# Be more assertive or pander?



## allez (May 26, 2015)

It'd take too long to go into the finer details, so I'll keep them brief -

I cheated (not sex, but it was still cheating). One night, not an affair. I went home to my wife and admitted to it straight away. 
We went to counselling, talked through the problems we'd had in the relationship, and things improved.

It's almost 3 years down the line. I've basically given up on having a life of my own, I rarely see my friends, as my wife hates the idea of me going out. 

I'm invited to a night away with a group of friends next weekend, I've not mentioned it to my wife yet, I know she'll say she doesn't want me to go. I know she'll become hysterical at the thought of it. But I really want to go, I think it'll be a really good night out. I've passed up on many other nights out and social things with friends in order to show that she's the most important person in my life, and that I want us to be together. 

So, what to do? Do I go, or do I continue to pander to my wife's insecurities? I feel like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. If I go, she'll be miserable (3 years down the line or not, I know she still struggles with what happened), if I don't then I'll never end up doing anything, I'll just continue to pass up on my friends until eventually they stop asking me to join them.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

allez said:


> *I cheated (not sex, but it was still cheating).* One night, not an affair. I went home to my wife and admitted to it straight away.


Explain, please.

Also, were you out w/ any of your friends when this happened?


----------



## JukeboxHero (Mar 3, 2015)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. You did a one night thing, but it wasn't sex nor was it an affair? How was it cheating?


----------



## batsociety (Jan 23, 2015)

Also curious about the cheating thing.

Could you invite her to go out with you and your friends?


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

Agreed- not enough info to go on.

But, in general, be straight up and frank with your wife. I go to the beach once a year with my best friend (who she doesn't like), but we've been doing this for over 40 years. People do need friendships aside from marriage.


----------



## PhillyGuy13 (Nov 29, 2013)

I agree with the others. That said sitting on this since you've been invited out, waiting until the proverbial last minute to ask/discuss this with her isn't going to work in your favor.

You will need to fill in some blanks mentioned above re: the cheating.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScrambledEggs (Jan 14, 2014)

I have the same question everyone else does. But reading between the lines, you went out with the guys and found yourself at a strip club? amiright?


----------



## allez (May 26, 2015)

Thanks for the replies.

OK - to be a little more specific about the cheating. I was on a night out with friends (though a different group of friends than I'd be going with next weekend), and went back to a girls flat with her. We kissed a bit and fooled around, but there was no sex. It was a girl I'd never met before, and I've never met/heard from her since.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

allez said:


> It'd take too long to go into the finer details, so I'll keep them brief -
> 
> I cheated (not sex, but it was still cheating). One night, not an affair. I went home to my wife and admitted to it straight away.
> We went to counselling, talked through the problems we'd had in the relationship, and things improved.
> ...


Sorry dude, you lost the right to plausible deniability.

If you go, you'll be putting her through hell again so you can go have some fun. They're not insecurities, they're her _realities._

Doesn't sound like a loving thing a guy that is trying to reconcile would do.

3 years... drop in the bucket. Some things take a lifetime to undo, if then.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

allez said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> OK - to be a little more specific about the cheating. I was* on a night out with friends *(though a different group of friends than I'd be going with next weekend), and *went back to a girls flat *with her. We *kissed a bit and fooled around*, but there was no sex. It was a girl I'd never met before, and I've never met/heard from her since.


Dude. 

You picked up a strange woman in a bar and went home with her. Pretty much anything after that is just details. You were unfaithful to your wife. 

That underlined bit about you not having sex with her? Yeah, head on over to the Coping with Infidelity section of this site and get a lesson on what 99.9% of cheaters say when they get caught. Hint: It's that they "just kissed", or "just fooled around a little bit", but "there was no sex".... So, basically, you've given your wife the one answer guaranteed to make anyone who's ever known anything about cheating think you're a liar. 

No wonder she's still a little untrusting. You've got a track record of being a lot untrustworthy! 

Sure, put your foot down. Stop "pandering" to your wife's irrational insecurities. 'Cause that's bound to build trust, right? Are you trying to break up your marriage? Take your wife with you if you want to go out. Or stay home and have a date night. Either way, go find a really good MC, one with a history of helping couples heal after infidelity, and book you two in for a few sessions. Clearly, she's not over it (and she shouldn't be) and you're starting to get all sulky and resentful about doing what it takes to rebuild your marriage after you blew it up. 

:slap:


----------



## len51 (May 22, 2015)

I have read some Marriage Consolers write that the worst thing you can do is tell your spouse that you cheated if she does not know. They say that you are getting rid of your guilt to make yourself feel better, at the expense of a lifetime of distrust and worry for your wife. There is a saying that what the eyes do not see, cannot hurt the heart, especially since you said no sex was involved. Perhaps it was wiser to just deal with the guilt and not do it again rather than upheave your marriage? I do understand the crushing guilt you felt then the need to tell her but it may be best to spare her.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

You don't change your own reasonable and honest behaviors for someone else's comfort at the expense of your enjoying your life. All you get for doing so is a nice bucket of resentment which will torpedo your relationship later, usually in spectacular fashion.

So you explain the importance of socializing to her and agree to reasonable steps that may help her anxiety. For example, being available for a call at a moment's notice without negativity, plainly visible plans communicated by proper friends (ie texts discussing event), and opting for events involving other married *men* she has a degree of trust in, and locations that are not meat markets (the stodgy pub hangout with a bunch of married friends vs going to the club with single guys).

She doesn't have to like everything you do. You have to let her choose whether she wants to stay with the things she doesn't like. You have to live your life for you, not her.

Allow her a measure of influence and accommodation, but absolutely do not pander. It's been three years and she's not past it, she's probably never going to be... and why should she? She gets full control of you with it. You don't have to learn how to trust someone again when you have control of them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Rowan said:


> Dude.
> 
> You picked up a strange woman in a bar and went home with her. Pretty much anything after that is just details. You were unfaithful to your wife.


Is that not what he said in the first post? He cheated. No details because the details are really irrelevant. He cheated.

Now the question is does he live the rest of his life to please her, or does he get to have any life of his own? Good luck to the marriage that favors the former - resentment is a good friend of cheating.

He lives his life, and she accepts him or she doesn't. If she doesn't, why should he want to be with her anyway?

OP, you need to do the things you enjoy, and to the best of your ability without sacrificing those things, offer what you can to alleviate your wife's anxiety. The best being having her come with you. It's on her if she refuses. Otherwise, you'll keep her happy, and end up hating her.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Is that not what he said in the first post? He cheated. No details because the details are really irrelevant. He cheated.
> 
> Now the question is does he live the rest of his life to please her, or does he get to have any life of his own? Good luck to the marriage that favors the former.


From a guy that's been cheated on...

If you cheated and aren't willing to basically live the rest of your life making it up to the other person, you're not really reconciling.

You're looking for a hall pass.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> From a guy that's been cheated on...
> 
> If you cheated and aren't willing to basically live the rest of your life making it up to the other person, you're not really reconciling.
> 
> You're looking for a hall pass.


Bull. They don't owe anything. The betrayed are making their own choice.

Making that choice to stay doesn't grant the right to any power over the cheater. Responsibility for that choice lies nowhere but in the hands of the betrayed, as does accepting the risk, and even hurt if betrayed again. Anything else merely sets up problems down the road.

Show me a marriage where the betrayed constantly holds a "you cheated" power card over the cheater, and I'll show you an eventual divorce or perpetually unhappy people.

Reconciliation doesn't come from coercion and control.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Bull. They don't owe anything. The betrayed are making their own choice.
> 
> Making that choice to stay doesn't grant the right to any power over the cheater. Responsibility for that choice lies nowhere but in the hands of the betrayed, as does accepting the risk, and even hurt if betrayed again. Anything else merely sets up problems down the road.
> 
> ...


Once one partner has cheated they've fundamentally shifted the power, perhaps for all time, in the relationship.

Because they've been replaced. And are replaceable.

They don't have to reconcile. But if they do, the one that broke the deal has to make the other person feel safe and trust again.

Not "well, you took me back, so let's hit ctl-alt-delete and start again!"

There's a term for that...

False reconciliation. Which, I'm told, is even worse than the cheating to begin with.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Bull. They don't owe anything. The betrayed are making their own choice.
> 
> Making that choice to stay doesn't grant the right to any power over the cheater. Responsibility for that choice lies nowhere but in the hands of the betrayed, as does accepting the risk, and even hurt if betrayed again. Anything else merely sets up problems down the road.
> 
> ...


This answer may sound harsh, but it sounds realistic, too. While TAM promotes the idea that the cheater has to make the BS feel safe, I wonder how often that plays out. I would suspect that the strongest reconciliations have both partners looking at what went wrong in the marriage, and what each needs to do differently to get things on a healthier track, if the marriage can indeed be saved. Sometimes it cannot.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

I think that there is a difference between letting x amount of time to pass in the hopes that s/he gets over it, pandering and ignoring. Reconciliation requires active mending of trust WHILE living ones life by slowly reintegrating activities in safe ways, like having your spouse join you when you visit with friends, being very available by cell phone...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> This answer may sound harsh, but it sounds realistic, too. While TAM promotes the idea that the cheater has to make the BS feel safe, I wonder how often that plays out. I would suspect that the strongest reconciliations have both partners looking at what went wrong in the marriage, and what each needs to do differently to get things on a healthier track, if the marriage can indeed be saved. Sometimes it cannot.


That happens after the one that cheated is willing to do whatever it takes to allow the betrayed spouse to trust them again.

Not before.

And once the betrayed spouse gets freaked out (which, trust me, can happen years later) it's up to the one that stepped out to do what it takes to settle them down again.

It's a traumatizing experience. One that's done on purpose. It's very difficult to be asked to go through that again for the sake of some fun.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> That happens after the one that cheated is willing to do whatever it takes to allow the betrayed spouse to trust them again.
> 
> Not before.
> 
> ...


Well, I think that makes the WS the dominant in the relationship. And I think that is risky.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> Well, I think that makes the WS the dominant in the relationship. And I think that is risky.


Let's use a less emotionally charged example.

Let's say my wife withdraws a substantial amount of money and gambles it away in one reckless night. Say $100K.

Enough that our financial future is changed. Perhaps forever.

She comes to me, in tears, swearing she'll never do this again. She demonstrates that she's financially accountable, is transparent about what she's spending her money on. We work together to try to recover our financial future together.

Three years go by. 

She wants to go to Vegas with her friends and take the no-limit credit card with her. She swears she won't gamble again.

Do you shrug your shoulders and say "sure?" Because you're now back at where you were before it all happened? Maybe. Maybe some people can trust like that again. 

And to risk my family's financial future on my partner so she can have a bit of fun? When it's already been shown that she blew it once?

Nah. Even her being insensitive about it would throw some serious red flags.

The D/S thing -- we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'd put some serious controls in place to secure my family's safety. If that makes me a sub in your eyes, so be it.

Family comes first.

What he's proposing to do could drop the ball and blow up more than his relationship.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

At some point there has to be some trust extended. I don't think this idea of making it up to the betrayed your whole life long is realistic.

I think you are a sub because of your emotional dependency, not because of how you manage your money. 

OP, talk to your wife. Sit down and talk honestly and openly. Explain your need. Ask her what she needs to feel safe. But explain that there has to be some trust extended at some point if you are ever to have a sustainable relationship.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> At some point there has to be some trust extended. I don't think this idea of making it up to the betrayed your whole life long is realistic.


You clearly have never been cheated on.

He doesn't make her trust him. He demonstrates he's trustworthy, and if she wants, she gives him back her trust.

She will or she won't. But that's her call, not his.

I can tell you this -- I wouldn't. If my wife went home with another guy, made out with him, and claimed she didn't have sex with him...

And for some strange reason I stayed with her...

All weekends away would be done, forever. Unless I came to her and offered it back. If she didn't like that, she could leave. And I'd be happy to see her go.


> I think you are a sub because of your emotional dependency, not because of how you manage your money.


You're missing the point.

#1 he's gambling his marriage on a weekend away to play with his friends. When it's been demonstrated that he cannot handle this responsability. This is akin to me letting my son have his swiss army knife back after I catch him running after his brother with it. Responsability is a two way street. You can't just expect it.

#2 he's asking her to go through a weekend of hell for his fun playtime. He figure's he's earned it. So what he's doing is ****ting all over whatever empathy he's demonstrated (or perhaps not demonstrated) for the emotional pain.


> OP, talk to your wife. Sit down and talk honestly and openly. Explain your need. Ask her what she needs to feel safe. But explain that there has to be some trust extended at some point if you are ever to have a sustainable relationship.


I agree with this. Communication is good.

But be prepared to hear and respect a "no."


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I think we see it differently. And no, neither Dug nor I have cheated on each other.

Cheating can happen at any time, not just on weekends away. At some point, I think there has to be some trust extended. Trying to control people seems like a lost cause to me.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

OP there are ways to create safety for your spouse even in bar situations. I think a good start is to no longer call what you did "not an affair." 

Your wife was seriously traumatized and I do not see your understanding of that here because you are minimizing what you did.

I recommend www.affairrecovery.com to help you build an understanding of the depth of trauma this created for her. A main reason for her being "stuck" from an educated guess of mine is lack of empathy on your part. 

I walked this road on both sides and until you can be honest with yourself you will remain in "jail." Want out.... get educated on her trauma and learn to handle her with true empathy. Assertiveness can come AFTER you lay a foundation of empathy.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> I think we see it differently. And no, neither Dug nor I have cheated on each other.
> 
> Cheating can happen at any time, not just on weekends away. At some point, I think there has to be some trust extended. Trying to control people seems like a lost cause to me.


I don't think she's trying to control him, jld.

I think he's trying to control her.

There are different ways to extend trust. And to ask for it. And for far more important reasons than to go play.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

marduk said:


> I don't think she's trying to control him, jld.
> 
> I think he's trying to control her.
> 
> There are different ways to extend trust. And to ask for it. And for far more important reasons than to go play.


I see it that way too M, him controlling her. 

Minimizing what he did is TOTAL manipulation with intent to control.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Well, I am not seeing the control part on his end, I guess. I can appreciate the lack of empathy, though.

I don't think she is trying to be controlling on purpose, in some sort of evil way. I think she just wants to feel safe with him.

But I don't think we are going to feel safe if it requires us to try to control someone else, especially long term.

If she needs him to never take a weekend away again, and he can live with that, good enough. If not, they probably need to sit down and have a serious talk about the direction of the relationship.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

jld said:


> Well, I am not seeing the control part on his end, I guess. I can appreciate the lack of empathy, though.
> 
> I don't think she is trying to be controlling on purpose, in some sort of evil way. I think she just wants to feel safe with him.
> 
> ...


