Somebody to Love or Somebody You Love?

[Soul-shards]

13 minutes ago, Wiseman2 said:

What are horde attacks? Plato, Socrates and Aristotle all wrote extensively on love and it's forms.

When another tribe attacks you, you must find ways to defend yourself.

Yes, they did - but love was hardly a must for marriage, not in the way moderns think of it.

[bananatree]

17 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

What are horde attacks? Plato, Socrates and Aristotle all wrote extensively on love and it's forms.

Oh the Greeks. I'm a student of mythology and symbolism and it's helped me gain tremendous clarity in my life.  Myths and archetypes come from the deep collective unconscious of creation and we, as humans, recreate these characters and storylines on the earth plane ultimately for expansion and heightened awareness. In Greek mythology, the great lovers are represented by Aphrodite and Ares. 

Aphrodite was married to Hephestus, the god of metallurgy.  She liked him because he made her pretty gold things, but she was really in love with her half-brother Ares. They had many children together, which weren't really children or gods, but more representative of energies... Eros (love), Anteros (requited love), Himeros (desire), Hedylogos (sweet talk), Pothos (longing). But they also begat Phobos (panic) and Deimos (fear).

When Hephestus discovered Aphrodite and Ares in bed, he trapped them under a net and invited the whole pantheon of Olympus to laugh at them, condemn them and shame them.

This isn't a story with a beginning or end... in mythological time, it's a drama that plays out on a loop in perpetuity. But it puts on display the eternal conflict between passionate love and practical marriage within the confines of a societal structure.

[Soul-shards]

52 minutes ago, bananatree said:

Oh the Greeks. I'm a student of mythology and symbolism and it's helped me gain tremendous clarity in my life.  Myths and archetypes come from the deep collective unconscious of creation and we, as humans, recreate these characters and storylines on the earth plane ultimately for expansion and heightened awareness. In Greek mythology, the great lovers are represented by Aphrodite and Ares. 

Aphrodite was married to Hephestus, the god of metallurgy.  She liked him because he made her pretty gold things, but she was really in love with her half-brother Ares. They had many children together, which weren't really children or gods, but more representative of energies... Eros (love), Anteros (requited love), Himeros (desire), Hedylogos (sweet talk), Pothos (longing). But they also begat Phobos (panic) and Deimos (fear).

When Hephestus discovered Aphrodite and Ares in bed, he trapped them under a net and invited the whole pantheon of Olympus to laugh at them, condemn them and shame them.

This isn't a story with a beginning or end... in mythological time, it's a drama that plays out on a loop in perpetuity. But it puts on display the eternal conflict between passionate love and practical marriage within the confines of a societal structure.

Great point and perspective! The bigger point is that less materially advanced societies result mostly in Hephestus-type marriages. They are functional because things must be 'made' for daily, immediate survival. That's the most important aspect there. 

Passionate marriages with Ares are a luxury and only become a widespread goal in technologically advanced societies, where basic necessities are more or less taken for granted, and so humans are freed from material emergency to pay attention to the needs of their soul too. Trouble is, corrupt/disordered social structures, timelines and natural pressures act as hindrances in this pursuit (limitations), so few end up finding their real 'Ares marriage.' The rest face the task of convincing themselves that the Hephestus-marriage met the needs of their soul well enough ('love of my life') because, look, the family has pretty gold things (read 'it functions in the world').

So yes, it seems like an eternal conflict. 

[bananatree]

3 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

Great point and perspective! The bigger point is that less materially advanced societies result mostly in Hephestus-type marriages. They are functional because things must be 'made' for daily, immediate survival. That's the most important aspect there. 

Passionate marriages with Ares are a luxury and only become a widespread goal in technologically advanced societies, where basic necessities are more or less taken for granted, and so humans are freed from material emergency to pay attention to the needs of their soul too. Trouble is, corrupt/disordered social structures, timelines and natural pressures act as hindrances in this pursuit (limitations), so few end up finding their real 'Ares marriage.' The rest face the task of convincing themselves that the Hephestus-marriage met the needs of their soul well enough ('love of my life') because, look, the family has pretty gold things (read 'it functions in the world').

So yes, it seems like an eternal conflict. 

