So I told the wife

[twice_shy]

I can't answer that because every person in their marriage is different. How Owl and his wife handled their situation and how they reacted, communicated, would be different to someone else's. Thumbingmyway and his wife, how they worked through their problems are different than Owl's, yet both marriages are back on track and thriving.

 

I know. That is just how i see it. Hell, even for the kid's sake I tried to work on the marriage, but in the end, there was no way I was going to live out the rest of my days with someone I couldn't trust. Just looking at her from that point on pissed me off. So I divorced her. And it was the absolute best thing for me.

As I've said before, life with a cheater is no life at all.

[madame x]

The cheater doesn't know the meaning of the word committment.

 

Oh crikey twice shy! We get it already . . . cheaters are inherently bad, evil people and their entire lives are fairly judged by that one action alone and that cheaters' affairs are enitrely their fault only and happen entirely in a vacuum of their betrayal.

 

Seriously, your own pain from your betrayal is clouding your ability to be constructive. As convenient as it would be for every thing to be black/white, good/bad, right/wrong that is just not the way that the world is ever going to work. I feel a lot of pity for you and sincerely hope that you can find a way to heal your pain and anger.

 

And, yep, I am one of those dirty, rotten cheaters . . . no need to point that out.

 

SD: Good luck. I hope everything works out in the best possible way for you and your family.

[eeyore1980]

I concede some of my situation is bleeding through in my responses, and that is because in reading the back posts I see a lot of my husband's attitude.

I find the term 'withholding sex' offensive. To me it implies a person does want to have sex, but is not going to in order to punish the other person.

Another term I find offensive is 'entitled'. I don't care if there is a marriage or not, that does not give another person more right to what I do with my body than I have, I am a human being, not a piece of property purchased with a marriage decree.

My experience has been when those terms are liberally tossed about to describe a sexless marriage, there is not an honest effort to get at the real reasons for the problem. IMO, if a couple truly loves each other, they would both be willing to do whatever it takes to resolve this to the satisfaction of both. This sense of entitlement and accusing of withholding sex is selfishness. It implies to me the person doing it is not even close to willing to look at what they might be doing that is contributing to the problem, if anything. True love is willing to sacrifice, and in most cases if that is what comes across to the person with the lack of libido issue, they in turn will be willing to sacrifice as well, and work to fix the problem, whatever it may be. Why work to fix a problem with someone who is only trying to get what they want, and don't show they give a damn about what the other person is going through?

Just my opinion.

[whichwayisup]

I know. That is just how i see it. Hell, even for the kid's sake I tried to work on the marriage, but in the end, there was no way I was going to live out the rest of my days with someone I couldn't trust. Just looking at her from that point on pissed me off. So I divorced her. And it was the absolute best thing for me.

As I've said before, life with a cheater is no life at all.

 

I've said all along, it takes a special person who is a BS to take back their cheating spouse and give them a chance. Thumbs is one, Owl is another...Dazed1(aka DazednConfused) was another, but as time went on their marriage didn't make it. Hey, 2 outta 3 ain't bad.

[angie2443]

I think this is a great point, angie. And one that is made frequently in threads (similar to this one) where "sexless marriage" is the topic.

 

However.

I would also say, that women with what I like to call "Mommy Brain Overdrive" need to also be willing to accept the help when it is offered them. I have lived that one, too.

 

I think women are (societally? genetically? otherwise?) conditioned to be the nurturers. The givers. And it sometimes happens that even when a woman is becoming resentful about that role (self-imposed, or otherwise) of constantly seeking to meet everyone ELSE's needs before her own (the kids, the dog, the husband, his libido) and thus "losing herself," as we so frequently hear it described by these women...at the same time, she also takes a sort of perverse pride, if you will in being the one in the family who does do all of this self-sacrifice for the betterment of others in the family. Call it a martyr complex, if you will.