That's the part she is missing. She cannot create empathy for her in him. That is HIS heavy lifting in this reconciliation. How to be empathetic to the degree that she _willingly_ lays down control. Then once he has done that and she still is unwilling, then assertiveness enters the pic, not before.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Blossom Leigh said:


> That's the part she is missing. She cannot create empathy for her in him. That is HIS heavy lifting in this reconciliation. How to be empathetic to the degree that she _willingly_ lays down control. Then once he has done that and she still is unwilling, then assertiveness enters the pic, not before.


So you are trying to get him to be empathetic?

Well, that might work. Wouldn't hurt to try.

I guess I am just not that optimistic, though. If I were her, and I really needed him to stay home, and he really insisted on leaving, I would be looking hard at that.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

OK.

Going to get a bit personal.

What we learned in MC is that the act of betraying trust is itself a form of control. Because there's the implicit breaking of the rules by one party with the expectation that the other party still conform to the rules.

If the one that broke the trust admits it and asks to be taken back, it's another form of control. Because they're playing on the feelings of the one that was betrayed - love, history, etc. And there's a fundamental 'unburdening' of guilt from the betrayer onto the betrayed.

If the one that broke the trust doesn't admit it, it's a deceptive form of control. Because the betrayed doesn't get to make up their own mind.

There's one way out of this: if the betrayor comes clean, offers to leave the relationship gracefully, and if the betrayed doesn't want that, the betrayor will do what it takes for as long as it takes. And be there through the ****ty times with the betrayed. The anger, the anxiety, all that. On the betrayed's timeline.

Because... and this is what many people that break bonds of trust don't get... _they caused the trauma._ It's easier for betrayers often to get over it, because they can rationalize, justify, and they've unburdened themselves of guilt. Like walking out of a confession booth.

Then, quite often, the betrayer after some amount of time says to the betrayed... "get over it."

And this is a GIANT form of control. Not only is it loaded with "you shouldn't feel this way" (control), it's loaded with "I shouldn't have to play by the rules I agreed to any more" (control), it's also loaded with "If you love me you should trust me even though I already broke your trust" (control).

In it's way, it's a mind-**** version of DARVO. You have your denial - "wasn't an affair" and "it was 3 years ago." You have your attacking by reversing victim and offender - "you should trust me" and "you're trying to control me."

It's quite common, evidently, for those that are actually doing the controlling to claim that they're the one being controlled.

All of this is fixed with a pretty simple solution. 

Empathy.

Which, of course, is going to take a lot of accountability, sincerity, responsibility, and being a grown up.

All of which seems to be in short supply here.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

jld said:


> So you are trying to get him to be empathetic?
> 
> Well, that might work. Wouldn't hurt to try.
> 
> I guess I am just not that optimistic, though. If I were her, and I really needed him to stay home, and he really insisted on leaving, I would be looking hard at that.


Yes, to consider his lack of emathy and to choose for himself to free himself by getting educated on what his actions did to her instead of choosing to minimize what he did so that she won't hurt. She IS hurting, he can't fix that, but he can pave a new foundation of trust and empathy IF he educates himself on how to do that. 

I would agree with you. If I were in her shoes and I have been, and he argued to go without giving a game plan about walking me through reassurance with each step I would have a problem with that. 

OP, let me give you an example... My H's affair was a work affair, with lunchtime being an issue. Therefore for a while my H would call me when he was leaving and when he was returning and if I was having a particularly hard time he would stay on the phone with me the entire hour. UNTIL I didn't need that anymore. He demonstrated he was willing to be 100% transparent and honored my pain and reassured me through it. Eventually, I trusted him again and today 2 1/2 years later he does not have to call me at lunch anymore. Some days we go all day without talking because we are busy. The only time that is not ok with me now is when I have a sick child at home. And recently he caught the wrath of that move when it triggered me. He understands that is part of his consequence for choosing to touch another woman. I have triggers and as hard as I work to self manage, there are times that it flies right out the window and the full brunt of those emotions are let loose. That is the world you opened up to yourself when you chose to touch another woman OP. But there is a way to carve a new path of freer movement, but it takes work, dedication and persistence. Hope the best for you.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Well, looks like there may be more going on here than I ever would have guessed.

It does seem to me that you have to look at why someone cheats. A woman who cheated because her hand was forced into marriage (even subtly), a woman who cheats because she did not realize she was bisexual, a woman who cheated because she was lonely and all her efforts to engage her husband's attention proved fruitless -- all these women need to look at whether or not it is worth it to have to console the man and be at his disposal the rest of her life (if that is what he needs).

OP, take a look at Blossom's posts. Are you lacking in empathy? Could you develop some?

If you cannot, maybe it is time to release your wife so she can find someone who can meet those emotional needs in her.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Good point, blossom.

Triggers. Or as I like to call it, the minefield.

You are going to have to be sensitive until the end of time of accidentally stepping on a mine and causing an explosion. The explosion will come in many ways -- anger, tears, distance, all kinds of things. That will make the betrayer angry. Because it will feel like punishment. When it quite often isn't.

You need to back off when you step on the mine and make your partner explode. Help them defuse it... and not step back there again if you can.

And you need to do that if you're going to stay -- _because you're the one that planted the mines._ Don't ask her to defuse them for you when you're the one that put them there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> She wants to go to Vegas with her friends and take the no-limit credit card with her. She swears she won't gamble again.
> 
> Do you shrug your shoulders and say "sure?" Because you're now back at where you were before it all happened? Maybe. Maybe some people can trust like that again.
> 
> ...


I'm not suggesting insensitivity or zero accommodations. If you never let your spouse do the thing that requires your trust, then you never build trust. All you have is control of them. All but the most submissive or desperate of people are going to reject that eventually.

Per your example, you trust her to go to Vegas, with limited funds. Perhaps you require receipts. Then you have validation of the trust you put in them.

Controlling, sucking up, or sacrificing enjoyment of one's life for the sake of someone else's comfort is a recipe for disaster down the road. You help promote trust with accommodations, but you don't let a "you cheated" card perpetually control you.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not suggesting insensitivity or zero accommodations. If you never let your spouse do the thing that requires your trust, then you never build trust. All you have is control of them. All but the most submissive or desperate of people are going to reject that eventually.
> 
> Per your example, you trust her to go to Vegas, with limited funds. Perhaps you require receipts. Then you have validation of the trust you put in them.
> 
> Controlling, sucking up, or sacrificing enjoyment of one's life for the sake of someone else's comfort is a recipe for disaster down the road. You help promote trust with accommodations, but you don't let a "you cheated" card perpetually control you.


There truly is balance because the scales can tip the other way into giving the BS license to use the WS as a perpetual whipping post. This is where the assertiveness comes in. If the WS has truly in his heart of hearts done what is deeply necessary, but the BS in turn over a significant period of time is using it as an excuse to get revenge, then assertiveness is a must. Being mindful for the rest of the relationship and being punished forever are two different things. There are SOME betrayals that are a forever loss and that is the risk each WS takes when they choose to betray, but once mutual agreement is made, there may come a time when cruelty must be met with assertiveness or leave. But that is a VERY fine line that takes an intense eye and heart to know when it has crossed the line. High level of self awareness.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not suggesting insensitivity or zero accommodations. If you never let your spouse do the thing that requires your trust, then you never build trust. All you have is control of them. All but the most submissive or desperate of people are going to reject that eventually.
> 
> Per your example, you trust her to go to Vegas, with limited funds. Perhaps you require receipts. Then you have validation of the trust you put in them.
> 
> Controlling, sucking up, or sacrificing enjoyment of one's life for the sake of someone else's comfort is a recipe for disaster down the road. You help promote trust with accommodations, but you don't let a "you cheated" card perpetually control you.


You're hilarious.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Blossom Leigh said:


> There truly is balance because the scales can tip the other way into giving the BS license to use the WS as a perpetual whipping post. This is where the assertiveness comes in. *If the WS has truly in his heart of hearts done what is deeply necessary*, but the BS in turn over a significant period of time is using it as an excuse to get revenge, then assertiveness is a must. Being mindful for the rest of the relationship and being punished forever are two different things. There are SOME betrayals that are a forever loss and that is the risk each WS takes when they choose to betray, but once mutual agreement is made, there may come a time when cruelty must be met with assertiveness or leave. But that is a VERY fine line that takes an intense eye and heart to know when it has crossed the line. High level of self awareness.


I think this is what we don't really know. They may have never had the deep talks necessary for each to express their pain, or for him to take a hard look at why he did what he did.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

jld said:


> I think this is what we don't really know. They may have never had the deep talks necessary for each to express their pain, or for him to take a hard look at why he did what he did.


I agree


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> He doesn't make her trust him. He demonstrates he's trustworthy, and if she wants, she gives him back her trust.
> 
> She will or she won't. But that's her call, not his.


If she never gives him any rope, he can't hang himself or show he won't hang himself. She's cutting off anything that would demonstrate trustworthiness.

Control vs Trust. 



marduk said:


> All weekends away would be done, forever. Unless I came to her and offered it back. If she didn't like that, she could leave. And I'd be happy to see her go.


That's incredibly controlling and she should leave you. You think you're getting something with that control, but all you're buying is her resenting you. If your end game is having a happy marriage, you'll have missed the mark. Trust isn't developed by control.



marduk said:


> #1 he's gambling his marriage on a weekend away to play with his friends. When it's been demonstrated that he cannot handle this responsability. This is akin to me letting my son have his swiss army knife back after I catch him running after his brother with it. Responsability is a two way street. You can't just expect it.


He's not a child under her authority. He's a grown man. Marriage doesn't grant you authority over someone. If you can't trust him, and refuse to let him demonstrate trustworthiness in order to build it, then you have no business reconciling. What you have by controlling them is a pet person, not a marriage.



marduk said:


> #2 he's asking her to go through a weekend of hell for his fun playtime. He figure's he's earned it. So what he's doing is ****ting all over whatever empathy he's demonstrated (or perhaps not demonstrated) for the emotional pain.


No, he's living his life. She can choose to continue being part of it, or not. He doesn't have to earn anything, it is his life to begin with. He should not dismiss proper things he enjoys in life, such as socializing with friends, so she can feel comfortable. He should still do these things, while offering as much accommodation as he can while doing them - whether that's bringing her, being available by phone, etc. In choosing to reconcile with a cheater, you're taking a leap of faith... trusting that they won't cheat again, not controlling their actions. Controlling is an example of a false reconciliation. You didn't reconcile, you got control, and there's no trust required when you have control. That's a bad marriage that won't get any better.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

What does your wife get out of being mad at you and manipulating you for three years? What an earth could be so important that it's vital to her to stay this way for this long? I look at behavior like this as a kind of hoarding. It's obsessive compulsive anger driven anxiety complex that's self sustaining. She probably thinks less about you and what you did than she does admiring her own obsession with it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> You're hilarious.


I'm not the sub.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If she never gives him any rope, he can't hang himself or show he won't hang himself. She's cutting off anything that would demonstrate trustworthiness.
> 
> Control vs Trust.
> 
> ...


Agreed and this is how my H and I walked through reconciling. I naturally had triggers, but worked to self manage them even though he put them there because I didn't have a desire to become his cop, but his life went MUCH better when he offered to help walk me through those sensitivities because he was empathetic about the pain I was in. I didn't demand it of him. He offered it.

My only HARD boundary was over his anger issues. I had no choice in that situation since our child was at risk.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Blossom Leigh said:


> I see it that way too M, him controlling her.
> 
> Minimizing what he did is TOTAL manipulation with intent to control.


I don't see that at all. We're just lawyering over definitions.

He clearly views "affair" as a prolonged engagement, a description of a type of cheating (just as I do), but admits what he did is still cheating. Notice his first post didn't attempt to deflect. He didn't give details, he just said, "I cheated". The appearance of minimizing comes as a result of everyone asking what he did specifically. He described what he did.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not the sub.


Shifting accountability back to the person who was betrayed doesn't make him a sub, or her one.

It's not a D/S thing.

It's an accountability and empathy thing.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't see that at all. We're just lawyering over definitions.
> 
> He clearly views "affair" as a prolonged engagement, a description of a type of cheating (just as I do), but admits what he did is still cheating. Notice his first post didn't attempt to deflect. He didn't give details, he just said, "I cheated". The appearance of minimizing comes as a result of everyone asking what he did specifically. He described what he did.


She is still traumatized, regardless of definition.

Thus he must assess his empathy quotient.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Blossom Leigh said:


> She is still traumatized, regardless of definition.
> 
> Thus he must assess his empathy quotient.


Or leave her, if he does not want to meet her needs.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Blossom Leigh said:


> That's the part she is missing. She cannot create empathy for her in him. That is HIS heavy lifting in this reconciliation. How to be empathetic to the degree that she _willingly_ lays down control. Then once he has done that and she still is unwilling, then assertiveness enters the pic, not before.


I agree that empathy is important. I'm just saying that one cannot allow someone perpetual control over the appropriate things they enjoy and call that reconciliation.

There is very much a matter of understanding and empathizing with her being uncomfortable with him going out, and best efforts put toward relieving her anxiety, but he should still do the appropriate things he enjoys.

Reconciliation is not jail or slavery.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't see that at all. We're just lawyering over definitions.
> 
> He clearly views "affair" as a prolonged engagement, a description of a type of cheating (just as I do), but admits what he did is still cheating. Notice his first post didn't attempt to deflect. He didn't give details, he just said, "I cheated". The appearance of minimizing comes as a result of everyone asking what he did specifically. He described what he did.


I struggle with this concept, man.

His label of what he did doesn't matter. Her label of what he did matters.

His label that 3 years is enough and should reset trust doesn't matter. Her label of how long is long enough matters.

The one that broke the trust doesn't get to set the rules, timeline, or context for the reconciliation.

That's kind of what it is.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree that empathy is important. I'm just saying that one cannot allow someone perpetual control over the appropriate things they enjoy and call that reconciliation.
> 
> There is very much a matter of understanding and empathizing with her being uncomfortable with him going out, and best efforts put toward relieving her anxiety, but he should still do the appropriate things he enjoys.
> 
> Reconciliation is not jail or slavery.


Of course it's not.

He's free to leave at any time.

I'm under no illusion that many people can't do the work to reconcile. They may panic, beg for forgiveness... and then not want to deal with the trauma that's been inflicted.

It's hard to live with a reminder of something you're not proud of.

And it's easy to justify, forget, let those feelings fade...

Only the other person is still living it.

If you're not in it for the long haul, don't reconcile. Make a clean break.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Blossom Leigh said:


> She is still traumatized, regardless of definition.
> 
> Thus he must assess his empathy quotient.


We don't know that her still feeling traumatized is the result of his lack of empathy. He could be the most empathetic person in the world and some people will still carry that trauma.

If she must have control over him, then she shouldn't have reconciled with him.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> Shifting accountability back to the person who was betrayed doesn't make him a sub, or her one.
> 
> It's not a D/S thing.
> 
> It's an accountability and empathy thing.


