Different ways of ending an EMR

[jennie-jennie]

Interesting reading from the book Sex and Love by Francesco Alberoni, professor in sociology:

 

"4. Relinquishing your hold

 

Even when it’s a question of deep, sincere love, a relationship may be hindered by obstacles that lead one of the couple to spurn the other and break off the love affair.

 

In my book I Love You, I describe two ways in which someone might let his or her beloved go. I term one an “altruistic relinquishing” and the other a “selfish relinquishing.” The altruistic variety serves to keep people whom we love—our husband, wife, children—from suffering. After all, when we fall in love with someone, we don’t for this start hating the people that we’ve loved and treasured up till then. If anything, it’s more common for a person in love to want to have their approval, and even their help in realizing this dream of new love. In any case, a person in love does not like to make anyone suffer on his or her account, which means that when a man who loves a woman falls in love with another woman he finds himself faced with a terrible dilemma—for no matter what choice he makes will produce suffering and hardship.

 

It’s rather like asking a mother, whose two children have been kidnapped, to decide which of the two is to be killed. Either one’s old love or one’s new love must be sacrificed. The person in love who decides to do without his new love for others’ sake (an altruistic relinquishing) is, however, headed for emotional disaster. After atrocious suffering and reaching the point of an irreparable split-up, this individual will no longer feel any emotion of any sort but just a painful aridness, as if he or she has been turned into stone. Such people wander about like phantoms. The husband or wife who has gained back a spouse in this way is merely taking home the ghost of the other’s former self. A ghost that has killed off his or her own capacity for love. Irony has it, however, that this haunted ex-lover will eventually go desperately in search for new love again. Some people in this situation may even have the impression of finding such a thing. But the love that they made die inside them is like an invisible illness which suddenly gains potency again, bringing on a sense of disenchantment, bitterness, and emptiness. ...

 

Quite different from this, on the other hand, is the experience of a selfish relinquishment, which is to say when a person in love relinquishes his or her hold on the other in order to ward off personal suffering and pain. It might be, for example, because he or she is not sure of the other’s love and believes that this beloved is being unfaithful. Or it might be because it is impossible to envision having a future together, because the other is too passive and unlikely to be able to contribute to the realization of a life project. At other times, the reason may have to do with a person’s inability to tolerate feeling jealous, or with his not being able to bear being physically far away. Even this sort of self-centered process of letting go is accompanied by suffering and pain, but that experience of ‘turning to stone’ isn’t there. In place of absolute loss, one undergoes a wrenching sensation of limited loss. By breaking off the relationship, in fact, one is freeing oneself of a burden and source of anguish, not to mention a sense of torment which over time would have been destined to grow. Clearly, one feels love and desire still for that other person, and the mere thought of him or her and of past happiness brings on a painful attack of nostalgia. On the other hand, one feels also a strong urge not to turn back because one has no desire to sink back into a state of resentment, jealousy, and doubt.

...

 

The decision to terminate a love relationship for altruistic reasons is becoming more frequent today among men. By and large, they tend to prolong any sort of official love relationship they are involved in. This can be explained in part, at least in the Western world, by the wellestablished historical practice of monogamy, which has engrained in men a sense of duty towards their wife and children—a sense of duty that continues to be felt even though the historical circumstances have changed. Consequently, when they fall in love with a woman other than their wife or go to live with their mistress, they feel—especially if they have children—a terrific amount of guilt. Only if the woman pushes them with determination to get a legal separation or divorce do they actually do so. For women today, on the other hand, the decision to terminate a love relationship for self-centred reasons is becoming more frequent. Historically speaking, women have always been raised to believe that they need to sacrifice their own needs for those of their men, and to accept or at least tolerate their defects. For this reason they tend to stay longer in a relationship and work to make it last. That said, when they no longer feel loved or when they decide that this love is impossible or mistaken, they know how to break things off in a decisive manner, without looking back. And they have yet another source of strength to help them when they decide to sever these martial ties: they know that they will almost certainly be granted custody of the children."

 

Altruistic relinquishing would then be the case of the WS who chooses the marriage, while selfish relinquishing would be the case of the OP who ends the EMR.

 

Altruistic relinquishing would then be an explanation of serial cheating as well.

[jj33]

Its a very interesting article but if you are proposing that it stands for the proposition that OPs should stay in a relationship because to break it off to protect their own hearts is selfish, I would vehemently disagree.

 

 

These are only labels that he placed on them. It is not accepted within the psychological or sociological community that it is "selfish" for an OP to end a relationship.