 

Anyway, my point is that sometimes the women who are the most resentful about "losing themselves" to the marriage and family demands are also the ones the most reluctant to give up the responsibilities they abhor. Talk about some serious cognitive dissonance for those gals. And I think the husband (probably usually without understanding exactly what is really going on in the wife's mind) is the one who ends up paying for it the most - by nagging, having sex withheld from him, petty arguments, etc.

 

This is not true for every couple, and I don't claim it to be. But just

 

something to think about.

 

I can only speak for myself. I never withheld sex from my husband for any reason. I did become bitter and resentful at the lack of help I recieved from him when the kids started comming (3 under the age of 5 now). In the beginning, I asked for help as politely as I could. I explained to him that I couldn't keep up with the work load and needed his help. I did this repeatedly. He always put it off, or became angry. I was constantly exhausted and angry at not bieng able to have a life outside of the home. We resolved much of this through MC.

 

I just can't help but wonder how many other women have been in this position; making their needs known repeatedly but not getting a positive response.

[btc8]

The point to which everyone on here is arguing about this man's sexual dalliances is become convoluted and a waste of space. Stop the arguments; stop the rationalizations. He committed adultery. That part is not up for debate. Who cares if his past posts reflect his apparent misogynistic tendencies? Let's not try to rationalize his affair, or put blame on his wife for suddenly becoming abstinent. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that after having children the marriage drastically changes--sometimes it's for the better, sometimes it's for the worst. If his wife is withholding sex for some personal reason that doesn't condone his behavior for not having the compunction about his infidelity.

[Mustang Sally]

I just can't help but wonder how many other women have been in this position; making their needs known repeatedly but not getting a positive response.

I'm sorry that you have been in that kind of situation. That's a really tough thing that you've been through. And I'm sure there are many women (men too?) that have been through it - probably too many.

 

Again, I think you brought up a very valid point. One that I have raised with SD repeatedly in the past - namely, what is his WIFE's side of the story? As I said before, I don't recall ever getting much of an answer to that from him. Telling, no?

[JamesM]

Now there is a concept I just don't buy in to, not completely anyway. Marriages do survive, but do they COMPLETELY survive? Everything might go on and things seem to get back to normal.

 

But do you really believe that deep down all is just fine and dandy with the betrayed party? I don't think so. they may have forgiven, and they may move ahead as if nothing is wrong.

 

 

Granted, you did not survive the infidelity, but this does not mean others cannot. Fact is...many do. Do they thrive or survive? Since I am not one of them, I cannot answer that, but here is a place where this is discussed at length...

http://survivinginfidelity.com/

 

I know of a number of couples from Boards who HAVE thrived after infidelity. And yes, the percentage is probably smaller than those who do not. Based on my research, I think those that survive and thrive do so because the BS is the one who chooses to make it happen.

 

The girl with whom I communicate (and have for more than two years) has gone through the many steps of anger and forgiveness. Will this marriage make it "forever?" Who knows. But it has been thriving for the past two years. And that is because after she made the decision to survive, he recommitted to making it thrive.

 

I can understand your anger, twiceshy, I don't know if I would be different.

 

To eeyore,

 

I concede some of my situation is bleeding through in my responses, and that is because in reading the back posts I see a lot of my husband's attitude.

 

I can understand that. What I see is anger that in a few moments can turn to repentance.

 

I find the term 'withholding sex' offensive. To me it implies a person does want to have sex, but is not going to in order to punish the other person.

 

This would be the perspective of the person who is not "allowed" to have sex. Remember, "to have and to hold" means sexual fidelity. When one partner no longer is willing or emotionally cannot have sex yet seems to refuse to communicate that to the other partner, it appears to be withholding sex. If I am a selfish jerk who you cannot fathom having sex with, then somehow that needs to be communicated and MC started. To simply hold a passive approach of not allowing your body to be "sexually used" will begin setting up a situation where the frustrated partner thinks the only available options are divorce or an affair.

 

Another term I find offensive is 'entitled'. I don't care if there is a marriage or not, that does not give another person more right to what I do with my body than I have, I am a human being, not a piece of property purchased with a marriage decree.

 

Yet both partners say that they will withhold sex from any other person than their partner. How is this different? By saying that I will only have sex with my wife, I am giving her incredible control over my libido and my body.