True.  In advanced societies where all people have the option to become educated, interdependent/self-reliant, and self-actualized, they are free to pursue love and passion over work-a-day things and basic survival.

Still, I say marriage, even among the affluent and well-cared for, is about work-a-day things.  There is nothing sexy about carpool drop off, Sunday Costco runs, diaper changing, etc.  But those make up the majority of moments in long-term marriages-- even ones that begin with steamy sex and ultimate romance.  And for those things to work, you have to pick someone who is appropriate.  That means... just because you have fallen in love, they may be inadequate partners if they are: significantly older/younger, geographically and culturally removed, already married, or come with other similar barriers or complications.  OR if they have character defects like: laziness, addiction, temper, etc.  

I only think I know a handful of happy long-term marriages.  Most of my married friends are pretty miserable, but come to think of it, they all chose option 2 (huh).  Including me. 

I think there is also an option #4.  Ego-based, sexually- charged (yes loveless, or love-lacking) marriages.  I know a few couples who are so attractive, and they had the The Best Sex Ever when they met, but are now going through the motions of domestic life in agony. The sex is maybe still good/okay/great, but they hate each other, are competitive and want to poison each other in their sleep. 

Love probably is the glue.  Because if you are in a #2 marriage with alot of compatibility, commitment and respect, I think there will be at least one party within that marriage who will feel like something is missing in their life.  

Also, FWIW, my happiest married friends don't have kids lol.

[Cookiesandough]

Yea I agree. I had this thought the other day. About how much marriage benefits my parents, especially my dad. He did a lot of ‘oat sewing’ when he was younger, before he met my mother. And yeah that was a lot of fun for him, I am sure. But then he settled down and married. So now he is an old man and he has someone there for him to help him in so many different ways. And my mom also. Their marriage is functional just in teammate way. The fact that they actually love each other a lot  too is really cute too, but I just think it would have been beneficial for them even if they didn’t . And yes there have been studies that show marriage is really beneficial to societies overall. I think there are innate flaws to long term romantic relationships/marriage and this does rear it’s ugly head in many cases, but overall it can be the BEST choice for a lot of people 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[bananatree]

I'm procrastinating at work thinking about your post @Soul-shards.

Love needs to infuse everything in order for it to work.  Right now, I'm "distrance working." Which is fine.  I'm having meetings.  Working on my Google Docs and doing what I need to do. But the reason we are depressed now is because all the love and magic has been drained from work.  Of course, I'm not talking about Romantic Love.  I'm talking about the gooey energy we call Love that infuses all.  Innocently flirting with the guy from the 5th floor, gossiping with co-workers over lunch, happy hours with the team, company Halloween costume contests... it's the laughter, comaraderie and human connection that make life worth living.

In marriages, we can pick a business partner who help us do the work of raising children and paying the mortgage, but in the end, if there is no love, it is a life about duty and obligation.  And then everything is just work.  Drudgery. And so boring. And stultifying.

My kids are teens now and I'm transitioning out of my marriage slowly (maybe quickly), and I'm now thinking about whether or not I will find a "forever partner" and what that will look like. I'm not sure I want to get married again and do boring things like file joint taxes and stuff.  But I would like a real and mature love. One that is not based on obligations and duty, but mutual respect AND magic. 

[Soul-shards]

27 minutes ago, bananatree said:

I'm procrastinating at work thinking about your post @Soul-shards.

Love needs to infuse everything in order for it to work.  Right now, I'm "distrance working." Which is fine.  I'm having meetings.  Working on my Google Docs and doing what I need to do. But the reason we are depressed now is because all the love and magic has been drained from work.  Of course, I'm not talking about Romantic Love.  I'm talking about the gooey energy we call Love that infuses all.  Innocently flirting with the guy from the 5th floor, gossiping with co-workers over lunch, happy hours with the team, company Halloween costume contests... it's the laughter, comaraderie and human connection that make life worth living.

In marriages, we can pick a business partner who help us do the work of raising children and paying the mortgage, but in the end, if there is no love, it is a life about duty and obligation.  And then everything is just work.  Drudgery. And so boring. And stultifying.