 

And I note that Alberoni states:

 

"By breaking off the relationship, in fact, one is freeing oneself of a burden and source of anguish, not to mention a sense of torment which over time would have been destined to grow. Clearly, one feels love and desire still for that other person, and the mere thought of him or her and of past happiness brings on a painful attack of nostalgia. On the other hand, one feels also a strong urge not to turn back because one has no desire to sink back into a state of resentment, jealousy, and doubt.

 

Also not sure you are allowed to copy and post that. It could be a copyright violation.

[jennie-jennie]

What we learned in school is as long as you state the source an excerpt is fine. It is just a small passage from a long book.

 

I am in no way implying that an OP should stay or not stay in an EMR. That is an individual decision for each OP to make. I am just finding Alberoni's theories interesting. It does make sense to let go off the EMR when the pain is too strong. I don't consider that selfish, rather self-preservation.

[jj33]

Then I agree with you entirely. A very intersting article. The rest of it is interesting too he has great modern ocultural references everything from Sex in the City to Hanif Kureishi to the Horse Whisperer.

[jennie-jennie]

Glad you found it interesting. Alberoni's theories about love and falling in love are very interesting. His way of looking at falling in love as a revolution appeals to me.

[Devil Inside]

This scare me a little. I definitely ended my A for altruistic reasons. In many ways I married for the same...my wife was pregnant.

 

I know the turning to stone feeling.

[Sanafa]

This scare me a little. I definitely ended my A for altruistic reasons. In many ways I married for the same...my wife was pregnant.

 

I know the turning to stone feeling.

 

Devil Inside,

 

I am really being honest here. I have read many of your posts and I just have to say this.

 

Please please please consider why you are staying in your marriage. I am certain that it is where I am currently at, but I do and will always believe you and your wife deserve better.

 

So many things point to you not being sure, please don't give your wife a false sense of security if you cannot commit to the marriage. I am by no means suggesting you go running into your OW arm's. In fact, that would be just as disastrous but I am suggesting you take a good long read at your own posts..... and be honest about what you want.

 

If you cannot give your wife the love and life she deserves, consider stepping up and doing while painful the right thing for both of you.

 

If I look at if from a BS perspective, I would be devastated to read your postings if you were my husband because they scream " I really don't want to be here".

[Devil Inside]

Devil Inside,

 

I am really being honest here. I have read many of your posts and I just have to say this.

 

Please please please consider why you are staying in your marriage. I am certain that it is where I am currently at, but I do and will always believe you and your wife deserve better.

 

So many things point to you not being sure, please don't give your wife a false sense of security if you cannot commit to the marriage. I am by no means suggesting you go running into your OW arm's. In fact, that would be just as disastrous but I am suggesting you take a good long read at your own posts..... and be honest about what you want.

 

If you cannot give your wife the love and life she deserves, consider stepping up and doing while painful the right thing for both of you.

 

If I look at if from a BS perspective, I would be devastated to read your postings if you were my husband because they scream " I really don't want to be here".

 

I appreciate your honesty.

 

I am currently trying to give myself time to make an honest assessment of where I am at with everything.

[Gamine]

Held up to the truest light, no one should be in a relationship of any kind unless it is for the right reasons. What is 'right' can become a moving target. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with a man who chooses duty over passion. Sometimes life presents many roads that take the form of opportunity and possibility. Which road takes you where?

 

Is choosing duty over passion really, when seen it its truest light, necessarily a compromise? I suppose only is this so if the one choosing duty does not hold it in greater value than passion. In which case they are not being true to themselves. But for some, passion (while enthralling) may be a road that leads to the relinquishment of things highly valued. Forfeiting it, then, is not a sacrifice because of the greater return. It boils down to being real. Everyone must make choices. We choose what to wear and where to go.. how to spend our time and our life. Choices exist in all things. There is no bad that can ever come from being real. It is when some decide to take several roads simultaneously that have routes and destinations in opposition to the other.

[Sanafa]

Held up to the truest light, no one should be in a relationship of any kind unless it is for the right reasons. What is 'right' can become a moving target. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with a man who chooses duty over passion. Sometimes life presents many roads that take the form of opportunity and possibility. Which road takes you where?

 

Is choosing duty over passion really, when seen it its truest light, necessarily a compromise? I suppose only is this so if the one choosing duty does not hold it in greater value than passion. In which case they are not being true to themselves. But for some, passion (while enthralling) may be a road that leads to the relinquishment of things highly valued. Forfeiting it, then, is not a sacrifice because of the greater return. It boils down to being real. Everyone must make choices. We choose what to wear and where to go.. how to spend our time and our life. Choices exist in all things. There is no bad that can ever come from being real. It is when some decide to take several roads simultaneously that have routes and destinations in opposition to the other.

 

Gammon, you yourself said you and your husband had "that"... at the beginning and both can see yourself having it again.