 

Affairs are caused by something, and many times it is by a failed marriage. And failed marriages are because TWO people have not worked at keeping the marriage alive.

[Mz. Pixie]

WOW, go away for a bit and see what happens..............

[eeyore1980]

To eeyore,

 

 

 

I can understand that. What I see is anger that in a few moments can turn to repentance.

 

 

 

This would be the perspective of the person who is not "allowed" to have sex. Remember, "to have and to hold" means sexual fidelity. When one partner no longer is willing or emotionally cannot have sex yet seems to refuse to communicate that to the other partner, it appears to be withholding sex. If I am a selfish jerk who you cannot fathom having sex with, then somehow that needs to be communicated and MC started. To simply hold a passive approach of not allowing your body to be "sexually used" will begin setting up a situation where the frustrated partner thinks the only available options are divorce or an affair.

 

 

 

Yet both partners say that they will withhold sex from any other person than their partner. How is this different? By saying that I will only have sex with my wife, I am giving her incredible control over my libido and my body.

 

Affairs are caused by something, and many times it is by a failed marriage. And failed marriages are because TWO people have not worked at keeping the marriage alive.

 

(Sorry, I haven't mastered the multi-quote option yet.)

 

The thing is, most selfish jerks won't acknowledge they are selfish jerks, no matter how many times or ways that is communicated to them. It is part of the selfish jerk package.

 

You ask how when both partners say that they will withhold sex from any other person than their partner it is different. Umm, that would be the difference between receiving what is GIVEN, and taking. Like, for example, the difference between me handing you money and you stealing my purse.

 

I disagree with your statement failed marriages are because TWO people have not worked at it. It does take both parties to make a marriage work, however, that doesn't equate it takes both parties to make a marriage fail. What it does mean is ONE person can't make a marriage work all by themselves.

[JustBreathe]

No BNB, of course they don't have a clue because that would mean they'd have to think about someone besides themselves. They don't get a clue until it's too late and all the damage is done.

 

I'm so sorry about your son having to tell you. To have had that responsibility forced upon your own 20 year old son. How he must have struggled with that knowledge and the prospect of having to tell you. I know you wanted to kill your H dead on the spot. I hate affairs and what they do to the people who are not participating in them. The ones on the outside wind up more hurt than the ones who did it and the damage is life long. You're never quite the same after you find out about what they've been doing. Your family, your kids, it leaves scars.

 

I have very little empathy for the payyynne cheaters feel after they find out what complete a$$es they've been acting like.

[Mustang Sally]

I disagree with your statement failed marriages are because TWO people have not worked at it. It does take both parties to make a marriage work, however, that doesn't equate it takes both parties to make a marriage fail. What it does mean is ONE person can't make a marriage work all by themselves.

This is interesting to me.

I am usually in the camp of "failed marriages are because TWO people have not worked at it." This is because - for the longest time - that is how I perceived my own personal situation.

 

I do now think, after some of the stories that I've seen here at LS, that there are those situations when only one person in the marriage can (and does) ruin the relationship due, basically, to their own narcissim or just plain old f*cked-up-ness (be it bona fide DSM IV diagnosis or just emotional immaturity).

 

But, to redirect this towards the OP (and thus, attempt to return the focus to the topic of the thread), I still don't think we have enough information to know which one is true for Scrivdog. I do wish that he would return and share some more pertinent details so we'd get a clearer picture of which one it is.

[Owl]

Affairs are caused by something, and many times it is by a failed marriage. And failed marriages are because TWO people have not worked at keeping the marriage alive.

 

 

James, I just don't get it.

 

I've seen this same thing brought up dozens of times...

 

How can you not see the "state of the marriage" as a CONDITION...and the "cheating" as someone's active decision?

 

I completely agree with Eeyore...in order for a marriage to fail, it only takes ONE person to stop contributing. The other person can be doing everything in their power to fix things, but if ONE of the two quits, the marriage fails. It can become miserable due to that ONE person's selfish choices and actions.

