SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

After spending an hour I don’t really have on a reply, my reply was nearly ready to be posted when it accidentally got deleted. I’m in work crunch mode right now and doubt I will have time to reconstitute it fully for a week or two. I am sorry.

I hope your beliefs are wrong there.

Why?

Because I want both women in my life.

I will humor your ask:

Objectively, the smart play by me would be: I should commit purely to my wife, build new friendships, & lay down my hope to reconnect with my friend.

However, I would detest that. The "smart" choice is just the superficially easy choice. In practice, I don’t see myself forming new friendships. It’s not just the AuDHD. It’s the occupation and perfectionism, too. Even if I did miraculously find a friend, they wouldn’t fill "my AP’s" niche in my heart. Furthermore, I would feel completely awful over abandoning "my AP."

Maybe it would be of some comfort to you to turn back to your faith. …is she not also God's child? Do you doubt that our Heavenly Father has a Divine Plan for her? Lift that anxiety up to Him, so that it may burden you less, and see what He does with it..

God can definitely be a comfort. It’s a little harder to find comfort in God for "my AP"—because, while she’s nebulously spiritual, she became disenchanted with and left Catholicism many years ago. (She and I didn’t see eye-to-eye on much, but we could talk with each other about anything without engendering ire and we both admired the other’s intellect even though we rarely agreed.)

What I want now, though, is to feel the pain and worry of loss.

Do you think you might be stuck in a mutually reinforcing cycle where having to go NC has caused you grief, pain, and loss... But if you hold on to the hope that you might someday get OW back, then you don't have to accept the loss... And then because you don't accept the loss, you decide to cling to the grief and the pain, so that you don't forget her... But of course that keeps you stuck with the feelings of grief, pain, and unprocessed loss, still...and you reason that the only thing that will stop the grief and the pain is getting OW back... So you cling to the hope... round and round you go.

How you got all that from what I wrote is… kinda scary… but I’d say… fundamentally: "yes."

The place you interrupt that cycle, if you agree it exists, is….

Buuut… I want the agonizing pain and worry. Without those, it’ll be too easy to let my friend pass from my consciousness and never be recruited back to friendship. She might become… like my very first girlfriend… whose last name I swear I once knew. If you were to ask me about her, I’d say: yeah, I liked her once. Limerence does funny things to the psyche. I was head over heels for her. She was my first kiss. I remember being so distraught when she broke up with me. Oh well…. moving on….

Now… you’ll assure me: that’s good! That’s healthy! That’s exactly what you should do with "your AP"! And I will respond: never will I let that happen.

I’m not usually one for paranoia, but I really think part of why I am being allowed to hold onto "hope" is that the counselor—and possibly my wife—are expecting my yearning for "my AP" to wane over the 2 years—hence, for "my AP" to become an easier ask for me to sacrifice. I have to resist that quenching!

you don’t have to forget her or rewrite the story so that she's a villain. You can lie in bed at night and think, "The relationship with this person was wonderful. I miss her. It hurts that she's gone from my life... But, she isn't coming back, and that's for the best." That would be consciously deciding to move out of the denial and bargaining phases of grief and into acceptance.

I abhor the thought of having those thoughts.

I see no reason to pursue such thoughts.

More eventually…

[This message edited by Unconventional at 1:41 AM, Wednesday, September 30th]

You shouldn't seek a "replacement"for OW, or compare new friends to her, but rather appreciate them for who they are and the joy of knowing them. And when you have enough friendship to meet your needs, you'll know.

I sleep about 3-4 h a night currently. The rest of the time, I am working. Where do I fit in making new friends?

I feel compelled to mention that—out of the whole passage:

you don’t have to forget her or rewrite the story so that she's a villain. You can lie in bed at night and think, "The relationship with this person was wonderful. I miss her. It hurts that she's gone from my life... But, she isn't coming back, and that's for the best." That would be consciously deciding to move out of the denial and bargaining phases of grief and into acceptance.