 

Do you really think "duty" is the right reason to stay? For me, I would literally die if I thought that is why anyone was in my life, seriously.

 

It isn't against the BS at all, it is that I think everyone is capable of finding that love, if we don't shy away from change, and walk through the fear of possibly being alone.

 

Do you not believe both in relationship need to be there for love? I mean love, intimacy, a real relationship - Isn't it short changing one if the other stays for duty?

 

Just my opinion but I never wanted to be anywhere because I had to, nor do I want anyone with me because that is how they feel. It teaches settling, and it is something I am truly against with all my heart - It doesn't benefit either and only teaches children to do the same.

[Gamine]

Gammon, you yourself said you and your husband had "that"... at the beginning and both can see yourself having it again.

 

Do you really think "duty" is the right reason to stay? For me, I would literally die if I thought that is why anyone was in my life, seriously.

 

It isn't against the BS at all, it is that I think everyone is capable of finding that love, if we don't shy away from change, and walk through the fear of possibly being alone.

 

Do you not believe both in relationship need to be there for love? I mean love, intimacy, a real relationship - Isn't it short changing one if the other stays for duty?

 

Just my opinion but I never wanted to be anywhere because I had to, nor do I want anyone with me because that is how they feel. It teaches settling, and it is something I am truly against with all my heart - It doesn't benefit either and only teaches children to do the same.

 

 

When I refer to 'duty' I mean the entire life of the person not the spouse. Lives contain many things over time that a person might truly prize. It can offer something enduring, a known, a companion, a devoted friend. But if there is no love of any kind for or between the spouses then it would be a crime.

 

If the comfort and routine of my life gives me a huge plus, but I don't have fireworks am I settling? I'm not sure. But I know that giving up the things I love about my life the relationship I do have with my husband would be a bigger loss than forfeiting fireworks. I suppose I come to this conclusion because of how much dating I did. Over time I'd loose fireworks for everyone so I see it as a part of my nature. So if I 'found fireworks' I know me... in time it would wane. But that is my nature. I do know that the future is always uncertain and that there is always a chance upon a chance upon a chance that my 'ideal' is out there in the here and now. But I highly doubt it.

 

After D'day I stayed out of duty... or so it seemed.

 

The uncertainty associated with abandoning ship for a possibility of a possibility felt like such a risk... since I haven't given this relationship a chance to see if it can be fabulous again. But for those people who know with certainty it cannot, have no love whatsoever for their mate, and who are literally grossed out by their own life... they should bail.

 

I think not doing what is important to you is settling. But there is always this constant challenge to remain in touch with ourselves enough to know what is important to us.

[Devil Inside]

When I refer to 'duty' I mean the entire life of the person not the spouse. Lives contain many things over time that a person might truly prize. It can offer something enduring, a known, a companion, a devoted friend. But if there is no love of any kind for or between the spouses then it would be a crime.

 

If the comfort and routine of my life gives me a huge plus, but I don't have fireworks am I settling? I'm not sure. But I know that giving up the things I love about my life the relationship I do have with my husband would be a bigger loss than forfeiting fireworks. I suppose I come to this conclusion because of how much dating I did. Over time I'd loose fireworks for everyone so I see it as a part of my nature. So if I 'found fireworks' I know me... in time it would wane. But that is my nature. I do know that the future is always uncertain and that there is always a chance upon a chance upon a chance that my 'ideal' is out there in the here and now. But I highly doubt it.

 

After D'day I stayed out of duty... or so it seemed.

 

The uncertainty associated with abandoning ship for a possibility of a possibility felt like such a risk... since I haven't given this relationship a chance to see if it can be fabulous again. But for those people who know with certainty it cannot, have no love whatsoever for their mate, and who are literally grossed out by their own life... they should bail.

 

I think not doing what is important to you is settling. But there is always this constant challenge to remain in touch with ourselves enough to know what is important to us.

 

Good post. I see what you are saying. It's an issue of personal integrity.

 

I can say with no doubt that there is something there with my wife. It is not what it used to be. It is not what I felt with my xOW or other women I was with before my spouse...but there is something.

 

I guess I worry that right now, with only eleven days of NC from my xOW I cannot trust my emotions. they are so all over the place. One minute I feel like I made a mistake by not leaving, and the next I realize what a fool I would have been to give up on my marriage and family.

 

Do I value passion over stability....I don't know? Right now I need to use logic to steer me because my emotions cannot be trusted.

 

I know that I can't keep this up forever. I know that my kids and wife deserve to have me committed to action either way. However, I will not rush to dissolve a marriage. I need to hold steady, clear my head, and eventually search my self for what is my truth...and that is something I cannot predict at this point.

