Jump to content

The spouse

Ifalltopieces

By Ifalltopieces
in General Relationship Discussion

 Share
While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

RoseVille Established Member

RoseVille

Posted
Posted
So I know more about where you are coming from, please define " in love"? What does it mean to you, and how is it expressed ( beyond sex)?

 

To be "in love" is a romantic love, not a familial/comfort love. It's a desire to be with the person, romantically, and yes that includes sex.

 

If you love your spouse but you have no desire to be with them physically/sexually, you care for them deeply but you are not "in love" with them.

 

Also, to be "in love" is a state of being; it's what you are, it cannot be controlled. To love is a verb, a choice.

  • Like 1
minimariah Established Member

minimariah

Posted
Posted

If you love your spouse but you have no desire to be with them physically/sexually, you care for them deeply but you are not "in love" with them.

 

meaning that you don't love them. folks will ALWAYS hesitate to admit that because they think that "i don't love you" means "i don't care or feel anything for you" -- i mean, we all know what kind of love you SHOULD be feeling for your romantic partner & when you stop feeling that, you stopped loving them. also, i agree that love doesn't need to be monogamous but you can't mix the romantic love up with other kinds (family, friends) because there is a huge difference - love can be polygamous but that means that you love more than one person romantically and sexually. it has to be the same kind of love to fit that definition.

 

i also don't think that "in love" is an ONLY definition of romantic love, to me "in love" equals crush, butterflies and it either vanishes with time or it grows into mature love. in love is that beginning state when you idealize your partner but love means knowing that person, their flaws and all and STILL loving them. it also means that sexual desires stay the same, you just go from tbat superficial crushy in love feeling to strong, mature romantic love.

 

i also think that falling in love is a choice, you choose to know the person... in comparison to the "chemistry" and butterflies that aren't controlled. you can't fall in love with someone you don't know. and i think, with time that "in love" feeling grows into LOVE with big L with "in love" occasional relapses (i actually read a really good study about these relapses).

 

long story short -- when someone says, "i love my W" i automatically assume that the love is romantic and sexual, similar to the in love feeling only deeper and stronger so i'm often confused with folks saying they love their partner but don't view them as anything more than friends and someone they share a lot of history with.

  • Like 2
RoseVille Established Member

RoseVille

Posted
Posted
meaning that you don't love them. folks will ALWAYS hesitate to admit that because they think that "i don't love you" means "i don't care or feel anything for you" -- i mean, we all know what kind of love you SHOULD be feeling for your romantic partner & when you stop feeling that, you stopped loving them. also, i agree that love doesn't need to be monogamous but you can't mix the romantic love up with other kinds (family, friends) because there is a huge difference - love can be polygamous but that means that you love more than one person romantically and sexually. it has to be the same kind of love to fit that definition.

 

i also don't think that "in love" is an ONLY definition of romantic love, to me "in love" equals crush, butterflies and it either vanishes with time or it grows into mature love. in love is that beginning state when you idealize your partner but love means knowing that person, their flaws and all and STILL loving them. it also means that sexual desires stay the same, you just go from tbat superficial crushy in love feeling to strong, mature romantic love.

 

i also think that falling in love is a choice, you choose to know the person... in comparison to the "chemistry" and butterflies that aren't controlled. you can't fall in love with someone you don't know. and i think, with time that "in love" feeling grows into LOVE with big L with "in love" occasional relapses (i actually read a really good study about these relapses).

 

long story short -- when someone says, "i love my W" i automatically assume that the love is romantic and sexual, similar to the in love feeling only deeper and stronger so i'm often confused with folks saying they love their partner but don't view them as anything more than friends and someone they share a lot of history with.

 

I don't think being "in love" is something that "vanishes in time." I've been in LTRs where I was in love for over a decade.