I do think there is a power shift to the WS if the BS expects them to heal them. 

I honestly cannot figure out why anyone would trust a WS to meet the emotional needs of the BS. Sounds terribly risky. Like asking a burglar to housesit.

I think the BS is much better off deciding whether or not they are willing to become the dominant in the relationship and help heal the WS. With that healing, there may eventually be able to be empathy from the WS. But without healing, I am not sure how much the WS can really do for the BS.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree that empathy is important. I'm just saying that one cannot allow someone perpetual control over the appropriate things they enjoy and call that reconciliation.
> 
> There is very much a matter of understanding and empathizing with her being uncomfortable with him going out, and best efforts put toward relieving her anxiety, but he should still do the appropriate things he enjoys.
> 
> Reconciliation is not jail or slavery.


1000% agree


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> Of course it's not.
> 
> He's free to leave at any time.
> 
> ...


Except, by "not in it for the long haul", you're saying "not willing to be her pet". No one should reconcile with that person. That's not a reconciliation. That's willful submission to the control of another, and I'm sorry... it likely won't last and it likely won't be happy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> Shifting accountability back to the person who was betrayed doesn't make him a sub, or her one.
> 
> It's not a D/S thing.
> 
> It's an accountability and empathy thing.


Allowing someone to control you by definition makes you submissive. Controlling doesn't shift accountability. Reconciliation isn't a prison.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> I struggle with this concept, man.
> 
> His label of what he did doesn't matter. Her label of what he did matters.
> 
> His label that 3 years is enough and should reset trust doesn't matter. Her label of how long is long enough matters.


Words. His labels are his descriptions. I don't particularly care who thinks what is what, but it is unfair of folks to jump on him for seeming to minimize when he was up front that he cheated, and the details they use to declare he's minimizing were details they requested from him.

I wouldn't call what he did an affair either. I consider an affair an ongoing thing, not "I made out with someone one night". It's still cheating, and that specificity doesn't minimize the wrong of it. It's just making noise over word choice. He admitted up front it's cheating, bottom line.



marduk said:


> The one that broke the trust doesn't get to set the rules, timeline, or context for the reconciliation.
> 
> That's kind of what it is.


No, actually, she doesn't get to set rules any more than he does. They are still equal negotiators - equally capable of rejecting whatever offer the other makes. If they're not, it's not a reconciliation, it's coercion.

If he wants to socialize, he should. If she can't accept that in spite of reasonable accommodations he should offer to alleviate her anxiety, then she can refuse and end the marriage. 

What he should not do, is hand her control over him in exchange for keeping the marriage. First, it won't pan out in the long run. Second, that's not being in a marriage, that's being a pet. Third, she shouldn't stay with someone she feels she must control.

It's very much the same as entering a new marriage. If he would not marry someone new who refused to ever let him socialize, then he shouldn't reconcile if she demands that control.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

allez said:


> It'd take too long to go into the finer details, so I'll keep them brief -
> 
> I cheated (not sex, but it was still cheating). One night, not an affair. I went home to my wife and admitted to it straight away.
> We went to counselling, talked through the problems we'd had in the relationship, and things improved.
> ...


Ok, you went to MC. I don't think either of you went to MC long enough. 

After cheating, your wife WILL feel insecure. Insecure in the relationship. That's your fault, buddy, not hers. 

Reconciliation should be about rebuilding that secure relationship. In 3 years, that clearly hasn't happened. It may be because you haven't done enough, it may be due to her not letting go. It's likely a combination of the two. 

In any healthy relationship, you should be able to go out with your friends. Yes. 

Getting to the place where your wife is OK with that, with boundaries, is the goal. She needs to understand that it needs to happen eventually. 

HOW you two get to that point probably requires more MC. Before your night outs happen.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

jld said:


> I do think there is a power shift to the WS if the BS expects them to heal them.
> 
> I honestly cannot figure out why anyone would trust a WS to meet the emotional needs of the BS. Sounds terribly risky. Like asking a burglar to housesit.
> 
> I think the BS is much better off deciding whether or not they are willing to become the dominant in the relationship and help heal the WS. With that healing, there may eventually be able to be empathy from the WS. But without healing, I am not sure how much the WS can really do for the BS.


My H had zero capacity to heal me when he chose an affair. He had a LONG road ahead of him to become emotionally available again.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Blossom Leigh said:


> My H had zero capacity to heal me when he chose an affair. He had a LONG road ahead of him to become emotionally available again.


That is pretty much what I mean.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Words. His labels are his descriptions. I don't particularly care who thinks what is what, but it is unfair of folks to jump on him for seeming to minimize when he was up front that he cheated, and the details they use to declare he's minimizing were details they requested from him.
> 
> I wouldn't call what he did an affair either. I consider an affair an ongoing thing, not "I made out with someone one night". It's still cheating, and that specificity doesn't minimize the wrong of it. It's just making noise over word choice. He admitted up front it's cheating, bottom line.
> 
> ...


It is semantics. A "ONS" is a "type" of an affair, but still falls under the umbrella. 

Only the OP can tell us if he is empathetic to her pain. My educated guess was that he isn't. Taking his words as a whole, his scope of what he did in lacking in my opinion.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

jld said:


> That is pretty much what I mean.


Yep, I was agreeing


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

zillard said:


> Ok, you went to MC. I don't think either of you went to MC long enough.
> 
> After cheating, your wife WILL feel insecure. Insecure in the relationship. That's your fault, buddy, not hers.
> 
> ...



And for the record it takes 2 to 5 years to recover from an affair ON AVERAGE... depending on MANY variables. Your ability to empathize and own your actions, OP, are two of those variables.

Sorry D8... I just am not hearing that from this op.. if he comes back and expands it might affect my perspective, but right now I see a gap.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

As far as semantics go, the most important perspective of what to call his cheating is that of his wife. 

If she has ever referred to it as "an affair", OP should too, always. And should never say it wasn't, as that will feel like he's minimizing and rationalizing. 

If OP went to OW's flat on an overnight GNO, he should not expect to go another overnight GNO until he has done numerous GNO's and came home immediately. Even if it means an expensive cab ride or some other inconvenience. The larger the inconvenience, the better. 

If his previous GNO's did not include frequent calls home, he should be calling her on the hour, every ever, if necessary. 

He should take wifey's brother, or some other guy SHE trusts on the first few. He should make sure wifey knows all of these guys and has been invited to things with them first. 

These are steps that I think are completely reasonable. I would bet she would agree, but it's important he understands what SHE needs in order to be comfortable with him fulfilling HIS needs. 

And if they can't come to an agreement - end it.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

The thoughtful answers given in this thread have helped me somewhat in a decision I'm trying to make.
A man I know is a year into reconciliation. When I look at the situation from the outside I see the BS wife using the situation to forward her decades long campaign to move the marriage from sex starved to sexless. I suspect her of false reconciliation. I'm trying to decide whether to say anything to the WS husband. Thinking in terms of 2 - 5 years makes me think give it a chance and see. There are signs of genuine affection. 
On the other hand if she is willing to reconcile only on the terms of his complete celibacy, should he really be investing in such an empty relationship? On the other hand 10 x per year was about the pre-incident frequency. So perhaps he would consider such an offer. 
For what it's worth the incident involved pornography.
For your peace of mind, I'm pretty sure he doesn't need, would not be helped by, my observations. My initial thinking is to stay out of it.
MN


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> The thoughtful answers given in this thread have helped me somewhat in a decision I'm trying to make.
> A man I know is a year into reconciliation. When I look at the situation from the outside I see the BS wife using the situation to forward her decades long campaign to move the marriage from sex starved to sexless. I suspect her of false reconciliation. I'm trying to decide whether to say anything to the WS husband. Thinking in terms of 2 - 5 years makes me think give it a chance and see. There are signs of genuine affection.
> On the other hand if she is willing to reconcile only on the terms of his complete celibacy, should he really be investing in such an empty relationship? On the other hand 10 x per year was about the pre-incident frequency. So perhaps he would consider such an offer.
> For what it's worth the incident involved pornography.
> ...


10 x per year would never work for me. Pre or post. FWIW.

Still, I would stay out of it... unless specifically asked for input.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Allowing someone to control you by definition makes you submissive. Controlling doesn't shift accountability. Reconciliation isn't a prison.


DARVO tactic right there.

She isn't controlling him. He's controlling her.

"Be OK with me doing this" is an attempt to control.

She didn't initiate this.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

zillard said:


> 10 x per year would never work for me. Pre or post. FWIW.
> 
> Still, I would stay out of it... unless specifically asked for input.


Exactly Zillard,
I have trouble comprehending living at that level. I was thinking I was starving a 100 x a year. 
Reconciliation is hard enough without people putting doubts in your mind.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> DARVO tactic right there.
> 
> She isn't controlling him. He's controlling her.
> 
> ...


She is not forced to stay, either.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Words. His labels are his descriptions. I don't particularly care who thinks what is what, but it is unfair of folks to jump on him for seeming to minimize when he was up front that he cheated, and the details they use to declare he's minimizing were details they requested from him.


You assuming the opposite is still an assumption.


> I wouldn't call what he did an affair either. I consider an affair an ongoing thing, not "I made out with someone one night". It's still cheating, and that specificity doesn't minimize the wrong of it. It's just making noise over word choice. He admitted up front it's cheating, bottom line.


You're missing the point. Willfully, I suspect.

It doesn't matter what he calls it. If she wants to call it an affair, let her. Give her what she needs to recover.


> No, actually, she doesn't get to set rules any more than he does. They are still equal negotiators - equally capable of rejecting whatever offer the other makes. If they're not, it's not a reconciliation, it's coercion.


Incorrect.

He blew up the marriage. He no longer has a right to equal negotiation. It's a deal breaker.

His choice is to leave gracefully, or live by her rules to come back.

Period.


> If he wants to socialize, he should. If she can't accept that in spite of reasonable accommodations he should offer to alleviate her anxiety, then she can refuse and end the marriage.


Agreed.


> What he should not do, is hand her control over him in exchange for keeping the marriage. First, it won't pan out in the long run. Second, that's not being in a marriage, that's being a pet. Third, she shouldn't stay with someone she feels she must control.
> 
> It's very much the same as entering a new marriage. If he would not marry someone new who refused to ever let him socialize, then he shouldn't reconcile if she demands that control.


BS.

She's traumatized. By him.

Go pat the backs of those that have cheated, apologized, and get a get out of jail free card. The betrayed shouldn't expect any kind of special consideration.

Blame the victim. Great tactic.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> She is not forced to stay, either.


Sure.

But I'll tell you this -- a false reconciliation is in many ways worse than the betrayal to begin with.

We're not playing on a level playing ground any more. You guys just don't get it, and you expect normal, rational, behaviour from those that were betrayed.

Here's what it feels like: your whole world is upside down. You feel like everything you thought was true, now isn't. You don't know what to trust, how to trust... and you feel like an idiot for trusting to begin with.

The sleepless nights, the physical sickness, the inability to think clearly, being swamped with emotion...

It's not a rational debate. It's not D/S. It's trauma.

And he's asking her to go right back there to have some fun.

jld and devil - you guys are remarkably insensitive.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

allez said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> OK - to be a little more specific about the cheating. I was on a night out with friends (though a different group of friends than I'd be going with next weekend), and went back to a girls flat with her. We kissed a bit and fooled around, but there was no sex. It was a girl I'd never met before, and I've never met/heard from her since.


None? No oral, fingering, HJ, etc? Because all of that is sex, even sans PIV.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

marduk said:


> Sure.
> 
> But I'll tell you this -- a false reconciliation is in many ways worse than the betrayal to begin with.
> 
> ...


I remember it like it was yesterday... this description made me cry


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Blossom Leigh said:


> I remember it like it was yesterday... this description made me cry


Sorry Blossom.

If you haven't had it happen maybe you just don't get it. Or lack empathy to begin with.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> Sure.
> 
> But I'll tell you this -- a false reconciliation is in many ways worse than the betrayal to begin with.
> 
> ...


I am sure it is painful, marduk. And I am not trying to minimize her, or your, pain.

But you have heard the saying that at some point, a victim becomes a volunteer, right? If you choose to stay with a partner who you know, in the pit of your stomach, cannot meet your needs, you have to take ownership of that choice.

I think this is actually an opportunity for her. If they have not really had the deep talks necessary for reconciliation, now they can try that. If they don't want to, or the talks do not work out, she needs to consider leaving him.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

marduk said:


> Sorry Blossom.
> 
> If you haven't had it happen maybe you just don't get it. Or lack empathy to begin with.


It's ok. And you are right.... those who have not walked on the BS side don't get it. I was a WS before I was a BS and trust me I didn't get my xH's pain until I was a BS myself. There was always a level of justification all the way back to the days even before I chose that path.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld said:


> I think this is actually an opportunity for her. If they have not really had the deep talks necessary for reconciliation, now they can try that. If they don't want to, or the talks do not work out, she needs to consider leaving him.


This is an opportunity for HIM to initiate those talks, and bare his soul like he never has before. AGAIN, if he already has. 

HE needs to do the heavy lifting.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

zillard said:


> This is an opportunity for HIM to initiate those talks, and bare his soul like he never has before. AGAIN, if he already has.
> 
> HE needs to do the heavy lifting.


I think either of them could initiate the talks. They would both have to work to repair the marriage.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> I am sure it is painful, marduk. And I am not trying to minimize her, or your, pain.
> 
> But you have heard the saying that at some point, a victim becomes a volunteer, right? If you choose to stay with a partner who you know, in the pit of your stomach, cannot meet your needs, you have to take ownership of that choice.
> 
> I think this is actually an opportunity for her. If they have not really had the deep talks necessary for reconciliation, now they can try that. If they don't want to, or the talks do not work out, she needs to consider leaving him.


My pain doesn't matter. I was using it as a way of communicating my point.

You have victim and volunteer backwards. And that's why your thinking is upside down.

He volunteered to reconcile and help her with her pain. Now he's playing the victim.

Here's how he could get it back on track.

"Wife, I screwed up 3 years ago. I hurt you in ways I cannot understand, and I'm sorry. I thought we were past that, but I can see that we're not. I'm sorry for bringing all that back. I want to help you through this. What can I do? I'm willing to not go to things like this until you're ready, or I'm willing to do what it takes to make you feel better about it. And I'm willing to talk to you, and an MC if we need to, to work through your pain. I'm here for you and will help you if I can."


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

zillard said:


> This is an opportunity for HIM to initiate those talks, and bare his soul like he never has before. AGAIN, if he already has.
> 
> HE needs to do the heavy lifting.


