Split Self Affairs

[jennie-jennie]

I've not read too much on the "split-self" besides what's been posted on these boards, so I can't offer any kind of definitive view... but from what's been described here, I'd say I've known a number of MMs who'd qualify, possibly even my H, but definitely my father.

 

I'd be hesitant to classify any of those MMs as "weak characters" - they've stood up to more than their fair share of challenges in all kinds of moral, ethical and social arenas, and have earned widespread respect for their integrity and morality. These are people of principle, not people who are easily swayed by passing currents - which makes the sense of "duty" all the more powerful as a driver and a determinant for them. Were they "weaker" characters, they could more easily walk away from "duty" and follow their hearts - but their sense of responsibility and duty keeps them at the helm, last man off the ship and all that.

 

They're also among the least selfish people I know. And it's for that reason that they struggle so - all their lives they've put the wants and needs of others ahead of their own, and now, suddenly, they're faced by a really powerful pull towards something that they really want... but can't fully have, because of their responsibilities and obligations. Yet, the passion and the intensity is just too powerful to walk away from entirely - and so they find themselves trapped in this terrible situation where the two parts of themselves are pulling in opposite directions - the superego telling them to stay and "do what's right"; and the id, wanting them to follow their hearts for the first time in their lives.

 

Were they weaker characters, they'd find it easier to walk away from duty and obligation without a second glance. Were they selfish people, there'd be no split between following their heart and looking after the interests of others - they'd simply follow their hearts. It's precisely because they're neither selfish nor weak that they cannot make a clean, clear choice and follow through.

 

At least, that's how I read it. If others who're better read in this area (Jen?) or who work professionally with these concepts (DI?) feel that my reading is way off, so be it... But from what I've read and who I've known, I can't accept that they're "selfish, weak, cake-eaters". If that really was what / how they were, they'd be happy and at ease in the A, not wracked by it.

 

You are spot on as always, OWoman.

[moaningmyrtle]

I've not read too much on the "split-self" besides what's been posted on these boards, so I can't offer any kind of definitive view... but from what's been described here, I'd say I've known a number of MMs who'd qualify, possibly even my H, but definitely my father.

 

I'd be hesitant to classify any of those MMs as "weak characters" - they've stood up to more than their fair share of challenges in all kinds of moral, ethical and social arenas, and have earned widespread respect for their integrity and morality. These are people of principle, not people who are easily swayed by passing currents - which makes the sense of "duty" all the more powerful as a driver and a determinant for them. Were they "weaker" characters, they could more easily walk away from "duty" and follow their hearts - but their sense of responsibility and duty keeps them at the helm, last man off the ship and all that.

 

They're also among the least selfish people I know. And it's for that reason that they struggle so - all their lives they've put the wants and needs of others ahead of their own, and now, suddenly, they're faced by a really powerful pull towards something that they really want... but can't fully have, because of their responsibilities and obligations. Yet, the passion and the intensity is just too powerful to walk away from entirely - and so they find themselves trapped in this terrible situation where the two parts of themselves are pulling in opposite directions - the superego telling them to stay and "do what's right"; and the id, wanting them to follow their hearts for the first time in their lives.

 

Were they weaker characters, they'd find it easier to walk away from duty and obligation without a second glance. Were they selfish people, there'd be no split between following their heart and looking after the interests of others - they'd simply follow their hearts. It's precisely because they're neither selfish nor weak that they cannot make a clean, clear choice and follow through.

 

At least, that's how I read it. If others who're better read in this area (Jen?) or who work professionally with these concepts (DI?) feel that my reading is way off, so be it... But from what I've read and who I've known, I can't accept that they're "selfish, weak, cake-eaters". If that really was what / how they were, they'd be happy and at ease in the A, not wracked by it.

 

A great 'apologist' post OWoman.

 

I'm reasonably certain I'm married to such a man; and it seems several OW on this board are currently in As with split-selfs. The difference is that my H (if he is one) has gone through the d-day and is now trying to heal himself.

 

Today we went to the psychologist - it was a man my H had seen before on his own but today we went together.