Popsicle Established Member

Popsicle

Posted
Posted
Now you're building this guy up to be some honorable human being. He's not. If he wanted to leave his marriage, he would have left. Trust me when I say it really is as simple as that. Honorable men don't treat women the way he treated you and his wife. Again, men are usually very happy at home when they have affairs, they just want more. But maybe your MM is the exception. I hate to say it though, there is a huge possibility that he isn't. Men don't need to be unhappy in order to cheat.

 

Just curious, Have you left your cheating wife yet or are you still with her?

  • Like 2
velvette Established Member

velvette

Posted
Posted

 

 

so i'm often confused with folks saying they love their partner but don't view them as anything more than friends and someone they share a lot of history with.

 

 

I agree. Don't get that at all.

 

 

I understand if someone CARES about someone they used to love, or cares about what happens to them, especially if they are the parents of children together, but the whole "I love you, but I'm not in love with you" makes no sense to me. Its nonsense.

  • Like 1
IfWishesWereHorses Established Member

IfWishesWereHorses

Posted
Posted
Can't say I agree with any of that, Owl. I feel empathy, and I definitely have the capacity for love.

 

Concerning for sure. If you disagree with that though, it would seem that you have a healthy capacity for self-love.

minimariah Established Member

minimariah

Posted
Posted
I don't think being "in love" is something that "vanishes in time." I've been in LTRs where I was in love for over a decade.

 

i get that and i've had the same experience but i think we define "in love" differently. to me "in love" usually means the supericial crush, LOVE means something serious and permanent = both feelings include romantic love & sexually desiring your partner, of course. it's just that i view "in love" as more immature type of feeling & love as mature and more "real and true" feeling, state of being.

 

we simply have different definitions of "in love" & "love" it seems.

  • Like 3
minimariah Established Member

minimariah

Posted
Posted
I agree. Don't get that at all.

 

 

I understand if someone CARES about someone they used to love, or cares about what happens to them, especially if they are the parents of children together, but the whole "I love you, but I'm not in love with you" makes no sense to me. Its nonsense.

 

yup. when they say "i love you but i'm not in love with you" it's a way of saying "i don't love you" without actually saying it.

 

but i've noticed, especially on here - people really avoid saying that because it's like... it makes them feel better when they say that they love the person.

 

like, OF COURSE you feel some kind of love and care for someone you've been with for many years and have history with. you might love them as a friend, as a parent of your children, blah blah... but you don't love them romantically.

 

in a romantic relationship, it's cleary what kind of love there should be between partners. if you don't desire them sexually, if you don't feel any passion about them, if you don't see them as romantic and sexual beings - you don't love them, as simple as that. and it's ridiculous trying to say that you DO love them when it's clear that isn't the type of love that should be present.

  • Like 2
minimariah Established Member

minimariah

Posted
Posted

we simply have different definitions of "in love" & "love" it seems.

 

just to add - to me, "in love" most definitely goes prior to LOVE happening. like it happens and then it grows into love, that's what i mean. without "in love" - there is no love, growing love. not sure if i'm explaining well, but yeah. lol.

  • Like 2
SolG Established Member

SolG

Posted
Posted (edited)
yup. when they say "i love you but i'm not in love with you" it's a way of saying "i don't love you" without actually saying it.

 

but i've noticed, especially on here - people really avoid saying that because it's like... it makes them feel better when they say that they love the person.

 

like, OF COURSE you feel some kind of love and care for someone you've been with for many years and have history with. you might love them as a friend, as a parent of your children, blah blah... but you don't love them romantically.

 

in a romantic relationship, it's cleary what kind of love there should be between partners. if you don't desire them sexually, if you don't feel any passion about them, if you don't see them as romantic and sexual beings - you don't love them, as simple as that. and it's ridiculous trying to say that you DO love them when it's clear that isn't the type of love that should be present.

 

Mini I think in some cases the love sometimes transforms into something beyond the familial per se, into an almost parental perspective. It goes beyond simply seeing a partner as a friend and coparent into the realm of a childlike dependant for which he/she feels absolute responsibility for. Where the spouse is seen as a fragile entity not capable of navigating the world without them.