This is very important. It took a while for my H to do the heavy lifting. And we had two phases. The first year we took a 13 week long class from www.affairrecovery.com. That "started" his heavy lifting but it was far from over. Our second year of recovery was the most difficult because so much damage was done after that first year. The second year of recovery we had extensive counseling from March to August. Four counselors simultaneously. Two paid professionals and two from our church. We went individual first then joined forces after I felt safe enough. Even then it was dicey. Our situation was complicated by abuse, but reconciliation just takes deep effort even without that added layer.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

allez said:


> So, what to do? Do I go, or do I continue to pander to my wife's insecurities?


Insecurity is self doubt, it's you she doubts.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> My pain doesn't matter. I was using it as a way of communicating my point.
> 
> You have victim and volunteer backwards. And that's why your thinking is upside down.
> 
> ...


That is one way of looking at it. And if they are both comfortable with it, great.

I think another way of looking at it is to see what each of them is willing to do. I don't think he is willing to give up weekends away forever. She needs to see if she can live with that, or negotiate something else. And he can see if he is open to it.

And she is always free to leave!


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> And she is always free to leave!


This is always the case, before or after the infidelity. 

Saying "please take me back" and then saying "you can always leave" is the wrong way to go about it, or even think about it.

I pray you will never understand why.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

marduk said:


> This is always the case, before or after the infidelity.
> 
> Saying "please take me back" and then saying "you can always leave" is the wrong way to go about it, or even think about it.
> 
> I pray you will never understand why.


Yep, "Whoa-go" is never productive.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld said:


> I think either of them could initiate the talks. They would both have to work to repair the marriage.


His problem is that he doesn't think his wife trusts him yet. 

Finding out what needs to happen to fix that is ALL on him.

After betrayal, she won't feel completely open with him until he proves that he is safe and won't take advantage of her vulnerability. That is why the heavy lifting is on him, because he already DID take advantage.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

Remember. Guilt says, "quit making me feel bad for what I did". 

Remorse says, "What can I do to make it better?"


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

zillard said:


> His problem is that he doesn't think his wife trusts him yet.
> 
> Finding out what needs to happen to fix that is ALL on him.
> 
> After betrayal, she won't feel completely open with him until he proves that he is safe and won't take advantage of her vulnerability. That is why the heavy lifting is on him, because he already DID take advantage.


And what power does she have to enforce that?

If he does not willingly go along with that line of thinking, then her only options are to accept whatever he will go along with, persuade him to her way of thinking, or leave the relationship.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld said:


> And what power does she have to enforce that?
> 
> If he does not willingly go along with that line of thinking, then her only options are to accept whatever he will go along with, persuade him to her way of thinking, or leave the relationship.


Sure. But this is HIS thread.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

Also, if she has to persuade him, then he really isn't remorseful now, is he.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

zillard said:


> This is an opportunity for HIM to initiate those talks, and bare his soul like he never has before. AGAIN, if he already has.
> 
> *HE needs to do the heavy lifting*.


Yep agreed - lots more heavy lifting. He betrayed the trust and now is putting the blame on her that the consequences are still unpleasant for him all this time later.

I get what JLD and Dvl are saying about the BS not holding an affair over their partner for controlling them, and I would not be surprised if there is a certain element of that in play... however the OP wrote that his W is still insecure, and if there is any truth in that it precisely means the trust has not be re-established and since it was his fault he is in no place to criticise her for that. Marduk is pointing out so very precisely what the OP's betrayed wife is feeling and why she is not secure yet.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

zillard said:


> Also, if she has to persuade him, then he really isn't remorseful now, is he.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Maybe not. But reading the posts here may give him a different pov.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld said:


> Maybe not. But reading the posts here may give him a different pov.


I hope so. 

It would be great if they can get to the point were he can go out without it hurting his wife. 

If he cares for her, and is remorseful, he'll wait until then to do so, IMO. 

To get there, I think he should first schedule an MC appointment and invite her.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

zillard said:


> I hope so.
> 
> It would be great if they can get to the point were he can go out without it hurting his wife.
> 
> ...


Well, I am just looking at this very practically. The way I see it, if he does not want to do it the way she wants, she can either accept his way, persuade him to her way, or leave him. She certainly cannot force him to do anything. 

And he has to weigh his freedom against his desire to keep her as his wife.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

allez said:


> I know she'll say *she doesn't want me to go*. I know *she'll become hysterical* at the thought of it.
> 
> ...
> 
> If I go, *she'll be miserable* (3 years down the line or not, I know *she still struggles* with what happened), *if I don't* then *I'll* never end up doing anything, *I'll just continue* to pass up on my friends until eventually they stop asking me to join them.


This does not sound to me like she is controlling him. 

This sounds to me like she is still in a LOT of pain. 

BTW - the dynamic DURING her healing process (which he has no right to put time limits on AND stay with her) does not have to be the same as the dynamic AFTER the healing.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld said:


> Well, I am just looking at this very practically. The way I see it, if he does not want to do it the way she wants, she can either accept his way, persuade him to her way, or leave him. She certainly cannot force him to do anything.
> 
> And he has to weigh his freedom against his desire to keep her as his wife.


I'm curious why you repeatedly talk about her leaving him, in his thread. 

If he doesn't like how long this is taking, HE should leave.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

zillard said:


> I'm curious why you repeatedly talk about her leaving him, in his thread.
> 
> If he doesn't like how long this is taking, HE should leave.


I think her leaving him is what he is risking, if he does not meet her needs. I think he needs to remember that.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> Well, I am just looking at this very practically. The way I see it, if he does not want to do it the way she wants, she can either accept his way, persuade him to her way, or leave him. She certainly cannot force him to do anything.
> 
> And he has to weigh his freedom against his desire to keep her as his wife.


If it's a difficult choice to decide between going away for a weekend to party with your friends vs keeping your wife, that's a whole other problem.

He took away her freedom. Her freedom not to worry. Her freedom to trust. Her freedom to live out the dream.

I don't know about anybody else... but I will never forget what has happened. It will weigh on me, off and on, until I die. Maybe less so day by day.

But it will be there. It pops up in strange ways and in strange times. When I don't want it to. After months of MC & IC. The volume goes down, but you can still hear it from time to time.

That's a special kind of prison. That you lock yourself in to keep loving your spouse and to stay in the marriage. And for the one that broke the trust to cry "boo hoo, I want to be free!" ****s all over that.

And even if she leaves, it will haunt future relationships, forever. More so, or less so. Different for some, maybe.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld said:


> I think her leaving him is what he is risking, if he does not meet her needs. I think he needs to consider that.


Ok. 100% agree.

If I was still in that much pain, my WS knew it, and went anyway... I would leave.

And did.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> If it's a difficult choice to decide between going away for a weekend to party with your friends vs keeping your wife, that's a whole other problem.
> 
> He took away her freedom. Her freedom not to worry. Her freedom to trust. Her freedom to live out the dream.
> 
> ...


Might be empowering to own that decision.

Btw, does your wife know you feel you have locked yourself in a prison to stay with her? Have you used those exact words to describe your feelings?


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

marduk said:


> If it's a difficult choice to decide between going away for a weekend to party with your friends vs keeping your wife, that's a whole other problem.
> 
> He took away her freedom. Her freedom not to worry. Her freedom to trust. Her freedom to live out the dream.
> 
> ...


It's why I have a problem with some people who choose to accuse some one of "playing the victim." A victim is someone who was inflicted with a very real injury. A BS is most definitely an injured party and sometimes those wounds are permanent.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld - do you think attempting to reconcile with a WS is weak?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> Might be empowering to own that decision.
> 
> Btw, does your wife know you feel you have locked yourself in a prison to stay with her? Have you used those exact words to describe your feelings?


I have owned it. But that doesn't mean I'd accept her disrespecting it. 

Yes she knows it. 

And no, she doesn't get it. Because she can't, any more than I can understand childbirth. 

But she at least tries to respect it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> I have owned it. But that doesn't mean I'd accept her disrespecting it.
> 
> Yes she knows it.
> 
> ...


If she accepts it, good enough.

Again, you have used those exact words with her to describe your feelings? That you have locked yourself in a prison in order to stay with her?


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Is there ever any healing?
Is reconciliation a fools dream?
Is my friend wasting years of his life trying to patch over a mortal wound?
What good is a WS doing for the BS by attempting Reconciliation?
Is the mere presence of the WS just salt and dirt festering in the wound?
Why would a BS be interested in Reconciliation?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

zillard said:


> jld - do you think attempting to reconcile with a WS is weak?


Not at all! I think it takes great strength . . . _if_ you are willing to reach out first, and take the dominant role in the relationship.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld said:


> Not at all! I think it takes great strength . . . _if_ you are willing to reach out first, and take the dominant role in the relationship.


What do you mean about reach out first? Ask for R or communicate needs/expectations?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> If she accepts it, good enough.
> 
> Again, you have used those exact words with her to describe your feelings? That you have locked yourself in a prison in order to stay with her?


Yes, she knows. 

Understanding? Maybe. 

She gets that she has taken something away. Something that can be made ok... But the sense of innocence and lack of the question mark in the back of my mind will never be gone. 

That's what she's taken away.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> Not at all! I think it takes great strength . . . _if_ you are willing to reach out first, and take the dominant role in the relationship.


If he were your definition of a Dom he'd be looking out for her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> If he were your definition of a Dom he'd be looking out for her.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And he would not have cheated in the first place.

These are some reasons I think she needs to think about leaving him. He may be up against some of his own natural limits.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> And he would not have cheated in the first place.
> 
> These are some reasons I think she needs to think about leaving him. He may be up against some of his own natural limits.


On that we agree jld.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

zillard said:


> What do you mean about reach out first? Ask for R or communicate needs/expectations?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think the BS has to take charge of the relationship. Even in their pain, I think they need to reach out and find out why the cheating happened. They need to see what each needs to do to put the relationship back together. And in the beginning, it may be the BS getting things going.

It would be great to think the WS could do it, or help. I am just not sure there are lots of WS capable of assuming those responsibilities in the aftermath of a love affair, though.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> I think the BS has to take charge of the relationship. Even in their pain, I think they need to reach out and find out why the cheating happened. They need to see what each needs to do to put the relationship back together. And in the beginning, it may be the BS getting things going.
> 
> It would be great to think the WS could do it, or help. I am just not sure there are lots of WS capable of assuming those responsibilities in the aftermath of a love affair, though.


Nope. In many cases, the betrayed partner isn't gonna have the emotional capacity to do this. 

They can be consumed by alternating periods of rage, fear, self questioning, self esteem in the toilet. You've seen me go through this. 

The betrayed partner can only express. 

The betrayer needs to give. And structure. And help. 

Until the betrayed can articulate their needs going forward. And once triggered, they can be right back in that same spot. 

You're asking for a drum solo from a person with no arms.

The betrayed will ask why. Tell them your faults. Tell them why you did it without blaming them. They will have a hair trigger if they sense blame shifting in any way. 

Keep the reason why consistent. And consistently without blame. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> Yes, she knows.
> 
> Understanding? Maybe.
> 
> ...


One last time, because for some reason I am still not clear on this: Did you use those exact words, that you have locked yourself in a special prison to be able to stay with her, to describe how you feel about the relationship?

Because if my husband said that to me, I think the marriage would be over. I would not want anyone anywhere in a prison of their own making just to be in a relationship with me.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> One last time, because for some reason I am still not clear on this: Did you use those exact words, that you have locked yourself in a special prison to be able to stay with her, to describe how you feel about the relationship?
> 
> Because if my husband said that to me, I think the marriage would be over. I would not want anyone anywhere in a prison of their own making just to be in a relationship with me.


I have. She said "you're free to leave."

Which to me was "I don't give a **** about your pain or what you're willing to do to stay."

After some MC she said "thank you for staying. I understand what I've taken away from you. What do you need from me?"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> Nope. In many cases, the betrayed partner isn't gonna have the emotional capacity to do this.
> 
> They can be consumed by alternating periods of rage, fear, self questioning, self esteem in the toilet. You've seen me go through this.
> 
> ...


Again, I think it is optimistic to think someone right out of a love affair is going to be able to do this. YMMV.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

marduk said:


> Nope. In many cases, the betrayed partner isn't gonna have the emotional capacity to do this.
> 
> They can be consumed by alternating periods of rage, fear, self questioning, self esteem in the toilet. You've seen me go through this.
> 
> ...


Also, if the WS isn't reaching out, the BS won't think they care. If they do reach out, without showing remorse, the BS won't trust the motive.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld said:


> Again, I think it is optimistic to think someone right out of a love affair is going to be able to do this. YMMV.


I might be wrong, but this sounds like more empathy for the WS than the BS.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> I have. She said "you're free to leave."
> 
> Which to me was "I don't give a **** about your pain or what you're willing to do to stay."
> 
> ...


And because I do know you, I know the story is involved and complicated.

If you feel she is doing enough to meet your needs, and she feels you are doing enough to meet her needs, then reconciliation should be at least somewhat successful.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

zillard said:


> I might be wrong, but this sounds like more empathy for the WS than the BS.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have suggested she may want to leave OP. I am not sure that can be interpreted as more empathy for the WS.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld said:


> I have suggested she may want to leave OP. I am not sure that can be interpreted as more empathy for the WS.


I'm talking in general. Sounds like you feel that in the aftermath of an affair, more responsibility lies on the BS.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

zillard said:


> I'm talking in general. Sounds like you feel that in the aftermath of an affair, more responsibility lies on the BS.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


In a perfect world, the WS would fully and immediately recognize the pain of what they have done and fully and immediately begin healing the BS, if that is what the BS needed.

But since we don't live in a perfect world, I think a BS might have to take charge of the situation, at least initially, if they want to preserve the relationship.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

jld said:


> It would be great to think the WS could do it, or help. I am just not sure there are lots of WS capable of assuming those responsibilities in the aftermath of a love affair, though.


I think that if they can't, then it isn't worth trying to reconcile with them. 

A BS asking a WS what they need, before the opposite happens, would be setting a horrible precedent Imo.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> In a perfect world, the WS would fully and immediately recognize the pain of what they have done and fully and immediately begin healing the BS, if that is what the BS needed.
> 
> But since we don't live in a perfect world, I think a BS might have to take charge of the situation, at least initially, if they want to preserve the relationship.


Well, I did, and that sucks. 

It took everything I had, and took a lot out of me. 

I don't recommend it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> Well, I did, and that sucks.
> 
> It took everything I had, and took a lot out of me.
> 
> ...


Blossom did it. Blossom, do you recommend it?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

zillard said:


> I think that if they can't, then it isn't worth trying to reconcile with them.
> 
> A BS asking a WS what they need, before the opposite happens, would be setting a horrible precedent Imo.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


All depends on the capabilities of the BS, and how much they want to preserve the relationship.

And not reconciling is indeed always an option.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> Blossom did it. Blossom, do you recommend it?