The bolded text is the part that twists my stomach in knots.

Honestly, as much as I so greatly want "my AP’s" absence from my life not to be permanent, a meaningful part of me knows that’s very plausible. It’s the bolded text part I absolutely cannot absorb.

And when you have enough friendship to meet your needs, you'll know.

I had enough when it was just my wife and "my AP." I don’t want or need a large company. I want two.

[This message edited by Unconventional at 2:49 AM, Wednesday, September 30th]

First of all, you need more sleep than that. So definitely prioritize that first.

You had enough time to make "friends" with OW. You have enough time to meet new people. Might take some patience, but it's certainly possible. Who's to say how many until you meet them?

The problem is that you're conflating "I am lonely and I need friendship" with "I need this particular person to satisfy my social needs entirely, even though it would be extremely painful to my wife." The latter is neither fair nor healthy.

That's why her absence is "for the best." And it's not what you want, and accepting that is letting go of your hope, and I'm sure that is pretty terrifying for you.

Courage is now required.

You had enough time to make "friends" with OW. You have enough time to meet new people. Might take some patience, but it's certainly possible. Who's to say how many until you meet them?

I am 49 years old. Based on current actuarial data from the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), an average 49-year-old American male can expect to live an additional 30.1 years.

Childhood = totally different circumstances. Conclusion: Omit childhood. Adult lifetime friend count: 2 (wife + "my AP") over 31 years. 15.5 years per friend. ===> 2 more lifetime friends. Maybe. But who knows when I will meet him/her? In the meantime, "no AP" = wife only friend for Unconventional =

The problem is that you're conflating "I am lonely and I need friendship" with "I need this particular person to satisfy my social needs entirely, even though it would be extremely painful to my wife." The latter is neither fair nor healthy.

The problems are: (1) you're probably exaggerating my wife's pain because you're overlooking the safeguards that would be in-place; (2) you're definitely trivializing the painfulness to me of loneliness. Neither is fair or healthy.

Her absence isn't "for the best." If you want to look at what's really "for the best," we can look at a back-of-the-envelope utilitarian argument.

Utilitarianism is a model of ethics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism; introduced by Jeremy Bentham - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham) under which subscribers are encouraged to pursue "THE GOOD." It's left a little vague, under the system, what exactly constitutes "THE GOOD." It's kind-of assumed we humans have a shared notion of that. Things like... an ascension of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs) typically count. Anyhow, the central idea of Utilitarianism is that subscribers to utilitarianism are advised by the system always to pursue the greatest good for the most people. Sort of like... in calculus.... the area under the curve? Bentham himself wouldn't have advocated quantifying "THE GOOD" in discrete quanta measurable in "Bentham units," but I'll "go there" for the sake of hopefully enhancing understanding. The idea is: Say I'm considering a specific action. Maybe... donating money to the poor. If I do the action, 1 thousand people get 1 extra Bentham unit of good--but the action is very costly to me; I lose 500 Bentham units of "THE GOOD" that I might've enjoyed had I made the other choice (i.e. in the example I'm using for illustration, not donating money to the poor). So, a Utilitarian would run the math like so: 1000 people x 1 Bentham unit of "THE GOOD" + 1 person x (-500 Bentham units of "THE GOOD"). The path that produces the more positive (or less negative) overall sum is obliged. Now, like all major systems of ethics, Utilitarianism has its... ahem... virtues and its failings, but among professional ethicists, there is a broad consensus that it's actually one of the better God-agnostic proposals that's ever been advocated as a guide to goodness. Among its virtues is that it is conceptually simple, propagatable, prospectively directive, theologically agnostic, and selfless. Regarding that last point, we can actually develop obligations to act against our own interests under Utilitarianism. Actions like... the donation of that money to the poor that I was describing. Suppose I'm a stingy bastard? Doesn't matter; I must donate the money.

