Husband Says He Never Loved Me

[mark clemson]

22 hours ago, NerdyR said:

 BTW he also recently told me he will not fight for the house or anything else in the divorce. He said he will sign whatever I want. Guilty much? 

Since you've decided divorce is the best option (and certainly the writing appears to be on the wall) IF he actually lives that down, be sure to calmly agree. Hopefully his lawyer won't get his greed or vindication juices going (I believe some of them try). Going to negotiation ASAP is probably a good idea.

My understanding is that whatever you negotiate will still need to be approved by a judge, so nothing TOO one sided will fly anyhow, generally (unless it's within the parameters set by the local jurisdiction).

[serial muse]

Honestly, OP, it sounds to me like you're better off out of this marriage/relationship. He doesn't seem to offer you anything emotionally, financial stuff aside (and that's an issue too!). He just sounds like dead weight. (And of course you shouldn't have sex with him when he's telling you all that stuff about never loving you and wanting a divorce. Your self-respect is intact, and that's awesome. Plus, let's face it, who knows how careful he has been - you do not need an STD on top of everything else. That said - you should probably get tested, if you haven't already.)

Just want to say - your story really resonates with me because it reminds me of what happened at the end of my first marriage (I'm now happily remarried). He denied cheating, but did all the same things - mysterious disappearances for hours, time spent in the car on his phone with "friends", weird push-and-pull of affection. Of course he was cheating. It all trickled out eventually. But the gaslighting and stonewalling and ... oh, wow, so many lies to my face. We had three sessions of couples therapy (which I had to drag him to, and he sat and said basically nothing) before I knew the full truth, but even then it was clear how much he blamed me for his own feelings about his career, etc. After it all came out, he said he didn't want a divorce, but also didn't want to break up with her. He even told me he still wanted sex with me - but with her, too.

LOL, no.

I am so glad he's out of my life. You won't miss this, believe me. Focus on your kids, as you said, and onward and upward.

Edited September 28, 2020 by serial muse

[Watercolors]

5 hours ago, ExpatInItaly said:

I think guilt is a big part of his current stance, I'm sorry to say. 

My sense is that he's had someone else in his life for quite a while now, but you're only truly starting to connect the dots as you lay it all out here. 

I'm still confused as to why the OP would even want to marry a man who was already twice divorced. And when she wanted to buy a larger house, she railroaded him by doing it without him, which just caused him to resent her even more. But, maybe he is the type of man who mooches off of the women he marries too. Even though he is a police officer, it doesn't sound like the OP and he were that compatible when all is said and done. It sounds like a very toxic environment for the children too. I think divorce is probably the healthiest response to this toxic situation.

[mark clemson]

On 9/27/2020 at 7:04 AM, Happy Lemming said:

In general, men are very simple creatures, feed us, have sex with us and don't cause us angst and we are content, loyal and happy. If we have to jump through hoops and spend our last dime to earn the "privilege" of having sex with a woman (married or not), an animosity will grow and fester.  It won't be long before we seek the company of another woman.

As much as I agree with that statement, I think you'd agree it has to be a two-way street. If the guy is acting like a D-bag or simply checking out, he can't realistically go expecting enthusiastic frequent sex from his partner either.

"All p*ssy is the same" is neither true, nor a particularly helpful sentiment to share with one's wife. I think the H here is at least 50% to blame for the problems in the marriage. Possibly quite a bit more.

Also, not all guys will step out. Some will leave, others will try to work on the marriage/issue, some will stew in silence, and some will take care of themselves and politely do their best to tolerate (what is for them) a bad marriage. There's all kinds of responses. But I CERTAINLY agree that for many if not most men, a sexless marriage is not a happy one. Just how it got to that point is, of course, a valid question and I suspect that usually there's two culprits involved in the answer to that question.

Edited September 28, 2020 by mark clemson

[Happy Lemming]

12 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

As much as I agree with that statement, I think you'd agree it has to be a two-way street. If the guy is acting like a D-bag or simply checking out, he can't realistically go expecting enthusiastic frequent sex from his partner either.