[Gamine]

Good post. I see what you are saying. It's an issue of personal integrity.

 

I can say with no doubt that there is something there with my wife. It is not what it used to be. It is not what I felt with my xOW or other women I was with before my spouse...but there is something.

 

I guess I worry that right now, with only eleven days of NC from my xOW I cannot trust my emotions. they are so all over the place. One minute I feel like I made a mistake by not leaving, and the next I realize what a fool I would have been to give up on my marriage and family.

 

Do I value passion over stability....I don't know? Right now I need to use logic to steer me because my emotions cannot be trusted.

 

I know that I can't keep this up forever. I know that my kids and wife deserve to have me committed to action either way. However, I will not rush to dissolve a marriage. I need to hold steady, clear my head, and eventually search my self for what is my truth...and that is something I cannot predict at this point.

 

Through my years and years of dating and relationships I learned that I can 'love' many people. But I married only one. Even though the intense connection I had with my husband 15 years ago has drifted off in my distant memory I can remember it. And what I had with him was more than I had with anyone else... ever.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that I could 'love' another. But I've been through all of it and I know with certainty that what I felt for my husband was once in my lifetime. That is why I married him, in particular. Him the person. There was never anyone else who I made that commitment to even though they desperately wanted it.

 

So even if things have waned I know in my heart that there was something very special there. If I chase my passionate nature I could have intensity with someone, but in time it would wane as well. Then I am back to the drawing board chasing my next passionate partner. And on and on it goes. Or, I can struggle deep within myself to unlock the origin of my feelings for my spouse and realize that it is more about me and perhaps the natural and inevitable nature of long term relationships and the way they simply evolve. And, perhaps that evolution is a natural course of things. So, if examined in the short term I could see myself passing through one partner after the next with a never ending cycle. But there were things with this one man, my husband, that were different from everyone else in my heart. And while the passion would be fun, it could also be empty. Then, therefore, I look upon the object of my affection and ask myself... if the intense passion with my new person were to fade... who are they and what sort of life might I have with them?

[White Flower]

Interesting reading from the book Sex and Love by Francesco Alberoni, professor in sociology:

 

"4. Relinquishing your hold

 

Even when it’s a question of deep, sincere love, a relationship may be hindered by obstacles that lead one of the couple to spurn the other and break off the love affair.

 

In my book I Love You, I describe two ways in which someone might let his or her beloved go. I term one an “altruistic relinquishing” and the other a “selfish relinquishing.” The altruistic variety serves to keep people whom we love—our husband, wife, children—from suffering. After all, when we fall in love with someone, we don’t for this start hating the people that we’ve loved and treasured up till then. If anything, it’s more common for a person in love to want to have their approval, and even their help in realizing this dream of new love. In any case, a person in love does not like to make anyone suffer on his or her account, which means that when a man who loves a woman falls in love with another woman he finds himself faced with a terrible dilemma—for no matter what choice he makes will produce suffering and hardship.

 

It’s rather like asking a mother, whose two children have been kidnapped, to decide which of the two is to be killed. Either one’s old love or one’s new love must be sacrificed. The person in love who decides to do without his new love for others’ sake (an altruistic relinquishing) is, however, headed for emotional disaster. After atrocious suffering and reaching the point of an irreparable split-up, this individual will no longer feel any emotion of any sort but just a painful aridness, as if he or she has been turned into stone. Such people wander about like phantoms. The husband or wife who has gained back a spouse in this way is merely taking home the ghost of the other’s former self. A ghost that has killed off his or her own capacity for love. Irony has it, however, that this haunted ex-lover will eventually go desperately in search for new love again. Some people in this situation may even have the impression of finding such a thing. But the love that they made die inside them is like an invisible illness which suddenly gains potency again, bringing on a sense of disenchantment, bitterness, and emptiness. ...

 

Quite different from this, on the other hand, is the experience of a selfish relinquishment, which is to say when a person in love relinquishes his or her hold on the other in order to ward off personal suffering and pain. It might be, for example, because he or she is not sure of the other’s love and believes that this beloved is being unfaithful. Or it might be because it is impossible to envision having a future together, because the other is too passive and unlikely to be able to contribute to the realization of a life project. At other times, the reason may have to do with a person’s inability to tolerate feeling jealous, or with his not being able to bear being physically far away. Even this sort of self-centered process of letting go is accompanied by suffering and pain, but that experience of ‘turning to stone’ isn’t there. In place of absolute loss, one undergoes a wrenching sensation of limited loss. By breaking off the relationship, in fact, one is freeing oneself of a burden and source of anguish, not to mention a sense of torment which over time would have been destined to grow. Clearly, one feels love and desire still for that other person, and the mere thought of him or her and of past happiness brings on a painful attack of nostalgia. On the other hand, one feels also a strong urge not to turn back because one has no desire to sink back into a state of resentment, jealousy, and doubt.

