Owl Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Any contact with a former affair partner IS unacceptable for the vast majority of BS's who have worked on reconciling their marriage. I'll state it point blank...you can call it controlling if you like. If OM were to contact my wife today...and she didn't tell me about it, which is what we agreed upon...there darn straight would be consequences. If she responded back to him...those consequences would be even greater. She knows that this is a requirement that she's agreed upon in order to remain in a relationship with me. Call it controlling...call it snow skis...I don't care. It's not unreasonable...and it's what she's agreed to as a condition to my continued participation in her life. If she thought it was unreasonable...she could have disagreed and we could have proceeded on to divorce instead. I'm curious if Dryerase's H has laid down similar conditions? If not...I'd be surprised...and hope that he comes to his senses and insists upon it. There's good reasons for it.
What_Next Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Well put Owl. I couldn't have said it better myself.
John Michael Kane Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 What does your comment have to do with the options she has in handling her CURRENT situation??? She's obviously not handling it correctly. LOL...you're so stuck on your agenda you go back to it even when its no longer relevant.... lol If there were a nuclear holocaust tomorrow and you were fortunate enought to survive it I'm sure you'd find a way to blame infidelity for that too. Same for you.
RepairMinded Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 If OM were to contact my wife today...and she didn't tell me about it, which is what we agreed upon...there darn straight would be consequences. If she responded back to him...those consequences would be even greater. So even though you claim to be fully recovered, after years I guess, you still think somewhere deep down she's fully capable of doing it again--should the right opportunity present itself. (If you didn't believe her capable there would be no need to talk of "consequences.") She knows that this is a requirement that she's agreed upon in order to remain in a relationship with me. So in your mind it's still a quid pro quo. You don't actually think it's impossible that she could resume her affair. You still don't really trust her, do you? Call it controlling...call it snow skis...I don't care. It's not "controlling" because you don't actually have any control over your wife's behavior. If she wants to do it again she will. The real issue (as I see it) is that you quite obviously think your wife is potentially still capable of cheating on you again. You're not talking about these rules or conditions in the past tense, something that you needed for reassurance for the first couple of years. You're using present tense, which means you aren't actually recovered from the affair. You still suffer its consequences--I think this is the point others were getting at. It's not unreasonable...and it's what she's agreed to as a condition to my continued participation in her life. Not the issue. The issue is why such an explicit agreement--even if felt to be necessary in the aftermath of the affair--is still felt to be essential to the relationship, in the context of a supposedly "recovered" relationship. If she thought it was unreasonable...she could have disagreed and we could have proceeded on to divorce instead. There's nothing unreasonable about it. As long as you realize all that it represents is your own insecurity caused by your wife's affair. It's an imaginary, emotional security blanket which allows you to pretend that you actually have control over something that you really have no control over--the continuing fear that you have that your wife may cheat again.
StoneCold Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 She's obviously not handling it correctly. . Still havent answered the question
John Michael Kane Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Still havent answered the question It's obvious you're immature about this situation. The question was irrelevant. The fact remains she's still deceiving this man.
John Michael Kane Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 So even though you claim to be fully recovered, after years I guess, you still think somewhere deep down she's fully capable of doing it again--should the right opportunity present itself. (If you didn't believe her capable there would be no need to talk of "consequences.") So in your mind it's still a quid pro quo. You don't actually think it's impossible that she could resume her affair. You still don't really trust her, do you? It's not "controlling" because you don't actually have any control over your wife's behavior. If she wants to do it again she will. The real issue (as I see it) is that you quite obviously think your wife is potentially still capable of cheating on you again. You're not talking about these rules or conditions in the past tense, something that you needed for reassurance for the first couple of years. You're using present tense, which means you aren't actually recovered from the affair. You still suffer its consequences--I think this is the point others were getting at. Not the issue. The issue is why such an explicit agreement--even if felt to be necessary in the aftermath of the affair--is still felt to be essential to the relationship, in the context of a supposedly "recovered" relationship. There's nothing unreasonable about it. As long as you realize all that it represents is your own insecurity caused by your wife's affair. It's an imaginary, emotional security blanket which allows you to pretend that you actually have control over something that you really have no control over--the continuing fear that you have that your wife may cheat again. Great post. This is what I was trying to tell Owl in the other thread: That he's still hurt from her affair and the fears of her cheating again remains, even after 7 years.