 

Cheating falls into that category. The choice to cheat was (typically) made by ONE person. Not both. The BS should accept NO BLAME for their partner's choice to cheat. They SHOULD accept the appropriate responsibility for THEIR PART OF THE MARRIAGE. Just because the other person cheated does NOT automatically mean that the BS was at fault...at either the state of the marriage or the choice to cheat.

 

My situation is great example of exactly that. The stress in our marriage was caused by my wife's untreated depression, and how she dealt with that, along with how she intereacted with our kids.

 

My "part" of the situation was very, very small. All I had to change was to "stay out of it" and let her and the kids solve their own fights.

 

I didn't have to modify any other behaviors AT ALL.

 

I do NOT accept blame or responsibility for her choice to get emotionally involved with someone else. Nor will I ever do so. I was in the same marriage...MY choice wasn't to cheat.

 

Even the poor state of the marriage was almost entirely brought on by HER actions at the time...not mine. It took ONE person to make things horrible...not both of us. And that SAME person was the one who opted to cheat.

 

I don't accept your stance that the cheating, or even the situation contributed to the CHOICE to cheat...is always created by BOTH parties in the marriage. It's OFTEN created by ONE...one selfish person.

[cranium]

In forcing her hand by spilling the beans, Scrivdog has taken the passive-aggressive route for once again, trying to control. Nothing said here will change his mind because the decision lays with his wife, the one he cheats on. Whatever choice she makes will drive both their futures.

 

 

He's already made some piss-poor choices. Maybe she will make better ones. I do hope that after forcing the choice on her, he won't continue to take a victim's attitude and blame her for the consequences.

 

 

When one partner no longer is willing or emotionally cannot have sex yet seems to refuse to communicate that to the other partner, it appears to be withholding sex. If I am a selfish jerk who you cannot fathom having sex with, then somehow that needs to be communicated and MC started. To simply hold a passive approach of not allowing your body to be "sexually used" will begin setting up a situation where the frustrated partner thinks the only available options are divorce or an affair.

 

He has forced her hand, but she's mastered her own way of being passive-aggressive and controlling for years. Scriv said his life was a mess; he needed it to blow up.

[Hard2Think]

I just think it's interesting how the unilateral choice of the sexless spouse isn't called into question. One could just as easily say that there is NO EXCUSE for silently denying sex and intimacy for your spouse especially for long periods of time. But that's not the prevailing attitude. The common response is that the disappointed spouse isn't meeting some standard of behavior and therefore excusing the sexless spouse.

[Mr. Lucky]

My experience has been when those terms are liberally tossed about to describe a sexless marriage, there is not an honest effort to get at the real reasons for the problem. IMO, if a couple truly loves each other, they would both be willing to do whatever it takes to resolve this to the satisfaction of both.

To me, that's the crux of the issue. Both parties had a part in creating the problem. But as many LS thread can attest, only one person often is motivated to solve it. If the H has a higher sex drive and the W refuses to address the issue, then he gets to star in his own version of Sophie's Choice. Either:

 

1). Semi-celibacy and frustration

2). Divorce and watch some other guy in the house you paid for get called "Daddy"

3). Infidelity and accompanying chaos.

 

Which would you choose? It's not a universal scenario but it sure seems to pop up here over and over again...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Ladyjane14]

I don't care if there is a marriage or not, that does not give another person more right to what I do with my body than I have, I am a human being, not a piece of property purchased with a marriage decree.

 

I just can't help but wonder how many other women have been in this position; making their needs known repeatedly but not getting a positive response.

 

See ladies... both these arguments are just as applicable and just as valid to the other party as well. For a man who's married and not getting his sexual needs met, a marriage license shouldn't sentence HIM to a lifetime of near abstinence. And most men in this position DO make their needs known, and usually they're fairly LOUD about it.

 

You know, for people like me (a former, albeit inadvertent, "withholder" ), and JamesM and TommyR, who've made progress in dealing with this issue... we understand how a guy like Scriv feels. This is like the penultimate WORST thing you can do to a man in terms of causing emotional scars, (the worst being committing adultery yourself, AFTER having withheld sex and affection from him ).