...

 

The decision to terminate a love relationship for altruistic reasons is becoming more frequent today among men. By and large, they tend to prolong any sort of official love relationship they are involved in. This can be explained in part, at least in the Western world, by the wellestablished historical practice of monogamy, which has engrained in men a sense of duty towards their wife and children—a sense of duty that continues to be felt even though the historical circumstances have changed. Consequently, when they fall in love with a woman other than their wife or go to live with their mistress, they feel—especially if they have children—a terrific amount of guilt. Only if the woman pushes them with determination to get a legal separation or divorce do they actually do so. For women today, on the other hand, the decision to terminate a love relationship for self-centred reasons is becoming more frequent. Historically speaking, women have always been raised to believe that they need to sacrifice their own needs for those of their men, and to accept or at least tolerate their defects. For this reason they tend to stay longer in a relationship and work to make it last. That said, when they no longer feel loved or when they decide that this love is impossible or mistaken, they know how to break things off in a decisive manner, without looking back. And they have yet another source of strength to help them when they decide to sever these martial ties: they know that they will almost certainly be granted custody of the children."

 

Altruistic relinquishing would then be the case of the WS who chooses the marriage, while selfish relinquishing would be the case of the OP who ends the EMR.

 

Altruistic relinquishing would then be an explanation of serial cheating as well.

This is a very interesting post and a must-read, I'm sure. It is exactly what I'm going through, have gone through for quite some time. I'm agreeing all throughout the post and feel as though the author read my mind a bit. He could have read exMM's mind as well.

 

ExMM probably feels he was altruistic in his choice and I feel I'm being a selfish relinquisher. It hurts like hell, but I can't watch him celebrate the rest of his life with her so I ended it. Haven't done the NC thing so it feels like a long, drawn out ending of it.

 

I will have to pick up this book. Thanks for the post.

[jennie-jennie]

Whiteflower, I have not read this entire book myself, although I have read many other of Alberoni's books. Falling in Love and Loving is a basic book of his which I can truly recommend, very interesting.

 

Several of his books are actually available online, although I myself prefer reading a paper copy.

 

I am glad you liked the excerpt. I have read a lot of books about love, but noone has come so close to describing my world in terms that I agree with as Alberoni.

[SidLyon]

Interesting reading from the book Sex and Love by Francesco Alberoni, professor in sociology:

 

"4. Relinquishing your hold

 

Even when it’s a question of deep, sincere love, a relationship may be hindered by obstacles that lead one of the couple to spurn the other and break off the love affair.

 

In my book I Love You, I describe two ways in which someone might let his or her beloved go. I term one an “altruistic relinquishing” and the other a “selfish relinquishing.” The altruistic variety serves to keep people whom we love—our husband, wife, children—from suffering. After all, when we fall in love with someone, we don’t for this start hating the people that we’ve loved and treasured up till then. If anything, it’s more common for a person in love to want to have their approval, and even their help in realizing this dream of new love. In any case, a person in love does not like to make anyone suffer on his or her account, which means that when a man who loves a woman falls in love with another woman he finds himself faced with a terrible dilemma—for no matter what choice he makes will produce suffering and hardship.

 

It’s rather like asking a mother, whose two children have been kidnapped, to decide which of the two is to be killed. Either one’s old love or one’s new love must be sacrificed. The person in love who decides to do without his new love for others’ sake (an altruistic relinquishing) is, however, headed for emotional disaster. After atrocious suffering and reaching the point of an irreparable split-up, this individual will no longer feel any emotion of any sort but just a painful aridness, as if he or she has been turned into stone. Such people wander about like phantoms. The husband or wife who has gained back a spouse in this way is merely taking home the ghost of the other’s former self. A ghost that has killed off his or her own capacity for love. Irony has it, however, that this haunted ex-lover will eventually go desperately in search for new love again. Some people in this situation may even have the impression of finding such a thing. But the love that they made die inside them is like an invisible illness which suddenly gains potency again, bringing on a sense of disenchantment, bitterness, and emptiness. ...