Kidd Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Owl is aware of the real world where anyone could cheat under the right (or wrong) conditions (especially since you don't control them). You make agreements ultimately with no guarantees. At best, perhaps you can guarantee consequences for broken agreements. Based on this reality, do you never then subject yourself to being vulnerable to a broken agreement? For one, I'm not ready to accept that this is a given and to base my life off of the statistics.
StoneCold Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) It's obvious you're immature about this situation. The question was irrelevant. The fact remains she's still deceiving this man. Shes only decieving him if shes up to something or involved...which apparently shes neither....and just because somebody is trying to talk to you does NOT mean you are involved...so give it a rest Edited June 23, 2011 by StoneCold
OldOnTheInside Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Shes only decieving him if shes up to something or involved...which apparently shes neither....and just because somebody is trying to talk to you does NOT mean you are involved...so give it a rest It's up to CIK's husband to decide as whether or not he is being decieved. She can't create opinions for him. He can. But he doesn't know what she is doing, so he can't say. A logical paradox...
StoneCold Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 It's up to CIK's husband to decide as whether or not he is being decieved. She can't create opinions for him. He can. But he doesn't know what she is doing, so he can't say. A logical paradox... I dont think this is about CIK.... and your right... its up to the H to decide whether or not he is being decieved...but its also up to the OP to decide whether or not she is deceiving
OldOnTheInside Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 I dont think this is about CIK.... and your right... its up to the H to decide whether or not he is being decieved...but its also up to the OP to decide whether or not she is deceiving Oops, replace CIK with dryerase... And yeah, you're right. Difference is, OP has the ability to know whether she is deceiving her husband or not, since she is playing the active role. Until he finds out the truth, the husband has no say. Doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just the situation.
John Michael Kane Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Shes only decieving him if shes up to something or involved...which apparently shes neither It's both because she's still messing around with OM. ....and just because somebody is trying to talk to you does NOT mean you are involved...so give it a rest It's not just somebody, it's the person she's cheating on her husband with, so give it a rest.
StoneCold Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 It's both because she's still messing around with OM. It's not just somebody, it's the person she's cheating on her husband with, so give it a rest. Show me where she said shes still messing around with him
confusedinkansas Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 It's both because she's still messing around with OM. Wow you really are pretty thick headed aren'tcha? .....and apparently not paying very much attention to this thread. I won't reiterate what's already been said because you can go back & read -if you would choose to. But then again......... you'd just put your own twist on it as you normally do! You really must have one hell of a vivid immagination.
OldOnTheInside Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 A logical paradox... To expand on this, it is very easy to avoid this logical paradox. One of the easiest ways would be to set up boundaries beforehand. Something like... "If you ever get into an affair, I would want brutal honesty under any circumstance. I would prefer to have my feelings hurt, than be left in ignorance. I would want to have my say on whether the marriage should continue without you leaving me in the dark on any issue. If any contact is made between you and the AP, under any circumstance, I would like to know. Whatever fantasy you want to believe, know that this situation is likely/unlikely to have a happy ending." Basically, a lot of the excuses you hear, just won't fly. The WS has to ouright admit to themselves that they are simply covering their own *ss. Or, depending on what you are comfortable with... "I would prefer to not know about XXXX, it would cause too much stress. I just want to live in the present and think about the future, rather than worrying about the past." So yeah, if any lurkers who are reading this, want to simplifly a lot of the moral complexities of their situation, that would be one method.
John Michael Kane Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Wow you really are pretty thick headed aren'tcha? .....and apparently not paying very much attention to this thread. The same can be said for you. I won't reiterate what's already been said because you can go back & read -if you would choose to. Thanks but no thanks. I already know what was previously stated. But then again......... you'd just put your own twist on it as you normally do! You really must have one hell of a vivid immagination. It's not an imagination, but something composed of obvious facts in this thread.
confusedinkansas Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 The same can be said for you. . Not really. Because I TOTALLY GET that she didn't solicit the other man to talk to her. She's sitting there minding her own business & HE came up & talked with her. Not real sure what part of that isn't clear to you - OR what part of that means SHE is still messing around. Warped! That's all I can say.
