SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

And things were going so well lately. In fact, I had a trigger a few days ago that I handled really well. Her uncle called me, and it was her uncle's BiL that we hired as a Realtor out of familial loyalty. The BiL referred us to the eventual AP (pocketing a referral fee I am sure for absolutely nothing).

So I don't like being reminded of that whole side of the family, even though what happened was not their fault, and the uncle nor his wife's brother have any idea about any of it.

But I was able to not let this ruin my week. I had a healthy attitude, and was able to remember that this was nearly 20 years ago, that I don't have to react to the triggers, and I can just move along in life.

But moments ago my wife and I had an argument about the D-Day. As a reminder, D-day was less than a week before our wedding. I was in shock, and went through with the wedding anyway. My wife tonight brought up that she feels I still punish her by having a bad attitude from time to time, and that I refused to have a honeymoon back then, and if I feel differently now she would like to know.

I said that sure I would go traveling with her, and I don't remember that I refused to go on a honeymoon, but that would seem like a natural consequence of what happened. "what do you think should have been the consequence?"

She hit the roof. She was right back to how it has been 20 years, and she will never be able to redeem herself in my eyes, and blah blah blah.

It's completely irrational of her to believe that there should have been zero consequences. I own, and owned to her, the fact that I rugswept so poorly in the first ten years that it resulted in a slow burn gaping wound that actually caused MORE consequences for both of us than if we would have dealt with it appropriately right away.

ANd I chose to reconcile and build a life with her, and should not treat her poorly. But that is not the same as saying there should have been no consequences.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Just because it was 20 years ago doesn't mean you cannot get upset when you are reminded about the thing SHE did, that you learned about ONE WEEK before your wedding! And yes, bad choices have consequences. She willingly chose to cheat so now she gets to suffer the consequences. Or she can leave, she has that option.

Now, if you rage and call her a whore every time you are reminded of her affair, after 20 years IMO the rage should have dissipated BUT sadness and anger are normal and to be expected.

She should be happy and thankful every day that you didn't cancel the wedding and tell everyone what she did.

I don't rage at all. I do see my mistake, though. I mistook her feeling overwhelmed with emotion for being mad AT ME.

SO I reacted to her being mad at me, and that became a self-fulfilling prophesy.

At root, she doesn't want to FOREVER be "branded" an adulteress, and doesn't want me to FOREVER be thinking poorly of her. Which I don't, but it would be nice to agree on where on the scale the right place is between "there should have been zero consequences" and "she is horribly tainted forever and ever and ever".

We talked it out, and one interesting thing is that even though she doesn't want to forever be branded, I will probably always see myself as "that guy"....

I going to say this gently because I haven’t decided which way this is—-but something to consider for yourself.

Consequences to one’s actions are natural.

Punishment can be natural, but it feels different.

If you feel like it was consequences because you didn’t have the right heart/mindset to share a vacation with her at that point, that’s a natural consequence.

The way you describe it here could loosely be interpreted by someone running high emotions as "I punished your actions by not going in a honeymoon." Or "you didn’t deserve a honeymoon.

I think either thing is valid, but a natural consequence is something someone understands as "this is how I made you feel" versus hearing we are having a title for tat. And it may boil down to the way you communicate around it.

I also think she is saying 20 years later "travel with Me" she is wondering if you feel she deserves it yet?

Again, I am not arguing you in your position more so I think there is a natural breakdown of communication due to this being a hot topic for both of you. Finding where the discrepancy is could result in a mutually fulfilling decision where you find a good solution that fits both of you.

[This message edited by hikingout at 3:12 AM, Wednesday, September 9th]

When she spirals into statements like "I'll never be able to redeem myself," she is shifting the focus away from the reality of her past actions and onto her current discomfort with their lasting footprint. You chose to stay and build a life with her, but that does not mean signing a contract to pretend the betrayal never occurred or that it carries no long-term cost.

A short hand response would be something like; your actions have long term fallout. Ultimately if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:07 AM, Wednesday, September 9th]

I see it differently from sooler . I know everyone is shocked.

A good reconciliation restores the balance in a marriage. I am considered as much as he is, and actually I consider myself a lot more than I used to. (But that’s how I had gotten so off track previously)

Is it in the fabric of our marriage? Yes. But not in I will have consequences for the rest of my life that are imposed by him.

However, I think cantbemeeither is saying they really didn’t go through the process. I don’t think it’s his intention to punish her either, even if that’s what she is feeling or thinking.

Reconciliation takes a lot of communication, and two people who can come at it with win-win mentality.

She needs to recognize expecting him to go in a honeymoon feeling as broken as he was at the time would have been a terrible experience. And while it was consequence he is not saying it was a punishment.

I do think she has shame she needs to address.

