very few want to be *dominated* by their husband.

Leadership is not domination.

JLD is advocating stoic domination, not understanding and confident leadership.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Because they don't really want to be leaders. They want to be babied and kept safe by their wives. They are the little boys who wear the super hero capes and play in the sandbox and backyard, but then go in and get a hot meal made by Mommy and have a story read to them and get tucked in with a good night kiss.
> 
> And *they* think it is appalling that *I* am a little girl in *my* relationship!!


Or have a mutual respectful relationship. Too bad you see your way as the only way and you belittle others.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> It was an implicit ultimatum, was it not?
> 
> You could not be with him if it were 50/50, even though he could be with someone like that. You kept giving accountability to him, and you wouldn't have stayed with him if he couldn't have taken it.
> 
> Is this not true?
> 
> Do you not think at some point he came to the conclusion -- do I decide to take it even though it as as you say not his default position and keep JLD, or do I stay the same as I am and lose her?
> 
> ul·ti·ma·tum
> ˌəltəˈmādəm/
> noun
> a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.
> 
> Or would you have stayed with him if he refused to take all the accountability for the relationship?


You lied, marduk. You said I told him something that I did not. You lied about me. Please admit it.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Exploring your emotions can be very helpful. Emotions are teachers. We have them for a reason.
> 
> Shutting them off or forbidding their expression prevents us from learning from them.


Your all over the place now. Isn't that what your expectations of your husband is. No emotions


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> Ehh
> 
> Probably has a lot more to do with the attitude that her way is the best way and we are all wrong ....
> 
> By all I mean the 98 % out there
> 
> Besides you can only lead when someone agrees to follow. Many won't


I don't agree with all of it, I don't live all of it. I can still understand her POV and what she's saying. A lot works, it works for her. 

and you can pick pretty much everyone here who is giving advice and find ways that they think their attitude is the right way, the best way.

Some will talk about how to deal with a WS or how to get more sex or how and when you should move on. How women behave, how men behave, etc. 

It's a mix of collaborative ideas that you and pick and choose from. If JLD's doesn't fit you, shrug it off and move on to the next.


----------



## StilltheStudent

jld said:


> Because they don't really want to be leaders. They want to be babied and kept safe by their wives. They are the little boys who wear the super hero capes and play in the sandbox and backyard, but then go in and get a hot meal made by Mommy and have a story read to them and get tucked in with a good night kiss.
> 
> And *they* think it is appalling that *I* am a little girl in *my* relationship!!


Oye.

This coming from a woman who has directly said that her marriage could not work if Dug required her to even manage half of the responsibility of it like a normal adult.

I don't even...


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Because they don't really want to be leaders. They want to be babied and kept safe by their wives. They are the little boys who wear the super hero capes and play in the sandbox and backyard, but then go in and get a hot meal made by Mommy and have a story read to them and get tucked in with a good night kiss.
> 
> And *they* think it is appalling that *I* am a little girl in *my* relationship!!


Profoundly insulting to men, and specifically to men who find themselves in a marriage with a cheating wife.

And I know you know that, and I know it was intentional.

MEM... ?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Don't forget -- she didn't find Dug this way.
> 
> *She told Dug that to be with her meant tolerating this behaviour, and shouldering 100% accountability for the entire relationship, her behaviour, and her decisions. Or she wouldn't be with him.*
> 
> If that isn't an ultimatum and control, then I just don't know what those words mean.


This is a lie. An outright, bold-faced lie. I never said any such thing.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> In fairness, all od this talk about Dug is sort of misplaced.
> 
> Dug is simply highly principled and disciplined. It isn't hard to get. I know the type.
> 
> They are honorable people, even if I frequently disagree with both of them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


We certainly are. I hope we get to meet you IRL someday, far.


----------



## samyeagar

GettingIt said:


> ...
> 
> That being said, *I think JLD might consider leaving terminology of personal power orientations aside if she's interested in improving communicating her position* on how a male BS should work on himself. She has many valid points (I think they apply to both genders, but then again I'm curious about and interested in the emotional make up of men and it doesn't affect my assessment of them as attractive). Her points are often lost by the distraction of assigning power orientations to people who self-identify differently, or who don't self-identify as one or the other at all, but who do feel influenced by the cultural assignment. It's fine to talk about who has emotional needs that need to be met, and which are needs vs wants, or which are really expressions of insecurity vs. valid boundaries. Opinion on all of that will still be the same without the dissonance of feeling that the other person has fundamentally (and perhaps antagonistically) misunderstood a crucial aspect of who we are.


I think she would also benefit from not assigning broad inclusive value judgement with those terms, and dropping the frequent pejorative tone. It reeks of condescension and superiority, when it is neither.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> You lied, marduk. You said I told him something that I did not. You lied about me. Please admit it.


Do we both speak English?

I just supported my position, and I'm no liar.

You're the one that likes to change the definition of words to suit your position.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Your all over the place now. Isn't that what your expectations of your husband is. No emotions


Low emo does not mean no emo. He has his emotions. Look at how he cried when our son was diagnosed.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

StilltheStudent said:


> There is a difference between being a confident leader who is capable of being in control when it is called for and never having a partner capable of shouldering the burden with you in life.
> 
> A lot of women seem to want to be the more-submissive partner in many portions of relationships we see here on TAM, but very few want to be *dominated* by their husband.
> 
> Leadership is not domination.
> 
> JLD is advocating stoic domination, not understanding and confident leadership.


JLD has raised all her children at home, one who battled with cancer. She breastfed, co-slept, home schooled. She maintained the home front while Dug worked. 
She's not incapable of handling burden, she has dealt with more than a lot of people will ever have to.

She prefers to be submissive and can be emotional at times. Let's stop getting carried away about how she is. She doesn't scream and fight every second Dug is home, he's not an abused, scared man who walks on eggshells.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> This is a lie. An outright, bold-faced lie. I never said any such thing.


Did you find Dug this way?

Did you continually give him accountability with the expectation that he take it?

Did he know that his relationship with you was on the line if he didn't?

Did you ever speak of it?

Would you stay if he gave you back 50% accountability? Or even 25%?


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't agree with all of it, I don't live all of it. I can still understand her POV and what she's saying. A lot works, it works for her.
> 
> and you can pick pretty much everyone here who is giving advice and find ways that they think their attitude is the right way, the best way.
> 
> Some will talk about how to deal with a WS or how to get more sex or how and when you should move on. How women behave, how men behave, etc.
> 
> It's a mix of collaborative ideas that you and pick and choose from. If JLD's doesn't fit you, shrug it off and move on to the next.


I have no problem with her view nor how she runs her relationship or her household. She is free to do anything she wants. But I also won't be told her way is the best way and that we are little boys in capes all want our mommys lol:grin2: Just too stupid really. 

Seems to me she has a lot of issues with men in general. Picture being painted from her childhood obviously. Her perogative to have but many won't agree with her. I'm one of them I just don't get upset by her. I still....honest to god..... can not for the life of me understand why anyone takes her so seriously to get upset. :surprise:


----------



## jld

StilltheStudent said:


> There is a difference between being a confident leader who is capable of being in control when it is called for and never having a partner capable of shouldering the burden with you in life.
> 
> A lot of women seem to want to be the more-submissive partner in many portions of relationships we see here on TAM, but very few want to be *dominated* by their husband.
> 
> Leadership is not domination.
> 
> JLD is advocating stoic domination, not understanding and confident leadership.


Understanding and confident leadership is *exactly* what I am talking about.

But to do that, you have to overcome your fear of her emotions and of having your pride hurt.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Because they don't really want to be leaders. They want to be babied and kept safe by their wives. They are the little boys who wear the super hero capes and play in the sandbox and backyard, but then go in and get a hot meal made by Mommy and have a story read to them and get tucked in with a good night kiss.
> 
> And *they* think it is appalling that *I* am a little girl in *my* relationship!!


This is exactly what GI said is causing people to not be understood in her long post, JLD.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Low emo does not mean no emo. He has his emotions. Look at how he cried when our son was diagnosed.


Then he has emotion, just rarely shows them? If that's the case isn't that MOST men? My X only saw me cry once in 16 years of knowing me


----------



## MEM2020

All,
I'm simply asking folks to refrain from personal attacks. 

Calling someone a name is a personal attack. 

Labeling their behavior isn't. 

The disappointing thing on TAM is that when someone says: 

When I'm histrionic, my partner does X. Note: there isn't a single word about frequency in there. Not even a hint. Zero. Zip. 

Perfectly fair game to ask them: well how often does THAT happen?

Not really in the spirit of TAM to say: Well since you've described behaving that way - at least once - I'm going to call you by that label. 


QUOTE=farsidejunky;14607265]Mem, I would urge caution on favoritism.

I appreciate JLD in many ways, even if we frequently have spats in threads. She knows this.

However, Gus is being no less blunt than JLD.

You are scolding one while overlooking the other for the same infraction.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Did you find Dug this way?
> 
> Did you continually give him accountability with the expectation that he take it?
> 
> Did he know that his relationship with you was on the line if he didn't?
> 
> Did you ever speak of it?
> 
> Would you stay if he gave you back 50% accountability? Or even 25%?


I am waiting for your apology, marduk.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> JLD has raised all her children at home, one who battled with cancer. She breastfed, co-slept, home schooled. She maintained the home front while Dug worked.
> She's not incapable of handling burden, she has dealt with more than a lot of people will ever have to.
> 
> She prefers to be submissive and can be emotional at times. Let's stop getting carried away about how she is. She doesn't scream and fight every second Dug is home, he's not an abused, scared man who walks on eggshells.


See, that's part of my point.

JLD is tremendously strong. Capable. Resilient. Sometimes to a fault, maybe.

She refuses to admit it at times, but it's true.

She's also intelligent, and emotionally aware, which makes it all the much more... Zesty. 

She's very aware of what her words mean, and how people are going to take them. There's no innocence there. They are loaded, they have intentionality, and they are meant to guide, like the carrot and the whip.


----------



## farsidejunky

This thread, followed to its logical conclusion, will result in folks being banned.

I would urge caution in your emotions. Read twice before posting.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> All,
> I'm simply asking folks to refrain from personal attacks.
> 
> Calling someone a name is a personal attack.
> 
> Labeling their behavior isn't.
> 
> The disappointing thing on TAM is that when someone says:
> 
> When I'm histrionic, my partner does X. Note: there isn't a single word about frequency in there. Not even a hint. Zero. Zip.
> 
> Perfectly fair game to ask them: well how often does THAT happen?
> 
> Not really in the spirit of TAM to say: Well since you've described behaving that way - at least once - I'm going to call you by that label.


Thank you for letting us discuss so freely, MEM. I think a lot of important issues are coming out.


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> You lied, marduk. You said I told him something that I did not. You lied about me. Please admit it.


exchange his word "said" for "communicate"
Would it not then be accurate? There is no lie.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I am waiting for your apology, marduk.


You'll be waiting as long as I've been waiting for mine.

What is that, months? 

I don't think it will ever come. And for the same reason: you didn't think I deserved one, and I don't think you deserve mine, either.


----------



## StilltheStudent

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> JLD has raised all her children at home, one who battled with cancer. She breastfed, co-slept, home schooled. She maintained the home front while Dug worked.
> She's not incapable of handling burden, she has dealt with more than a lot of people will ever have to.


And by her own concession she did all of those things because Dug required them of her. She did those things because she thought she had to in order to stay with him.

JLD has accomplished quite a bit as a mother and she has dealt with some serious issues.

But at the end of the day she is not a partner whom helps to shoulder the burden of the emotional stress of life. She does not even recognize it!

Hell, despite the fact that Dug has broken down into tears over her son's cancer she still refuses to even accept he even has emotional stress!


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Low emo does not mean no emo. He has his emotions. Look at how he cried when our son was diagnosed.


And you are terrified of them, as you were terrified of your father. Have you associated the act that you were terrified of your father with the showing emotion, particularly in men? Are you afraid that if your partner shows emotion, things will end up just like with your father? Are you projecting your feelings regarding your father onto all men?


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> exchange his word "said" for "communicate"
> Would it not then be accurate? There is no lie.


He said what he said. Now he can take ownership of it.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> He said what he said. Now he can take ownership of it.


Right back atcha.

I'll be zooming around in my backyard with my cape on waiting.


----------



## EllisRedding

I am still waiting patiently for MEM to learn how to quote properly lol


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
I can't give her that. Not because I don't WANT to, it just doesn't work. I've been at this for 25 years. Insecurity is a trait. 

So humor an analogy. 

100,000 folks walk past a Frank Lloyd house on a given week. Maybe a couple could build such a thing. But easily half could go on the Internet, read how to build a bomb and destroy it. 

So I absolutely believe that in a marriage, someone can gradually damage your self confidence if you choose to stay with them. But giving such a thing - to another adult - I've only experienced it once. 






jld said:


> She is insecure. She needs to work to develop more personal security.
> 
> Again, it is that self-love and self-acceptance thing.
> 
> And really, both she and they seem immature.


----------



## StilltheStudent

jld said:


> Understanding and confident leadership is *exactly* what I am talking about.
> 
> But to do that, you have to overcome your fear of her emotions and of having your pride hurt.


This is all bluster JLD.

I already pointing this out: a man who fears a woman's emotions refuses to stand up for himself, refuses to assert his self-respect and refuses to demand it from his wife. A man who fears the emotional instability of his wife or his child coddles them, they validate those emotions, and they just accept them.

They act like the men in the quote in your signature.

And you keep saying Pride.

It is about self-respect.

I am a mature, intelligent adult.

I expect my friends and my family to treat me with the respect and level of maturity I have earned and I advance to them. If they fail to do so and instead treat me with disrespect, I will not accept it. I will not waste my time dealing with childish outbursts and I will certainly not validate such outbursts.

A confident leader does not accept immaturity and emotional instability in another adult.

They do not sit in the middle of the storm of emotion and "just deal with it."

They refuse to accept it, they make it abundantly clear that such outbursts are _her failings_, and they demand the woman to grow up and act her age.

Mature adult women do no assault their husbands with a storm of uncontrollable emotions.

And a real leader expects *better*.


----------



## Wolf1974

samyeagar said:


> And you are terrified of them, as you were terrified of your father. Have you associated the act that you were terrified of your father with the showing emotion, particularly in men? Are you afraid that if your partner shows emotion, things will end up just like with your father? Are you projecting your feelings regarding your father onto all men?


Yes finally someone is saying it. I think the truth is finally coming out

All the little boys in capes need to read this instead of being upset with with the JLD. Obviously a lot of deep seeded resentment!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

Wolf1974 said:


> Yes finally someone is saying it. I think the truth is finally coming out
> 
> All the little boys in capes need to read this instead of being upset with with the JLD. Obviously a lot of deep seeded resentment!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She has molded dug into her ideal father, one that is the antithesis of the one she had, the one she missed out on yet so desperately needed.


----------



## StilltheStudent

Allow me to provide a real world example which clarifies my difference from you JLD.

Last year my wife's car began to break down due to its age and it became apparent that it would be massively expensive to fix it. Our budget was tight and although we make major financial decisions together, I put my foot down and said we were not dumping $500 into a vehicle with 140,000 miles on it if it did not pass inspection when we could easily just share my car for 6-months.

She had an emotional breakdown. She had an emotional attachment to the vehicle and actually threw a mini-tantrum and cried over the idea of not fixing this specific vehicle.

I did not "stand present in the midst of the emotional storm."

I put my foot down, refused to accept an emotional breakdown over a damn car, and required her to act her age and accept that the financial realities of adulthood transcend her attachment to a tool.

And I made it clear that emotional attachment to *things* is not more important than our financial wellbeing.

I put a stop to the emotional outburst, made it clear I would not deal with outbursts over replaceable tools, and I made it clear that I expected her to deal with her reactions to things like this like an adult and that I was not her emotional punching bag.

I married an intelligent adult woman and I hold her to that standard.

Standing there and just taking it would have meant: 1) we would have wasted $500 on a broken down tool that is being replaced soon anyways, 2) I validated her approaching stress with a childish outburst guaranteeing that it will happen again, 3) I validated her disrespect of her husband and made it clear should could use me as an emotional punching bag.

None of that happened because I treated her like and adult and demanded she act like one.

I am not my wife's father and she is not my daughter. I need to know I can trust her to approach stressful situations like and adult and to find rational and intelligent solutions to problems.

Letting her get emotional over a tool and just accepting that as "a need to connect with me" or some such "need to feel protected," would be disastrous to my marriage and my finances.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Because they don't really want to be leaders.


What you're talking about isn't leadership; it's martyrdom.

It's just that your husband's cause hasn't killed him.

_Yet._



jld said:


> They want to be babied and kept safe by their wives.


Nope. I want the same affection, commitment, and respect from my wife that she wants from me. After all, if I'm giving it, should I not get the same in return?

I also want her to understand that she is an adult and therefore accountable for her behavior, along w/ the emotions that drive it... and that I am keenly aware of this.

That said, if I've done something to negatively impact the way that she feels about me, or to negatively color her impression w/ respect to the way that I feel about her, I want her to open her mouth and talk w/ me about it, and in a _meaningful_ way that doesn't involve ranting, raging, raving, or histrionic hissy fit meltdowns.



jld said:


> They are the little boys who wear the super hero capes and play in the sandbox and backyard, but then go in and get a hot meal made by Mommy and have a story read to them and get tucked in with a good night kiss.


LOL... Where can I sign up for THAT?



jld said:


> And *they* think it is appalling that *I* am a little girl in *my* relationship!!


Not really. We get that you are what you are and have no interest in -- and may even be incapable of -- either personal accountability or personal growth. That's fine.

What we find appalling is that you'd tell women everywhere -- including, given the opportunity, _our own wives_ -- that each of them should follow your horribly entitled example, along w/ telling their husbands that they should just deal w/ it.

No thanks.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Low emo does not mean no emo. He has his emotions. Look at how he cried when our son was diagnosed.


He actually cried when your son was diagnosed w/ a potentially fatal health condition?

Wow. That's so profound.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> You'll be waiting as long as I've been waiting for mine.
> 
> What is that, months?
> 
> I don't think it will ever come.


I apologized for hurting your feelings. You certainly have not apologized for hurting mine.

Marduk, when people share their thoughts with you, they cannot in good faith apologize for having those thoughts. If it is what they think, you can either try to change their minds, or just disregard it.

You think I'm a domme, right? You think Dug is terrified of me? 

I think that is laughable. But if it is what you genuinely think, it is what you genuinely think. I certainly would not ask you to apologize for what you think.

You said a few pages back that I said something that I never said. That is not just sharing your impression of something. That is an outright lie. And you refuse to take responsibility for it.

What happened when Dug and I were first together was not in my conscious thought. He tried to make sense of it, I think. He was not sure what to do with me. 

I simply gave myself to him, and kept giving myself, because I did not know how to *not* do that. And finally he realized he just had to take me, and not worry about how relationships are "supposed" to be.

I never "told him" anything. And there was certainly no ultimatum there.

My actions were pretty indicative of a submissive, though, looking back. Again, I did not know that term. I just knew that I very desperately wanted, needed, his approval. And felt very *wrong inside* without it.


----------



## jld

StilltheStudent said:


> And by her own concession she did all of those things because Dug required them of her.* She did those things because she thought she had to in order to stay with him.*
> 
> JLD has accomplished quite a bit as a mother and she has dealt with some serious issues.
> 
> But at the end of the day she is not a partner whom helps to shoulder the burden of the emotional stress of life. She does not even recognize it!
> 
> Hell, despite the fact that Dug has broken down into tears over her son's cancer she still refuses to even accept he even has emotional stress!


The bolded is true.

I needed Dug's stability. I was very fragile when we were first together. 

Dug has indeed been like a father to me. Very much so. I am probably as unconditionally loved as a woman can be. He is very good to me.

Student, not every man needs an equal partner. And I don't even know that Dug does not think I am an equal partner. He thinks I am doing a great job as a wife and mother. He is quite pleased with me. He loves our life together.


----------



## MEM2020

Ellis,
Thank you for pointing out that I am not following proper form in quoting people. 

Kind of scary how - when someone points out a blind spot - you say - WOW how did I miss that. 

All,
Going forward, I will make a conscious effort to quote properly.






EllisRedding said:


> I am still waiting patiently for MEM to learn how to quote properly lol


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Everyone has their own level of emo (which still makes me giggle and picture the goth guy)

Dug is low emo, JLD is high emo. That works good together. High emo + High emo= bad news. 2 Low emos could be good but the one I knew they never fought, never raised their voices, everyone thought they were perfect but they just quietly fell out of love and went their separate ways. 

I've been told a few times lately that my H must have fun having to deal with me. Apparently I'm difficult, which is ok, I would consider myself pretty emotional but enough/not so much that it works for my H and that's all that matters and I agree that I prefer a man who is lower emo than I am and lots of men would think I was too emo for them. 

IMO, JLD views high emo men/women= weaker (including herself), low emo men/women = stronger. 

I can see the point, I can understand it. I don't think anything she says is horrible enough to deserve the backlash but people have 1 view of her ans that's that.


----------



## GusPolinski

EllisRedding said:


> I am still waiting patiently for MEM to learn how to quote properly lol


Thank you!!!


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Ellis,
> Thank you for pointing out that I am not following proper form in quoting people.
> 
> Kind of scary how - when someone points out a blind spot - you say - WOW how did I miss that.
> 
> All,
> Going forward, I will make a conscious effort to quote properly.


Bad MEM. No doughnut.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I apologized for hurting your feelings. You certainly have not apologized for hurting mine.


Actually, to be clear, you said that you were sorry my feelings were hurt, and insinuated that it was my fault that my feelings were hurt, because you were just using words.

When my feelings weren't hurt, I was insulted by someone I thought was a friend, and accused of doing horrific things that I had not done.

I did not want to hurt your feelings. I did not intend on hurting your feelings. If your feelings were hurt, I'm sorry that that they were. I intend you no emotional pain.

But all that is besides the point.


> Marduk, when people share their thoughts with you, they cannot in good faith apologize for having those thoughts. If it is what they think, you can either try to change their minds, or just disregard it.


Well, it's what I think. And I think it's supported by what you've said, and other conversations that are not for a public forum.

I think there was likely a tipping point in your relationship, where Dug either agreed to take 100% accountability for the marriage, or it wouldn't work.


> You think I'm a domme, right? You think Dug is terrified of me?
> 
> I think that is laughable. But if it is what you genuinely think, it is what you genuinely think. I certainly would not ask you to apologize for what you think.


K.


> You said a few pages back that I said something that I never said. That is not just sharing your impression of something. That is an outright lie. And you refuse to take responsibility for it.


I have explained my position and given evidence for what I have said using your own words.



> What happened when Dug and I were first together was not in my conscious thought. He tried to make sense of it, I think. He was not sure what to do with me.


I'm sure that's an understatement!

And I say that with no intention to insult either one of you.


> I simply gave myself to him, and kept giving myself, because I did not know how to *not* do that. And finally he realized he just had to take me, and not worry about how relationships are "supposed" to be.
> 
> I never "told him" anything. And there was certainly no ultimatum there.


OK.

If he hadn't have taken accountability for your emotional state and behaviour, would you have stayed with him?

Did he know that?



> My actions were pretty indicative of a submissive, though, looking back. Again, I did not know that term. I just knew that I very desperately wanted, needed, his approval. And felt very *wrong inside* without it.


I think that's really honest.

What would you say if I said I think he might have needed your approval as much as you needed his? Or needed your love? Or to continue to stay with him?


----------



## StilltheStudent

jld said:


> The bolded is true.
> 
> I needed Dug's stability. I was very fragile when we were first together.
> 
> Dug has indeed been like a father to me. Very much so. I am probably as unconditionally loved as a woman can be. He is very good to me.
> 
> Student, not every man needs an equal partner. And I don't even know that Dug does not think I am an equal partner. He thinks I am doing a great job as a wife and mother. He is quite pleased with me. He loves our life together.


From everything you have said, it seems Dug is happy with the arrangement, which is good.

But, and this goes back to my original question, if Dug decided he was not happy with this arrangement, how would he even go about letting you know? Are there avenues of communication in which Dug can be emotional and unstable, seeking support from you? How would you react to them?

Could he just one day say, "This is not working for me right now, I need help."?

Has he ever?


----------



## GusPolinski

MEM11363 said:


> Ellis,
> Thank you for pointing out that I am not following proper form in quoting people.
> 
> Kind of scary how - when someone points out a blind spot - you say - WOW how did I miss that.
> 
> All,
> Going forward, I will make a conscious effort to quote properly.


And w/ that, we've probably accomplished just about as much as was ever going to be accomplished w/ this thread.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> And w/ that, we've probably accomplished just about as much as was ever going to be accomplished w/ this thread.


I think a lot is getting accomplished that you may just not be aware of.


----------



## Wolf1974

samyeagar said:


> She has molded dug into her ideal father, one that is the antithesis of the one she had, the one she missed out on yet so desperately needed.


Yeah it's seeming clear now. Feel bad for her BUT glad she found her husband and he filled this role. The resentment only would have grown relationship after relationship when men didn't live up to wanting to be her father. Sounds like they are lucky they found one another my opinion. 

Still she does need to , eventually recognize , her way isn't the only way and that most people wouldn't volunteer for what she purposes
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

StilltheStudent said:


> Allow me to provide a real world example which clarifies my difference from you JLD.
> 
> Last year my wife's car began to break down due to its age and it became apparent that it would be massively expensive to fix it. Our budget was tight and although we make major financial decisions together, I put my foot down and said we were not dumping $500 into a vehicle with 140,000 miles on it if it did not pass inspection when we could easily just share my car for 6-months.
> 
> She had an emotional breakdown. She had an emotional attachment to the vehicle and actually threw a mini-tantrum and cried over the idea of not fixing this specific vehicle.
> 
> I did not "stand present in the midst of the emotional storm."
> 
> I put my foot down, refused to accept an emotional breakdown over a damn car, and required her to act her age and accept that the financial realities of adulthood transcend her attachment to a tool.
> 
> And I made it clear that emotional attachment to *things* is not more important than our financial wellbeing.
> 
> I put a stop to the emotional outburst, made it clear I would not deal with outbursts over replaceable tools, and I made it clear that I expected her to deal with her reactions to things like this like an adult and that I was not her emotional punching bag.
> 
> I married an intelligent adult woman and I hold her to that standard.
> 
> Standing there and just taking it would have meant: 1) we would have wasted $500 on a broken down tool that is being replaced soon anyways, 2) I validated her approaching stress with a childish outburst guaranteeing that it will happen again, 3) I validated her disrespect of her husband and made it clear should could use me as an emotional punching bag.
> 
> None of that happened because I treated her like and adult and demanded she act like one.
> 
> I am not my wife's father and she is not my daughter. I need to know I can trust her to approach stressful situations like and adult and to find rational and intelligent solutions to problems.
> 
> Letting her get emotional over a tool and just accepting that as "a need to connect with me" or some such "need to feel protected," would be disastrous to my marriage and my finances.


For me, the way you handled it would feel way more like a parent for me. That's how I deal with my children, not my equal.

What I would want in that situation? A hug, some understanding, H usually makes little jokes to calm the situation. One time I was crying in the shower, he came in and just held me in there. Safest I ever felt in my life. Most connected. I'll never forget that feeling when I was in his arms, head on his chest. 
He feels no less of a man for doing it. He feels strong that he can be there for me and I can lean on and hold him for strength when I need to. 

I'll come around, realize I was being irrational, thank him for the patience and understanding and feel more connected and trust in him that he can see me at my worst and pull me through it. 

Your method would shut me down, no trust, less respect. 
So you have to understand that for women like me and JLD, suggesting methods like yours could do irreparable damage to some women. 
Shouldn't there at least be a voice offering the suggestion of "pull her through"?


----------



## samyeagar

StilltheStudent said:


> From everything you have said, it seems Dug is happy with the arrangement, which is good.
> 
> But, and this goes back to my original question, if Dug decided he was not happy with this arrangement, how would he even go about letting you know? Are there avenues of communication in which Dug can be emotional and unstable, seeking support from you? How would you react to them?
> 
> *Could he just one day say, "This is not working for me right now, I need help."*?
> 
> Has he ever?


The problem with this hypothetical, and pretty much hypothetical for jld and dug is that while they may have what they define as empathy between each other, it is not the typical empathy others have when they think of empathy. They are both so deeply entrenched in a parent/child codependant relationship that they literally do not have the capacity to conceive in any meaningful way of being without the other, so any hypothetical that involves that is not something they are capable of answering. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is limiting when it comes to understanding.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

samyeagar said:


> The problem with this hypothetical, and pretty much hypothetical for jld and dug is that while they may have what they define as empathy between each other, it is not the typical empathy others have when they think of empathy. They are both so deeply entrenched in a parent/child codependant relationship that they literally do not have the capacity to conceive in any meaningful way of being without the other, so any hypothetical that involves that is not something they are capable of answering. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is limiting when it comes to understanding.


Wow, very close to how I feel, but it is not parent/child type of codependency IMO.

This thread is very informative, but I wish it was for the right reasons.

Back to lurking.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I think a lot is getting accomplished that you may just not be aware of.


Hey, that's great!


----------



## StilltheStudent

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> For me, the way you handled it would feel way more like a parent for me. That's how I deal with my children, not my equal.


It was a moment in which one of us was acting mature, considering the long-term consequences of a potential action, while the other was acting immature and literally crying and throwing a tantrum over a tool.

I think it comes across described as a parental-moment because *my wife was acting like a child*.

Literally.

I do not expect my 27-year old wife with a Master's degree and a professional career to suddenly start balling her eyes out over a rusted out car that will need to be replaced _anyways_.

That is not acceptable and that is not mature.

And I was not going to deal with it. I am surrounded by "adults" in their mid and late 20s who do these exact same things and their SOs just accept it.

Which is why *it keeps happening*.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> What I would want in that situation? A hug, some understanding, H usually makes little jokes to calm the situation. One time I was crying in the shower, he came in and just held me in there. Safest I ever felt in my life. Most connected. I'll never forget that feeling when I was in his arms, head on his chest.
> He feels no less of a man for doing it. He feels strong that he can be there for me and I can lean on and hold him for strength when I need to.
> 
> I'll come around, realize I was being irrational, thank him for the patience and understanding and feel more connected and trust in him that he can see me at my worst and pull me through it.


And all he did was validate your emotional outburst and done nothing to prevent it from happening in the future.

If anything he proved to you that you can have that emotional outburst anytime you want and that he will just deal with it.

In my case my wife came away recognizing she was acting like a child and that I did the correct thing by refusing to invest more than a third of our checking account into a rust-bucket that will be replaced shortly necessitating an expensive down-payment anyways.

And she recognized that such reactions were beneath her and she *apologized for it* and committed not to act like that in the future.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Your method would shut me down, no trust, less respect.
> So you have to understand that for women like me and JLD, suggesting methods like yours could do irreparable damage to some women.
> Shouldn't there at least be a voice offering the suggestion of "pull her through"?


I do not see why I should need to be the emotional rock to "pull" a 27-year old professional through emotionally disconnecting from a piece of metal with wheels.

Be an adult.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I'm in a marriage, a partnership. He's my rock when I need, I'm his for him. 

When he can't deal with his ridiculous shift changes and not sleeping, he gets cranky and overwhelmed. I help him. I get his socks, his coffee, his lunch packed. I remind him that the keys he is looking for are in his hand, start the truck so he's warm when he gets in it, hand him toothbrush in the shower. 

That's how I be the rock for my 40 year old H who should, because he's an adult, be ABLE to do it on his own. Because I love him and he needs me right then.

I could scold him, tell him he's acting like a child so he'll never do it again or I can PULL HIM THROUGH.

When I am at my lows, I need him being my rock but I need hugs and cuddles , talking it out and emotional support. 

Yes, even adults need help now and then and that should be what your life partner is there for.


----------



## StilltheStudent

samyeagar said:


> The problem with this hypothetical, and pretty much hypothetical for jld and dug is that while they may have what they define as empathy between each other, it is not the typical empathy others have when they think of empathy. They are both so deeply entrenched in a parent/child codependant relationship that they literally do not have the capacity to conceive in any meaningful way of being without the other, so any hypothetical that involves that is not something they are capable of answering. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is limiting when it comes to understanding.


This is the reason why I think JLD's advice tends not to be helpful.


----------



## pidge70

jld said:


> Because they don't really want to be leaders. They want to be babied and kept safe by their wives. They are the little boys who wear the super hero capes and play in the sandbox and backyard, but then go in and get a hot meal made by Mommy and have a story read to them and get tucked in with a good night kiss.
> 
> And *they* think it is appalling that *I* am a little girl in *my* relationship!!


This is rude as Hell. Not that it matters, you've apparently got Mod protection.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## pidge70

jld said:


> Exploring your emotions can be very helpful. Emotions are teachers. We have them for a reason.
> 
> Shutting them off or forbidding their expression prevents us from learning from them.


Doesn't this describe Dug?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Chuck71

ButtPunch said:


> There is nothing weaker than becoming a disingenuous and dishonest person in order to protect someone's feelings.
> 
> With the exception of Santa and Easter Bunny.


What about the Tooth Fairy?


----------



## StilltheStudent

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I'm in a marriage, a partnership. He's my rock when I need, I'm his for him.
> 
> When he can't deal with his ridiculous shift changes and not sleeping, he gets cranky and overwhelmed. I help him. I get his socks, his coffee, his lunch packed. I remind him that the keys he is looking for are in his hand, start the truck so he's warm when he gets in it, hand him toothbrush in the shower.
> 
> That's how I be the rock for my 40 year old H who should, because he's an adult, be ABLE to do it on his own. Because I love him and he needs me right then.


And that is the description of a mature adult woman dealing with her husband's very real stress related to his work.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I could scold him, tell him he's acting like a child so he'll never do it again or I can PULL HIM THROUGH.


I doesn't sound like your husband was breaking down emotionally over something trivial, but instead was having difficulty dealing with a major change to his work.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> When I am at my lows, I need him being my rock but I need hugs and cuddles , talking it out and emotional support.
> 
> Yes, even adults need help now and then and that should be what your life partner is there for.


And how can I trust my wife would be capable of doing that if the recognition that her old-used car is not worth sinking our finances for results in a massive emotional outburst with uncontrollable crying, a tantrum, etc?

Because a childish emotional outburst about a broken down used car does not qualify, in my mind, as a legitimate "low."

And a year later my wife agrees completely. 

In fact right now she is onboard the "don't drop another dime on this thing," and is instead doing research on her next vehicle and planning out our savings to afford it.

Where would have I been had I accepted her emotional outburst and wasted the money on her car?

She wouldn't feel happy.

She would feel additional stress because we would have the same problem, but less money to deal with it.


----------



## MEM2020

SGC,
This is why I love TAM. 

When I did the stuff that 'still the student' describes, M2 did not love, trust or feel anywhere near as connected to me. 

When I do what you described your H doing, and what JLD describes DUG doing, I get that result. 

And I want to make a very important distinction here. 

There are two completely separate dimensions to these interactions. The first is solely dealing with the emotions. The intangible piece of the puzzle. 

The second is the mechanics of life. The actual resource and logistics decisions we end up making. 

I discovered that typically, handling the former like SGC describes, largely auto resolved the latter. Not always. But usually. 










SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> For me, the way you handled it would feel way more like a parent for me. That's how I deal with my children, not my equal.
> 
> What I would want in that situation? A hug, some understanding, H usually makes little jokes to calm the situation. One time I was crying in the shower, he came in and just held me in there. Safest I ever felt in my life. Most connected. I'll never forget that feeling when I was in his arms, head on his chest.
> He feels no less of a man for doing it. He feels strong that he can be there for me and I can lean on and hold him for strength when I need to.
> 
> I'll come around, realize I was being irrational, thank him for the patience and understanding and feel more connected and trust in him that he can see me at my worst and pull me through it.
> 
> Your method would shut me down, no trust, less respect.
> So you have to understand that for women like me and JLD, suggesting methods like yours could do irreparable damage to some women.
> Shouldn't there at least be a voice offering the suggestion of "pull her through"?


----------



## MEM2020

if you got to a good outcome, sounds like you did - that is what matters most. 



StilltheStudent said:


> And that is the description of a mature adult woman dealing with her husband's very real stress related to his work.
> 
> 
> I doesn't sound like your husband was breaking down emotionally over something trivial, but instead was having difficulty dealing with a major change to his work.
> 
> 
> And how can I trust my wife would be capable of doing that if the recognition that her old-used car is not worth sinking our finances for results in a massive emotional outburst with uncontrollable crying, a tantrum, etc?
> 
> Because a childish emotional outburst about a broken down used car does not qualify, in my mind, as a legitimate "low."
> 
> And a year later my wife agrees completely.
> 
> In fact right now she is onboard the "don't drop another dime on this thing," and is instead doing research on her next vehicle and planning out our savings to afford it.
> 
> Where would have I been had I accepted her emotional outburst and wasted the money on her car?
> 
> She wouldn't feel happy.
> 
> She would feel additional stress because we would have the same problem, but less money to deal with it.


----------



## Wolf1974

pidge70 said:


> Doesn't this describe Dug?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yeah I tried to point that out to her but she recoiled when challenged.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

pidge70 said:


> Doesn't this describe Dug?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I thought so. She runs in circles. It's actually amusing to a degree.
@StilltheStudent

To be fair RE: your wife's car situation, I loved every car I've owned and cried at each of their deaths. :wink2:

* * *

Oh well. I just want to let you all know I'll be playing in my backyard with my cape on tonight, and all you guys are invited. It's Friday!


----------



## StilltheStudent

MEM11363 said:


> if you got to a good outcome, sounds like you did - that is what matters most.


Overall she is actually a bit embarrassed with how she acted over the whole situation.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

StilltheStudent said:


> I doesn't sound like your husband was breaking down emotionally over something trivial, but instead was having difficulty dealing with a major change to his work.
> 
> 
> And how can I trust my wife would be capable of doing that if the recognition that her old-used car is not worth sinking our finances for results in a massive emotional outburst with uncontrollable crying, a tantrum, etc?
> 
> Because a childish emotional outburst about a broken down used car does not qualify, in my mind, as a legitimate "low."
> 
> .


and this is fine but requires a lot some judgement about what is a valid low and what is not. That's risky. 
What is a low to me might not be a low to him. I can deal with low sleep better than he can, he can deal with other things better than me.

Even more risky when a message board is deciding it. We don't know a backstory, the whole situation, if this was just the final nail in the coffin of a breakdown that she had held in for so long. 

We don't know the people. 

Like MEM said, it worked out for you and that's all that matters but I don't see the advice to scold her and refuse to let her be emotional over some silly little things as any less dangerous than 'be her rock, pull her through in that moment'. 

Shouldn't both options be at least heard?


----------



## anonmd

StilltheStudent said:


> I do not expect my 27-year old wife with a Master's degree and a professional career to suddenly start balling her eyes out over a rusted out car that will need to be replaced _anyways_.
> 
> That is not acceptable and that is not mature.
> 
> And I was not going to deal with it. I am surrounded by "adults" in their mid and late 20s who do these exact same things and their SOs just accept it.
> 
> Which is why *it keeps happening*.


I'm pretty sure I would have reacted exactly the same way at that age. I was pretty sure of what was right. 

Son, leave open the possibility that you may have different reactions in 15 or 20 years when you are older. Testosterone poisoning is a powerful thing :wink2:


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Actually, to be clear, you said that you were sorry my feelings were hurt, and insinuated that it was my fault that my feelings were hurt, because you were just using words.
> 
> I told you I was sorry for hurting your feelings and I outright asked for your forgiveness.
> 
> You have never been as humble with me as I was in that moment with you.
> 
> And the point was never to hurt your feelings. It was to share a thought I had with you. A thought that I thought could help you. It was raw feedback.
> 
> When my feelings weren't hurt, I was insulted by someone I thought was a friend, and accused of doing horrific things that I had not done.
> 
> Okay, I don't really feel comfortable going into this on the public forum. What you heard was not what I meant. That word horrific makes that clear to me.
> 
> And I was your friend, marduk. I spent, what? 100 hours? trying to help you. Dug did, too.
> 
> I did not want to hurt your feelings. I did not intend on hurting your feelings. If your feelings were hurt, I'm sorry that that they were. I intend you no emotional pain.
> 
> Marduk, please think about the way you treated me. Think about the things you said to me. How in the world could I not have been hurt?
> 
> But all that is besides the point. I think it is what drives your anger towards me. And if we don't talk it out, we will keep acting it out.
> 
> Well, it's what I think. And I think it's supported by what you've said, and other conversations that are not for a public forum. You can *think* whatever you want. But when you say that I said something that I did *not* say, then you are lying. I am sorry to use such a harsh term, but that is what it is.
> 
> I think there was likely a tipping point in your relationship, where Dug either agreed to take 100% accountability for the marriage, or it wouldn't work. These things were not spoken and probably not consciously thought. It is probably like falling in love. It happens, and you are there, and you don't know how you got there, but you are there and that is your new reality.
> 
> K.
> 
> 
> I have explained my position and given evidence for what I have said using your own words.
> 
> I never said what you said I said. That is the simple fact.
> 
> My gosh, marduk. You were not even there in the relationship with us 23 years ago! And you are saying I said things I not only never said, but never even thought!
> 
> I'm sure that's an understatement!
> 
> And I say that with no intention to insult either one of you.
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> If he hadn't have taken accountability for your emotional state and behaviour, would you have stayed with him? I don't know what would have happened. It did not happen.
> 
> Did he know that?
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's really honest.
> 
> What would you say if I said I think he might have needed your approval as much as you needed his? Or needed your love? Or to continue to stay with him? I will ask him about this tonight. I am very drawn to Dug. He is like a magnet for me. I don't know how well I would do without him.
> 
> He says things like he needs me, too, like he would not remarry if I died. But he is such a wonderful man. It would be such a shame that some other woman would not have the privilege, too, of being with such an intelligent and kind man.


----------



## GusPolinski

Kivlor said:


> I just want to let you all know I'll be playing in my backyard with my cape on tonight, and all you guys are invited. It's Friday!


What kind of beer you drinking?

@marduk?

@farsidejunky?


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> This is why I love TAM.
> 
> When I did the stuff that 'still the student' describes, M2 did not love, trust or feel anywhere near as connected to me.
> 
> When I do what you described your H doing, and what JLD describes DUG doing, I get that result.
> 
> And I want to make a very important distinction here.
> 
> There are two completely separate dimensions to these interactions. The first is solely dealing with the emotions. The intangible piece of the puzzle.
> 
> The second is the mechanics of life. The actual resource and logistics decisions we end up making.
> 
> I discovered that typically, handling the former like SGC describes, largely auto resolved the latter. Not always. But usually.


I will echo what MEM just said. 

When I pull the stoic card, and let my wife emote, she sure as hell is cuddled up to me soon thereafter, and tends to be a lot more emotionally transparent.

But too much of this (as in a year of it) and she becomes totally unaccountable for her own behaviour. And why not? I'll just take it and support her, after all.

Everything starts to get out of control, there's ranting and raving and swearing and throwing stuff soon enough.

And I'm 100% convinced it's why she felt free to kickstart her EA. I mean, I'm sure I would hold her and make it all better if she got caught, right?

On the other hand, if I become a hardass, her behaviour gets a lot better. Like alotalotalot. Respectful, reasonable, thoughtful, and the emotional tantrums go away. But -- she starts to become more emotionally tight-lipped, and less transparent, and less... Lovey-Dovey. Not talking about sex here, btw. I get far more sex when I'm a hardass.

So it's a double edged sword. One could take the path that I tried and be like Dug. And it kinda worked. 

Or one could take the total hardass path (which, to be fair, is more easy for me) and take no accountability for her emotions or what she did with them. And that kinda worked, too.

Or you could do what I did for a while which was to try to engineer a middle ground to optimize for both. And that didn't work at all.

And then I said to it all "**** it, I'm just gonna be me, and the best version of that that I can be" and it all started to go right.

And I guess we've come full circle on that one.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> This is why I love TAM.
> 
> When I did the stuff that 'still the student' describes, M2 did not love, trust or feel anywhere near as connected to me.
> 
> When I do what you described your H doing, and what JLD describes DUG doing, I get that result.
> 
> And I want to make a very important distinction here.
> 
> There are two completely separate dimensions to these interactions. The first is solely dealing with the emotions. The intangible piece of the puzzle.
> 
> The second is the mechanics of life. The actual resource and logistics decisions we end up making.
> 
> I discovered that typically, handling the former like SGC describes, largely auto resolved the latter. Not always. But usually.


I agree with this very much.

But this is a bit off topic, although I understand the thread has evolved to this point.

However, your actions were not when your relationship was in the midst of infidelity.

When it was, you handled it like a boss IMO. It had a very similar approach as the expose/file/180/detach method that I and others recommend in that it filtered out all of the background noise to arrive at a simple choice: you or the AP.

And yet, JLD finds fault with your methodology.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Marduk

GusPolinski said:


> What kind of beer you drinking?
> 
> @marduk?
> 
> @farsidejunky?











I dibs wolverine!


----------



## Kivlor

GusPolinski said:


> What kind of beer you drinking?
> 
> @marduk?
> 
> @farsidejunky?


My favorite beer's your favorite beer, they all taste the same after 6 to me :grin2:

I'll buy 2 cases of what you guys like, let me know what. Any more and it's on you all >

ETA: I'll take dibs on Comedian @marduk


----------



## Marduk

I'll think about what you said, @jld.


----------



## GusPolinski

marduk said:


> I dibs wolverine!


I'll be the dude in Supe's cape, Cap's shield, and Thor's hammer.


----------



## farsidejunky

For the alcoholics like me...

It is the best non-alcoholic beer I have tried.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Chuck71

GusPolinski said:


> What kind of beer you drinking?
> 
> @marduk?
> 
> @farsidejunky?


Ngoma beer.... from Kinshasa. Got my Capitan A$$hole cape ready.

Tried to get Grid to come, lives too far away


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> For the alcoholics like me...
> 
> It is the best non-alcoholic beer I have tried.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


It's ok, somebody's gotta be the designated superhero to fly all the drunks home.

Just ring the doorbell this time, last time my wife found me passed out under a snowdrift.


----------



## Kivlor

FrenchFry said:


> This is literally all I care about.


We've all moved on from the Bud Light vs Miller Lite dichotomy French. 

But if you really want both options available, we'll make it happen. Just remember, this is a cape-mandatory get-together :wink2:

:toast:


----------



## farsidejunky

marduk said:


> It's ok, somebody's gotta be the designated superhero to fly all the drunks home.
> 
> Just ring the doorbell this time, last time my wife found me passed out under a snowdrift.


I'm down. 

There's no better position to be in for a people watcher than a sober man amongst a bunch of drunks...



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## ocotillo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Shouldn't both options be at least heard?


Yes.

This might be obscure, but I relate to jld's viewpoint via the movie _The Out of Towners_ with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis. 

Jack Lemmon was one of the most beloved men in all of Hollywood. --Right up there with the likes of Morgan Freeman, Tom Hanks and Jimmy Stewart.

-But in this particular movie, he's completely out of control. It's a comedy of errors movie where everything that can possibly go wrong goes wrong and he's literally shaking his fist at the heavens in frustration.

The movie upsets my wife at a visceral level that she can't even explain. 

Paternalism won't work in my marriage. I don't consider myself stupid, but my wife is still more intelligent and more educated than I am. Despite that, she still needs an emotional anchor point and apparently I'm it.....

-So I do not discount what jld says.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> I think you are *living* the femdom thing. And I say that with great respect to your wife. She is a fine gal.


Thought about this one....I guess according to your definition I am submissive. I am a very charismatic, quick-tempered, high school qb, bar fight kind of guy. Essentially I am the opposite of Dug emotionally. 

I remember telling an old girlfriend one time "God didn't put me on this earth to constantly ride your emotional roller coaster."

So yes according to your definition I am weak.

However....

According to my definition....Your husband is weak and I feel you are in complete control of your relationship.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Yes.
> 
> This might be obscure, but I relate to jld's viewpoint via the movie _The Out of Towners_ with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis.
> 
> Jack Lemmon was one of the most beloved men in all of Hollywood. --Right up there with the likes of Morgan Freeman, Tom Hanks and Jimmy Stewart.
> 
> -But in this particular movie, he's completely out of control. It's a comedy of errors movie where everything that can possibly go wrong goes wrong and he's literally shaking his fist at the heavens in frustration.
> 
> The movie upsets my wife at a visceral level that she can't even explain.
> 
> Paternalism won't work in my marriage. I don't consider myself stupid, but my wife is still more intelligent and more educated than I am. Despite that, *she still needs an emotional anchor point and apparently I'm it*.....
> 
> -So I do not discount what jld says.


And that is pretty much all I'm saying. 

I am trying to help men become that emotional anchor. It takes a lot of weight off women, and it strengthens men. It is good for marriage, and for men's personal growth.