 

Even my H had to agree that even though he considered himself as self-sacrificing by staying in a M that didn't entirely satisfy himself he knew that once he started the daily dishonesty he could no longer claim to be self-sacrificing; as he was then sacrificing others (me and possibly his family) to his self-gratification. He told both me and the psychologist how much easier - liberating almost, it is to be living an honest life now and that he would not willingly swap that to go back to the deceitful life he lived before.

 

I simply cannot agree that these men are as you see them. You're right he became trapped in a terrible situation that tore him apart but this was not because he was the great guy you describe. Ongoing dishonesty on a daily basis to people you care about, does terrible things to people who are being dishonest. It means they do have a shred of conscience and decency after all, but doesn't make them into the paragons of virtue you describe.

 

I am an honest person myself - it doesn't make me any sort of paragon either; but to me honesty by both APs is essential to get any sort of resolution to the destructiveness of affairs. I believe this irrespective of whether the MP stays with his/her spouse or leaves for the AP.

[OWoman]

Ongoing dishonesty on a daily basis to people you care about, does terrible things to people who are being dishonest. It means they do have a shred of conscience and decency after all, but doesn't make them into the paragons of virtue you describe.

 

I did not claim that suffering made these men into "paragons of virtue"; rather, I claimed that it was BECAUSE they were highly unselfish and duty-focused that they were unable simply to walk away from the M, unable to abandon "duty" and obligation and follow their heart, and that because of that they landed up being pulled in opposing directions, being split, and suffering. The suffering did not cause the "virtue", but the virtue contributed to the suffering.

 

I don't know your H and can't comment on whether or not he was "split-self", and so his personal experiences and motivations to me neither prove nor disprove my reading of the situation. All I can say on that is - the relief he expressed about not having to maintain the duplicity is not uncommon. My father was very relieved when he could D my mother and M his fOW. My H was very relieved when he left his M and we were together full-time. Several of my friends and colleagues, likewise, were very relieved when their As ended whichever way, because the pressure was simply too great for them. I don't think that that necessarily makes them "split-self" or otherwise - it simply suggests that they're not these self-obsessed "cake eaters" that some people like to paint them as, who are happiest having at least two women pandering to their every whim, "not choosing" because the A - ie, having both - suits them best of all.

 

(And as to being an "apologist" - I think it's a long shot to call someone an apologist simply because they have a view that doesn't match one's own - particularly when they've stated upfront that they're expressing a tentative opinion on a matter they know little about, based on their experience and observation which contradicts the assertions / opinions of another poster based on equally tenuous evidence!)

[moaningmyrtle]

I did not claim that suffering made these men into "paragons of virtue"; rather, I claimed that it was BECAUSE they were highly unselfish and duty-focused that they were unable simply to walk away from the M, unable to abandon "duty" and obligation and follow their heart, and that because of that they landed up being pulled in opposing directions, being split, and suffering. The suffering did not cause the "virtue", but the virtue contributed to the suffering.

 

I disagree I think these men are very selfish albeit wanting to be seen as a good guy. Having a sense of duty is not inconsistent with being selfish.

 

I don't know your H and can't comment on whether or not he was "split-self", and so his personal experiences and motivations to me neither prove nor disprove my reading of the situation. All I can say on that is - the relief he expressed about not having to maintain the duplicity is not uncommon. My father was very relieved when he could D my mother and M his fOW. My H was very relieved when he left his M and we were together full-time. Several of my friends and colleagues, likewise, were very relieved when their As ended whichever way, because the pressure was simply too great for them. I don't think that that necessarily makes them "split-self" or otherwise - it simply suggests that they're not these self-obsessed "cake eaters" that some people like to paint them as, who are happiest having at least two women pandering to their every whim, "not choosing" because the A - ie, having both - suits them best of all.

 

I can't disagree with this.

 

(And as to being an "apologist" - I think it's a long shot to call someone an apologist simply because they have a view that doesn't match one's own - particularly when they've stated upfront that they're expressing a tentative opinion on a matter they know little about, based on their experience and observation which contradicts the assertions / opinions of another poster based on equally tenuous evidence!)