 

Consistent sexual rejection from a mate causes a chasm in the relationship, a deep rift, whereby emotional intimacy becomes impossible to achieve. Yeah, men are able to compartmentalize sex in such a way as to make it nearly meaningless in some instances... but when it comes to a life-mate, their hearts are entirely on their sleeves. The sense of rejection, the loss of emotional intimacy cut them to the core.

 

And that's just one aspect of a man's relationship to sex... a relationship which CANNOT be defined by "the female lens". For men, I'm sure it seems simplicity itself, but for women... we're talking about a nearly incomprehensible way of looking at manhood.

 

Scriv, and other guy's like him, end up feeling very angry and frustrated with their inability to make their partner REALLY UNDERSTAND the problem. In alot of ways... their sense of betrayal and rejection is so deep that it feels like their partner is the one who was first to abandon the relationship.

 

 

 

On a side note, and interestingly enough, Twice Shy and Scriv have something in common in the fact that they've both reacted with an almost primordial sense of anger upon the sexual abandonment of their partners. The loss of sexual/emotional intimacy is tough for anybody to take, but I think sometimes in men, it presents something of a primal insult.

 

 

(Hi Pix! Hi Owl! ..and Hi H2T! )

Edited March 12, 2008 by Ladyjane14

[Jess-Belle]

You tell your spouse there is a problem and it has got to be fixed, or the marriage is in serious trouble. Right? Oh, wait. No. The obvious solution is to go f some other person.

 

My thoughts exactly...

[Owl]

Someone let LJ in here?????

 

 

Oh yeah...I meant...HI LJ!!!! Nice to "see" you again, friend!

 

Side note...anyone "seen" Scriv recently? Lots of activity on this thread...just not much by him.

[twice_shy]

Oh crikey twice shy! We get it already . . . cheaters are inherently bad, evil people and their entire lives are fairly judged by that one action alone

 

 

Uh, I was answering James' assertion of the concept of committment with regards to the betrayed deciding to stay with their cheater. And it is only fitting to point out that it makes no sense for the betrayed to have a sense of committment when their betrayer did not.

 

 

and that cheaters' affairs are enitrely their fault only and happen entirely in a vacuum of their betrayal.

 

In the vacuum of their betrayal eh? Gee, if I didn't know any better, I'd swear that little bit of sarcasm was yet another attempt to shift blame to the betrayed. hmmmm.

 

 

As convenient as it would be for every thing to be black/white, good/bad, right/wrong that is just not the way that the world is ever going to work.

 

Wow, guess I should just roll over and help those who cheat feel better about themselves, cuz after all, thats the breaks, right?

 

 

I feel a lot of pity for you and sincerely hope that you can find a way to heal your pain and anger.

 

Ya, I'm sure you do.

 

 

And, yep, I am one of those dirty, rotten cheaters . . . no need to point that out.

 

 

thanks for doing it for me!!! sio much easier that way.

 

 

SD: Good luck. I hope everything works out in the best possible way for you and your family.

 

Well I got news for you there. it won't work out for my family. My kids lives have been destroyed by a cheater. There is nothing stopping my kids from now becoming white trash with the exception of me going back to court and fighting for custody. Fat chance of that happening.

 

So while you sit there with your "thats the way it goes, thats the breaks" attitude, some people's lives have truly been destroyed by the actions of certain people.

 

but hey, thats the breaks right? sucks to be my kids, oh well.

[eeyore1980]

To me, that's the crux of the issue. Both parties had a part in creating the problem. But as many LS thread can attest, only one person often is motivated to solve it. If the H has a higher sex drive and the W refuses to address the issue, then he gets to star in his own version of Sophie's Choice. Either:

 

1). Semi-celibacy and frustration

2). Divorce and watch some other guy in the house you paid for get called "Daddy"

3). Infidelity and accompanying chaos.