And if you don't like "men" in there, just put in dominant partner, or stronger person, or whatever.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Thought about this one....I guess according to your definition I am submissive. I am a very charismatic, quick-tempered, high school qb, bar fight kind of guy. Essentially I am the opposite of Dug emotionally.
> 
> I remember telling an old girlfriend one time "God didn't put me on this earth to constantly ride your emotional roller coaster."
> 
> So yes according to your definition I am weak.
> 
> However....
> 
> According to my definition....Your husband is weak.


Feel free to elaborate. How is Dug weak?

He does have weaknesses, btw. He is not perfect.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I'm sure for every woman, the degree to which she needs and appreciates being allowed to emote, even when it is unreasonable, varies. But I'm guessing we all need to be "allowed" to lose our sh!t every once in awhile. But I'm definitely not happy with that being the norm. I very much like boundaries. I very much want to be told "enough is enough" sometimes. Because I really will, and have, let things go too far if I'm not brought up short. But it takes a lot of trust in my husband to let him lead in that way--to know that sometimes he knows better what is good for me than I do. 

A really big portion of that trust is built on the fact that he allows me "in" to see how his emotional process works. He's not particularly "emo," but he's not about to pretend he's fine if he's not. I really sort of like knowing that he sometimes feels insecure, or sad, or hurt or whatever. Maybe because he doesn't use it to control me, I can trust him when he tells me stuff. He doesn't demand that I fix his feelings for him, but he does expect and want and need me to hear him sometimes. It makes me feel pretty close to him. 

I admit I didn't use to feel that way. I was once more like jld. I was afraid of what I might find out. But he's not that complicated. Not nearly as complicated as me, anyway. But he is emotionally different than me. I really enjoy that these days. In fact I've come to realize I need it to feel bonded to him. 

If I cheated on him the marriage would be over. He would end it, I'm sure, with little drama and much dignity. Not to be vindictive or to punish me, and I think he'd accept that he might have contributed to the conditions that led to my cheating, depending on the circumstances. But he knows himself, emotionally, very well, and he wouldn't get past it, even if he did forgive me, even if he still loved me, even if he could see what led me to it. I don't find that weak or unreasonable. I find it very attractive in him. In fact, if he did take me back, *I* wouldn't be able to respect him or believe in the R because I know him too well. I'd know he was faking it. Plus I think I'd lose my attraction for him anyway. I don't know, I guess I just have to admit I like and need that little chest thumping, possessive streak in him that says, "you belong to me and I won't share." I'd probably want him desperately, though, even though I couldn't have him. Sort of tragically ironic.

Rambling, sorry. 

Is there beer? I thought I saw there was beer?


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Feel free to elaborate. How is Dug weak?
> 
> He does have weaknesses, btw. He is not perfect.


For allowing you to disrespect him.

I do not believe it doesn't bother him.

I believe he is just good at eating it because that's what you need.

I am done with this derail.

EXPOSE EXPOSE EXPOSE


One thing I have noticed is that you have never taken a step back 
and really looked at a dissenters pov. I have never seen you question 
your judgement. You are right 100% of the time and the folks who agree 
with you are lavished with compliments while the dissenters get the passive 
aggressive digs. It's tiresome and I am over it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

IMO the time for 'that's not appropriate behavior' comes much after emotions are settled. 

Hold her then, talk about it later (if she didn't already thank and apologize to you about it)

For me, having to do all that stuff for H is draining for me. I work too, I take care of the home on my own and the kids, I also need to be awake when he is to help him do all this stuff. 

But the time to discuss how we can tweak things a bit is NOT while he's overwhelmed and running around the house trying to find stuff and getting all jumbled up and throwing clothes all over the place looking for socks. 

Help him then, talk about it later. 

There's a lot of posters on the side that will advocate for putting his foot down, telling her that you will NOT tolerate that kind of behavior, leaving the room, refusing to have any part in it. 
They'll tell them that this is how to be a man and show leadership. 

For me, and JLD, it's the opposite. So if there are both types of women out there, have both sets of advice. A poster can evaluate both and see what works best for him and his wife. 

If all they are given is one side, it would really not work on some women. It would be worse than doing nothing at all.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> For allowing you to disrespect him.
> 
> I do not believe it doesn't bother him.
> 
> I believe he is just good at eating it because that's what you need.
> 
> I am done with this derail.
> 
> EXPOSE EXPOSE EXPOSE


It's my thread. I am okay with a thread meandering. 

He has told me he has always felt deeply respected by me. He thinks that my feeling free to be completely transparent with him is a sign of my trust in him.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> IMO the time for 'that's not appropriate behavior' comes much after emotions are settled.
> 
> Hold her then, talk about it later (if she didn't already thank and apologize to you about it)
> 
> For me, having to do all that stuff for H is draining for me. I work too, I take care of the home on my own and the kids, I also need to be awake when he is to help him do all this stuff.
> 
> But the time to discuss how we can tweak things a bit is NOT while he's overwhelmed and running around the house trying to find stuff and getting all jumbled up and throwing clothes all over the place looking for socks.
> 
> Help him then, talk about it later.
> 
> There's a lot of posters on the side that will advocate for putting his foot down, telling her that you will NOT tolerate that kind of behavior, leaving the room, refusing to have any part in it.
> They'll tell them that this is how to be a man and show leadership.
> 
> For me, and JLD, it's the opposite. So if there are both types of women out there, have both sets of advice. A poster can evaluate both and see what works best for him and his wife.
> 
> If all they are given is one side, it would really not work on some women. It would be worse than doing nothing at all.


Absolutely. I would never stay with a man who had to leave the room or "demand" "respect." 

Especially that demanding respect thing. That would be like my dad all over again. I hated living with him and I will never live like that again.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> It's my thread. I am okay with a thread meandering.
> 
> He has told me he has always felt deeply respected by me. He thinks that my feeling free to be completely transparent with him is a sign of my trust in him.


Done I say!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Chuck71

jld said:


> It's my thread. I am okay with a thread meandering.


Unfortunately...... so was Gridcom


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> One thing I have noticed is that you have never taken a step back
> and really looked at a dissenters pov. I have never seen you question
> your judgement. You are right 100% of the time and the folks who agree
> with you are lavished with compliments while the dissenters get the passive
> aggressive digs. It's tiresome and I am over it.


It's not that I don't hear it; I just think it's wrong. And I am not going to give into what I think is wrong just because the crowd thinks it's right. I would not be helping anyone by doing that.

I question my own judgment all the time. I am constantly examining my conscience. I think the more honest we can be with ourselves, the more we can grow, the happier we can be.

If anything, I probably doubt myself too much.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> Absolutely. I would never stay with a man who had to leave the room or "demand" "respect."
> 
> Especially that demanding respect thing. That would be like my dad all over again. I hated living with him and I will never live like that again.


Yes, my H gets as much respect as he earns. As do I. 

I'm not going to blindly give him respect because he's a man but I'm not big on the "respect your elders" as a blanket statement thing either. 

If he demanded respect because he wasn't getting it, I'd tell him to start acting respectful then. Earn it. 
Don't put the cart before the horse. It's like demanding dinner but not buying groceries. Sorry, can't make something out of thin air.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I agree with wanting an emotional anchor. I want and need that in my husband. It looks different for every woman, so a man who wants to be one for his wife will have to consider what her particular needs are. It might or might not look like what I need, or what jld needs, or what Helga the Horrible needs. 

I don't think that means that a man has to stay adrift on his own emotional island though. If he has no emotional needs, that is fine, there is nothing for him to express or to suppress. But I think all men do have emotional needs--but sometimes they are the sort not satisfied via an intimate emotional connection with a wife. Or even by another person at all. I think that is rare, but jld says it is true of Dug. I think he disagrees with that though. Is that right, jld? He feels that he does need you emotionally?

I sometimes do not like what my husband has to say when he tells me how he feels, but that is usually because I tend to blame myself for his every negative emotion, even when he doesn't. Then I get all defensive and sad and start to emote. 

No wonder he picks his battles, lol.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld or SGC, can you give an example of what a man "demanding respect" might look like to you?


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes, my H gets as much respect as he earns. As do I.
> 
> *I'm not going to blindly give him respect because he's a man but I'm not big on the "respect your elders" as a blanket statement thing either. *
> 
> If he demanded respect because he wasn't getting it, I'd tell him to start acting respectful then. Earn it.
> Don't put the cart before the horse. It's like demanding dinner but not buying groceries. Sorry, can't make something out of thin air.


It's not even safe. 

Think about the women forced to submit to men in countries or times when they do or did not have rights. Just submit and obey. Sure, a few were safe doing that; some of the men were good and unselfish. But overall I think many are or were at great risk.

When you have a relationship where the more powerful person has to be mindful that he will only have his power as long as he uses it wisely, it helps him to always improve, always be his best. In return, he gets the best from his wife. It is a natural check and balance.

And it is the same with kids. As the mom, I have to be the example. I don't want them to obey if what I say is not wise. They have to question me if what I say seems off. That way I can learn and grow and improve, too.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> jld or SGC, can you give an example of what a man "demanding respect" might look like to you?


Insisting on being treated in a deferential manner.

I think it is quite hollow and false.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

GettingIt said:


> jld or SGC, can you give an example of what a man "demanding respect" might look like to you?


an example that comes to my mind is a thread I had read. He did something his wife didn't like, wife told him to F-off. 

He thought she should respect him, as a man, as the leader. Talking back to him was a big deal. He demanded she respect him and apologize. 

I've read versions of this all over, he should DEMAND respect or else he's not a strong man and she'll walk all over him. 

She did something he didn't like, that's disrespectful. Tell her that you refuse to put up with it. Demand respect and put your foot down. 

No one is entitled to respect IMO. You earn it. Being the penis-haver in the marriage isn't what should make a wife just blindly respect him. 

Actions do.


----------



## happy as a clam

farsidejunky said:


> I'm down.
> 
> There's no better position to be in for a people watcher than a sober man amongst a bunch of drunks...


Hey far... I can help with the drunks if you need it. I've given up alcohol for 30 days while I'm on my jacked-up Paleo autoimmune diet.

:lol:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

GettingIt said:


> jld or SGC, can you give an example of what a man "demanding respect" might look like to you?


Good question! I think @ButtPunch used the word "demand" when he might have meant "require". I may be wrong. BP?

When I think of what we are discussing here, and why so many men are opposed to what JLD & SGC are proposing is that we have no need for tantrums from an adult. It's not that we can't tolerate it. It's that we choose not to. 

If I had a woman treat me the way JLD described earlier, I'd politely take her by the hand, and walk her to the door, and politely, quietly, tell her to come inside when she's ready to speak like an adult to me. If that's in 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days, whatever. Fine. I treat people with respect, I expect a certain level of decorum as well. It's called *reciprocity*.

I expect the same in return. If I yell at someone, I can't be surprised, upset or outraged if they yell back at me. Or tell me to come back when I'm ready to speak like a grown up. It doesn't mean we can't discuss--or argue vigorously--anything and everything, it just means a small level of politeness is required of us both.

If you act like a child, expect to be treated like a child. If you act like an adult, expect to be treated like an adult. :surprise:


----------



## happy as a clam

jld said:


> It's my thread. I am okay with a thread meandering.


Yes. But it's the rest of us who seem to get banned for "thread-meandering."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## happy as a clam

** Off-topic: @Kivlor... I totally dig your profile pic. A cup of java after my own heart... (Or is that tea??)

:lol:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

GusPolinski said:


> I'll be the dude in Supe's cape, Cap's shield, and Thor's hammer.


Going to buck the trend and be batman and drink whiskey
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

happy as a clam said:


> ** Off-topic: @Kivlor... I totally dig your profile pic. A cup of java after my own heart... (Or is that tea??)
> 
> :lol:
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's whichever I want at the moment. :grin2:

And right now that's some delicious tea with cream and honey. And maybe some almonds and berries on the side... 

But seriously... it was originally uploaded with coffee in mind.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

pidge70 said:


> This is rude as Hell. Not that it matters, you've apparently got Mod protection.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Come on, deep breaths. I already saw a few posters, I enjoyed reading, punished for making this suggestion. Please, don't join that list.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

There is a difference between saying "men who act like X are Y" and saying "JLD is Y"

People end up banned when they call out a single poster and insult her.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> an example that comes to my mind is a thread I had read. He did something his wife didn't like, wife told him to F-off.
> 
> He thought she should respect him, as a man, as the leader. Talking back to him was a big deal. He demanded she respect him and apologize.
> 
> I've read versions of this all over, he should DEMAND respect or else he's not a strong man and she'll walk all over him.
> 
> She did something he didn't like, that's disrespectful. Tell her that you refuse to put up with it. Demand respect and put your foot down.
> 
> No one is entitled to respect IMO. You earn it. Being the penis-haver in the marriage isn't what should make a wife just blindly respect him.
> 
> Actions do.


Great post.

I am surprised CWI didn't tell him to wash her mouth out with soap. *rolls eyes*


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Great post.
> 
> I am surprised CWI didn't tell him to wash her mouth out with soap. *rolls eyes*


That's a pretty common form of negative reinforcement in the D/s lifestyle, I hear. ("Domestic Discipline" in particular, as they say)


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> That's a pretty common form of negative reinforcement in the D/s lifestyle, I hear. ("Domestic Discipline" in particular, as they say)


It is one thing when it is consensual. CWI does not worry about consent.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> It is one thing when it is consensual. CWI does not worry about consent.


Is it really all that different if it's consensual or not? I mean, it's not like your children "consent" to being disciplined. (well, maybe yours do, but I never consented!) Same basic principle: bad behavior > negative consequence > no more bad behavior.

Besides, I thought a wife who submits is a happy one?


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Is it really all that different if it's consensual or not? I mean, it's not like your children "consent" to being disciplined. (well, maybe yours do, but I never consented!) Same basic principle: bad behavior > negative consequence > no more bad behavior.


Yes, it is. We are talking another adult here, right?

Even with disciplining my children, I try to really discipline, as in guide. Sometimes, yes, they have gotten spanked, the young ones, and sometimes I yell at them (and later apologize), but mostly I try to explain what I want and why. 

And I have to listen to them, too. They often have better ideas than I do. 

It is from the heart that the mouth speaks. If you don't like what your wife is saying to you, work on her heart. Don't (figuratively) slap her face.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> People end up banned when they call out a single poster and insult her.


LOL. Not even close to who or what I meant.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> It's not even safe.
> 
> Think about the women forced to submit to men in countries or times when they do or did not have rights. Just submit and obey. Sure, a few were safe doing that; some of the men were good and unselfish. But overall I think many are or were at great risk.
> 
> When you have a relationship where the more powerful person has to be mindful that he will only have his power as long as he uses it wisely, it helps him to always improve, always be his best. In return, he gets the best from his wife. It is a natural check and balance.
> 
> And it is the same with kids. As the mom, I have to be the example. I don't want them to obey if what I say is not wise. They have to question me if what I say seems off. That way I can learn and grow and improve, too.


This is the same for all people not just women.

Take the union movement for example - a non-noble or business owner could be flogged or put to death legally for attempting subversion.

But not to resist is to become a part to the crime.

A jew turning in jews, or a black slave turning over a runaway.

In my country one tribe killed all the men of an opposing tribe and enslaved all the women and girls and impregnated them. Generations later after European rule and treaties etc, their story started to come out - it turns out that the women had kept the genocide of the tribe alive, and many of its customs and stories, passed down only in the females of that line, a tribe within a tribe.
Revelation earlier would have meant a torturous death for many of the women, but those involved knew, that they had to do what they -could- do, keep the stories, teach the children, one grain at a time.

Same goes for the unions, and opposing the Catholic church. Great kings cannot throw off such oppression alone - for they must politic for support. The must gain loyalty for the new ideas, from the guards, from the people. 
If this were not true, then the good changes could be overthrown just as quickly as the revolution throws down the bad.

Far better learning and comprehending. And in history this has often been the provenance of queens and other powerful woman, and of men of leadership; simply being able to identify what _can_ be changed, and how it can be changed within overturning the system, so eventually the system itself can be changed.
This is something that many women will accept - it is too easy to get power and status by playing the game, too risky to go against the harpies and the crones... who are the worst , for just like in the USSR and China and other socialist regimes, those who turn in their fellows receive the greatest rewards and recognition. This has just happened across the news media today, with a ISIL member legally murdering his own mother.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Besides, I thought a wife who submits is a happy one?


Well, what does submit mean to you?

To me, it means trust. And I think a woman can only really do that if her trust is earned.

That is why I hardly talk about what a wife should do. And I almost never talk about submitting. It comes naturally when the man is worthy of it. I try to help men be worthy of it.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> It is one thing when it is consensual. CWI does not worry about consent.


In fairness, neither does a WS.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

spotthedeaddog said:


> This is the same for all people not just women.


Yes, there are many different types of oppression.

I think women love men. I know I do. I think many women, like me, find themselves giving themselves to men in relationships. I just want us to be able to do it safely.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> Insisting on being treated in a deferential manner.
> 
> I think it is quite hollow and false.


I should have been more clear. I meant a specific example, with context. Why is she upset, what does she say, what does he say back. What is the nature of their usual dynamic, etc. 

I think it's important to be clear and specific when we are giving our opinions about this sort of thing.


----------



## GusPolinski

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There is a difference between saying "men who act like X are Y" and saying "JLD is Y"
> 
> People end up banned when they call out a single poster and insult her.


Personally I think it's more insulting to be called out via passive-aggressive swipes, snipes, jabs, stabs, needles, pokes, and prods.

Want to take a swing at me? That's cool, but at least do me the courtesy of tagging me so that I can join the conversation or -- if nothing else -- get in on the "Gus is an assh*le!" group chant.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> In fairness, neither does a WS.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Far. Okay, let's talk.

The disconnect I see is that I cannot imagine Dug being scared or really hurt by me in any way. And so I project that impregnability onto all men. My thinking is, How can you be devastated by someone who is obviously weak if she is having an affair?

Your thinking is very opposite. You see her as very powerful, like you see me as powerful. I look at that and think, Are you crazy? Look at how disrespecfully I am treated by many posters. And you think I am a person of influence?

What you see seems true to you. What I see seems true to me.

A friend said recently that a man whose wife has an affair feels like she has cut him with a sharp knife. But to me, the knife is made of paper. 

I thought that was a great description. To someone who thinks his wife is carrying a sharp knife, great fear and the desire for defensive measures make sense. To me, they are a great overreaction.


----------



## pidge70

phillybeffandswiss said:


> Come on, deep breaths. I already saw a few posters, I enjoyed reading, punished for making this suggestion. Please, don't join that list.


While I appreciate the concern, I could really give a rat's butt if I get banned. It would just go to show that certain behavior is only allowed for the protected one.


----------



## GettingIt_2

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> an example that comes to my mind is a thread I had read. He did something his wife didn't like, wife told him to F-off.
> 
> He thought she should respect him, as a man, as the leader. Talking back to him was a big deal. He demanded she respect him and apologize.
> 
> I've read versions of this all over, he should DEMAND respect or else he's not a strong man and she'll walk all over him.
> 
> She did something he didn't like, that's disrespectful. Tell her that you refuse to put up with it. Demand respect and put your foot down.
> 
> No one is entitled to respect IMO. You earn it. Being the penis-haver in the marriage isn't what should make a wife just blindly respect him.
> 
> Actions do.


It's hard for me to make a judgment on even this. What did he do to elicit "f-off" from his wife?

Does she always talk to him like that? Has he spoken to her about it in the past?

My husband wouldn't tolerate me talking to him like that. He wouldn't stand there and angrily demand respect, but I don't think he'd just take it, either. I think he'd come to me and talk to me about it. It IS disrespectful. I woudln't want my husband to tell me to f-off. 

Now if it was a rare thing, and I was just really overwrought, and I said it, I think we'd talk about the ISSUE that led me to say it, and not dwell on whether or not the "f-off" was acceptable. 

But as a pattern, as a habitual way to express my displeasure with him? No, he wouldn't accept it. 

Now, if the context is that the husband was so far out of line that he deserved the f-off, and habitually deserves that sort of response, then the wife should re examine her reasons for staying. 

Then again, some couples talk to one another like that and neither have a problem with it.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Personally I think it's more insulting to be called out via passive-aggressive swipes, snipes, jabs, stabs, needles, pokes, and prods.
> 
> Want to take a swing at me? That's cool, but at least do me the courtesy of tagging me so that I can join the conversation or -- if nothing else -- get in on the "Gus is an assh*le!" group chant.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Do you think maybe you are just very sensitive? 

I know I am. I have felt hurt at times when the person did not mean to hurt me. It is often a matter of interpretation.


----------



## pidge70

jld said:


> Well, what does submit mean to you?
> 
> To me, it means trust. And I think a woman can only really do that if her trust is earned.
> 
> That is why I hardly talk about what a wife should do. And I almost never talk about submitting. It comes naturally when the man is worthy of it. I try to help men be worthy of it.


You do realize that women fought hard to be treated as equals? If all women wanted to "submit," why would they have bothered?


----------



## pidge70

jld said:


> Do you think maybe you are just very sensitive?
> 
> I know I am. I have felt hurt at times when the person did not mean to hurt me. It is often a matter of interpretation.


Why is it you always turn crap around? Why do you think you have that much power over anonymous strangers on a forum?


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There is a difference between saying "men who act like X are Y" and saying "JLD is Y"
> 
> People end up banned when they call out a single poster and insult her.


Course. Veiled insults are better than direct


----------



## pidge70

Wolf1974 said:


> Course. Veiled insults are better than direct


Exactly


----------



## Chuck71

Keeping on topic.... when baseball expands again, I would like to see another team in Montreal.....

the Montreal Exposures


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Do you think maybe you are just very sensitive?
> 
> I know I am. I have felt hurt at times when the person did not mean to hurt me. It is often a matter of interpretation.


LOL. No.

I do, however, think that I know how to read.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Far. Okay, let's talk.
> 
> The disconnect I see is that I cannot imagine Dug being scared or really hurt by me in any way. And so I project that impregnability onto all men. *My thinking is, How can you be devastated by someone who is obviously weak if she is having an affair?*
> 
> Your thinking is very opposite. You see her as very powerful, like you see me as powerful. I look at that and think, Are you crazy? Look at how disrespecfully I am treated by many posters. And you think I am a person of influence?
> 
> What you see seems true to you. What I see seems true to me.
> 
> A friend said recently that a man whose wife has an affair feels like she has cut him with a sharp knife. But to me, the knife is made of paper.
> 
> I thought that was a great description. To someone who thinks his wife is carrying a sharp knife, great fear and the desire for defensive measures make sense. To me, they are a great overreaction.


Because you care for them and trusted them. And when you find your trust and love is misused it hurts...
Seems fairly common sense to me

You maybe can't imagine your husband being hurt, tear his world apart with infidelity and you may be suprised.


----------



## pidge70

jld said:


> Far. Okay, let's talk.
> 
> The disconnect I see is that I cannot imagine Dug being scared or really hurt by me in any way. And so I project that impregnability onto all men. My thinking is, How can you be devastated by someone who is obviously weak if she is having an affair?
> 
> Your thinking is very opposite. You see her as very powerful, like you see me as powerful. I look at that and think, Are you crazy? *Look at how disrespecfully I am treated by many posters.* And you think I am a person of influence?
> 
> What you see seems true to you. What I see seems true to me.
> 
> A friend said recently that a man whose wife has an affair feels like she has cut him with a sharp knife. But to me, the knife is made of paper.
> 
> I thought that was a great description. To someone who thinks his wife is carrying a sharp knife, great fear and the desire for defensive measures make sense. To me, they are a great overreaction.


Re the bolded: You get what you give.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

GettingIt said:


> My husband wouldn't tolerate me talking to him like that. He wouldn't stand there and angrily demand respect, but I don't think he'd just take it, either. I think he'd come to me and talk to me about it. It IS disrespectful. I woudln't want my husband to tell me to f-off.


I agree, it is disrespectful and I think we agree on the same things, the WHY is important. Why is she behaving that way? Not, she must respect you. You are a man and therefore need to demand it and if they don't, she will not think he's strong. 

IMO the disrespect is a _symptom _of the issue and not the only issue itself. Needing to demand respect is like demanding sex from a spouse who has reason why they don't want to. 

And like the second, they could be good or bad reasons, or that's just how they are. 

So I'd want to look at why it happened, what's her reason. Then, it is a good or bad reason to you? Is it compatible with your thinking, what can be done to fix things so she WANTS to respect you. 

I want a man who earns my respect, not demands it. If he's lost it, I want to be able to talk to him about why and work to repair it, not just put his foot down and tell me I need to.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree, it is disrespectful and I think we agree on the same things, the WHY is important. Why is she behaving that way? Not, she must respect you. You are a man and therefore need to demand it and if they don't, she will not think he's strong.
> 
> IMO the disrespect is a _symptom _of the issue and not the only issue itself. Needing to demand respect is like demanding sex from a spouse who has reason why they don't want to.
> 
> And like the second, they could be good or bad reasons, or that's just how they are.
> 
> So I'd want to look at why it happened, what's her reason. Then, it is a good or bad reason to you? Is it compatible with your thinking, what can be done to fix things so she WANTS to respect you.
> 
> I want a man who earns my respect, not demands it. If he's lost it, I want to be able to talk to him about why and work to repair it, not just put his foot down and tell me I need to.


Interesting dynamic. I know I won't tolerate being talked to like that. Personally just believe that if you have something to say it can be done respectfully. I don't think men have a pass to intimate because they are bigger and women don't have a right to loose control because they are emotional. So by not tolerating it then it isn't an issue if you get my meaning. Communication can be accomplished that way and therefore respect on both sides


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> The disconnect I see is that I cannot imagine Dug being scared or really hurt by me in any way.


Does Dug feel this way? Does he say that it would hurt him if you had an affair? Or is this your impression--your fantasy--of how an "ideal" man would react? I don't mean to be mean when I use the word "fantasy." Is this what you hope would happen if you cheated--that he would not be scared, or hurt or angry? Do you think that is realistic, or even healthy for men not to feel hurt, scared or angry in regards to their marriages?



jld said:


> And so I project that impregnability onto all men. My thinking is, How can you be devastated by someone who is obviously weak if she is having an affair?


I don't think the devastation is ameliorated by or has to do with how weak the BS thinks the cheater is. It has to do with what was broken, what was lost. If nothing of value has been broken or lost, then perhaps the man would not be devastated. I don't think you believe that Dug does not value you as a wife and intimate partner, do you? I know he has said many times that he DOES in fact value you very highly. 



jld said:


> Your thinking is very opposite. You see her as very powerful, like you see me as powerful. I look at that and think, Are you crazy? Look at how disrespectfully I am treated by many posters. And you think I am a person of influence?


Loving and valuing something automatically puts you in a vulnerable position. Dug is vulnerable if he loves you. Does that mean you are powerful? I guess by your measure it does, same as you might see Dug's vulnerability as weakness?

But we are not talking about power and weakness here are innate personality traits, or even as the language of power exchange. We are talking about valuing and being valued. About the pain of loss. Anyone who cares about anything is weak in this way. Anyone who is cared about is powerful in this way. 



jld said:


> What you see seems true to you. What I see seems true to me.
> 
> A friend said recently that a man whose wife has an affair feels like she has cut him with a sharp knife. But to me, the knife is made of paper.


But you have already admitted you project this. Are we to take your admitted projection as grounds by which to judge your advice valid? Your husband would probably feel quite devastated if you cheated. That does not mean that he would behave badly or demand anything of you. Perhaps he would even take full responsibility. But you would have wounded him deeply, all the same. 



jld said:


> I thought that was a great description. To someone who thinks his wife is carrying a sharp knife, great fear and the desire for defensive measures make sense. To me, they are a great overreaction.


I tend to think that the bigger the knife a man perceives, the more value he places on his marriage and his wife AND/OR the better he knows himself. 

You tend to think the bigger the knife a man perceives, the weaker he is. 

The truth is probably different for each man, and probably a mix of both for most men. 

Why do the emotions of men scare you jld? Because you don't understand them? How can we know our partners if we are afraid to look at them?


----------



## Bobby5000

Men generally do not want embarrassing things told to friends or family. That is hard because many women like to ventilate their own and family's problems and shortcoming. So if the family is facing financial problems, the wife may want to tell other people and get support while the last thing the husband wants is for anyone to know.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Yeah I tried to point that out to her but she recoiled when challenged.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Where do you get this? I don't remember recoiling.


----------



## GettingIt_2

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree, it is disrespectful and I think we agree on the same things, the WHY is important. Why is she behaving that way? Not, she must respect you. You are a man and therefore need to demand it and if they don't, she will not think he's strong.
> 
> IMO the disrespect is a _symptom _of the issue and not the only issue itself. Needing to demand respect is like demanding sex from a spouse who has reason why they don't want to.
> 
> And like the second, they could be good or bad reasons, or that's just how they are.
> 
> So I'd want to look at why it happened, what's her reason. Then, it is a good or bad reason to you? Is it compatible with your thinking, what can be done to fix things so she WANTS to respect you.
> 
> I want a man who earns my respect, not demands it. If he's lost it, I want to be able to talk to him about why and work to repair it, not just put his foot down and tell me I need to.


Yes, it's complex and nuanced and can't be pinned on always the man or always the woman who is at "fault."

I really think that often failure to communicate leads to a place where women feel they need to emote in extreme ways on a regular basis and where men feel their only choice of response is to shut that sh!t down. 

It doesn't mean the man deserved the disrespect, it could be that he honestly didn't understand her needs. My husband always has put in the effort to understand my needs . . . but he wasn't good at it for a long time because I wasn't communicating with him effectively. To be honest, I was pretty sad and frustrated a lot of the time so yes, it came out as full on b!tch or ice queen quite often.

And I neglected my husband's needs for a long time because I wasn't "getting it" when he told me why he was unhappy. Plus since I was feeling neglected, I wasn't all that motivated to try and understand him. 

Neither of us was the bad guy. I still respected him as a person of course--he has always been a fine man of good character--but I regularly disregarded his feelings and that is not something I'm proud of, even if I know I did it out of hurt for feeling disregarded myself, and out of fear because I did not understand my own husband.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Where do you get this? I don't remember recoiling.


Just the word I used for not answering the question. Felt it was better than ducking or dodging it is all


----------



## GettingIt_2

I have to also add that the idea of a man "earning the respect" of his wife is often double speak for "doing what she finds attractive."

If a woman is married to a man of good character, who is faithful, of high integrity, has consideration, is kind to animals and contributes his share willingly . . . then he is worthy of respect. 

I realized at some point that my husband has NEVER done anything that would earn my disrespect. Has he done things I didn't find particularly attractive in a mate and partner? Sure. And I've learned how to be honest with him about that without pulling the respect card.


----------



## Wolf1974

GettingIt said:


> Yes, it's complex and nuanced and can't be pinned on always the man or always the woman who is at "fault."
> 
> I really think that often failure to communicate leads to a place where women feel they need to emote in extreme ways on a regular basis and where men feel their only choice of response is to shut that sh!t down.
> 
> It doesn't mean the man deserved the disrespect, it could be that he honestly didn't understand her needs. My husband always has put in the effort to understand my needs . . . but he wasn't good at it for a long time because I wasn't communicating with him effectively. To be honest, I was pretty sad and frustrated a lot of the time so yes, it came out as full on b!tch or ice queen quite often.
> 
> And I neglected my husband's needs for a long time because I wasn't "getting it" when he told me why he was unhappy. Plus since I was feeling neglected, I wasn't all that motivated to try and understand him.
> 
> Neither of us was the bad guy. I still respected him as a person of course--he has always been a fine man of good character--but I regularly disregarded his feelings and that is not something I'm proud of, even if I know I did it out of hurt for feeling disregarded myself, and out of fear because I did not understand my own husband.


Isn't it interesting how some give more thought and respect to those they hardly know or should hardly care about but those we took vows and made commitments to it has to be in a constant state of earned...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> Interesting dynamic. I know I won't tolerate being talked to like that. Personally just believe that if you have something to say it can be done respectfully. I don't think men have a pass to intimate because they are bigger and women don't have a right to loose control because they are emotional. So by not tolerating it then it isn't an issue if you get my meaning. Communication can be accomplished that way and therefore respect on both sides


Everyone has their own boundaries, and should. To me, respect isn't a given, it's not unconditional. It can gain and lose just like love. My love isn't just given unconditionally either. 

He builds love by meeting my needs, he builds respect by acting respectful. Sometimes they are together, sometimes not. 

If I lose respect for him then we talk about why and try to get it back, he can't just jump to the top, get it without the work to get there. 
If I lose love, we have to talk about why and try to get it back. Again, he can't just say "I demand love" and I do. He earns it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

GettingIt said:


> I have to also add that the idea of a man "earning the respect" of his wife is often double speak for "doing what she finds attractive."
> 
> If a woman is married to a man of good character, who is faithful, of high integrity, has consideration, is kind to animals and contributes his share willingly . . . then he is worthy of respect.
> 
> I realized at some point that my husband has NEVER done anything that would earn my disrespect. Has he done things I didn't find particularly attractive in a mate and partner? Sure. And I've learned how to be honest with him about that without pulling the respect card.


I don't think it's a card.

If my H is not pulling his weight around the house, I lose respect. I make sure to tell him this so he understands. I can not respect a man who doesn't clean up after himself or do his fair share of the chores. 

Love, respect, attraction, different things lose and gain in different areas. I don't think they are all one in the same but can be if they seep into each other and start dragging each other down. Like the Titanic, filling one section and spilling over to the next until the whole thing goes down. 

Attraction, for me, if the last one to go. Respect first, then love, then finally attraction as the last nail in the coffin but everyone will be different in how they feel any of those emotions.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Hmmm, I wonder if unconditional respect and love is tied to how much emotional trust one feels in their partner. 

It wasn't until my husband and I really worked on our intimacy and our communication that I was able to understand that I have always respected him, even if I didn't particularly like him or want to screw him, lol. 

I would say that he does have my unconditional respect. 

(Even if some days I tell him I hate him, and really, honestly feel that . . . I don't think I have ever or will ever lose respect for him. He's too consistently, predictably principled. Drives me nuts sometimes.)


----------



## Chuck71

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Everyone has their own boundaries, and should. To me, respect isn't a given, it's not unconditional. It can gain and lose just like love. My love isn't just given unconditionally either.
> 
> He builds love by meeting my needs, he builds respect by acting respectful. Sometimes they are together, sometimes not.
> 
> *If I lose respect for him then we talk about why and try to get it back*, he can't just jump to the top, get it without the work to get there.
> If I lose love, we have to talk about why and try to get it back. Again, he can't just say "I demand love" and I do. He earns it.


That is what healthy couples do, talk about it.... communicate.

Too many WS just run off and seek out an AP. Unhealthy. 

But if you hear other people tell it.... if a H has the smallest amount of issues (covert contracts),

it gives a W a reason to cheat.


----------



## GettingIt_2

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't think it's a card.


I don't think it always is. I think it sometimes it. But I certainly don't get to choose what another woman's criteria is for respecting a man. I do think that women know that men generally want to feel respected by their wives, so if they are looking for a weapon when they are unhappy with their husband . . . 



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If my H is not pulling his weight around the house, I lose respect. I make sure to tell him this so he understands. I can not respect a man who doesn't clean up after himself or do his fair share of the chores.


See, that would affect my attraction to him. If he was generally lazy, then yeah it might affect my respect. If he's just a slob by my standards, then he is a good man who happens to be a slob. But attraction is REALLY important to me, and I know how unhappy I am when I'm not attracted to him. 



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Love, respect, attraction, different things lose and gain in different areas. I don't think they are all one in the same but can be if they seep into each other and start dragging each other down. Like the Titanic, filling one section and spilling over to the next until the whole thing goes down.
> 
> Attraction, for me, if the last one to go. Respect first, then love, then finally attraction as the last nail in the coffin but everyone will be different in how they feel any of those emotions.


Yes, that's a good observation and one I hadn't considered. I couldn't stay with a man I didn't respect. I hated the years I wasn't attracted to him, but it wasn't the nail in the coffin.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> Does Dug feel this way? Does he say that it would hurt him if you had an affair? Or is this your impression--your fantasy--of how an "ideal" man would react? I don't mean to be mean when I use the word "fantasy." Is this what you hope would happen if you cheated--that he would not be scared, or hurt or angry? Do you think that is realistic, or even healthy for men not to feel hurt, scared or angry in regards to their marriages?
> 
> He told me while I was working on grid's thread that if I had an affair, it would be his fault. He said that the only reason I would do it is because of neglect, and he knows he neglects me.
> 
> I am not going to do that, btw. But I was very impressed by his honesty, and willingness to take responsibility.
> 
> And he is really working on the neglect issue.
> 
> I don't think the devastation is ameliorated by or has to do with how weak the BS thinks the cheater is. It has to do with what was broken, what was lost. If nothing of value has been broken or lost, then perhaps the man would not be devastated. I don't think you believe that Dug does not value you as a wife and intimate partner, do you? I know he has said many times that he DOES in fact value you very highly.
> 
> I am sure that hurts.
> 
> But there is also the value of understanding why it happened, and what his own hand may have been in why it happened.
> 
> If we just focus on our own pain, we are giving our power away. And giving our power away is submissive. It makes us very vulnerable.
> 
> Yes, he loves and values me. But his security does not rest in me. It rests in himself. I may be emotionally dependent on him, but he is not on me.
> 
> Loving and valuing something automatically puts you in a vulnerable position. Dug is vulnerable if he loves you. Does that mean you are powerful? I guess by your measure it does, same as you might see Dug's vulnerability as weakness?
> 
> I just don't see Dug as vulnerable. I know he loves the kids and me. That is why he cried when our son got cancer.
> 
> Not everyone who loves, loves in a codependent way. Some people love purely. I think Dug loves purely. He does not love to be loved in return.
> 
> But we are not talking about power and weakness here are innate personality traits, or even as the language of power exchange. We are talking about valuing and being valued. About the pain of loss. Anyone who cares about anything is weak in this way. Anyone who is cared about is powerful in this way.
> 
> But you have already admitted you project this. Are we to take your admitted projection as grounds by which to judge your advice valid? Your husband would probably feel quite devastated if you cheated. That does not mean that he would behave badly or demand anything of you. Perhaps he would even take full responsibility. But you would have wounded him deeply, all the same.
> 
> You don't have to take my, or anyone's advice, as valid. I think you should think your own thoughts. Make your own judgments. Choose your own advisors, as MEM would say.
> 
> It must be terrible to cheat on your spouse. I can only imagine the shame the person must carry, sitting in front of their spouse. I wonder how they ever forgive themselves.
> 
> I tend to think that the bigger the knife a man perceives, the more value he places on his marriage and his wife AND/OR the better he knows himself.
> 
> You tend to think the bigger the knife a man perceives, the weaker he is.
> 
> The truth is probably different for each man, and probably a mix of both for most men.
> 
> Why do the emotions of men scare you jld? Because you don't understand them? How can we know our partners if we are afraid to look at them? I don't trust emotion in men. It does not make me feel safe. And to me, the whole point of being with a man is to feel safe.
> 
> To me, men are supposed to be leaders. If they aren't, the women end up having to do that, plus work, plus raise kids, plus keep a house. It's too much.
> 
> GI, I was not meant to carry a man. Men who need to be carried have never been attracted to me. They know instinctively that I cannot provide what they need. Nature can be very efficient that way.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Just the word I used for not answering the question. Felt it was better than ducking or dodging it is all


What question did I not answer?

Wolf, did you see all the questions coming at me today? Sometimes I cannot keep up. It does not mean I am ducking, dodging, or recoiling.


----------



## GettingIt_2

JLD, we all carry our spouses. You carry Dug by being patient while he works on his attentiveness. You carry him by managing his family--the most valued thing in his life--for him while he is away. You carry him each and every time you feel disappointed in him in some way, but stay as faithful and true as ever. You are as committed to him as he is to you. 

We all have the ways that we accept--and enjoy--"carrying" the people we love. Loving someone feels good.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> JLD, we all carry our spouses. You carry Dug by being patient while he works on his attentiveness. You carry him by managing his family--the most valued thing in his life--for him while he is away. You carry him each and every time you feel disappointed in him in some way, but stay as faithful and true as ever. You are as committed to him as he is to you.
> 
> We all have the ways that we accept--and enjoy--"carrying" the people we love. Loving someone feels good.


Very nice, GI. 

I know he appreciates the family support. It was really important to him to have the kids. 

I can't carry a man's emotions, though. That is just not going to happen.


----------



## ButtPunch

ok.....Had to.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> ok.....Had to.


What is that supposed to be?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

GettingIt said:


> Does Dug feel this way? Does he say that it would hurt him if you had an affair? *Or is this your impression--your fantasy--of how an "ideal" man would react? I don't mean to be mean when I use the word "fantasy." Is this what you hope would happen if you cheated--that he would not be scared, or hurt or angry? Do you think that is realistic, or even healthy for men not to feel hurt, scared or angry in regards to their marriages?*
> 
> 
> I don't think the devastation is ameliorated by or has to do with how weak the BS thinks the cheater is.* It has to do with what was broken, what was lost. If nothing of value has been broken or lost, then perhaps the man would not be devastated. * I don't think you believe that Dug does not value you as a wife and intimate partner, do you? I know he has said many times that he DOES in fact value you very highly.
> 
> *Loving and valuing something automatically puts you in a vulnerable position. Dug is vulnerable if he loves you. Does that mean you are powerful? I guess by your measure it does, same as you might see Dug's vulnerability as weakness?*
> 
> But we are not talking about power and weakness here are innate personality traits, or even as the language of power exchange. * We are talking about valuing and being valued. About the pain of loss. Anyone who cares about anything is weak in this way. Anyone who is cared about is powerful in this way. *










.... you speak this so well.. love your post....the comparing... 

It's not a subject opened up often...but one I noticed early on that.. WOW.. that's a different perspective she has there [email protected]# ...and I found myself vehemently defending the guy who FEELS.. who needs.. who wants.. who cares.. who is devastated... he has heart..









I've said in these types of exchanges.. I wouldn't be able to stomach a man who wouldn't FEEL those things...if he was made of iron.. if nothing I did could anger him, hurt him, move him..... I wouldn't feel loved by him. 



> But you have already admitted you project this. Are we to take your admitted projection as grounds by which to judge your advice valid? *Your husband would probably feel quite devastated if you cheated. That does not mean that he would behave badly or demand anything of you. Perhaps he would even take full responsibility. But you would have wounded him deeply, all the same. *


 I can understand someone seeing their own hand in hurting the other..taking some responsibility for the breakdown.... but still... there would be something valued / special LOST...this would cause great pain... emotional suffering.....

Maybe it's one of those things you just can't grasp until you have experienced it.. I can grasp it by imagining it though.. easily. 

It reminds me of Men who want to see their women with another man...I've mentioned these to my husband...he will say to me.. "He can't love her" or he'd be devastated.. Furious.. not turned on!... it's something many of us would just never understand.. 













> I tend to think that the bigger the knife a man perceives, the more value he places on his marriage and his wife AND/OR the better he knows himself.
> 
> You tend to think the bigger the knife a man perceives, the weaker he is.


 Yes ! 



> The truth is probably different for each man, and probably a mix of both for most men.


 Very true... I've told jld ... by her definitions on this.. I PREFER WEAK AZZED MEN... the weaker the better... and that sounds really bad.. doesn't it !!!

Ha ha...Of course I don't mean it - like it sounds.. just through how she views this....

It's interesting !


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> Very nice, GI.
> 
> I know he appreciates the family support. It was really important to him to have the kids.
> 
> I can't carry a man's emotions, though. That is just not going to happen.


You do carry his emotions jld. Those things you do? That is how HE feels security in his marriage. That's a pretty common need among men: to know their family is in good hands if they are not there.

You cannot escape from it my dear: Dug needs you as surely as you need him. Not in the same way, but as surely. 

And BTW you didn't answer my question about whether or not you thought Dug would feel hurt, sadness, anger, etc. if you cheated on him. You mentioned that he said he would ultimately take responsibility, but not what his emotions surrounding the infidelity itself would be. 

I think a lot of men do come around to accepting that they had a role in the conditions that led to their wife's infidelity, but not in a vacuum of cold, hard rationality. I don't think Dug would be an exception.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> You do carry his emotions jld. Those things you do? That is how HE feels security in his marriage. That's a pretty common need among men: to know their family is in good hands if they are not there.
> 
> You cannot escape from it my dear: Dug needs you as surely as you need him. Not in the same way, but as surely.
> 
> And BTW you didn't answer my question about whether or not you thought Dug would feel hurt, sadness, anger, etc. if you cheated on him. You mentioned that he said he would ultimately take responsibility, but not what his emotions surrounding the infidelity itself would be.
> 
> I think a lot of men do come around to accepting that they had a role in the conditions that led to their wife's infidelity, but not in a vacuum of cold, hard rationality. I don't think Dug would be an exception.


GI, I think you know what I mean about not carrying a man's emotions. I am not a man protector. Obviously. 

I bet he would feel disappointed. I wonder if he would feel hurt, too. Most likely.

But I am not going to do that and neither is he so it's all good.


----------



## GettingIt_2

No, I know you guys won't cheat on one another. It's a matter of acknowleging that Dug is capable of feeling those things. But he doesn't have to. 

Why?

Someone is protecting him.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Everyone has their own boundaries, and should. To me, respect isn't a given, it's not unconditional. It can gain and lose just like love. My love isn't just given unconditionally either.
> 
> He builds love by meeting my needs, he builds respect by acting respectful. Sometimes they are together, sometimes not.
> 
> If I lose respect for him then we talk about why and try to get it back, he can't just jump to the top, get it without the work to get there.
> If I lose love, we have to talk about why and try to get it back. Again, he can't just say "I demand love" and I do. He earns it.


My point is respect has levels. At the minimum is speaking to someone with curtosy. I doubt your incapable of this. I bet you have had bad days and yet found the strength not to take it out on a total stranger.... Why then can we do that but when it comes to our spouse who we supposedly love and made vowes with feel we are free to yell and berate.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> jld,
> 
> You make allusions to Christian theology now and then and appear to be influenced by it.
> 
> Do you see a difference between the emotions of a character like Jesus and one like Zeus, for example?
> 
> The Jesus character openly weeps over the fate of Jerusalem and for his friend, Lazarus; he feels compassion towards people in general; feeds the hungry, heals the sick; is attentive to women and children; experiences anger when it is appropriate, etc.
> 
> Zeus on the other hands toys with people; ruins their lives; has a penchant for rape; is vengeful; metes out horrible punishments grossly disproportionate to the crime, etc.
> 
> *Is it emotion in and of itself that you don't trust or is it more specifically, emotion as a vehicle of selfishness?*


Great post, ocotillo. I missed this earlier today. Sorry about that.

Yes, this is what I mean. Emotions that are selfish and meant to invoke fear are what I cannot handle. I grew up with a father like that and, let me tell you, Never Again.

I also cannot be with a man who needs a woman to make him feel safe and warm, soothe his pride, make him feel like a big guy. Some gals do great with that, and that is good, because those men want or need it and women like me can't or won't do it. 

Just want to add something. My dad was very proud of me. Would you believe he told my sister he had a few favorite children, and I was one of them? What kind of father would ever say that?

However he felt about me, I was very scared of him. And just as soon as I could, I got away from him. And stayed away. That is the legacy of rule through fear.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> My point is respect has levels. At the minimum is speaking to someone with curtosy. I doubt your incapable of this. I bet you have had bad days and yet found the strength not to take it out on a total stranger.... Why then can we do that but when it comes to our spouse who we supposedly love and made vowes with feel we are free to yell and berate.


My husband is there to see me through my worst and best. He is not a stranger I have to act nice to. 

I don't act for my husband. If I'm mad, I say so. If I'm grumpy, I'm grumpy, if I feel "f-you" it's "f-you"

I do not edit myself and present a false image to him. 

He's seen me, all of it. Good, bad, ugly. That's what holds us together, IMO the biggest thing. Through the crap and the affair and everything, he is the one person who knows it all, sees it all. 
If I lose him, I lose that. As does he, I am that for him.

We don't really have close outside friends, I edit a lot even for family (I limit any negative talk about my marriage with them)

We are each other's person. That means seeing me in an emotional mess, checking out the weird bump on my butt, having conversations while one of us in on the toilet. That closeness is what I need and I can't get that if I have to edit myself to appease him.

