Scrivdog Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Gee that so moving, isn't it? Of course, it's very one-sided as is usually the case with these pontifications. The assumption is made that the wife is a caring, loving, happily married spouse which makes the husband a perfect louse. And frankly, if that were the case, I would agree with that he is. But rarely is it the case. Nobody talks about the marriage already being dead from neglect, disaffection, and a gaping void of intimacy, usually by the wife. You'll never see a big ole poem like this one about the wives of guys like Moose, for example. It'll never happen. The man is supposed to sacrifice his need for a wife so that he can support a roommate. If he cheats, he gets sanctimonious BS like this thrown at him because only then does sex and affection become important all of the sudden. All of the sudden he gets to discover how sacred their bond of fidelity was and yet before that she couldn't be bothered to put down the TV remote long enough to say hello to him when he came home from a 10 hour day. Please gimme a break.
serial muse Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Gee that so moving, isn't it? Of course, it's very one-sided as is usually the case with these pontifications. The assumption is made that the wife is a caring, loving, happily married spouse which makes the husband a perfect louse. And frankly, if that were the case, I would agree with that he is. But rarely is it the case. Nobody talks about the marriage already being dead from neglect, disaffection, and a gaping void of intimacy, usually by the wife. You'll never see a big ole poem like this one about the wives of guys like Moose, for example. It'll never happen. The man is supposed to sacrifice his need for a wife so that he can support a roommate. If he cheats, he gets sanctimonious BS like this thrown at him because only then does sex and affection become important all of the sudden. All of the sudden he gets to discover how sacred their bond of fidelity was and yet before that she couldn't be bothered to put down the TV remote long enough to say hello to him when he came home from a 10 hour day. Please gimme a break. Hi Scriv. Just thought it was amusing that you assumed the protagonist (the BS here) was a woman. However, he's a guy.
RecordProducer Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 As for divorce, I really disagree with the idea that it is somehow less fair. I don't want to quote your whole post, because I understand your viewpoint. Yours is more normal than mine; mine is more alternative. I myself would feel betrayed and hurt, like a victim, and blame him for everything. But when I try to rationalize it, I see many sides. Let's bring the affair to the point where the potential cheater needs to make a move toward infidelity, but he decides to stay faithful because he doesn't want to hurt his wife. Would that make you feel better? My husband is faithful, but if I could read his mind, would I still consider him faithful and dedicated? God knows! We always have this dream of a perfect love in our minds, the kind of romance that we'll never really find... some people extinguish it inside them, some watch porn, some fantasize, some materialize it. When my husband makes me angry and sad, sometimes I dream of my true love who looks like Eric Roberts and is my soul mate that treats me like a queen - is that fidelity? Aren't I being unfaithful in my mind? It doesn't hurt anybody, of course - anybody, but me! Still I could never hurt him. I would feel horrible to do something that would hurt him so badly and do it behind his back. I would even feel horrible if I would leave him. He's threatened me with divorce so many times, but I would still feel awful. I think this is because I love him and because the good still outweighs the bad big time.
Scrivdog Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Hi Scriv. Just thought it was amusing that you assumed the protagonist (the BS here) was a woman. However, he's a guy. "...The one person who has given you more than any other. The only one who truly understands you and cares about you, and who proved it by giving herself to you. By having faith in you and supporting you. By taking your name and taking your fate. That’s the one you destroy..." How do you figure?
serial muse Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 "...The one person who has given you more than any other. The only one who truly understands you and cares about you, and who proved it by giving herself to you. By having faith in you and supporting you. By taking your name and taking your fate. That’s the one you destroy..." How do you figure? "Bob Lonsberry"? A nom de plume?