I mean I had to take charge of the reconciliation, got almost zero empathy, and actually had to help her with her guilt.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> I mean I had to take charge of the reconciliation, got almost zero empathy, and actually had to help her with her guilt.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And in return, you got to stay married to her and see your kids every day. And now she has taken steps towards acknowledging your pain, right?

The point is, there has been a payoff for doing the initial lifting.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

jld said:


> Blossom did it. Blossom, do you recommend it?


It is not for the faint of heart, but in the face of deep conviction, accurate assessment of capacity and willingness on both sides, then yes, I do.

I was the only one who possessed the vision and strength to do so at the time, even in my wounded state.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

marduk said:


> Nope. In many cases, the betrayed partner isn't gonna have the emotional capacity to do this.
> 
> They can be consumed by alternating periods of rage, fear, self questioning, self esteem in the toilet. You've seen me go through this.
> 
> ...


It is assumed the WS, being the guilty one, is able to help. Somehow he/she needs to be mature. Yet, the very fact they betrayed their spouse is a sign of weakness. They are unlikely to be able to help.

I do not know if it is the case with the OP but I think it is important to think about it. The BS, even though he/she may be very hurt, has probably the best tools to deal with the situation because they did not fall into the affair trap in the first place. They are likely to be more stable.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

Blossom Leigh said:


> accurate assessment of capacity and willingness on both sides.


I see this as imperative for R. I also see remorse as imperative to assessing capacity and willingness. And action from the WS as imperative to identifying true remorse.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

zillard said:


> I see this as imperative for R. I also see remorse as imperative to assessing capacity and willingness. And action from the WS as imperative to identifying true remorse.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Completely agree


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

After the remorse is shown, sure, whoever has the tools should bust them out. And as they are, that assessment continues...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

zillard said:


> After the remorse is shown, sure, whoever has the tools should bust them out. And as they are, that assessment continues...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yep


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

I think it takes work to maintain remorse. Just as it takes work to maintain forgiveness. 

Neither are a light switch. 

And without the work, remorse slides back into guilt as forgiveness slides back into bitterness.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

zillard said:


> I think it takes work to maintain remorse. Just as it takes work to maintain forgiveness.
> 
> Neither are a light switch.
> 
> ...


Agreed.

And it only takes a light touch there, after a while.

Even just a little remorse or empathy goes a long way to defusing potential mines in the minefield.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

Yep, just a few words of empathy can give you the time and motivation to throw a lock on the trigger.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> DARVO tactic right there.
> 
> She isn't controlling him. He's controlling her.
> 
> ...


It's not DARVO at all. It's default. You don't get married to give someone control over proper actions. The only thing you are explicitly restricted from is cheating.

Whether she is okay with him doing proper things is her business. If she's not, she shouldn't reconcile. Because in truth, the only control she has is the control he feels like giving her, which won't even keep him from cheating again if he so chooses (and let's start a pool on how long before that happens when you have a controlling wife). In about 10 minutes, he'll be telling another woman what a b***h his wife is and how controlling she is, and that woman will say, "Oh... you poor baby. You shouldn't put up with that. *I* would never do that."

You have a script for a repeat affair. His resentment of being controlled is only going to increase. So what do you accomplish by controlling?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> You assuming the opposite is still an assumption.


lol, I'm making no assumption. He didn't volunteer this information in his first post. He only said he cheated. For all we knew, he might have had 10 long term affairs. I'm saying you cannot declare him minimizing simply for giving the details you requested. He didn't volunteer that information. It's all cheating. You asked him to explain what he did and then called his explanation minimizing. You're just quibbling over the word affair, which has different meanings to different people regardless of whether they've had one.

You say he should use his wife's words, and again I say bs, because he's not talking to his wife! He's talking to a forum of strangers. If he's talking to me, then saying "affair" implies more than a make out. I wouldn't use affair to describe it to other people either. I think if you use that word, you're implying an ongoing sexual relationship.



marduk said:


> He blew up the marriage. He no longer has a right to equal negotiation. It's a deal breaker.
> 
> His choice is to leave gracefully, or live by her rules to come back.


Actually, that's not how it works. A reconciliation is like a second marriage. You didn't enter the first to be someone's pet, you don't enter the second to be someone's pet. Negotiation is still equal, or the marriage won't last - you're just delaying the divorce. Controlling him won't keep him from cheater either, it will just build resentment. If he wants to cheat, he can do so in a million other ways. So controlling earns you nothing. There's no getting around trust. 

He doesn't need to come back, he's already back. I doubt he agreed to return under the condition of permanently being under her boot. The only reason this is even being discussed here, is that he's likely shown sensitivity in broaching the subject with her already. Now it's been three years, and he has no sign that she's ever going to be comfortable with him doing otherwise innocuous things again. At some point you say, "Hey, socializing is important to me. You can come with me, or you can call me (or whatever accomodations), but I'm going." If she doesn't like that, she can leave. Because the truth of it is, she has no control but what he willingly provides and he has no duty to provide it.



marduk said:


> Go pat the backs of those that have cheated, apologized, and get a get out of jail free card. The betrayed shouldn't expect any kind of special consideration.
> 
> Blame the victim. Great tactic.


I didn't blame anyone. In reconciling, the BS is choosing someone they know to have cheated. If they can't handle the anxiety that comes with that, they shouldn't reconcile. I'm sorry, but the burden IS on the BS. They're the one taking the risk. If you think controlling will earn anything other than resentment, you're fooling yourself. It actually makes rationalizing cheating a hell of a lot easier and more likely. They might not be able to pick up a girl at a bar, but what about that friendly girl at work?

A person who lets another control their life because they made a mistake is thinking only of short term losses. In time, resentment of control will cause them to damn near despise their spouse. Even if fear of loss keeps them in line, it damn sure won't be love. What a wonderful marriage that will be.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> "Wife, I screwed up *10* years ago. I hurt you in ways I cannot understand, and I'm sorry. I thought we were past that, but I can see that we're not. I'm sorry for bringing all that back. I want to help you through this. What can I do? I'm willing to not go to things like this until you're ready, or I'm willing to do what it takes to make you feel better about it. And I'm willing to talk to you, and an MC if we need to, to work through your pain. I'm here for you and will help you if I can."


What you don't get, is there is no reason for her to ever "allow" it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> This is always the case, before or after the infidelity.
> 
> Saying "please take me back" and then saying "you can always leave" is the wrong way to go about it, or even think about it.
> 
> I pray you will never understand why.


I'm sorry, but there's no one I'd go and say "please take me back" to. If you have to beg to keep the relationship, it's beyond done imo.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

zillard said:


> Also, if she has to persuade him, then he really isn't remorseful now, is he.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well that's a new definition of remorse. You're only remorseful if you give into everything she wants? Please.

You all are making not reconciling at all look better and better by the minute.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The *only thing* you are explicitly restricted from is cheating.


That may be the case in your marriage. Many marriages are not the same. 

Two parties can mutually agree to ANY restrictions they want. 

We don't know what restrictions he agreed to in order to reconcile.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well that's a new definition of remorse. You're only remorseful if you give into everything she wants? Please.
> 
> You all are making not reconciling at all look better and better by the minute.


Please define remorse.

ETA. While you're at it - throw in reconciliation or atonement


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

zillard said:


> This does not sound to me like she is controlling him.
> 
> This sounds to me like she is still in a LOT of pain.


Hysteria?? Heads up, but women very often use hysteria, drama, guilt trips and over the top emotion as means to control. If she freaks out or guilt trips, she gets what she wants. Bowing to those only encourages their use.

His solution is simple - bring her or otherwise allow her constant access. If she's basically trying to force him to not have friends, then he should call bs, and tell her no.

The only good long term arrangements are those that are willingly accepted by both sides, not under threat. Anything else is just delaying the divorce.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

zillard said:


> That may be the case in your marriage. Many marriages are not the same.
> 
> Two parties can mutually agree to ANY restrictions they want.
> 
> We don't know what restrictions he agreed to in order to reconcile.


I chose to divorce. 

Fair enough. We'll leave that to him to answer. I'll put money down that he didn't agree to perpetually sit at home on his @ss and have no friends.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I chose to divorce.
> 
> Fair enough. We'll leave that to him to answer. I'll put money down that he didn't agree to perpetually sit at home on his @ss and have no friends.


I did too. 

I'll wager they didn't communicate enough to work that out clearly, and if they want to stay married they need to, pronto.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

zillard said:


> Please define remorse.
> 
> ETA. While you're at it - throw in reconciliation or atonement


Remorse is deep regret. No action required.

Reconciliation is more interesting...

1.the restoration of friendly relations: 
2.the action of making one view or belief compatible with another

If he wants to go out, and she doesn't want him to go out, then they haven't reconciled. If he agrees to give her such control, then imo, he's a fool setting himself up for trouble later. There's just no getting around trust. If she can't trust, then she shouldn't reconcile. There are a lot more ways to cheat than on a night out with the guys. He has to live the life he wants to live, and she can choose to stay in it or not. Anything else is artificial/fake/forced and probably won't last.

Atonement is a reparation. This is an improper thing to apply to a marriage, as there is no atoning for cheating. It is an eternal scar. There's no reparation that can make it all better. One can offer up control and relieve anxiety, but not make them feel better about it, and that, at the cost of making oneself miserable. Not exactly a formula for a lasting marriage.

I'd suggest no one allow someone else to club them over the head with the "you cheated" stick. Someone worth staying with wouldn't be clubbing you over the head with it for all time.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Remorse is deep regret. No action required.
> 
> Reconciliation is more interesting...
> 
> ...


I agree that it takes no action to have remorse. 
Showing remorse is different though. 

In the aftermath of infidelity, there can be no automatic trust. Trusting a cheater without seeing remorse is foolish and, in a way, masochistic. 

It will take time for a BS to trust that the remorse is genuine, too, which does require observing consistency in the WS words and actions (including their retelling of events) - over time. 

That is not controlling; simply healthy skepticism. 

A BS communicating their pain is vital too. HOW that is done differentiates between expressing and attempting to control via guilt. 

Control depends on motive, and I don't think we know enough to call her controlling. We do know enough to identify lack of proper communication and agreement on boundaries - hence my suggestion they go back to MC.


----------



## TheGoodGuy (Apr 22, 2013)

Blossom Leigh said:


> marduk said:
> 
> 
> > Sure.
> ...


Me too. And me too.


----------



## TheGoodGuy (Apr 22, 2013)

marduk said:


> jld said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I am just looking at this very practically. The way I see it, if he does not want to do it the way she wants, she can either accept his way, persuade him to her way, or leave him. She certainly cannot force him to do anything.
> ...


so true.. Preach brother!


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's not DARVO at all. It's default. You don't get married to give someone control over proper actions. The only thing you are explicitly restricted from is cheating.
> 
> Whether she is okay with him doing proper things is her business. If she's not, she shouldn't reconcile. Because in truth, the only control she has is the control he feels like giving her, which won't even keep him from cheating again if he so chooses (and let's start a pool on how long before that happens when you have a controlling wife). In about 10 minutes, he'll be telling another woman what a b***h his wife is and how controlling she is, and that woman will say, "Oh... you poor baby. You shouldn't put up with that. *I* would never do that."
> 
> You have a script for a repeat affair. His resentment of being controlled is only going to increase. So what do you accomplish by controlling?


Honestly dude, you have no idea. How hard this is, and how fine a line this is.

You're trying very desperatly to rationalize an equal playing field where everybody gets to do whatever they want.

Well, guess what? I bet what she wants is for it to not have happened to begin with. 

There's no rational debate with trauma. It's trauma.

Go have fun.

I pray that you are never in an LTR and have to deal with this.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> lol, I'm making no assumption. He didn't volunteer this information in his first post. He only said he cheated. For all we knew, he might have had 10 long term affairs. I'm saying you cannot declare him minimizing simply for giving the details you requested. He didn't volunteer that information. It's all cheating. You asked him to explain what he did and then called his explanation minimizing. You're just quibbling over the word affair, which has different meanings to different people regardless of whether they've had one.
> 
> You say he should use his wife's words, and again I say bs, because he's not talking to his wife! He's talking to a forum of strangers. If he's talking to me, then saying "affair" implies more than a make out. I wouldn't use affair to describe it to other people either. I think if you use that word, you're implying an ongoing sexual relationship.
> 
> ...


Actually dude, *that's not how it works at all.*

A reconciliation is not like a second marriage after an affair. There's no magic reset button where either side gets to call a penalty and you start the game again.

The control is going the other way. The emotional manipulation way.


> He doesn't need to come back, he's already back. I doubt he agreed to return under the condition of permanently being under her boot. The only reason this is even being discussed here, is that he's likely shown sensitivity in broaching the subject with her already. Now it's been three years, and he has no sign that she's ever going to be comfortable with him doing otherwise innocuous things again. At some point you say, "Hey, socializing is important to me. You can come with me, or you can call me (or whatever accomodations), but I'm going." If she doesn't like that, she can leave. Because the truth of it is, she has no control but what he willingly provides and he has no duty to provide it.


Don't go party with your friends because it freaks me out after you did that and you ended up cheating on me is "under her boot?"

Do you even hear yourself, man? Are you in high school?

Go and forever be single man. 



> I didn't blame anyone. In reconciling, the BS is choosing someone they know to have cheated. If they can't handle the anxiety that comes with that, they shouldn't reconcile. I'm sorry, but the burden IS on the BS. They're the one taking the risk. If you think controlling will earn anything other than resentment, you're fooling yourself. It actually makes rationalizing cheating a hell of a lot easier and more likely. They might not be able to pick up a girl at a bar, but what about that friendly girl at work?


My god man, I have no words. You're entering profoundly sick territory.


> A person who lets another control their life because they made a mistake is thinking only of short term losses. In time, resentment of control will cause them to damn near despise their spouse. Even if fear of loss keeps them in line, it damn sure won't be love. What a wonderful marriage that will be.


If you don't want to deal with the minefield that you put there, you shouldn't have come back into the marriage after cheating.

Accountability is what it is.

And you clearly don't like that.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What you don't get, is there is no reason for her to ever "allow" it.


Good.

So he gets to decide if being a big boy and cleaning up his own mess is more important than going partying with his friends.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm sorry, but there's no one I'd go and say "please take me back" to. If you have to beg to keep the relationship, it's beyond done imo.


And I'm sure your partner would be happy to see you go.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

marduk said:


> Good.
> 
> So he gets to decide if being a big boy and cleaning up his own mess is more important than going partying with his friends.


You know what makes me think that a real reconciliation has not happened, and why I would not trust him if I were his wife? One he cowed to her vs communicating in the first place. That just strikes me as insincere. But the thing that really hits me that this is insincere is the word "pander" in the title. It reads like do I assert myself over this silliness or pander to said silliness. But that's me.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hysteria?? Heads up, but women very often use hysteria, drama, guilt trips and over the top emotion as means to control. If she freaks out or guilt trips, she gets what she wants. Bowing to those only encourages their use.