 

Quite different from this, on the other hand, is the experience of a selfish relinquishment, which is to say when a person in love relinquishes his or her hold on the other in order to ward off personal suffering and pain. It might be, for example, because he or she is not sure of the other’s love and believes that this beloved is being unfaithful. Or it might be because it is impossible to envision having a future together, because the other is too passive and unlikely to be able to contribute to the realization of a life project. At other times, the reason may have to do with a person’s inability to tolerate feeling jealous, or with his not being able to bear being physically far away. Even this sort of self-centered process of letting go is accompanied by suffering and pain, but that experience of ‘turning to stone’ isn’t there. In place of absolute loss, one undergoes a wrenching sensation of limited loss. By breaking off the relationship, in fact, one is freeing oneself of a burden and source of anguish, not to mention a sense of torment which over time would have been destined to grow. Clearly, one feels love and desire still for that other person, and the mere thought of him or her and of past happiness brings on a painful attack of nostalgia. On the other hand, one feels also a strong urge not to turn back because one has no desire to sink back into a state of resentment, jealousy, and doubt.

...

 

The decision to terminate a love relationship for altruistic reasons is becoming more frequent today among men. By and large, they tend to prolong any sort of official love relationship they are involved in. This can be explained in part, at least in the Western world, by the wellestablished historical practice of monogamy, which has engrained in men a sense of duty towards their wife and children—a sense of duty that continues to be felt even though the historical circumstances have changed. Consequently, when they fall in love with a woman other than their wife or go to live with their mistress, they feel—especially if they have children—a terrific amount of guilt. Only if the woman pushes them with determination to get a legal separation or divorce do they actually do so. For women today, on the other hand, the decision to terminate a love relationship for self-centred reasons is becoming more frequent. Historically speaking, women have always been raised to believe that they need to sacrifice their own needs for those of their men, and to accept or at least tolerate their defects. For this reason they tend to stay longer in a relationship and work to make it last. That said, when they no longer feel loved or when they decide that this love is impossible or mistaken, they know how to break things off in a decisive manner, without looking back. And they have yet another source of strength to help them when they decide to sever these martial ties: they know that they will almost certainly be granted custody of the children."

 

Altruistic relinquishing would then be the case of the WS who chooses the marriage, while selfish relinquishing would be the case of the OP who ends the EMR.

 

Altruistic relinquishing would then be an explanation of serial cheating as well.

 

Alberoni has defined altruistic relinquishing and selfish relinquishing and then given examples of each. I haven't read the book but it seems to me that what determines the type of relinquishing is not the person being relinquished ie either a spouse or affair partner but the motive for relinquishing. By this measure a married man who relinquishes his wife because he doesn't want to make his loved OW suffer is an altruistic relinquisher and he may well suffer the same fate (painful aridness) Alberoni apparently describes in that he has given up his other loves (wife and children) because he does not want to hurt the OW.

 

In other words he seems to be saying that a person who is in a situation of having to choose one loved person over another (as in the mother analogy) will end up suffering. It probably doesn't matter which he chooses if this is true - I rather hope it's not.

 

Personally I'd rather not see a WH invested with such altruistic qualities in everybody's minds.

 

S

[jennie-jennie]

It was a while since I read Alberoni's books so I hope I can answer correctly. Alberoni sees falling in love as a revolution, as a need of change in your life, whether it is the teenager who falls in love while getting ready to leave home or the MM who is not satisfied any more with his marriage. According to Alberoni, you can love many people, but only be in love with one at a time. So while the MM still loves his wife, he is not in love with her anymore, and thus will not suffer to the extent described above from relinquishing her.

[SidLyon]

It was a while since I read Alberoni's books so I hope I can answer correctly. Alberoni sees falling in love as a revolution, as a need of change in your life, whether it is the teenager who falls in love while getting ready to leave home or the MM who is not satisfied any more with his marriage. According to Alberoni, you can love many people, but only be in love with one at a time. So while the MM still loves his wife, he is not in love with her anymore, and thus will not suffer to the extent described above from relinquishing her.

 

But he apparently compares it, saying "It’s rather like asking a mother, whose two children have been kidnapped, to decide which of the two is to be killed"

 

This doesn't make sense unless he's saying the mother will choose the one she loves best or even the youngest because the youngest is the later love? Surely he is not presuming to suggest that MM always love their wives less than their OW?

 

S

[jennie-jennie]

But he apparently compares it, saying "It’s rather like asking a mother, whose two children have been kidnapped, to decide which of the two is to be killed"

 

This doesn't make sense unless he's saying the mother will choose the one she loves best or even the youngest because the youngest is the later love? Surely he is not presuming to suggest that MM always love their wives less than their OW?

 

S

 

In the case of true love, yes.

[Devil Inside]

Through my years and years of dating and relationships I learned that I can 'love' many people. But I married only one. Even though the intense connection I had with my husband 15 years ago has drifted off in my distant memory I can remember it. And what I had with him was more than I had with anyone else... ever.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that I could 'love' another. But I've been through all of it and I know with certainty that what I felt for my husband was once in my lifetime. That is why I married him, in particular. Him the person. There was never anyone else who I made that commitment to even though they desperately wanted it.