serial muse Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Let's bring the affair to the point where the potential cheater needs to make a move toward infidelity, but he decides to stay faithful because he doesn't want to hurt his wife. Would that make you feel better? My husband is faithful, but if I could read his mind, would I still consider him faithful and dedicated? God knows! Of course it wouldn't make me feel better. Where did I say anything of the kind? What I would want is for him to leave, if he was sure I wasn't going to make him happy, ever. However, if he wasn't sure, as is generally the case, I would want to talk about it. This seems eminently fair, to me. As for the kind of temporary thoughts you're talking about here - We always have this dream of a perfect love in our minds, the kind of romance that we'll never really find... some people extinguish it inside them, some watch porn, some fantasize, some materialize it. When my husband makes me angry and sad, sometimes I dream of my true love who looks like Eric Roberts and is my soul mate that treats me like a queen - is that fidelity? Aren't I being unfaithful in my mind? It doesn't hurt anybody, of course - anybody, but me! Still I could never hurt him. I would feel horrible to do something that would hurt him so badly and do it behind his back. I would even feel horrible if I would leave him. He's threatened me with divorce so many times, but I would still feel awful. I think this is because I love him and because the good still outweighs the bad big time. If it were a passing thing - he has doubts from time to time, just like I do - then I think those things can be left silent. Everyone feels such doubts. But there is a huge difference between such passing, temporary thoughts and that constant stream of unhappiness that some people use as their reason to stray. I think that when one partner is dissatisfied in that way and holds it in rather than making it clear to the other person, it becomes another kind of perfect dream: one of a perfect life that's elsewhere instead of here, or with someone else, if someone else is already in the picture, or how everything would be better if s/he could just get certain needs met elsewhere. An affair is as much an idealization as talk of a soulmate. Bringing these feelings out into the open, exposing them, may cause temporary pain but I believe it will bring both people a lot closer to peace - whether together or apart - than allowing them to fester under the surface to the point where one person decides to pursue that idealized dream in some form. So no, of course I don't want anyone I love to stay with me out of pity, or fear - I want them to stay out of love. Not perfect love, but honest, hopeful love that the relationship is still right for them on many levels. And this seems to be what you are talking about, too.
RecordProducer Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 What I would want is for him to leave, if he was sure I wasn't going to make him happy, ever. However, if he wasn't sure, as is generally the case, I would want to talk about it. This seems eminently fair, to me. You're right. This would be the best scenario and the most fair thing to do. I think women are more prone to discuss things and demand changes and start an affair only after they've realized that their husbands are deaf for their requests. So they cheat out of emotional starvation. Another type of women are not really in love with their husbands, but feel secure in the marriage and seek excitement on aside. And, of course, there's the slutty woman who lives her life as if she is single and has no scruples. I wonder why men cheat. Probably not for any different reason than women. I agree that if something is wrong with the marriage, your first and second and third and fourth... resort should be to communicate your needs and try to resolve the problem. Cheating in the dating phase may mean that you don't take your partner seriously or you're not taken seriously by them, but in a marriage, you're supposed to take things seriously. I do think it's a big deal and a too expensive way to resolve the problem. It's like burning your house down, because your partner never wants to help you clean it. However, some people just don't have the strength and ambition to solve problems. Just like some don't want to study and some earn PhD, in a marriage, some people are lazy and some put effort into the relationship. If the husband is too lazy to improve things, he may just start cheating or he may cause his wife to start cheating, because she is frustrated. But I do agree that it's a matter of mentality and seeking instant thrill. One of the reasons why I am against cheating per se is that I would want to be with my soul mate, not to have quick sex and fun with somebody and then go back to my husband and spill a million lies. I want honesty and devotion, and you can get it only in a clean, sincere relationship. But men don't mind relationships that are based on sex. They also don't mind viewing their wife as a mom (of their kids) and a Madonna. If you take the guilt out of the equation, they're perfectly happy having great sex with their co-worker and then going back to their wife and eating dinner and watching TV with them. But women want full romance from their husbands or any lovers in their lives. The thought of a new partner in bed frightens me and almost disgusts me (always has, even when I was single), while the thought of a new sex partner totally excites a man. And with these different mindsets, there are still men who don't cheat even though they don't get sex from their wives and women who cheat just for the sex. An affair is as much an idealization as talk of a soulmate.Absolutely. Bringing these feelings out into the open, exposing them, may cause temporary pain but I believe it will bring both people a lot closer to peace - whether together or apart - than allowing them to fester under the surface to the point where one person decides to pursue that idealized dream in some form. Yes, the feelings have to be exposed. I wonder how people handle the situation when their partners express dissatisfaction with something. Let's take an example of a man who feels frustrated that his wife has gained a lot of weight (not all men are bothered by this) or that their sex life is very infrequent. What do the wives do? They get offended and the sex still doesn't happen. The husband is labeled a superficial pig. It can't even be brought, let alone solved. I know a woman who told me herself that she makes more money than her husband and is rubbing it in his face (he has a degree in music). How can he handle the problem? She thinks he is a loser and nothing will change her opinion of him, unless he gets a real job, which he apparently doesn't want to. I am sure that many people cheat out of revenge, because they are deeply hurt by their spouses' treatment. They just don't feel like discussing their feelings with the enemy. And they don't have the balls to file for a divorce.