But I think I'm a reasonable and rational person and if there's a bad, there's a reason even if it's silly. I can admit my faults, apologize when needed. So if he gets a "f-you" it's cause I meant it and we can discuss it and figure it out together and if it turns out that I was wrong or overreacting, I'll own that too.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> My husband is there to see me through my worst and best. He is not a stranger I have to act nice to.
> 
> I don't act for my husband. If I'm mad, I say so. If I'm grumpy, I'm grumpy, if I feel "f-you" it's "f-you"
> 
> I do not edit myself and present a false image to him.
> 
> He's seen me, all of it. Good, bad, ugly. That's what holds us together, IMO the biggest thing. Through the crap and the affair and everything, he is the one person who knows it all, sees it all.
> If I lose him, I lose that. As does he, I am that for him.
> 
> We don't really have close outside friends, I edit a lot even for family (I limit any negative talk about my marriage with them)
> 
> We are each other's person. That means seeing me in an emotional mess, checking out the weird bump on my butt, having conversations while one of us in on the toilet. That closeness is what I need and I can't get that if I have to edit myself to appease him.
> 
> But I think I'm a reasonable and rational person and if there's a bad, there's a reason even if it's silly. I can admit my faults, apologize when needed. So if he gets a "f-you" it's cause I meant it and we can discuss it and figure it out together and if it turns out that I was wrong or overreacting, I'll own that too.


And so then of course he is also free to tell you **** you when he is upset as well I assume?


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> My husband is there to see me through my worst and best. He is not a stranger I have to act nice to.
> 
> I don't act for my husband. If I'm mad, I say so. If I'm grumpy, I'm grumpy, if I feel "f-you" it's "f-you"
> 
> I do not edit myself and present a false image to him.
> 
> He's seen me, all of it. Good, bad, ugly. That's what holds us together, IMO the biggest thing. Through the crap and the affair and everything, he is the one person who knows it all, sees it all.
> If I lose him, I lose that. As does he, I am that for him.
> 
> We don't really have close outside friends, I edit a lot even for family (I limit any negative talk about my marriage with them)
> 
> We are each other's person. That means seeing me in an emotional mess, checking out the weird bump on my butt, having conversations while one of us in on the toilet. That closeness is what I need and I can't get that if I have to edit myself to appease him.
> 
> But I think I'm a reasonable and rational person and if there's a bad, there's a reason even if it's silly. I can admit my faults, apologize when needed. So if he gets a "f-you" it's cause I meant it and we can discuss it and figure it out together and if it turns out that I was wrong or overreacting, I'll own that too.


I totally agree.

I am always amazed by people who say you should not treat your spouse a way you would not treat company. That's nuts. I don't have sex with company. If he is going to get that part of me, he is going to get everything else, too.

Transparency.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> I am always amazed by people who say you should not treat your spouse a way you would not treat company. That's nuts. I don't have sex with company. If he is going to get that part of me, he is going to get everything else, too.
> 
> Transparency.


Find it equally " nuts" to say **** you to someone you supposedly love


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> No, I know you guys won't cheat on one another. It's a matter of acknowleging that Dug is capable of feeling those things. But he doesn't have to.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Someone is protecting him.


Lol. Inadvertently, maybe. Mostly I am protecting myself.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Find it equally " nuts" to say **** you to someone you supposedly love


Love is a many-splendored thing, Wolf.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Love is a many-splendored thing, Wolf.


So then I will ask you as well. Is it ok when dug is upset to tell you to to go **** yourself?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> And so then of course he is also free to tell you **** you when he is upset as well I assume?


Oh he does and it doesn't bother me. 
If I got upset about getting the F word now and then I married the WAY wrong guy.

But regardless, the words matter much less to us than the emotion behind it. 

I can see that f-you and hear "I'm super pissed off right now" and I can be like ok, why.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Yes, it is. We are talking another adult here, right?
> 
> Even with disciplining my children, I try to really discipline, as in guide. Sometimes, yes, they have gotten spanked, the young ones, and sometimes I yell at them (and later apologize), but mostly I try to explain what I want and why.
> 
> And I have to listen to them, too. They often have better ideas than I do.
> 
> It is from the heart that the mouth speaks. If you don't like what your wife is saying to you, work on her heart. Don't (figuratively) slap her face.


Either or. Doesn't seem to really matter.

The point of the soap eating is to "guide" the other partner (in the case of adults) to not behave that way. 

And to the heart comment: If the tongue commits an offense, let the tongue taste the fruit of its efforts. It will not wag as far or as often from the lips in the future, eh?



> *Well, what does submit mean to you?
> 
> To me, it means trust.* And I think a woman can only really do that if her trust is earned.
> 
> That is why I hardly talk about what a wife should do. And I almost never talk about submitting. It comes naturally when the man is worthy of it. I try to help men be worthy of it.


*Submit*
verb (used without object), submitted, submitting.
1. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another:
_to submit to a conqueror._
2.to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment:
_to submit to chemotherapy._
3.to defer to another's judgment, opinion, decision, etc.:
_I submit to your superior judgment._

Synonyms: Defer; Surrender
Antonyms: Contradict; Refuse


*Trust*
verb (used without object)
1. to rely upon or place confidence in someone or something (usually followed by in or to):
_to trust in another's honesty; trusting to luck._
2. to have confidence; hope:
_Things work out if one only trusts._

Synonyms: Confidence; Faith; Hope
Antonyms: Doubt; Suspect; Disbelieve 

Nope, not even remotely the same meaning are they? Although someone may "submit" to a person they trust; trust is not necessary for their deferment.

One can submit and even view the person they submit to with enmity. Or love. Or respect. Or jealousy. etc; etc.

"Say your right words..."


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> I am always amazed by people who say you should not treat your spouse a way you would not treat company. That's nuts. I don't have sex with company. If he is going to get that part of me, he is going to get everything else, too.
> 
> Transparency.


Yep. I get exactly 1 person I get to share everything with. I'm sure as heck not going to act like I'm around strangers my whole life. Would rather be alone and have no one.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Oh he does and it doesn't bother me.
> If I got upset about getting the F word now and then I married the WAY wrong guy.
> 
> But regardless, the words matter much less to us than the emotion behind it.
> 
> I can see that f-you and hear "I'm super pissed off right now" and I can be like ok, why.


Fair enough. Some couple hold differing values. So long as you take as well as you give can't say that at least your not fair 

I wouldn't live like that but don't judge those who do so long as it's fair.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yep. I get exactly 1 person I get to share everything with. I'm sure as heck not going to act like I'm around strangers my whole life. Would rather be alone and have no one.


That's too bad that you don't. Most people I know who speak respectfully to one another fight rarely because they can handle things before name calling starts.


Some love the drama though. And that's both men and women and they definetly belong together and seem happy with the conflict anyway


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> That's too bad that you don't. Most people I know who speak respectfully to one another fight rarely because they can handle things before name calling starts.
> 
> 
> Some love the drama though. And that's both men and women and they definetly belong together and seem happy with the conflict anyway


You make it seem like it's an all the time thing. 9 years together, emotions are bound to come up now and then. Especially when things are rocky. We've been through some very tough times. 

In general, another reason why I haven't left, we get along fine. We sit together, watch shows, do projects (oh I should mention some of the f-yous have come up during home reno's LOL ever try gutting a kitchen and rebuilding from nothing all just the two of you, if you can do that without a swear word or some conflict then you should get an award) We go out. We just live life together.

But if he can't handle me being emotional now and then, he's with the wrong person. I'm not going to act like he's a guest to avoid hurting his feelings. I've never pretended to be something I'm not. I've never led him on that I was a low emotional person and then shocked him when he found out I wasn't. I cry sometimes, I swear sometimes, it's all part who I am and I need to be who I am with the person I choose to spend my entire life with.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You make it seem like it's an all the time thing. 9 years together, emotions are bound to come up now and then. Especially when things are rocky. We've been through some very tough times.
> 
> In general, another reason why I haven't left, we get along fine. We sit together, watch shows, do projects (oh I should mention some of the f-yous have come up during home reno's LOL ever try gutting a kitchen and rebuilding from nothing all just the two of you, if you can do that without a swear word or some conflict then you should get an award) We go out. We just live life together.
> 
> But if he can't handle me being emotional now and then, he's with the wrong person. I'm not going to act like he's a guest to avoid hurting his feelings. I've never pretended to be something I'm not. I've never led him on that I was a low emotional person and then shocked him when he found out I wasn't. I cry sometimes, I swear sometimes, it's all part who I am and I need to be who I am with the person I choose to spend my entire life with.


Just different perspectives I guess. I think once is too much. 10 years marriage I never cursed at my wife, Would never occur to me, just not the way I was raised I suppose and I swear like a truck driver lol. I just don't take out my emotions on people I care about cause if I did then obviously I wouldn't care about them. 

Your right you need to be who you are. As do we all


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I'll also add that if a person wants one of those low emotion marriages, they need to both be a low emotion person AND marry one. But with the only 1 I saw they had their own set of problems. No fighting though. 

I would consider me and H both mid-emotion so there's going to be some times where stuff comes up. A couple with a high/low mix will also have emotional moments.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> So then I will ask you as well. Is it ok when dug is upset to tell you to to go **** yourself?


He would never say something like that to me. He says he knows his words carry more weight than mine, and he doesn't want to hurt or frighten me.


----------



## Wolf1974

I am definitely mid to low emotion. And no I would never be with a high emotion woman, can't take the drama. 

And I suspect every couple fights. I know I have in every realtionship I have been in.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I am definitely mid to low emotion. And no I would never be with a high emotion woman, can't take the drama.
> 
> And I suspect every couple fights. I know I have in every realtionship I have been in.


What are your fights like?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> He would never say something like that to me. He says he knows his words carry more weight than mine, and he doesn't want to hurt or frighten me.


Wow lovely dynamic 

Why would you be frightened if you trust him so much?


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Wow lovely dynamic
> 
> Why would you be frightened if you trust him so much?


I trust him because of the way he treats me. Remember, trust is earned.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> What are your fights like?


Simple. Someone is upset and says to other hey I'm pissed off about thing that you said or did or whatever. Ok let's sit and talk about it. We sit I explain my side, her side, then we see how we can make sure it doesn't happen again...reach an understanding 99% of the time we do because no yelling , no speaking with distain... Always love and respect as the backbone and a genuine willingness to *understand* one another. 

Other 1% we can agree to disagree but still with respect of the other persons viewpoint


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I trust him because of the way he treats me. Remember, trust is earned.


And trust is a two way street shown through words and action. I can say I trust you and then slap you and bet that trust isn't going to be earned very well. I wouldn't trust someone who treats me differently then they expect to be treated


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> And trust is a two way street shown through words and action. I can say I trust you and then slap you and bet that trust isn't going to be earned very well. I wouldn't trust someone who treats me differently then they expect to be treated


But I'm not in a 50/50 relationship, Wolf.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> But I'm not in a 50/50 relationship, Wolf.


But most are so don't look down on those who live that way


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> But most are so don't look down on those who live that way


Okay, Dad.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Okay, Dad.


Least your insults are less veiled now...

But your welcome kiddo


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Least your insults are less veiled now...
> 
> But your welcome kiddo


I was joking with you, Wolf. We laugh sometimes here, too, right?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I was joking with you, Wolf. We laugh sometimes here, too, right?


I was to hence the joke back :smile2:

I've actually done mostly smiling on this thread lol


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> I was to hence the joke back :smile2:
> 
> I've actually done mostly smiling on this thread lol


Good.


----------



## tpdallas

I really wonder what I would think of a cheated on spouse came to my office to tell me that their spouse was cheating with another employee? 

Tell them it's none of my business? 

Tell the employee to handle their personal business at home?

I do know that it would have little effect on the affair partner. I might tell them so they can pay attention to their personal safety.

I guess with all going on with office shootings, I'd have a worried feeling. Somewhere between firing the WS to protect the office or calling to police. 

I just don't know what I'd do.


----------



## MEM2020

Far,
What you say is true. Perhaps this illustrates - a very real and difficult paradox.

The exact same behaviors that produce a thriving marriage in normal (steady state) operation can be a disaster in the midst of an affair. 




farsidejunky said:


> I agree with this very much.
> 
> But this is a bit off topic, although I understand the thread has evolved to this point.
> 
> However, your actions were not when your relationship was in the midst of infidelity.
> 
> When it was, you handled it like a boss IMO. It had a very similar approach as the expose/file/180/detach method that I and others recommend in that it filtered out all of the background noise to arrive at a simple choice: you or the AP.
> 
> And yet, JLD finds fault with your methodology.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

GettingIt,

This is pure gold. 

If I cheated - game over - no recovery. 

If M2 cheated, meaning an actual PA, I'd get over it. 




GettingIt said:


> I'm sure for every woman, the degree to which she needs and appreciates being allowed to emote, even when it is unreasonable, varies. But I'm guessing we all need to be "allowed" to lose our sh!t every once in awhile. But I'm definitely not happy with that being the norm. I very much like boundaries. I very much want to be told "enough is enough" sometimes. Because I really will, and have, let things go too far if I'm not brought up short. But it takes a lot of trust in my husband to let him lead in that way--to know that sometimes he knows better what is good for me than I do.
> 
> A really big portion of that trust is built on the fact that he allows me "in" to see how his emotional process works. He's not particularly "emo," but he's not about to pretend he's fine if he's not. I really sort of like knowing that he sometimes feels insecure, or sad, or hurt or whatever. Maybe because he doesn't use it to control me, I can trust him when he tells me stuff. He doesn't demand that I fix his feelings for him, but he does expect and want and need me to hear him sometimes. It makes me feel pretty close to him.
> 
> I admit I didn't use to feel that way. I was once more like jld. I was afraid of what I might find out. But he's not that complicated. Not nearly as complicated as me, anyway. But he is emotionally different than me. I really enjoy that these days. In fact I've come to realize I need it to feel bonded to him.
> 
> If I cheated on him the marriage would be over. He would end it, I'm sure, with little drama and much dignity. Not to be vindictive or to punish me, and I think he'd accept that he might have contributed to the conditions that led to my cheating, depending on the circumstances. But he knows himself, emotionally, very well, and he wouldn't get past it, even if he did forgive me, even if he still loved me, even if he could see what led me to it. I don't find that weak or unreasonable. I find it very attractive in him. In fact, if he did take me back, *I* wouldn't be able to respect him or believe in the R because I know him too well. I'd know he was faking it. Plus I think I'd lose my attraction for him anyway. I don't know, I guess I just have to admit I like and need that little chest thumping, possessive streak in him that says, "you belong to me and I won't share." I'd probably want him desperately, though, even though I couldn't have him. Sort of tragically ironic.
> 
> Rambling, sorry.
> 
> Is there beer? I thought I saw there was beer?


----------



## turnera

Wolf1974 said:


> Just different perspectives I guess. I think once is too much. 10 years marriage I never cursed at my wife,


My H has never cursed at me. But he has repeatedly shown me that he believes I do not help him, I am selfish, he is all alone, he's the martyr, if only he had a decent wife, etc. 

Those of you who don't deal with guilt and passive aggressiveness...you just have no idea how much it guts you to the core to have your husband slip on the stairs - total accident, in his socks - and then when you rush over to him, he says "It would be nice if JUST ONCE IN MY LIFE, someone would help me."

You are completely powerless. You did nothing wrong. You spend nearly all of your life making sure he gets what he needs, you put aside YOUR chores to ensure HIS stuff gets taken care of, and take care of your stuff at 2am...but when he falls on the steps, the first thing out of his mouth is that you are selfish and you never help him.

Cursing is not what harms women. Women can LEAVE without guilt if a man curses at her. Women can fight back if he raises his voice. It's the rest of us who have to endure emotional abuse and be judged if we leave who have it worse.


----------



## jld

turnera said:


> My H has never cursed at me. But he has repeatedly shown me that he believes I do not help him, I am selfish, he is all alone, he's the martyr, if only he had a decent wife, etc.
> 
> Those of you who don't deal with guilt and passive aggressiveness...you just have no idea how much it guts you to the core to have your husband slip on the stairs - total accident, in his socks - and then when you rush over to him, he says "It would be nice if JUST ONCE IN MY LIFE, someone would help me."
> 
> You are completely powerless. You did nothing wrong. You spend nearly all of your life making sure he gets what he needs, you put aside YOUR chores to ensure HIS stuff gets taken care of, and take care of your stuff at 2am...but when he falls on the steps, the first thing out of his mouth is that you are selfish and you never help him.
> 
> Cursing is not what harms women. Women can LEAVE without guilt if a man curses at her. Women can fight back if he raises his voice. It's the rest of us who have to endure emotional abuse and be judged if we leave who have it worse.


Turnera, you know you are not really powerless, right? You are just giving power to a man who does not deserve it. 

You know how you said recently that men need admiration? I think instead of just giving it, you should let them, including your husband, earn it. That would be a safer emotional investment for you, with a better estimated return.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

So many pages in such a short time. Exposure can be the best way to nuke an active affair because it creates instant accountability for both in the affair. 

That being said, I suspect a lot of people sabotage themselves with exposure because they end up winning a disloyal partner.


----------



## Wolf1974

turnera said:


> My H has never cursed at me. But he has repeatedly shown me that he believes I do not help him, I am selfish, he is all alone, he's the martyr, if only he had a decent wife, etc.
> 
> Those of you who don't deal with guilt and passive aggressiveness...you just have no idea how much it guts you to the core to have your husband slip on the stairs - total accident, in his socks - and then when you rush over to him, he says "It would be nice if JUST ONCE IN MY LIFE, someone would help me."
> 
> You are completely powerless. You did nothing wrong. You spend nearly all of your life making sure he gets what he needs, you put aside YOUR chores to ensure HIS stuff gets taken care of, and take care of your stuff at 2am...but when he falls on the steps, the first thing out of his mouth is that you are selfish and you never help him.
> 
> Cursing is not what harms women. Women can LEAVE without guilt if a man curses at her. Women can fight back if he raises his voice. It's the rest of us who have to endure emotional abuse and be judged if we leave who have it worse.


Sorry to hear that but, and apologize if I read your post wrong but I never treated my wife like you husband treats you. I wouldn't advise staying with someone who make you the focal point of all things is wrong with the world. Life is too short

And believe me plenty of women treat their husbands this very way as well.


----------



## MEM2020

Wolf,

Glad you raised that. 

There's a Geneva convention lite - type rule book in any marriage. This typically unwritten agreement describes civilized combat. 

I do believe that it's a weak persons strategy to lob F bombs at their partner. Just one man's view. 

It's not a boundary for me in that I wouldn't end the marriage over it. But I've made it clear I don't like it, and depending on circumstance I may give M2 a short stint in solitary confinement to convey my displeasure. 





Wolf1974 said:


> Find it equally " nuts" to say **** you to someone you supposedly love


----------



## Wolf1974

MEM11363 said:


> Wolf,
> 
> Glad you raised that.
> 
> There's a Geneva convention lite - type rule book in any marriage. This typically unwritten agreement describes civilized combat.
> 
> I do believe that it's a weak persons strategy to lob F bombs at their partner. Just one man's view.
> 
> It's not a boundary for me in that I wouldn't end the marriage over it. But I've made it clear I don't like it, and depending on circumstance I may give M2 a short stint in solitary confinement to convey my displeasure.


I'm with you on that Mem. I wouldn't divorce over it either cause I would never marry a high drama woman who equated communication to yelling and cursing.

I find extreme weakness in people who can't control themselves. And if you can't be nice to those you supposedly love the most I would argue you probably don't love them much at all. Also why I have distain for cheaters I suppose.

Wise man once told me you can never control the world outside till you control the universe inside. Treating people like dirt doesn't make you powerful it exposes your fear and weakness


----------



## ReturntoZero

jld said:


> Turnera, you know you are not really powerless, right? You are just giving power to a man who does not deserve it.
> 
> You know how you said recently that men need admiration? I think instead of just giving it, you should let them, including your husband, earn it. That would be a safer emotional investment for you, with a better estimated return.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Men = bad

Women = good

Yeah, we get it.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> What you say is true. Perhaps this illustrates - a very real and difficult paradox.
> 
> The exact same behaviors that produce a thriving marriage in normal (steady state) operation can be a disaster in the midst of an affair.


This is the true essence of the resistance, Mem.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Far. Okay, let's talk.
> 
> The disconnect I see is that I cannot imagine Dug being scared or really hurt by me in any way. And so I project that impregnability onto all men. My thinking is, How can you be devastated by someone who is obviously weak if she is having an affair?


Love IS vulnerability. There is no intimacy without it. I promise you Dug would hurt. He would take responsibility, he would soldier on, but he would hurt. No, he would be incredibly hurt. And why? Because it would be so unexpected.



jld said:


> Your thinking is very opposite. You see her as very powerful, like you see me as powerful. I look at that and think, Are you crazy? Look at how disrespecfully I am treated by many posters. And you think I am a person of influence?


People are riled up because you are extending the pain of the BS. That simple. And a BS, freshly wounded, will grasp at anything they think will nice their spouse back.



jld said:


> A friend said recently that a man whose wife has an affair feels like she has cut him with a sharp knife. But to me, the knife is made of paper.[/QUOTE ]
> 
> Only if you don't love or trust your spouse. Don't you see that the more love and trust you place on your spouse, the more devastating an affair is? Not because they laid with someone else...the sheer deception of it. The breaking of a promise...it is earth shattering.
> 
> 
> 
> jld said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was a great description. To someone who thinks his wife is carrying a sharp knife, great fear and the desire for defensive measures make sense. To me, they are a great overreaction.
> 
> 
> 
> They are not defensive measures. They are offensive measures, ruthlessly executed to strip away all of the noise, gas lighting, lies, and b.s. espoused by a wayward to get to a choice.
> 
> Is there true remorse?
> 
> If yes, let's talk. If no, I hope the AP was worth the cost of the family.
> 
> But there will be zero talk about my shortcomings until the affair is dead and remorse is demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


----------



## GusPolinski

@farsidejunky.

Dude.

We JUST got MEM on board w/ the whole "fix your freaking quote tags" thingy.

Toe the line, yo!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I see contradictions in your descriptions of Dug's behavior. 

On one hand he doesn't want to frighten you

And yet you say he isn't afraid of you.

If he is fearful of frightening you, how is he not fearful of you?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I see contradictions in your descriptions of Dug's behavior.
> 
> On one hand he doesn't want to frighten you
> 
> And yet you say he isn't afraid of you.
> 
> If he is fearful of frightening you, how is he not fearful of you?


Blossom, not being afraid of me is not the same as not wanting to frighten me. 

Dug knows I am sensitive. He knows he is not. He is careful with his words not because he is fearful of my reaction, but because he does not want to cause me pain. It is a pure love he has for me, not a codependent one.

_Not everyone loves to get something in return. Some people love just to love, just because they truly care for, and want the best for, that person._
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

JLD - does your husband have to weather your daughters emotional storms?


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> JLD - does your husband have to weather your daughters emotional storms?


She does not have any. Very calm, very stable, just like her dad.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Love IS vulnerability. There is no intimacy without it. I promise you Dug would hurt. He would take responsibility, he would soldier on, but he would hurt. No, he would be incredibly hurt. And why? Because it would be so unexpected.
> 
> People are riled up because you are extending the pain of the BS. That simple. And a BS, freshly wounded, will grasp at anything they think will nice their spouse back.
> 
> Only if you don't love or trust your spouse. Don't you see that the more love and trust you place on your spouse, the more devastating an affair is? Not because they laid with someone else...the sheer deception of it. The breaking of a promise...it is earth shattering.
> 
> They are not defensive measures. They are offensive measures, ruthlessly executed to strip away all of the noise, gas lighting, lies, and b.s. espoused by a wayward to get to a choice.
> 
> Is there true remorse?
> 
> If yes, let's talk. If no, I hope the AP was worth the cost of the family.
> 
> But there will be zero talk about my shortcomings until the affair is dead and remorse is demonstrated.


Far, your whole post is predicated on the idea that the BS is the more vulnerable party. You want to protect him. You see the WS as the aggressor.

I see the WS as weak. She is in self-destruction mode. 

Are they also hurting the BS, their children, people around them? Yes. But they are first and foremost destroying themselves.

Far, someone has to stand in the gap. Someone has to rise above the emotional chaos and be the leader. I am asking the BS to do it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Blossom, not being afraid of me is not the same as not wanting to frighten me.
> 
> Dug knows I am sensitive. He knows he is not. He is careful with his words not because he is fearful of my reaction, but because he does not want to cause me pain. It is a pure love he has for me, not a codependent one.
> 
> _Not everyone loves to get something in return. Some people love just to love, just because they truly care for, and want the best for, that person._
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Codependence isn't always based in fear. 

Is there ever a time when he chooses to cause you pain *for* you?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wolf1974 said:


> Find it equally " nuts" to say **** you to someone you supposedly love


Me & mine hasn't done this out of anger.. but we have out of sarcasm!...he's done it more by using his middle finger to push his glasses up... then I start laughing...

I can read SlowlyGoingCrazy's post (s) on this and agree with them.... my husband has seen ME *at my worst*.. (I can be a bi*ch on occasion.. for sure) ... he knows the darkest things about me..and he loves me more than anyone who's walked this earth.. 

I don't shield who I am around him at all..... he is fond of saying I am brutally honest.... we had a funny exchange in the bathroom last night..... something about me being nice.. meaning me saying something I didn't really mean to "save face" basically... he's grinning telling me "No, that's not you"...basically he was saying I am NEVER NICE... so I played on that for a little while..

I really DO say what I mean .. and mean what I say.. 

I'd never be a "Walk away".. not with my personality.... he's be warned up & down where I was headed...any man who didn't get it would have a brain injury....

Those threads bug me a bit because I think so differently over a passive woman, on the subtle side saying *everything is fine* when she may be screaming inside.. trying to kill him with kindness when the heart is slowly dying for him.. 

I stand here to attest.. those women like me.. who can be a little volatile in a moment.. some stupid words flying .. this doesn't mean we aren't very warm giving loving woman .....it happens very rarely in our marriage .... but I've said things to hurt him.. I'm just awfully good at making up!!..... he sees my heart.. that's all he needs... he well knows I was being "overly emotional" at the time.. or frustrated about something.. it happens.. 

It's like this saying....










I can't express how much it means to me to be married to someone who ...well.. can handle me & loves to handle me.. weak moments & all...



> *SlowlyGoingCrazy said* : I'll also add that if a person wants one of those low emotion marriages, they need to both be a low emotion person AND marry one. But with the only 1 I saw they had their own set of problems. No fighting though.
> 
> I would consider me and H both mid-emotion so there's going to be some times where stuff comes up. A couple with a high/low mix will also have emotional moments.


 this comes back to those conflict styles... some would Never stomach a volatile style.. but for others.. it's perfectly fine.. they even find some humor in the midst of it... when the good far out weighs the bad... it's really not a problem... but some are turned off by that in every way.. similar to how Jld just can't stomach a man who shows any selfishness....that weakness is repulsive to her.. 

It's not repulsive to me -if it's warranted. All of us are selfish at times, aren't we... 

It's all in what we can overlook I guess...in those weaker moments.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Codependence isn't always based in fear.


Please elaborate.



> Is there ever a time when he chooses to cause you pain *for* you?


He would never intentionally hurt me, but he is certainly honest and open with me.

Even if his honest feelings hurt me, he would still share them with me. Honesty and openness are a big part of our marriage and family life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

SA, have you heard the expression, "I like you _because_. I love you _although._"? 

Your post made me think of that. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Please elaborate.
> 
> 
> 
> He would never intentionally hurt me, but he is certainly honest and open with me.
> 
> Even if his honest feelings hurt me, he would still share them with me. Honesty and openness are a big part of our marriage and family life.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Eloborating: If the effort to prevent pain far exceeds that individual's capacity or resources and if the reason to go to such lengths is not sound reason, its codependent. The prevention of one person's pain has been elevated to the degree that the person doing the prevention either ends up enabling poor behavior and or suppressing healthy emotion, thus codependent, whether fear is present or not.

So, you are saying he is attentive to not causing unnecessary pain, but not to the degree that he doesn't speak his truth. That he doesn't choose to suffer in silence. If something needs said, he says it. He speaks his truth with care and dignity. Is that correct?


----------



## jld

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on our understanding of codependence. To me it has an awful lot to do with fear.

Yes, Dug is honest with me, even when it hurts me. He would not, however, hurt me with the purpose of hurting me, if that makes sense.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on our understanding of codependence. To me it has an awful lot to do with *fear*.


“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” - George Lucas

That will be my one contribution to this thread today lol


----------



## Blossom Leigh

So you feel comfortable that he gets ample emotional release regardless of your reactions.


----------



## wmn1

marduk said:


> Everything being equal, yes.
> 
> However, things are rarely equal. Sometimes people need support and advice from those close to them.
> 
> 
> 
> See, here's the thing.
> 
> The person cheating already broke the deal. The secrecy and intimacy are gone. So it's now fair game for the other person to expose it.
> 
> Because the deal has been broken. That's part of the gig with an affair -- you broke the bond of intimacy and secrecy. So it's done and dusted.
> 
> If the betrayed spouse needs support, go for it. If the betrayed spouse is trying to use that to blow up an ongoing affair, go for it. If a betrayed spouse is just trying to enact vengeance...
> 
> Well, go for it then, too -- as long as all you are saying is the truth, and it includes your own ****ty behaviour, too.
> 
> You risk the relationship.
> 
> Which, in an affair, is already on the line. So it seems a natural consequence.
> 
> 
> Anything. Having been through it, you know it all comes out in the wash anyway. Even though I kept my ex's affair a secret even after we split, she spilled the beans on every part of our relationship -- and made **** up to boot. So, I tell everyone who asks about her. Her problem, not mine.
> 
> I think what you are really after here, JLD, is to enable a cheating wife to not take accountability for her own actions. To project that on her husband as the cause for her affair, and to project also the need for her husband in helping her sweep it all under the rug, nice and neat.




Outstanding post, Marduk.

I agree 100%


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” - George Lucas
> 
> That will be my one contribution to this thread today lol


omg Ellis, your pic is killing me... So wrong on so many levels LOL


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> omg Ellis, your pic is killing me... So wrong on so many levels LOL


I was young and needed the money >


----------



## Blossom Leigh

LOL!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blossom Leigh said:


> So you feel comfortable that he gets ample emotional release regardless of your reactions.


And I think an important question here would be, if he wasn't getting ample emotional release, how would that make you feel? Would you seek to correct that imbalance?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> So you feel comfortable that he gets ample emotional release regardless of your reactions.


Are you worried about Dug? Why?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Are you worried about Dug? Why?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Interesting that you answer that with a question.

I will clarify the question, since I dont believe I made it clear.

Are you confident as the wife to Dug that he is getting ample emotional release even in his low emo state and regardless of your reactions?


----------



## MEM2020

Wolf has raised an excellent point about fairness and/or symmetry here. 

And what he's getting at is often the cause of intense, unresolved and often relationship ending conflict. 

There are two radically different views of symmetry. There is what I call the mechanical view (super literal), and the other is the empath's view. 

In the mechanical view, fair is fair and mechanical symmetry is a necessary condition for marital harmony. 

In the empath's view - fairness is almost entirely driven by HOW folks FEEL about certain types of situations and behaviors. 

From this vantage, each partner feels happy if the things they prize are treated as important by their partner even though the spouses prize not only different things, but a vastly different NUMBER of things. 




Wolf1974 said:


> And trust is a two way street shown through words and action. I can say I trust you and then slap you and bet that trust isn't going to be earned very well. I wouldn't trust someone who treats me differently then they expect to be treated


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wolf1974 said:


> Simple. Someone is upset and says to other hey I'm pissed off about thing that you said or did or whatever.  Ok let's sit and talk about it. We sit I explain my side, her side, then we see how we can make sure it doesn't happen again...reach an understanding 99% of the time we do because no yelling , no speaking with distain... Always love and respect as the backbone and a genuine willingness to *understand* one another.
> 
> Other 1% we can agree to disagree but still with respect of the other persons viewpoint


THIS right here is why I feel so strongly about being *Transparent*.. *going to our spouses at the SEED stage*...I agree with all you said here...(both need to HIGHLY value this though & put down the defenses when we are OPEN & need to express, get something off our chest)...

So nothing is "building" inside..as when something is left in the air & starts building inside....those emotions have to go somewhere...it is either going to start to divide (passive aggressive/ resentments, loosing attraction, living as roommates) or an "explosion" is on the horizon.. (depending on the personality of the individual)...

What happened with your ex Wolf?? ..I take it she DIDN'T always bring her seeds to the table.. as she blind sided you...I am not clear on what really happened.. I just know you thought all was well... till you learned she was living a double life.. cheating....

Looking back.. what caused her to grow apart from you .. do you have any thoughts on this? Did she stop telling you when she needed something?.. was she just a selfish woman who hid who she really was ??

When I hear of people splitting up/ divorces....and they never had raised words.. or fought.. it's ALWAYS a case of not resolving what was stirring inside ... what you felt was a loving giving woman.. you didn't know she was just eating , trying to stuff how she really felt.. avoiding it... whatever it was.... 

What is more important at the end of the day..... that one never raises their voice... says a bad word.. or that the conflict gets resolved....that you're both back in each others arms, ready to battle the world united, together..


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Interesting that you answer that with a question.
> 
> I will clarify the question, since I dont believe I made it clear.
> 
> Are you confident as the wife to Dug that he is getting ample emotional release even in his low emo state and regardless of your reactions?


I'm sure he's fine.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I'm sure he's fine.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Do you specifically ask him?

What would happen in the event he wasn't?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Do you specifically ask him?
> 
> What would happen in the event he wasn't?


He should be on soon.

I still don't understand why you are worried about him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

Wolf,
I think you are revisiting a core point on this thread which is that the Dug/JLD model isn't going to work for everyone. And that is not only ok, it is to be expected. 

JLD,
In a clear concise way I believe that Wolf is trying to tell you that, intentions aside, your approach is oft coming off as a 'hard sell'.

I used to be in sales. The primary quality of a hard sell is the subtext which sort of goes like this. If you don't buy 'this' thing, you are an idiot and/or you will fail or your company will fail. 

If one or two folks were responding that way, it might be them. But here - we have a pool of folks who are in my view typically even keeled - very riled up. 

So I'll try and restate what some others have said. 

There are a subset of folks who find the Dug/JLD model to work like magic for them. 

Another, larger subset who benefit by adopting 'some' of the Dug/JLD model. 

And then there are folks who - it's contraindicated for. And this last bit gets amplified when someone is going through an infidelity driven marital crisis. 

I mentioned that I would create a new thread - The betrayed spouses handbook

I will start that by the end of the weekend at the latest. And in there I will try to utilize the Marduk categorization (hardcore monogamous, opportunistic cheaters, non monogamous folks). Because there is no one size fits all. Not for humans. 





Wolf1974 said:


> But most are so don't look down on those who live that way


----------



## tech-novelist

ButtPunch said:


> That's great and all but the key thing here is the AP has to go. More times than not this does not happen and interestingly enough it seems harder for women than men to leave their AP's. Just from my experiences here on TAM. I don't have solid studies to back that up.


I believe there are studies that show that women tend to switch allegiances whereas men tend to add new ones.

In other words, once a woman has cheated on her husband, she is generally done with him, whereas men often cheat on their wives without actually falling out of love with them.

Of course, as always, there are exceptions.


----------



## turnera

technovelist said:


> I believe there are studies that show that women tend to switch allegiances whereas men tend to add new ones.
> 
> In other words, once a woman has cheated on her husband, she is generally done with him, whereas men often cheat on their wives without actually falling out of love with them.
> 
> Of course, as always, there are exceptions.


I've watched this borne out for almost _all_ of the threads I've read over the last 20 years of doing this. Women are surprised their Hs still want them, as they no longer want their Hs. Men are surprised when their Ws DON'T still want them. What? It's just sex! But the BWs are thinking that the WH is in love with the AP, when he usually just wanted some strange.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> He should be on soon.
> 
> I still don't understand why you are worried about him.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I find it interesting you refuse to answer. My questions are about your level of care for his emotional state, do you acknowledge that he has one, that its important, that you make it part of your engagement with him. Your posts *tend* to come across as if it is an afterthought. If its not, you had the floor to share that, but for some reason you are balking and appears to be bringing in the troops. Doesn't inspire confidence in your confidence. Nor his, to be honest.

He'll tell us all we have no need to worry and how amazing you are. 

To that, there will be a collective yawn.


My questions remain for you and you alone. Are you woman enough to answer?


----------



## Duguesclin

Blossom Leigh said:


> Interesting that you answer that with a question.
> 
> I will clarify the question, since I dont believe I made it clear.
> 
> Are you confident as the wife to Dug that he is getting ample emotional release even in his low emo state and regardless of your reactions?


I am fine thank you.

Thinking about it, it is not that I am low emotion but rather that I am not expressing those emotions as much as others. And more important, when I express them it is as "FYI" and not please help me.

The problem with the way I am is not that I have unmet needs but rather that I treat others the exact same way I expect to be treated. I don't need much empathy so I don't give much. It doesn't come naturally to me. To me the normal expectation is to do your maximum so I expect that from others as well as myself. I realize that the world does not work that way but that is my default setting.

JLD has done an amazing job to get me to talk. But it is hard to show an old monkey new tricks.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Duguesclin said:


> I am fine thank you.
> 
> Thinking about it, it is not that I am low emotion but rather that I am not expressing those emotions as much as others. And more important, when I express them it is as "FYI" and not please help me.
> 
> The problem with the way I am is not that I have unmet needs but rather that I treat others the exact same way I expect to be treated. I don't need much empathy so I don't give much. It doesn't come naturally to me. To me the normal expectation is to do your maximum so I expect that from others as well as myself. I realize that the world does not work that way but that is my default setting.
> 
> JLD has done an amazing job to get me to talk. But it is hard to show an old monkey new tricks.


I am happy to hear that she works to get you to talk. I would have preferred her put voice to that. "I care that my husband has the opportunity to emotionally express himself, its important to me."

I didn't classify the type of emotion (needy or not) just that you get the opportunity at all. No one here wants to see you muted emotionally.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

You and my husband are both INTP's. Its not that you are low emo at all, there is a LOT of emotion there, its just processed internally. I feel that must be handled well for emotional health and balance. I hope you feel safe enough to emote anytime around jld that her reactions don't make you pause in an unhealthy direction.

It worries me that she doesn't understand the concern. That feels disconnected to me. Either that or she struggles making it clear enough verbally at least to me it feels that way.


----------



## Duguesclin

Blossom Leigh said:


> I find it interesting you refuse to answer. My questions are about your level of care for his emotional state, do you acknowledge that he has one, that its important, that you make it part of your engagement with him. Your posts *tend* to come across as if it is an afterthought. If its not, you had the floor to share that, but for some reason you are balking and appears to be bringing in the troops. Doesn't inspire confidence in your confidence. Nor his, to be honest.
> 
> He'll tell us all we have no need to worry and how amazing you are.
> 
> To that, there will be a collective yawn.
> 
> 
> My questions remain for you and you alone. Are you woman enough to answer?


Blossom, you are on a mission, like many on this thread to show that there is something wrong with JLD and me.

We are answering honestly. If the answers are not acceptable to you, there is nothing I can do about it. I am not here to please you.

You are writing aggressive posts, like many others on this thread. Those posts would only impact me if I gave them power over me. What amazes me is how many pages we have on this thread just because people are giving way, way too much power to little jld.

What she is writing are just her views, no more no less.


----------



## Kivlor

MEM11363 said:


> Wolf has raised an excellent point about fairness and/or symmetry here.
> 
> And what he's getting at is often the cause of intense, unresolved and often relationship ending conflict.
> 
> There are two radically different views of symmetry. There is what I call the mechanical view (super literal), and the other is the empath's view.
> 
> In the mechanical view, fair is fair and mechanical symmetry is a necessary condition for marital harmony.
> 
> In the empath's view - fairness is almost entirely driven by HOW folks FEEL about certain types of situations and behaviors.
> 
> From this vantage, each partner feels happy if the things they prize are treated as important by their partner even though the spouses prize not only different things, but a vastly different NUMBER of things.


This is very much in line with what I've said about reciprocity, and what so many other posters appear to be trying to convey. 

Different things work for different couples. JLD and Dug have a dynamic that works for them, but as Gus said, they are in an extreme minority.

For the vast majority of people, we want to be treated the way we treat others: mechanical symmetry. More importantly, it seems unjust to complain or fear someone treating us the way we have treated them. SGC and her H, I think that is a lot more common--disrespectful tone--but they engage in reciprocity; she's not surprised that her H says "F*** You!" and he's not surprised when she says it.




> I used to be in sales. The primary quality of a hard sell is the subtext which sort of goes like this. If you don't buy 'this' thing, you are an idiot and/or you will fail or your company will fail.


It certainly comes across as a hard sell, when someone engages her in any dialogue. The hard sell is a turn off to most people. But I think that what really digs is that she isn't peddling a bauble or trinket or tool, JLD is peddling a *lifestyle*. And she hard sells that lifestyle as appropriate for nearly all (and comes across with an edge of superiority about it), when in fact she is an outlyer, a deviant. Her and Dug's LS works for them, but it is an aberration. It's similar to (but not the same) having a homosexual tell heterosexual couples "You know, the real problem is you need to be gay". Unhelpful advice to the majority of folks from a deviant, aimed for (and probably helpful to) their own deviant constituency.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Blossom Leigh said:


> *I am happy to hear that she works to get you to talk. I would have preferred her put voice to that. "I care that my husband has the opportunity to emotionally express himself, its important to me."*
> 
> I didn't classify the type of emotion (needy or not) just that you get the opportunity at all. No one here wants to see you muted emotionally.


Can I interject.... I have met both Jld & Dug in person... spending the whole day with myself & husband (hope it's Ok to say this !!)...

It's true... she has a way of getting people to open up & spill it.. she's an "open ended question" sort of person... I am the same way.. ..where would our men be without our probing [email protected]# 

Our husbands have some things SO MUCH IN COMMON.. then some things SO NOT ... the same could be said of me & her..... 

Dug is not as STOIC as I had imagined him to be -by any means... with some things I've read jld say... when he's there with you... he's "engaging".... open to discussion, oh he speaks how he feels. 

Having seen these 2 in action... their dynamics in front of us... I can attest.. they are "in tune" and really do THINK VERY MUCH ALIKE.... it works for them...they compliment each other...

Dug really is OK.. and doing fine ...in no way did we get the feeling she "ruled" over him.. or anything like this.. heavens NO!...

And it's true... he does expect A LOT from his own Gender.. just as jld speaks often...I found these things very admirable - personally..


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> Blossom, you are on a mission, like many on this thread to show that there is something wrong with JLD and me.


Be careful Dug, apparently it's out of bounds to assign intentions to Blossoms questions. They're just questions.
>



MEM11363 said:


> Not ok to assign feelings or intentions to other folks.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Duguesclin said:


> Blossom, you are on a mission, like many on this thread to show that there is something wrong with JLD and me.
> 
> We are answering honestly. If the answers are not acceptable to you, there is nothing I can do about it. I am not here to please you.
> 
> You are writing aggressive posts, like many others on this thread. Those posts would only impact me if I gave them power over me. What amazes me is how many pages we have on this thread just because people are giving way, way too much power to little jld.
> 
> What she is writing are just her views, no more no less.


Your choice to call it aggressive. I call it direct.

I give her no such power. 

Its my choice to be very direct in my questions where I feel they count and. It is my view that the emotional state of a husband is very important as is the parallel need to express it at a healthy level and in a healthy way.

So, back to regular programing. Are you going to answer how important Dugs emotional state is to you JLD for yourself, or still choose to seemingly hide behind Dug. Its been fun Dug, but I'm interested in our woman to woman talk. Glad to hear you feel ok. I want this one direct from her.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

SimplyAmorous said:


> Can I interject.... I have met both Jld & Dug in person... spending the whole day with myself & husband (hope it's Ok to say this !!)...
> 
> It's true... she has a way of getting people to open up & spill it.. she's an "open ended question" sort of person... I am the same way.. ..where would our men be without our probing [email protected]#
> 
> Our husbands have some things SO MUCH IN COMMON.. then some things SO NOT ... the same could be said of me & her.....
> 
> Dug is not as STOIC as I had imagined him to be -by any means... with some things I've read jld say... when he's there with you... he's "engaging".... open to discussion, oh he speaks how he feels.
> 
> Having seen these 2 in action... their dynamics in front of us... I can attest.. they are "in tune" and really do THINK VERY MUCH ALIKE.... it works for them...they compliment each other...
> 
> Dug really is OK.. and doing fine ...in no way did we get the feeling she "ruled" over him.. or anything like this.. heavens NO!...
> 
> And it's true... he does expect A LOT from his own Gender.. just as jld speaks often...I found these things very admirable - personally..


Excellent, then she won't gave a problem saying "yes, his emotional state is important to me."


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> I'm with you on that Mem. I wouldn't divorce over it either cause I would never marry a high drama woman who equated communication to yelling and cursing.
> 
> I find extreme weakness in people who can't control themselves. And if you can't be nice to those you supposedly love the most I would argue you probably don't love them much at all. Also why I have distain for cheaters I suppose.
> 
> Wise man once told me you can never control the world outside till you control the universe inside. Treating people like dirt doesn't make you powerful it exposes your fear and weakness


I'll give you a real life example that happened last night. 
Like I said before, he's been cranky with low sleep.
I think I also mentioned he need pretty direct communication, doesn't read people well.

So here I am making dinner and he's getting grumpy and being rude. So I raise my voice and say "Look, if you want to be an @sshole you can make your own damn food"

He stops, "sorry, I was being rude. Thank you for making me dinner. I'm just tired. You don't need my extra stress"

"I'm sorry, and am just tired, too"

We kiss and make up and spend the rest of the night in cuddles and laughter on the couch.

Had he felt all disrespected and demanded that I apologize for what I said because he DESERVES respect, it would have turned into this huge big thing. 

Had I sat down and said "I feel X when you act like Y, let's discuss this" He zones out. That's a _feelings _conversation, he doesn't get or like those. 

So quick, to the point, we're both highly emotional and stress/tired at the time but it was all not a big deal and we go about our night. 

So while obviously the perfect choice would be to never get to that point, and the vast majority of our communication is just fine. Sometimes emotions run high and I personally need someone who doesn't take it too much to heart, who isn't highly sensitive. 

I think this is more what JLD is talking about. Not that it happens with her and Dug all the time, but when it does, she needs him to not be all sensitive and focus on the way she is saying something and be able to see what's going on under it all and this is the message I get out of her a lot of times as well. 

Look under the words, drop your ego and don't be sensitive. These are the kinds of moments where I get it. It's not that I am a raging b*tch who spends my life yelling and having a temper tantrum, but if I DO get emotional, this is more the response that results in a productive solution.


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> THIS right here is why I feel so strongly about being *Transparent*.. *going to our spouses at the SEED stage*...I agree with all you said here...(both need to HIGHLY value this though & put down the defenses when we are OPEN & need to express, get something off our chest)...
> 
> So nothing is "building" inside..as when something is left in the air & starts building inside....those emotions have to go somewhere...it is either going to start to divide (passive aggressive/ resentments, loosing attraction, living as roommates) or an "explosion" is on the horizon.. (depending on the personality of the individual)...
> 
> What happened with your ex Wolf?? ..I take it she DIDN'T always bring her seeds to the table.. as she blind sided you...I am not clear on what really happened.. I just know you thought all was well... till you learned she was living a double life.. cheating....
> 
> Looking back.. what caused her to grow apart from you .. do you have any thoughts on this? Did she stop telling you when she needed something?.. was she just a selfish woman who hid who she really was ??
> 
> When I hear of people splitting up/ divorces....and they never had raised words.. or fought.. it's ALWAYS a case of not resolving what was stirring inside ... what you felt was a loving giving woman.. you didn't know she was just eating , trying to stuff how she really felt.. avoiding it... whatever it was....
> 
> What is more important at the end of the day..... that one never raises their voice... says a bad word.. or that the conflict gets resolved....that you're both back in each others arms, ready to battle the world united, together..


It's kinda a sad tale. She, much like I see JLD now, had a boat load of daddy issues and took it out on all men around her.

When my X was 10 her mother cheated on her father. Her father sank into a depression over this and left the family. Somehow my X blamed her father and never her mother...child's perspective I guess but it never healed. We grew up together and we're friends then on again off again boyfriend GF in high school. Ultimately she was then too emotional for me so we decided friends was best. She had two serious relationships in High school, cheated on them both. After high school she married one of them and they were together 2 years and she cheated on him again and left.

He comes the idiot known as wolf

So I know all this and we are still friend but I admit we both ALWAYs had love for each other. I kept stowed along time how much I loved her because she was with someone else but I can still remember what she looked like the day I first saw her in 6th grade.

So she tells me how she feels and I do the same. I know she has low character though and I don't want to get cheated on. So we have these marathon discussions about marriage and commitment and how I wouldn't tolerate cheating. She comes back with how her husband abused her and that it was all his fault cause he was a monster...this is foreshadowing here... Still not satisfied I demand pre marital counseling where we learn to communicate and come together and talk when something is bothering us. Wolf the fool marries her

Married 9 years until thanksgiving and she drastically changes. Up until then we were happy. I felt it and when I asked her about it she said she was as well. No suddenly she is buying new clothes, loosing weight, won't talk to me won't spend time with me on date night none of it. The more I try and get her to talk the more she recoils from me. She becomes cold says mean and hurtful things like some person I have never known. Like a day a friend of mine died from brain cancer she laughed....I mean crazy ***** time. Then the bomb is dropped she wants a divorce...wtf why? Back to foreshadowing now I am the mean controlling monster that her X was....wait what? She starts telling everyone this. I am seeking help trying to understand.. Asking to go to counseling and getting nothing back..she has shut down. I go to have surgery, lasik, overnight stay and finally my cop instincts are kicking in something isn't right here. I come home the next day and break into her phone. She is having an affair with a guy from work screwing him in our bed while I'm out of town with my kids sleeping 5 feet away...really **** moves.