My kids are teens now and I'm transitioning out of my marriage slowly (maybe quickly), and I'm now thinking about whether or not I will find a "forever partner" and what that will look like. I'm not sure I want to get married again and do boring things like file joint taxes and stuff.  But I would like a real and mature love. One that is not based on obligations and duty, but mutual respect AND magic. 

Ha, ha...yes, I see your point. Lots to be said here but I don't want to switch the focus of this thread from Love in Relationship to Love of Work.

I will only note that I am afraid you may be confusing some  extrinsic aspects of work (the sociality, a by-product of overgrown modern economies) for the intrinsic rewards of work - the actual object/content of work. You seem to like the secondary social benefits which is what many women mean when they say "I love my job!". No, you love to hang out. Wink. Otherwise, if the actual CONTENT of work was your focus, working from home would be just fine. In fact - better, because you get to immerse yourself in whatever it is you are doing in peace and quiet, with no distractions (or flirting).  

I DO agree, however, that the work itself must be infused with love. Whatever it is, we need to love what we are doing to get in the flow  (just like in #1 marriage) - otherwise, again, it's duty. Drudgery. TGIF. Or like this recent meme I saw: "Adulthood: saying "If I can just get through this week" over and over again until you die."

We're told that not everything is love and passion, and tedious things must be done, somebody's gotta do them, yada. Of course - and those would be your sacrificial labs. Light a candle.

But really? Past societies had an excuse for some of the drudgery (no technology), never mind that some of of that traditional work, despite being physically taxing, was in fact meaningful; but what exactly is the excuse of modern society when it creates so much useless, 100% unnecessary, soul-crushing work, in the same way it creates so many useless, mismatched marriages?

If the best thing we get from our modern work is the ability to flirt with the guy on the 5th floor, we must rethink work.

Likewise, if the best thing we get from our marriages in our "Free to Find Your Great Love!" times is still mainly routine, functionality and drudgery - then what exactly we have gained relative to the past?

I believe in Better - not that I'll get to experience it in my lifetime. But better for humanity over the long term. With all the technology available, the work week should not be more than a few hours a day, 3-4 days a week (make-work gone), your people should e the kind who know how to put leisure to good use, and young people shroud be taught how to get their match-making right from the very first try, in due time.
 

 

[Weezy1973]

I do think if you’re not all that fussed about having a forever relationship, then chasing butterflies will suit you just fine. I know a woman that lived like this and she was essentially a serial monogamist, leaving relationships when the butterflies subsided, at times monkey branching. Unfortunately she had kids in one of her early relationships, so they were raised in a pretty unstable way and certainly have problems, but if she hadn’t had those kids, she likely would have been pretty happy.

If you are looking for a forever relationship, then you have to serve your future self as well as your current self. If a “practical” forever partner comes with butterflies to start, that’s great, but butterflies don’t mean they will be a great future partner. The practical parts do. And they’re not mutually exclusive of course.

[DKT3]

I'm one who believes people should live how they want as long as everyone is in agreement.  

My problem is people who want the benefit of being married,  commitment from thier partners yet feel free to explore whatever relationship they want outside of the commitment while holding thier spouses hostage in a marriage that they would likely not want given the truth about who thier partner actually is.  Chasing butterflies? 

 

[Soul-shards]

1 hour ago, DKT3 said:

I'm one who believes people should live how they want as long as everyone is in agreement.  

My problem is people who want the benefit of being married,  commitment from thier partners yet feel free to explore whatever relationship they want outside of the commitment while holding thier spouses hostage in a marriage that they would likely not want given the truth about who thier partner actually is.  Chasing butterflies? 

 

You have a point - but when both spouses are trapped in the M and there are no viable prospects for either post-D...you kind of re-think this theory.

[DKT3]

No one is ever really trapped anywhere that isn't prison. 

Like I said,  I've been divorced,  its scary,  its a lot of bad. However,  its also good...after all the bad.

Not seeing viable prospects is no reason to stay married....but is that the reason?  What if MM said let's go be together,  would you still be worried about your husband’s prospects? I have my doubts.

I'm really not a bad guy, I overstep sometimes but its because in some posters I see them close to getting 100% honest with themselves...others I give up on...quickly 

 

[Soul-shards]

3 hours ago, DKT3 said:

Not seeing viable prospects is no reason to stay married....but is that the reason?  What if MM said let's go be together,  would you still be worried about your husband’s prospects? I have my doubts.