 

An apologist is merely one who defends a particular viewpoint, which you are doing. It has nothing to do with whether or not your view matches mine. It was not an insult.

 

It's clear that there are different views about these sorts of guys. The view accepted by some is that he isn't selfish whereas I disagree. I certainly agree he is torn between duty and love (to grossly oversimplify) but that says nothing about selfishness. I've acknowledged I can't be certain about my H but my opinion that he probably is (was?) a split-self, is no less valid as, for instance, the opinion of Jennie that her MM is.

[jennie-jennie]

I've acknowledged I can't be certain about my H but my opinion that he probably is (was?) a split-self, is no less valid as, for instance, the opinion of Jennie that her MM is.

 

I just thought it might be of interest that my MM has read about the Split Self affair and recognizes himself to be a split self. So it is not just my opinon, it is his view as well.

[jwi71]

I did not claim that suffering made these men into "paragons of virtue"

 

You got that right...or paragons have taken a steep nosedive these days.

 

 

I claimed that it was BECAUSE they were highly unselfish

Oh come on...an A is about as selfish as one gets. How can you claim an A is a selfless act?

and duty-focused that they were unable simply to walk away from the M, unable to abandon "duty" and obligation and follow their heart

Duty-focused? Duty keeps them in the M? No. Fear does. Fear that its worse without the M than it currently is - you know, having two women meet all their needs...they stay because, for whatever reasons, the BS nor the OW is enough...he wants both. Has nothing to do with duty.

 

And that's where I derive my opinion, and like you I only know what J-J says on it, that split-self is bull-sh*t. The WS feels torn between duty and love and therefore is stuck. . No. They need a way to keep both. To keep the BS, they simply lie by hiding the A (because its a selfish act). Now, to keep the OW hooked, they lie again. They can't leave because of "duty". And this duty is often: children, or she'll be devastated, she's sick, she's pregnant (ha!), I can't lose half my life (in a D) and so on. You'll notice that these duties are often labeled "excuses a MM won't leave".

Calling it split-self is simply a psycho-babble for excuse.

 

And really...does it REALLY matter why the MM/MW doesn't leave. Would you believe their response anyway? What matters is they do or do not leave. Spending way too much on justifying the lack of action (WHY the won't leave) rather than the fact they haven't left.

 

My .02

[jwi71]

I just thought it might be of interest that my MM has read about the Split Self affair and recognizes himself to be a split self. So it is not just my opinon, it is his view as well.

 

Of course he will.

He now has the perfect J-J sanctioned reason to NOT leave. He doesn't even have to convince you - you already believe it. I'd pay attention and see if he begins referring to it often for lack of action/decision.

 

Just my way of looking out for you J-J

[Hazyhead]

And that's where I derive my opinion, and like you I only know what J-J says on it, that split-self is bull-sh*t. The WS feels torn between duty and love and therefore is stuck. . No. They need a way to keep both. To keep the BS, they simply lie by hiding the A (because its a selfish act). Now, to keep the OW hooked, they lie again. They can't leave because of "duty". And this duty is often: children, or she'll be devastated, she's sick, she's pregnant (ha!), I can't lose half my life (in a D) and so on. You'll notice that these duties are often labeled "excuses a MM won't leave".

Calling it split-self is simply a psycho-babble for excuse.

 

And really...does it REALLY matter why the MM/MW doesn't leave. Would you believe their response anyway? What matters is they do or do not leave. Spending way too much on justifying the lack of action (WHY the won't leave) rather than the fact they haven't left.

 

My .02

 

I agree with your sentiments. I'm not saying I don't believe that the married AP might be split psychologically but , when all is said and done and the heartache dished out, does it matter the reasons? I too can see how my xAP so fits the criteria but it still wouldn't make me any more likely to hang on for more devastation. I guess those who can are made of sturdier stock. Still, I'll move on.

[jennie-jennie]

Of course he will.

He now has the perfect J-J sanctioned reason to NOT leave. He doesn't even have to convince you - you already believe it. I'd pay attention and see if he begins referring to it often for lack of action/decision.