So now playtime is over and I confront no more soft bull****. She admits she made the whole thing up and she got lost in the guy and wants to marry him. I make her set the record straight and kick her out the house.

A very small part of me would like to think she has realized how truly ****ed up she is and that's why she hasn't dated in 5 years. The large part of me really could care less. I recognize she had daddy issues but she still made her choices and is now paying the price.


----------



## Duguesclin

Blossom Leigh said:


> Your choice to call it aggressive. I call it direct.
> 
> I give her no such power.
> 
> Its my choice to be very direct in my questions where I feel they count and. It is my view that the emotional state of a husband is very important as is the parallel need to express it at a healthy level and in a healthy way.
> 
> So, back to regular programing. Are you going to answer how important Dugs emotional state is to you JLD for yourself, or still choose to seemingly hide behind Dug. Its been fun Dug, but I'm interested in our woman to woman talk. Glad to hear you feel ok. I want this one direct from her.


She is under no obligation to answer you.

There is way too much concern about my emotional state.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

What I'm hearing, JLD..... by testimony of Dug and SA is that his emotional state isn't off your radar, that you naturally care for it, cater to it, mindful of it even if he is not needy and yet you resist verbalizing that it is important to you.

I encourage you to ask yourself why.

I think thats the part connected to the past with your Dad and a spot of healing for you.

That is all.


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I'll give you a real life example that happened last night.
> Like I said before, he's been cranky with low sleep.
> I think I also mentioned he need pretty direct communication, doesn't read people well.
> 
> So here I am making dinner and he's getting grumpy and being rude. So I raise my voice and say "Look, if you want to be an @sshole you can make your own damn food"
> 
> He stops, "sorry, I was being rude. Thank you for making me dinner. I'm just tired. You don't need my extra stress"
> 
> "I'm sorry, and am just tired, too"
> 
> We kiss and make up and spend the rest of the night in cuddles and laughter on the couch.
> 
> Had he felt all disrespected and demanded that I apologize for what I said because he DESERVES respect, it would have turned into this huge big thing.
> 
> Had I sat down and said "I feel X when you act like Y, let's discuss this" He zones out. That's a _feelings _conversation, he doesn't get or like those.
> 
> So quick, to the point, we're both highly emotional and stress/tired at the time but it was all not a big deal and we go about our night.
> 
> So while obviously the perfect choice would be to never get to that point, and the vast majority of our communication is just fine. Sometimes emotions run high and I personally need someone who doesn't take it too much to heart, who isn't highly sensitive.
> 
> I think this is more what JLD is talking about. Not that it happens with her and Dug all the time, but when it does, she needs him to not be all sensitive and focus on the way she is saying something and be able to see what's going on under it all and this is the message I get out of her a lot of times as well.
> 
> Look under the words, drop your ego and don't be sensitive. These are the kinds of moments where I get it. It's not that I am a raging b*tch who spends my life yelling and having a temper tantrum, but if I DO get emotional, this is more the response that results in a productive solution.


Hey if it works for you then great right :grin2: I just have a different opinion on the name calling but not the content. Handle conflict the same way just without the cursing at one another. Glad it works for you


----------



## samyeagar

Blossom Leigh said:


> I find it interesting you refuse to answer. My questions are about your level of care for his emotional state, do you acknowledge that he has one, that its important, that you make it part of your engagement with him. Your posts *tend* to come across as if it is an afterthought. If its not, you had the floor to share that, but for some reason you are balking and appears to be bringing in the troops. Doesn't inspire confidence in your confidence. Nor his, to be honest.
> 
> He'll tell us all we have no need to worry and how amazing you are.
> 
> To that, there will be a collective yawn.
> 
> 
> My questions remain for you and you alone. Are you woman enough to answer?


I think she is afraid to even consider his emotional state,and is in such deep denial that it even possibly exists. She is terrified of failure, and tends to feel as if she doesn't see it, it must not have happened. That is why she was completely paralyzed with fear by seeing him cry, and dodged it as quickly as she could. It revealed a failure on her part.

She tied the existence of emotion in men to her fear of her father. Her father was a bad man, and she believes it is because he had emotion, so she believes that emotion in men makes them bad men, and bad men should not be defended. A man who is completely invulnerable, by definition does not need defending, thus no man needs defending. They are either with emotion, thus bad, or devoid of emotion thus need no defending.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Duguesclin said:


> She is under no obligation to answer you.
> 
> There is way too much concern about my emotional state.


I never said she was. I challenged her to step up and speak for herself.


----------



## EllisRedding

Wolf1974 said:


> Hey if it works for you then great right :grin2: I just have a different opinion on the name calling but not the content. Handle conflict the same way just without the cursing at one another. Glad it works for you


Exactly, it all comes down to the individuals in the relationship. My marriage with my wife is not based on us cursing at each other or berating each other. We all get in moods and probably get snippy here and there, but we have enough respect for each other to not treat each other that way. If one of us just started cursing at the other (which as I said we don't do) of course it will be taken negatively as it should be. If you are in a relationship where this is the norm, well, then I can see why this would not bother you.

This is why I don't buy the whole "don't take it to heart and be so sensitive" or "drop the ego" b/c that implies all relationships evolve in the same manner.


----------



## Wolf1974

Duguesclin said:


> Blossom, you are on a mission, like many on this thread to show that there is something wrong with JLD and me.
> 
> We are answering honestly. If the answers are not acceptable to you, there is nothing I can do about it. I am not here to please you.
> 
> You are writing aggressive posts, like many others on this thread. Those posts would only impact me if I gave them power over me. What amazes me is how many pages we have on this thread just because people are giving way, way too much power to little jld.
> 
> What she is writing are just her views, no more no less.


Actually the reverse is true. This started as a thread about exposure which morphed into her views on relationships. I don't begrudge anyone thier view as long as they recognize its only an opinion and not everyone will agree. This is her thread and she took it down that path.

I do agree some emotionally got upset but by her post she thinks all men are this way apparently.., well except you I guess.... And that's ok cause if she is more comfortable thinking of men as children because of her fear of them that's her perspective to have


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> Exactly, it all comes down to the individuals in the relationship. My marriage with my wife is not based on us cursing at each other or berating each other. We all get in moods and probably get snippy here and there, but we have enough respect for each other to not treat each other that way. If one of us just started cursing at the other (which as I said we don't do) of course it will be taken negatively as it should be. If you are in a relationship where this is the norm, well, then I can see why this would not bother you.
> 
> *This is why I don't buy the whole "don't take it to heart and be so sensitive" or "drop the ego" b/c that implies all relationships evolve in the same manner.*


*

*

Dude I know. They drop that ego thing always makes me crack up a bit. 

Basically

I can't control myself or my feelings and you can. I can't control my boundrys or my emotions but You can. Because I can't and you can you must have an ego your trying to protect.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> Hey if it works for you then great right :grin2: I just have a different opinion on the name calling but not the content. Handle conflict the same way just without the cursing at one another. Glad it works for you


Well and that's just it. I'm not saying I did perfect but during a highly stressed and emotional time we both made mistakes.

He could choose to focus on the word itself that I used and not my feelings, not what and why I was saying it, or he could choose to bush off the bad word and not let it get to him and we can both apologize and go about out night.

Some men would dig their heels in at that point. The word was wrong, therefore I am the wrong-er one. Refuse to apologize for his involvement of the situation because I did something bad. Demand respect, make a big deal about it, he is the man and deserves to be treated as such. It's an ego thing, a respect thing and if you let her get away with it, she will respect you even less. And that is even often the advice given here.

The route my H took led to instant conflict resolve, an amazing night together, and we just brush off the bad parts. Had he let it affect his ego, _that _would lower respect, not backing down, being humble, brushing off my bad word, that gained respect and I wanted to make out all night. 

So if JLD is suggesting this method to a man, "forget her words and your ego for a moment and just hear her, humble yourself to see her side, don't like your sensitivity to the specific words overtake the situation" 
I can't disagree with it because it is what I also need and what works for me.

So again, I just can't see the big harm in allowing both positions to speak their mind when clearly, they both work for different types of people.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So while obviously the perfect choice would be to never get to that point, and the vast majority of our communication is just fine. Sometimes emotions run high and I personally need someone who doesn't take it too much to heart, who isn't highly sensitive.
> 
> I think this is more what JLD is talking about. Not that it happens with her and Dug all the time, but when it does, she needs him to not be all sensitive and focus on the way she is saying something and be able to see what's going on under it all and this is the message I get out of her a lot of times as well.
> 
> Look under the words, drop your ego and don't be sensitive. These are the kinds of moments where I get it. It's not that I am a raging b*tch who spends my life yelling and having a temper tantrum, but if I DO get emotional, this is more the response that results in a productive solution.


Yes, this is right. Dug told me once, "I hear your words, but I know your heart."

I have to say, in the two relationships I was in before Dug, I never raised my voice, never said a bad word, certainly never said a bad name. I left the first one and was left by the second one. 

I don't remember raising my voice to Dug early on when I felt frustrated with him. I would just shut down. That is much harder to work with, I think Dug would say, than dealing with emoting. With emoting, most of the work is done for the listener already.

I think it was when we had our third child that I just let loose emotionally on him.  And by the time I had the fourth, I was overwhelmed. Four kids tipped me over. 

He knew about active listening, though, and applied it liberally. That was a lifesaver. 

But he would still tell you, even right now, that if he would not provoke me, I would not get angry to start with.


----------



## convert

jld said:


> Exploring your emotions can be very helpful. Emotions are teachers. We have them for a reason.
> 
> Shutting them off or forbidding their expression prevents us from learning from them.


absolutely

but I thought you went into panic mode when Dug showed emotion about your son?

the was my point that I thought it was completely normal even for him, but you didn't think so


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> Exactly, it all comes down to the individuals in the relationship. My marriage with my wife is not based on us cursing at each other or berating each other. We all get in moods and probably get snippy here and there, but we have enough respect for each other to not treat each other that way. If one of us just started cursing at the other (which as I said we don't do) of course it will be taken negatively as it should be. If you are in a relationship where this is the norm, well, then I can see why this would not bother you.
> 
> This is why I don't buy the whole "don't take it to heart and be so sensitive" or "drop the ego" b/c that implies all relationships evolve in the same manner.


Ok so your advice and position would be to call me out on the bad word, demand respect, apology and not tolerate that kind of behavior?

That might absolutely work with other women, it would not work with me.

Some men think not tolerating certain behavior commands respect. Some men will tell other men that women NEED you to put your foot down in these moments and demand respect or they will lose it. 

For me, being able to let it go, brush it off, not be sensitive and focus on the disrespect commands respect. The other method, loses 
respect, and our good night.

So understanding that there are differences in women, isn't there room for both sets of opinions? 
JLD (and me) is no more stuck on her views than you are, they are just different and both work in different situations.


----------



## jld

convert said:


> absolutely
> 
> but I thought you went into panic mode when Dug showed emotion about your son?
> 
> the was my point that I thought it was completely normal even for him, but you didn't think so


I had not seen it before. And I was grieving and in shock myself, so I could not have helped him anyway.

I knew I could not help him, but I did ask for help for him. That was really all I could do.

I think what is being misunderstood is something Dug posted about recently. It is fine to share your emotions with your spouse. Where you may run into problems is expecting your spouse to take responsibility for your emotions. Not everyone is willing to do that.


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well and that's just it. I'm not saying I did perfect but during a highly stressed and emotional time we both made mistakes.
> 
> He could choose to focus on the word itself that I used and not my feelings, not what and why I was saying it, or he could choose to bush off the bad word and not let it get to him and we can both apologize and go about out night.
> 
> Some men would dig their heels in at that point. The word was wrong, therefore I am the wrong-er one. Refuse to apologize for his involvement of the situation because I did something bad. Demand respect, make a big deal about it, he is the man and deserves to be treated as such. It's an ego thing, a respect thing and if you let her get away with it, she will respect you even less. And that is even often the advice given here.
> 
> The route my H took led to instant conflict resolve, an amazing night together, and we just brush off the bad parts. Had he let it affect his ego, _that _would lower respect, not backing down, being humble, brushing off my bad word, that gained respect and I wanted to make out all night.
> 
> So if JLD is suggesting this method to a man, "forget her words and your ego for a moment and just hear her, humble yourself to see her side, don't like your sensitivity to the specific words overtake the situation"
> *I can't disagree with it because it is what I also need and what works for me.*
> 
> So again, I just can't see the big harm in allowing both positions to speak their mind when clearly, they both work for different types of people.


But, and this is a HUGE but...that is a two way street in your relationship. You give your husband the same courtesy. JLD does not feel that the husband should need such reciprocity. That makes him weak.

My wife is a redhead, and has the stereotypical flash temper on steroids. I am very calm cool and collected, and rarely react to her temper because it is rarely direct at me personally. I am able to see through the emotions and realize that. The difference is, I know that if I were to lose my temper, she would not cower with flashbacks to her horrible father. She would stop and listen to me. There is reciprocity.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Yes, this is right. Dug told me once, "I hear your words, but I know your heart."
> 
> I have to say, in the two relationships I was in before Dug, I never raised my voice, never said a bad word, certainly never said a bad name. I left the first one and was left by the second one.
> 
> I don't remember raising my voice to Dug early on when I felt frustrated with him. I would just shut down. That is much harder to work with, I think Dug would say, than dealing with emoting. With emoting, most of the work is done for the listener already.
> 
> I think it was when we had our third child that I just let loose emotionally on him.  And by the time I had the fourth, I was overwhelmed. Four kids tipped me over.
> 
> He knew about active listening, though, and applied it liberally. That was a lifesaver.
> 
> *But he would still tell you, even right now, that if he would not provoke me, I would not get angry to start with*.


I'm seeing past the emotion and paying attention to the words here, and I would be very careful saying this...this is word for word what abusers say to, and brainwash their victims into believing...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

jld said:


> Yes, this is right. Dug told me once, "I hear your words, but I know your heart."
> 
> I have to say, in the two relationships I was in before Dug, I never raised my voice, never said a bad word, certainly never said a bad name. I left the first one and was left by the second one.
> 
> I don't remember raising my voice to Dug early on when I felt frustrated with him. I would just shut down. That is much harder to work with, I think Dug would say, than dealing with emoting. With emoting, most of the work is done for the listener already.
> 
> I think it was when we had our third child that I just let loose emotionally on him.  And by the time I had the fourth, I was overwhelmed. Four kids tipped me over.
> 
> He knew about active listening, though, and applied it liberally. That was a lifesaver.
> 
> But he would still tell you, even right now, that if he would not provoke me, I would not get angry to start with.


Yep, old me would internalize the rude behavior while I was doing something nice for him - how dare he!-and slowly it would chip, chip, chip away all my love until it was gone. I would sit down once in a while, have big feeling talks (that he zones out) then I'm also not being listened to! Another chip. 
So it grows and grows like a snowball and he would never understand how it got SO big.

New me gets sh*t done. I'm upset- I'm letting you know. I have lived in the resentment black hole, I know how it starts and I know once you're too far in it you don't see anything but hate, nothing they do is love. Digging out of that is almost impossible. 

New me sometimes says things that aren't very nice but dealing with the 20 second owie of being called an @sshole is a much better option than the 9 year deep resentment.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Actually the reverse is true. This started as a thread about exposure which morphed into her views on relationships. I don't begrudge anyone thier view as long as they recognize its only an opinion and not everyone will agree. This is her thread and she took it down that path.
> 
> I do agree some emotionally got upset but by her post she thinks all men are this way apparently.., well except you I guess.... And that's ok cause if she is more comfortable thinking of men as children because of her fear of them that's her perspective to have


Wolf, my thinking or not thinking something has no bearing on what you can choose to think about it. I am sure you have many opinions that I disagree with, and yet both of us sleep perfectly well at night knowing that. 

The purpose of a forum is not to agree. It is to present a variety of views. Everybody chooses from there. Whether anyone approves of anyone's else's choice is irrelevant.

I simply responded to the questions I felt inspired to respond to, same as anyone else. I asked some questions of people that they never answered. That is their right. No one is obligated to read a post, and no one is obligated to write a post.


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Ok so your advice and position would be to call me out on the bad word, demand respect, apology and not tolerate that kind of behavior?
> 
> That might absolutely work with other women, it would not work with me.
> 
> Some men think not tolerating certain behavior commands respect. Some men will tell other men that women NEED you to put your foot down in these moments and demand respect or they will lose it.
> 
> For me, being able to let it go, brush it off, not be sensitive and focus on the disrespect commands respect. The other method, loses
> respect, and our good night.
> 
> So understanding that there are differences in women, isn't there room for both sets of opinions?
> JLD (and me) is no more stuck on her views than you are, they are just different and both work in different situations.


Nope, you completely did not understand my point. If that is how your relationship with your SO is that is perfectly fine, I have no issues with that. I pointed out that is not how my relationship with my wife is (once again, different from yours and that is fine).

My issue is your statement implies that if someone responds negatively to being cursed at it is an ego thing or that person is being too sensitive. In your situation, where that is how your relationship is built on I understand your POV. For others such as myself where we don't have our relationship built in the same manner, this is so far from the truth.


----------



## GettingIt_2

So much really, really great stuff these last half dozen pages. I started to multi quote, but I'm bad at that and I see the quote format police are on patrol so I'll just summarize. 

I think marriages where two people process emotions similarly have the benefit of compatibility because each partner's needs are similar. SGC seems to have this sort of marriage. 

As someone else pointed out, a high emo person and a low emo person are not compatible in how they process emotions and the clash can cause huge conflict. Your processing needs are in direct conflict with that of your partner. 

The only option is what MEM eloquently pointed out: you have to realize this, not take it personally, and be willing to understand that part of loving that person is accepting that they are vastly emotionally different from you. JLD and Dug got this early in their marriage, and have had mostly smooth sailing. My husband and I got it after ten years, and it was almost too late. 

It's an exchange. JLD calls it "not 50/50." But that depends on what you are measuring. It's certainly not a a measure of effort put into the marriage. JLD works very hard and so does Dug; their *areas of effort* are not at all the same and that works because their *areas of need* are not at all the same. 

When my husband and I realized that equal effort was not going to work in equal areas, it changed things for us. It was sort of a mind fvck, to be honest. It was also sort of fun to "re-do" our marriage after more than a decade. I cleared up an unbelievable amount of crap that we had been living day in and day out. 

But here is the thing: WE WENT INTO IT TOGETHER. JLD and Dug are in their power arrangement TOGETHER. 

I see men here saying they don't want to deal with a woman who processes emotions "like a child" or whatever. But when you have a woman who is aware of her husband's distinct needs as well, it changes things. 

My husband helps me so much. And after reading this thread I get the feeling that I'm much, much worse than JLD on the high emo scale and that Dug is at least as emo as my husband (on a very low emo scale to begin with.) The difference is that my husband sees that my behavior hurts me sometimes and, like MEM, works to guide me to reflect on it and process in ways that are less destructive. 

That is a awful lot of work for him, but he says the work I have done for him in return has been worth it. I know there are men on here who are going it alone with their high emo wives with help from women like JLD. But I have so much sympathy for them because their wives are not "in the game" with them. It limits intimacy--intimacy that I know they'd like to have with their wives. That is not weakness, that is wanting to have a fuller bond with the person you love. That is why I advocate for two-way intimacy, two-way transparency. 

It's not about using your emotions to control the other person. It is about sharing your full self with your partner. It can be hard to realize that the person you are with might as well be from another planet in their emotional make up. I mean, our emotional make up is SO MUCH of who we are! But you learn so much about yourself and so much about loving if you can put aside the fear of "the other" and put aside the fear that you won't get your own needs met. 

But it takes two. I encourage men and women alike who feel like their partner is terrible at meeting their emotional needs to have a long and frank conversation about this. "Same effort" is not "equal effort."


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well and that's just it. I'm not saying I did perfect but during a highly stressed and emotional time we both made mistakes.
> 
> He could choose to focus on the word itself that I used and not my feelings, not what and why I was saying it, or he could choose to bush off the bad word and not let it get to him and we can both apologize and go about out night.
> 
> Some men would dig their heels in at that point. The word was wrong, therefore I am the wrong-er one. Refuse to apologize for his involvement of the situation because I did something bad. Demand respect, make a big deal about it, he is the man and deserves to be treated as such. It's an ego thing, a respect thing and if you let her get away with it, she will respect you even less. And that is even often the advice given here.
> 
> The route my H took led to instant conflict resolve, an amazing night together, and we just brush off the bad parts. Had he let it affect his ego, _that _would lower respect, not backing down, being humble, brushing off my bad word, that gained respect and I wanted to make out all night.
> 
> So if JLD is suggesting this method to a man, "forget her words and your ego for a moment and just hear her, humble yourself to see her side, don't like your sensitivity to the specific words overtake the situation"
> I can't disagree with it because it is what I also need and what works for me.
> 
> So again, I just can't see the big harm in allowing both positions to speak their mind when clearly, they both work for different types of people.


Not sure why you keep quoting me about it lol. You have your way and I have mine. If you want to call it ego because it makes you more comfortable that's fine. I just call it respect and view it different is all. I have never found that clear conversation can occur when someone is so upset to resort to name calling. Both can speak their minds without insults and name calling and yes that can be done when upset as well.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> But, and this is a HUGE but...that is a two way street in your relationship. You give your husband the same courtesy. JLD does not feel that the husband should need such reciprocity. That makes him weak.
> 
> My wife is a redhead, and has the stereotypical flash temper on steroids. I am very calm cool and collected, and rarely react to her temper because it is rarely direct at me personally. I am able to see through the emotions and realize that. The difference is, I know that if I were to lose my temper, she would not cower with flashbacks to her horrible father. She would stop and listen to me. There is reciprocity.


JLD is higher sensitive than I am and dug is lower emotion than my H (although I would still consider him fairly low)
For this, it works to have a different set of rules. 

It'd be like a giraffe living with a lemur and saying we both need to be able to reach the tall cabinets or it's not equal and fair.

There are absolutely areas where H has to be more careful. His anger can be potentially dangerous where mine is not. Him slamming a cabinet door is going to shatter it, he could literally kill me with his bare hands. 
I have a bit of PTSD from prior abuse so while words do not get to me, I can not be physically "trapped"
He can not be angry AND between me and the door. I will have a panic attack. I need a clear escape. 
Do not show me anger in the back rooms. Do not in any way restrict my movement when angry, do not in any way attempt to block me from leaving a room if I am getting panicky. 

I don't have those same rules, he couldn't care less. If I ever even tried to physically harm him he'd have me on the ground before I even got close and probably just laugh at me for trying.

There is not equality there, and that's ok because we are different.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Wolf, my thinking or not thinking something has no bearing on what you can choose to think about it. I am sure you have many opinions that I disagree with, and yet both of us sleep perfectly well at night knowing that.
> 
> The purpose of a forum is not to agree. It is to present a variety of views. Everybody chooses from there. Whether anyone approves of anyone's else's choice is irrelevant.
> 
> I simply responded to the questions I felt inspired to respond to, same as anyone else. I asked some questions of people that they never answered. That is their right. No one is obligated to read a post, and no one is obligated to write a post.


Fancy words for choosing to dodge transparency.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Wolf, my thinking or not thinking something has no bearing on what you can choose to think about it. I am sure you have many opinions that I disagree with, and yet both of us sleep perfectly well at night knowing that.
> 
> The purpose of a forum is not to agree. It is to present a variety of views. Everybody chooses from there. Whether anyone approves of anyone's else's choice is irrelevant.
> 
> I simply responded to the questions I felt inspired to respond to, same as anyone else. I asked some questions of people that they never answered. That is their right. No one is obligated to read a post, and no one is obligated to write a post.


Difference In sharing your view that works for you and telling others thier view is wrong


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> So much really, really great stuff these last half dozen pages. I started to multi quote, but I'm bad at that and I see the quote format police are on patrol so I'll just summarize.
> 
> I think marriages where two people process emotions similarly have the benefit of compatibility because each partner's needs are similar. SGC seems to have this sort of marriage.
> 
> As someone else pointed out, a high emo person and a low emo person are not compatible in how they process emotions and the clash can cause huge conflict. Your processing needs are in direct conflict with that of your partner.
> 
> The only option is what MEM eloquently pointed out: you have to realize this, not take it personally, and be willing to understand that part of loving that person is accepting that they are vastly emotionally different from you. *JLD and Dug got this early in their marriage, and have had mostly smooth sailing.* My husband and I got it after ten years, and it was almost too late.
> 
> It's an exchange. JLD calls it "not 50/50." But that depends on what you are measuring. It's certainly not a a measure of effort put into the marriage. JLD works very hard and so does Dug; their *areas of effort* are not at all the same and that works because their *areas of need* are not at all the same.
> 
> When my husband and I realized that equal effort was not going to work in equal areas, it changed things for us. It was sort of a mind fvck, to be honest. It was also sort of fun to "re-do" our marriage after more than a decade. I cleared up an unbelievable amount of crap that we had been living day in and day out.
> 
> But here is the thing: WE WENT INTO IT TOGETHER. JLD and Dug are in their power arrangement TOGETHER.
> 
> I see men here saying they don't want to deal with a woman who processes emotions "like a child" or whatever. But when you have a woman who is aware of her husband's distinct needs as well, it changes things.
> 
> My husband helps me so much. And after reading this thread I get the feeling that I'm much, much worse than JLD on the high emo scale and that Dug is at least as emo as my husband (on a very low emo scale to begin with.) The difference is that my husband sees that my behavior hurts me sometimes and, like MEM, works to guide me to reflect on it and process in ways that are less destructive.
> 
> That is a awful lot of work for him, but he says the work I have done for him in return has been worth it. I know there are men on here who are going it alone with their high emo wives with help from women like JLD. But I have so much sympathy for them because their wives are not "in the game" with them. It limits intimacy--intimacy that I know they'd like to have with their wives. That is not weakness, that is wanting to have a fuller bond with the person you love. That is why I advocate for two-way intimacy, two-way transparency.
> 
> It's not about using your emotions to control the other person. It is about sharing your full self with your partner. It can be hard to realize that the person you are with might as well be from another planet in their emotional make up. I mean, our emotional make up is SO MUCH of who we are! But you learn so much about yourself and so much about loving if you can put aside the fear of "the other" and put aside the fear that you won't get your own needs met.
> 
> But it takes two. I encourage men and women alike who feel like their partner is terrible at meeting their emotional needs to have a long and frank conversation about this. "Same effort" is not "equal effort."


Good post, GI.

Dug and I have a lot of natural harmony. We just "flow" in many ways. I am pickier, he is more relaxed, and so it works out.

And he is really smart. I respect intelligence. Combined with a good heart, I have little trouble trusting him. 

And when I do question him, he can hear it without taking it personally. That is really important, because I am going to question. And I am going to stand my ground if I think he is wrong. I think it is my obligation to the highest good of my family.

I also like how you mentioned that equal effort is not necessarily same effort. I think that can be a danger of a 50/50 relationship, as you pointed out.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> Difference In sharing your view that works for you and telling others thier view is wrong


Isn't that exactly what people are doing with her?

Sharing their own views about what works for them and what they feel the poster should also do and saying JLD's is wrong?

I don't think either is right or wrong every time. 

My only point is that BOTH are right and wrong. BOTH should be heard because every situation is different. 

There is room for both solutions to be heard because as much as you feel JLD's views have the potential to harm, me and JLD can see the other side having potential to harm as well.

That's the point with my example. Not "oh well you have a relationship dynamic that is ok with name calling"

It's when someone comes here with a crisis- my wife called me a name!!

Some posters will suggest the demand respect, put your foot down route and there is also room for discussing how my H resolved it.

because for some women, the methods typically advised on in this forum would do more damage to the woman's feelings of love and respect


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Far, your whole post is predicated on the idea that the BS is the more vulnerable party. You want to protect him. You see the WS as the aggressor.
> 
> I see the WS as weak. She is in self-destruction mode.
> 
> Are they also hurting the BS, their children, people around them? Yes. But they are first and foremost destroying themselves.
> 
> Far, someone has to stand in the gap. Someone has to rise above the emotional chaos and be the leader. I am asking the BS to do it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She is the aggressor and the perpetrator. To deny that is...well I don't know. I can't wrap my mind around it.

I too expect the BS to be the leader. The subordinate has screwed up. Leaders set standards. Leaders insist this standards be met. They discipline when their subordinate does not. The WS response is going to determine whether or not they are fired from their position.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> JLD is higher sensitive than I am and dug is lower emotion than my H (although I would still consider him fairly low)
> *For this, it works to have a different set of rules*.
> 
> It'd be like a giraffe living with a lemur and saying we both need to be able to reach the tall cabinets or it's not equal and fair.
> 
> There are absolutely areas where H has to be more careful. His anger can be potentially dangerous where mine is not. Him slamming a cabinet door is going to shatter it, he could literally kill me with his bare hands.
> I have a bit of PTSD from prior abuse so while words do not get to me, I can not be physically "trapped"
> He can not be angry AND between me and the door. I will have a panic attack. I need a clear escape.
> Do not show me anger in the back rooms. Do not in any way restrict my movement when angry, do not in any way attempt to block me from leaving a room if I am getting panicky.
> 
> I don't have those same rules, he couldn't care less. If I ever even tried to physically harm him he'd have me on the ground before I even got close and probably just laugh at me for trying.
> 
> There is not equality there, and that's ok because we are different.


Of course different sets of rules are expected in different relationships. For the vast majority of relationships, the rules are at least similar, but with outlier relationships like jld and dug, it's not even recognizable as the same game.

When it comes to advice for extremely emotionally vulnerable people such as those in the CWI section, the problems start when the hurt and vulnerable aren't aware that the advice they are getting is for a game they aren't even playing.

Just as if jld or dug came here looking for serious relationship advice, much of what they would get would be useless, and largely counterproductive in the context of their relationship and their relationship goals, because the core of their relationship is so vastly different from the norm of people coming here. So too, much of their advice is useless in application and counterproductive in the context of most relationships.

Yes, active listening, empathy are great tools for most everyone, but actions based on their power dynamic...not good for most people, just as actions based on the typical power dynamic would be devastating to their relationship.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Good post, GI.
> 
> Dug and I have a lot of natural harmony. We just "flow" in many ways. I am pickier, he is more relaxed, and so it works out.
> 
> And he is really smart. I respect intelligence. Combined with a good heart, I have little trouble trusting him.
> 
> And when I do question him, he can hear it without taking it personally. That is really important, because I am going to question. And I am going to stand my ground if I think he is wrong. I think it is my obligation to the highest good of my family.
> 
> I also like how you mentioned that equal effort is not necessarily same effort. I think that can be a danger of a 50/50 relationship, as you pointed out.


Good point. Equal does not mean the same. I want a 50-50 relationship but not the same. Just means I want to give and get with each person contributing equally. But what is contributed is different


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Side note- it took me at least 5 minutes to think of a short animal and all I got was lemur. I wrote cat first but then I thought that a cat can jump on a counter, a giraffe doesn't even have long arms..... I think I need to get back to bed


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> *Isn't that exactly what people are doing with her?*
> 
> Sharing their own views about what works for them and what they feel the poster should also do and saying JLD's is wrong?
> 
> I don't think either is right or wrong every time.
> 
> My only point is that BOTH are right and wrong. BOTH should be heard because every situation is different.
> 
> There is room for both solutions to be heard because as much as you feel JLD's views have the potential to harm, me and JLD can see the other side having potential to harm as well.
> 
> That's the point with my example. Not "oh well you have a relationship dynamic that is ok with name calling"
> 
> It's when someone comes here with a crisis- my wife called me a name!!
> 
> Some posters will suggest the demand respect, put your foot down route and there is also room for discussing how my H resolved it.
> 
> because for some women, the methods typically advised on in this forum would do more damage to the woman's feelings of love and respect


nope I haven't. With her or you. Just cause your, or her relationship, wouldn't work for me doesn't mean I think your wrong or you need to change. Won't find that stated by me here. But she does think we men boys with capes do need to change. That was my point


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> I had not seen it before. And I was grieving and in shock myself, so I could not have helped him anyway.
> 
> I knew I could not help him, but I did ask for help for him. That was really all I could do.
> 
> I think what is being misunderstood is something Dug posted about recently. It is fine to share your emotions with your spouse. * Where you may run into problems is expecting your spouse to take responsibility for your emotions.* Not everyone is willing to do that.


Whoa Nelly,

I think the big divide here is that many posters here do not believe an adult _should_ take responsibility for a spouse's emotions. Just like you did not feel responsible for Dug's emotions when your child was diagnosed, a BS is not responsible for a WS emotions in feeling neglected.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> She is the aggressor and the perpetrator. To deny that is...well I don't know. I can't wrap my mind around it.
> 
> I too expect the BS to be the leader. The subordinate has screwed up. Leaders set standards. Leaders insist this standards be met. They discipline when their subordinate does not. The WS response is going to determine whether or not they are fired from their position.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Far, that is one way to handle disobedience, which is what cheating is. Rules and consequences.

With the approach that SGC has illustrated from her own marriage, there are still rules and consequences. If he cheats again, it's over. And they are both expected to meet each other's needs.

But the flavor and overall handling are different. Empathy and humility and patience are critical. Both the spouses grow in this approach. I am not sure of that in the other one.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Wolf1974 said:


> nope I haven't. With her or you. Just cause your, or her relationship, wouldn't work for me doesn't mean I think your wrong or you need to change. Won't find that stated by me here. But she does think we men boys with capes do need to change. That was my point


Maybe not you in particular and I shouldn't have directed that at you specifically but there is a lot of "this is right, she's wrong" going around. As much as she has. For every "little boy with capes" there's a "little girl who throws constant temper tantrums to the point where she forces her H to work away from home to get away from the abuse" 

But again, this isn't MY relationship dynamic, I know what works and what doesn't for me. I am more worried about a poster who comes here in the same position "my wife called me an @sshole"

Ok, so you get all the Tamers saying how horrible it was, put your foot down, don't tolerate it. If you don't demand respect now you will lose it, she will cheat on you eventually. 

Then JLD comes along with a suggestion very similar to how my own H handled it (and it worked!) and is told how horrible and wrong she is. 

IMO they deserve to hear both sides because if my H got the TAM advice, my respect would lower, my love would lower, I would not want to be making out with him on the couch all night. We would fall deeper into resentment, it would chip and seep into other areas. 

Wouldn't you think it important for posters to have clear advice and opinions from both types of solutions and women?


----------



## farsidejunky

Duguesclin said:


> Blossom, you are on a mission, like many on this thread to show that there is something wrong with JLD and me.
> 
> We are answering honestly. If the answers are not acceptable to you, there is nothing I can do about it. I am not here to please you.
> 
> You are writing aggressive posts, like many others on this thread. Those posts would only impact me if I gave them power over me. What amazes me is how many pages we have on this thread just because people are giving way, way too much power to little jld.
> 
> What she is writing are just her views, no more no less.


Dug, you know how powerful she is.

I have seen you post specific things to support this.

Yet this post...patronizing? 

Help me reconcile that.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Dug, you know how powerful she is.
> 
> I have seen you post specific things to support this.
> 
> Yet this post...patronizing?
> 
> Help me reconcile that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


He's shoveling the driveway right now.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

farsidejunky said:


> Dug, you know how powerful she is.
> 
> I have seen you post specific things to support this.
> 
> Yet this post...patronizing?
> 
> Help me reconcile that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Just bluster... Flexing muscle to gain silence from me.

Didn't work.

My open ended challenge to JLD to be able to verbalize and be direct and plain spoken about the import of her husbands emotional status to her, independent of what he says it is, and if she can't do that to ask herself, why will remain.


----------



## samyeagar

I think I will go ahead an be the first man on this thread to openly and bluntly say that yes, I need my wife to support me emotionally, and am quite proud of that fact. It does not make me weak in any way. It actually makes me quite strong because it fills my wife's need to be needed. To feel important. To not feel marginalized. To feel vital to the success of our relationship.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> He's shoveling the driveway right now.


Dafuq? I have questions that need to be answered...



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Duguesclin

farsidejunky said:


> Dug, you know how powerful she is.
> 
> I have seen you post specific things to support this.
> 
> Yet this post...patronizing?
> 
> Help me reconcile that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


What is your question?


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Maybe not you in particular and I shouldn't have directed that at you specifically but there is a lot of "this is right, she's wrong" going around. As much as she has. For every "little boy with capes" there's a "little girl who throws constant temper tantrums to the point where she forces her H to work away from home to get away from the abuse"
> 
> But again, this isn't MY relationship dynamic, I know what works and what doesn't for me. I am more worried about a poster who comes here in the same position "my wife called me an @sshole"
> 
> Ok, so you get all the Tamers saying how horrible it was, put your foot down, don't tolerate it. If you don't demand respect now you will lose it, she will cheat on you eventually.
> 
> Then JLD comes along with a suggestion very similar to how my own H handled it (and it worked!) and is told how horrible and wrong she is.
> 
> IMO they deserve to hear both sides because if my H got the TAM advice, my respect would lower, my love would lower, I would not want to be making out with him on the couch all night. We would fall deeper into resentment, it would chip and seep into other areas.
> 
> Wouldn't you think it important for posters to have clear advice and opinions from both types of solutions and women?


Yes I have no issue with varying view points but not from arrogance of a standpoint that this is what works for me therefore it will work for all of you. World doesn't now or had it ever worked that way. And the word opinion gets thrown around a lot, and I do agree that we all have different opinions but sometimes opinions aren't matched in reality. 

Sorry maybe I can put this better in an analogy on how I see this..

99 people standing in a park looking up at the clear blue sky. Here comes 1 more person making it 100. This new person looks up proudly with the group and says wow that sky is so beautiful and purple today. 90 of those people are just going to :grin2: and go ok sounds good lol
8 are going to argue no it's blue no it's blue. But the new person is going to say but I see purple it's my "opinion" this is purple. So yep it's an opinion, one Not based in reality.

Now if that was it then I would say hey that's the new persons reality, that's what they want to see that works for them cool. But the new person takes it a step further to say all the other people are wrong.... That's the part I take issue with. You want me to respect your viewpoint, even if different than mine you have to be willing to do the same thing. If not then your viewpoint is completely relevant to me.

This is why I take no stock nor get upset by JLD or her posts. Many have been laugh out loud moments. I showed the boys with capes thing to my GF last night and I can already tell that joke is hanging around for awhile. She has texted me twice from work telling me to get inside the house with my cape because it's cold out lol


----------



## Duguesclin

Blossom Leigh said:


> Just bluster... Flexing muscle to gain silence from me.
> 
> Didn't work.
> 
> My open ended challenge to JLD to be able to verbalize and be direct and plain spoken about the import of her husbands emotional status to her, independent of what he says it is, and if she can't do that to ask herself, why will remain.


Blossom, I think you have control issues. Relax.


----------



## samyeagar

Blossom Leigh said:


> Just bluster... Flexing muscle to gain silence from me.
> 
> Didn't work.
> 
> My open ended challenge to JLD to be able to verbalize and be direct and plain spoken about the import of her husbands emotional status to her, independent of what he says it is, and if she can't do that to ask herself, why will remain.


Because verbalizing something is often the only way to make something real to some people. So long as they don't have to say the words, they can continue to deny it. JLD sees dug as the antithesis of her father, and to admit that dug has emotional needs, and that she actually fills them is tantamount to admitting that dug is at least in some way like her father, and that maybe her father was not quite so bad as she holds onto. People often find it very difficult to let go of their own demons when they have formed their personal identity around them.


----------



## farsidejunky

Duguesclin said:


> What is your question?


Help me understand how you have posted that "Lil old JLD" is not powerful when you have in fact described her as very powerful in the past.

And I didn't mean to pull you off of driveway duties... lol

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> I think I will go ahead an be the first man on this thread to openly and bluntly say that yes, I need my wife to support me emotionally, and am quite proud of that fact. It does not make me weak in any way. It actually makes me quite strong because it fills my wife's need to be needed. To feel important. To not feel marginalized. To feel vital to the success of our relationship.


These are some of these sweetest times between my H and I. Its rare that he needs it, but when he does it is beautiful.


----------



## Pluto2

Duguesclin said:


> Blossom, I think you have control issues. Relax.


That is patronizing, and a bit demeaning.


----------



## samyeagar

Blossom Leigh said:


> These are some of these sweetest times between my H and I. Its rare that he needs it, but when he does it is beautiful.


And it didn't frighten you that he put all that burden on you?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> Because verbalizing something is often the only way to make something real to some people. So long as they don't have to say the words, they can continue to deny it. JLD sees dug as the antithesis of her father, and to admit that dug has emotional needs, and that she actually fills them is tantamount to admitting that dug is at least in some way like her father, and that maybe her father was not quite so bad as she holds onto. People often find it very difficult to let go of their own demons when they have formed their personal identity around them.


Exactly. Now that its been established by her actions that it does indeed matter to her, it is less about him and more about her verbalizing that it does for the reasons you state.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> And it didn't frighten you that he put all that burden on you?


Not in the least.


----------



## Wolf1974

To me emotional support and intimacy are one in the same and comes from trust. Mainly trust that I can share my hopes, dreams, desires, and fears with the one I love. I know that I will have a problem doing that in the future now.


----------



## Duguesclin

farsidejunky said:


> Help me understand how you have posted that "Lil old JLD" is not powerful when you have in fact described her as very powerful in the past.
> 
> And I didn't mean to pull you off of driveway duties... lol
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


JLD has a strong personality, I agree. This thread is obviously a strong statement of that fact. She keeps to the facts (her facts some would argue) and does not get overwhelmed.

I am very lucky to be married to her.

JLD is only one small voice on TAM. The fact it causes so much stir shows me that there must be some truth to what she is saying.


----------



## samyeagar

Blossom Leigh said:


> Not in the least.


I suspect it's because your husband had built a strong enough and safe enough environment within your relationship, that it didn't even occur to you to be frightened? Because he had built strong enough trust with you that you weren't burdened?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Dafuq? I have questions that need to be answered...


You and Blossom. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

Duguesclin said:


> JLD has a strong personality, I agree. This thread is obviously a strong statement of that fact. She keeps to the facts (her facts some would argue) and does not get overwhelmed.
> 
> I am very lucky to be married to her.
> 
> JLD is only one small voice on TAM. *The fact it causes so much stir shows me that there must be some truth to what she is saying*.


Then I think you misunderstand the discourse.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Duguesclin said:


> Blossom, I think you have control issues. Relax.


You do realize you don't intimidate me right?

Now you're just making me laugh in your efforts to push on me.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Dug, I have a question for you: can you send some of that snow our way? My son is very unhappy with El Nino.

Just kidding. My actual question is this: Do you think JLD is a skillful communicator, outside of her dynamic with you?

ETA. Strike "skillful." Do you think she is an *effective* communicator. Are you?


----------



## samyeagar

Duguesclin said:


> JLD has a strong personality, I agree. This thread is obviously a strong statement of that fact. She keeps to the facts (her facts some would argue) and does not get overwhelmed.
> 
> I am very lucky to be married to her.
> 
> JLD is only one small voice on TAM. The fact it causes so much stir shows me that there must be some truth to what she is saying.


What I think dug, is that your wife is scared of you, but it's not personal to you. I don't think there is enough trust in your relationship for her to feel safe with your emotion. That is not your fault though. It's ok that you have not been able to overcome the damage that was done to her by another man. That does not make you weak.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> I suspect it's because your husband had built a strong enough and safe enough environment within your relationship, that it didn't even occur to you to be frightened? Because he had built strong enough trust with you that you weren't burdened?



No, we have an inherently deep connection even when things were very rough. I'm strong enough to support him and him me even when poor choices are made. We both have very strong personalities and deep passion and deep empathy when not in a fog. They almost function independently of whats going on between us or around us.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> Dug, I have a question for you: can you send some of that snow our way? My son is very unhappy with El Nino.
> 
> Just kidding. My actual question is this: Do you think JLD is a skillful communicator, outside of her dynamic with you?
> 
> ETA. Strike "skillful." Do you think she is an *effective* communicator. Are you?


He went to the bank. And then he has to finish the driveway.


----------



## samyeagar

Blossom Leigh said:


> No, we have an inherently deep connection even when things were very rough. I'm strong enough to support him and him me even when poor choices are made. We both have very strong personalities and deep passion and deep empathy when not in a fog. They almost function independently of whats going on between us or around us.


Why did it not occur to you to be afraid of his emotion?


----------



## Wolf1974

Duguesclin said:


> JLD has a strong personality, I agree. This thread is obviously a strong statement of that fact. She keeps to the facts (her facts some would argue) and does not get overwhelmed.
> 
> I am very lucky to be married to her.
> 
> *JLD is only one small voice on TAM. The fact it causes so much stir shows me that there must be some truth to what she is saying.*


Ehh. Squeaky wheel on the car gets the oil....doesn't mean it's the best tire on the car. Just means it's the wheel making the noise.


----------



## samyeagar

Wolf1974 said:


> Ehh. Squeaky wheel on the car gets the oil....doesn't mean it's the best tire on the car. Just means it's the wheel making the noise.


Some people need to characterize opposition as validation that they are in fact actually right. It's an internal coping mechanism when one is terrified of failure or being perceived as wrong, when in most cases, there is actually no right or wrong involved.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> He went to the bank. And then he has to finish the driveway.


No rush. My MIL just arrived for a visit so I've got to run too. Ask him to answer when he has time.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> Why did it not occur to you to be afraid of his emotion?


There have definitely been times he has terrified me. He has made some very poor choices in his emotional management and so have I. But, I could see his heart and chose to separate it from his do from his who. When I could I helped him dig through to the triggers that were fueling his reactions his who shined and he's done the same for me. We both have PTSD and help each other with triggers. What I trusted was his love for me inspite of what I was seeing before me.


----------



## samyeagar

Blossom Leigh said:


> There have definitely been times he has terrified me. He has made some very poor choices in his emotional management and so have I. But, I could see his heart and chose to separate it from his do from his who. When I could I helped him dig through to the triggers that were fueling his reactions his who shined and he's done the same for me. We both have PTSD and help each other with triggers. What I trusted was his love for me inspite of what I was seeing before me.


Beautiful.


----------



## farsidejunky

samyeagar said:


> Some people need to characterize opposition as validation that they are in fact actually right. It's an internal coping mechanism when one is terrified of failure or being perceived as wrong, when in most cases, there is actually no right or wrong involved.


Nice post, Sam.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> You and Blossom.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My question is not to Dug


----------



## samyeagar

FrenchFry said:


> I like the analogy.
> 
> 
> The people who continue to argue with purple also give purple sky a lot of power. Purple sky isn't going to budge about the sky being purple. The arguers aren't going to budge about the sky being blue and in the process the 90 other people are tired of the seemingly pointless argument and wander away--some of whom may see a little bit purple in the sky and don't wish to get involved in the argument.
> 
> What sucks in this process is that eventually it's just people who are entrenched in their positions and miss out on the red and orange sunset that is happening.
> 
> There isn't enough asking "why" imo.


Hence the Red Starbucks Cup (non)issue


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> Beautiful.


Thank you. We have been through the trenches with each other without question. Its been an "every rose has its thorn" journey.


----------



## jld

Blossom, I am actually thinking about your question. But I don't do my best work under pressure.


----------



## ConanHub

Wolf1974 said:


> Ehh. Squeaky wheel on the car gets the oil....doesn't mean it's the best tire on the car. Just means it's the wheel making the noise.


I was thinking something similar.

If someone in a group was running around stabbing people, there would be a lot of uproar as well.

I stopped worrying about engaging her on infidelity.

No need to continue a discourse with someone that fanatically believes the lie that men and women are basically alien to one another and not all part of mankind, having mostly the same reasons for cheating or remaining faithful.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

FrenchFry said:


> I like the analogy.
> 
> 
> The people who continue to argue with purple also give purple sky a lot of power. Purple sky isn't going to budge about the sky being purple. The arguers aren't going to budge about the sky being blue and in the process the 90 other people are tired of the seemingly pointless argument and wander away--some of whom may see a little bit purple in the sky and don't wish to get involved in the argument.
> 
> What sucks in this process is that eventually it's just people who are entrenched in their positions and miss out on the red and orange sunset that is happening.
> 
> There isn't enough asking "why" imo.