Guess what? Guys do, too.

And what I learned, is that it's not about control at all. It's about self-protection and survival. Not control.

It's "I love you please stop hurting me!"



> His solution is simple - bring her or otherwise allow her constant access. If she's basically trying to force him to not have friends, then he should call bs, and tell her no.


It's a pretty big jump from "you don't get to have friends" to "don't go away for the weekend with your friends because when you did that before you cheated on me."



> The only good long term arrangements are those that are willingly accepted by both sides, not under threat. Anything else is just delaying the divorce.


Guess what?

Life is a threat. There are many things lots of people would like to do, but don't, because of the threat hanging over their head.

I've been given plenty of opportunities to cheat. I never have, at least partly because I couldn't live with the threat of being the guy that did that and stay married. Or have to admit it to my wife. Or have her leave.

There are rules. He broke them. Rules change as a consequence. Such things are natural.

As is empathy.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

NobodySpecial said:


> You know what makes me think that a real reconciliation has not happened, and why I would not trust him if I were his wife? One he cowed to her vs communicating in the first place. That just strikes me as insincere. But the thing that really hits me that this is insincere is the word "pander" in the title. It reads like do I assert myself over this silliness or pander to said silliness. But that's me.


_Exaclty._

If someone has to 'pander' to their spouse's insecurities after _they made those insecurities a reality..._

There's no real reconciliation to begin with.

This whole thread is upside down.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> Honestly dude, you have no idea. How hard this is, and how fine a line this is.
> 
> You're trying very desperatly to rationalize an equal playing field where everybody gets to do whatever they want.
> 
> ...


I've been both cheater and betrayed. I have a pretty damn good idea. In decided whether to keep a relationship with someone who cheated on me, the critical factor was "what am I keeping?" Even if she gave me control of her actions, do I want a pet I keep in a box? Some beaten puppy? To have a card I can play to always get my way? No. Maybe that's the sort of relationship you want. It's not the sort of relationship I want. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't tolerate baseline proper behaviors such as hanging out with friends, you shouldn't reconcile. All else is trying to make someone else bend to your will: coercion; because you associate a fair activity with the actual betrayal. It's dumb. If someone wants to cheat, they'll just cheat another way. What's more, your "controlling" eventually becomes resentment that only increases problems in the relationship and makes further cheating more likely.

All in all, that sounds like forming a pretty sh*tty relationship, for the sake of simply keeping a relationship.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> "what am I keeping?" Even if she gave me control of her actions, do I want a pet I keep in a box? Some beaten puppy? To have a card I can play to always get my way?


ALL of that depends on perspective and motive. 

If that's WHY you would be staying in a relationship, then no. You would royally suck as a human. So good for you for not doing that.

I would say MOST betrayed spouses would NEVER think of it as that. Because of that, there are a fair amount of reconciliations that DO work.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

I agree with Dlvs. Marriage like this has no chance of survival. She does not trust him, he feels guilty but also pissed off. So what - now for the rest of his life he is not allowed to spent weekend with his buddies? And she will be worried her whole life about him cheating? They both would be better off splitting. 

I was on both sides of this. When I was cheated on, - after three years I hardly remember this. Why? BEcause he was really sorry and shown remorse. I felt very secure about him. We were even laughing later that this was like a vaccination shot, it strenghten the relationship. If I had still doubts about him, and was worried about him cheating every time he was not in the same room - that would be very miserable life. You cannot stop people from living life. If you do, you should not be together.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> A reconciliation is not like a second marriage after an affair. There's no magic reset button where either side gets to call a penalty and you start the game again.
> 
> The control is going the other way. The emotional manipulation way.


Nobody has control or manipulation without allowing it.

I really don't mean this as an insult, but your desired situation sounds utterly pathetic to me (I have no other word for it, I'm sorry). The sort of thing only the most desperate and whipped person would submit to. Imagine they had an affair with a co-worker. What are you going to demand? That they don't work? Get real.

The harsh truth of it is that the BS has zero power and by reconciling, by definition must offer trust again. Demanding that someone can't go out isn't going to keep them from cheating if they want to. That "control" is pointless and counterproductive.

The real issue is whether the BS wants to be with a guy who goes out. If she doesn't, she shouldn't stay in the relationship.



marduk said:


> Don't go party with your friends because it freaks me out after you did that and you ended up cheating on me is "under her boot?"
> 
> Do you even hear yourself, man? Are you in high school?
> 
> Go and forever be single man.


Dude, if this guy were you, you'd be set up to be the most submissive, catering little man in history. It's not about partying and single life. It's about his proper ability to maintain friendships and the social engagements that entails. Friends you ignore and never see aren't much in the way of friends. 

A demand that he not go out with friends, is effectively a demand that he not have friends. If having friends is important to him and his not going out is important to her, then they should divorce. Otherwise, they'll just end up divorced later after his resentment reaches a breaking point. 

Ultimately, it is about self-determination. If you're willing to sacrifice that for a woman, any woman, that's just sad.



marduk said:


> My god man, I have no words. You're entering profoundly sick territory.
> 
> If you don't want to deal with the minefield that you put there, you shouldn't have come back into the marriage after cheating.
> 
> ...


I divorced the woman I cheated on and broke up with the gf that cheated on me. Meanwhile, I know several other men who live as pathetic neutered little things, because they let their wives use their mistakes as a trump card in every dispute over what they are "allowed" to do. The very notion makes me ill, and it's hard to respect these men who have accepted a position as defeated puppies or children. And sure enough, all they do is b*t*h about their wives telling them what they can do.

Accountability? Accountability is her leaving. If she doesn't leave, that's her choice. She's the judge, and she's commuted the sentence. She has no entitlement to perpetual control of him. It's exactly the same for him as entering a new relationship. If he wouldn't accept a new woman controlling his actions, then he shouldn't accept this woman controlling his actions. Too many men lose sight of that fact under the absurdly desperate notion that they must "beg her back". Sincere apology doesn't involve begging and submission. If she's not comfortable with how he wants to live his life because she doesn't trust that he won't cheat again, she should leave, not pretend she now has a right to control him.

Unless he's a total puss, it's just going to bite her in the @ss later. It certainly isn't going to help the relationship. He gave her a reason to leave, and now she'll be giving him a reason to leave. Totally fair yes, and a really good way to end a marriage after wasting a lot more time.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

WandaJ said:


> When I was cheated on, - after three years I hardly remember this. Why? BEcause he was really sorry and shown remorse.


HOW did he do that? What did he do?

This could help the OP if he has not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Btw, using the word "pander" implies he's already resentful of her control. He's already on the road that leads to the end of the marriage. When he does leave, or becomes a totally bitter ahole, what has she gotten for all her efforts to control?

I'm sorry, but you don't reconcile without extending trust. Control doesn't get you anything in the long run.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

zillard said:


> HOW did he do that? What did he do?
> 
> This could help the OP if he has not.


I don't know. He was really sorry, told me eveything right away. I think this was more about his real remorse, and also overall integrity that I could feel about him. You know that this is the type that is learning from his own mistakes. He did it once, he was so closed to loosing something more important, and that's it, it was his lesson.

There are also people where you are never sure even if you do not have reason. You gut is telling you they are always "on the hunt", even if it is not realized. Then it is harder to trust after betrayal.
IF OP gives this kind of vibe, it will be misery for both of them. 

But you cannot go through life watching every step of your spouse, because you can not trust him. if that is the case, it would be better to move on.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

WandaJ said:


> I don't know. He was really sorry, told me eveything right away. I think this was more about his real remorse, and also overall integrity that I could feel about him. You know that this is the type that is learning from his own mistakes. He did it once, he was so closed to loosing something more important, and that's it, it was his lesson.
> 
> There are also people where you are never sure even if you do not have reason. You gut is telling you they are always "on the hunt", even if it is not realized. Then it is harder to trust after betrayal.
> IF OP gives this kind of vibe, it will be misery for both of them.
> ...


Go through life that way, no. Even as the BS that would be exhausting. 

I do firmly believe in complete transparency, and to take whatever inconvenient steps are necessary to help a spouse regain trust. During a reconciliation/trial period those steps should be understood and agreed to by both parties. 

After cheating, there should be some submission to reasonable restrictions if that's what the BS needs. That should not be life long though. If the BS can not let it go, no matter what, things should be reevaluated as the reconciliation attempt has failed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

allez said:


> OK - to be a little more specific about the cheating. I was on a night out with friends (though a different group of friends than I'd be going with next weekend), and went back to a girls flat with her. We kissed a bit and fooled around, but there was no sex. It was a girl I'd never met before, and I've never met/heard from her since.


Fooled around = orgasam = sex


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nobody has control or manipulation without allowing it.
> 
> I really don't mean this as an insult, but your desired situation sounds utterly pathetic to me (I have no other word for it, I'm sorry). The sort of thing only the most desperate and whipped person would submit to. Imagine they had an affair with a co-worker. What are you going to demand? That they don't work? Get real.


Where's the empathy, man?

Would you be cool if your partner continued to work with the AP? Or willfully choose to put themselves in the same situation they were in when they betrayed?

Would you just shrug and say go ahead, and cooly leave them if they cheated again?


> The harsh truth of it is that the BS has zero power and by reconciling, by definition must offer trust again. Demanding that someone can't go out isn't going to keep them from cheating if they want to. That "control" is pointless and counterproductive.


Where does the trust get earned?
Where is the line for transparency, empathy, and just plain being foolish?

Many people reconcile for all kinds of reasons. Some of them I consider to be valid, and some I don't.

But in none of them could I imagine a get out of jail free card, and very few that haven't done the deep reconciliation part have I ever heard of trust coming back 100%.

And even then there are aftershocks, years later. Triggers.


> The real issue is whether the BS wants to be with a guy who goes out. If she doesn't, she shouldn't stay in the relationship.


It's that simple, huh? That binary?

Relationships are messy. There are lives, kids, mortgages, all kinds of things. There are all kinds of ways to cheat. There are all kinds of messy, incomplete edges to this.

You may seek to impose clarity and order on it, but it's not there.

You may cheat, have everything be cool for 10 years, and then trigger your spouse. Then what? Do you shrug, say "suck it up princess, you took me back" and then go do it anyway?

Or do you sit down and find a way to manage through it? That weighs the greater good of the relationship?


> Dude, if this guy were you, you'd be set up to be the most submissive, catering little man in history. It's not about partying and single life. It's about his proper ability to maintain friendships and the social engagements that entails. Friends you ignore and never see aren't much in the way of friends.


This guy would never be me because I wouldn't ever have done it to begin with.

And if I would have, I would have done what I said -- offer to leave the relationship cleanly and easily for her, and if she wants to reconcile, I'd live with empathy about the situation forever.

Life isn't binary, man. You can go out with your friends without replicating the event that caused the situation. You could back off on this one thing, and then take a long view of building up to a similar thing in a way that didn't trigger her. You could bring her along. All kinds of things.


> A demand that he not go out with friends, is effectively a demand that he not have friends. If having friends is important to him and his not going out is important to her, then they should divorce. Otherwise, they'll just end up divorced later after his resentment reaches a breaking point.


Really?
I go away with my buddies not very often. I go out with my buddies quite often.

My wife does the same. They seem to be on two different ends of the spectrum.


> Ultimately, it is about self-determination. If you're willing to sacrifice that for a woman, any woman, that's just sad.


Or you could live with honour.

Knowing you disgraced her, and dishonoured yourself, you could stand up and actually own what you did.

Not demand to hit the reboot button and walk away.


> I divorced the woman I cheated on and broke up with the gf that cheated on me. Meanwhile, I know several other men who live as pathetic neutered little things, because they let their wives use their mistakes as a trump card in every dispute over what they are "allowed" to do. The very notion makes me ill, and it's hard to respect these men who have accepted a position as defeated puppies or children. And sure enough, all they do is b*t*h about their wives telling them what they can do.


Is there another way?

That doesn't threaten your manhood so much?


> Accountability? Accountability is her leaving. If she doesn't leave, that's her choice. She's the judge, and she's commuted the sentence. She has no entitlement to perpetual control of him. It's exactly the same for him as entering a new relationship. If he wouldn't accept a new woman controlling his actions, then he shouldn't accept this woman controlling his actions. Too many men lose sight of that fact under the absurdly desperate notion that they must "beg her back". Sincere apology doesn't involve begging and submission. If she's not comfortable with how he wants to live his life because she doesn't trust that he won't cheat again, she should leave, not pretend she now has a right to control him.
> 
> Unless he's a total puss, it's just going to bite her in the @ss later. It certainly isn't going to help the relationship. He gave her a reason to leave, and now she'll be giving him a reason to leave. Totally fair yes, and a really good way to end a marriage after wasting a lot more time.


Zero empathy for what he did to her, is what I'm hearing.

What did you go through when your gf cheated on you? How did it feel?

When you cheated on your wife, did you give her the choice? Why did you leave her? For you, or for her?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

WandaJ said:


> I don't know. He was really sorry, told me eveything right away. I think this was more about his real remorse, and also overall integrity that I could feel about him. You know that this is the type that is learning from his own mistakes. He did it once, he was so closed to loosing something more important, and that's it, it was his lesson.
> 
> There are also people where you are never sure even if you do not have reason. You gut is telling you they are always "on the hunt", even if it is not realized. Then it is harder to trust after betrayal.
> IF OP gives this kind of vibe, it will be misery for both of them.
> ...


I agree with this. If you do the work, with empathy and remorse, and years later there is still no trust, it's done.

However, triggers still happen that for the betrayed spouse can put them temporarily back to the disclosure day.

It happens less and less, and for less and less an amount of time, but it happens. And need empathy, and sometimes a good dose of remorse again.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

Important to acknowledge there are different degrees of betrayal and trauma. 

Being betrayed by a GF is much different than say a 10+ year spouse with kids, house, etc.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> Where's the empathy, man?
> 
> Would you be cool if your partner continued to work with the AP? Or willfully choose to put themselves in the same situation they were in when they betrayed?
> 
> Would you just shrug and say go ahead, and cooly leave them if they cheated again?


Those are factors in deciding whether to reconcile. If the person has a great job that they enjoy and don't want to leave it, and you can't accept them still working with the AP, don't reconcile.

Empathy isn't shown by doing what the BS says.

I won't stay exclusive with someone who has cheated on me, so it's all a non-starter for me. But for someone who will, I'm telling you: down the road there is a price to be paid for the control - and it tends to be pretty high. Control is making someone else unhappy because they made you unhappy. Neither party is fully aware of the choice they are making, because the WS is desperate to save the relationship so will often grant whatever control the BS wants, and the BS is thinking only about preventing cheating. These aren't good places to operate from, and I think will lead to both being unhappy in the long run.