 

So even if things have waned I know in my heart that there was something very special there. If I chase my passionate nature I could have intensity with someone, but in time it would wane as well. Then I am back to the drawing board chasing my next passionate partner. And on and on it goes. Or, I can struggle deep within myself to unlock the origin of my feelings for my spouse and realize that it is more about me and perhaps the natural and inevitable nature of long term relationships and the way they simply evolve. And, perhaps that evolution is a natural course of things. So, if examined in the short term I could see myself passing through one partner after the next with a never ending cycle. But there were things with this one man, my husband, that were different from everyone else in my heart. And while the passion would be fun, it could also be empty. Then, therefore, I look upon the object of my affection and ask myself... if the intense passion with my new person were to fade... who are they and what sort of life might I have with them?

 

These words really resonate with me. I wish I had a crystal ball to see how things all play out. I am convinced that the person that I need to establish a loving connection with is myself. I think that there is a big something missing in me that makes me search for the "in love" feeling from others. Eventually, the infatuation fades, and then you need to be in a mature and committed relationship...and the ego is no longer fed. If I cannot work through this...I will end up alone.

[White Flower]

These words really resonate with me. I wish I had a crystal ball to see how things all play out. I am convinced that the person that I need to establish a loving connection with is myself. I think that there is a big something missing in me that makes me search for the "in love" feeling from others. Eventually, the infatuation fades, and then you need to be in a mature and committed relationship...and the ego is no longer fed. If I cannot work through this...I will end up alone.

DI,

 

I have not read your posts or threads so forgive me in advance if I ask uninformed questions. You speak as though you might be a serial cheater. Am I wrong? If so, have you come close to finding 'the one'. If not, may I ask your age? Just give an approximate.

 

Thanks.

[Gamine]

These words really resonate with me. I wish I had a crystal ball to see how things all play out. I am convinced that the person that I need to establish a loving connection with is myself. I think that there is a big something missing in me that makes me search for the "in love" feeling from others. Eventually, the infatuation fades, and then you need to be in a mature and committed relationship...and the ego is no longer fed. If I cannot work through this...I will end up alone.

 

And this is what I understand about myself as well. Hence my reluctance to chase the elusive rainbow. In time I would become bored with everyone. I know this about myself with certainty. I can find someone and have all of the excitement and newness but if I have them this aspect will certainly die. Perhaps this is the allure of the affair. The key may be in the 'not having'. Once an affair partner becomes spouse all of the old issues inside of us surface and we are back in a relationship again. Bills, garbage, needs, dinner, coming home late. You name it. It is as if the only way to have it is not to have it. Does that make any sense? I hope it does.

 

I was in love with love, not the day to day. For me once the day to day would kick in my 'in love' could last only a short while. And then I'm back to square one. This is my nature.

 

So I choose someone with whom I may enjoy a 'peaceable kingdom' with. With whom I might share a life including all of the day to day things and the deeper things. The rush of a love affair is like crystal meth. Long term relationships can be like comfort food. As long as we aren't chasing the elusive. The shadow we cannot hold onto. We can look at it, bask in it, but cannot have it.

 

I read once that the 'in love' feeling is like an aphrodisiac that mother nature builds into us in order to get us to settle down with a mate. What follows is the natural occurrence of this initial attraction waning and giving way to life.

 

Like you, I do not wish to spend the rest of my life alone eternally chasing my own tail. Perhaps there is a way to satisfy the ego without living an empty existence chasing desire that virtually has no end. There is no enduring way to satiate this appetite other than living from one partner to the next. But in so doing we lose bits and pieces of ourselves. Crumbs of who we were left behind all along the way. Encounter after encounter.

 

Or we can look upon it for what it is and see that life may not be intended to be just ice cream. Maybe we need the deeper things. Perhaps these are the only things that have any enduring value.

 

I know that I miss the intensity I had with my husband and if there were a way that I could snap my finger and get it all back I would in a heartbeat. But I also know that the number of men that I would need to satiate any desire for the 'in love' pursuit would be infinity. And that is not the life I choose.

 

So my quest is to find the love within myself that goes beyond the ego and the empty promises it brings to the table. And unlock the puzzle of how to keep excitement inside of the heart... not excitement purely of the flesh... but of the heart. Because if I can do that I have it all.

[White Flower]

Hey Jennie Jennie,

 

I went to the book store to find this book but they had nothing in print for Alberoni. Apparently, they are no longer being printed. I guess I'll have to look at Ebay or Amazon to find his books? I believe you did say you found your copy online, right?

 

Thanks,

WF.