Exactly. That's why I continue to say I don't get why people get so upset by her. I mean she can intelligibly speak about her life and her realtionship and share that as well. She has no advice to offer to anyone , either side of infidelity...she has zero frame of reference. If she doesn't want to learn from those of us who have actually been there and know a thing or two about it.... Bummer


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Blossom, I am actually thinking about your question. But I don't do my best work under pressure.


I'm glad! I totally get that. I've dealt with it a lot with my ptsd. I used to shut down, lock up, then I went through my reactionary phase. But, I graduated to expression without shutting down or over reactionary. My concern is you are in reactionary phase and though Dug feels confident in his emotional state, I still challenge you to go to the next level of expression without wailing unnecessarily on him. We have touched on this in the past. 

My challenges to you will always center in this area. Not to "protect" him necessarily. There have been time I gave my H raw emotion when I felt to not do so would not help him. But self assess super well regardless of how well Dug tells you he is doing. And realize above all these issues is that you are safe now. Its ok to verbalize that you care about his emotional state. You are already doing it in action. Its safe enough to accept it verbally. Its safe my friend. He's not your Dad.


----------



## EllisRedding

I am convinced that JLD and Dug are the same person, and this is the internet's best troll job >


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> I think I will go ahead an be the first man on this thread to openly and bluntly say that yes, I need my wife to support me emotionally, and am quite proud of that fact. It does not make me weak in any way. It actually makes me quite strong because it fills my wife's need to be needed. To feel important. To not feel marginalized. To feel vital to the success of our relationship.


I couldn't agree more with this ..







.... I can also ADMIT I love to be needed by my man.. it makes me feel gooooood all over.... he tells me I am his Queen, his soulmate and his world.. (please don't gag)...

To me , that's Romance.. I eat it up !

He also gets off on being "needed"... it feeds something in both of us...yet it's not the "neediness" that causes the other to feel a heavy weight -like the other isn't doing their part, dragging them down, wearing them out.. it's NOT a burden at all [email protected]# .... it's more fulfilling emotionally, like a Love song spilling it out... 

This was a post I did on an old thread ...trying to explain this... 



Sanity said:


> *I don't like to be "needed". I prefer to be wanted as in "Hey I like hanging out with you and having a good time and maybe jump in the sack. I also care about you and love our time together" kinda thing*. I hate clingy types. Sucks your energy away especially the ones who are clingy and claim they are not.


I do wonder if there is a divider of people in this....

I'm curious....So songs like this >> YOU'RE THE INSPIRATION ...that use the word *NEED* would be a turn off ? Because you wouldn't want a woman to FEEL this way about YOU, it's too "over the top"...you wouldn't feel this way in return..too sappy perhaps. 

Do people really not like if their lover/ spouse says >>  once in a while..??

Maybe I am making a mountain out of this ... I remember a thread like this.. and everyone was Dissecting *WANT vs NEED*....it was established NEED was bad... it's like it carries automatic mounting insecurities with it or something.. to many, so it should never be used. 

There is surely some separating factor between a healthy, even beautiful view of the term "need" showing great love & affection/ enjoying time together SO MUCH ...vs an unhealthy model (of co-dependency, or "needing" / clinging to someone who sees the other as a burden, a weight - NOT a joy to be around...but actually an annoyance)...which is very . 

Just seems so many feel ...."You shouldn't "*NEED*" anyone.... you should only "*WANT*" THEM...

Using this song by Peter Cetera again.....

Notice *Want* is used once... *NEED* is used 3 times....



> *"You're The Inspiration"*
> 
> You know our love was meant to be
> The kind of love that lasts forever
> And I *want* you here with me
> From tonight until the end of time
> You should know, everywhere I go
> You're always on my mind, in my heart
> In my soul
> 
> Baby
> 
> [Chorus:]
> You're the meaning in my life
> You're the inspiration
> You bring feeling to my life
> You're the inspiration
> Wanna have you near me
> I wanna have you hear me sayin'
> No one needs you more than I need you
> 
> And I know, yes I know that it's plain to see
> We're so in love when we're together
> And I know that I need you here with me
> From tonight until the end of time
> You should know, everywhere I go
> Always on my mind, in my heart in my soul




Now, in my opinion, that song would loose a great deal of it's luster, it's inspiration, it's beauty, without the word NEED in it.


----------



## MEM2020

SGC,
So this issue of sensitivity is aptly named. 

Men (myself included) are culturally programmed to have a strong aversion to being adejctivized as such. 

Sensitive of others = good
Sensitive regarding ourselves = bad

As far as profanity goes. Don't like it. Thankfully it is rare for us. 





SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well and that's just it. I'm not saying I did perfect but during a highly stressed and emotional time we both made mistakes.
> 
> He could choose to focus on the word itself that I used and not my feelings, not what and why I was saying it, or he could choose to bush off the bad word and not let it get to him and we can both apologize and go about out night.
> 
> Some men would dig their heels in at that point. The word was wrong, therefore I am the wrong-er one. Refuse to apologize for his involvement of the situation because I did something bad. Demand respect, make a big deal about it, he is the man and deserves to be treated as such. It's an ego thing, a respect thing and if you let her get away with it, she will respect you even less. And that is even often the advice given here.
> 
> The route my H took led to instant conflict resolve, an amazing night together, and we just brush off the bad parts. Had he let it affect his ego, _that _would lower respect, not backing down, being humble, brushing off my bad word, that gained respect and I wanted to make out all night.
> 
> So if JLD is suggesting this method to a man, "forget her words and your ego for a moment and just hear her, humble yourself to see her side, don't like your sensitivity to the specific words overtake the situation"
> I can't disagree with it because it is what I also need and what works for me.
> 
> So again, I just can't see the big harm in allowing both positions to speak their mind when clearly, they both work for different types of people.


----------



## GettingIt_2

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> So this issue of sensitivity is aptly named.
> 
> Men (myself included) are culturally programmed to have a strong aversion to being adejctivized as such.
> 
> Sensitive of others = good
> Sensitive regarding ourselves = bad
> 
> As far as profanity goes. Don't like it. Thankfully it is rare for us.


Same point I was making about using the label "submissive." It's a natural aversion and one that doesn't help if the goal is communication.

I have a feeling that jld might object to being asked to overcome her own aversions in the interests of communication. We will see.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> So this issue of sensitivity is aptly named.
> 
> Men (myself included) are culturally programmed to have a strong aversion to being adejctivized as such.
> 
> Sensitive of others = good
> Sensitive regarding ourselves = bad
> 
> As far as profanity goes. Don't like it. Thankfully it is rare for us.


My H has certainly got the "be a man" type of education growing up and has very thick skin, which is both a blessing and a curse. He's the kind of caveman type. Always tough.

Certainly I wouldn't advocate someone exploiting it or taking advantage of it but if I happen to slip a bad word out due to months of accumulative stress (job crap), it's nice to know it's going to run off his back and not take it to heart and we can just apologize and move on. 

And I think being with him for so long, a man who was more sensitive would not be as attractive to me even though I don't think it's a bad quality to have and would certainly help a lot in other areas of our life. 
When I picture him going the route of "not tolerating" or making a big fuss out of it, it's just a turn off. 

I know a lot of men will say things like "begging, crying, those things make you look weak and unattractive to your wife" I agree, even though it's a horrible thing to tell a man to hide his emotions (like society has done his whole life)

I view being sensitive to words in the same category, somewhere in my head it is weakness and not attractive for men. Which is just unfair and horrible but it is what it is. 

When I hear the advice about how "allowing disrespect is weak and unmanly" I can certainly see the flip side of it that "letting it get to you can be viewed as weak and unmanly"


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> My H has certainly got the "be a man" type of education growing up and has very thick skin, which is both a blessing and a curse. He's the kind of caveman type. Always tough.
> 
> Certainly I wouldn't advocate someone exploiting it or taking advantage of it but if I happen to slip a bad word out due to months of accumulative stress (job crap), *it's nice to know it's going to run off his back and not take it to heart *and we can just apologize and move on.
> 
> And I think being with him for so long, a man who was more sensitive would not be as attractive to me even though I don't think it's a bad quality to have and would certainly help a lot in other areas of our life.
> *When I picture him going the route of "not tolerating" or making a big fuss out of it, it's just a turn off. *
> 
> I know a lot of men will say things like *"begging, crying, those things make you look weak and unattractive to your wife" I agree*, even though it's a horrible thing to tell a man to hide his emotions (like society has done his whole life)
> 
> *I view being sensitive to words in the same category, somewhere in my head it is weakness and not attractive for men. *Which is just unfair and horrible but it is what it is.
> 
> When I hear the advice about how "allowing disrespect is weak and unmanly" I can certainly see the flip side of it that* "letting it get to you can be viewed as weak and unmanly*"


Can't tell you how much I agree with this.

We have to be able to have these honest admissions on TAM. There has to be room for that.


----------



## tech-novelist

samyeagar said:


> This reminds me of something my wife and I talked about recently. Over the course of our relationship we have talked about a great many things, and one of her frustrations, of all things, was that I don't do many things that ever irritate her, and the very few things I do, she wouldn't tell me because she needs the reminder that I'm human and to help her feel on a more level playing field.
> 
> The very first thing she ever told me that annoyed her was that I didn't say bless you when she sneezed. From that point on, not once have I not said it.
> 
> Just the other night, we were watching the newlywed game of all things, and she let slip that it annoys her that I leave the sink full of dishwater after I get done with the dishes. Since then, it's been drained every time.


Hmm, I must be missing something here. If what frustrates her is that you don't do many things that irritate her, why not just do more things that irritate her? Then she wouldn't be as frustrated, right?


----------



## MEM2020

GettingIt,

There are certain words that tend to consistently produce a strong emotional response from people. I refer to them as 'emotionally loaded'. 





GettingIt said:


> Same point I was making about using the label "submissive." It's a natural aversion and one that doesn't help if the goal is communication.
> 
> I have a feeling that jld might object to being asked to overcome her own aversions in the interests of communication. We will see.


----------



## Wolf1974

MEM11363 said:


> GettingIt,
> 
> There are certain words that tend to consistently produce a strong emotional response from people. I refer to them as 'emotionally loaded'.


Thats correct. My GF had a terrible marriage where they fought constantly and used the yelling and belittling words but obviously never really communicated. But that format has constantly been reinforced with her. Early on in dating she asked me for one thing that I please never call her a *****..... Random I know. Turns out that was his go to word for her every time he was upset. Apparently he still did occasionally on text message.

So I thought before I spoke. My initial reaction would have been to say why would you assume I would call you that anyway.? What I said instead was no problem you won't hear that from me. Then I said I need something form you. I asked her to build this new relationship with me and not compare me to the last guy and assume because he was bad to her I would be. She agreed.

3 years in we have disagreed but both have kept our promise. No belittling because it isn't necessary. As for him first time I met him I pulled him aside and told him he wasn't going to be saying that word to her anymore and if he had a problem with that he could deal with me.... Like most guys who talk down to women he folded like a cheap suit and has never called her that again. guessing I had my cape on that day :grin2:


----------



## jld

That cape has magical powers. It protects you from anyone calling you "submissive."


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> That cape has magical powers. It protects you from anyone calling you "submissive."


Ehh I'm a big guy. Not to many are going to call that to my face anyway :wink2:


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Ehh I'm a big guy. Not to many are going to call that to my face anyway :wink2:


We haven't met yet.


----------



## Wolf1974

My other point is that this can be a learned behavior. So my GF went from a 4 year realtionship where they cursed and fought to with me where we don't. That's because we teach people how to treat us and one of the tools in that toolbox is how we treat them in the first place


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> My other point is that this can be a learned behavior. So my GF went from a 4 year realtionship where they cursed and fought to with me where we don't. That's because we teach people how to treat us and one of the tools in that toolbox is how we treat them in the first place


I think different pairings have different chemistry. What was a big problem in the last relationship might not come up at all in the next one.

Glad things are going well with you and your gf, btw.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I think different pairings have different chemistry. What was a big problem in one relationship might not come up at all in the next one.
> 
> Glad things are going well with you and your gf, btw.


Thanks. We are a very slow work in progress. 

Exactly. But you set the standard which is why a notion of I get Emotional and scream and belittle is really about what you are allowed to get away with not what you can't control. Cause you can control it with some people just not others...and that's choice.


----------



## MEM2020

SGC,
Your unfiltered contribution is delightful. 

I'm going to try and explain how this looks from the other side. 

1. I know M2 loves me. She radiates it at me on a daily basis. 
2. It is also true that M2 is spontaneous and playful, these are traits that I prize in a partner and in the day to day - these are ingredients in a soup of light and laughter
3. As the more volatile person, M2 gets more wound up about stuff than I do. 

She doesn't curse often, so what does it mean when she screams: you are a fvcking a hole?

Does it mean that she doesn't respect me? 

Is that occasional moment where she loses her mind:
- about her
- about me
- about us

When your partner is literally melting down - why would you make it about 'you'? 







SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> My H has certainly got the "be a man" type of education growing up and has very thick skin, which is both a blessing and a curse. He's the kind of caveman type. Always tough.
> 
> Certainly I wouldn't advocate someone exploiting it or taking advantage of it but if I happen to slip a bad word out due to months of accumulative stress (job crap), it's nice to know it's going to run off his back and not take it to heart and we can just apologize and move on.
> 
> And I think being with him for so long, a man who was more sensitive would not be as attractive to me even though I don't think it's a bad quality to have and would certainly help a lot in other areas of our life.
> When I picture him going the route of "not tolerating" or making a big fuss out of it, it's just a turn off.
> 
> I know a lot of men will say things like "begging, crying, those things make you look weak and unattractive to your wife" I agree, even though it's a horrible thing to tell a man to hide his emotions (like society has done his whole life)
> 
> I view being sensitive to words in the same category, somewhere in my head it is weakness and not attractive for men. Which is just unfair and horrible but it is what it is.
> 
> When I hear the advice about how "allowing disrespect is weak and unmanly" I can certainly see the flip side of it that "letting it get to you can be viewed as weak and unmanly"


----------



## jld

Amen, MEM.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> When I hear the advice about how "allowing disrespect is weak and unmanly" I can certainly see the flip side of it that "letting it get to you can be viewed as weak and unmanly"


--Not directed at you personally, SGC, but it might be beneficial for everyone to stop and think about how men in general cope with a sharp tongue. 

Whether they consciously realize it or not, it's done via subtraction. A woman's words are assigned a lesser weight through various methods of rationalization, the most common of which is that women are inherently irrational creatures not entirely responsible for what they say.

I'm quoting from David Deida here:



> "In the feminine reality, words and facts take a second place to emotions and the shifting moods of relationship. When she says, "I hate you," or "I'll never move to Texas," or "I don't want to go to the movies," it is often more a reflection of a transient feeling."


Is this materially different than perceptions of women in pop-culture? I'm quoting from the movie _Oh Brother, Where Art Thou
_


> *Ulysses Everett McGill:* Never trust a female Delmar, remember that one simple precept and your time with me will not have been ill spent.
> 
> *Delmar O'Donnell:* Ok, Everett.
> 
> *Ulysses Everett McGill:* ....Truth means nothing to a woman, Delmar. Triumph of the subjective. You ever been with a woman?


It's not that I don't have a sense of humor, but in the real world, would a woman really want to be viewed this way? :scratchhead:


----------



## EllisRedding

MEM11363 said:


> SGC,
> Your unfiltered contribution is delightful.
> 
> I'm going to try and explain how this looks from the other side.
> 
> 1. I know M2 loves me. She radiates it at me on a daily basis.
> 2. It is also true that M2 is spontaneous and playful, these are traits that I prize in a partner and in the day to day - these are ingredients in a soup of light and laughter
> 3. As the more volatile person, M2 gets more wound up about stuff than I do.
> 
> She doesn't curse often, so what does it mean when she screams: you are a fvcking a hole?
> 
> Does it mean that she doesn't respect me?
> 
> Is that occasional moment where she loses her mind:
> - about her
> - about me
> - about us
> 
> When your partner is literally melting down - why would you make it about 'you'?


Overnight, you are now a professional quoter 

I will take the other side of this. My wife and I don't talk to each other in such a way. Yes we get into moods, have off days, etc... but we have ways of venting that don't involve cursing/insulting the other person. We both know the other person will not respond back to such. Now if one day I go tell her to fvk off or don't be a fvking btch, you bet she will take it personally, simply because that is not the basis of our relationship, and vice versa. I am not talking about just throwing out curses (i.e. getting home and saying "I had such a bad fvking day at work"). Yes, we are all emotional, some more than others. I see weakness in someone who needs to resort to such behavior, at least when it comes to interacting with me, there is nothing whatsoever attractive about that.

Like I said before, different strokes for different folks. There is no right answer and I am not saying someone is right or wrong. The only people I consider wrong are those who look at the way they handle their relationship and push it on everyone else as correct


----------



## MEM2020

Oco,
It is all too easy for a marriage to turn into a type of prison. 

It is very important to me that M2 feel comfortable being her true self around me. Whatever that happens to be. 

That doesn't mean I don't have feeling and/or don't matter. It means that I go the extra mile to try to let her be herself. 

She left on a mom/daughter weekend yesterday. Came home from work anxious and poking. Poking is a hardwired behavior intended to synchronize everyone else to her emotional state. 

I told her: You two are going to have a great trip - now go amuse yourself while I make dinner.

Same thing on the car ride to the airport. It wasn't about me. She's always like that the day of travel. 





ocotillo said:


> --Not directed at you personally, SGC, but it might be beneficial for everyone to stop and think about how men in general cope with a sharp tongue.
> 
> Whether they consciously realize it or not, it's done via subtraction. A woman's words are assigned a lesser weight through various methods of rationalization, the most common of which is that women are inherently irrational creatures not entirely responsible for what they say.
> 
> I'm quoting from David Deida here:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this materially different than perceptions of women in pop-culture? I'm quoting from the movie _Oh Brother, Where Art Thou
> _
> 
> 
> It's not that I don't have a sense of humor, but in the real world, would a woman really want to be viewed this way? :scratchhead:


----------



## ocotillo

MEM,



MEM11363 said:


> Oco,
> It is all too easy for a marriage to turn into a type of prison.


I was speaking in a larger context than marriage. 

SGC observed:



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I view being sensitive to words in the same category, somewhere in my head it is weakness and not attractive for men.


You and I (As men) know a very different reality. 

There is an, "invisible line" hovering around almost every man. Cross that line (as a man) and you will be in an honest to goodness, old fashioned fist fight. (And any man who doubts this has only to go to a construction site and insult a bigger, stronger man to his face....)

Women have more latitude in how they may express themselves, but traditionally, that has been rationalized and justified in ways that aren't terribly complimentary to women. (I've given examples above) 

We talk about a lot of things on TAM. We talk about equality and how it has affected marriage in the 21st century. 

I think it's important for both men and women to understand that sexist attitudes tend to be self sustaining a "Yin to Yang" fashion.


----------



## Duguesclin

GettingIt said:


> Dug, I have a question for you: can you send some of that snow our way? My son is very unhappy with El Nino.
> 
> Just kidding. My actual question is this: Do you think JLD is a skillful communicator, outside of her dynamic with you?
> 
> ETA. Strike "skillful." Do you think she is an *effective* communicator. Are you?


I am very behind in my shoveling. What I was doing this morning and this afternoon was to cleanup the 3" of ice I could not remove last week because it was too cold. Now my driveway is ready for the next 3" of snow that is starting to come down right now.:smile2:

About us as communicators: I am a very poor communicator. My ideas come out very complicated and frustrate a lot of people. However I have a very good rapport with people. I can talk about many different subject from the NFL to the Indian caste system.

JLD is a very effective and focused communicator. But at a given time her interests are much narrower. Like Picasso she has various phases. Right now it is TAM, before it was the economy, politics has been in the mix or homeschooling, etc...


----------



## GettingIt_2

MEM11363 said:


> GettingIt,
> 
> There are certain words that tend to consistently produce a strong emotional response from people. I refer to them as 'emotionally loaded'.


Yes, and their use here on TAM is rarely without intent. 

When I read on TAM or other forums, I tend to sort posters into two groups (no, jld, not subs and Doms, lol). 

1. People whose first impulse is to listen and understand
2. People whose first impulse is to teach

From there posting styles follow a pretty predictable pattern. 

Some posters do both fairly well, but almost everyone has a "default," style and some don't waver from that default at all. 

Posters offering the same advice, but who use different styles, will experience different results when it comes to effective communication. 

Posters who come here with the intent of teaching will reach a certain audience, but their productivity and positive influence will be more limited to folks 1. already predisposed to their lessons and 2. already accepting of their style. 

Posters who come here with the intent of listening and understanding and THEN communicating the SAME lessons using what they know about their audience will reach a more diverse audience. 

Effective teachers know the lesson is only valuable if it can be heard.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Duguesclin said:


> I am very behind in my shoveling. What I was doing this morning and this afternoon was to cleanup the 3" of ice I could not remove last week because it was too cold. Now my driveway is ready for the next 3" of snow that is starting to come down right now.:smile2:
> 
> About us as communicators: I am a very poor communicator. My ideas come out very complicated and frustrate a lot of people. However I have a very good rapport with people. I can talk about many different subject from the NFL to the Indian caste system.
> 
> JLD is a very effective and focused communicator. But at a given time her interests are much narrower. Like Picasso she has various phases. Right now it is TAM, before it was the economy, politics has been in the mix or homeschooling, etc...


Dug, we cross-posted. Maybe you can read my last post about effective teaching and let me know what you think. 

We'll take the snow if you send it our way--I'd even do the shoveling without complaint. I like the four seasons, and for the past six months we've been stuck in ONE.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> However he felt about me, I was very scared of him. And just as soon as I could, I got away from him. And stayed away. That is the legacy of rule through fear.


I'm so sorry jld...

I honestly do not understand that generation. Not as child and not as an adult either...


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> Yes, the success rate of *martial *recovery after an affair is much higher than 15%.


I know some people claim an affair is like war, but *this *is going a bit overboard, don't you think?


----------



## jld

I think we should all give our honest opinions. We are not required to agree. And I think we learn more from honest exchanges.

My feelings get hurt as much as anyone's. But that only helps me learn to shrug things off easier. *What does not kill you, makes you stronger.*

I think we need to remember, too, that the purpose of the forum is to talk about problems and solutions that people might not feel comfortable talking about IRL. Our honesty can be a shortcut for them.

Helps us be honest with ourselves, too. The more honest we can be with ourselves, the quicker we can resolve problems in our marriages.


----------



## tech-novelist

StilltheStudent said:


> Yes, this is a great arrangement.
> 
> For the woman.
> 
> She gets to enjoy the stability and the satisfaction of her husband's efforts while the man gets the "freedom" of being solely responsible for it all and dealing with the constant stress of recognizing that his emotions and reactions must bend to the end goal of maintaining the status quo and dealing with her outbursts.
> 
> It presumes men should be stoic father-figures their entire lives and never relax, always be on guard.
> 
> It presumes that women are emotionally unstable, weak, need protection, and cannot shoulder the burden of maintaining a stable mature relationship on their own.
> 
> There is a reason your advice is generally seen as problematic JLD.
> 
> It is built on the notion that relationships should be co-dependent arrangements in which women are children and men are tireless father figures.


Which by the way is seriously misogynistic. Aren't women adults?


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I'm so sorry jld...
> 
> I honestly do not understand that generation. Not as child and not as an adult either...


Thanks, ocotillo.


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Oco,
> It is all too easy for a marriage to turn into a type of prison.
> 
> It is very important to me that M2 feel comfortable being her true self around me. Whatever that happens to be.
> 
> That doesn't mean I don't have feeling and/or don't matter. It means that I go the extra mile to try to let her be herself.
> 
> She left on a mom/daughter weekend yesterday. Came home from work anxious and poking. Poking is a hardwired behavior intended to synchronize everyone else to her emotional state.
> 
> I told her: You two are going to have a great trip - now go amuse yourself while I make dinner.
> 
> Same thing on the car ride to the airport. It wasn't about me. She's always like that the day of travel.


My wife is notorious for poking. She does it when she is anxious specifically.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think this is the funniest thing because a lot of TAM agrees that the man should be the leader, the strong, stable one. The one who takes control.
> 
> But then you get jumped on for _your own way_ of doing just that.
> 
> IMO you feel that the leader role involves more responsibility and accountability, more strength.
> 
> It's one thing if someone says "I don't agree that either partner should lead, both should be equal"
> 
> but I don't get
> 
> "Men need to be the leader, they need to be tough, strong alpha men but how dare _you _JLD for suggesting they be more emotionally strong, take more responsibility and direction for the marriage!"


What would happen to a man who said the same thing?

He would be pilloried as an evil woman-hating MRA loser who lives in his mommy's basement and can't get laid!


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> You and I (As men) know a very different reality.
> 
> There is an, "invisible line" hovering around almost every man. Cross that line (as a man) and you will be in an honest to goodness, old fashioned fist fight. (And any man who doubts this has only to go to a construction site and insult a bigger, stronger man to his face....)
> 
> Remind me not to hang around construction sites!
> 
> Women have more latitude in how they may express themselves, but traditionally, that has been rationalized and justified in ways that aren't terribly complimentary to women. (I've given examples above)
> 
> We talk about a lot of things on TAM. We talk about equality and how it has affected marriage in the 21st century.
> 
> I think it's important for both men and women to understand that sexist attitudes tend to be self sustaining a "Yin to Yang" fashion.
> 
> Not really sure what that last statement means. But for sure, the rules are different for the sexes.
> 
> My advice about letting her words roll off your back can be very empowering for men. But the Shut It Down approach is what some people prefer. If both are okay with that, then good enough.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think we should all give our honest opinions. We are not required to agree. And I think we learn more from honest exchanges.


I believe many people in this thread have been honest with their opinions. If we all agreed or had the same opinions, the forums would be quite boring :grin2:

However, I think it is important as well that someone not use their opinion as a means to tell others that their opinion is wrong (whether direct or through subtle insults).


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ocotillo said:


> I'm so sorry jld...
> 
> I honestly do not understand that generation. Not as child and not as an adult either...


I've pondered this too and it made me wonder if it was partially due to the quick successions of war during that time.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> My wife is notorious for poking. She does it when she is anxious specifically.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Would you mind giving an example of "poking"? TAM was the first place I ever heard this term.


----------



## Blondilocks

EllisRedding, enough is enough! A woman in Hootersville is going crazy looking for her bra. Please put it back on her clothes line. Thank you. 

How about a nice lacy, black one?


----------



## ocotillo

Blossom Leigh said:


> I've pondered this too and it made me wonder if it was partially due to the quick successions of war during that time.


Yes. I'm sure that was not good for anybody.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> We've all moved on from the Bud Light vs Miller Lite dichotomy French.
> 
> But if you really want both options available, we'll make it happen. Just remember, this is a cape-mandatory get-together :wink2:
> 
> :toast:


Not me. I take my guidance from the costume expert, Edna Mode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68ndaZSKa8


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I believe many people in this thread have been honest with their opinions. If we all agreed or had the same opinions, the forums would be quite boring :grin2:
> 
> However, I think it is important as well that someone not use their opinion as a means to tell others that their opinion is wrong (whether direct or through subtle insults).


I think it is important that people learn to shrug off whatever opinion they don't like. 



Ellis, if you don't like what I say, don't read my posts. I may not like what you say, either, but I don't spend any time telling you not to say it, or how to say, or anything like that. To me, what you think is what you think. No big deal. I read it and go on to the next post.


----------



## EllisRedding

Blondilocks said:


> EllisRedding, enough is enough! A woman in Hootersville is going crazy looking for her bra. Please put it back on her clothes line. Thank you.
> 
> How about a nice lacy, black one?


Alright, changed it to my tennis days


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think it is important that people learn to shrug off whatever opinion they don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> Ellis, if you don't like what I say, don't read my posts. I may not like what you say, either, but I don't spend any time telling you not to say it, or how to say, or anything like that. To me, what you think is what you think. No big deal. I read it and go on to the next post.


Lol. Once again, I never said I had an issue with your opinion (whether I agree with it or not). I probably don't agree with a good 90%+ of what you say (on the bright side there is probably 10% I do agree with). Part of what makes participating in these forums are the differing opinions. Naturally though, that is what you get out of my post, I don't agree with your opinion so you shouldn't post. If that is all you take out of any criticism you get, sounds more like an growth issue on your side


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Lol. Once again, I never said I had an issue with your opinion (whether I agree with it or not). I probably don't agree with a good 90%+ of what you say (on the bright side there is probably 10% I do agree with). Part of what makes participating in these forums are the differing opinions. Naturally though, that is what you get out of my post, I don't agree with your opinion so you shouldn't post. If that is all you take out of any criticism you get, sounds more like an growth issue on your side


Thank you, Ellis.


----------



## Blondilocks

jld said:


> Would you mind giving an example of "poking"? TAM was the first place I ever heard this term.


This is my idea of 'poking'. Wife is nervous and anxious and really isn't dealing well with these feelings. The minute she hits the door she is looking, looking, looking for something to pick a fight over. i.e.

Why is the dog in the house?
Why is the cat outside?
Why are you doing laundry at this hour?
I thought you threw that hideous shirt away.
I bet you forgot to stop by the store, didn't you?
Dinner isn't ready, yet???

That was my version of 'poking'.


----------



## Blondilocks

EllisRedding said:


> Alright, changed it to my tennis days


Well, shut my mouth. Forget what I said about the bra.


----------



## jld

Blondilocks said:


> This is my idea of 'poking'. Wife is nervous and anxious and really isn't dealing well with these feelings. The minute she hits the door she is looking, looking, looking for something to pick a fight over. i.e.
> 
> Why is the dog in the house?
> Why is the cat outside?
> Why are you doing laundry at this hour?
> I thought you threw that hideous shirt away.
> I bet you forgot to stop by the store, didn't you?
> Dinner isn't ready, yet???
> 
> That was my version of 'poking'.


Thanks, Blondi.

Reading that, I just think, Oh, he needs to calm her down. Some soothing words and a hug would probably do it.

When a person is nervous, a calming, soothing partner can really help.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> What would happen to a man who said the same thing?
> 
> He would be pilloried as an evil woman-hating MRA loser who lives in his mommy's basement and can't get laid!


It is typically the men who give the "be a leader" "man up" advice. I think sometimes it fits and sometimes not. (and some of it is just pure crap for anyone- my opinion)

I don't like the idea that all women want a male leader, a dominant man. Some do, some don't.
People view the ways a person should be a leader in different ways as well.
To some women, a man who can be open with his emotions, cry, show fear is a very strong man. 
To others, a more stoic and low emotion man is. 
I have thoughts on this that go both ways. 

So telling a man to a) be a leader and b) how you be one is to demand respect and not tolerate bad behavior

will work on some women, will be horrible advice for others-
Both women who don't even want a dominant or leader-ish male to begin with AND women who view being strong/leader in different ways than that.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It is typically the men who give the "be a leader" "man up" advice. I think sometimes it fits and sometimes not. (and some of it is just pure crap for anyone- my opinion)
> 
> I don't like the idea that all women want a male leader, a dominant man. Some do, some don't.
> People view the ways a person should be a leader in different ways as well.
> To some women, a man who can be open with his emotions, cry, show fear is a very strong man.
> To others, a more stoic and low emotion man is.
> I have thoughts on this that go both ways.
> 
> So telling a man to a) be a leader and b) how you be one is to demand respect and not tolerate bad behavior
> 
> will work on some women, will be horrible advice for others-
> Both women who don't even want a dominant or leader-ish male to begin with AND women who view being strong/leader in different ways than that.


Ultimately, a man, like a woman, has to be himself. I think my advice to learn not to take things personally, to try to understand his wife, and be patient with her, could help any man. 

But my therapist says that not every man can do this. And my guess is that even men who come around to my way of thinking will need time to think about it. I just try to put it out there so that it is available for whoever might decide to use it.


----------



## Blondilocks

jld said:


> Thanks, Blondi.
> 
> Reading that, I just think, Oh, he needs to calm her down. Some soothing words and a hug would probably do it.
> 
> When a person is nervous, a calming, soothing partner can really help.


Oh, he always calmed me down. But, with first blast he was a deer in the headlights and just stared at me. Talk about guilt! Just a note: apologies are more attractive when there isn't snot running down your face.


----------



## jld

Blondilocks said:


> Oh, he always calmed me down. But, with first blast he was a deer in the headlights and just stared at me. Talk about guilt! Just a note: apologies are more attractive when there isn't snot running down your face.


I'm sure he didn't mind. 

You are a widow, correct?


----------



## Blondilocks

jld said:


> I'm sure he didn't mind.
> 
> You are a widow, correct?


Yes. 2 years, 9 months and 9 days.


----------



## jld

Blondilocks said:


> Yes. 2 years, 9 months and 9 days.


I'm so sorry, Blondi.


----------



## tech-novelist

MEM11363 said:


> Wolf,
> 
> Glad you raised that.
> 
> There's a Geneva convention lite - type rule book in any marriage. This typically unwritten agreement describes civilized combat.
> 
> I do believe that it's a weak persons strategy to lob F bombs at their partner. Just one man's view.
> 
> It's not a boundary for me in that I wouldn't end the marriage over it. But I've made it clear I don't like it, and depending on circumstance I may give M2 a short stint in solitary confinement to convey my displeasure.


I don't think I've ever cursed at my wife, nor she at me, and I would remember something like that. We do curse at other things sometimes, mostly in jest.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> I think we should all give our honest opinions. We are not required to agree. And I think we learn more from honest exchanges.
> 
> My feelings get hurt as much as anyone's. But that only helps me learn to shrug things off easier. *What does not kill you, makes you stronger.*
> 
> I think we need to remember, too, that the purpose of the forum is to talk about problems and solutions that people might not feel comfortable talking about IRL. Our honesty can be a shortcut for them.
> 
> Helps us be honest with ourselves, too. The more honest we can be with ourselves, the quicker we can resolve problems in our marriages.


Giving our opinions is important, but I don't see that as the most useful aspect of communication. I also think there are different ways to voice our opinions depending on the audience we are trying to reach. And how receptive we are to using different methods probably has to do with how secure we are in those opinions. 

Someone who says, "No, I can only say this one way and it is up to whoever hears it to take it or leave it," is more interested in making sure THEY are understood than they are in helping someone hear their message. 

Nothing wrong with that, but I think it does help if we understand a poster's motive. It can help us determine how valuable and productive an exchange with that person will be.


----------



## ocotillo

jld,



jld said:


> Not really sure what that last statement means. But for sure, the rules are different for the sexes.


A theory in sociology. --That harmful patterns tend to feed off each other in a self-sustaining fashion. 

SGC spoke of a perception that men sensitive to words are unmanly. I pointed out that the, "Yin" to that, "Yang" is the perception that women are irrational creatures that often don't mean what they say, so you shouldn't take harsh words to heart.

If that's reality, then so be it. But if you were a woman competing with a male colleague for a supervisory position, would you want to be evaluated under that rubric? I would think that would be a handicap (?)


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> Giving our opinions is important, but I don't see that as the most useful aspect of communication. I also think *there are different ways to voice our opinions depending on the audience we are trying to reach*. And how receptive we are to using different methods probably has to do with how secure we are in those opinions.
> 
> Someone who says, "No, I can only say this one way and it is up to whoever hears it to take it or leave it," is more interested in making sure THEY are understood than they are in helping someone hear their message.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that, but I think it does help if we understand a poster's motive. It can help us determine how valuable and productive an exchange with that person will be.


Would you like to give a lesson on these different methods? That could be interesting.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> jld,
> 
> 
> 
> A theory in sociology. --That harmful patterns tend to feed off each other in a self-sustaining fashion.
> 
> SGC spoke of a perception that men sensitive to words are unmanly. I pointed out that the, "Yin" to that, "Yang" is the perception that women are irrational creatures that often don't mean what they say, so you shouldn't take harsh words to heart.
> 
> If that's reality, then so be it. But if you were a woman competing with a male colleague for a supervisory position, would you want to be evaluated under that rubric? I would think that would be a handicap (?)


I think most people are different in their marriages than at work. I know I never had sex with anybody at work.

I think the advice to let words roll off one's back and focus on the meaning instead can benefit anyone. It is probably the number one thing I am learning on TAM. 

I want my boys to know it. Going out into the world, and certainly into a marriage, without being easily offended, will free up their energy for more productive pursuits.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> Would you like to give a lesson on these different methods? That could be interesting.


It's funny you suggest that. I was thinking of starting a thread on effective communication on public forums. I see so many good messages lost because of poor communication. But then again, I do sometimes make the mistake of assuming that a poster is always trying to communicate. Many times, THEY want to be heard. THEY want to be listened to and receive validation, even as they operate under the guise of trying to help. 

I'm not calling you out here, jld: I think it's always fair and helpful to learn how to judge motive. And forums ARE for getting help when we need it: and sometimes validation of our views is the help we seek. 

I've had many a good conversation (usually behind the scenes) on forums like this and find that folks do fall into two camps: those who come packing an agenda that they feel is valuable, and those who come with a genuine curiosity about people and human nature.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Would you mind giving an example of "poking"? TAM was the first place I ever heard this term.


She gets anxious over something. The first time I recall it happening was when we were 6 hours pre flight to go back to my home in CA (was still in the military).

It started with her nitpicking how I was packing clothes. Then she started to find other things to insult. I has no idea what was going on except that she had never acted this way before.

She kept at it, finding fault not only in stuff from that day, but from days in the past.

I did not find out until months later that she was freaking out over flying. So she was poking me as her way of dealing with it. My bet is she wanted me to be agitated with her.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolf1974

MEM11363 said:


> Oco,
> It is all too easy for a marriage to turn into a type of prison.
> 
> It is very important to me that M2 feel comfortable being her true self around me. Whatever that happens to be.
> 
> That doesn't mean I don't have feeling and/or don't matter. It means that I go the extra mile to try to let her be herself.
> 
> She left on a mom/daughter weekend yesterday. Came home from work anxious and poking. Poking is a hardwired behavior intended to synchronize everyone else to her emotional state.
> 
> I told her: You two are going to have a great trip - now go amuse yourself while I make dinner.
> 
> Same thing on the car ride to the airport. It wasn't about me. She's always like that the day of travel.


Overall I think this is great. But why not also call out the behavior as well. 

Hun I know you get stressed about traveling but picking a a fight won't make that better. Now go amuse yourself while I make you dinner. I think this way your supportive yet telling her that you don't appreciate her stress being taken out with you. 

I agree it's not just about you it also calling out the bad behavior so she can grow from it


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I think most people are different in their marriages than at work.


Basic attitudes about gender transcend both. 

What is the message in the Adam and Eve story? Or Pandora? Or St. Paul's assertion that man is God's glory, but woman is man's glory? 

The idea that, "Women feel / Men think" is as old as the human race itself. 

Like I said, if this is reality then so be it. I can easily live with it, but TBH, I've spent a good portion of my life fighting against it.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> She gets anxious over something. The first time I recall it happening was when we were 6 hours pre flight to go back to my home in CA (was still in the military).
> 
> It started with her nitpicking how I was packing clothes. Then she started to find other things to insult. I has no idea what was going on except that she had never acted this way before.
> 
> She kept at it, finding fault not only in stuff from that day, but from days in the past.
> 
> I did not find out until months later that she was freaking out over flying. So she was poking me as her way of dealing with it. My bet is she wanted me to be agitated with her.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


How did you deal with it?


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Basic attitudes about gender transcend both.
> 
> What is the message in the Adam and Eve story? Or Pandora? Or St. Paul's assertion that man is God's glory, but woman is man's glory?
> 
> The idea that, "Women feel / Men think" is as old as the human race itself.
> 
> Like I said, if this is reality then so be it. I can easily live with it, but TBH, I've spent a good portion of my life fighting against it.


Has it worked?


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Overall I think this is great. But why not also call out the behavior as well.
> 
> Hun I know you get stressed about traveling but picking a a fight won't make that better. Now go amuse yourself while I make you dinner. I think this way your supportive yet telling her that you don't appreciate her stress being taken out with you.
> 
> I agree it's not just about you it also calling out the bad behavior so she can grow from it


She might not feel respected. If she does not feel respected, the tension might increase, or at least not decrease.

At some point, things need to be talked out, or they will be acted out.


----------



## Personal

EllisRedding said:


> I am convinced that JLD and Dug are the same person, and this is the internet's best troll job >


I know @SimplyAmorous is who she claims she is, that being the case and considering her experience as related below it's fair to say @jld and @Duguesclin are not the same person.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Can I interject.... I have met both Jld & Dug in person... spending the whole day with myself & husband (hope it's Ok to say this !!)...
> 
> It's true... she has a way of getting people to open up & spill it.. she's an "open ended question" sort of person... I am the same way.. ..where would our men be without our probing [email protected]#
> 
> Our husbands have some things SO MUCH IN COMMON.. then some things SO NOT ... the same could be said of me & her.....
> 
> Dug is not as STOIC as I had imagined him to be -by any means... with some things I've read jld say... when he's there with you... he's "engaging".... open to discussion, oh he speaks how he feels.
> 
> Having seen these 2 in action... their dynamics in front of us... I can attest.. they are "in tune" and really do THINK VERY MUCH ALIKE.... it works for them...they compliment each other...
> 
> Dug really is OK.. and doing fine ...in no way did we get the feeling she "ruled" over him.. or anything like this.. heavens NO!...
> 
> And it's true... he does expect A LOT from his own Gender.. just as jld speaks often...I found these things very admirable - personally..


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Has it worked?


--Hard to answer with a "Yes" or "No." A crowning achievement in life has been raising three beautiful young women who were free to choose their own path. 

Most of the time I'm so proud of my wife that I would pop and it's not that I don't have accomplishments of my own. 

But has that negatively affected other aspects of the relationship, perhaps at a primal level that I'm not grasping (If I understand your question.)

--I don't know and may never know..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Personal said:


> I know @SimplyAmorous is who she claims she is, that being the case and considering her experience as related below it's fair to say @jld and @Duguesclin are not the same person.


Pretty sure Ellis wouldn't think I'd







about this.. ...we had a grand time.. and the funniest moment was asking them both .... "hmmmm ...so how do you feel about a man being Raped?"..... Ok.. let's *not* open this can of worms on here!!


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> --Hard to answer with a "Yes" or "No." A crowning achievement in life has been raising three beautiful young women who were free to choose their own path.
> 
> Most of the time I'm so proud of my wife that I would pop and it's not that I don't have accomplishments of my own.
> 
> But has that negatively affected other aspects of the relationship, perhaps at a primal level that I'm not grasping (If I understand your question.)
> 
> --I don't know and may never know..


Great job on your girls, ocotillo! I am proud as punch of mine, too! 

I don't know how much we will ever get away from male/female differences. That's why I think it is better to work within them.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Pretty sure Ellis wouldn't think I'd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> about this.. ...we had a grand time.. and the funniest moment was asking them both .... "hmmmm ...so how do you feel about a man being Raped?"..... Ok.. let's *not* open this can of worms on here!!


We really enjoyed the visit, too, SA. We felt so comfortable with your family. 

And I have to tell you, I have thought many times of that Japanese restaurant. Great food.


----------



## EllisRedding

Personal said:


> I know @SimplyAmorous is who she claims she is, that being the case and considering her experience as related below it's fair to say @jld and @Duguesclin are not the same person.





SimplyAmorous said:


> Pretty sure Ellis wouldn't think I'd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> about this.. ...we had a grand time.. and the funniest moment was asking them both .... "hmmmm ...so how do you feel about a man being Raped?"..... Ok.. let's *not* open this can of worms on here!!


Lol, yeah, I don't think they are one in the same.

However, you have to admit, that would be the ultimate troll job if they were :grin2:


----------



## GettingIt_2

ocotillo said:


> jld,
> 
> 
> 
> A theory in sociology. --That harmful patterns tend to feed off each other in a self-sustaining fashion.
> 
> SGC spoke of a perception that men sensitive to words are unmanly. I pointed out that the, "Yin" to that, "Yang" is the perception that women are irrational creatures that often don't mean what they say, so you shouldn't take harsh words to heart.
> 
> If that's reality, then so be it. But if you were a woman competing with a male colleague for a supervisory position, would you want to be evaluated under that rubric? I would think that would be a handicap (?)


I wouldn't want any other man, or men in general, to treat me the way my husband treats me. I basically sat him down and said, "can you be a sexist pig in our marriage, please?" Well, not in so many words, but all that evolutionary psyche stuff? All that 1950's stuff? Yeah, I want it, _just between him and me._ I struggled with it when I realized I wanted it, but then I realized that I'm free to make that CHOICE and I have a husband who I trust to not abuse it. When I step outside my door, I'm in another world. But like jld said, there is no other relationship I have that is like my marriage. There is no other relationship where I feel like I can ask for the things that satisfy me down to the last strand of my DNA. 

A surprising side effect of his willingness to work with me on this has been that I've developed this overwhelming desire to, uh, sort of "serve and please" him all the time. I promise you I RARELY had that impulse when I wasn't frank with him all this. I won't go into detail, but I think he finds the effort will worth his while. 

I guess you could say we're just kinky. But for us it feels like we wrested control of our phycho-sexual selves back from the public sphere. Pretty empowering stuff.


----------



## MEM2020

Far and Wolf,

I have a very high level of self awareness regarding what I'll call my stability index. Yesterday it was below average. I was certain that if M2 persisted in poking she would eventually synchronize us. P
And that feels BAD to me. 

When my stability index is high. I consistently synchronize her to MY EMOTIONAL state, which is calm and and happy. 

But yesterday I was already a little tense. So I addresses the poking / light button pushing via question: 

Are you upset with ME? That often helps. It did yesterday. 




farsidejunky said:


> My wife is notorious for poking. She does it when she is anxious specifically.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> How did you deal with it?


At that time? Poorly.

Now? Poorly. But a little better.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## GettingIt_2

MEM11363 said:


> Far,
> I have a very high level of self awareness regarding what I'll call my stability index. Yesterday it was below average. I was certain that if M2 persisted in poking she would eventually synchronize us.
> And that feels BAD to me.
> 
> When my stability index is high. I consistently synchronize her to MY EMOTIONAL state, which is calm and and happy.
> 
> But yesterday I was already a little tense. So I addresses the poking / light button pushing via question:
> 
> Are you upset with ME? That often helps. It did yesterday.


When you are experiencing a "low stability index," what is optimal behavior from your wife? What would ideal behavior be from a wife (might be something your isn't capable of, but I'm curious what your "wish list" would look like.)


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Far and Wolf,
> 
> I have a very high level of self awareness regarding what I'll call my stability index. Yesterday it was below average. I was certain that if M2 persisted in poking she would eventually synchronize us. P
> And that feels BAD to me.
> 
> When my stability index is high. I consistently synchronize her to MY EMOTIONAL state, which is calm and and happy.
> 
> But yesterday I was already a little tense. So I addresses the poking / light button pushing via question:
> 
> Are you upset with ME? That often helps. It did yesterday.


Humor diffuses it for her most times. Ridiculous, twisted humor. But not always. 

But I admit that unless I am absolutely on my A game, my stability index as u out call it is...mediocre. 

And usually, with that crazy emotional perception she has, she simply hates the attempt at humor UNLESS I am on my A game.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Humor diffuses it for her most times. Ridiculous, twisted humor. But not always.
> 
> But I admit that unless I am absolutely on my A game, my stability index as u out call it is...mediocre.
> 
> And usually, with that crazy emotional perception she has, she simply hates the attempt at humor UNLESS I am on my A game.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Far, what do you do to get on your A game? Or does it have to come on its own?


----------



## farsidejunky

It is sort of an attitude, but has a lot to do with what happened in my day. 

First thing in the morning? Most mornings it is there unless I did not get enough sleep

In the evening? Depends. If I have not been moving and shaking at work, then I will not have it. For example, if I have been doing computer work without much human interaction, A game is anywhere but there. But if I have been doing presentations, leading something, or engaged with people, it is completely present.

A day that I have not worked or not had interactions with people are days it is not there either.


----------



## MEM2020

GettingIt,

Accept that certain behaviors: poking/button pushing which typically don't bother me, are bothering me. And make a conscious choice to stop doing them until I'm back in fully stable mode. 

I honestly don't need help. Simply a cessation of - what I call the anxiety cloud. Or at its most intense form: the anxiety onslaught 

I normally deal with this stuff via a very natural soothing affect and/or some light humor. More importantly - I'm not wrapped tight as a drum while doing it. I feel totally relaxed and in control - of me. And I'm helping M2 feel better. And I LIKE doing that. 

She DID raise my blood pressure briefly in the car. Don't think it was intentional, just clumsy. Get in the car to drive M2 and M3 (25 year old daughter) to the airport. M2 loves to drive, hates to be driven. It's a control issue. She is fine with my driving. Just hates being a passenger. But she can't see well in the dark, so I'm driving. It's raining hard. Backing out I hit the garage door button. Without thinking she hits it a moment later. Just as we've pulled out of range for the controller she says: oops sorry, I'm micromanaging. Did you hit the garage door button. I nodded. She says - well it's probably up. We were a bit tighter on scheduled drive so I didn't want to turn around. Our two other children boy/girl early twenties are in the house. 