Yes, I would. I would only be at peace if I knew he found someone else or was perfectly OK on his own; but since MM will not say that, it makes no rational sense to divorce for either of os. Only bad things for everyone would come out of this step.

[DKT3]

14 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

Yes, I would. I would only be at peace if I knew he found someone else or was perfectly OK on his own; but since MM will not say that, it makes no rational sense to divorce for either of os. Only bad things for everyone would come out of this step.

You have to understand how entitled and selfish this sounds,  and only proves what I've been saying about you. 

You basically just told us I'm only staying married because mm doesn't really want me.  Since he doesn't want you divorce is only bad for everyone...yet you say divorce will be bad for your husband no matter what because he has no prospects.  

So let's reduce this to the lowest denomination,  you would divorce your husband in a heartbeat if mm wanted to be with you, so please stop with fake compassion for your husband...it is what I've always thought,  all about you, all about your feelings,  nothing else matters.  You stay married because its best for you no one else matters. 

[pepperbird2]

19 hours ago, DKT3 said:

You have to understand how entitled and selfish this sounds,  and only proves what I've been saying about you. 

You basically just told us I'm only staying married because mm doesn't really want me.  Since he doesn't want you divorce is only bad for everyone...yet you say divorce will be bad for your husband no matter what because he has no prospects.  

So let's reduce this to the lowest denomination,  you would divorce your husband in a heartbeat if mm wanted to be with you, so please stop with fake compassion for your husband...it is what I've always thought,  all about you, all about your feelings,  nothing else matters.  You stay married because its best for you no one else matters. 

Having a BS at home also provides a "safe harbour" and an excuse to keep a relationship mostly a fantasy. It's never really going to move past the honeymoon stage, because it contains very little reality.
It's the equivalent of going on vacation to a quaint little cottage out in the woods. It may be lovely and charming for a weekend, but a big part of that is knowing that when the weekend is over, one can return home to all the creature comforts.

[Soul-shards]

On 3/14/2021 at 1:24 PM, DKT3 said:

You have to understand how entitled and selfish this sounds,  and only proves what I've been saying about you. 

You basically just told us I'm only staying married because mm doesn't really want me.  Since he doesn't want you divorce is only bad for everyone...yet you say divorce will be bad for your husband no matter what because he has no prospects.  

So let's reduce this to the lowest denomination,  you would divorce your husband in a heartbeat if mm wanted to be with you, so please stop with fake compassion for your husband...it is what I've always thought,  all about you, all about your feelings,  nothing else matters.  You stay married because its best for you no one else matters. 

[]

I said: "I would only be at peace if I knew he found someone else or was perfectly OK on his own."

This means that if MM said "yes," but my family would be devastated, I wouldn't just walk out the door to pursue my dream because I CARE. I would wait with a platonic R with MM in the interm, as I tried to work with my family towards a place where the outcome would be good for all involved.

I am not the type of person who tends exclsuively to self regardless of collateral damage to those around me. However, neither am I a martyr and I recognize that as a human, in flesh and blood, I have needs too. If I suppress the most important of them that turns to severe depression whic in turn affcts my loved one. Nobody wins.  

As for compassion, no marriage should be based on that. Solid marriages are based on attraction and compatibility, not on 'compassion' and charity. Those may be by-products in temporary difficult situations for the partner, but not a foundation of marriage. 

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Rude

[Soul-shards]

7 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

Having a BS at home also provides a "safe harbour" and an excuse to keep a relationship mostly a fantasy. It's never really going to move past the honeymoon stage, because it contains very little reality.
It's the equivalent of going on vacation to a quaint little cottage out in the woods. It may be lovely and charming for a weekend, but a big part of that is knowing that when the weekend is over, one can return home to all the creature comforts.

Some people had always wanted to live on the ocean but they were never able to find/afford a house there. It might just happen that one day, they get a chance for a vacation on the beach. They might go for that because it's too late now to build an actual house there.

Life is not smooth, predictable, and conformist although humans will never give up trying to make it under their control, with their linear plans. 