Shame is not an emotion, it’s the belief you are bad to the core and it makes you feel like other people know that about you. There is healing she needs to do around that so she doesn’t trigger and hear "you were bad and you should have been punished"

Remorse and guilt are healthy. They help shape our actions, build our empathy. But shame create this defensiveness because it touches that deep belief in them.

There is nothing the OP can do to change that. I would encourage not allowing himself to be shut down by that. And I was mostly suggesting that if he went back and had the conversation with the consequences versus punishment they might be able to move forward in working it through more. It sounds like that happened.

[This message edited by hikingout at 2:14 PM, Wednesday, September 9th]

The thing about consequences is that they are not necessarily commensurate with the violation.

Have you considered finding a good MC? Someone who can help both of you voice your thoughts and feelings about your M and her infidelity, help you understand each other on this issue, help you not flood?

Y’all are discussing behaviors (and just kinda, at that) when it seems like it’s the feelings that are the issue.

I don’t know your history or the tendencies of your WW. I can’t advise whether any discussion is worthy of effort. But it does seem like any beneficial one will need to start with the feeling part. All the rest is just narrative creation.

A week after this, we had ANOTHER conflict. This had to do with some kind of "dark romance" genre of music she was listening to. At its root, the lyrics are about women being seduced, ignoring red flags, plowing ahead with self-destructive sexual choices. She was a little put off by my interpretation. I am not trying to police her entertainment choices, but I am not going to sign off with approval on subject matter that in my mind glamorizes scenarios that fundamentally changed me for the worse.

AND THEN she told me about the romance novels she reads. She says she has always respected my boundary that she stay away from romance novels that touch on infidelity.... that I feel is not too much to ask, even if it is fiction. (I present it like if a person who had a loved one murdered in the past has a spouse who suddenly starts consuming pro-crime fiction)

Some of the novels she DOES read, however, have to do with non-exclusivity in other contexts. She was eager and willing to have me spell out exactly what is ok and not ok, but that to me is a red flag in itself? I can't possibly outline every ok/not ok scenario, and to leave it on me to try to devise some kind of Willie Wonka contract raises suspicions. Of what? I don;t think she would ever physically cheat again...but again, asking her to not consume content that diminishes the pain of something that happened to us..that's not too much to ask. I think.

She began to see my point of view, and we were better than ever, for exactly 2 weeks, until this Cornell university thing came along, and again that raises the questions of consequences of risky behavior, differing levels of culpability when weighed against vulnerability, drunkenness, temptation, pressure, and a series of bad choices.

Most of all, I am tired of having to argue my feelings into existence.

This is not meant to diminish how you feel, your feelings are always valid.

That said, you claim you are not trying to police her choices, then immediately after you talk about "signing off" on what media she consumes. Be honest with yourself about what your boundaries are, and remember boundaries are about what you do, not changing what she does.

I am confused about non-exclusivity "in other contexts" - as written it reads like this is non-exclusivity in scenarios other than infidelity? IMO that would be quite unreasonable to ban this. To me going into "other contexts" would certainly require you to detail what is okay and not okay with you.

Can you explain more why her wanting you to spell out what is ok or not ok to consume is a red flag? That seems like the "best" possible response you could get to your desire for her to consume media you sign off on based on your determination about what is acceptable.

1) "signing off" : Giving my affirmative approval is what I meant by signing off, which I don't think of as the same as policing. She doesn't really need my approval.

2) "remember boundaries are about what you do, not changing what she does." yes, great point

3) "non-exclusivity in scenarios other than infidelity?" I am learning there is a whole world out there in the new media of AI generated romance movies. Harems, reverse harems, and God knows what else.

4) "her wanting you to spell out what is ok or not ok" once it is incumbent upon me to in advance consider all the permutations of what is OK and not OK, figuring out legalistically how to close all the loopholes... I feel like its all a trick and if I miss something then it is my fault.

It reminds me of the beginning of how this all started. I was out of town, and she asked if she could still go with the realtor to the traditional closing celebration dinner. Had I known they had been flirting already, I wouldn't have said yes, eagerly and happy she was getting needed social time. What am I going to miss this time, I fear.

On policing, I can see where you're coming from. But, she has a thing she'd do if not for your disdain for it. I'm just pointing out that the impact from you acting on how you expressed this issue is indistinguishable from policing.

With the preface that I'm not sure going down the road with the media consumption is ultimately a great idea:

The thing about it is however you define it, the boundary around media consumption is founded in YOUR thoughts on what is acceptable. She is not in your head, so I do think that it would be incumbent on you to describe the boundary line in a way she can understand. If I put myself in her shoes, it seems impossible to both be getting dinged for consuming certain media, but I'm also the problem for asking what's off limits with you. I would be more understanding if it were something as straightforward as "no infidelity stories/roleplay" but you want to include other things...it IS fair to define it.