 

Without getting his side of the story, we have no idea why he said what he did or why he did what he did.

Given the facts of... a large house payment and an IRS tax problem; we are aware of financial mismanagement.  So this guy already feels like a human ATM machine, then throw on top of that his wife (who pushed for the large house) has cut him off.  The one thing he has to look forward to after a crappy day at work is withheld from him and you are wondering why he is angry and upset.

I'm just wondering why this guy ever got married in the first place.  I think he's a glutton for punishment, after two prior failed marriages, did he think "third time is a charm"?? 

[mark clemson]

4 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

Without getting his side of the story, we have no idea why he said what he did or why he did what he did.

A fair point. I'm reading in from what I do see from OP. That might be incorrect.

[Happy Lemming]

1 minute ago, mark clemson said:

A fair point. I'm reading in from what I do see from OP. That might be incorrect.

I try to put myself in the guy's shoes and understand his average day/week/month. I think if we (as posters) offer a different perspective to the OP (instead of just rushing to judgement that the guy is being a "D-bag") we can have her look at the situation in a different way...

Usually when there is an argument or problem, it is not 100% his fault or 100% her fault.  There is blame to be shared on both parts.

[mark clemson]

10 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

Usually when there is an argument or problem, it is not 100% his fault or 100% her fault.  There is blame to be shared on both parts.

I agree. I don't think I rushed to judgement, just did my normal inferences. Which I concede are not 100% guaranteed to be correct.

 

49 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

 I think the H here is at least 50% to blame for the problems in the marriage. Possibly quite a bit more.

The quite a bit more part is due to his possibly having an affair of some type with the phone calls etc.

Edited September 28, 2020 by mark clemson

[Watercolors]

What is the husband isn't even having an affair? What if the whole point of contention between the OP and her husband is this big house that she bought without including him in the financial decision. It takes two to tango, and I agree we've only heard the OP's side of things. But there is definitely financial mismanagement going on. It bothers me that the OP ignored the fact that her husband was previously married two times. When someone has a lot of divorces behind them, that's an indicator that they are not a reliable marriage partner for a multitude of reasons. Didn't that strike the OP as a red flag - his two divorces? And, why did she buy a big house that she knew would put her family into a financially tough spot, if her husband had not been much of a financial contributor up to that point, most likely b/c he has alimony payments to his two ex-wives or costs for his own children/her step children. We are definitely not getting the full story.

[mark clemson]

30 minutes ago, Watercolors said:

What is the husband isn't even having an affair?

All valid points, certainly.

[Watercolors]

6 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

All valid points, certainly.

The more I read and read into the OP's responses in her thread, the more I'm convinced is that the main breaking point of her marriage is due to their incompatible financial contributions to their marriage, to their family, to their financial goals. He's twice divorced. She bought an expensive house that she blocked him from by not putting his name on the mortgage because he supposedly didn't agree with the financial risk. And now he has moved out of the expensive house and wants a divorce yet wants to still be sexually active with the OP. There's a whole lot of toxic going on here.

 

59 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

Without getting his side of the story, we have no idea why he said what he did or why he did what he did.

Given the facts of... a large house payment and an IRS tax problem; we are aware of financial mismanagement.  So this guy already feels like a human ATM machine, then throw on top of that his wife (who pushed for the large house) has cut him off.  The one thing he has to look forward to after a crappy day at work is withheld from him and you are wondering why he is angry and upset.

I'm just wondering why this guy ever got married in the first place.  I think he's a glutton for punishment, after two prior failed marriages, did he think "third time is a charm"?? 

Well exactly. He's already paying alimony (assuming that he is) to his two ex-wives. His children currently live with the OP (assuming that they are) and as their father, he has to pay for their lifestyle; school tuition, athletic fees for community sports and uniforms, club fees like Boyscouts/Girlscouts, etc.,.

I'm still waiting for the OP to explain why she bulldozed her husband by going forward with the expensive house purchase when he warned her not to do that. If he divorces the OP and she can still afford the mortgage without his policeman salary (she is a nurse after all and nurses make a lot of money), then did she buy the house intentionally, knowing it would start the separation process with her husband, as she's tired of being married to him in general and the baggage from his two previous marriages?