 

Just my way of looking out for you J-J

 

I know you are. You are sweet, jwi.

[jennie-jennie]

I agree with your sentiments. I'm not saying I don't believe that the married AP might be split psychologically but , when all is said and done and the heartache dished out, does it matter the reasons? I too can see how my xAP so fits the criteria but it still wouldn't make me any more likely to hang on for more devastation. I guess those who can are made of sturdier stock. Still, I'll move on.

 

To me it matters, because I was not and am not going anywhere anyway. So understanding the mindset of the MM makes me happier where I am at, and that is worth a lot.

[Hazyhead]

To me it matters, because I was not and am not going anywhere anyway. So understanding the mindset of the MM makes me happier where I am at, and that is worth a lot.

 

it is JJ; if you're happier and it's stable enough for you then that's good, but I don't think you're MM combines it with to-ing and fro- ing does he? The situation is what it is and although not ideal the two of you accept that. That's the difference.

[Samantha0905]

 

Oh come on...an A is about as selfish as one gets. How can you claim an A is a selfless act?

 

I feel like mine was pretty damn selfish. I thought my single OM was selfish also. He let himself off the hook because he was single, but he knew I was married. I'd say we were both selfish.

 

 

Duty-focused? Duty keeps them in the M? No. Fear does. Fear that its worse without the M than it currently is - you know, having two women meet all their needs...they stay because, for whatever reasons, the BS nor the OW is enough...he wants both. Has nothing to do with duty.

 

I think you're spot on there also. I once said I wished I was married to a combination of my husband and XAP and was told I had antisocial personality disorder on this site. I think for me a lot of it was guilt more than duty. I felt badly because by leaving the marriage I was not doing what I had promised to do. Plus, fear is a big factor also. What if I ended up even worse off than I was in the marriage?

 

And that's where I derive my opinion, and like you I only know what J-J says on it, that split-self is bull-sh*t. The WS feels torn between duty and love and therefore is stuck. . No. They need a way to keep both. To keep the BS, they simply lie by hiding the A (because its a selfish act). Now, to keep the OW hooked, they lie again. They can't leave because of "duty". And this duty is often: children, or she'll be devastated, she's sick, she's pregnant (ha!), I can't lose half my life (in a D) and so on. You'll notice that these duties are often labeled "excuses a MM won't leave".

Calling it split-self is simply a psycho-babble for excuse.

 

I lied about the affair to my husband by omission. Still am for that matter. I didn't lie to my AP when I didn't leave. I simply told him I could not leave because I didn't feel right about it. So, he eventually left me.

 

And really...does it REALLY matter why the MM/MW doesn't leave. Would you believe their response anyway? What matters is they do or do not leave. Spending way too much on justifying the lack of action (WHY the won't leave) rather than the fact they haven't left.

 

My .02

 

I think just the fact two people are in an affair together creates huge trust issues for both of them. I was a married woman having extra-marital sex and he was a single man who thought it was okay to sleep with a married woman. There's something wrong with that picture as far as both parties are concerned.

 

I do find it interesting to read what goes on in the minds of different OW/OM as it helps me understand where my XAP's thoughts were on the matter.

 

I'll have to read up more on split self affairs before I call them bull-sh*t. I do think there's clearly something psychologically amiss (if you think lack of integrity and character may have psychological roots) in a person who determines having an affair is an option. I'm not saying that in terms of them having a "disease" and I'm pretty skeptical about all this Tiger Woods' "sex addiction" stuff, but I do think there are obviously issues that IC may help the individual to remedy.

[jennie-jennie]

it is JJ; if you're happier and it's stable enough for you then that's good, but I don't think you're MM combines it with to-ing and fro- ing does he? The situation is what it is and although not ideal the two of you accept that. That's the difference.

 

You're right, Hazy, I hadn't thought of that. We had a lot of rollercoasters in the past, especially the first year, but now they are few and far between, and also we know each other so well and are secure in our relationship so we have learnt to handle them in a way which makes it more like small bumps on the road.