 

[mark clemson]

On 3/14/2021 at 1:24 PM, DKT3 said:

So let's reduce this to the lowest denomination,  you would divorce your husband in a heartbeat if mm wanted to be with you, so please stop with fake compassion for your husband...it is what I've always thought,  all about you, all about your feelings,  nothing else matters.  You stay married because its best for you no one else matters. 

Feel free to correct anything I get wrong here, S-s.

This seems to me to be a false dichotomy. Her husband benefits from the marriage as does she. So if she stays married while unhappy, she is ALSO doing something good for her husband. It is not necessarily only either/or.

Leaving him for the OM would be selfish, but leaving him "just because, e.g. she's just not that into him" would be selfish as well. He would be hurt either way. So the compassion aspect is not necessarily fake. There would be little benefit in it for her husband either way, but if she stays while unhappy that does help him to some extent.

The way I'm reading the above, she's selfish if she stays, she's selfish if she leaves (for whatever reason) as her husband gets hurt. So essentially she's selfish no matter what, all simply by virtue of the fact that she's unhappy.

Meanwhile what she is actually doing is staying put while feeling unhappy, which does, in fact, benefit her husband, and sure may benefit her, but there's nothing actually wrong with being benefited by remaining in a marriage (and I'd say particularly so if some aspects of it are making you unhappy - at least you get the parts that DO benefit you).

If she told her husband "I'm done with you and leaving at my earliest convenience" - I guess I must wonder - what exactly would be the point of that? It certainly would not be particularly compassionate IMO.

I forget - are there kids involved? What about compassion for them?

[DKT3]

I guess when someone NEEDS to believe something there are no limits.

Selfish is in believing its your right to make unilateral decisions of this magnitude.  All im saying,  all I've ever really said in all my posts here is you give adults the information to make a decision that's best for them. 

How can one possibly say its best for thier spouse if they unwittingly stay with someone who has neither honored them or the marriage?  Who has made a fool of them and a mockery of the vows?

Use all the mind trickery you want,  bottom line is people simply don't cheat and hide it, in the best interest of their betrayed.  Its because they don't want to face the consequences,  because they know its likely that spouse will in turn reject them.

Cheating is selfish,  making whatever decisions you make to clean it up is not selfish, its necessary.  Be it leaving or staying.  Its incredibly arrogant to suggest you being unhappy because you are with someone is best for them. 

[Soul-shards]

2 hours ago, mark clemson said:

Feel free to correct anything I get wrong here, S-s.

This seems to me to be a false dichotomy. Her husband benefits from the marriage as does she. So if she stays married while unhappy, she is ALSO doing something good for her husband. It is not necessarily only either/or.

Leaving him for the OM would be selfish, but leaving him "just because, e.g. she's just not that into him" would be selfish as well. He would be hurt either way. So the compassion aspect is not necessarily fake. There would be little benefit in it for her husband either way, but if she stays while unhappy that does help him to some extent.

The way I'm reading the above, she's selfish if she stays, she's selfish if she leaves (for whatever reason) as her husband gets hurt. So essentially she's selfish no matter what, all simply by virtue of the fact that she's unhappy.

Meanwhile what she is actually doing is staying put while feeling unhappy, which does, in fact, benefit her husband, and sure may benefit her, but there's nothing actually wrong with being benefited by remaining in a marriage (and I'd say particularly so if some aspects of it are making you unhappy - at least you get the parts that DO benefit you).

If she told her husband "I'm done with you and leaving at my earliest convenience" - I guess I must wonder - what exactly would be the point of that? It certainly would not be particularly compassionate IMO.

I forget - are there kids involved? What about compassion for them?

Pristine logic, as usual, Mark. I have nothing to correct. You got it exactly right.

Only some reinforcements.

My H made it clear he will be much happier for me to stay than to leave, even knowing I am not happy with way things have been. He proposed that we still have a marriage with certain good things in it (he's right) and that my odds of finding exactly the person I need are low - which is true. (The MM is a very rare type).  My H even said I should feel free to get on a dating site during a period of separation and start looking. He is not aware of my connection with the MM but he is technically correct: what I am looking for is difficult to find, and even more unlikely to find while available (obviously, MM not available). But my H knows for sure I never cheated on him physically - which I have not. He would not accept such a thing if this happened. Then I am sure he would want a divorce.