Edited September 28, 2020 by Watercolors

[Lotsgoingon]

My guess is the OP is the more forceful of the two people here ... but that she wasn't really aware of this ... so she probably pushed hubby on a lot of little things and hubby agreed and things were OK ... then she pushed for the bigger thing, the bigger house ... and then the wheels came off of the relationship.

Often the more forceful partner, the partner who is good with words and has confidence, can push things without even knowing they're pushing things. Sometimes the forceful partner doesn't learn how to read the discomfort of the other, quieter, partner.  Just the way the OP describes this situation makes me think she was the more forceful partner in the marriage--all along. Sometimes the more forceful partner doesn't even admit to themselves that they are using charisma and confidence and charm to get their way. That's the danger of power from politics to friendship and marriage. 

But presumably the OP didn't pull a gun out on husband, so it was husband's job to recognize that the house was a bright line that he did not want to cross. 

[Watercolors]

10 minutes ago, Lotsgoingon said:

so it was husband's job to recognize that the house was a bright line that he did not want to cro

But according to the OP, her husband told her he didn't want to purchase a larger, more expensive house. So, I think that's proof that he drew the financial line in the sand, but b/c the OP disagreed, she crossed that line anyway, and bought the more expensive house. And it's a valid point the husband had, about the higher mortgage removing any possibility for them to save money for family vacations or emergencies.

So, the fallout is, that this purchase (without her husband's name on the mortgage that she can afford without him), is symbolic of the OP doing what she wants to do, without her husband's input. Then, she blames him as being a deadbeat husband/dad when he disagrees with her. Because, as you pointed out, he's the more passive personalities of the two of them.

I agree with you that there are some marriages where the dynamics are one spouse has more "power" than the other spouse does. In the OP's case, she knew she was marrying a twice-divorced dad and that her income is higher than his, and that she would be the one who manages their finances. But, I think that's backfired on her now that her marriage is crumbling and she's unwilling to look at her own behavior in how this contributed to her situation.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Watercolors

[Lotsgoingon]

Great points, Watercolors.

Just now, I went back to the OP's original post and based on your post--and my re-reading--I realized there is another angle that I missed in giving hubby most of the blame.

I wish the OP would return. But it sounds like the OP might have said, "You don't want the house. I'm buying it anyway, because I can afford it."  If that is what happened, that's very different than what I was imagining. If that's what happened, I get why the husband withdrew from things. Not defending him, but his reaction is perfectly predictable. 

And in  the issue of couples and money, tone and subtex and attitude are everything. Did the OP say she'd buy the house with the "you can't stop me" tone in her voice?  Was her emphasis on the fact that she thought she could afford the new home alone?  Oh wow, if she took that tone, I guess I do see why hubby withdrew. Again, not defending him, but oh my, I'm backing off of my blame of the hubby.  So I think you're on the money here Watercolors!!!!! 

If you're the de facto leader in a family, it's so important that you push for decisions that are best for everyone.  Reminds me of my workplace where all kinds of committees are formed and the real purpose of the committee is to get the employees to agree to some changes. Sometimes my job will hold up on a change the bosses could simply order to begin immediately. The reason for the delay? ....The bosses want to get the employees to "buy in" to the change. So the bosses start a committee with employees to discuss the change ... and as obvious as this maneuver is, employees do over time get mentally ready for the change. By time the change comes--months later, maybe a year later--everybody is pretty much ready for it. Employees have figured out how to still enjoy work in spite of the change. 

 

 

[Watercolors]

27 minutes ago, Lotsgoingon said:

Great points, Watercolors.

Just now, I went back to the OP's original post and based on your post--and my re-reading--I realized there is another angle that I missed in giving hubby most of the blame.

I wish the OP would return. But it sounds like the OP might have said, "You don't want the house. I'm buying it anyway, because I can afford it."  If that is what happened, that's very different than what I was imagining. If that's what happened, I get why the husband withdrew from things. Not defending him, but his reaction is perfectly predictable. 