I wonder if the deeper layer here is the "she isn't in your head" issue. I hear you that you feel these things, you have these triggers, and the relationship environment isn't honoring it the way you need. Maybe what you're really hoping for it is for her to think the way you do/respond to the world or at least this concept the way you do?

----

Another approach to this is to consider her not only consuming this media but discussing it with you evidence of continued wayward thinking. It's possible she cannot or will not ever truly understand the problem the way you do. Boundaries are what YOU do, so what is your boundary when it comes to this continued behavior? Under this paradigm, I see the idea of back and forth on what the rules are around her media consumption as a red flag, but not in the way you've described. It's a red flag that the fundamentals aren't there, and that's why you're even thinking about getting into that.

[This message edited by torso1500 at 12:12 AM, Sunday, October 4th]

"her wanting you to spell out what is ok or not ok" once it is incumbent upon me to in advance consider all the permutations of what is OK and not OK, figuring out legalistically how to close all the loopholes... I feel like its all a trick and if I miss something then it is my fault.

As I've learned now that I'm with my husband as opposed to my cheating ex, is that when your morals and values are perfectly aligned with someone and you have a strong foundation of trust, you don't need figure out all the loopholes or tell the other person to behave. You know how they will be behave based on how you would behave in that situation. They don't act any differently when you're around vs when they are alone.

I am with blue. Either she is willing to work on herself and have a better relationship with her proclaimed values (which to me being married comes with some inherent ones) or it’s not going to work.

As pointed out already, boundaries are about what you will and won’t accept.

And I am going to say this part gently for your consideration.

I have never heard much on the topic bout music or book restrictions. While I understand your concern, you will never be able to control whether she cheats on you. Either she has that commitment within herself or she does not.

I feel like I could understand if my husband objected to music that was referenced in my affair or utilized during my affair to romanticize it. In fact, he never would have to ask me not to listen to that music, I don’t want to—-it reminds me of a time when I would consider myself sick in the head and acting against my best self interests.

However, he doesn’t really investigate what I read or listen to. Whether I am influenced by it is up to me, and I am not. I listen to all sorts of music and appreciate them for reasons that probably couldn’t be explained. It touches me in the way I interpret it, it tickles a good part of my brain.

Trying to control is natural after losing control. But you must at some point understand she is the one who will always be in control of what she does. And getting to the original post- I felt uneasy with how you were describing or going along with her description of punishment in relationship to skipping your honeymoon. The reality of it is you not wanting to go are natural consequences of her actions. And the fact she doesn’t get that means she is still lacking empathy.

It’s better if she sees you as her equal partner, rather than someone who polices her books and music or doles out a punishment. I think the punishment part sounds like her interpretation, which is very skewed.

But controlling things to that level is stifling. Her not having a boundary over that speaks to her compliance rather than empathy or what she needs to do to become a worthy partner.. I fear this sets up a dynamic that is not sustainable.

She needs to have freedom over who she is, within reason, and she needs to do that with empathy and remorse over what she has done to you and see the consequences of her actions as natural and understandable.

I mean it’s good she wants to be compliant, but you can not anticipate what she is thinking what may cause a relapse in behavior, or even what makes her feel happy, sad, lonely, frustrated or any other emotions.

Instead of dealing with the micro, you should consider staying in the macro—-is she in therapy, does she read for improvement, does she seem to be digging for her issues and working to discover where they come from, how they do not server her, and finding alternative thoughts and behaviors? Because that’s where the becoming a safe partner is. Don’t substitute that work for believing if she follows the rules it will steer her clear of future temptations.

Here are some examples to help differentiate.

Let’s say you are watching a show and unanticipated infidelity becomes part of the story. Her reaction should be- pause the show, check in with you. Being concerned about your triggers shows she is having empathy and seeks a natural consequence of her actions that you may feel triggered. Even better, maybe she shares it triggers her. That would be a sign that she is remorseful of her actions and can’t watch a show because it infuriates her as to the way they portray infidelity.

In other words, these rules are not going to keep her from cheating. She needs to be transparent on what she is doing to make herself a relatable and safe partners it’s natural for you to try and put protections in place because you can’t trust her right now, but I would encourage you to think in broader terms, and in terms of your own boundaries. Policing her is only going to create a different relationship problem down the road.

[This message edited by hikingout at 4:57 PM, Wednesday, October 7th]

If you are a cheater then you are a cheater. There is no expiration date on that. Exactly the same for alcoholics. She's a cheater today just as much as she was 20 years ago. Unless she has managed to change precisely who she is at the core, the cheater just does a better job at hiding or being suppressed.

What a crude, primitive false dichotomy you present, sharkman.