So now, let's apply the framework of Utilitarianism to the issue of my wife and "AP"? If I must forsake "my AP," I get... (we can actually afford to be a little categorical on this one) negative "Bentham units" (because... as I said: I dislike that plan). But notice: so does my wife. Yes, she is relieved of the burden of exposure to "my AP", but also of my company as her husband because I develop resentment toward my wife that poisons our marriage. Say of me what you will--perhaps I overrate myself--but my wife at least once thought of me as a "keeper" and it's not like I've suddenly begun to reek of bad fish... or have developed alcoholism or abusiveness or smoking, etc.. Let's look at the other path? If I get to recall "my AP" to friendship--newly bounded and transparent--I get a positive outcome (presumably unless my wife leaves me over "my AP," which she has to-date refused to do). Now, I will concede: my wife would clearly prefer that "my AP" remains out of my life permanently, so--on this path--my wife incurs a cost (i.e. negative "Bentham units") to "THE GOOD." Now, we tally. On the first path, we have a negative + a negative. Ouch! On the second path, we have a positive + a negative. So... which path yields the more positive or less negative net result? Well, at least as I've represented the math, the less negative or more positive path entails me getting to recall "my AP" to friendship--newly bounded and transparent! Hence... what's objectively the more virtuous path is me regaining access to "my AP"! Stated differently, Utilitarianism reveals the plan that's actually overall "for the best" (i.e. considered unselfishly) to be me re-befriending "my AP"!

[This message edited by Unconventional at 12:24 PM, Wednesday, September 30th]

I am 49 years old. Based on current actuarial data from the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), an average 49-year-old American male can expect to live an additional 30.1 years.

Childhood = totally different circumstances. Conclusion: Omit childhood. Adult lifetime friend count: 2 (wife + "my AP") over 31 years. 15.5 years per friend. ===> 2 more lifetime friends. Maybe. But who knows when I will meet him/her? In the meantime, "no AP" = wife only friend for Unconventional = crying

That's predictive statistics using the behavior you've used in the last 49 years. Change a variable, and the likely number of friends you make will change...You might have to shift things around in your life if socializing is something you want to prioritize, talk with more people, and experience some social rejection. Like, I haven't made an IRL friend in 6 years. If I continue behaving like an introverted forest creature who hates small talk, I don't expect to make any friends. But, say I start chitchatting with other mums on the playground, or at my child's activities, or with adults at my jiujitsu class? What if I spent less time online and took up an art class or attended a book club or something? I feel like I'd still have to wait around for a "click," but I'd be a) exposing myself to more people, and b) adopting a posture that's more open to new friendships.

People sense when others are closed off; you have to move through the world with openness... My mum just turned 50 and she makes friends all the time. She'll also have strangers trying to keep her in conversation for literal hours at a time everywhere she goes. But it's because she puts off so much openness. That used to occasionally happen to me, too (to my spergy horror) because I was always man-hunting and people-pleasing. When I started going places and found myself thinking "dear God I hope people fucking leave me alone today," refusing to look at people, and responding in small talk in ways that didn't give the other person an easy way to continue the conversation, that stopped... I imagine it would take some effort to reverse the habits and affect-- it always takes a lot of effort for me to mask/be social in general-- but that's the price of friendship. When I'm ready, I'll pay it. but for now, I want to make sure I'm well enough inside that I won't catch feelings for either gender of friends (this is the dark side of being bisexual), that my family is taken care of sufficiently, and that my life is generally in order.

Priorities.

(1) you're probably exaggerating my wife's pain because you're overlooking the safeguards that would be in-place;

Your wife's pain is your wife's pain regardless of what you decide it "should" be, and regardless of what we, here on SI, estimate that it is. Instead of insisting that these proposed external safeguards should make her feel safe, why don't you try being curious about how she actually feels, and seek to understand why? Adopt a posture that says to her, "I genuinely want to know how you feel [and not just because I have an agenda that requires your feelings changing" and encourage her to open up. If she won't, take some time to read posts and articles from other betrayed spouses here, to help you understand what she might be going through.