Rebuilding trust and conveying empathy should be done in other ways imo. Reconciling is built on forgiveness, not punishment.



DoneWithHurting said:


> Where does the trust get earned?


It certainly doesn't get earned by control. The unavoidable element of trust, is that it must be extended to be upheld and that risk always belongs to the person trusting. If you have control, you're not trusting. If you don't have trust, you can't have love. IMO, reconciling is very much about taking that risk. If you can't, you shouldn't reconcile.



DoneWithHurting said:


> But in none of them could I imagine a get out of jail free card, and very few that haven't done the deep reconciliation part have I ever heard of trust coming back 100%.


It's a shame you view it this way. That's a "punishment" mentality, not a reconciliation. They harmed you, so now you're going to harm them. I bet that works out great in marriages. Heads up, I think if you're intent on harming your spouse or reducing their happiness, you shouldn't be married.



DoneWithHurting said:


> It's that simple, huh? That binary?


Yep, that simple. You ought not try to change people. 



DoneWithHurting said:


> You may cheat, have everything be cool for 10 years, and then trigger your spouse. Then what? Do you shrug, say "suck it up princess, you took me back" and then go do it anyway?


Oh? But saying "But baby, it's cool... you've got me locked up tighter than fort knox, there's no way I could cheat again" is reasonable?

Obviously one wouldn't say "suck it up". Empathy though, is far different from control. There's no such thing as resenting feeling empathy. Instead of the BS saying "you're not allowed to go out", it's the WS saying "I can see you've been on edge lately because of that wrong number that called me, so I've decided to stay home tonight. We'll rent a movie and cuddle on the couch. I'll hang out with the guys next time."

Dramatic difference. The former is submissive. The later is empathetic and assertive. The former lacks choice. The later is a willful decision to show her priority. That's how you build trust. Not handing someone your leash.



DoneWithHurting said:


> Or do you sit down and find a way to manage through it? That weighs the greater good of the relationship?


A relationship maintained by control, isn't a relationship worth keeping, nor a relationship that will last. Is that the greater good of the relationship?



DoneWithHurting said:


> And if I would have, I would have done what I said -- offer to leave the relationship cleanly and easily for her, and if she wants to reconcile, I'd live with empathy about the situation forever.


I agree. The only difference in our positions is that you seem to consider handing her control over your actions as a show of empathy. It's not and it doesn't get anyone anything in the long run.



DoneWithHurting said:


> Really?
> I go away with my buddies not very often. I go out with my buddies quite often.


Yep, really. Notice you don't list "I never go out with my buddies". That's the situation this guy faces. If you're not maintaining friendships, you don't have friendships.



DoneWithHurting said:


> My wife does the same. They seem to be on two different ends of the spectrum.


We don't have that information. All we know is that she demands he never go out.



DoneWithHurting said:


> Or you could live with honour.


That's not honor. There's no honor in being someone's controlled pet. You go forward living your life honestly the way you want to live your life.

Becoming some neutered version of yourself for someone's comfort by giving them control over you isn't owning what you did. It's desperate short-sighted thinking. 



DoneWithHurting said:


> Is there another way?
> 
> That doesn't threaten your manhood so much?


No way that involves control, no. No man who hands control of his actions over to someone else is still a man. He's at best a child, and at worst a pet.

There are far better ways to show empathy than obedience.



DoneWithHurting said:


> Zero empathy for what he did to her, is what I'm hearing.


I'm not arguing against empathy. I'm saying that control is not empathy. One could very well obey all of her commands, not have empathy for what was done. And vice versa, one could accept no illusion of control over them, and be extremely empathetic. The later is more effective than the former in the long run.



DoneWithHurting said:


> What did you go through when your gf cheated on you? How did it feel?


It hurt like hell. It was totally unexpected. My immediate desire was to control, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that trying to control her would only make her into a fake version of what I wanted, and unhappy to boot. So in the end I decided her lifestyle wasn't compatible with what I wanted in a partner. I didn't want to control her, and I couldn't feel comfortable without control. It didn't feel right and I was never sold on her sincerity - had I been, I wouldn't have desired control. It looked like textbook case of someone saying what I wanted to hear.

That desire for control is informative I think. It says you don't buy the sincerity of the apology. You should trust your feelings - they're usually right, and that person will probably cheat again. Regardless, you'll probably never be genuinely happy with them again.



DoneWithHurting said:


> When you cheated on your wife, did you give her the choice? Why did you leave her? For you, or for her?


My EW wanted to reconcile. My cheating came after years of neglect in spite of my repeatedly bringing it up. The only reason I didn't divorce earlier was because there was no open conflict (we got along like good friends; prototype roommate/child rearing partnership thing), and my negative feelings about the neglect never seemed to tip the scale against the other pains of divorce - financial costs, not seeing my kids every day, having to move, an uncertain future etc. My getting caught cheating was actually a wake up call as to how unhappy I'd become that I had fallen so far as to resort to hiding and sneaking. 

I went to MC with her, and through those discussions decided that 1) she wasn't the person I thought I married. 2) I wasn't the person she thought she married. and 3) I was so resentful of the neglect that I viewed any attempts she made as fake or disingenuous... or charity. Like a friend who spends time with you in order to maintain a relationship they get some sort of an advantage from, but in actuality, they don't want to hang out with you and don't really like you.

So even while I had repeatedly expressed deep, sincere regret for my actions, once I had come to terms with this and the reality of divorce, I understood that we were wrong for each other. We proceeded to have a gentle, amicable divorce that I consider reasonably fair (give or take a bit of alimony). We're still friendly today as a result, and I think that's important to our kids.

So, I left, for both of us. There is a better match out there for her, and for myself.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

I don't see anywhere that he said she "demands" anything. 

I see you interpreting it that way. OK. That influences your posts, clearly. 

If OP interprets it that way too, he should do something about it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

First post:

"It's almost 3 years down the line. I've basically given up on having a life of my own, I rarely see my friends, as my wife hates the idea of me going out."

He goes on to say she'll become hysterical and freak out if he says he's going to go.

This is synonymous with a demand. The over the top reaction is meant to coerce behavior from him, rather than by expressed rule because she lacks proper communication skills (they both probably do). Hysteria allows her to control him without her having to be direct. She has no reason to ever cease this behavior, because she is rewarded by his acquiescence.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> First post:
> 
> "It's almost 3 years down the line. I've basically given up on having a life of my own, I rarely see my friends, as my wife hates the idea of me going out."
> 
> ...


First off, hysteria is a terrible word and hard to gauge what really is happening when it is used, due to history and social implications. 

Second, this is one side of the story and we don't even know that he shares that interpretation. 

Third, she certainly sounds emotional and, when not emotional, I doubt she would say she doesn't want him to have friends.
_Posted via Mobile Device_

Eta- if ever. I highly doubt that is her goal/motive at all. I suspect she doesn't feel much empathy, and if he worked on that, things would be much different.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

zillard said:


> I don't see anywhere that he said she "demands" anything.
> 
> I see you interpreting it that way. OK. That influences your posts, clearly.
> 
> ...


I think it's very much a reflection of being the betrayer in his marriage, rather than the betrayed.

And then it got flipped, but in a GF/BF situation, not a marriage, but it still hurt. This I get.

I don't think it's binary. I think, to Devil's point, if the betrayed is going to reconcile, they do need to honestly try to find ways to trust again.

However, the betrayer must also understand that this is a journey, not an event, and may never come back to 100%. And may still get triggered.

And certain events just basically become a no fly zone. And if both sides can't own that, they are better off splitting.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> First post:
> 
> "It's almost 3 years down the line. I've basically given up on having a life of my own, I rarely see my friends, as my wife hates the idea of me going out."
> 
> ...


This is kinda my point Devil.

3 years to him is a long time. 3 years to her may just be the beginning of their process.

To go from not going out at all (which I agree is not good) to going away and _replicating the exact events of 3 years ago all in one jump_ is just a hella bad idea. For both of them.

Why not get in slowly? Go out for a beer with the guys after work. Start there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

zillard said:


> First off, hysteria is a terrible word and hard to gauge what really is happening when it is used, due to history and social implications.
> 
> Second, this is one side of the story and we don't even know that he shares that interpretation.


He used a number of words to describe her reactions, not just hysteria. They all amount to a scene one would associate with a child - freaking out large enough and loud enough to force concession. Some people never grew out of that pattern.

No matter how emotional someone is, they can and should learn to contain themselves in order to have meaningful and mature discussion. Whether consciously intended or not, "freaking out" is a control mechanism.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Whether consciously intended or not, "freaking out" is a control mechanism.


I think it is a coping strategy.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

allez said:


> So, what to do? Do I go, or do I continue to pander to my wife's insecurities? I feel like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. If I go, she'll be miserable (3 years down the line or not, I know she still struggles with what happened), if I don't then I'll never end up doing anything, I'll just continue to pass up on my friends until eventually they stop asking me to join them.


It's been 3 years. Living in a cave is ridiculous. The first thing you need to do is read No More Mr Nice Guy. It will explain a lot.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> I think it's very much a reflection of being the betrayer in his marriage, rather than the betrayed.
> 
> And then it got flipped, but in a GF/BF situation, not a marriage, but it still hurt. This I get.
> 
> ...


I mostly agree with what you've said here. However, no person should agree to a "no fly zone" that includes otherwise innocent things - such as hanging out with friends at innocent locations. It doesn't mean she's cool with him going to the strip club... or to the local dance club loaded with singles looking for a night of fun. Further, as a married man, he should recognize the threat that single men engaging in single man behaviors pose to his marriage. He should focus on married friends and his life will be better in the long run for it. Those are elements he ought to fairly offer as accommodations not critical to hanging out with his friends. He can hang out with them at a local dive bar or sports bar where there is significantly less interest among the clientele in hooking up. If he's going to the club, then a fair accommodation would be bringing her with. After all, why wouldn't an honest guy want his wife there to dance with him? Otherwise, he's saying he wants to be single, and shouldn't reconcile.

Regardless, one should not cut off the things they enjoy in life in order to secure someone else's peace. It won't last.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> This is kinda my point Devil.
> 
> 3 years to him is a long time. 3 years to her may just be the beginning of their process.
> 
> ...


No argument from me. The impression he left me is that he's all but given up on having a social life because of her freak outs. He doesn't go do perfectly normal things because he's afraid of upsetting her. That's gotta end. She doesn't have to be 100% comfortable with it. Comfort will increase with honored trust.

I don't recall whether he said exactly what this particular "outing" was... going away or going out or how late, etc. If he's thinking to disappear with the single guys for a weekend in Vegas I think he's in for a rude awakening - as that's questionable married behavior to begin with. If he's talking about going on a weekend camping trip, that's something different entirely.

My impression was that it was a one night event, and I don't recall him saying it's "overnight". So I was thinking along the lines of going to a friend's birthday bash at their favorite bar.

It was also never explained why she can't go with him.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I mostly agree with what you've said here. However, no person should agree to a "no fly zone" that includes otherwise innocent things - such as hanging out with friends at innocent locations.


What I'm trying to get at is certain 'innocent' situations (or for me, people) are no longer innocent post-betrayal. They're loaded. 


> It doesn't mean she's cool with him going to the strip club... or to the local dance club loaded with singles looking for a night of fun. Further, as a married man, he should recognize the threat that single men engaging in single man behaviors pose to his marriage. He should focus on married friends and his life will be better in the long run for it. *Those are elements he ought to fairly offer as accommodations not critical to hanging out with his friends.*


This is what I mean, man. There's lots of things he can do that isn't going away for the weekend, right?


> He can hang out with them at a local dive bar or sports bar where there is significantly less interest among the clientele in hooking up. If he's going to the club, then a fair accommodation would be bringing her with. After all, why wouldn't an honest guy want his wife there to dance with him? Otherwise, he's saying he wants to be single, and shouldn't reconcile.


Exactly.


> Regardless, one should not cut off the things they enjoy in life in order to secure someone else's peace. It won't last.


Sure.

But I suspect a gradual approach, rooted in empathy an sincerity, rather than a zero to 100 miles an hour and "I don't want to pander" probably isn't going to work.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No argument from me. The impression he left me is that he's all but given up on having a social life because of her freak outs. He doesn't go do perfectly normal things because he's afraid of upsetting her. That's gotta end. She doesn't have to be 100% comfortable with it. Comfort will increase with honored trust.
> 
> I don't recall whether he said exactly what this particular "outing" was... going away or going out or how late, etc. If he's thinking to disappear with the single guys for a weekend in Vegas I think he's in for a rude awakening - as that's questionable married behavior to begin with. If he's talking about going on a weekend camping trip, that's something different entirely.
> 
> ...


Here's the quote (the guy seems to have bailed):


> I'm invited to a night away with a group of friends next weekend, I've not mentioned it to my wife yet, I know she'll say she doesn't want me to go. I know she'll become hysterical at the thought of it. But I really want to go, I think it'll be a really good night out. I've passed up on many other nights out and social things with friends in order to show that she's the most important person in my life, and that I want us to be together.


I assume 'away' means an overnight trip somewhere with the boys.

The time he cheaed seems to line up pretty similarly with what he's trying to do.

I suspect that's the deal.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

I mostly agree, the way you wrote it here, dvls

We don't know that his outing is innocent, at an innocent location though. 

Overnight outing with a group of single dudes at a club is much different than happy hour, pool and bar food with friends of the couple or even coworkers. 

I think we all agree there. 

If he's not doing the latter out of fear of upsetting her, with no good communication about it... that is more about him making covert contracts than it is about her controlling him or demanding he be on a leash. (I'm not saying there is no element of that, I'm saying we don't know)

If this outing is more like the former, he's not in the right mindset to be married to her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My EW wanted to reconcile. My cheating came after years of neglect in spite of my repeatedly bringing it up. The only reason I didn't divorce earlier was because there was no open conflict (we got along like good friends; prototype roommate/child rearing partnership thing), and my negative feelings about the neglect never seemed to tip the scale against the other pains of divorce - financial costs, not seeing my kids every day, having to move, an uncertain future etc. My getting caught cheating was actually a wake up call as to how unhappy I'd become that I had fallen so far as to resort to hiding and sneaking.
> 
> I went to MC with her, and through those discussions decided that 1) she wasn't the person I thought I married. 2) I wasn't the person she thought she married. and 3) I was so resentful of the neglect that I viewed any attempts she made as fake or disingenuous... or charity. Like a friend who spends time with you in order to maintain a relationship they get some sort of an advantage from, but in actuality, they don't want to hang out with you and don't really like you.
> 
> ...


I wish more WS could view their cheating as a wake up call, and the BS, too. Whether divorce or reconciliation would follow, I think framing it this way could help foster acceptance and peace.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> I wish more WS could view their cheating as a wake up call, and the BS, too. Whether divorce or reconciliation would follow, I think framing it this way could help foster acceptance and peace.