Before I think of our next step M2 says to M3: There was a rape in the neighborhood yesterday. Starts telling M3 the specifics. I interject. Babe, you are raising my blood pressure. Please call the kids and ask them to close the garage door. 

Which she did. Didn't raise my voice. Didn't snap. Just said what I needed her to do. She did it. Good to go. Blood pressure quickly returned to normal. And I thanked her for making the call.

Then the wipers aren't going fast enough. It's her new car - I'm not totally familiar with the controls. Still, instead of telling me. She leans over and starts fiddling with the wiper control. 

I offered to do it. She declined the offer. When she got it - after a bit of fumbling around - I just said thank you. 

All kind of harmless stuff. 





GettingIt said:


> When you are experiencing a "low stability index," what is optimal behavior from your wife? What would ideal behavior be from a wife (might be something your isn't capable of, but I'm curious what your "wish list" would look like.)


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> GettingIt,
> 
> Accept that certain behaviors: poking/button pushing which typically don't bother me, are bothering me. And make a conscious choice to stop doing them until I'm back in fully stable mode.
> 
> I honestly don't need help. Simply a cessation of - what I call the anxiety cloud. Or at its most intense form: the anxiety onslaught


QFT. If I am not on my toes/A game, I go from zero to anxious in the blink of an eye.


----------



## MEM2020

It's mostly there by default except first thing in the morning. 

If it's absent, a 3-5 mile run brings it right back. 





farsidejunky said:


> It is sort of an attitude, but has a lot to do with what happened in my day.
> 
> First thing in the morning? Most mornings it is there unless I did not get enough sleep
> 
> In the evening? Depends. If I have not been moving and shaking at work, then I will not have it. For example, if I have been doing computer work without much human interaction, A game is anywhere but there. But if I have been doing presentations, leading something, or engaged with people, it is completely present.
> 
> A day that I have not worked or not had interactions with people are days it is not there either.


----------



## MEM2020

Request gets made like so: 

Babe, I'm a bit 'off my game' at the moment. A little slack would be much appreciated. 

That has a very high success rate. 




GettingIt said:


> When you are experiencing a "low stability index," what is optimal behavior from your wife? What would ideal behavior be from a wife (might be something your isn't capable of, but I'm curious what your "wish list" would look like.)


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Request gets made like so:
> 
> Babe, I'm a bit 'off my game' at the moment. A little slack would be much appreciated.
> 
> That has a very high success rate.


Sometimes the real solution is a lot less complicated than I think it ought to be...


----------



## GettingIt_2

MEM11363 said:


> GettingIt,
> 
> Accept that certain behaviors: poking/button pushing which typically don't bother me, are bothering me. And make a conscious choice to stop doing them until I'm back in fully stable mode.
> 
> I honestly don't need help. Simply a cessation of - what I call the anxiety cloud. Or at its most intense form: the anxiety onslaught
> 
> I normally deal with this stuff via a very natural soothing affect and/or some light humor. More importantly - I'm not wrapped tight as a drum while doing it. I feel totally relaxed and in control - of me. And I'm helping M2 feel better. And I LIKE doing that.


So her managing her own anxiety, or at least her not expecting you to help, would be best case scenario?

And really, there is NOTHING anyone could do to help? I HATE it when I ask my husband what I can do and he says nothing, or something like you said. Which basically, to me, boils down to "give me some space." Blah. I don't it when my husband is unavailable and I can't change that. Even when I'm not anxious, knowing that he is unavailable can make me anxious, so I tend to get preemptively anxious about that if I sense that he's going to need space.

I don't like that I'm like that, BTW. I tend to be harder on myself than he is on me about it. Working on it, with his help.




farsidejunky said:


> QFT. If I am not on my toes/A game, I go from zero to anxious in the blink of an eye.


What about you far? Anything a wife can do to help her husband back to his A game (besides not poking him)?


----------



## GettingIt_2

MEM11363 said:


> Request gets made like so:
> 
> Babe, I'm a bit 'off my game' at the moment. A little slack would be much appreciated.
> 
> That has a very high success rate.


Probably because it reassures her that you're on top of it, and offers some direction. I like that, anyway: reassure and redirect. Quells anxiety pretty well.


----------



## farsidejunky

Not really. Not unless we happen to be bantering prior to, which wont happen on a "poke" day. 

It really is one of those things that is external to her. It is environmental for me.


----------



## GettingIt_2

farsidejunky said:


> Not really. Not unless we happen to be bantering prior to, which wont happen on a "poke" day.
> 
> It really is one of those things that is external to her. It is environmental for me.


Hmmm . . . I feel like I should be reassured by that, but I'm conflicted. At least if I feel like I'm the cause, I feel like I can do something to fix it. 

But I have realized over the past few years that I assumed way too often that it was me, when it actually had nothing to do with me. So by poking him because I assumed it was me and therefore there must be _something_ I could do to fix it if only he would ADMIT that it was me . . . I would make it about me. 

And once it was about me in that self-fulfilling prophesy sort of way, it was very, very bad for us both. 

Which is why I'm much happier when he just shuts down the poking from the get go.


----------



## MEM2020

If she's not anxious/poking - I don't need space. 

She has choices: 
- Lighten up and remain in my company 
- Go amuse herself elsewhere for a while
- Continue to be poky

Option (3) generally causes me to tell her I am going for a run. 






GettingIt said:


> So her managing her own anxiety, or at least her not expecting you to help, would be best case scenario?
> 
> And really, there is NOTHING anyone could do to help? I HATE it when I ask my husband what I can do and he says nothing, or something like you said. Which basically, to me, boils down to "give me some space." Blah. I don't it when my husband is unavailable and I can't change that. Even when I'm not anxious, knowing that he is unavailable can make me anxious, so I tend to get preemptively anxious about that if I sense that he's going to need space.
> 
> I don't like that I'm like that, BTW. I tend to be harder on myself than he is on me about it. Working on it, with his help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about you far? Anything a wife can do to help her husband back to his A game (besides not poking him)?


----------



## GettingIt_2

MEM11363 said:


> If she's not anxious/poking - I don't need space.
> 
> She has choices:
> - Lighten up and remain in my company
> - Go amuse herself elsewhere for a while
> - Continue to be poky
> 
> Option (3) generally causes me to tell her I am going for a run.


I'm not kidding: I'm getting anxious just reading those choices. 

To me, that IS space you are asking for. I can stay on YOUR terms or I can not have access to you. 

TRIGGER! TRIGGER! TRIGGER!

I'd fail. 

Ugh.


----------



## farsidejunky

You could stop poking.

:scratchhead:


----------



## GettingIt_2

farsidejunky said:


> You could stop poking.
> 
> :scratchhead:


I would if I could. 

I have an A game to be off of too, you know.


----------



## farsidejunky

GettingIt said:


> I would if I could.
> 
> I have an A game to be off of too, you know.


True enough.

The weight of expectations on the dom are heavy.


----------



## GettingIt_2

farsidejunky said:


> True enough.
> 
> The weight of expectations on the dom are heavy.


And never more than when he realizes that being off his A game is the one thing that pushes his sub off of hers.

It's like some awful tragi-comedy.


----------



## MEM2020

GettingIt,

This is why it's important for me to stick to a fairly regular workout schedule. With such a schedule, high stability is in the 80-90 percent range. 

But what you're describing is real. It does happen. 

Why I have such a scripted exit. Babe, I'm off to the gym, can I pick you up anything from grocery store on the way home? 

And then: When I get back, do you want to play: racko, or some other type game we like. 

Offer act of service: subtext - I love you
Request quality time on return: subtext - I love you

This whole abandonment thing is something I had to learn about. 

This is just part of taking care of someone. It isn't difficult. Just requires awareness of their - issues. 





GettingIt said:


> I'm not kidding: I'm getting anxious
> just reading those choices.
> 
> To me, that IS space you are asking for. I can stay on YOUR terms or I can not have access to you.
> 
> TRIGGER! TRIGGER! TRIGGER!
> 
> I'd fail.
> 
> Ugh.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> I'm not kidding: I'm getting anxious just reading those choices.
> 
> To me, that IS space you are asking for. I can stay on YOUR terms or I can not have access to you.
> 
> TRIGGER! TRIGGER! TRIGGER!
> 
> I'd fail.
> 
> Ugh.


What would feel better to you, speaking from the other end?

I think MEM and far would be open to suggestions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> And never more than when he realizes that being off his A game is the one thing that pushes his sub off of hers.
> 
> It's like some awful tragi-comedy.


Oh, GI. This makes me feel so bad for you. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

Poking is something I grew up watching my Mom do to my Dad, and b/c of that (they did not have a healthy marriage) something I have very little tolerance for. Fortunately, that is something my wife rarely ever does to me (she witnessed her parents do the same and to the day her mom still does this to her dad which she can't stand), so it has never been an issue. In this instance we both were able to take the negatives from our parents and turn into positives for us.

I wonder MEM, do your neighbors know about the poking? They look out the window, see you running again, and think "Looks like Mrs MEM is at it again!" :grin2:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

This poking talk is interesting. While reading your post I was pondering our pattern. Over time he learned and accepted the usefulness of poking and I learned to frame them better and eliminate excessiveness.


----------



## Duguesclin

Is poking limited to females?

I do not think so. Sometimes I am in a bad mood or annoyed and I believe what I tend to do would qualify as poking. 

Our fridge is often amazingly empty. When I come back on Friday night after a long drive, I may call and instead of being direct and checking if I should stop on the way to grab something, I may make some unhelpful comments.


----------



## Blondilocks

Dug, you have four (4) sons. Of course, the fridge is going to be empty. How about letting JLD know that you're near starving on Friday nights so have that fridge loaded.

You're right - poking is not solely the tool of women.


----------



## MEM2020

I run for me, not from M2. Afterwards I feel good. 

When I stick to a good lifestyle routine, it's like I have an emotional wetsuit on. I don't lose my sensitivity to, awareness of others. But I myself am not sensitive. 

There is such a vast difference between 'managing my external' reaction to stress, and simply not experiencing mild stressors as discomforting much less painful. 

And I swear from deep down at the bottom of my gut in that place where true certainty lies, that the difference for M2 is gi-fvcking-gantic. 

A relaxed person, is able to be fully outward facing. A tense person is at least partly self focused. I'm not even saying they are selfishly so. But they are spending some real effort managing that ball of stress in their gut. And trying to manage their external behavior such that they don't start acting in a disruptive manner. Because anxiety, that most conductive of emotions, can spread through a group in a manner that is every bit as rapid as it is toxic. 

So for M2 - that difference is vast. A true Emopath sees straight through that - and you are now in an anxiety echo chamber. 

When I'm true calm, my emotions prevail. Her anxiety gets wrapped in this blend of concern, patience, love and acceptance and it melts away. 

And that is the difference between communication and connection. From a good place, I connect to her and she feels way way better. When I'm in a not so good place, we have to rely on word based communication. And for this, that doesn't work so well. 







EllisRedding said:


> Poking is something I grew up watching my Mom do to my Dad, and b/c of that (they did not have a healthy marriage) something I have very little tolerance for. Fortunately, that is something my wife rarely ever does to me (she witnessed her parents do the same and to the day her mom still does this to her dad which she can't stand), so it has never been an issue. In this instance we both were able to take the negatives from our parents and turn into positives for us.
> 
> I wonder MEM, do your neighbors know about the poking? They look out the window, see you running again, and think "Looks like Mrs MEM is at it again!" :grin2:


----------



## samyeagar

I think that because poking at it's heart is a redirection technique from an internal, and often times irrational anxiety, it s a lot easier for the other person to simply disregard it. The problems arise when poking is a normal method of expression of any negative feelings.

As the partner of a poker, I have really had to get to know my wife, really know her, to be able to sort the two out effectively...to know whether to respond with "Ok, so do you want to go try out that new Chinese Buffet?", or Everything's going to be alright baby." In our case, her poking has led to to, nay, required me to get to know her on a very deep and complex level in order to sustain my role as the husband she needs to feel safe with.


----------



## jld

Could you give examples of poking in your relationship, please, Sam?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Livvie

Duguesclin said:


> Is poking limited to females?
> 
> I do not think so. Sometimes I am in a bad mood or annoyed and I believe what I tend to do would qualify as poking.
> 
> Our fridge is often amazingly empty. When I come back on Friday night after a long drive, I may call and instead of being direct and checking if I should stop on the way to grab something, I may make some unhelpful comments.


Hi, I would look at this as more cranky and indirect about a specific issue rather than poking.

I think poking is more of an anxiety driven activity where you are almost looking, searching for things to poke at to direct your energy out.

I think males can and do poke though...


----------



## jld

Oh, Dug is pretty direct about it . . .
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Livvie

I have been in a relationship with a poker man. After a few pokes, I'll say in a playful way oh my goodness you aren't happy with anything are you?! and give him a hug and he would feel better.


----------



## jld

Livvie said:


> I have been in a relationship with a poker man. After a few pokes, I'll say in a playful way oh my goodness you aren't happy with anything are you?! and give him a hug and he would feel better.


He did not need to talk it out at all?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Could you give examples of poking in your relationship, please, Sam?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My wife is a chronic procrastinator when it comes to mundane things, and then her anxiety levels build when it comes to crunch time. The best examples of this are when we have to travel somewhere.

We will have gotten all the packing and stuff done the night before, but she will sleep until the very last minute the next morning, snooze her alarm a couple of times. We will get out the door five minutes later than she wanted, and then everything will be a complaint from there on out...other people going too slow, damned red lights, road construction.

Then we'll be driving down a section of interstate we've driven a million times before, and she'll tell me she's going to laugh when I get a speeding ticket, knowing full well I know how it is policed.

The root of her anxiety in situations like this is not a problem with being late per se, rather others perceiving her as not doing something exactly as she said she would...arriving at 5:00 pm. Arriving at 4:55 or 5:05, she has it in her mind that it will somehow reflect badly on her. I know damned well, that once we get there, no matter what time, five minutes later, all will be forgotten, though she will likely apologize a few times over the course of the evening.

I learned that trying to reassure her that we'll make it fine, nobody will be upset, etc. didn't help calm things. Interestingly, and counter intuitively, those kinds of things would actually provoke an argumentative response in her...and there is my litmus test. She is not a naturally argumentative person with me, so I always probe with the reassurance first, but once I see the argumentativeness coming out, I can see things for what they are...she is anxious, and I just need to lead us through the trigger.


----------



## Wolf1974

Livvie said:


> I have been in a relationship with a poker man. After a few pokes, I'll say in a playful way oh my goodness you aren't happy with anything are you?! and give him a hug and he would feel better.


Well played. And does that help? It would me


I agree poking is done by most humans and most the time it is subconscious. That's why pointing it out is so important. I know when I am distraced I can be short and not realize I am doing that. Once it's pointed out I can recognize and correct it


----------



## jld

Is she a perfectionist, Sam? Or is it just that fear of other people's disapproval, like you mentioned?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Well played. And does that help? It would me
> 
> 
> I agree poking is done by most humans and most the time it is subconscious. That's why pointing it out is so important. I know when I am distraced I can be short and not realize I am doing that. Once it's pointed out I can recognize and correct it


I have to talk it out to feel better. Empathy and words of wisdom really help me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Livvie

jld said:


> Livvie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been in a relationship with a poker man. After a few pokes, I'll say in a playful way oh my goodness you aren't happy with anything are you?! and give him a hug and he would feel better.
> 
> 
> 
> He did not need to talk it out at all?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
Click to expand...

He already would have been talking about it. Honestly, he was frequently in a state of stress and needing my help to deal with it, listen and encourage.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Is she a perfectionist, Sam? Or is it just that fear of other people's disapproval, like you mentioned?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She is not a perfectionist. She is however someone who does not deal well with change, and thrives on routine. She is fine with spontaneous plans to a certain degree, but once a plan is made, deviation from it makes her anxious.

Classic example of that...we make a grocery list before we go shopping. In the winter, we have chili usually once a week. She as a very specific brand of tomato juice that she likes, and about half the time, the store is out of it. That simple change in plan, break in routine, will set her on edge, and she will become hypercritical. Then as soon as we are back home, back into our homebound routines, she relaxes again as if nothing had happened.

From the bits and pieces she says when she is stressed in that particular situation, she feels bad for inconveniencing me in having to go to another store. That mirrors some of the things she says when we are late getting somewhere...making other people wait on us. Her desire, her need for routine, she is projecting her perception of inconvenience onto other people. The kicker is, if others are late, or forget to bring something, complete non issue for her.


----------



## EllisRedding

Duguesclin said:


> Is poking limited to females?
> 
> I do not think so. Sometimes I am in a bad mood or annoyed and I believe what I tend to do would qualify as poking.
> 
> Our fridge is often amazingly empty. When I come back on Friday night after a long drive, I may call and instead of being direct and checking if I should stop on the way to grab something, I may make some unhelpful comments.


My fridge is always empty yet I always see large grocery store charges on the credit card. This has nothing to do with poking, just one of life's great mysteries in my house lol.


----------



## jld

Livvie said:


> He already would have been talking about it. Honestly, he was frequently in a state of stress and needing my help to deal with it, listen and encourage.


Wow, that must have been a heavy load for you. Or were you okay with it?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> My fridge is always empty yet I always see large grocery store charges on the credit card. This has nothing to do with poking, just one of life's great mysteries in my house lol.



_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

I will take this full circle here jld...the type of woman my wife is, in the relationship she had with her ex-husband being the type of person he is...her introspection, her searching for what she was doing to contribute to the problems in her marriage, trying to be a better wife, love him, sex him back into fidelity, is why shes ended up in that abusive marriage for so long. In short, following your advice, which to be fair, she received from a lot of people, was extremely damaging to her...in large part, because it was what she wanted to hear, not what she needed to hear.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Wow, that must have been a heavy load for you. *Or* were you okay with it?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Why the default position that she was not ok with it? I would guess she was ok with that, even if it was a heavy load, and it didn't go on forever.

Most people, regardless of what they say, if they became independently wealthy, would not end up living a lazy carefree life. They may change their career path, they may do volunteer work, but they wouldn't lay on the beach drinking maragritas for the rest of their lives. For sure, they would choose things that made them happy, but they would keep busy with a defacto job of some sort. In short, they would contribute because of their innate need to feel needed. That is how many, if not most people, men and women, feel when it comes to the emotional needs of their partners.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I will take this full circle here jld...the type of woman my wife is, in the relationship she had with her ex-husband being the type of person he is...her introspection, her searching for what she was doing to contribute to the problems in her marriage, trying to be a better wife, love him, sex him back into fidelity, is why shes ended up in that abusive marriage for so long. In short, following your advice, which to be fair, she received from a lot of people, was extremely damaging to her...in large part, because it was what she wanted to hear, not what she needed to hear.


That is why I usually tell women to just leave when the husband is a jerk. I don't see much hope for change, unless by her leaving he has an epiphany.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I have to talk it out to feel better. Empathy and words of wisdom really help me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's great but we aren't all the same pointing it out lighthearted and with affection works for me
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Why the default position that she was not ok with it? I would guess she was ok with that, even if it was a heavy load, and it didn't go on forever.
> 
> Most people, regardless of what they say, if they became independently wealthy, would not end up living a lazy carefree life. They may change their career path, they may do volunteer work, but they wouldn't lay on the beach drinking maragritas for the rest of their lives. For sure, they would choose things that made them happy, but they would keep busy with a defacto job of some sort. In short, they would contribute because of their innate need to feel needed. That is how many, if not most people, men and women, feel when it comes to the emotional needs of their partners.


That is why I was asking her. She might have been okay with it all along. Or it might have been a heavy load that eventually ended the relationship. We don't know if we don't ask.

I think different people have different levels of need for emotional support. Connecting with the person who fits that need can avoid problems later.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> That's great but we aren't all the same pointing it out lighthearted and with affection works for me
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Good enough, Wolf.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

No idea how showing empathy and affection is a heavy load but ok then


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> That is why I was asking her. She might have been okay with it all along. Or it might have been a heavy load that eventually ended the relationship. We don't know if we don't ask.
> 
> I think different people have different levels of need for emotional support. Connecting with the person who fits that need can avoid problems later.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Your wording however was a perfect example of a subtly leading question. Your implied assumption, by using the single word "or" was that she was not OK with it, with the further implication that she should not have been ok with it by putting her in a position to defend why rather than simply share.

Were you ok with that?
You were ok with that?

Two seemingly identical questions, same words and all, with vastly different implications leading to different responses.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> No idea how showing empathy and affection is a heavy load but ok then


Depends on how much he needs, and how much she can handle. Some people can handle more than others.

Important to have the right fit, if you want smooth sailing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Depends on how much he needs, and how much she can handle. Some people can handle more than others.
> 
> Important to have the right fit, if you want smooth sailing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hardly a monumental task to recognize your spouse is stressed and give them a hug.

And why assume it is? She didn't say it was so why assume it


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Your wording however was a perfect example of a subtly leading question. Your implied assumption, by using the single word "or" was that she was not OK with it, with the further implication that she should not have been ok with it by putting her in a position to defend why rather than simply share.
> 
> Were you ok with that?
> You were ok with that?
> 
> Two seemingly identical questions, same words and all, with vastly different implications leading to different responses.


I think you are reading into it. Different people are okay with different needs. I was asking her what she was okay with, because to me it looked like a lot. But to her it might have been fine. 

Again, if we don't ask, we don't know.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

GettingIt said:


> Hmmm . . . I feel like I should be reassured by that, but I'm conflicted. At least if I feel like I'm the cause, I feel like I can do something to fix it.
> 
> But I have realized over the past few years that I assumed way too often that it was me, when it actually had nothing to do with me. So by poking him because I assumed it was me and therefore there must be _something_ I could do to fix it if only he would ADMIT that it was me . . . I would make it about me.
> 
> And once it was about me in that self-fulfilling prophesy sort of way, it was very, very bad for us both.
> 
> Which is why I'm much happier when he just shuts down the poking from the get go.


Why am I reminded of this?

Relationships by Dave Barry


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Hardly a monumental task to recognize your spouse is stressed and give them a hug.
> 
> And why assume it is? She didn't say it was so why assume it


That's the point of asking. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

technovelist said:


> Why am I reminded of this?
> 
> Relationships by Dave Barry


That was funny. Dave Barry is always such a riot. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I think you are reading into it. Different people are okay with different needs. I was asking her what she was okay with, because to me it looked like a lot. But to her it might have been fine.
> 
> Again, if we don't ask, we don't know.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It has been noted that many, if not most people here who interact with you, do so from a defensive point of view. What I just pointed out is precisely why.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> It has been noted that many, if not most people here who interact with you, do so from a defensive point of view. What I just pointed out is precisely why.


Try not to take other people's communication styles personally, Sam. We all communicate a little differently.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Try not to take other people's communication styles personally, Sam. We all communicate a little differently.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There is nothing personal abut it. Your communication style here is leading. If you truly wish to not be met with such defensiveness, I pointed out how you can correct that.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> There is nothing personal abut it. Your communication style here is leading.


I guess that is your interpretation. To me, I am just asking questions. If she feels like responding, she will. If not, she won't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> That's the point of asking.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That must be a heavy load is not a question it's an assumption and a statement. Are you ok with it same thing is a assumption it is a big deal.


Better would be: 

That would seem a heavy load to me, is it to you?

Or

Do you find it a heavy load ?

It really is to bad you aren't as critical of your own statements as much as others.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> There is nothing personal abut it. Your communication style here is leading. If you truly wish to not be met with such defensiveness, I pointed out how you can correct that.


Just saw what you added here. Thanks for sharing that. Helps me better understand your intentions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> That must be a heavy load is not a question it's an assumption and a statement. Are you ok with it same thing is a assumption it is a big deal.
> 
> 
> Better would be:
> 
> That would seem a heavy load to me, is it to you?
> 
> Or
> 
> Do you find it a heavy load ?
> 
> It really is to bad you aren't as critical of your own statements as much as others.


Hmm. I don't recall telling anyone how to ask questions in a way that might feel more acceptable to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> Oh, GI. This makes me feel so bad for you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I know you will say it is not in your nature to do so, but you really are feeling bad for the wrong partner. :|


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Hmm. I don't recall telling anyone how to ask questions in a way that might feel more acceptable to me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yours wasn't a question lol

Hey Sam and I are trying to point something out to you....gloss over as much as you like. Was an honest attempt to be helpful from my end :grin2:


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> I know you will say it is not in your nature to do so, but you really are feeling bad for the wrong partner. :|


You are feeling bad for him? You feel like you are the problem in your relationship?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Yours wasn't a question lol
> 
> Hey Sam and I are trying to point something out to you....gloss over as much as you like. Was an honest attempt to be helpful from my end :grin2:


Thanks, guys! I think we all try to help in our own way here. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

samyeagar said:


> Your wording however was a perfect example of a subtly leading question. Your implied assumption, by using the single word "or" was that she was not OK with it, with the further implication that she should not have been ok with it by putting her in a position to defend why rather than simply share.
> 
> Were you ok with that?
> You were ok with that?
> 
> Two seemingly identical questions, same words and all, with vastly different implications leading to different responses.


Here is an example of a poster (Sam) who was in listening and understanding mode when he read Livvie's comment regarding what would work to diffuse her husband's crankiness. 



jld said:


> Depends on how much he needs, and how much she can handle. Some people can handle more than others.
> 
> Important to have the right fit, if you want smooth sailing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Here is an example of a poster who is in teaching mode re: the same situation. 

This thread, IMO, is rife with lessons on different communication styles--including uncovering the motivation of a poster offering advice. Good stuff!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Would you mind giving an example of *"poking"?* TAM was the first place I ever heard this term.


I never heard of it before either.. it sounds from the replies.. nit picking about things in front of you (a distraction) while not addressing the REAL underlying issue.. 

I'm not a poker... I am very direct.. When I have something on my mind... doesn't matter what it is.... fears, apprehension, embarrassment.. feeling down, stupid reasons, irritation with him, the kids... disappointment.. I open up... I can't say there is much negativity between us -which helps as I wear my heart on my sleeve.... we both are good at doing our part...

I've never had to nag him to get things done (if I offer to help, this goes a long way too)....he's never been upset that the house is a wreck or I'm being lazy sort of thing.. 

The majority of my bad moods are related to outside forces that disrupt our world - the things we can't control... like relationship messes our kids get into ... or vehicles breaking down.. stuff like that...just throws a monkey wrench in our day/ frustrating... 



jld said:


> I think most people are different in their marriages than at work. I know I never had sex with anybody at work.
> 
> *I think the advice to let words roll off one's back and focus on the meaning instead can benefit anyone. It is probably the number one thing I am learning on TAM. *
> 
> I want my boys to know it. Going out into the world, and certainly into a marriage, without being easily offended, will free up their energy for more productive pursuits.


I've had to learn this too.. I can take some things said a little too personal... I share this with my husband too.. and he laughs !... but I NEED that!!.. .. I need him to remind me how silly it is to get flustered thinking I don't belong on this forum, or that people think SAHM's are leeches & hate their children.. some of the things you read here.. it gets under your skin....I think that's pretty human though!...

I end up feeling like ...."you know what - "PEOPLE [email protected]#".. 

The good side is.. it helps you appreciate those in your life who "get you "...love you for you...shortcomings & all.

The thing with me is this..

I never want to get to the place where NOTHING anyone says can influence me.. I don't think that is healthy either.. there is constructive criticism & insightful things we CAN learn from others who are vastly different from ourselves.. I still want to be open to that... I am a curious individual and human nature has always fascinated me...even when it pizzes me off ! 



SimplyAmorous said:


> *Pretty sure Ellis wouldn't think I'd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> about this.. ...we had a grand time.. and the funniest moment was asking them both .... "hmmmm ...so how do you feel about a man being Raped?"..... Ok.. let's not open this can of worms on here!!*





jld said:


> *We really enjoyed the visit, too, SA. We felt so comfortable with your family.
> 
> And I have to tell you, I have thought many times of that Japanese restaurant. Great food.*


With that crazy comment I left .. I don't want anyone to think we were "mocking" it.... it was just how you, Jld, dived into the answering ... giving a couple scenarios how it *can* happen... all from posts you've read here (TAM teaches us so much !).... a little graphic there! ...husband was like "Whoa!- just lay it out there !"... it sure got us laughing !!











EllisRedding said:


> Lol, yeah, I don't think they are one in the same.
> 
> However, *you have to admit, that would be the ultimate troll job if they were *:grin2:


It's because they DO think so much alike.. a very similar worldview on many relationship issues.. If my husband posted here more (yeah not going to happen) & was more long winded.. it would appear we're almost the same too.. I guess this is a case of we've REALLY rubbed off on each other after all these yrs....guess that's what happens...probably true of Jld & Dug too! 



ocotillo said:


> jld,
> 
> A theory in sociology. --That harmful patterns tend to feed off each other in a self-sustaining fashion.
> 
> *SGC spoke of a perception that men sensitive to words are unmanly. I pointed out that the, "Yin" to that, "Yang" is the perception that women are irrational creatures that often don't mean what they say, so you shouldn't take harsh words to heart.
> 
> If that's reality, then so be it. But if you were a woman competing with a male colleague for a supervisory position, would you want to be evaluated under that rubric? I would think that would be a handicap *(?)


 When I read the posts hinting that a man is unmanly if he's a more sensitive type.. I often want to jump in there & comment....

I just see these men as more FEELING over LOGICAL on temperament tests... it has it's pluses & minuses ... a Sensitive man can still learn to conceal it - and deal with it internally.. which is generally in his best interests, and for attraction's sake !.....It's a double edged sword ..

My husband is a Feeler... he has a sensitive nature (but this also makes him empathetic - a plus!)... the way he deals with it.. I just can't complain... he is very understanding of women's emotions !

I can easily see how this perception can be seen as insulting to women though.. that we don't say what we mean...

Even I... "Mrs direct".. can get "overly emotional" .... given a circumstance or some pms...... it's like adding FIRE to my words ... so yeah... there is some truth to this.. (at least with me).. Thankfully he is very understanding & just knows it's ...well.. that time of the month.. take it in stride...I've explained how I sometimes FEEL this "cloud hovering over me" / gloom ...days before my monthly.. he'll joke how he has to get the cage out & put some duct tape over my mouth.. this always makes me laugh.... we have fun with it...


----------



## GettingIt_2

Duguesclin said:


> Is poking limited to females?
> 
> I do not think so. Sometimes I am in a bad mood or annoyed and I believe what I tend to do would qualify as poking.
> 
> Our fridge is often amazingly empty. When I come back on Friday night after a long drive, I may call and instead of being direct and checking if I should stop on the way to grab something, I may make some unhelpful comments.


What kind of unhelpful comments? 

The thing about poking is that it's often in the eyes of the beholder. JLD might not even notice your "unhelpful comments" and find whatever it is you say to be a completely acceptable way to express your desire for her to make sure the fridge is stocked. 

Also, the "eyes of the beholder" might change depending on the beholder's own mental and emotional state at the moment of the poking behavior. For example, I think I might see Dug's behavior as anything from completely passive aggressive bull**** to him just being my endearing husband who needs some TLC--all depending on what went on in my day, where I am in my monthly cycle, how many times I've had to put down the toilet seat that week, etc. 

JLD might be more of of a steady-eddie when it comes to her beholding eyes so that she's less likely to be flapped by Dug's "poking." I can truthfully say that I have no idea from one day to the next how I'd react.


----------



## Livvie

jld said:


> samyeagar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the default position that she was not ok with it? I would guess she was ok with that, even if it was a heavy load, and it didn't go on forever.
> 
> Most people, regardless of what they say, if they became independently wealthy, would not end up living a lazy carefree life. They may change their career path, they may do volunteer work, but they wouldn't lay on the beach drinking maragritas for the rest of their lives. For sure, they would choose things that made them happy, but they would keep busy with a defacto job of some sort. In short, they would contribute because of their innate need to feel needed. That is how many, if not most people, men and women, feel when it comes to the emotional needs of their partners.
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I was asking her. She might have been okay with it all along. Or it might have been a heavy load that eventually ended the relationship. We don't know if we don't ask.
> 
> I think different people have different levels of need for emotional support. Connecting with the person who fits that need can avoid problems later.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
Click to expand...

Here I am to answer the question 

I was okay with having to carry him emotionally, and he really needed it. Soothing his stress, dealing with his moodiness and grumpiness, absorbing it and soothing rather than being reactive. He is absent strong personal coping skills, very different from any other man I have been in a relationship with (I'm 47, divorced, was married for 16 years). He was my one and only relationship (so far) after my divorce.

He is a lovely man and I still love him. But we are not together. What ended it was that he is damaged from childhood and never cared to fix unfair dysfunctional relationship behaviors. Ultrasensitive ongoing triggers due to his low self esteem that made him either lash out or withdraw or withhold over what other people wouldn't even bat an eye about. Crazy making. And, he needed me to play out a childhood dynamic where I was the bad guy and he was the victim and he DEMANDED I take responsibility for his hurt feelings when I had done nothing wrong to him.

I am a good, good woman. Instead of thinking I was also lovely, he reacted to me like I was the wicked witch of the west due to his damage.


----------



## GettingIt_2

samyeagar said:


> In our case, her poking has led to to, nay, required me to get to know her on a very deep and complex level in order to sustain my role as the husband she needs to feel safe with.


And if she is willing to get to know you on the same level (and if you trust her to), then you get some pretty intense intimacy. 

It can be really worthwhile work to provide that safety for your partner. Do you feel that is true? 

What makes each partner feel safe is going to look really different. I have to admit I'm on a mission to figure out what makes men feel "safe." That word is loaded, and I wish I could find another one that would perhaps better communicate what I mean. 

What makes a man feel like he wants, needs and should get to know his wife in that deep intimate way? What makes him want to help her feel safe on her terms?

Telling men they just should do it because they are the man is all well and good: but tell us, men, what does it mean to be a man?

I always end up here in extreme frustration and think the only way I'm going go get what I seek is to somehow BE a man. Ain't happening, lol.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> You are feeling bad for him? You feel like you are the problem in your relationship?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No.


----------



## Livvie

Livvie said:


> jld said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> samyeagar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the default position that she was not ok with it? I would guess she was ok with that, even if it was a heavy load, and it didn't go on forever.
> 
> Most people, regardless of what they say, if they became independently wealthy, would not end up living a lazy carefree life. They may change their career path, they may do volunteer work, but they wouldn't lay on the beach drinking maragritas for the rest of their lives. For sure, they would choose things that made them happy, but they would keep busy with a defacto job of some sort. In short, they would contribute because of their innate need to feel needed. That is how many, if not most people, men and women, feel when it comes to the emotional needs of their partners.
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I was asking her. She might have been okay with it all along. Or it might have been a heavy load that eventually ended the relationship. We don't know if we don't ask.
> 
> I think different people have different levels of need for emotional support. Connecting with the person who fits that need can avoid problems later.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here I am to answer the question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was okay with having to carry him emotionally, and he really needed it. Soothing his stress, dealing with his moodiness and grumpiness, absorbing it and soothing rather than being reactive. He is absent strong personal coping skills, very different from any other man I have been in a relationship with (I'm 47, divorced, was married for 16 years). He was my one and only relationship (so far) after my divorce.
> 
> He is a lovely man and I still love him. But we are not together. What ended it was that he is damaged from childhood and never cared to fix unfair dysfunctional relationship behaviors. Ultrasensitive ongoing triggers due to his low self esteem that made him either lash out or withdraw or withhold over what other people wouldn't even bat an eye about. Crazy making. And, he needed me to play out a childhood dynamic where I was the bad guy and he was the victim and he DEMANDED I take responsibility for his hurt feelings when I had done nothing wrong to him.
> 
> I am a good, good woman. Instead of thinking I was also lovely, he reacted to me like I was the wicked witch of the west due to his damage.
Click to expand...

...I think he may be what they call a "vulnerable narcissist".

This kind of person can't carry their own emotions, let alone effectively navigate anyone else's.


----------



## Wolf1974

Livvie said:


> Here I am to answer the question
> 
> I was okay with having to carry him emotionally, and he really needed it. Soothing his stress, dealing with his moodiness and grumpiness, absorbing it and soothing rather than being reactive. He is absent strong personal coping skills, very different from any other man I have been in a relationship with (I'm 47, divorced, was married for 16 years). He was my one and only relationship (so far) after my divorce.
> 
> He is a lovely man and I still love him. But we are not together. What ended it was that he is *damaged from childhood and never cared to fix unfair dysfunctional relationship behaviors.* Ultrasensitive ongoing triggers due to his low self esteem that made him either lash out or withdraw or withhold over what other people wouldn't even bat an eye about. Crazy making. And, he needed me to play out a childhood dynamic where I was the bad guy and he was the victim and he DEMANDED I take responsibility for his hurt feelings when I had done nothing wrong to him.
> 
> I am a good, good woman. Instead of thinking I was also lovely, he reacted to me like I was the wicked witch of the west due to his damage.


same with my X wife. Too many daddy issues to overcome. Or maybe she could but wasn't interested. This is why I tell people to ask and examine thier partners history. Very telling on how thier relationship future will go


----------



## jld

Livvie said:


> Here I am to answer the question
> 
> I was okay with having to carry him emotionally, and he really needed it. Soothing his stress, dealing with his moodiness and grumpiness, absorbing it and soothing rather than being reactive. He is absent strong personal coping skills, very different from any other man I have been in a relationship with (I'm 47, divorced, was married for 16 years). He was my one and only relationship (so far) after my divorce.
> 
> He is a lovely man and I still love him. But we are not together. What ended it was that he is damaged from childhood and never cared to fix unfair dysfunctional relationship behaviors. *Ultrasensitive ongoing triggers *due to his low self esteem that made him either lash out or withdraw or withhold over what other people wouldn't even bat an eye about. Crazy making. And, he needed me to play out a childhood dynamic where I was the bad guy and he was the victim and *he DEMANDED I take responsibility for his hurt feelings when I had done nothing wrong to him.*
> 
> I am a good, good woman. Instead of thinking I was also lovely, he reacted to me like I was the wicked witch of the west due to his damage.


Great explanation, Livvie. Thank you.

Dealing with an ultrasensitive partner must be draining. AP said once that we are all responsible for our own triggers. Taking that responsibility is a lot of work, but can be very empowering.

That part about taking responsibility for his feelings when you had not done anything wrong sounds like a drag, too. No wonder it did not work out. Asking people to take responsibility for our feelings, whether we feel they are wrong or not, is risky.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

Duguesclin said:


> I am very behind in my shoveling. What I was doing this morning and this afternoon was to cleanup the 3" of ice I could not remove last week because it was too cold. Now my driveway is ready for the next 3" of snow that is starting to come down right now.:smile2:
> 
> About us as communicators: I am a very poor communicator. My ideas come out very complicated and frustrate a lot of people. However I have a very good rapport with people. I can talk about many different subject from the NFL to the Indian caste system.
> 
> JLD is a very effective and focused communicator. But at a given time her interests are much narrower. Like Picasso she has various phases. Right now it is TAM, before it was the economy, politics has been in the mix or homeschooling, etc...


Dug, would you say that these differences between you and JLD contribute to the way your marriage is structured? Well, actually of course they do. But how much? Is it the basis of it?

Poor communicators tend to communicate less; they are less successful at it, it's less satisfying for them, and can be frustrating. Good communicators enjoy it, get satisfaction from it, and feel good when they do it. 

Since the two of you are not compatible in your communication strengths and preferences (you: like to keep it broad and shallow, her: likes it narrow and deep), your dynamic has most communication flowing from her to you. And you're good with that, since you don't have a desire or need to reciprocate. 

And to JLD, that is what has come to feel right and secure, especially given the sort of communication she's experienced from the other men in her life.


----------



## EllisRedding

So for all you pokers (or I guess even those who may direct emotional outbursts at their SO), are both sides in the relationship allowed this? What got me thinking about this, you would probably assume that the male in the relationship is more physically dominating. A wife getting in her H's face, cursing, poking, etc... may seem benign. On the other side, the H doing this to his W could be perceived as being abusive (or a step away from it getting there). We know this is not always the case as men can and are abused as well, but just talking perception and how those whose relationship has this dynamic, how they balance it.


----------



## tpdallas

I think certain things should stay between partners, but sometimes you need perspective from a parent, counselor or friend. 

It's just knowing the boundaries of advice and betrayal.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Great explanation, Livvie. Thank you.
> 
> Dealing with an ultrasensitive partner must be draining. AP said once that we are all responsible for our own triggers. Taking that responsibility is a lot of work, but can be very empowering.
> 
> *That part about taking responsibility for his feelings when you had not done anything wrong sounds like a drag, too. No wonder it did not work out. Asking people to take responsibility for our feelings, whether we feel they are wrong or not, is risky.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's abusive really. No one should pay the price for the sins of the past, those people should be alone with thier issues. You're right no one is responsible for another persons feelings when they weren't caused by that person.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> It's abusive really. No one should pay the price for the sins of the past, those people should be alone with thier issues. You're right no one is responsible for another persons feelings when they weren't caused by that person.


He (Livvie's boyfriend) would say they were. I disagree, but that would not likely change his feelings.

Asking other people to take responsibility for how you feel always puts your power in their hands. You are waiting for them to make you feel better.

The alternative is to make yourself feel better. Then your power stays with you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Duguesclin

GettingIt said:


> Dug, would you say that these differences between you and JLD contribute to the way your marriage is structured? Well, actually of course they do. But how much? Is it the basis of it?
> 
> Poor communicators tend to communicate less; they are less successful at it, it's less satisfying for them, and can be frustrating. Good communicators enjoy it, get satisfaction from it, and feel good when they do it.
> 
> Since the two of you are not compatible in your communication strengths and preferences (you: like to keep it broad and shallow, her: likes it narrow and deep), your dynamic has most communication flowing from her to you. And you're good with that, since you don't have a desire or need to reciprocate.
> 
> And to JLD, that is what has come to feel right and secure, especially given the sort of communication she's experienced from the other men in her life.


I do not really understand your question. Can you clarify?


----------



## GettingIt_2

Wolf1974 said:


> It's abusive really. No one should pay the price for the sins of the past, those people should be alone with thier issues. You're right no one is responsible for another persons feelings when they weren't caused by that person.





jld said:


> He would say they were. I disagree, but that would not likely change his feelings.
> 
> Asking other people to take responsibility for how you feel always puts your power in their hands. You are waiting for them to make you feel better.
> 
> The alternative is to make yourself feel better. Then your power stays with you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's a boundary, nothing more, nothing less. Or call it a threshold. 

When my husband is sad, I feel bound to help him. I WANT to. I NEED to. But we don't have an abusive past, and I don't have a past with another person who took advantage of my love.

I think with deep issues that continue to affect a marriage, as with Livvie's husband, the person with the emotional damage that their partner cannot or will not ameliorate has to step up and 1. get counseling and otherwise work to find relief or 2. end the relationship 

What usually happens is that people with emotional issues will not get help outside the marriage unless their partner makes them via boundary setting. 

When a marriage ends its because one person or the other has upheld a boundary that the other cannot abide.


----------



## GettingIt_2

GettingIt said:


> Dug, would you say that these differences between you and JLD contribute to the way your marriage is structured? Well, actually of course they do. But how much? Is it the basis of it?
> 
> Poor communicators tend to communicate less; they are less successful at it, it's less satisfying for them, and can be frustrating. Good communicators enjoy it, get satisfaction from it, and feel good when they do it.
> 
> Since the two of you are not compatible in your communication strengths and preferences (you: like to keep it broad and shallow, her: likes it narrow and deep), your dynamic has most communication flowing from her to you. And you're good with that, since you don't have a desire or need to reciprocate.
> 
> And to JLD, that is what has come to feel right and secure, especially given the sort of communication she's experienced from the other men in her life.





Duguesclin said:


> I do not really understand your question. Can you clarify?


It's actually sort of a mulit-step essay questions, lol. Let me see if I can break it down a bit. 

1. How do you think that you being a poor communicator and JLD being a good one affects your marriage dynamic?

2. Do you think the fact that you think you are a poor communicator affects how much effort you put into communicating with JLD?

3. Do you think it helps your marriage that you and JLD have lopsided communication abilities? You can listen to her communicate TO you, without really having the reflexive need to reciprocate?


----------



## Duguesclin

GettingIt said:


> It's actually sort of a mulit-step essay questions, lol. Let me see if I can break it down a bit.
> 
> 1. How do you think that you being a poor communicator and JLD being a good one affects your marriage dynamic?
> 
> 2. Do you think the fact that you think you are a poor communicator affects how much effort you put into communicating with JLD?
> 
> 3. Do you think it helps your marriage that you and JLD have lopsided communication abilities? You can listen to her communicate TO you, without really having the reflexive need to reciprocate?


I would say it is a characteristic of our marriage. If I were a better communicator, our relationship would be greatly helped. 

Our personalities are compatible. That is why our marriage is good.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Great explanation, Livvie. Thank you.
> 
> Dealing with an ultrasensitive partner must be draining. AP said once that we are all responsible for our own triggers. Taking that responsibility is a lot of work, but can be very empowering.
> 
> That part about taking responsibility for his feelings when you had not done anything wrong sounds like a drag, too. No wonder it did not work out. Asking people to take responsibility for our feelings, whether we feel they are wrong or not, is risky.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is where our work was centered. I had been the one already owning my own triggers for a few years when we started realizing he has just as many or more and he would try to assign responsibility for them on me. I dealt with that two ways. I either flat out refused and steadily beat a truth drum until his trigger fog lifted or I would go have fun somewhere and refuse to engage in order to allow him to process his own trigger on his own. It worked wonders! We are both MUCH less triggery today than we were when we met.


----------



## farsidejunky

SimplyAmorous said:


> I never heard of it before either.. it sounds from the replies.. nit picking about things in front of you (a distraction) while not addressing the REAL underlying issue..
> 
> I'm not a poker... I am very direct.. When I have something on my mind... doesn't matter what it is.... fears, apprehension, embarrassment.. feeling down, stupid reasons, irritation with him, the kids... disappointment.. I open up... I can't say there is much negativity between us -which helps as I wear my heart on my sleeve.... we both are good at doing our part...
> 
> I've never had to nag him to get things done (if I offer to help, this goes a long way too)....he's never been upset that the house is a wreck or I'm being lazy sort of thing..
> 
> The majority of my bad moods are related to outside forces that disrupt our world - the things we can't control... like relationship messes our kids get into ... or vehicles breaking down.. stuff like that...just throws a monkey wrench in our day/ frustrating...
> 
> 
> 
> I've had to learn this too.. I can take some things said a little too personal... I share this with my husband too.. and he laughs !... but I NEED that!!.. .. I need him to remind me how silly it is to get flustered thinking I don't belong on this forum, or that people think SAHM's are leeches & hate their children.. some of the things you read here.. it gets under your skin....I think that's pretty human though!...
> 
> I end up feeling like ...."you know what - "PEOPLE [email protected]#"..
> 
> The good side is.. it helps you appreciate those in your life who "get you "...love you for you...shortcomings & all.
> 
> The thing with me is this..
> 
> I never want to get to the place where NOTHING anyone says can influence me.. I don't think that is healthy either.. there is constructive criticism & insightful things we CAN learn from others who are vastly different from ourselves.. I still want to be open to that... I am a curious individual and human nature has always fascinated me...even when it pizzes me off !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With that crazy comment I left .. I don't want anyone to think we were "mocking" it.... it was just how you, Jld, dived into the answering ... giving a couple scenarios how it *can* happen... all from posts you've read here (TAM teaches us so much !).... a little graphic there! ...husband was like "Whoa!- just lay it out there !"... it sure got us laughing !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's because they DO think so much alike.. a very similar worldview on many relationship issues.. If my husband posted here more (yeah not going to happen) & was more long winded.. it would appear we're almost the same too.. I guess this is a case of we've REALLY rubbed off on each other after all these yrs....guess that's what happens...probably true of Jld & Dug too!
> 
> When I read the posts hinting that a man is unmanly if he's a more sensitive type.. I often want to jump in there & comment....
> 
> I just see these men as more FEELING over LOGICAL on temperament tests... it has it's pluses & minuses ... a Sensitive man can still learn to conceal it - and deal with it internally.. which is generally in his best interests, and for attraction's sake !.....It's a double edged sword ..
> 
> My husband is a Feeler... he has a sensitive nature (but this also makes him empathetic - a plus!)... the way he deals with it.. I just can't complain... he is very understanding of women's emotions !
> 
> I can easily see how this perception can be seen as insulting to women though.. that we don't say what we mean...
> 
> Even I... "Mrs direct".. can get "overly emotional" .... given a circumstance or some pms...... it's like adding FIRE to my words ... so yeah... there is some truth to this.. (at least with me).. Thankfully he is very understanding & just knows it's ...well.. that time of the month.. take it in stride...I've explained how I sometimes FEEL this "cloud hovering over me" / gloom ...days before my monthly.. he'll joke how he has to get the cage out & put some duct tape over my mouth.. this always makes me laugh.... we have fun with it...