 

Which would you choose? It's not a universal scenario but it sure seems to pop up here over and over again...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

I'm not going into the gory details of my marriage, but I will tell you this. I was the one perceived to be 'withholding sex'. This perception was born by the belief H held that he was ENTITLED to sex on demand. That meant to him even if, say, I was sick with the flu, and he wanted sex, I was withholding it by saying no. In his mind, I was not allowed to ever say no.

I wouldn't use LS threads as my only source of information. H no longer holds these thoughts, but for years and years, he would claim I was doing nothing to fix the problem, when the reality was I was the ONLY ONE trying to fix the problem. He refused to see my side at all, he refused to compromise at all, he refused to see any responsibility on his part for things getting worse and worse over years.

As far as your choices, well

the semi-celibacy: I think if the person wanting more sex could find a better way to approach this than "I must be laid at all costs" there would be a lot less problems with this.

Divorce, and the house you paid for: I can't speak for you, but because of the agreement H and I made way before children of whoever made the least money would stay home and raise the kids, I had to give up a career to do just that. (I was in college when I got preg. and gave birth to two of our children.) He might have been the only one bringing home a paycheck, but my sacrifice made it that way, so as far as I am concerned, our house at that time was paid for by both of us.

Infidelity: I would not ever consider that an option. Even when it has been offered to me in some of the worst times of our marriage by OM, it was not something I had any interest in. While I wasn't lacking the physical act of sex, I was not getting any affection, love, tenderness, compassion, caring, etc.

I may very well be biased because of my personal situation, but this is stuff I have seen with other couples, too, over and over, where I am privy to both sides of the story. Two of these are the men 'withholding' sex, so it isn't a male/female thing.

[twice_shy]

I've said all along, it takes a special person who is a BS to take back their cheating spouse and give them a chance. Thumbs is one, Owl is another...Dazed1(aka DazednConfused) was another, but as time went on their marriage didn't make it. Hey, 2 outta 3 ain't bad.

 

Yes, and kudos to them. they tried. For the wrong reasons, but they tried and was thinking about their children.

 

Well, one of the parent's has to have a sense of responsibility to their children.

[nadiaj2727]

 

2). Divorce and watch some other guy in the house you paid for get called "Daddy"

 

 

Wow Mr. Lucky that statement is really sexist and offensive. For one thing, we women can pay for material things just fine nowadays. I am an attorney and I have my own house and pay my own mortgage. When I lived with my boyfriend, we split everything 50/50. I would never let a man pay for my house and I am offended that you act like that's the way it happens. Attitudes like that really hinder progress for women, both with their families and their careers. For another thing, even if I were a married housewife, my emotional investment into the marriage and family would contribute to the house my husband "paid for" and all the other benefits we share as a married couple, just as much as his financial investment.

[twice_shy]

Granted, you did not survive the infidelity, but this does not mean others cannot. Fact is...many do. Do they thrive or survive? Since I am not one of them, I cannot answer that, but here is a place where this is discussed at length...

http://survivinginfidelity.com/

 

I know of a number of couples from Boards who HAVE thrived after infidelity.

 

Sure its possible. But even in the event it appears they thrive, do you really think all is just fantastic deep down inside with the betrayed spouse?

 

Sure on the outside it appears that the marriage is thriving and all is forgotten and the marriage may make it all the way through til one of them passes away.

 

But do you really think that deep down the betrayed party isn't reeling inside once in a while and the thoughts of what their spouse did to them doesn't come back to haunt them from time to time?

 

A marriage may appear to thrive, but nobody is gonna convince me that even if it appears that way on the surface, that deep down everything is just fine and dandy with the BS.

 

I just don't think that is any way to live.

[Ladyjane14]

Someone let LJ in here?????

 

 

Oh yeah...I meant...HI LJ!!!! Nice to "see" you again, friend!

:lmao:

 

Side note...anyone "seen" Scriv recently? Lots of activity on this thread...just not much by him.

 

Scriv seems to post whenever the mood takes him. It's been a fairly consistent trend on his part, one that's a bit unique. I imagine he'll speak up when he feels the time is ripe.