Trimmer Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Hi Scriv. Just thought it was amusing that you assumed the protagonist (the BS here) was a woman. However, he's a guy. How do you figure? "Bob Lonsberry"? A nom de plume? I read it as a male, lecturing other males not to cheat. The author addresses the (potential) wayward spouse using the second person "you", and consistently refers to the betrayed spouse in the third person feminine: "Hell is the flash of memory, snippets and snapshots of a happy wife, a newlywed or new mother, pleased and pledged her future and hopes tied to you. Her whole life in all its stages gambled on you. " "The only one who truly understands you and cares about you, and who proved it by giving herself to you. By having faith in you and supporting you. By taking your name and taking your fate. " "And that’s the hell. For you because you deserve it, and for her because she doesn’t." And it's only now that I've finally put my finger on my unease with this article; maybe this is the other thing that contributes to my feeling like it is a little over the top: it's kind of like a priest lecturing on the danger of giving in to pleasures of the flesh. On one hand, he may be right, and the message may be a valuable one, but lacking the ring of personal experience to it, it comes off as more of a mighty and righteous lecture from some book-smart expert than a heartfelt testimony of one's personal journey... It's like "I hear you", but I don't feel any connection with a real human experience behind the article. Anyway, I don't mean to resurrect the "is-it-a-good-article-or-not" discussion; I believe it will resonate - or not- with each of us individually. But I find it interesting when we are assuming different things about the genders of the authors and characters involved, and how that affects our perceptions of the stories, and how we connect and relate to them.
serial muse Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Anyway, I don't mean to resurrect the "is-it-a-good-article-or-not" discussion; I believe it will resonate - or not- with each of us individually. But I find it interesting when we are assuming different things about the genders of the authors and characters involved, and how that affects our perceptions of the stories, and how we connect and relate to them. Interesting. I can honestly say I hadn't noticed the pronouns within the story at all (clearly) so I think it's also fair to say that whether the protagonist was male or female didn't affect my perception of the story at all. I simply related to the BS part of it. The gender aspect wasn't even on my radar until Scrivdog went off on it for some reason. (Because no thread would be complete without someone saying something like that, I guess.) However, seeing the essay now as a second-person, rather than first-person, article does diminish my ability to identify, because I'm less forgiving of the overblown language if it's not the person who experienced it talking. Now that I see that, it does read more like a sermon, which is distancing.
Trimmer Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 However, seeing the essay now as a second-person, rather than first-person, article does diminish my ability to identify, because I'm less forgiving of the overblown language if it's not the person who experienced it talking. Now that I see that, it does read more like a sermon, which is distancing. Yeah, I think I must have felt that at first, but I really didn't consciously notice it until the gender issue (which I agree, doesn't really change anything for me either) brought it up...
Herzen Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Interesting. I can honestly say I hadn't noticed the pronouns within the story at all (clearly) so I think it's also fair to say that whether the protagonist was male or female didn't affect my perception of the story at all. I simply related to the BS part of it. The gender aspect wasn't even on my radar until Scrivdog went off on it for some reason. (Because no thread would be complete without someone saying something like that, I guess.) However, seeing the essay now as a second-person, rather than first-person, article does diminish my ability to identify, because I'm less forgiving of the overblown language if it's not the person who experienced it talking. Now that I see that, it does read more like a sermon, which is distancing. That was my point at the beginning: I thought the language was way over-the-top and, as a result, not good, let alone persuasive, writing. I write and argue for a living. The article left me cold. There's much better, and more persuasive, writing on this site. Criticism of the article, moreover, does not make one a cheerleader for infidelity. What I detest is people who believe, based on a BAD experience they had, that they are, as a result of this adverse experience, right on all things relating to the experience. A heart felt position, EVEN ONE PASSIONATELY AND SINCERELY HELD, is not always the best or most nuanced position. And yes, I've been a BS. My first wife slept with 3 guys--and she left me to marry guy no. 3. And I also WAS a WS, some years ago with my second wife. I've seen both sides, and this self-righteous Bible-thumper doesn't speak to, or for, me. I visited the author's web site. He's a card carrying NRA member, God fearing, hard core Conservative Republican. Somehow I'm not surprised. The many religious comments to the article, which are on the web site, also are eye-opening. As I said before, and I'll say again, the best of intentions does not excuse poor writing or sloppy thinking. Bad prose is bad prose even in advocacy of a good and noble cause.