 

Using my MM as a case in point, his codependency with his W operates on this dynamic. She needs him as her knight and protector, he needs to feel that he's protecting her and his family unit in terms of validating his view of what being masculine entails. And this absolutely has a romantic component insofar as romance entails care and succour. But high romance in this sense is virtually asexual... But also pleasurable in the sense of delighting someone you care about. MM truly derives pleasure from this.

 

Whereas I am the foil to this dynamic for MM. I'm a full adult sexual woman. We had a conversation that relates to this just yesterday about the difference between him being at a function with his W vs with me. With his W he shepherds and is solicitous and attentive barely leaving her side, whereas with me we smile at each other across the room and take pride in the others achievements and ability to engage.

 

Interestingly, his W and I both suffer from social anxiety. His W relies on him for support, whereas I have a couple of drinks and put my game face on. They are both valid strategies, neither superior to the other. And MM is happy with both in their contexts.

 

I have no doubt you could write a thesis about our A and the antecedents. I really struggle to express the complexities here.

Edited by SolG
  • Like 4
cocorico Established Member

cocorico

Posted
Posted

 

So the way I see it, on all sides, death of empathy in both affair partners is the precondition for an affair. And to me, the death of empathy is the death of the capacity for healthy love.

 

Perhaps, if you're referring specifically to "empathy toward the BS". Certainly not empathy in general. Empathy in general is more typically heightened - as it is in all "falling in love" scenarios, since emotions are in flux and intensified. Sunsets are more glorious, stars brighter, music sweeter, jokes funnier, tragedies sadder. Perhaps this is why the WS in so many cases has the need to "find fault" with the BS, to find cause to shift them out of the box of "normal human beings, for whom I feel compassion and empathy" into a box where the denial of compassion and empathy is appropriate - the box into which racists categorise the races they oppress, or into which sexists place the gender they despise, etc. "The other", who doesn't qualify, as "we" do. Everyone else, however, remains in the "normal" box, receives as much (or more) compassion and empathy as before.

 

"Healthy" love flourishes, but is denied to the BS - who becomes an obligation, a dependent, a chore.

  • Like 2
  • Author
Ifalltopieces Established Member

Ifalltopieces

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just curious, Have you left your cheating wife yet or are you still with her?

 

Exactly!!!!!!! I was thinking the same thing!!!

  • Like 1
Got it Established Member

Got it

Posted
Posted
Roseville I'll restate: the married ap is always a liar. He/she may not always lie to both the ap and the bs all the time, but it is impossible to have an affair, or any sort of triangulated relationship where one person is in the dark, without lying. If there are no secrets or lies, it's an open marriage in my opinion, not an affair.

 

Midwest - I am very sorry for your experience and the pain you experienced. As a former married AP, while yes I lied to my ex husband I did not lie to my AP. I had no reason to lie to him and that was the uniqueness of our relationship, it was fully brutally honest. My marriage, unfortunately, not so much. I had been hedging and withholding for years to make it work. Just not being fully me as "me" didn't fit into the marriage.

 

So yes, I absolutely lied in the marriage and to my ex husband during the affair but that doesn't always translate to meaning the person lies to everyone.

  • Like 3
cocorico Established Member

cocorico

Posted
Posted
he loves his ow, yet he goes home to his wife and acts loving towards her...in essence , he is cheating on that relationship too. He knows his ow is hurting, being aware that he is with his wife and not her, yet that isn't enough to make him take stock of his life and leave to eb with her, or, if he can't , to let her go so she can move on and find someone who can be there for her the way she deserves.

 

 

I wonder how many As are accurately described thus. Most WS I know have not "gone home and acted loving(ly) toward their BW", but rather, they've acted toward them as one would toward any other human: not been mean, done their duty, treated them civilly. Much as they would treat a colleague or a cousin - polite, affable, even generous - but not intimate. But perhaps that is what BS consider "loving", and perhaps in itself that is part of the problem. The WS is seeking something more - passion and intimacy - whereas affable is all the BS wants.