But he wants us to make it work, although we both have doubts that this is entirely fixable as there seem to be unbridgeable differences in our psychological profiles. This gap, of course, could be subject to me resigning myself to it and accepting things as they are. When I tried, it happens at the cost of my mental health.

Despite this mismatch, I DO love my H which is why I could not just walk away purely for the pursuit of my personal happiness. This would be much easier if he was some kind of jerk, but he's not. This is one of those cases of 'irreconcilable differences.'

Never mind our children. Yes, their well being matter enormously to both of us. They've been aware we are having acute problems lately and my older one asked whether we are getting a divorce. The child was overwhelmed. We told them we are not. 

Pointing to divorce as an always viable solution will never solve such cases because in certain situations, once everything is taken into account, there is no sense in divorce; no if the outcomes will automatically be worse on all fronts for all involved, and that includes the one with the extra-marital affair. This is why I said "MM will not say yes, let's get together." Let's not take it out of context. Even if I wanted to keep my perfect emotional integrity, e.g. NOT pine emotionally for another man while being married, pine for him while divorced/single - the reality is this MM will NOT divorce, which means he will never be available for marriage with me. This is relevant. In such a case, considering he is far, we are not in danger of a PA and we're certainly not the cyber-sex types, I might as well pine for him while staying married. Pining could subside at some point.

What nut bag divorces for someone they know for sure will NEVER be available, under conditions where:

1. finding someone else similar to MM is extremely unlikely.  (I am not interested in starting a general search at this stage in my life.).

2. spouse does not want a D. 

3. children would be devastated by D.

So why divorce? The breakdown in logic should be evident.

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
removed argumentative content

[DKT3]

Circle after Circle.

You seem to continually miss the part about given ALL the information.  Maybe your husband knows you are unhappy,  does he know you're unfaithful? 

There is a reason you've not been honest with your husband,  despite the claims of him telling you to do OLD. You know your husband wouldn't be ok with what you're doing,  so you aren't honest about what you're doing. 

Circle after Circle, you simply can't make this rational or logical.  Its 100% emotionally lead filler, spun in a way to make yourself feel better by trying to convince people you are doing whats best for your husband by being selfish. 

You should never divorce to be with someone else,  YOU should divorce because you are having an affair with no intention or desire to change,  and you are unhappy about being married to your husband. He deserves better than a wife wishing she could be with another man...someone she thinks is her soulmate.  Given that information do you really believe he would choose to stay married? I don't believe you do, thus the secrets and mind/word bending. 

I believe its too deep here, good luck, I wish you the best.

Edited March 16, 2021 by DKT3

[hajk]

"...Reality is you’d make this affair physical in a second if your soul mate hopped a couple of states and called you from a local hotel."

"Yes. If the MM called from a hotel - I'd go."

@Soul-shards In your other thread link above, you replied that you would make the affair physical if the MM called from a hotel.

1 hour ago, Soul-shards said:

....the reality is this MM will NOT divorce, which means he will never be available for marriage with me.

Your MM might not get divorced, but he might want to have a physical affair.  Are you going to proceed with a physical affair if MM wanted to?  Do you think of the impacts and consequences of the affair on your husband and children?  Would that destroy your marriage and family that you are trying to protect?

Edited March 16, 2021 by hajk

[Soul-shards]

Quote

Your MM might not get divorced, but he might want to have a physical affair.  Are you going to proceed with a physical affair if MM wanted to?  Do you think of the impacts and consequences of the affair on your husband and children?  Would that destroy your marriage and family that you are trying to protect?

[Redacted]

 to answer your admittedly relevant question: probably not. In my least stable emotional moments, I thought I could, as a form of 'closure;' but most of the times, I realize I couldn't. I wouldn't say no to seeing him once in a while, however, if only for a coffee and a hug. The geographical distance between us allows me to NOT think about this too seriously.   

Edited March 16, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Off-topic

[Soul-shards]

1 hour ago, DKT3 said:

Circle after Circle.

You seem to continually miss the part about given ALL the information.  Maybe your husband knows you are unhappy,  does he know you're unfaithful?