And in  the issue of couples and money, tone and subtex and attitude are everything. Did the OP say she'd buy the house with the "you can't stop me" tone in her voice?  Was her emphasis on the fact that she thought she could afford the new home alone?  Oh wow, if she took that tone, I guess I do see why hubby withdrew. Again, not defending him, but oh my, I'm backing off of my blame of the hubby.  So I think you're on the money here Watercolors!!!!! 

If you're the de facto leader in a family, it's so important that you push for decisions that are best for everyone.  Reminds me of my workplace where all kinds of committees are formed and the real purpose of the committee is to get the employees to agree to some changes. Sometimes my job will hold up on a change the bosses could simply order to begin immediately. The reason for the delay? ....The bosses want to get the employees to "buy in" to the change. So the bosses start a committee with employees to discuss the change ... and as obvious as this maneuver is, employees do over time get mentally ready for the change. By time the change comes--months later, maybe a year later--everybody is pretty much ready for it. Employees have figured out how to still enjoy work in spite of the change. 

 

 

This is spot on, Lotsgoingon!! Corporations are notorious for this internal strategy tactic with their employees. Rather than just make change effective immediately, the "higher ups" use committees as a stall tactic and its very inefficient and can have consequences on the staff, the finances, the dept. size, people's roles get changed or lost. Same with family systems. If one person is the de facto leader, good leadership isn't about making all the decisions, but being a transformational leader instead; someone who is a servant-leader who takes into account seriously what the people them have to say, and is flexible enough to make change, admit when their wrong or made a mistake, and take responsibility for their actions. That's what a good leader or a company or a family system should be like.

[NerdyR]

On 9/27/2020 at 3:08 PM, Watercolors said:

Wait. You married a man who was already divorced twice?! Not to sound harsh, but I would have RUN away from him once I found that out about his past. A person with multiple divorces behind them is definitely an unreliable relationship partner. Their track history of divorce multiple times, shows them to be someone who makes poor decisions. That should have been a huge red flag to you -- his two divorces. Was it? Did you two ever discuss it?

Since he has two ex-wives and possibly children from those marriages, I hope you have a plan to fight him for child-support in family court.

Looking back on this I did think it was strange. The way he explained it was that one relationship didn’t count because it was a young love out of high school that ended quickly. The last was due to her cheating. Honestly, he really didn’t talk much about the other two marriages and at the time was just starting to date again and divorcing due to getting cheated on. I didn’t find out about the other marriages until later. He really doesn’t like people to find out about his multiple marriages and I’ve noticed he gets upset when I ask about them. 

[Watercolors]

4 minutes ago, NerdyR said:

Looking back on this I did think it was strange. The way he explained it was that one relationship didn’t count because it was a young love out of high school that ended quickly. The last was due to her cheating. Honestly, he really didn’t talk much about the other two marriages and at the time was just starting to date again and divorcing due to getting cheated on. I didn’t find out about the other marriages until later. He really doesn’t like people to find out about his multiple marriages and I’ve noticed he gets upset when I ask about them. 

He was previously married 4 times?!!?! 😲

Of course he gets upset. He's using women for their paychecks and sex and housing and food. I don't care if he is a policeman. That man lacks total morals. 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Watercolors

[NerdyR]

On 9/28/2020 at 7:14 PM, Watercolors said:

This is spot on, Lotsgoingon!! Corporations are notorious for this internal strategy tactic with their employees. Rather than just make change effective immediately, the "higher ups" use committees as a stall tactic and its very inefficient and can have consequences on the staff, the finances, the dept. size, people's roles get changed or lost. Same with family systems. If one person is the de facto leader, good leadership isn't about making all the decisions, but being a transformational leader instead; someone who is a servant-leader who takes into account seriously what the people them have to say, and is flexible enough to make change, admit when their wrong or made a mistake, and take responsibility for their actions. That's what a good leader or a company or a family system should be like.