SA:

Nitpicking is the how, not the what.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## GettingIt_2

Duguesclin said:


> I would say it is a characteristic of our marriage. If I were a better communicator, our relationship would be greatly helped.
> 
> Our personalities are compatible. That is why our marriage is good.


LOL! I have even more empathy for JLD after this attempt to draw you out a little more deeply. 

I guess if I want to get to know you better I should take my own advice. Maybe one of these days we can go for a long bike ride together :grin2:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

GettingIt said:


> LOL! I have even more empathy for JLD after this attempt to draw you out a little more deeply.
> 
> I guess if I want to get to know you better I should take my own advice. Maybe one of these days we can go for a long bike ride together :grin2:


LOL!! I know, right? I laughed when I read that.

INTP's definitely struggle with communication. I'm married to one.


----------



## Duguesclin

GettingIt said:


> LOL! I have even more empathy for JLD after this attempt to draw you out a little more deeply.
> 
> I guess if I want to get to know you better I should take my own advice. Maybe one of these days we can go for a long bike ride together :grin2:


The bike rides I do are not great opportunities for talking. I try to maintain a high average and burn close to 1000 calories per hour.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Duguesclin said:


> The bike rides I do are not great opportunities for talking. I try to maintain a high average and burn close to 1000 calories per hour.


I didn't mean we'd be talking: just that to get to know someone like you better, spending time together is a better way. 

Don't worry, I'd be able to keep up. Prefer single track in the woods, but I can adapt.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

GettingIt said:


> LOL! I have even more empathy for JLD after this attempt to draw you out a little more deeply.
> 
> I guess if I want to get to know you better I should take my own advice. Maybe one of these days we can go for a long bike ride together :grin2:


And its not that they aren't deep. They are extremely deep. Its getting them to let you in is part of it. The other part is their answers can seem to miss what you asked or they will start to answer but then somewhere in the middle lift off into abstract land and loses everyone trying to keep up with the logic. So many of them stay silent.


----------



## Duguesclin

Blossom Leigh said:


> And its not that they aren't deep. They are extremely deep. Its getting them to let you in is part of it. The other part is their answers can seem to miss what you asked or they will start to answer but then somewhere in the middle lift off into abstract land and loses everyone trying to keep up with the logic. So many of them stay silent.


What did I miss?


----------



## GettingIt_2

Duguesclin said:


> What did I miss?


For one thing you didn't answer my question about what sort of "unhelpful comments" you make to JLD about the empty fridge!

My husband says I'm the one who wanders off into la-la land when we try to discuss things. He tends to be more focused and honed in; I want to make sure no stone goes unturned. 

I mean, like no pebble.

Or even grain of sand. 

0


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
Sam is genuinely trying to help you. What he has described, via example is a neutral tone. 

I am genuinely curious, where do your children fall on the spectrum of 'tone' sensitivity? Are they all mostly like Dug?

Mostly like you? Or a mix of both of you? 






jld said:


> Try not to take other people's communication styles personally, Sam. We all communicate a little differently.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Duguesclin said:


> What did I miss?


She was looking for a fuller robust description.


----------



## farsidejunky

JLD:

What Sam is illustrating to you is what I have tried and failed to do in the past.

I understand your argument that people should hear through your tone.

The problem is that if you care to reach a person, you should care if your approach is getting past their defenses. 

Yes, it is on them. 

But if you know they are defensive, are told why they are defensive, yet still take the approach that contributed to their defensiveness, it has the look of you trying to get your opinion validated rather than actually trying to help someone.

If you care enough to help, you care enough to find a way to get them to hear you.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## GettingIt_2

farsidejunky said:


> JLD:
> 
> What Sam is illustrating to you is what I have tried and failed to do in the past.
> 
> I understand your argument that people should hear through your tone.
> 
> The problem is that if you care to reach a person, you should care if your approach is getting past their defenses.
> 
> Yes, it is on them.
> 
> But if you know they are defensive, are told why they are defensive, yet still take the approach that contributed to their defensiveness, it has the look of you trying to get your opinion validated rather than actually trying to help someone.
> 
> If you care enough to help, you care enough to find a way to get them to hear you.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Gosh darn it farside, can you teach me to communicate as well as you do in as few words as you use?


----------



## Duguesclin

GettingIt said:


> For one thing you didn't answer my question about what sort of "unhelpful comments" you make to JLD about the empty fridge!
> 
> My husband says I'm the one who wanders off into la-la land when we try to discuss things. He tends to be more focused and honed in; I want to make sure no stone goes unturned.
> 
> I mean, like no pebble.
> 
> Or even grains of sand.
> 
> 0


Like calling home and asking right away if there is anything to eat in an irritated tone. Or saying she goes to the grocery store twice a day (we live 1/4 mile from a nice grocery store) and there is nothing in the fridge.

But it is my fault, I gave her bad habits. When we were in France she got used to buy fresh bread everyday and could buy fresh produce twice a week in an open air market. Now she wants the same here too.

I am not even sure why we have a fridge:grin2:.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> Oh, GI. This makes me feel so bad for you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I know it does. I should have remembered that. If you want to dialog about it we can, but I think most folks would find it sort of boring so maybe we can do it privately. 

But remember, jld, what hurts you does not necessarily hurt me in the same way. 

When I hear Dug say he'd take responsibility after an affair and take you back (my goodness he's even said he'd help you raise a baby you had with an affair partner!) I feel like it would break my heart to hear my husband say that. It would make me feel like everything I felt to be true about his love for me was a lie. You see, I need to feel possessed mind, body and soul by my man. To hear him say he'd take me back after I gave what was his to another man would make me feel that he never felt I belonged to him in the first place. 

JLD, we are different. What threatens our deepest sense of security is different. 

Not every woman is the same at that deep, deep level.


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Sam is genuinely trying to help you. What he has described, via example is a neutral tone.
> 
> I am genuinely curious, where do your children fall on the spectrum of 'tone' sensitivity? Are they all mostly like Dug?
> 
> Mostly like you? Or a mix of both of you?


I think JLD is helping Sam by teaching him to be less sensitive. TAM needs more of that than the other way around.

About our kids, our daughter and older son have remarkable abilities to communicate. Son #2 is like me or even worse. Son #3 and #4 are extroverts and sensitive. They are actually a lot of fun. They will have to manage that sensitivity in the long run.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Duguesclin said:


> Like calling home and asking right away if there is anything to eat in an irritated tone. Or saying she goes to the grocery store twice a day (we live 1/4 mile from a nice grocery store) and there is nothing in the fridge.
> 
> But it is my fault, I gave her bad habits. When we were in France she got used to buy fresh bread everyday and could buy fresh produce twice a week in an open air market. Now she wants the same here too.
> 
> I am not even sure why we have a fridge:grin2:.


If you gave her bad habits, you can give her good ones. 

Dom up my man! :wink2:


----------



## GettingIt_2

Duguesclin said:


> I think JLD is helping Sam by teaching him to be less sensitive. TAM needs more of that than the other way around.


Again, here is an example of when discerning motivation in communication is important. 

Sam should be aware of whether JLD's advice comes from a place of wanting to help Sam, or wanting to help TAM. 

Sam is not TAM. 

(Although there is a rhyme happening, so maybe we should take that into consideration.)


----------



## SimplyAmorous

farsidejunky said:


> SA:
> 
> *Nitpicking is the how, not the what.
> *


 Did I misunderstand? .. I was going by your post (#1369)...how your wife was *nitpicking* about your packing clothes...then other things to insult... you were stumped.. didn't know why she was acting like this...then you didn't find out till months later that she was "freaking out over flying."... saying "So she was poking me as her way of dealing with it. My bet is she wanted me to be agitated with her."..

I don't understand why she'd want you to be agitated with her though.. If that was me.. I'd just be upfront about the anxiety.. that I am Nervous, hope we don't all die.. start trying to soothe myself about how it's safer to take a plane over driving ...getting it out there.. being heard.. somehow it helps to just talk about it.. At least with HIm.. ya know.. 

This could be different with friends or co-workers , depending on what I'm thinking, how close I am with them , if I thought they might judge my thoughts.. whatever it was.. 

Then @samyeagar 's example of his wife *being argumentative* when she is anxious, when she's procrastinated... worried about being late, that someone will be upset... that was his example of Poking... Yes.. it's the HOW .. not the WHAT...

So what if the woman just speaks *the WHAT*...is it not POKING then ??? I am probably over -thinking this.. not following.. .. ha ha


----------



## Duguesclin

GettingIt said:


> If you gave her bad habits, you can give her good ones.
> 
> Dom up my man! :wink2:


The fact is that I like how we eat too. I just wish the fridge was a little fuller.


----------



## Duguesclin

GettingIt said:


> Again, here is an example of when discerning motivation in communication is important.
> 
> Sam should be aware of whether JLD's advice comes from a place of wanting to help Sam, or wanting to help TAM.
> 
> Sam is not TAM.
> 
> (Although there is a rhyme happening, so maybe we should take that into consideration.)


Please keep in mind that JLD was not addressing Sam but Livvie. Why did he feel compelled to get involved?


----------



## MEM2020

Post below - perfect example why Far is the: fairest of them all. 




farsidejunky said:


> JLD:
> 
> What Sam is illustrating to you is what I have tried and failed to do in the past.
> 
> I understand your argument that people should hear through your tone.
> 
> The problem is that if you care to reach a person, you should care if your approach is getting past their defenses.
> 
> Yes, it is on them.
> 
> But if you know they are defensive, are told why they are defensive, yet still take the approach that contributed to their defensiveness, it has the look of you trying to get your opinion validated rather than actually trying to help someone.
> 
> If you care enough to help, you care enough to find a way to get them to hear you.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## ocotillo

SimplyAmorous said:


> When I read the posts hinting that a man is unmanly if he's a more sensitive type.. I often want to jump in there & comment....
> 
> I just see these men as more FEELING over LOGICAL on temperament tests... it has it's pluses & minuses ...


I agree , SA, that some men are more empathetic than others; some men are more thin skinned than others, etc. and they shouldn't be shamed for it.

Ultimately, I think this is a "Mars & Venus" thing. --An area where men and women are so different that they struggle to understand each other. 

In July of 1804, Aaron Burr, the _sitting Vice President_ of the United States shot and fatally wounded founding father, Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Hamilton had written an article critical of Burr's character and this was how they settled it. This was not the first duel for either of the two men either. At this point in their lives both of them had been involved in multiple duels going back years. 

In the grand scheme of things, that wasn't so very long ago and male nature has not changed that much in 200 years. I spoke of an invisible line that most men are aware of. It's real. Insulting another man's mother, wife, sister or daughter is a very good way to cross that line, but there are plenty of others. 

Marriage and interactions with women in general is a sphere where those "rules" are completely inverted, and rightly so. The way a man treats women says an awful lot about his honor and integrity, but at the same time it is not male nature to shrug words off and never has been.


----------



## farsidejunky

GettingIt said:


> Gosh darn it farside, can you teach me to communicate as well as you do in as few words as you use?


Ty, but Sam's illustration was the wording I could not visualize on my own. Thank him.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## GettingIt_2

Duguesclin said:


> Please keep in mind that JLD was not addressing Sam but Livvie. Why did he feel compelled to get involved?


Did you pose that question to Sam? We can only guess, but he is the best source for an answer to that question. 

Unless you are working from the assumption that what Sam is saying is not actually a reflection of what he believes. 

That assumption seems to happen a lot on forums, and in relationships. 

People want to talk about what they want to talk about, and thus try to make that the topic of every discussion even when it's not. Get multiple people in the same thread doing that and you've got the usual TAM cluster cluck.


----------



## jld

I was not sure why Sam got involved, either. Sam said it was because I mentioned how defensive people get about my posts. He said he is trying to help me.

To me, that whole framework looks co-dependent. We are all expected to protect each other's feelings somehow. 

I see the advantages to that, especially in a workplace, or marketplace. But TAM is not the marketplace. We are not really selling anything here. No one is making money.

I think my ideas are helpful. But if someone does not want to use them, if they want to insist their wife carry half the load, or whatever way they disagree with me, then they are free to do as they wish.

I think protecting people's feelings at the expense of being honest with them is not truly helping them. I think it makes for weak people, and weak marriages.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I was not sure why Sam got involved, either. Sam said it was because I mentioned how defensive people get about my posts. He said he is trying to help me.
> 
> To me, that whole framework looks co-dependent. We are all expected to protect each other's feelings somehow.
> 
> I see the advantages to that, especially in a workplace, or marketplace. But TAM is not the marketplace. We are not really selling anything here. No one is making money.
> 
> I think my ideas are helpful. But if someone does not want to use them, if they want to insist their wife carry half the load, or whatever way they disagree with me, then they are free to do as they wish.
> 
> I think protecting people's feelings at the expense of being honest with them is not truly helping them. I think it makes for weak people, and weak marriages.


It only matters if you care to reach that person.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> It only matters if you care to reach that person.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I am not trying to reach Sam. I was asking Livvie, and she seemed fine with it.

ETA: Sam is not the kind of person my message was meant for.


----------



## farsidejunky

I was speaking in a broader sense.

Ignoring truth makes it no less truthful.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I was speaking in a broader sense.
> 
> Ignoring truth makes it no less truthful.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Far, what truth do you think I am ignoring?

I think the truth is that life is easier when we don't take every last thing, including how another poster asks a question, personally.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Far, what truth do you think I am ignoring?
> 
> I think the truth is that life is easier when we don't take every last thing, including how another poster asks a question, personally.


I agree.

But sometimes we have to tailor the message to someone who does not know how to do that.

If we care enough to try to teach, we should care enough to find the best method for the student to receive.

You majored in teaching. Do all people learn the same way? Did you study learning styles in your schooling?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## GettingIt_2

JLD, do you feel like you have to compete for an audience here? That if you could talk to people one on one, they would be more receptive to your message?


----------



## Livvie

I think people are picking on JLD way too much for how she phrased a question. We aren't in court...


----------



## farsidejunky

Livvie said:


> I think people are picking on JLD way too much for how she phrased a question. We aren't in court...


JLD, do you feel like I am picking on you?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

Dug,
Sam is trying to help JLD. I believe his tone was neutral. He was just saying what he believes to be true. 

Before dismissing his feedback you might consider that Far and I agree with him. And the reason that matters is that Far and I both like and respect JLD. So our intentions are a known quantity. 

If you don't help JLD understand and accept this theme, she will continue to have a more painful experience on TAM than necessary. 





Duguesclin said:


> Please keep in mind that JLD was not addressing Sam but Livvie. Why did he feel compelled to get involved?


----------



## farsidejunky

MEM11363 said:


> Dug,
> Sam is trying to help JLD. I believe his tone was neutral. He was just saying what he believes to be true.
> 
> Before dismissing his feedback you might consider that Far and I agree with him. And the reason that matters is that Far and I both like and respect JLD. So our intentions are a known quantity.
> 
> If you don't help JLD understand and accept this theme, she will continue to have a more painful experience on TAM than necessary.


QFT.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## GettingIt_2

farsidejunky said:


> I agree.
> 
> *But sometimes we have to tailor the message to someone who does not know how to do that.*
> 
> If we care enough to try to teach, we should care enough to find the best method for the student to receive.
> 
> You majored in teaching. Do all people learn the same way? Did you study learning styles in your schooling?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I had basically this same conversation over days and days with a poster on another relationship forum. He was more like JLD in his approach: speak the truth, and even if they don't like it, they at least got the benefit of my wisdom.

When I pointed out that he's got good advice, but that he's a crappy teacher, he said he wasn't about to change for somebody else. He said that would be manipulation, and he wouldn't do that and he doesn't trust people who do it. He would put himself out there as he was without considering who he was talking to and let the chips fall where they may, that he wasn't worried about being popular. 

I was sort of taken aback to hear that some people view attempts to understand a poster and give advice so that it can best be heard as a type of manipulation, or as "telling them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear." I always considered that the communication loop cannot be closed until there is understanding on both sides. It takes a lot of work, but it's really the only thing that gets real results as far as transmitting advice that you want the listener to actually be able to use in THEIR life and THEIR situation. 

From that conversation I realized that, at the end of the day, it is our own insecurities that drive how we communicate. And EVERYONE has insecurities.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> JLD, do you feel like you have to compete for an audience here? That if you could talk to people one on one, they would be more receptive to your message?


I don't think I am competing for anything. And I am always puzzled by that "seeking validation" claim. 

To me, it is like looking at green grass, and saying, "There's some green grass." And then having people say, "No! That grass is black." And I look at it again, and the grass is still looking green to me.

I think the whole "Protect my feelings" model is extremely limited. It might make people of a certain mindset feel better, but it is not going to bring the freedom that "Don't take other people's opinions personally" will.

Some people will be receptive to my message. Other people never will be. It took MEM a few months to hear me. He, too, was defensive at first.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> Some people will be receptive to my message. Other people never will be. It took MEM a few months to hear me. He, too, was defensive at first.


I think the point a few of us are trying to make, JLD, is that it took MEM a_ few months to hear you._

Like it or not, you ARE competing. You risk losing your audience to those who are more efficient communicators.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> I think the point a few of us are trying to make, JLD, is that it took MEM a_ few months to hear you._
> 
> Like it or not, you ARE competing. You risk losing your audience to those who are more efficient communicators.


That's okay. I am not making any money doing this. Any opinion I share is an offering.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> That's okay. I am not making any money doing this. Any opinion I share is an offering.


So you don't care? I don't believe that.

Please answer my question regarding learning styles.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> Dug,
> Sam is trying to help JLD. I believe his tone was neutral. He was just saying what he believes to be true.
> 
> Before dismissing his feedback you might consider that Far and I agree with him. And the reason that matters is that Far and I both like and respect JLD. So our intentions are a known quantity.
> 
> If you don't help JLD understand and accept this theme, she will continue to have a more painful experience on TAM than necessary.


But I learn from that, too. I see people's characters better. Just like I did not know people were having so many problems in their marriages, I did not realize they would be so upset by my message. I think there is a link between the two.

I think Sam is trying to protect his own feelings by asking me to change my presentation. He is very sensitive, and wants to hear things a certain way so as to not feel hurt. I do not say things in a way that he finds acceptable, and so he wants me to change how I say it.

Again, if I were in this to sell something, I would have to think about a different delivery.

But the truth of the matter is that this conflict is beyond words, MEM. My message, however presented, is not going to resonate with Sam or Wolf or Gus or some others. My message is going to be rejected by that kind of man.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> That's okay. I am not making any money doing this. Any opinion I share is an offering.


That is how that poster on the other site I was discussing this with felt. He offered, and those who could hear, learned. Those who could not were lost to him, but that did not concern him. 

Once I understood that, I understood him much better, and his posts actually made more sense to me. Again, discerning the motivation of a person offering advice can be useful in knowing how to use that advice. 

I think most of us, consciously or subconsciously, try to make sense of the person behind the words and the emoticons. At least I do. I cannot get away from it. I can't help but be curious about people as a first response--the advice I have to offer is always the secondary consideration. That makes me a different sort of communicator than you, that is all.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> But I learn from that, too. I see people's characters better. Just like I did not know people were having so many problems in their marriages, I did not realize they would be so upset by my message. I think there is a link between the two.
> 
> I think Sam is trying to protect his own feelings by asking me to change my presentation. He is very sensitive, and wants to hear things a certain way so as to not feel hurt. I do not say things in a way that he finds acceptable, and so he wants me to change how I say it.
> 
> Again, if I were in this to sell something, I would have to think about a different delivery.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that this conflict is beyond words, MEM. My message, however presented, is not going to resonate with Sam or Wolf or Gus or some others. My message is going to be rejected by that kind of man.


The flaw in your methodology is arrogance of righteousness.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> So you don't care? I don't believe that.
> 
> Please answer my question regarding learning styles.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Far, I hurt for you. I hurt that our conversation has to be this direct. But I am glad it can be. Thank you for that freedom, MEM.

Men who need women to care for them emotionally are vulnerable. They really and truly need that care. Some might be able to need it less, but they will always need it somewhat.

My message is meant to help them need it less. But that requires a great deal of inner strengthening. And some men are just not willing or perhaps able to do it. 

But there are women, like, imo, GI or Blossom, who are just fine with that kind of man. They really enjoy that kind of man! They like to take care of men and make them feel good. And they do it very well.

We all have our own message here. And ultimately we would be wise to, "Take what works for you, and leave the rest."

Will address the teaching thing in a minute.


----------



## EllisRedding

GettingIt said:


> When I hear Dug say he'd take responsibility after an affair and take you back (my goodness he's even said he'd help you raise a baby you had with an affair partner!) I feel like it would break my heart to hear my husband say that. It would make me feel like everything I felt to be true about his love for me was a lie. You see, I need to feel possessed mind, body and soul by my man. To hear him say he'd take me back after I gave what was his to another man would make me feel that he never felt I belonged to him in the first place.
> .


I am glad you mentioned this. My wife knows if she couldn't keep her pants on (except for me of course  ) it is over, there is no coming back. I truly love my wife more than anything, but there are no if, and, or buts about it. The minute I find out divorce papers would be drawn up. Help raise a love child, gtfo lol! Goes the same with roles reversed, if I was stupid enough to break our vows, I would walk away, wouldn't even give her the chance to think about reconciling b/c she doesn't need someone in her life who would $h1t on everything we built together. I think she would be insulted if I felt otherwise, and I feel that would be a horrible reflection on our marriage. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed above are solely those of EllisRedding. :grin2:


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> But I learn from that, too. I see people's characters better. Just like I did not know people were having so many problems in their marriages, I did not realize they would be so upset by my message. I think there is a link between the two.
> 
> I think Sam is trying to protect his own feelings by asking me to change my presentation. He is very sensitive, and wants to hear things a certain way so as to not feel hurt. I do not say things in a way that he finds acceptable, and so he wants me to change how I say it.
> 
> Again, if I were in this to sell something, I would have to think about a different delivery.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that this conflict is beyond words, MEM. *My message, however presented, is not going to resonate with Sam or Wolf or Gus or some others. My message is going to be rejected by that kind of man.*


This has proven to be quite the self fulfilling prophesy for you, JLD. 

**Spoken from my "people-oriented" approach to communication, to you, in your "message oriented" approach.** 

Wait. I think I just realized something! Not only do we all have gender orientations and power orientations, we also have communication orientations!


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> The flaw in your methodology is arrogance of righteousness.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I'm sorry you feel that way, far. I believe in my message.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> *Men who need women to care for them emotionally are vulnerable*. They really and truly need that care. Some might be able to need it less, but they will always need it somewhat.


That describes every man who loves a woman, including Dug.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> We all have our own message here. And ultimately we would be wise to, "Take what works for you, and leave the rest."


I has nothing to do with what you are trying to communicate, JLD. That is what many of us are trying to tell you. The message is not the problem. The delivery is the problem.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way, far. I believe in my message.


See my last post. It is not the message. It is the delivery.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I agree.
> 
> But sometimes we have to tailor the message to someone who does not know how to do that.
> 
> If we care enough to try to teach, we should care enough to find the best method for the student to receive.
> 
> You majored in teaching. Do all people learn the same way? Did you study learning styles in your schooling?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I was a high school teacher. There was not a lot of talk about that in my training courses.

And I only taught for a few years. I was disappointed with how lazy students were, and how their parents covered for them. They did not seem to want the best for them. I am certainly not like that with my kids!

I was probably too subject-centered for high school. But I was not motivated enough to do grad study to be able to teach at the college level. And even there, you are still dealing with laziness.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I was a high school teacher. There was not a lot of talk about that in my training courses.
> 
> And I only taught for a few years. I was disappointed with how lazy students were, and how their parents covered for them. They did not seem to want the best for them. I am certainly not like that with my kids!
> 
> I was probably too subject-centered for high school. But I was not motivated enough to do grad study to be able to teach at the college level. And even there, you are still dealing with laziness.


I understand and don't disagree.

But this post emotes without really answering the question as to whether or not all people learn the same way.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> That describes every man who loves a woman, including Dug.


You know what I mean, GI. 

Dug does not need his hand held. He can hear a message any way it is said. He does not need encouragement. Does not need me to make him feel safe.

I do take care of the family. I love to be with him. I like having sex with him. 

And he is so flexible. It makes my life with him very easy.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I has nothing to do with what you are trying to communicate, JLD. That is what many of us are trying to tell you. The message is not the problem. The delivery is the problem.


I think the message is the problem, far. It is not palatable to some people. It is probably just not meant for them.


----------



## farsidejunky

GettingIt said:


> This has proven to be quite the self fulfilling prophesy for you, JLD.
> 
> **Spoken from my "people-oriented" approach to communication, to you, in your "message oriented" approach.**
> 
> Wait. I think I just realized something! Not only do we all have gender orientations and power orientations, we also have communication orientations!


Interesting thought, GI.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I think the message is the problem, far. It is not palatable to some people. It is probably just not meant for them.


JLD:

Sam
Mem
Me
GI
Wolf

Are all telling you the same thing. Yet, you still think it is the message? Who has the problem with pride again?


----------



## jld

They were never going to hear my message, GI. They have an emotional dependence on women that prevents it.

You cannot make a true sub into a true dom. That is the conclusion I have come to.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> JLD:
> 
> Sam
> Mem
> Me
> GI
> Wolf
> 
> Are all telling you the same thing. Yet, you still think it is the message? Who has the problem with pride again?


Far, if I thought I were wrong, I would tell you. 

I don't think it is the delivery. I was just as direct with MEM. He finally heard it.

Some men simply cannot. It was not meant for them.


----------



## Mr The Other

Often when people have a panacea remedy, it relates to their own relationship. Sorry to make this personal, but Jld clearly loves Dug very much. If he was bad at listening, it is better for her to blame it on him being male rather than on him personally. Therefore, it make sense to give the same advice to every man.

That said, I often give similar advice myself and the worst excess tends not to be people like Jld, who are sincere and loving in their posts. There are plenty of posters on here who just dislike the other sex, whereas Jld genuinely does care. 

I think.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Far, if I thought I were wrong, I would tell you.
> 
> I don't think it is the delivery. I was just as direct with MEM. He finally heard it.
> 
> Some men simply cannot. It was not meant for them.


What if they could if you were to adjust your delivery?

Do you not think you could make more of an impact?

If it matters enough to say, it matters enough to say it in a way that it is understood.


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> Far, if I thought I were wrong, I would tell you.


You need to consider this possibility a little more often.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> What if they could if you were to adjust your delivery?
> 
> Do you not think you could make more of an impact?
> 
> If it matters enough to say, it matters enough to say it in a way that it is understood.


Far, I don't even know that I could do that. We always end up being ourselves. 

I am direct. I always have been. If I were in sales, I would have to be very careful. 

Half my family is in sales, btw. I am not unfamiliar with some of the things needed to do that. Grew up with Zig Ziglar, Og Mandino, PMA and the like. 

But it was so false. So image-based and superficial. At least what I saw in my family.

And then I met Dug. Total substance. An engineer who not only grew up on a farm, but loved manual labor. The total opposite of my dad, who did as little as he could get away with.

Dug is the real deal. A real man. Hard worker, intelligent, emotionally independent. I could not help but respect him. And I am sure that is why we have not had the kinds of serious problems in our marriage that I read about on TAM. 

And honestly, that is most of the reason I am here. To share what I think has worked for us and could work for at least some others. 

The other reason is that I enjoy introspection, and TAM offers many opportunities for that.


----------



## MEM2020

GettingIt,
If you will humor me in a short exercise. 

I'd like your totally raw feed on the following set of responses to a scenario. If you are game, I'd like 2 scores on a scale of 1-10 for each statement. 10 is the best, 1 is the worst. 

The first is for objective clarity. The second is for tone effectiveness. Tone effectiveness is an admittedly subjective ranking of the impact the tone has on the likelihood of the message being accepted. And for ranking tone - please emulate how you think the 'average' TAM participant would respond. 

In my experience, it is difficult but possible to achieve both. 

The scenario: 
Guy in a troubled marriage that has since ended in bitter divorce comes on TAM and posts the following (this is from an actual long ago post). And for context the marriage wasn't physically abusive and the H is about 6" taller and 80 pounds heavier than his wife. 

Husband:
Yesterday morning my wife kept poking me. She kept doing it. I was really patient. Finally I reached my breaking point and I yelled and cursed at her. I hate when she does that. 

Brief analysis: 
It was obvious from his last statement that this type of incident was part of their pattern of interaction. 

The range of responses: 
1. Shy of striking them, that is the weakest possible reaction to a much smaller partner.
2. Thats the adult equivalent of an adult temper tantrum. How do you think it feels when her much, much larger partner loses control like that? 
3. If you had a 'do over', what would you do differently?
4. If you have a 'do over' would you do anything differently?
5. Given your size differential, do you think that type reaction frightens your wife?
6. In my experience, anger driven outbursts (on my part) reduce my wife's trust in me, and love for me.
7. Do you think your response is helpful or harmful to the marriage.
8. Your wife isn't here, so we can only focus on your part of this. Given that, do you believe your response had a helpful, harmful or neutral impact on your marriage?





GettingIt said:


> I had basically this same conversation over days and days with a poster on another relationship forum. He was more like JLD in his approach: speak the truth, and even if they don't like it, they at least got the benefit of my wisdom.
> 
> When I pointed out that he's got good advice, but that he's a crappy teacher, he said he wasn't about to change for somebody else. He said that would be manipulation, and he wouldn't do that and he doesn't trust people who do it. He would put himself out there as he was without considering who he was talking to and let the chips fall where they may, that he wasn't worried about being popular.
> 
> I was sort of taken aback to hear that some people view attempts to understand a poster and give advice so that it can best be heard as a type of manipulation, or as "telling them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear." I always considered that the communication loop cannot be closed until there is understanding on both sides. It takes a lot of work, but it's really the only thing that gets real results as far as transmitting advice that you want the listener to actually be able to use in THEIR life and THEIR situation.
> 
> From that conversation I realized that, at the end of the day, it is our own insecurities that drive how we communicate. And EVERYONE has insecurities.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Dug does not need his hand held. He can hear a message any way it is said. He does not need encouragement. Does not need me to make him feel safe.


I agree with you, jld, but it took me a long time to understand what you were saying.

There is very little that can't be spun either positively or negatively depending upon how you express it.

Opening up your heart to a woman; caring about what she thinks about you *is* vulnerability. And that's not the same thing as a little boy wanting to be patted on the back 

It would hurt if my wife thought I was a, "despicable fool."


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> You know what I mean, GI.
> 
> Dug does not need his hand held. He can hear a message any way it is said. He does not need encouragement. Does not need me to make him feel safe.
> .


And you've just described my husband and probably most men. 

Dug is not different, jld. He has emotional needs, and he needs you to fulfil them. 

You object to a very small subset of very hurt men you encounter on TAM, most specifically in CWI. 

That is not a fair representation of most men. It's probably not even a fair representation of those men under normal circumstances.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> And you've just described my husband and probably most men.
> 
> Dug is not different, jld. He has emotional needs, and he needs you to fulfil them.
> 
> You object to a very small subset of very hurt men you encounter on TAM, most specifically in CWI.
> 
> That is not a fair representation of most men. It's probably not even a fair representation of those men under normal circumstances.


That is not true about your husband, and you know it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

MEM I've got to get dinner on the table, but I will respond to your quiz this evening!


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> That is not true about your husband, and you know it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Can you tell me how you know this to be true? Or give some example of a time when you found it not to be true. 

Like you have said about Dug, my husband isn't perfect either. Some days he does not behave as I wish he would, but we all have to live with the imperfections of our partners!


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> Can you tell me how you know this to be true? Or give some example of a time when you found it not to be true.
> 
> Like you have said about Dug, my husband isn't perfect either. Some days he does not behave as I wish he would, but we all have to live with the imperfections of our partners!


Think of the things you have written in the social group, or in offline writing. 

He is not like Dug at all.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> That is not true about your husband, and you know it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This right here. 

This is at the crux of the issue.

JLD, I don't know what it will take to reach you.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
Below you made an assertion about GettingIt. In the US, you've called her a 'perjurer'. Turns out the legal definition of perjury has three components.

1. It ain't true
2. The speaker KNOWS it ain't true
3. It is material 






jld said:


> That is not true about your husband, and you know it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I agree with you, jld, but it took me a long time to understand what you were saying.
> 
> There is very little that can't be spun either positively or negatively depending upon how you express it.
> 
> Opening up your heart to a woman; caring about what she thinks about you *is* vulnerability. And that's not the same thing as a little boy wanting to be patted on the back
> 
> It would hurt if my wife thought I was a, "despicable fool."


Where does despicable fool come into it?

I just want little boys to give up their capes and start being men. I think that is the fastest way to turn around most marriages. It is the fastest, though perhaps most difficult way, to get people out of pain.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

Pluto2 said:


> You need to consider this possibility a little more often.


What makes you think she doesn't?

She and I don't always agree and I've found her quite willing to consider differing viewpoints. 

IMHE.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Below you made an assertion about GettingIt. In the US, you've called her a 'perjurer'. Turns out the legal definition of perjury has three components.
> 
> 1. It ain't true
> 2. The speaker KNOWS it ain't true
> 3. It is material


I have known GI for two years. We have had very deep talks in the social group. I absolutely think what I said.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> Think of the things you have written in the social group, or in offline writing.
> 
> He is not like Dug at all.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am thinking of all that. I think he goes above and beyond what Dug has to do for you. And remember jld, he works at home. He does not have the luxury or the benefit of being away from me from long stretches. 

When I need or want something, he is always available to me. Sometimes he has to tell me "no." 

If you are uncomfortable with brining up an example, PM me and I'll let you know if it's okay to discuss here.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Where does despicable fool come into it?


In her world, it's the worst possible thing she could possibly think about me. --Something so terrible that her faith forbids thinking it about other people. 

Although that exists almost entirely as an abstraction, it is still a vulnerability, which was what I was driving at. 

To assign weight to another person's thoughts is to make yourself vulnerable. The opposite is to be indifferent to what they think and I'm not sure love is even possible in that event. (At least as I understand the term.)




jld said:


> I just want little boys to give up their capes and start being men. I think that is the fastest way to turn around most marriages. It is the fastest, though perhaps most difficult way, to get people out of pain.


I understand what you're saying and I think it's a good message, when applicable. But you have a tendency to express it in absolutes. 

Like I tried to illustrate in the comparison between Jesus and Zeus, there is a big, big difference between "mature" emotions and "immature" emotions.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> I am thinking of all that. I think he goes above and beyond what Dug has to do for you. And remember jld, he works at home. He does not have the luxury or the benefit of being away from me from long stretches.
> 
> When I need or want something, he is always available to me. Sometimes he has to tell me "no."
> 
> If you are uncomfortable with brining up an example, PM me and I'll let you know if it's okay to discuss here.


Just pm'd the list. 

GI, Dug is an emotionally independent man. That is what I am talking about. Not that he provides for our family or would never cheat on me. I would agree that that covers a lot of men.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> In her world, it's the worst possible thing she could possibly think out me.
> 
> Although that exists almost entirely as an abstraction, it is still a vulnerability, which was what I was driving at.
> 
> To assign weight to another person's thoughts is to make yourself vulnerable. The opposite is to be indifferent to what they think and I'm not sure love is even possible in that event. (At least as I understand the term.)


I am sure Dug cares what I think about him, too. But he is willing to earn my respect. He knows that is the only way he will truly get it.



> I understand what you're saying and I think it's a good message, when applicable. But you have a tendency to express it in absolutes.
> 
> Like I tried to illustrate in the comparison between Jesus and Zeus, there is a big, big difference between "good" emotions and "bad" emotions.


This is my thinking. Even if a man just stops whining, starts listening, learns to hear his wife even through her anger, stops running out of the room when she gets mad, that is an improvement. He does not have to do it 100% right away.

But the message on TAM is often so opposite. Leave the room. Show her who's boss. Don't put up with that. Demand respect.

That message does not offer room for growth. It is all about control.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

It's getting awfully heated in here....Jld....came across this emoticon & thought of you.... 




ocotillo said:


> I agree , SA, that some men are more empathetic than others; some men are more thin skinned than others, etc. and they shouldn't be shamed for it.
> 
> Ultimately,* I think this is a "Mars & Venus" thing. --An area where men and women are so different that they struggle to understand each other. *


 I read some of this book about 10 yrs before I landed on TAM.....you know what I thought when I read the chapter on men .... "My husband isn't anything like this !".. I remember it speaking about sports & competition ....honestly he could care less about that stuff.... He's also a heck of a good listener.. I get what I need from him as with any girlfriend... though he could stand to talk more....(he's typical guy there I guess)... 



jld said:


> *I have to talk it out to feel better. Empathy and words of wisdom really help me.*


I need to talk it out too.. space does not work for me.. that would only escalate me.. Being heard / understood can change the world - at least mine.... I neeeeed that in a partner. 



jld said:


> *I think protecting people's feelings at the expense of being honest with them is not truly helping them. I think it makes for weak people, and weak marriages.*


 I look at this a little differently...I think...

My reason for being open & honest is for clarity, for understanding.. yeah -even if it stings.. so we can uproot. and grow together... basically to bring us closer.. also if I don't do this.. I'd slowly start to build resentment, like something is missing.. I can't be myself.. he doesn't really KNOW ME or how I REALLY FEEL... 

Which wouldn't be very healthy...I'd feel like I was wearing a mask.. too much of this.. and I might start wondering if I can find someone more compatible over the fence... I just wouldn't like it [email protected]#

I need to be accepted for who I am.. where I am...How I am.... This however.. doesn't mean I should act any old way.. but bring my "best self-aware self " to the table in all these exchanges.. I do try! 



jld said:


> *Asking other people to take responsibility for how you feel always puts your power in their hands. You are waiting for them to make you feel better.
> 
> The alternative is to make yourself feel better. Then your power stays with you.*


 You speak often on this *power exchange*.. I get a little lost... does it matter whose power it is ... or even if one is weaker in a moment, especially in a relationship where we love...the purpose is to go forth together, encourage & lift each other up on down days...ya know.. the whole two is better than one.. suffering each others burdens, so to speak.. 

Obviously some of that can become Co-dependent , if one is abusive or neglectful.. always a balance...


----------



## jld

I don't mind the heat. I really believe in my ideas.

I do feel bad about getting into social group things out here. That does not seem right.

And I feel bad for GI. We have certainly argued, but I care about her. I am always amazed at how oppositely we see things, though.


----------



## jld

Honestly, I feel sick about discussing anything from the social group out here. We have bared our souls in there. 

D/s is almost a religion to me. It is that deep in my soul. It is where my ideas on marriage come from.

And key among them is a strong dominant. A true dominant. Not a dominant held up by a submissive.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> They were never going to hear my message, GI. They have an emotional dependence on women that prevents it.
> 
> You cannot make a true sub into a true dom. That is the conclusion I have come to.


Lol. JLD. It's not only the message but your obvious complete lack of understanding on what others are saying. You clearly haven't heard anything I have said if you think I have emotional dependence or submissive to women. But I told my Gf this after I stopped laughing. I said baby did you know I am emotionally dependent on you?? 


She said go put on your cape and play outside. Lol


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

You two - you and GettingIt - have broken by triangulation machine. That machine is what I use to 'search' for the truth. 

No one else has explained to me WHY M2 does what she does half as well as you have. And no one has predicted how she would respond to certain changes as well. 

Thing is - GettingIt is M2's psychological twin. The Germans called it a - Doppelgänger. Said that everyone on earth had a visual twin. It's likely just a function of population size. 

But the beauty of a board is that it removes the distraction of appearance. And behaviorally GettingIt is dead on like M2. 








jld said:


> I don't mind the heat. I really believe in my ideas.
> 
> I do feel bad about getting into social group things out here. That does not seem right.
> 
> And I feel bad for GI. We have certainly argued, but I care about her. I am always amazed at how oppositely we see things, though.


----------



## Wolf1974

lifeistooshort said:


> What makes you think she doesn't?
> 
> She and I don't always agree and I've found her quite willing to consider differing viewpoints.
> 
> IMHE.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Really? Hasn't been my experience here. That maybe more to do with how she looks down on men. Maybe she is more willing to listen to you dunno


----------



## Mr The Other

I confess, that in my marriage that brought me here, I had listened, understood, but at some point needed a partnership with someone willing to contribute towards the relationship. The advice I generally got was make it clear and get ready to move on, it was good advice. However, i was also advised that if I listened and heard, it would become clear or even implications that I was abusive. This latter advice was terrible and not useful at a very vulnerable time. 

I learned that advice had not actually come from paying attention to what I was saying, but was a standard view that would hit in some targets and not others. I can see the many mistakes I made in the marriage, but the cookie-cutter advice I had in this case was off and indeed hurtful.

I will add to this that there are cases where the advice would have been correct. I am glad that MEM11363 has benefited. However, I always think it is a good idea to ask questions and probe a little more to understand posters better. And if the conclusion is always the same, it suggests a certain dogmatism.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> I don't mind the heat. I really believe in my ideas.
> 
> I do feel bad about getting into social group things out here. That does not seem right.
> 
> And I feel bad for GI. We have certainly argued, but I care about her. I am always amazed at how oppositely we see things, though.





jld said:


> Honestly, I feel sick about discussing anything from the social group out here. We have bared our souls in there.
> 
> D/s is almost a religion to me. It is that deep in my soul. It is where my ideas on marriage come from.
> 
> And key among them is a strong dominant. A true dominant. Not a dominant held up by a submissive.


I'm confused, jld. What social group things are you talking about? 

I thought we already covered you feeling bad for me and me feeling bad for you, and how those are misplaced emotions since what we need to feel secure from our husbands is not identical. 

I am still puzzled to this day why you think my husband relies on me emotionally. He is very much like Dug emotionally in some ways, unlike him in others. But while they are both emotionally independent, they also have different needs from their marriages. 

I also do not feel that we have ever not gotten along, or fought. We both have power exchange marriages, but we arrived at them differently, and the powers we exchange are different. We both adopt "submissive" as our power orientation labels, but goodness that doesn't mean we are going to be alike in our personalities, our wants, our needs and most of all who we can submit to as our Dominant partners. You know Dug would not be able to lead me. I take a stronger hand than you do. My husband could not lead you. You talk a stronger hand that he can give. You see what I did there? We all all strong and weak in our own ways--you, me, Dug, and my husband. And we all are grateful for and thrive in our dynamics. 

You don't force your religion down someone else's throat, jld. If D/s is a religion, then please realize that the way you worship is not the only way. _Most of all please understand that the way I worship has no bearing on the validity of your religion._


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> Just pm'd the list.
> 
> GI, Dug is an emotionally independent man. That is what I am talking about. Not that he provides for our family or would never cheat on me. I would agree that that covers a lot of men.


Can you send it again? Nothing in my inbox. 

I know you believe with all your hear that Dug is emotionally independent. But I don't think that is possible when a man loves you as much as Dug loves you.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> You two - you and GettingIt - have broken by triangulation machine. That machine is what I use to 'search' for the truth.
> 
> No one else has explained to me WHY M2 does what she does half as well as you have. And no one has predicted how she would respond to certain changes as well.
> 
> Thing is - GettingIt is M2's psychological twin. The Germans called it a - Doppelgänger. Said that everyone on earth had a visual twin. It's likely just a function of population size.
> 
> But the beauty of a board is that it removes the distraction of appearance. And behaviorally GettingIt is dead on like M2.


I don't think I really understand your post, MEM.

I am glad I was able to help you. Sometimes I really don't know what I did more than encourage you not to leave the room. 

GI brings a lot of comfort to a lot of men on TAM. I think they feel safe with her. She likes them and understands them.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> Can you send it again? Nothing in my inbox.
> 
> I know you believe with all your hear that Dug is emotionally independent. But I don't think that is possible when a man loves you as much as Dug loves you.


I sent it the first time at 4:52. There was a copy in my own inbox.

I just resent it.


----------



## Wolf1974

GettingIt said:


> I'm confused, jld. What social group things are you talking about?
> 
> I thought we already covered you feeling bad for me and me feeling bad for you, and how those are misplaced emotions since what we need to feel secure from our husbands is not identical.
> 
> I am still puzzled to this day why you think my husband relies on me emotionally. He is very much like Dug emotionally in some ways, unlike him in others. But while they are both emotionally independent, they also have different needs from their marriages.
> 
> I also do not feel that we have ever not gotten along, or fought. We both have power exchange marriages, but we arrived at them differently, and the powers we exchange are different. We both adopt "submissive" as our power orientation labels, but goodness that doesn't mean we are going to be alike in our personalities, our wants, our needs and most of all who we can submit to as our Dominant partners. You know Dug would not be able to lead me. I take a stronger hand than you do. My husband could not lead you. You talk a stronger hand that he can give. You see what I did there? We all all strong and weak in our own ways--you, me, Dug, and my husband. And we all are grateful for and thrive in our dynamics.
> 
> *You don't force your religion down someone else's throat, jld. If D/s is a religion, then please realize that the way you worship is not the only way. Most of all please understand that the way I worship has no bearing on the validity of your religion.*


It gets easier when you realize her motivation comes from fear, not understanding. 

Someone who wants to learn is open to other viewpoints. Those afraid push thier viewpoint almost as a defense mechanism


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Livvie said:


> ...*I think he may be what they call a "vulnerable narcissist".*
> 
> This kind of person can't carry their own emotions, let alone effectively navigate anyone else's.


 A little about those types...

Two Types of Narcissists Pose Somewhat Different Challenges - There are "vulnerable" narcissists and "invulnerable" NPs.

A piece of the article .....



> *The Vulnerable NP*
> 
> Vulnerable narcissists (VN's) tend to be more sensitive, often see themselves as victims of those who don't understand how superior they are. Just like those with BPD, vulnerable narcissists tend to be preoccupied with fears of rejection and abandonment. They and may feel helpless, anxious and depressed when people don't treat them as they desire.
> 
> VN's appear to be over-compensating for low self-esteem and a deep-seated sense of shame that may date back to early childhood. They developed the behaviors as a coping mechanism to deal with neglect, abuse or a dismissive style of parent-child attachment. Vulnerable NPs tend to swing back and forth between showing off and feeling hurt, and appear to be trying to prove they are superior to others and themselves.
> 
> In adult partner relationships, VNs care about how their partners see them. Partners often make the mistake of pointing out their vulnerabilities in an effort to change the partner's opinion. *Any effort to hold them responsible for their own behavior may result in a defensive, attacking response or a self-destructive response.* They often try various ways of getting treated with respect while still remaining in the relationship. They may have hidden affairs, yet accuse the other partner of having affairs and may be obsessive about preventing that from happening.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> But he is willing to earn my respect. He knows that *is the only way he will truly get it.*


That is vulnerability, jld. Every hurdle in life is has a potential (However remote) for failure.


----------



## Duguesclin

Wolf1974 said:


> It gets easier when you realize her motivation comes from fear, not understanding.
> 
> Someone who wants to learn is open to other viewpoints. Those afraid push thier viewpoint almost as a defense mechanism


From fear of what?


----------



## Wolf1974

Duguesclin said:


> From fear of what?


Well lots of things:

Fear of her father
Fear of men Being like her father
Fear of being open 
Fear of other viewpoints
Fear of men having emotions
Fear of her own emotions
Fear of difference
Fear of understanding


----------



## Duguesclin

Wolf1974 said:


> Well lots of things:
> 
> Fear of her father
> Fear of men Being like her father
> Fear of being open
> Fear of other viewpoints
> Fear of men having emotions
> Fear of her own emotions
> Fear of difference
> Fear of understanding


She was afraid of her father. But for the rest, where do you get it? Can you point out to post she has written that would suggest that?


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> That is vulnerability, jld. Every hurdle in life is has a potential (However remote) for failure.


He's not scared of failing, ocotillo.

Dug is confident in himself. He does not look to me for his confidence.


----------



## MEM2020

Wolf, Sam, Far and Marduk,

You fellows have got me thinking a lot more about this theme of sensitivity. 

Initially I sort of characterized my interactions with M2 in a simplistic way that left out maybe the most important piece of the puzzle. 

It's best to start with the easy part. At least for me, when M2 says stuff that is either clearly true or clearly totally false it is not painful. The stuff that feels bad for me is:
- Stuff that is partly true but aggressively distorted in a negative way
- A persistent tone of disapproval expressed via a series of pokes

So - the truth is - I don't really need a steady stream of approval from M2. So in that sense don't consider myself needy. But when I'm getting a steady stream of disapproval for random stuff and or getting a lot of distorted (amplified) negative feedback - that does impact me. Less, even a lot less when I'm following a good routine in terms of exercise/sleep etc. But that stuff is cumulatively draining. 