  • Like 2
cocorico Established Member

cocorico

Posted
Posted

 

Bottom line: if you're an om/ow, your ap is lying to you about his/her marriage. Guaranteed.

 

Bottom line: you're wrong.

 

My H did not once lie to me about his M to the xBW. Not about anything else.

 

We've been together more than a decade. During that time, everything he told me has repeatedly proven to be accurate.

 

He may have lied (by omission) to the xBW. I don't know. I do know that when he did disclose the A to her and told her he planned to leave her, she chose not to believe him, so it's likely that even if he had been fully honest with her throughout the A, she'd still have been "blindsided" when he left because of the depth of her own denial.

 

But his R with her, and his R with me, are two entirely different creatures. Just like she and I are two entirely different species.

purplesorrow Established Member

purplesorrow

Posted
Posted
I wonder how many As are accurately described thus. Most WS I know have not "gone home and acted loving(ly) toward their BW", but rather, they've acted toward them as one would toward any other human: not been mean, done their duty, treated them civilly. Much as they would treat a colleague or a cousin - polite, affable, even generous - but not intimate. But perhaps that is what BS consider "loving", and perhaps in itself that is part of the problem. The WS is seeking something more - passion and intimacy - whereas affable is all the BS wants.

 

Really? Being cheated on doesn't mean one doesn't know what loving is.

Got it Established Member

Got it

Posted
Posted
I don't think being "in love" is something that "vanishes in time." I've been in LTRs where I was in love for over a decade.

 

Not always but yes it can. I know I was definitely in love with my ex husband for many years. But I was a teenager for a lot of it and then my early 20s. Who were were then were totally different people.

Got it Established Member

Got it

Posted
Posted
I agree. Don't get that at all.

 

 

I understand if someone CARES about someone they used to love, or cares about what happens to them, especially if they are the parents of children together, but the whole "I love you, but I'm not in love with you" makes no sense to me. Its nonsense.

 

Really? I guess it has always made sense to me. It is a familial love one based on past experiences together and just living together. Maybe you see it as caring and others see it as a form of love, just not "in love".

truncated Established Member

truncated

Posted
Posted
meaning that you don't love them. folks will ALWAYS hesitate to admit that because they think that "i don't love you" means "i don't care or feel anything for you" -- i mean, we all know what kind of love you SHOULD be feeling for your romantic partner & when you stop feeling that, you stopped loving them. also, i agree that love doesn't need to be monogamous but you can't mix the romantic love up with other kinds (family, friends) because there is a huge difference - love can be polygamous but that means that you love more than one person romantically and sexually. it has to be the same kind of love to fit that definition.

 

i also don't think that "in love" is an ONLY definition of romantic love, to me "in love" equals crush, butterflies and it either vanishes with time or it grows into mature love. in love is that beginning state when you idealize your partner but love means knowing that person, their flaws and all and STILL loving them. it also means that sexual desires stay the same, you just go from tbat superficial crushy in love feeling to strong, mature romantic love.

 

i also think that falling in love is a choice, you choose to know the person... in comparison to the "chemistry" and butterflies that aren't controlled. you can't fall in love with someone you don't know. and i think, with time that "in love" feeling grows into LOVE with big L with "in love" occasional relapses (i actually read a really good study about these relapses).

 

long story short -- when someone says, "i love my W" i automatically assume that the love is romantic and sexual, similar to the in love feeling only deeper and stronger so i'm often confused with folks saying they love their partner but don't view them as anything more than friends and someone they share a lot of history with.

 

 

This is a flawed way of looking at things, and assumes that a marriage happens in a vacuum, devoid of any external influences that are part of living one's life.

 

There were times when my husband and I went for months without sex, and it had zero to do with not loving each other. some of the times wer when he came back from deployment and had some mental health issues that he needed to work out. At that time, sex wasn't something that he was ready for, we wouldn't attempt it until he felt he was ready. That would sometimes take months, after the hyperbonding of him coming home had passed. . The other times were after we lost our daughter, and neitehr one of us were able to be with each other in that way for a long time. It wasn't that we didn't try, we just couldn't.