shellys-trying Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 The truth will stand when the world's on fire. This story is not a story but a fact which results from adultry. When those who don't like what it says opens their eyes and their hearts they'll see the truth in it. Good luck to those few.
whirlwinds_sister Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 I found out recently my mid-40's (and stuggling with mid-life big time) W of 20+ years cheated on me with a MM 10-12 years her junior. My W started to get too close so he broke off the physical part but remained her "friend". She was left devastated and confused. It has inflicted tremendous pain on me but I am leaning towards wanting to work through this - if she will try. We both did and said many things to each other over the last few years but for the most part had a wonderful 20 years together. We both know we're at the bottom now and must rebuild even if we're to part cordially. I see that as a good thing; that we needed to get here and be completely exposed. I love this woman and I feel there's hope. Can I forgive? Will I ever trust her (or any other W) again?? I just don't know now. I must exhaust every possibilty before D. I'm not saying I accept her behavior but I do give some thought to the idea she was used by a friend who took advantage of a woman clearly looking for an identity after feeling labeled as a Mom (kids are leaving the nest), a wife, a housekeeper, a professional woman in a man's world, whatever slot she felt stuck in for so long. Should she have turned to me? Sure. She didn't and I have to face that this surely says something about me too. All of you speak like there's no possible hope. Am I kidding myself? There is hope and I'll tell you why...unlike many of the postings I have read the last few days, you and your W, like me and my H, BOTH accept our part in the disintegration of the marriage. The A is completely on the cheater, BUT the point the marriage got to before the A is the responsibility of both parties. I think people who acknowledge that take the first step in healing their marriages and the ones who do not and play the victim and expect only ONE side to take full responsibility are the ones whose marriages just linger still and never really recover. Have hope, friend, have a LOT of hope. Your W needs you and it sounds like you love and need her. Lean on each other now, heal, start setting goals again together and finding those two people you were 20 years ago when you met and share it. Good luck to you. I hope you will stay in touch.
shellys-trying Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 I worked on my M from day one. For 12 long yrs I did all that i could to make it work. I came from a family who busted their humps where M was concerned. My H on the other hand came from family that had many broken homes. Family who did not worry about the big D. I cared about my M. So, the theory stated above doesn't apply in my M's case. My H screwed around on his own. I did everything I could to hold my M and my family together. I accept no responsibilty to the downfall of it. He owns that one.
whirlwinds_sister Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 I worked on my M from day one. For 12 long yrs I did all that i could to make it work. I came from a family who busted their humps where M was concerned. My H on the other hand came from family that had many broken homes. Family who did not worry about the big D. I cared about my M. So, the theory stated above doesn't apply in my M's case. My H screwed around on his own. I did everything I could to hold my M and my family together. I accept no responsibilty to the downfall of it. He owns that one. Well good for you, however if you are a bright woman, just as I have acknowledged REPEATEDLY in many threads that there are just plain old lying *********s, you will acknowledge that there are spouses who pound their marriage into the ground and like someone else stated think that just by virtue of being the spouse they are entitled to respect, love, affection without returning any of the same. Pardon me, but BS. A marriage is a partnership and both parties should expect to be loved and nurtured and cared for. I've seen both sides too, not only as a spouse, but as a child, as a friend, as a confidante. I realize as a woman of nearly 40 years that human emotions are generally far more complex then W=good, H=bad. Or cheater=bad, cheated on person=good. The way in which someone responds to marital strife, yes, that is on them completely, but I say again the point the marriage was at before an A was even entertained belongs to both parties, not just one, with you and a handful like you being the exception.