Wolf1974 said:


> Lol. JLD. It's not only the message but your obvious complete lack of understanding on what others are saying. You clearly haven't heard nothing I have said if you think I have emotional dependence or submissive to women. But I told my Gf this after I stopped laughing. I said baby did you know I am emotionally dependent on you??
> 
> 
> She said go put on your cape and play outside. Lol


----------



## Mr The Other

Duguesclin said:


> She was afraid of her father. But for the rest, where do you get it? Can you point out to post she has written that would suggest that?


I would say that the extent to which she sticks to a standard solution for everything does suggest a fear that it might not be true. There are others like this, often male posters who think that to alpha-up will cure everything and they also dogmatically stick to their beliefs, if someone trys it and it does not work, then they did not really do it. If they try and it works, it is proof.

Again, they will sometimes be right, but are not great listeners and are too scared of being wrong to seriously consider the possibility.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Wolf1974 said:


> Really? Hasn't been my experience here. That maybe more to do with how she looks down on men. Maybe she is more willing to listen to you dunno


She absolutely does not look down on men. In fact, she thinks highly of men and assigns them a lot of power; maybe that's the issue here.....that she feels men in fact have more power than many men on TAM feel they do.

And that could be a source of great frustration for a guy who really doesn't feel like he has the power she's assigning to him. This is hard to reconcile because jld thinks men have a lot of power they don't use, but if you don't agree that you have this power it could be frustrating.

She feels that emotionally men are inherently stronger than women, and at least to some degree we all have to agree that this it true. Case in point: you tell your wife she's fat and she loses her mind.....you tell your husband he's fat and his feelings might be hurt but he likely won't lose his mind in the same way. He'd be more likely to agree if it was the case and get over it.

Another example: Guy views porn and wife's self esteem tanks because she feels inferior. Woman views porn and for the most part guy doesn't care as long as he's still getting some.

So in many ways men are stronger emotionally; that's not to say that men don't hurt because they certainly do. I'm sure to have your wife screw another guy would be a knife in the gut; she just thinks that men have a great deal of power and ability to lead their wives emotionally and she seeks to help.

I know this is true for me.....I'm definitely an alpha female but my husband is much stronger emotionally. If I call my husband an a$$hole (which I never would) he'd likely be irritated but he'd get past it. If he called me a b!tch I don't know how long I'd be stewing over it, even if he apologized. I'm not as strong as him emotionally. 

You're not going to convince jld that men aren't stronger emotionally because she very much believes this is true, but she hears and considers all logical arguments.

Sometimes it is necessary to have discussions with the understanding that you're not going to change peoples' minds, and I get the distinct impression that many here are upset that they can't change her mind.


----------



## Wolf1974

Duguesclin said:


> She was afraid of her father. But for the rest, where do you get it? Can you point out to post she has written that would suggest that?


Plenty of her posts. Your welcome to read them yourself. 


If she is going to make wild assumptions about me being submissive surely you can't begrudge me an assumption about her daddy issues right.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Mr The Other said:


> I would say that the extent to which she sticks to a standard solution for everything does suggest a fear that it might not be true. There are others like this, often male posters who think that to alpha-up will cure everything and they also dogmatically stick to their beliefs, if someone trys it and it does not work, then they did not really do it. If they try and it works, it is proof.
> 
> Again, they will sometimes be right, but are not great listeners and are too scared of being wrong to seriously consider the possibility.


I'll admit that I find it a little odd that she would be accused of such a thing because I've observed that there is a standard TAM response to many things and those who don't agree get all kinds of nasty responses.

Many here don't seem to be able to live with the fact that she doesn't agree with the accepted TAM viewpoint on many things. I'm ok with her not agreeing with me.....how many here can say that?


----------



## Wolf1974

lifeistooshort said:


> She absolutely does not look down on men. In fact, she thinks highly of men and assigns them a lot of power; maybe that's the issue here.....that she feels men in fact have more power than many men on TAM feel they do.
> 
> *Sorry not going to go beyond this, maybe you haven't read here where she has called men boys with capes and submissive. That's not rexpect but you're welcome you opinion.
> *
> And that could be a source of great frustration for a guy who really doesn't feel like he has the power she's assigning to him. This is hard to reconcile because jld thinks men have a lot of power they don't use, but if you don't agree that you have this power it could be frustrating.
> 
> She feels that emotionally men are inherently stronger than women, and at least to some degree we all have to agree that this it true. Case in point: you tell your wife she's fat and she loses her mind.....you tell your husband he's fat and his feelings might be hurt but he likely won't lose his mind in the same way. He'd be more likely to agree if it was the case and get over it.
> 
> Another example: Guy views porn and wife's self esteem tanks because she feels inferior. Woman views porn and for the most part guy doesn't care as long as he's still getting some.
> 
> So in many ways men are stronger emotionally; that's not to say that men don't hurt because they certainly do. I'm sure to have your wife screw another guy would be a knife in the gut; she just thinks that men have a great deal of power and ability to lead their wives emotionally and she seeks to help.
> 
> I know this is true for me.....I'm definitely an alpha female but my husband is much stronger emotionally. If I call my husband an a$$hole (which I never would) he'd likely be irritated but he'd get past it. If he called me a b!tch I don't know how long I'd be stewing over it, even if he apologized. I'm not as strong as him emotionally.
> 
> You're not going to convince jld that men aren't stronger emotionally because she very much believes this is true, but she hears and considers all logical arguments.
> 
> Sometimes it is necessary to have discussions with the understanding that you're not going to change peoples' minds, and I get the distinct impression that many here are upset that they can't change her mind.


I am always happy to discuss varying viewpoints, that's just not been Happening here But I think this has honestly been a great thread. :smile2:


----------



## Duguesclin

Wolf1974 said:


> Plenty of her posts. Your welcome to read them yourself.
> 
> 
> If she is going to make wild assumptions about me being submissive surely you can't begrudge me an assumption about her daddy issues right.


OK, I take that you have nothing to back up your assertions.


----------



## jld

You are exactly right, @lifeistooshort. I think men are very powerful. Gottman's research backs that up. Women accept men's influence much easier than men accept women's. Men will listen to other men before they will listen to women.

I want men to use their influence wisely. That is why I am always pushing empathy, humility, kindness, patience. Gottman's research also showed that women are more likely to bring up sticky issues in marriage than men. Men tend to avoid them. It would really help women if men would be willing to face those issues.

I am trying to make the lives of women and children easier. But I think the methods I suggest to do that benefit the men, too. The idea is to make it a Win/Win all around.

And your comment that some men do not feel powerful echoes something a male poster said one time. That idea, that men do not feel powerful, was a foreign idea to me.


----------



## Wolf1974

Duguesclin said:


> OK, I take that you have nothing to back up your assertions.


Already said you can read the posts

Otherwise you can chalk it up to assumption just like she makes 

No difference to me


----------



## tech-novelist

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> Below you made an assertion about GettingIt. In the US, you've called her a 'perjurer'. Turns out the legal definition of perjury has three components.
> 
> 1. It ain't true
> 2. The speaker KNOWS it ain't true
> 3. It is material


I think the speaker also has to be under oath.


----------



## Wolf1974

MEM11363 said:


> Wolf, Sam, Far and Marduk,
> 
> You fellows have got me thinking a lot more about this theme of sensitivity.
> 
> Initially I sort of characterized my interactions with M2 in a simplistic way that left out maybe the most important piece of the puzzle.
> 
> It's best to start with the easy part. At least for me, when M2 says stuff that is either clearly true or clearly totally false it is not painful. The stuff that feels bad for me is:
> - Stuff that is partly true but aggressively distorted in a negative way
> - A persistent tone of disapproval expressed via a series of pokes
> 
> So - the truth is - I don't really need a steady stream of approval from M2. So in that sense don't consider myself needy. But when I'm getting a steady stream of disapproval for random stuff and or getting a lot of distorted (amplified) negative feedback - that does impact me. Less, even a lot less when I'm following a good routine in terms of exercise/sleep etc. But that stuff is cumulatively draining.


I would describe myself the same MEM

I know for me a huge pet peeve, maybe even a hot button, is to be accused of something I didn't do from someone I respect.


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> I'll admit that I find it a little odd that she would be accused of such a thing because I've observed that there is a standard TAM response to many things and those who don't agree get all kinds of nasty responses.
> 
> Many here don't seem to be able to live with the fact that she doesn't agree with the accepted TAM viewpoint on many things. I'm ok with her not agreeing with me.....how many here can say that?


I can. I'm perfectly okay with her not agreeing with you. >


----------



## lifeistooshort

Wolf1974 said:


> I am always happy to discuss varying viewpoints, that's just not been Happening here But I think this has honestly been a great thread. :smile2:


That's good to know, I enjoy reading many of your posts 

I think your bolded comment comes from her feeling that men have a lot of power they don't use and instead act weak. We know weak men aren't respected because the first thing we tell a guy that whines a begs is that weak men aren't attractive. 

She very much wants to see men use their power and use it wisely to lead women emotionally. It's just a different viewpoint.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> I can. I'm perfectly okay with her not agreeing with you. >


Great minds think alike 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Duguesclin

Wolf1974 said:


> I would describe myself the same MEM
> 
> I know for me a huge pet peeve, maybe even a hot button, is to be accused of something I didn't do from someone I respect.


So if you did not do it, why is it a hot button? Do you fear that the person you respect has a bad image of you?


----------



## Wolf1974

lifeistooshort said:


> That's good to know, I enjoy reading many of your posts
> 
> I think your bolded comment comes from her feeling that men have a lot of power they don't use and instead act weak. We know weak men aren't respected because the first thing we tell a guy that whines a begs is that weak men aren't attractive.
> 
> She very much wants to see men use their power and use it wisely to lead women emotionally. It's just a different viewpoint?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I like your posts as well :grin2:

But I will have to disagree. I think some of her posts are passive aggressive and it's based off a fear/ respect issue for men. It's just an opinion. 

The woman knows how to make a thread I'll give her that!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

@lifeistooshort ...your post was very validating to Jld & how she feels, and will continue to feel... you nailed it [email protected]# 

Mine would attest I'm one of those alpha females too... but still...

He's more emotionally stable over me.. although I don't mind him looking at some porn (we'll enjoy it together)....the day he doesn't look at me THAT way.. well.. the sh** will hit the fan.. I'd be crushed and angry at the same time...would be very emotional over these things.. yes. 

He's all good with my looking... not much upsets him really.. which makes him very E A S Y to live with.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Okay, jld. I got the list. I actually got it twice, lol--not sure why the first one took so long to come through, but when I checked, both messages were there. 

I will go through your examples one by one. 

1. "Nice Guy"

Yes, I would say that for the ten years of our marriage during which we struggled, we were operating under a common dynamic in which he would respond to my moods by trying to help me instead of setting boundaries. But I'm confused--isn't "Nice Guy" sort of along the lines of what you advocate? We had to get AWAY from that. I need him to set boundaries. My anxiety running unchecked is an ugly thing. 

2. Adjusts his mood to yours

Not sure if you can think of a specific example. Perhaps what you are thinking of are the times where he'd set boundaries so I didn't wreck a day with my anxious behavior? Again, you have to remember that I don't feel safe and secure when he allows my anxiety to run unchecked. To a point I need to just "let it all out," but there are times when I rely him to bring me up short or I wind up sick and miserable. 

3. Needs you to have the same opinion as his, or he is distressed

LOL, then he's going to be distressed all day every day. Again, without a specific example it's hard to talk about this. He doesn't like long drawn out debates in which I just jump around playing devils advocate. I could go all day like that, but not him. What he does like is household harmony, and to have a plan for the family and to make sure it is advanced. We work on the plan together. 

4. Withdraws when you get upset with him

What do you mean by "withdraw?" Do you think this was from early on when we were reconciling and I would get mad when he wanted time to think about things and then get back to me? He's got an engineer's mind, jld. He's taken on a pretty big responsibility in our dynamic, as you know. I have to learn to respect that for him to do the best job by me and the kids that sometimes he's going to have to have space to think. Again, maybe you are forgetting that he works from home. He has to juggle alot, and sometimes I have to wait, and don't handle that well. Dug's bike rides? There was a time when I'd have considered that "withdrawing" behavior. I've working on this with my husband's support and have gotten much better at finding ways to cope if he is not available. 

5. Told the kids not to speak to their parents at dinner

I do remember posting in the social group one time when I was really mad at him for wanting to run our dinners differently. He had had a long day and came to the table a little late and I was pissed. Actually I think he was having a busy run at work, and I was feeling anxious about not having him at the head of the table consistently. Our kids speak to us at dinner, I promise. We just had a nice dinner together with quite a bit of laughter and interaction. I think the kids might have even said a few words to their father  JLD, remember the social group is where we let it all hang out. I emote there like I might not do other places. I know you've said stuff that you later came back and said wasn't true, but said in the heat of emotion. 

6.Refuses sex if you are not enthusiastic

He doesn't enjoy sex if I'm just doing it because I'm anxious about his needing it. He would rather wait until I'm relaxed and in the mood, too. As you know, lack of sexual and physical intimacy was a problem for us both for years. It left us both with some habits and triggers to work through. I would hazard a guess that Dug would prefer you in the mood, too. 

7. Lets you hit yourself to get relief from your anxiety

He did one time, with his permission, and under his control. I had to stop when he told me to stop. I always have to have his permission. jld, I'm happy to talk about how I manipulate my endorphins with pain as part of the way I manage anxiety, but I think it would be a serious trigger for a lot of people who self-harm to cope with emotional pain from trauma. I'm forthcoming about this in the social group, and I've even recently explained how it works for me in a thread in SIM. I would say of all the things on your list, this is the most inaccurate example of how my husband is emotionally insecure. Do you know how much responsibility he carries for me? Do you know how much effort and work helping me with my anxiety is?


Again, jld, all men who love are emotionally dependent. My husband doesn't cope with his emotions by controlling me. He will accept my freely given love, but what man wouldn't accept that from the woman he adores?


----------



## Mr The Other

lifeistooshort said:


> I'll admit that I find it a little odd that she would be accused of such a thing because I've observed that there is a standard TAM response to many things and those who don't agree get all kinds of nasty responses.
> 
> Many here don't seem to be able to live with the fact that she doesn't agree with the accepted TAM viewpoint on many things. I'm ok with her not agreeing with me.....how many here can say that?


I hope my posts do not seem nasty, sorry to Jld if they are. 

It is a strength of TAM that there is not a strong party line and that there are a range of opinions. 

Jld is eloquent and perhaps attracts more criticism as that eloquence gives her more credibility than some other posters. One weakness TAM can have, IMO, is many posters rush to say "She's having an affair, be more macho and divorce her", Indeed, just today, I was advising listening on a thread in which most posters were certain it was an affair and just to get divorced.

I am hugely grateful to @tunera for her occasional tough love during my hard times. One important thing there was that she actually read and considered what I wrote. If I had had a different experience, I believe her advice would have been different.

There were a few posters who I found just assumed they understood the situation in an instant. Those who told me to be Alpha and everything would be great (which was amusing as I am sure I could eat most of them for breakfast), one particular poster who was convinced I was abusive as her husband had been like that (ergo all men are like that), and jld who assumed I should have just learned to listen. It was bad advice in my case, in another it might have been great advice (I will always say that a MC can be useful for getting a third voice in to assure you that you're not insane in these situations.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
So this is where we maybe see things differently. 

On a spectrum of emotional self sufficiency - I'd start with three distinct reference points:

- Emotionally needy
- Emotionally independent (self sufficient)
- Emotionally impervious

That last one is incredibly rare. Because it isn't a case of not loving and/or feeling connected. It's the ability to be connected while remaining impervious. Typically it comes from a deep rooted, near unshakable faith that everything is going to turn out well. 

It is an imprecise use of language to equate impervious to independent. They are different. 

Because the next step in the process is to say if you aren't impervious you are needy/weak/a sub.





jld said:


> Just pm'd the list.
> 
> GI, Dug is an emotionally independent man. That is what I am talking about. Not that he provides for our family or would never cheat on me. I would agree that that covers a lot of men.


----------



## Wolf1974

Duguesclin said:


> So if you did not do it, why is it a hot button? Do you fear that the person you respect has a bad image of you?


No I think it has more to do with someone who I have a relationship with, no matter what that relationship is, is questioning my integrity. Obviously if they think I'm lying they already havthe bad image of me and I was wrong about them


----------



## lifeistooshort

Mr The Other said:


> I hope my posts do not seem nasty, sorry to Jld if they are.
> 
> It is a strength of TAM that there is not a strong party line and that there are a range of opinions.
> 
> Jld is eloquent and perhaps attracts more criticism as that eloquence gives her more credibility than some other posters. * One weakness TAM can have, IMO, is many posters rush to say "She's having an affair, be more macho and divorce her",* Indeed, just today, I was advising listening on a thread in which most posters were certain it was an affair and just to get divorced.
> 
> I am hugely grateful to @tunera for her occasional tough love during my hard times. One important thing there was that she actually read and considered what I wrote. If I had had a different experience, I believe her advice would have been different.
> 
> There were a few posters who I found just assumed they understood the situation in an instant. Those who told me to be Alpha and everything would be great (which was amusing as I am sure I could eat most of them for breakfast), one particular poster who was convinced I was abusive as her husband had been like that (ergo all men are like that), and jld who assumed I should have just learned to listen. It was bad advice in my case, in another it might have been great advice (I will always say that a MC can be useful for getting a third voice in to assure you that you're not insane in these situations.


On this we can definitely agree. It can be frustrating when you passionately believe something and someone keeps chiming in with what you consider to be bad advice.

It's of utmost importance that we all have tolerance for differing viewpoint and trust that the OP of any thread is the only one that knows what's really going on and knows their partner so they will have to pick through said viewpoints to decide what's best.

If they don't have the critical thinking ability to evaluate what is applicable to their situation and what isn't they have problems well beyond the ability of TAM to address.


----------



## EllisRedding

technovelist said:


> I can. I'm perfectly okay with her not agreeing with you. >


Lol. Also considering most here have said time and time again the issue isn't her having a differing viewpoint, but instead the subtle digs at people who don't agree with her and to an extent the arrogance in which she carries with some of her responses.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

GettingIt said:


> That describes every man who loves a woman, including Dug.


Amen Sister .. I could kiss you!

Dug and JLD are not fooling me one bit for his "lack of need" for her emotionally or that he is not needy in any way. I can tell just by the way he comes at me that thete is NO lack OR low need there.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> He's not scared of failing, ocotillo.


Very, very few men are. Collectively, that is our failure as men. (WAW syndrome being a case in point.)




jld said:


> Dug is confident in himself. He does not look to me for his confidence.


And neither do I look to my wife for my confidence. I don't think you're understanding and I'm starting to despair at my ability to communicate it.


----------



## Livvie

SimplyAmorous said:


> Livvie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*I think he may be what they call a "vulnerable narcissist".*
> 
> This kind of person can't carry their own emotions, let alone effectively navigate anyone else's.
> 
> 
> 
> A little about those types...
> 
> Two Types of Narcissists Pose Somewhat Different Challenges - There are "vulnerable" narcissists and "invulnerable" NPs.
> 
> A piece of the article .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Vulnerable NP*
> 
> Vulnerable narcissists (VN's) tend to be more sensitive, often see themselves as victims of those who don't understand how superior they are. Just like those with BPD, vulnerable narcissists tend to be preoccupied with fears of rejection and abandonment. They and may feel helpless, anxious and depressed when people don't treat them as they desire.
> 
> VN's appear to be over-compensating for low self-esteem and a deep-seated sense of shame that may date back to early childhood. They developed the behaviors as a coping mechanism to deal with neglect, abuse or a dismissive style of parent-child attachment. Vulnerable NPs tend to swing back and forth between showing off and feeling hurt, and appear to be trying to prove they are superior to others and themselves.
> 
> In adult partner relationships, VNs care about how their partners see them. Partners often make the mistake of pointing out their vulnerabilities in an effort to change the partner's opinion. *Any effort to hold them responsible for their own behavior may result in a defensive, attacking response or a self-destructive response.* They often try various ways of getting treated with respect while still remaining in the relationship. They may have hidden affairs, yet accuse the other partner of having affairs and may be obsessive about preventing that from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes, this is right on. He would come right out and state that part of being his partner is being responsible for his feelings, no matter whether I think they are warranted, fair, or reasonable, or abusive. When I couldn't do it... wouldn't play the "role" of abuser (meaning, agree I was someone who had wronged him) to his continued need to be the victim, he says I didn't love him enough, if I did, I'd do it. He couldn't accept his own feelings (I think he realized he was damaged)... he always made them the fault of me. It's like he wanted to repeat the dynamic of his childhood but THIS time have CONTROL. He wanted to control and subvert me.


----------



## Mr The Other

lifeistooshort said:


> *On this we can definitely agree. It can be frustrating when you passionately believe something and someone keeps chiming in with what you consider to be bad advice.*
> 
> It's of utmost importance that we all have tolerance for differing viewpoint and trust that the OP of any thread is the only one that knows what's really going on and knows their partner so they will have to pick through said viewpoints to decide what's best.
> 
> If they don't have the critical thinking ability to evaluate what is applicable to their situation and what isn't they have problems well beyond the ability of TAM to address.


Funnily enough, I can really appreciate @jld on this point as most threads must be like this. 

I think we must also accept that people arriving on TAM are in a very emotionally vulnerable place. People are considered emotionally strong as they are only weak very occasionally, but those very occasional times are when we get them here. When a marriage is failing or failed, an insistence that they are too beta/abusive/insensitive that could normally be filtered out will hit. I found it hard going myself until I remembered I could just step away from TAM (see, brains like that got me my PhD :grin2: ).


----------



## Duguesclin

Wolf1974 said:


> No I think it has more to do with someone who I have a relationship with, no matter what that relationship is, is questioning my integrity. Obviously if they think I'm lying they already havthe bad image of me and I was wrong about them


So why is it a hot button?


----------



## Wolf1974

Duguesclin said:


> So why is it a hot button?


Hmm thought I was clear will try again

If I have a relationship with you then you know me. If you know me you know I won't lie and always own up to when I am wrong. So if you accuse me of lying that means you really don't know me at all to even think such a thing. Hence its a hot button. One ultimately that will make me loose respect for a person. 

In job relationship just means we are going to only be professional and nothing more. In a personal relationship that's going to be addressed or we are done
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> Amen Sister .. I could kiss you!
> 
> Dug and JLD are not fooling me one bit for his "lack of need" for her emotionally or that he is not needy in any way. I can tell just by the way he comes at me that thete is NO lack OR low need there.


I actually think it is simple. JLD and her H are perfect for each other. My W is perfect for me. There are others here who have the perfect spouse. The difference, I don't go telling women here to put on their big woman bra (that sounds funny out loud lol) and "woman up" b/c they don't meet the ideals I see in my W. What is perfect/ideal with my W in many cases relates specifically to us, and not necessarily to others in their relationship, that is ok and understandable.


----------



## lifeistooshort

SimplyAmorous said:


> @lifeistooshort ...your post was very validating to Jld & how she feels, and will continue to feel... you nailed it [email protected]#
> 
> Mine would attest I'm one of those alpha females too... but still...
> 
> He's more emotionally stable over me.. although I don't mind him looking at some porn (we'll enjoy it together)....the day he doesn't look at me THAT way.. well.. the sh** will hit the fan.. I'd be crushed and angry at the same time...would be very emotional over these things.. yes.
> 
> He's all good with my looking... not much upsets him really.. which makes him very E A S Y to live with.


I think when you understand where jld is coming from her posts make a lot more sense, whether you agree or not.

In my view she is one of the more misunderstood posters here. She always wants to help but her advice might not always be applicable to a guy who for whatever reason can't fit her view of where a man's role is.


----------



## MEM2020

Wolf,

Yes. Me too. It's also true that one of my best moments with M2 was when I went for a run at the gym and didn't run very hard. When I return from the gym I'm usually very sweaty. That night, after my lite workout I stopped at the grocery store. Extra long but lite workout plus the groc stop - gone 3 hours twice the usual duration. 

Get home and M2 sees my shirt is dry. Reaches out and touches it. Real matter of fact she asks me if I went to the gym. 

Now there are two equally valid ways of looking at this. 

All about me: 
Angry and indignant. Is this the thanks I get for being a loyal spouse for 20+ years? It's disrespectful to challenge my integrity.

She was just anxious. That's all it was. Her abandonment issues aren't about me. And I can't fix them. All I can do is say what's true. So I did. 

Main thing about it wasn't the mechanics, but the spirit of what I said. 
Spirit: Already have what I want. 
Mechanics: Haven't cheated. Won't cheat. 
Spirit: Because I DO NOT WANT anyone else. Just you.

Reason I mention this is, that moment wasn't about communication. Not really. Communication would have been focused on the mechanics. That I haven't cheated and won't cheat. But that wasn't really the theme here. The real theme was: I'm feeling unlovable, afraid you're falling out of love with me and then you are going to leave. 

These situations. There's no real playbook for them. Nobody there to tell you. That isn't a challenge of your integrity. That my man is an expression of vulnerability. The closest I can get to it in words is. When she asked if I went to the gym. 

I heard: I'm afraid. Should I be afraid? 



Wolf1974 said:


> I would describe myself the same MEM
> 
> I know for me a huge pet peeve, maybe even a hot button, is to be accused of something I didn't do from someone I respect.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> *I think when you understand where jld is coming from her posts make a lot more sense, whether you agree or not.
> 
> In my view she is one of the more misunderstood posters here. She always wants to help but her advice might not always be applicable to guy who for whatever reason can't fit her view of where a man's role is*.


I wouldn't doubt it -that she IS the most misunderstood poster here ! She has a very caring heart







-even to those who spit at her.. me frankly.. I wouldn't feel that way!! I give her a lot of credit there! 

Me & her are a good example of ...we can still be friends but we have our differences of opinion - in how we view dynamics for sure.. her Husband is more Dominant.... I'm married to a more submissive male.. what can I do... it is what it is.. plenty to love there.. but I can't deny what is... I get all railed up when others refer to these sort of men as less whatever.. 

Then I want to defend them.. while JLD wants to scold them!.. ha ha


----------



## lifeistooshort

SimplyAmorous said:


> I wouldn't doubt it -that she IS the most misunderstood poster here ! She has a very caring heart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -even to those who spit at her.. me frankly.. I wouldn't feel that way!! I give her a lot of credit there!
> 
> Me & her are a good example of ...we can still be friends but we have our differences of opinion - in how we view dynamics for sure.. her Husband is more Dominant.... I'm married to a more submissive male.. what can I do... it is what it is.. plenty to love there.. but I can't deny what is... I get all railed up when others refer to these sort of men as less whatever.. then I want to defend them.. while JLD wants to scold them!.. ha ha


My husband is a special guy.....it takes a special guy to put up with me :laugh:

Everyone who's ready my posts should understand why :grin2:


----------



## MEM2020

Ellis,

This is what upsets people. There is a vast difference between a neutral tone and a shocked or disapproving tone. 

So when you feel like you are getting this steady vibe of disapproval from someone with a strong, very determined personality and a facility with words - it produces a reaction. 




EllisRedding said:


> Lol. Also considering most here have said time and time again the issue isn't her having a differing viewpoint, but instead the subtle digs at people who don't agree with her and to an extent the arrogance in which she carries with some of her responses.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Perhaps a users guide to TAM might include a section titled: Choose your advisors carefully. My ideal advisor:
> 
> - Successful in their marriage
> - Wise
> - Brutally honest
> - Has high standards
> - Overall happy
> .


Someone throws a 1500 post thread and neglected to inform me? What kind of TAM have we come to? 

MEM, in science, every piece of data is useful. Especially failures.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

I wish you would let me help you half as much as you helped me. 




jld said:


> I don't think I really understand your post, MEM.
> 
> I am glad I was able to help you. Sometimes I really don't know what I did more than encourage you not to leave the room.
> 
> GI brings a lot of comfort to a lot of men on TAM. I think they feel safe with her. She likes them and understands them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> *My husband is a special guy.....it takes a special guy to put up with me *:laugh:


I'd say the same.. I can be "demanding" in some areas.... If I didn't have enough in common with a man.... I wouldn't be a Joy to live with...
A little too much of this going on....










However.. when it works, we're in tuned, genuinely want the same things....I can be very sweet and catering...even submissive on occasion.


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> I wish you would let me help you half as much as you helped me.


How?


----------



## MEM2020

John,
A marriage that produces two bright, beautiful and successful women is by any rational definition, highly successful. 




john117 said:


> Someone throws a 1500 post thread and neglected to inform me? What kind of TAM have we come to?
> 
> MEM, in science, every piece of data is useful. Especially failures.


----------



## lifeistooshort

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> A marriage that produces two bright, beautiful and successful women is by any rational definition, highly successful.


And the very definition of "successful" and "failure" can be highly subjective 

A core scientific principle is to recognize what is subjective (otherwise known as bias) and control for it to the extent possible.


----------



## MEM2020

Life,
Agreed. My definition may be different than yours. It's perhaps simplistic but.....

- Financially self sufficient 
- Emotionally equipped for a long term symbiotic relationship 
- Able to attract and retain mates they are attracted to and also compatible with

By those measures it sounds as if John's daughters are far into positive trajectories.




lifeistooshort said:


> And the very definition of "successful" and "failure" can be highly subjective
> 
> A core scientific principle is to recognize what is subjective (otherwise known as bias) and control for it to the extent possible.


----------



## GettingIt_2

MEM11363 said:


> GettingIt,
> If you will humor me in a short exercise.
> 
> I'd like your totally raw feed on the following set of responses to a scenario. If you are game, I'd like 2 scores on a scale of 1-10 for each statement. 10 is the best, 1 is the worst.
> 
> The first is for objective clarity. The second is for tone effectiveness. Tone effectiveness is an admittedly subjective ranking of the impact the tone has on the likelihood of the message being accepted. And for ranking tone - please emulate how you think the 'average' TAM participant would respond.


MEM, I got my answers ready then realized I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "objective clarity." Do you mean how clear he question is in its intent, or how objective I think the questioner is being?


----------



## turnera

lifeistooshort said:


> I think when you understand where jld is coming from her posts make a lot more sense, whether you agree or not.
> 
> In my view she is one of the more misunderstood posters here. She always wants to help but her advice might not always be applicable to a guy who for whatever reason can't fit her view of where a man's role is.


Ugh. But that's what's always been the problem. She approaches men who are NOT fitting her view of a man's role - or women who don't fit her view of a woman's role, and tells them to BE her view. When that role doesn't fit the situation, it can make the situation worse. 

When a man sees his woman cheat, he has a limited window of opportunity to 'do it right' to get her to STOP. Her cheating is one big sh*t test, and she is WATCHING him to see what he's going to do when he finds out. Women have to respect their men, and the LAST thing a cheating woman needs to see - at the onset - is her man begging her to stay. Ewww.

Of course he should be looking at his side of the street and letting her know he gets it, but his first order of business is to let her know immediately that he won't share her.

But jld doesn't see it that way. She wants all men to be dug - strong, silent, forgiving, letting her beat on him, letting her cheat on him, until she gets it out of her system. In a movie? Maybe. In real life, I've almost NEVER seen that work in 20 years. I think two situations, total. IN those years, the only marriages I've seen saved have been when the man closes up shop, moves on, lets her see him moving on if she won't quit.

But she doesn't acknowledge that, and we've seen her push her way, we've seen men choose it, and we've seen it not work. And by that time, the window of opportunity has passed and he has failed her sh*t test; it's too late.


----------



## jdawg2015

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Everyone has their own boundaries, and should. To me, respect isn't a given, it's not unconditional. It can gain and lose just like love. My love isn't just given unconditionally either.
> 
> He builds love by meeting my needs, he builds respect by acting respectful. Sometimes they are together, sometimes not.
> 
> If I lose respect for him then we talk about why and try to get it back, he can't just jump to the top, get it without the work to get there.
> If I lose love, we have to talk about why and try to get it back. Again, he can't just say "I demand love" and I do. He earns it.


 I don't agree with many things you post but this one I do.

But what you described is very simple. You communicate when something is going off track.

If each other cares, you don't have to demand.

When one forces you do demand, that is where the problems arise and the power struggles begin. CVD's thread is a precise example of how things can go wrong (she want's him to stop communicating and staring at pics of his ex gf, he is dismissive). This is where many of us have screwed up in the past in how to deal with these things. Boundaries are the key...


----------



## jld

GI, I have prepared a response to your post. But I am concerned it may have some sensitive info in it, and I want to respect your privacy and get your permission before I post it. I am going to pm it to you.

Please let me know whatever you do not want posted, and I will strike it.


----------



## lifeistooshort

turnera said:


> Ugh. But that's what's always been the problem. She approaches men who are NOT fitting her view of a man's role - or women who don't fit her view of a woman's role, and tells them to BE her view. When that role doesn't fit the situation, it can make the situation worse.
> 
> When a man sees his woman cheat, he has a limited window of opportunity to 'do it right' to get her to STOP. Her cheating is one big sh*t test, and she is WATCHING him to see what he's going to do when he finds out. Women have to respect their men, and the LAST thing a cheating woman needs to see - at the onset - is her man begging her to stay. Ewww.
> 
> Of course he should be looking at his side of the street and letting her know he gets it, but his first order of business is to let her know immediately that he won't share her.
> 
> But jld doesn't see it that way. She wants all men to be dug - strong, silent, forgiving, letting her beat on him, letting her cheat on him, until she gets it out of her system. In a movie? Maybe. In real life, I've almost NEVER seen that work in 20 years. I think two situations, total. IN those years, the only marriages I've seen saved have been when the man closes up shop, moves on, lets her see him moving on if she won't quit.
> 
> But she doesn't acknowledge that, and we've seen her push her way, we've seen men choose it, and we've seen it not work. And by that time, the window of opportunity has passed and he has failed her sh*t test; it's too late.


_Posted via Mobile Device_

Jld does nothing that most of TAM doesn't do, it's just that you don't happen to like her viewpoint.

Fair enough, that's your right. 

And you give her way too much power, she is one voice in a sea of voices. What makes you think she's singlehandedly able to drown out many other voices?

OP's make their own decisions for a lot of reasons. 

Besides, what if someone takes the standard TAM advice and it backfires when his wife tells him to fvck himself, cleans him out and takes off with the kids? Nobody complains that TAM somehow ruined the marriage. 

Somehow the standard TAM advice is assumed to be good, yet at the same time statistics are spouted about how most marriages don't survive a wife's affair. 

So maybe standard TAM advice isn't that effective. Even if it works sometimes it's not always applicable, yet continues to be pushed. 

The standard advice of fvck the b!tch, expose to everyone and divorce her if she doesn't grovel isn't so easy, and you of all people should understand that.


----------



## jld

turnera said:


> Ugh. But that's what's always been the problem. She approaches men who are NOT fitting her view of a man's role - or women who don't fit her view of a woman's role, and tells them to BE her view. When that role doesn't fit the situation, it can make the situation worse.
> 
> When a man sees his woman cheat, he has a limited window of opportunity to 'do it right' to get her to STOP. Her cheating is one big sh*t test, and she is WATCHING him to see what he's going to do when he finds out. Women have to respect their men, and the LAST thing a cheating woman needs to see - at the onset - is her man begging her to stay. Ewww.
> 
> Of course he should be looking at his side of the street and letting her know he gets it, but his first order of business is to let her know immediately that he won't share her.
> 
> But jld doesn't see it that way. She wants all men to be dug - strong, silent, forgiving, letting her beat on him, letting her cheat on him, until she gets it out of her system. In a movie? Maybe. In real life, I've almost NEVER seen that work in 20 years. I think two situations, total. IN those years, the only marriages I've seen saved have been when the man closes up shop, moves on, lets her see him moving on if she won't quit.
> 
> But she doesn't acknowledge that, and we've seen her push her way, we've seen men choose it, and we've seen it not work. And by that time, the window of opportunity has passed and he has failed her sh*t test; it's too late.


The only man who listened to me was Stillkeepinghopeful. Grid did not listen. He was not committed to Plan A. He said he did his own version of it, but the angry outbursts and threats were still there. That is not Plan A.

Turnera, Dr. Harley has had much more success than TAM. If he suggests Plan A, I think it is worth a shot.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I still am not fond of the whole sh*t test idea but I think if it is testing or at least watching his reaction to whatever she is doing then the desired outcome will be different for different women.

Some ladies will want the foot down, give a women boundaries type of guys. they want to be told no, want to see her man stand up to her. 
Other ladies will want a different reaction, they may be looking to see if their man will say yes, they want to see him do something outside his comfort zone to help meet her needs, to see if he cares and loves her enough to. don't think the foot down stuff is sexy, they don't respect it. 

That would be outside of cheating, but if women all respect different things in a man then the way to respond to a woman to gain respect will be different.

I would respect more coming to the problem with an understanding of their own part in it, taking responsibility for their side of letting the marriage slip and being willing to listen and improve on the marital problems going forward than if he came at it more as it's all my fault, they did nothing wrong, anger, punishing, forcing remorse, etc.

It's not weak to me, I would feel he was stronger by being able to do it. 

People talk about how it would kill their self esteem and look weak, like a pushover, but I felt stronger and better when I decided to do a more Plan A and he gained respect for me.


----------



## jdawg2015

lifeistooshort said:


> And you give her way too much power, she is one voice in a sea of voices. What makes you think she's singlehandedly able to drown out many other voices?
> 
> The standard advice of fvck the b!tch, expose to everyone and divorce her if she doesn't grovel isn't so easy, and you of all people should understand that.


Her 13000 posts mean she replies non stop. Not about power, it's called dilution. I know there's threads where I thought I could constructively contribute but had no desire to wade through so of the stuff when the gang mentality her and a couple of others can get into. Sometimes I just say why bother and I'm not alone.

It's like listening to non stop Fox News or MSNBC. You can only take so much.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> But I learn from that, too. I see people's characters better. Just like I did not know people were having so many problems in their marriages, I did not realize they would be so upset by my message. I think there is a link between the two.
> 
> *I think Sam is trying to protect his own feelings by asking me to change my presentation. He is very sensitive, and wants to hear things a certain way so as to not feel hurt. I do not say things in a way that he finds acceptable, and so he wants me to change how I say it.*
> 
> Again, if I were in this to sell something, I would have to think about a different delivery.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that this conflict is beyond words, MEM. My message, however presented, is not going to resonate with Sam or Wolf or Gus or some others. My message is going to be rejected by that kind of man.


Oh for crying out loud jld, you don't hurt my feelings. Personally, I don't care how you say things, but from a TAM point of view, I'm telling you that the words you chose, and how you use DO matter in how your message in conveyed.

It's fine if you aren't really interested in growing in that regard, but I'm telling you, until you change some things, your advice is not going to be well received, and yes, that's on them, but it doesn't matter who it's on when the message is disregarded out of hand. Frankly, most people aren't going to give you a chance before labeling you as a disingenuous blowhard who is out of touch with what their life experiences are because the words you choose, whether you think so or not, often convey judgement, aloofness, superiority, condescension, disingenuinenes, and basically a bunch of things that turn people off to your message.

/end scary man


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> A marriage that produces two bright, beautiful and successful women is by any rational definition, highly successful.


I can name a large number of companies that produced two highly successful products and were unadulterated failures at the end  

Or, in a similar situation, a number of highly successful products created by pure luck...

The last month convinced me that i was far better at picking a kitten than at picking a spouse.


----------



## jld

GI, I actually feel sick to my stomach, seriously sick, at how much of your private life we are discussing on this thread. Unless it comes from you, I think this is very wrong.

I don't think what you are saying here matches what you have said in the social group. If you want, I will show you one post in particular, by pm, that challenges what you wrote. 

But I am done with public exposure. It makes me sick.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> GI, I have prepared a response to your post. But I am concerned it may have some sensitive info in it, and I want to respect your privacy and get your permission before I post it. I am going to pm it to you.
> 
> Please let me know whatever you do not want posted, and I will strike it.


jld, I don't object to the content (except for one or two references that I'd ask to be removed to protect my privacy) but I think it's not good for it to be posted here because it is more of the same back and forth of "you said this and it meant this" and the other person saying, "I said that, yes, but it meant this." Plus you are wanting to use as evidence things I said when we were working on developing deep intimacy and transparency. Both us us have a different perspective on those issues now. 

Unlike you and Dug, my husband and I recovered from ten years of not meeting one another's needs very well at all. It's a common story, and anyone can read about it in my signature thread. We both have triggers, and we both take responsibility for them. The social group was a great place for me to work through my triggers. If that made you develop the wrong impression of our dynamic or of my husband, I'm sorry. All I can do is answer truthfully for where we are now. 

If there are any particular responses that you'd especially like to dialog about on this thread, let me know. Otherwise I think you and I will just go around in circles. 

You said you thought it was courageous of me to talk about some of the issues openly here, but those things I don't find hard to talk about at all. We are in a D/s marriage and are pretty into some physical stuff. We're kinky as hell and both highly sexual. Those are things that shock you and Dug, I know, but I don't know what to do about that. I'm not interested in shocking everyone, so lets just leave that stuff out! If you are concerned, please bring it to the social group where we can talk about it. Better yet, you and Dug come over to Fet and see that we are not at all that unique. 

Just as you have your views on my marriage that are not in alignment with mine, I have my views on yours. We can share those views and agree to disagree. Ok?

Again, let me know if there are any responses you'd particularly like to bring here to talk about. I appreciate that you spent time and effort writing them, and don't want to seem like I'm throwing them away.


----------



## jld

@MEM11363 Will you please close this thread?


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> GI, I actually feel sick to my stomach, seriously sick, at how much of your private life we are discussing on this thread. Unless it comes from you, I think this is very wrong.
> 
> I don't think what you are saying here matches what you have said in the social group. If you want, I will show you one post in particular, by pm, that challenges what you wrote.
> 
> But I am done with public exposure. It makes me sick.


If it makes you uncomfortable, then you should not do it. 

But I'm not sure what part of my private life we've discussed here that is giving you that adverse reaction. I'm not sure what you are seeing as "public exposure." My goodness jld, I think I've done all the exposing as far as my stuff goes. And that is the way it should be--I appreciate that you are sensitive with things I have written for other audiences or in other sources. 

I'm highly emotive through my writing, jld--and I know some of what you have read scares you. It's part of how I manage my anxiety. I think you'd feel so much better if you and Dug came and visited me and my husband. You'd see that we have more in common than you possibly could imagine. (Okay, we probably have a bigger "toy box" than you have, but hey, maybe we could teach you a thing or two.) :smile2:

Lighten up, really. It's all good.


----------



## farsidejunky

I think it is moot to debate it any further, JLD. You and I have been debating the intricacies of this subject via pm, TAM and social groups for the better part of 15 months.

You know my thoughts about you. I have expressed gratitude over multiple venues for your help with my wife. I hope you know my intentions are nothing but an honest attempt to help you.

As long as the echo chamber between you and Dug remains as is, you will continue to discount what many honorable posters are trying to get you to see. 

I understand why. He is your dom; your world. Nobody here can compete with that level of credibility.

I hope some of these other folks, also with solid intentions, can succeed in it.

However, after 15 months of trying, I am simply not convinced that I can reach you.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## GettingIt_2

I see you asked MEM to close this thread, jld. I feel like the dialogue between you and me might have contributed to your discomfort, and I'm sorry for that. 

I think you have a lovely marriage. I think I have a lovely marriage. 

Carry on, all ye in lovely marriages!


----------



## jld

I appreciate you, too, far. I disagree with you on nearly every issue, but I like you as a person.

I think we have to look for content and not form. And I am clearly not worried about everyone agreeing with me.

Yes, Dug is my world. He hung the moon, you know. 

And I hope this thread gets closed soon. Exposure makes me seriously sick.


----------



## john117

Exposure is meaningless without considering the social circles involved. In a lot of places in Europe it's business as usual. In others if family honor has been slighted, bad things may happen...

The whole idea of exposing makes little sense if the expectation is solely to inflict revenge. It makes sense to expose to some people but in general? Do people care? My best friend is in a long time affair and I don't think anything less of him... Sad sexless marriage be darned, his marriage produced two awesome daughters also...


----------



## MEM2020

GI,

How clear the question itself is. Has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the question/comment, just how clearly it is framed. 




GettingIt said:


> MEM, I got my answers ready then realized I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "objective clarity." Do you mean how clear he question is in its intent, or how objective I think the questioner is being?


----------



## turnera

lifeistooshort said:


> And you give her way too much power, she is one voice in a sea of voices. What makes you think she's singlehandedly able to drown out many other voices?


IDK, maybe what she DID TO GRID?



lifeistooshort said:


> Somehow the standard TAM advice is assumed to be good, yet at the same time statistics are spouted about how most marriages don't survive a wife's affair.
> 
> So maybe standard TAM advice isn't that effective. Even if it works sometimes it's not always applicable, yet continues to be pushed.
> 
> The standard advice of fvck the b!tch, expose to everyone and divorce her if she doesn't grovel isn't so easy, and you of all people should understand that.


Well, it looks to ME like those statistics are borne out exactly per expected in grid's case - AFTER he spent MONTHS trying to do just what jld told him to do. If he HAD done what 99.5% of us told him to do, they might be reconciling.

The "standard" advice is there because IT WORKS. The ONLY cases I've seen work - outside of two out of thousands - are when the man takes SWIFT STRONG UNYIELDING action to show the cheating woman that he WILL NOT SHARE HER. 

Women NEED strong men. Women CHEAT ON weak men who become doormats. When said doormat suddenly puts on the brakes and shows STRENGTH, her psychology kicks in and she PAYS ATTENTION.

Too bad for grid, he HAD a chance to save the marriage, and he listened to jld instead.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Exposure is meaningless without considering the social circles involved. In a lot of places in Europe it's business as usual. In others if family honor has been slighted, bad things may happen...
> 
> The whole idea of exposing makes little sense if the expectation is solely to inflict revenge. It makes sense to expose to some people but in general? Do people care? My best friend is in a long time affair and I don't think anything less of him... Sad sexless marriage be darned, his marriage produced two awesome daughters also...


Even when it is meant to help someone, like the post I prepared to GI, it still feels sickening.

My gosh. It is her life. Not mine. The whole world does not need to know her business.
@turnera My gosh. Amazing how much power you think I have. 

Grid never followed my advice, no matter how much you think he did.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I still don't get what exposed what about who here that is troubling you so, jld. Can you help me understand? PM me if you'd rather.


----------



## turnera

john117 said:


> Exposure is meaningless without considering the social circles involved. In a lot of places in Europe it's business as usual. In others if family honor has been slighted, bad things may happen...
> 
> The whole idea of exposing makes little sense if the expectation is solely to inflict revenge. It makes sense to expose to some people but in general? Do people care? My best friend is in a long time affair and I don't think anything less of him....


Exposure isn't a guarantee. To say so would be stupid. So someone like you can sit there and watch your BF cheat and not step up and take a righteous step..well, that's on you. But it's a fair bet that SOME people in his life, had someone exposed his cheating, would show a backbone and CHASTISE him for doing the wrong thing, and he would then QUESTION himself and his actions and ask whether he should continue.

And if you look closely, you'd see that I always tell BSs to expose ONLY to those people whose respect the cheater craves. Why? Because at least SOME of those people would say 'what the hell do you think you're doing?!' And it's the people he wants to impress that he needs to hear from.

That cheater is in a fog (unless he's just a jackass). And if he suddenly starts getting phone calls saying 'wth are you doing?!' - he may just start to wonder if this piece of tail is WORTH all this hassle.

Exposure is for ONE reason - to get the cheater to give up the AP so that the affair fog can dissipate. Only THEN can the married couple hope to see a way back to marital bliss.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> I still don't get what exposed what about who here that is troubling you so, jld. Can you help me understand? PM me if you'd rather.


I will. I found a post in GIG from you from last year that talks about the things I mentioned. 

I am seriously sickened by exposure.


----------



## jld

Well, Dug, I promise you this: If you ever cheat on me, there will be no public exposure. I will not be a part of it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I think exposure also can give a BS a support system, someone knows and can look out for them hopefully. Maybe take them out, listen to them rant and cry, everyone needs someone to talk to, someone real. BS can fall into depression, not be able to take care of themselves. 

I didn't know anyone who would have been able to help get him out of it. That sounds horrible but my H's side is fairly dysfunctional, I told his Mom though.
My side, my Mom knows some but that's it. I didn't want too much negativity towards him. I have 3 brothers and a step-dad that wouldn't have accepted him back IMO, they wouldn't have talked him out of it, just gotten angry. I didn't want to do that. I didn't want to make things awkward going forward with us.
The whole "don't talk bad about your spouse" conflicted with exposure, for me. 

I would have told his work but his OW got fired anyway, unrelated karma 

But I see it's power in other situations, it's the one part of MB that I'm on the fence about. 
I think some people use it as a punishment and I don't agree with shaming people for the sake of punishment. Sexual details should be left out IMO but the MB standard exposure "please help me save my marriage, my spouse has been involved in an affair and needs our loved ones to help shake them out of this fog" can work to rip them out of their fantasy pretty quick.

Could also backfire if they decide to take the WS side and set you both up for conflict and blame. IDK.


----------