 

By your definition, that would mean we didn't love each other at those times, when we most certainly did.

 

My examples may have been of a couple going through crisis, and while that is true in our situation, each marriage goes through its own times of difficulty, and each couple handles it in different ways.

  • Like 2
velvette Established Member

velvette

Posted
Posted
Really? I guess it has always made sense to me. It is a familial love one based on past experiences together and just living together. Maybe you see it as caring and others see it as a form of love, just not "in love".

 

Really. I have actually never heard of anyone using this phrase other than people who are in affairs or recounting what their spouse said when they were in an affair.

  • Like 1
Giggle Established Member

Giggle

Posted
Posted

See, now I can't understand why people have to so thoroughly draw lines about what constitutes as love. I guess I would just never say that they stopped loving simply over losing the desire to be intimate with them. Or choose to do something hurtful. I don't doubt for a minute he loves us both.

 

Even if the romantic feelings die, the feelings of love can persist.

 

I guess that's why people argue about it. Because some of us would never say that the love is gone, just no longer loved the same way. They can still care, that person may still mean a lot and they don't want to hurt them, but also still want happiness themselves and it's no longer possible with the other person.

  • Like 3
RoseVille Established Member

RoseVille

Posted
Posted
Really. I have actually never heard of anyone using this phrase other than people who are in affairs or recounting what their spouse said when they were in an affair.

 

Oh come on. That's just crazy talk. Head over to the plain old vanilla breakup forum and you'll see this language all the time.

 

I myself, without there being any cheating involved, have heard and said it as it related to my relationship. The love you have for your SO sometimes unfortunately changes from romantic ("in love") to familial. You can love your SO like your closest friend in the world and adore them and care about them but have absolutely NO romantic feelings for them anymore. This is when you hear, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you anymore."

  • Like 1
minimariah Established Member

minimariah

Posted
Posted
Really. I have actually never heard of anyone using this phrase other than people who are in affairs or recounting what their spouse said when they were in an affair.

 

same here, no one else really thinks that a "familial" love is the kind of love that should be existing in a healthy relationship. again... it's just another way to say how much you DON'T view or love someone as a romantic partner.

RoseVille Established Member

RoseVille

Posted
Posted
same here, no one else really thinks that a "familial" love is the kind of love that should be existing in a healthy relationship. again... it's just another way to say how much you DON'T view or love someone as a romantic partner.

 

You've never heard the phrase spoken outside the context of an affair?! What???

 

And no one is saying familial love is the kind that should exist in a healthy relationship. Rather, we're saying it's the kind that DOES exist when you hear a MM saying they love their wife but are not "in love" with her or seek romantic love elsewhere.

minimariah Established Member

minimariah

Posted
Posted
You've never heard the phrase spoken outside the context of an affair?! What???

 

And no one is saying familial love is the kind that should exist in a healthy relationship. Rather, we're saying it's the kind that DOES exist when you hear a MM saying they love their wife but are not "in love" with her or seek romantic love elsewhere.

 

nope -- when folks break up, they sit down & say "hey... i stopped loving you and i don't love you anymore, i want to leave you, i don't see you as a romantic partner anymore, wish you all the best."

 

like... people dump other people when they're not in love with them anymore, lol. unless they're married -- then you have As.

 

no need to say that you "love them but not in love with them" when it's understandable that you love someone in a familial way when you've shared life and many years with them. like... OF COURSE you love them in a familial way, but that's irrelevant for a romantic relationship -- the only love that matters is a romantic one because if you have familial love, you're not in a romantic relationship anymore -- you're friends.

 

if you don't love your spouse with romantic love, it's unnecessary to say that you love them in a familial way -- because that love is literally not relevant in a romantic relationship.

 

i want to be loved and desired, not with someone who'll love me like a damn buddy.

  • Like 4
While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...