Trialbyfire Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 Well good for you, however if you are a bright woman, just as I have acknowledged REPEATEDLY in many threads that there are just plain old lying *********s, you will acknowledge that there are spouses who pound their marriage into the ground and like someone else stated think that just by virtue of being the spouse they are entitled to respect, love, affection without returning any of the same. Pardon me, but BS. A marriage is a partnership and both parties should expect to be loved and nurtured and cared for. I've seen both sides too, not only as a spouse, but as a child, as a friend, as a confidante. I realize as a woman of nearly 40 years that human emotions are generally far more complex then W=good, H=bad. Or cheater=bad, cheated on person=good. The way in which someone responds to marital strife, yes, that is on them completely, but I say again the point the marriage was at before an A was even entertained belongs to both parties, not just one, with you and a handful like you being the exception. There are three choices people make when in an unhappy and sometimes happy marriage. They can work on the marriage, they can leave or they can cheat. You fail to see that cheating is separate from the marriage because it's the selfish actions of the cowardly and self-entitled. Marriages as a whole are an incredible amount of work. Either work on it or walk away. Don't jack rabbit around with a chippie on the side.
shellys-trying Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 Well good for you, however if you are a bright woman, just as I have acknowledged REPEATEDLY in many threads that there are just plain old lying *********s, you will acknowledge that there are spouses who pound their marriage into the ground and like someone else stated think that just by virtue of being the spouse they are entitled to respect, love, affection without returning any of the same. Pardon me, but BS. A marriage is a partnership and both parties should expect to be loved and nurtured and cared for. Well, I didn't pound my M into the ground, as it sounds like it's implied above. I call it "worked on". Spouses do it everyday. I gave love, honor, respect, and naturally with the vows I and my H took, I expected it. I didn't screw up. I was a good W. Matter of fact, I still am. I've seen both sides too, not only as a spouse, but as a child, as a friend, as a confidante. I realize as a woman of nearly 40 years that human emotions are generally far more complex then W=good, H=bad. Or cheater=bad, cheated on person=good. The way in which someone responds to marital strife, yes, that is on them completely, but I say again the point the marriage was at before an A was even entertained belongs to both parties, not just one, with you and a handful like you being the exception. Well, in this case, W was good and H was bad. My H made the M awful. I didn't. I worked on it daily. Daily. It's in my raising. I believe in my vows, I did, and still do. Sorry, I don't take any blame for the M's problems before the A. My H, as I said, gets to own all of that.
shellys-trying Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 There are three choices people make when in an unhappy and sometimes happy marriage. They can work on the marriage, they can leave or they can cheat. You fail to see that cheating is separate from the marriage because it's the selfish actions of the cowardly and self-entitled. Marriages as a whole are an incredible amount of work. Either work on it or walk away. Don't jack rabbit around with a chippie on the side. Thank you for making such a valid point, Trial. My H had those choices. He knew the one I made everyday. He chose the "A" route, instead of getting a D. Ms are work, everyday. Some days are easy, some are hard. It helps if both parties are in sync. When one is doing all the work, then you might as well be butting your head against a brick wall, but you choose to go on because you love that person, and maybe you've had alot of yrs with that person. I'm glad I stuck it out, but I won't take any responsibility in not doing my part, before, during or after my H's A.
Melissa277 Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 There are three choices people make when in an unhappy and sometimes happy marriage. They can work on the marriage, they can leave or they can cheat. You fail to see that cheating is separate from the marriage because it's the selfish actions of the cowardly and self-entitled. Marriages as a whole are an incredible amount of work. Either work on it or walk away. Don't jack rabbit around with a chippie on the side. And if you do chose to "jack rabbit around with a chippie on the side" know that sooner or later it will come back to bite you in the "hind end."
believinZ Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Very, very well stated. I do not own my Hs choice to have an A either. He made that choice. He knew there were problems. I begged him to go to counseling w/me he refused. He was immature and unhappy because of his own issues he chose (still somewhat chooses) to ignore or "compartmentalize" I can't own that he has to. I am not nor was I perfect...but, I tried my darndest even in the mists of my own unhappiness... because I made a vow and a promise... and i keep those.
shellys-trying Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Very, very well stated. I do not own my Hs choice to have an A either. He made that choice. He knew there were problems. I am not nor was I perfect...but, I tried my darndest even in the mists of my own unhappiness... because I made a vow and a promise... and i keep those. I don't either own H's choice either, good point yourself. He made the choice. He knew back then how much I loved him and saw how much by my devotion to our M and our family. I wasn't perfect, but he never doubted my love and committment. He says that today. i think that's why he feels so regretful now. Those vows were and are still important to me. I didn't go into my M lightly.
Recommended Posts