Hey All, 

I assure you that there was not arguing about the house or me being ugly to get the house. It was more me laying out how my oldest was being bullied, the neighborhood is going down and it’s best for the family, etc. he went to the open houses with me, etc. He actually helped me to choose neighborhoods and told me where he wanted to live close to his job and it wasn’t until we were closing on the house that he started getting cold feet. My realtor said that all men get cold feet and that’s what I thought was happening. 

[Watercolors]

1 minute ago, NerdyR said:

Hey All, 

I assure you that there was not arguing about the house or me being ugly to get the house. It was more me laying out how my oldest was being bullied, the neighborhood is going down and it’s best for the family, etc. he went to the open houses with me, etc. He actually helped me to choose neighborhoods and told me where he wanted to live close to his job and it wasn’t until we were closing on the house that he started getting cold feet. My realtor said that all men get cold feet and that’s what I thought was happening. 

Thanks for explaining that NerdyR. I'm still trying to get over the fact that your husband was previously married 4 times. It's probably best that you did buy the house. Your husband probably has no money??

[NerdyR]

1 minute ago, Watercolors said:

He was previously married 4 times?!!?! 😲

3 times. This was my first. One he said didn’t count. My parents are still together and I’ve never really known people that were remarried more than once. Definitely had the blinders on because he was very giving and sweet. I’ve known him since high school so I didn’t feel the stranger danger wariness that you feel when you are first dating. Obviously I have a really bad picker lol. 

[NerdyR]

1 minute ago, Watercolors said:

Thanks for explaining that NerdyR. I'm still trying to get over the fact that your husband was previously married 4 times. It's probably best that you did buy the house. Your husband probably has no money??

He has his own money that he hoards and keeps to himself as I’m finding out now. 

[Watercolors]

Just now, NerdyR said:

3 times. This was my first. One he said didn’t count. My parents are still together and I’ve never really known people that were remarried more than once. Definitely had the blinders on because he was very giving and sweet. I’ve known him since high school so I didn’t feel the stranger danger wariness that you feel when you are first dating. Obviously I have a really bad picker lol. 

 I don't think your "picker" is bad. I think your familiarity with him (you've known each other since high school) played a huge part in why you felt safe to marry him. And the fact that he probably love bombed you in order to manipulate you to believe that he was a good guy with nothing to hide. But he has 3 ex-wives and that's a LOT of baggage. 

[Watercolors]

2 minutes ago, NerdyR said:

He has his own money that he hoards and keeps to himself as I’m finding out now. 

Yeah he hoards it and doesn't dole it out to his 3 ex wives because he's a selfish jerk. That's terrible. Why are you with him?! He sounds like a really bad character. 

[NerdyR]

On 9/28/2020 at 7:14 PM, Watercolors said:

This is spot on, Lotsgoingon!! Corporations are notorious for this internal strategy tactic with their employees. Rather than just make change effective immediately, the "higher ups" use committees as a stall tactic and its very inefficient and can have consequences on the staff, the finances, the dept. size, people's roles get changed or lost. Same with family systems. If one person is the de facto leader, good leadership isn't about making all the decisions, but being a transformational leader instead; someone who is a servant-leader who takes into account seriously what the people them have to say, and is flexible enough to make change, admit when their wrong or made a mistake, and take responsibility for their actions. That's what a good leader or a company or a family system should be like.

This is a good thread. I do want to say though that I don’t want to be the leader! In my culture the man is the head of the household or at least a Co-leader. I’m much better as a the right arm or 2nd in charge but throughout this marriage I had to slog through the hard decisions while my partner either criticized or just didn’t engage. But I appreciate what you guys are saying. 

[NerdyR]

3 minutes ago, Watercolors said:

 I don't think your "picker" is bad. I think your familiarity with him (you've known each other since high school) played a huge part in why you felt safe to marry him. And the fact that he probably love bombed you in order to manipulate you to believe that he was a good guy with nothing to hide. But he has 3 ex-wives and that's a LOT of baggage. 

Thanks. I did feel safe. I was abstinent for 7 years and raised my son and myself in a love bubble because I didn’t want to deal with dating until my son was older. This was my first real relationship in a long time and then we got married.