No, he doesn't. As of this moment, I am yet to be 'unfaithful' enough to warrant disclosure. These are just feelings we're talking about, nothing else. We don't 'emote' together, so hardly even an EA, let alone PA.
BY this logic, if you saw a woman at the office whom you found very physically attractive and you were in a position to talk and be friendly with her (office setup), would you go straight to your wife to confess the hots you have for her, even though your interaction with her was 100% appropriate? Anyone rational and reasonable would say "spare your wife of such info, TMI, keep the 'feelings and attraction to yourself and continue to act as expected." 

Some people may feel out-of-control lust. Others may feel out-of-control emotions spurred by something other than looks. Regardless, experiencing attraction/emotions is hardly the equivalent of being unfaithful.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Soul-shards

[mark clemson]

To make it clear, I'm not advocating for affairs, as I think they are unduly risky to those involved. However:

17 hours ago, DKT3 said:

I guess when someone NEEDS to believe something there are no limits.

Selfish is in believing its your right to make unilateral decisions of this magnitude.  All im saying,  all I've ever really said in all my posts here is you give adults the information to make a decision that's best for them. 

How can one possibly say its best for thier spouse if they unwittingly stay with someone who has neither honored them or the marriage?  Who has made a fool of them and a mockery of the vows?

Use all the mind trickery you want

I had intended a more general discussion, but sure - let's keep this within the purview of an undiscovered EA. I'm also not sure where you get "need" from, it doesn't necessarily apply. At any rate:

Here's what you did:

Do something without their knowledge/awareness that (presumably) would greatly upset your spouse.

Devoted some emotional attention outside the marriage (level will vary, and it's been pointed out that some WS's act more loving during an affair).

Risked their discovery of the above.

 

Here's what you didn't do (by not divorcing):

Actually cause them the emotional harm of divorce.

Actually cause them the emotional harm of telling them you no longer love them (IF that's actually the case).

Greatly disrupt their life and cause them to need to deal with lawyers, make new living arrangements, etc.

Greatly disrupt their social life (in many cases).

Greatly disrupt their finances (in the majority of cases).

Negatively impact their children (who are also yours) emotionally.

Negatively impact their children (who are also yours) financially (in the majority of cases).

Cause them to need to seek new arrangements for child supervision in many cases, e.g. if they work or have other obligations.

 

Threre is no "mind trickery" needed. A rational analysis shows just how high the cost of an unnecessary divorce is (and my list is probably incomplete). While all of the above are ultimately addressable, they are substantial, especially when taken together.

This is a no-brainer IMO.

Edited March 16, 2021 by mark clemson

[bananatree]

FWIW, years ago when my husband and I were ostensibly married, I used his computer and discovered a google search for his old girlfriend.  She was the "one who got away."  They met on vacation, but she lived far away, so they were never able to make it work and didn't want to try the long-distance thing. I then discovered more searches for her, thousands.  Facebook searches, Twitter searches.  He was apparently cyberstalking her.

It wasn't that he was searching for her that bothered me.  I wouldn't have been mad if he'd friended her on social media or even continued a friendship with her.  But he told me that he didn't believe in being friends with exes.  What bothered me was that he was still clearly in love with her.  He had deep and unresolved feelings for her and just wanted to look at her online from afar.

Oh, I got mad.  How dare he!  He's a married man with children and cyberstalking an ex like a schoolboy.  Grow the F up!

In all actuality, I wasn't even mad. I totally understood why he would still have feelings for an old flame.  And I totally understood how I have no part in that at all.  And I also totally understood that I was simply being butt-hurt.  In truth, it's stupid for anyone to assume total possession and ownership over a person's emotional world. We all have feelings for people.  We all have crushes, friendships and close connections that can sneak up on us (or even ones that don't sneak up on us).  Why do we put some weird constraint on marriage that in order to have an effective partnership with someone, we should be able to "trust" that we, and only we the spouses, have any claim to any part of our spouse's sexuality and emotions?

And then we all rush to our friends and online forums and talk about how much our spouses have betrayed us and they are horrible people for really just being human. I will never, ever in my life be in any relationship again that has constraints that are founded on jealousy and fear.  I have gone through hell and back ( another long story I probably won't post about TBH) to learn that possessiveness and control over one's spouse is not healthy.  Strict monogamy no matter what is not "the way."