[White Flower]

Alberoni has defined altruistic relinquishing and selfish relinquishing and then given examples of each. I haven't read the book but it seems to me that what determines the type of relinquishing is not the person being relinquished ie either a spouse or affair partner but the motive for relinquishing. By this measure a married man who relinquishes his wife because he doesn't want to make his loved OW suffer is an altruistic relinquisher and he may well suffer the same fate (painful aridness) Alberoni apparently describes in that he has given up his other loves (wife and children) because he does not want to hurt the OW.

 

In other words he seems to be saying that a person who is in a situation of having to choose one loved person over another (as in the mother analogy) will end up suffering. It probably doesn't matter which he chooses if this is true - I rather hope it's not.

 

Personally I'd rather not see a WH invested with such altruistic qualities in everybody's minds.

 

S

Sid, I have pondered your words for days. And I'm sure that most MM believe they appear altruistic when they choose to stay at home. And they might appear that way until everyone knows the truth.

 

If I were exMM's W I would absolutely HATE that he chose to stay with me because he THOUGHT he was being altruistic. That would make me feel pathetic! I might even laugh in his face and ask who the hell he thought he was in thinking I needed his mercy!!! He makes her look like a charity case when he says he stays not out of love but out of duty.

 

I think every WH should sit down with his W and tell her what is going on; that he loves someone else and he only stays out of a sense of duty and now that she knows, how would SHE like to handle it. This is the TRUEST form of altruism because it allows the beneficiary to decide what is good for themselves. It allows her to decide how to handle the truth and not have choices made for her.

 

I wonder how shocking it would be for most WHs when they discovered their BSs would dump them in a heartbeat for being treated like a charity case.

 

I'm only talking about MM who really don't love their Ws. If they do, and only state to the OW that they don't, then he has other reasons for staying (such as love) and is only having his cake and eating it too. Then the OW is better off if he never leaves his W.

 

I also wonder how many BWs would decide to stay after such an admission. It would be interesting to know.

[SidLyon]

Sid, I have pondered your words for days. And I'm sure that most MM believe they appear altruistic when they choose to stay at home. And they might appear that way until everyone knows the truth.

 

If I were exMM's W I would absolutely HATE that he chose to stay with me because he THOUGHT he was being altruistic. That would make me feel pathetic! I might even laugh in his face and ask who the hell he thought he was in thinking I needed his mercy!!! He makes her look like a charity case when he says he stays not out of love but out of duty.

 

I think every WH should sit down with his W and tell her what is going on; that he loves someone else and he only stays out of a sense of duty and now that she knows, how would SHE like to handle it. This is the TRUEST form of altruism because it allows the beneficiary to decide what is good for themselves. It allows her to decide how to handle the truth and not have choices made for her.

 

I wonder how shocking it would be for most WHs when they discovered their BSs would dump them in a heartbeat for being treated like a charity case.

 

I'm only talking about MM who really don't love their Ws. If they do, and only state to the OW that they don't, then he has other reasons for staying (such as love) and is only having his cake and eating it too. Then the OW is better off if he never leaves his W.

 

I also wonder how many BWs would decide to stay after such an admission. It would be interesting to know.

 

My impression from reading these boards and elsewhere is that there are cases where a WH stays for reasons other than love; but that in most cases the BW is well aware of this and it is actually a mutual thing. It is one thing to exist in a distant marriage while believing that one's H is faithful but after d-day it is quite another matter. Unless the WH is an exceptional actor or a total sociopath then faking it becomes almost impossible under the watchful eye of a BW.

 

This is a time of complete upheaval and I am sure that most BWs are totally devastated at d-day as they face the loss of the family life and marriage they beleived they had. Going by my H's reactions I would guess that for many of the MM it represents a huge upheaval too as he faces the loss of something that he's gone to so much trouble to preserve while in the A. And for those who have been in a A while never intending to leave their wives they have to fairly quickly put their money where their mouth is - ie either leave their wives for the OW or stay and discard the OW. A few do try to keep both, but I doubt very much that they can do it without the BW having at least some suspicion of it - and I suspect they are a particularly nasty sort of man anyway - I'm aware of the irony of me saying this given it's a rather nasty thing for a man to do to his W anyway.

 

I suspect that most OW who have been quickly discarded after d-day do not fully understand what is going on in the MM's home and the things he is doing to convince his wife that he really wants to be with her. I guess that most women such as myself do not want to be stayed with for the sake of the children. Certainly I didn't want my H to stay if he didn't want to be with me and believe me this was/is something he has to demonstrate to me every day. Not because I am a controlling bitch who won't give him up to the OW so he can be truly happy with her; but because my own world and self-esteem have been shattered, he has apologised profusely and told me it is what he wants (again I note the irony of this) and I have decided it is also what I want.

 

S