I view cheating as somewhere on the abuse scale, personally.

I know a lot of people aren't like that, but for me, it's about honesty, integrity, and trust. That's the big deal for me. And for me, those things are absolutes, not warning signs.

I know everybody's different. Esther Perel has opened my eyes on this somewhat, where some people may cheat because they love their partner, and they want to stay... 

If, for example, they are living in a sexless marriage and their spouse doesn't care. Maybe the HD partner goes and has a fling... because they love their partner and want to stay.

I'm not excusing this. But I understand it more.

And I could accept this line of thinking if it was "spouse, I have a need for more X. Either help us have more X, or let me have some X on the side, or let's split amicably so I can go find more X on my own."


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

marduk said:


> I view cheating as somewhere on the abuse scale, personally.
> 
> I know a lot of people aren't like that, but for me, it's about honesty, integrity, and trust. That's the big deal for me. And for me, those things are absolutes, not warning signs.
> 
> ...



I view it on an abuse scale as well.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> What I'm trying to get at is certain 'innocent' situations (or for me, people) are no longer innocent post-betrayal. They're loaded.


I understand that, and thus you compromise. The high-risk club might be something the WS offers up as an accommodation. They ought not offer every social engagement in which there is any remote chance of cheating.



marduk said:


> This is what I mean, man. There's lots of things he can do that isn't going away for the weekend, right?


Is he going away for the weekend? Did I miss a post? What for? Going camping is a lot different than going to Vegas.



marduk said:


> But I suspect a gradual approach, rooted in empathy an sincerity, rather than a zero to 100 miles an hour and "I don't want to pander" probably isn't going to work.


Going out with your friends one night 3 years later isn't zero to 100 miles an hour, I don't care how sensitive she is. By that time, yeah, he's well into pandering if he continues to deny his own, proper, honest, wants.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

marduk said:


> I assume 'away' means an overnight trip somewhere with the boys.


Ah, I read that as "away from the house" as in "going out with the guys".

There's really no justification for him to go on mini vacation weekend somewhere without his wife. If that's his primary interest, and she opposes, then he should just be single.

That said, I think he meant a night out with the guys. Missing a mini vacation weekend wouldn't be tantamount to having no social life, as he implied.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> I view cheating as somewhere on the abuse scale, personally.


Marduk, I see abuse in a relationship as when someone has power over another person, and misuses it. In other words, for there to be "abuse," and not just unkindness, imo there has to be a power differential. Do you see your wife as having power over you?

Also, Dvls talked a lot about the controlling that a BS might do. Do you see yourself as being controlling with your wife? Do you think you do things that are meant to protect yourself, keep yourself safe from ways she might hurt you?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ah, I read that as "away from the house" as in "going out with the guys".
> 
> There's really no justification for him to go on mini vacation weekend somewhere without his wife. If that's his primary interest, and she opposes, then he should just be single.
> 
> That said, I think he meant a night out with the guys. Missing a mini vacation weekend wouldn't be tantamount to having no social life, as he implied.


I read 'away' as in 'away from town.'

But, good point. OP should be clear. Away, overnight, or out for the evening. And away doing what?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

zillard said:


> If he's not doing the latter out of fear of upsetting her, with no good communication about it... that is more about him making covert contracts than it is about her controlling him or demanding he be on a leash. (I'm not saying there is no element of that, I'm saying we don't know)


I don't quite see it as a covert contract. She's been clear that she doesn't like him going. He has deferred to her so as to keep the peace. It's weak, but not a covert contract. He's not doing something under an unspoken "deal" that she'll reciprocate. He's rather just being conflict avoidant.

If he wants to go out, he needs to have a sit down with her and talk this out. Make accommodations, but go out. Don't avoid her reaction, engage her reaction. Let her decide to keep him or not rather than hiding from her (which he may be doing out of shame today, but tomorrow, it'll turn into resentment - if it hasn't already). Everyone, despite the greater up front stress, tends to respect and even eventually find more comfort in a person who engages difficulty head in a fair manner rather be passive or sulk. Want to really stab a woman, instead of being fair and assertive about going out... sit back and sulk because you're too big a puss to face the hard talks. The hard, fair talks have a weird way of being assuring. Passivity promotes doubt.

In all probability, they are both terrible communicators.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> Marduk, I see abuse in a relationship as when someone has power over another person, and misuses it. In other words, for there to be "abuse," and not just unkindness, imo there has to be a power differential. Do you see your wife as having power over you?
> 
> Also, Dvls talked a lot about the controlling that a BS might do. Do you see yourself as being controlling with your wife? Do you think you do things that are meant to protect yourself, keep yourself safe from ways she might hurt you?


I don't control her at all any more. I sure did, for a period of time... say 2 months? My "freak out" phase?

The control wasn't vendictive, or an attempt to make her make me feel safe. It was an attempt to regain self-control in a topsy turvy world, and showed up as "Ok, you go ahead and do that. I'll have the lawyer draw something up and I'll get realtors to list the house."

a·buse
verb
əˈbyo͞oz/
1.
use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
"the judge abused his power by imposing the fines"
synonyms:	misuse, misapply, misemploy; More
make excessive and habitual use of (alcohol or drugs, especially illegal ones).
2.
treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.
"riders who abuse their horses should be prosecuted"
synonyms:	mistreat, maltreat, ill-treat, treat badly; More
antonyms:	look after, nurture
assault (someone, especially a woman or child) sexually.
"he was a depraved man who had abused his two young daughters"
euphemistic
masturbate.
use or treat in such a way as to cause damage or harm.
"he had been abusing his body for years"
3.
speak in an insulting and offensive way to or about (someone).
"the referee was abused by players from both teams"
synonyms:	insult, be rude to, swear at, curse, call someone names, taunt, shout at, revile, inveigh against, bawl out, vilify, slander, cast aspersions on; More
antonyms:	compliment, flatter
noun
noun: abuse; plural noun: abuses
əˈbyo͞os/
1.
the improper use of something.
"alcohol abuse"
synonyms:	misuse, misapplication, misemployment; More
unjust or corrupt practice.
"protection against fraud and abuse"
synonyms:	corruption, injustice, wrongdoing, wrong, misconduct, misdeed(s), offense(s), crime(s), sin(s)
"the scheme is open to administrative abuse"
2.
cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal.
"a black eye and other signs of physical abuse"


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

_I don't control her at all any more. I sure did, for a period of time... say 2 months? My "freak out" phase?

The control wasn't vendictive, or an attempt to make her make me feel safe. It was an attempt to regain self-control in a topsy turvy world, and showed up as "Ok, you go ahead and do that. I'll have the lawyer draw something up and I'll get realtors to list the house."_

Isn't all control a way to make oneself feel safe somehow? And do control issues go away that quickly?

Look, I think if you go back and look at some of the stuff Dvls wrote, without defensiveness, I think there might be some things you could learn there. Jmo.


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't quite see it as a covert contract. She's been clear that she doesn't like him going. He has deferred to her so as to keep the peace. It's weak, but not a covert contract. He's not doing something under an unspoken "deal" that she'll reciprocate. He's rather just being conflict avoidant.
> 
> If he wants to go out, he needs to have a sit down with her and talk this out. Make accommodations, but go out. Don't avoid her reaction, engage her reaction. Let her decide to keep him or not rather than hiding from her (which he may be doing out of shame today, but tomorrow, it'll turn into resentment - if it hasn't already). Everyone, despite the greater up front stress, tends to respect and even eventually find more comfort in a person who engages difficulty head in a fair manner rather be passive or sulk. Want to really stab a woman, instead of being fair and assertive about going out... sit back and sulk because you're too big a puss to face the hard talks. The hard, fair talks have a weird way of being assuring. Passivity promotes doubt.
> 
> In all probability, they are both terrible communicators.


100% agree about the communication and trust/respect.

As for the contract, if he's choosing to have no social life, thinking that doing so should "earn" him that right after 3 years penance, without them ever being clear on that and on the same page, it's covert.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## zillard (Nov 13, 2012)

But regardless what we call it, I still think they are clearly not on the same page and need more MC, or at least open honest re-evaluation.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## allez (May 26, 2015)

Hi folks, I can't believe how many responses I got here, and so sorry it's been ridiculously long since I replied. If you wouldn't mind bearing with me...I know this is quite a long read!

At the time I posted this, I'd posted on a few forums, and hadn't had many responses at all. I think I must have forgot I posted here, it was only when I tried to sign up today, that it said my email address was already registered.

So....

Thanks for all the responses. I can see that I perhaps didn't give enough details to what my "night out" was. In the end I did up end going. It was a football (soccer!) end of season weekend away with the team. Just 1 night away. I spoke about it with my wife, and while she wasn't over the moon about it, she trusted me enough to go. It was a good night away, and there were no problems with it in the end.

To answer a couple of other points made -

Empathy - you're correct I do lack it somewhat. It's something I'm well aware of, as is my wife, and as were the 3 marriage counsellors we've been to see. I'm not entirely un-empathetic, but can't deny I am a large part. It's not on purpose, it's just how I am. 

Control - few posts about how I control my wife. That's absolutely not the case. I can see where those posters are coming from, but in my situation it doesn't apply.

Communication - we were terrible at communicating, for a long time. If anything 'good' came from what I did, then it's that going to counselling helped us in this respect. We talk about pretty much everything now. 


It's just over 2.5 years on from my original post. Still married, but it's still difficult. Especially recently, hence my return to internet forums about relationships!

Here's an up to date situation - trust issues are very much still abound. I know she doesn't trust me 100%, and don't expect her to. I'm still doing what I can to show her that I want the marriage to work. However, a couple of days ago she confessed that she considered asking me to move out the home.

We recently returned from a holiday in Thailand. While there I nipped off to the shops, when gone my wife went through my phone messages. I came back and it was clear she was angry. She found a text conversation between me and a girl I don't really know. The conversation was entirely innocent, from my point of view. The girl works with my uncle, I met her through him one time, then she moved to my area and I began seeing her on the way to work in the morning, we got the same bus. Sometimes we'd chat, sometimes we wouldn't. I wouldn't say we were friends, just 2 folk who'd been introduced to each other one time. Anyway, I saw her on the way to work at the start of the year, she mentioned that my uncle had been the Santa at their work Christmas do, and proceeded to show me photos of him. I asked her to send the photos to me, gave her my mobile number and she messaged them to me. The rest of the text messages were me saying thanks, her saying no problem and asking that if any jobs become available in my company to let her know, me replying that I would. There was absolutely no flirting. No smillies. No kisses. Nothing. 

This girl is not unattractive. That's where the issue is for my wife. I shouldn't be giving my number to other girls. I get it, I do...but for me that's not what this instance was about. At all. To me, it wouldn't have made a difference if it had been a guy, or an OAP, or the most unnattractive person in the world. The conversation would have went the same in my opinion, because attractive or not, I wasn't interested, I didn't even consider it. There's never been any other messages between me and the girl, because I've no reason to message her. 

My wife obviously sees it differently. She sees it as me lying to her. By not telling her at the time, I'm lying, and that's something she won't accept in our relationship, any lies.

I guess my main point, or question, or query, whatever, is - does it come to a point where for the good of both of you, you just say "this isn't working"? We don't have any kids, we're both 33, we're both smart enough to know that while the relationship is still like this we wouldn't want to have kids. We've always spoken about a family, but spoke about doing it when the time is right. It's been over 5 years now since I cheated, and I know we both want the marriage to work, but when do you say "this isn't making us happy, we tried, but we couldn't get past what I did"?

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

allez said:


> Hi folks, I can't believe how many responses I got here, and so sorry it's been ridiculously long since I replied. If you wouldn't mind bearing with me...I know this is quite a long read!
> 
> At the time I posted this, I'd posted on a few forums, and hadn't had many responses at all. I think I must have forgot I posted here, it was only when I tried to sign up today, that it said my email address was already registered.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think the time can come when it is just healthier to end it.

I sure would not want to be with someone that insecure.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

allez said:


> It'd take too long to go into the finer details, so I'll keep them brief -
> 
> I cheated (not sex, but it was still cheating). One night, not an affair. I went home to my wife and admitted to it straight away.
> We went to counselling, talked through the problems we'd had in the relationship, and things improved.
> ...


*
You cheated on your wife.*

Good that you confessed, but even so...

This was *less* than three years ago.

So, let's call it two years ago, OK?

You think it's a long time. But *is* it a long time? 

Look at it this way. It was just two birthdays ago, two Christmases ago, two Thanksgivings ago, two Independence Days ago.

*So, it is a very, very short period of time in reality*.

Generally speaking it takes a minimum of five years for a betrayed spouse to get over their wayward spouse's betrayal.










It's a start, but it's not a magical cure. See? The magic isn't working. 










You broke your wife's heart, your damaged your marriage.

A normal spouse who hasn't cheated gets to do all sorts of fun things away from their betrayed spouse.

But wait! Are you a normal spouse? No. Because you are a 









Suck it up, deal with the fact that -just for a moment- you mistook your marriage for a toilet and dumped on your wife.

You also need to show her more respect.

Pandering? Good grief!


----------



## allez (May 26, 2015)

MattMatt said:


> *
> You cheated on your wife.*
> 
> Good that you confessed, but even so...
> ...


It was over 5 years ago. 

I did a terrible thing, when our relationship was not in a good place. We'd been living together in more of a friend relationship for months, we both knew it was happening, we both ignored it. That's not me trying to justify it, as we both felt the relationship was breaking down at the time, but she never once considered cheating, I did, I'm the one in the wrong, completely. 

Since it happened we've been to 3 different marriage counsellors, who have all come to the conclusion that 1/ yes we obviously love each other, 2/ yes we're obviously really trying to make it work, but 3/ ultimately it comes down to whether my wife can accept what I did, or not. Marriage counselling has worked in that it has made us more open, we talk, we would never get back into the situation we were in where we lived like room-mates rather than a couple. Neither of us would keep our head in the sand, we'd discuss it from the off. Marriage counselling has also worked in that I'm far more reassuring than I was before. I know that my wife needs it, and I know when she needs more reassurance than usual, and I give her it. What marriage counselling hasn't been able to do is give my wife the answer to the question in her own head "Is what happened something that I can accept, from an honesty, from a moral, point of view?". She's a better person than me. She'd never have done it to me. She accepts that not everybody in society can match her high moral standards, but isn't sure whether she can be in a relationship with someone who fell so far below them. 

That's kind of where my relationship is at today. On a good day/week, things are great. On those days where there's a trigger, and it can be a tiny thing, then things are far from great. These days are not uncommon.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

Thanks for the clarification.

Triggers suck. Been there, done that.

Just keep on going, hopefully you'll both get there.


----------