2sure Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Just a quick thought, something you might want to think about. Taking your children, or going yourself to discuss your children, to a child psychologist or therapist is a huge decision. Its an action. It affects your family and your children. Even though you have left your BS in the dark regarding your affair...leaving him out of a direct decision such as this...is way, way, way, out of the question. Also, you seem to be focusing NOT on whether or not the children or you should seek counseling but on the fact that OM so thoughtfully suggested it. You have to remember that it is supposed to be you and your husband , not he, that is most concerned for your family. Thats just the way it is.
John Michael Kane Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Not really. Yes really. Because I TOTALLY GET that she didn't solicit the other man to talk to her. She's sitting there minding her own business & HE came up & talked with her. Not real sure what part of that isn't clear to you - OR what part of that means SHE is still messing around. Warped! That's all I can say. Yet she still ENGAGED in conversation with him, and STILL WORKS WITH HIM. Now that's warped!
29C Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 To expand on this, it is very easy to avoid this logical paradox. One of the easiest ways would be to set up boundaries beforehand. Something like... "If you ever get into an affair, I would want brutal honesty under any circumstance. I would prefer to have my feelings hurt, than be left in ignorance. I would want to have my say on whether the marriage should continue without you leaving me in the dark on any issue. If any contact is made between you and the AP, under any circumstance, I would like to know. Whatever fantasy you want to believe, know that this situation is likely/unlikely to have a happy ending." Basically, a lot of the excuses you hear, just won't fly. The WS has to ouright admit to themselves that they are simply covering their own *ss. Or, depending on what you are comfortable with... "I would prefer to not know about XXXX, it would cause too much stress. I just want to live in the present and think about the future, rather than worrying about the past." So yeah, if any lurkers who are reading this, want to simplifly a lot of the moral complexities of their situation, that would be one method. When someone has a strong set of ethics, integrity takes over. Remember I said before when you have integrity everyone knows you will always do the right thing. There will be no question as to what your actions or motives are going to be. You are trustworthy. If a WS is trying to regain their integrity, truth and honesty must be absolute and forthright. Are we good? "Keep your stick on the ice" - Red Green:cool:
Memphis Raines Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 Not really. Because I TOTALLY GET that she didn't solicit the other man to talk to her. She's sitting there minding her own business & HE came up & talked with her. Not real sure what part of that isn't clear to you probably the part that indicates its irrelevant as to her having an affair with the guy. - OR what part of that means SHE is still messing around. Warped! That's all I can say. even you said she has to get away from the OM. if she wasn't still messing around with him, then no need to get away from him.
LoveandSuch Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 In all your posts you seem bent on convincing yourself and the forum that this man loves you. Deep down, I believe you only wish for this fantasy. He doesn't and would scurry like a spotted rat if you did get divorced. Men say anything to get in a woman's pants, married or single. He spends one day in reality with you and three children, he will be running for the hills into lingerie girl's pants and likely many others. He is just in it for games and the chase, once he wins, it is over. A man who is trully in love with a woman would never leave another women's post lovemaking garments for display, he would be terrified you would end it permanently and never speak to him again. I think he just has no care and enjoys playing games with women. He is having sex with others! That is far far far from love. He is using the same words he used on u in a card to another woman? And you go on how much he cares about you. People do like attention, but going through such desperate measures to get it seems like a problem worth working on so you can gain true self esteem, not imaginary, so you will not fall for any line a man feeds you. If he is single, no kids, and has other romantic interests, you trully believe he will be happy wiping up your children's vomit and all the investment it requires to raise children. You do need to be honest with your husband for his safety against venereal disease since your OM was not exclusive to you.
LoveandSuch Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Darn, why did you have to divulge our big secret??? Now everyone will know. Good God Almighty! A secret??? It seems to be for 99.9% of the posters who are in relationships with cheating men! Oh let me ask your opinion, I am in a fling, and am married, but he is sleeping with countless other women. But, he loves me so much. I know I am the one. My p*ssy is gold compared to the other mincemeat he is currently torpedoing at this moment, as we speak. Do you think he loves me? He tells me he does. He is a snake toward ALL other women, but it is different for us. He changes into a completely different human being. We love eachother do you think it will work out. I know if we marry, he will love me and my children unconditionally for the next decade. He would never cheat on me as he has countless others. He will not feel up our babysitter and continue countless flings with co workers. I am special and different.
Recommended Posts