Also: you're not safe yet. You said just a few responses ago that you would weaponize infidelity in the future to manipulate your wife's behavior. (As gently as one can say this, that's some evil shit, dude.) Until you eliminate infidelity as even a possibility internally, because it's against your values, and your internal nature, REGARDLESS of what's happening in the exterior world, you will not be safe.

(2) you're definitely trivializing the painfulness to me of loneliness.

I'm not. I understand how painful loneliness is. But your loneliness doesn't give you the right to continue hurting your wife. I'm trying to help you find the tools with which to save yourself from that loneliness, without destroying your marriage in the process. If there's one thing my profession taught me, it's that excuses never solve problems. Those who trained me would often hand us a task that seemed impossible, and when we looked at them with dismay, disbelief, or confusion, their response would be "I don't care; figure it out!" And we often either did, or they showed us how it was done... I would tattoo that phrase on my body if it wasn't so expensive to do it. It's tattooed on my mind, at least. It's not soft, but it sure is effective.

Maslow's hierarchy puts "safety and security" towards the bottom of the pyramid and "love and belonging" (friendship, intimacy, sense of connection) above that. That says you should prioritize your wife's sense of safety over your social needs, for now. Again, I'm not saying you need to remain lonely and socially isolated-- you can make new friends. You just can't have the friend back that makes your wife (reasonably!) feel unsafe. You can't math away her feelings (especially when statistically, she has one data point right now, which is that when you had a friendship with this particular person, emotional infidelity was the result. This is not a safe or worthwhile experiment for her to be made to continually participate in order to collect further data. The ethics board does not approve.)

Edited to add: a good person to talk to about this would be Pogre, but you would either need to post in one of the forums where other BS can respond (very hazardous given your present position) or get to 51 posts so you can message him, and even then, it's not guaranteed he will want to talk to you. But it might be worth a shot.

[This message edited by GotTheMorbs at 1:55 PM, Wednesday, September 30th]

My plan is still to spend the next 19 months completely all-in on rebuilding my marriage.

You say "completely all-in" but… That's the furthest thing from "transparency." That's lying by omission and manipulation

.

I have been keenly aware that the withholding of information about my intentions is manipulative, and I don’t love it. However, while I don’t love this answer of mine either, considering what’s at stake here (my friendship and my marriage), I am willing to let the ends justify the means this time. Catholics are supposed to reject such thought. I will not—not in this instance, anyhow.

It also strikes me as odd that you can so readily accept OW's agency if she declines to resume the friendship, but you don't grant the same acceptance of agency to your wife if she doesn't want OW in your lives.

Yes, I feel the tension there, too. Basically, "my AP" is an extremely selfless person. When one of her female employees had a breakup with the employee’s live-in boyfriend, "my AP" asked where the employee would be sleeping. Told that the employee intended to rent a room in a dirt cheap motel, "my AP" told the employee: that’s not safe. Come, sleep at my place for a few days, until you can get back on your feet. "My AP"—who was definitely not "putting moves" on her employee—literally shared her own bed with this employee as an act of compassion. I remember "my AP" texting me: "this is awkward!" Although a less vivid story, "my AP" would regularly smile through painful stories to hide her feelings. She told me in her "Dear John" letter to focus on my wife and to let go of the memory of "my AP" or hate her—but I believe her letter was written—as yet another act of selflessness—to encourage me to do what "my AP" thought would best serve my marriage. I believe ardently that a woman’s "no" to a man should absolutely mean "no," but I have to know if "my AP’s" guidance to forget her and not return to her was authentically what she wanted, or was she just lying as usual to be selfless. In my heart, I can justify one small ask for clarification. Something like: I have missed you daily since I have been gone. I accepted your challenges to me. I have been fully in service to my wife for 2 years. I have done all I could to heal her and put her needs first. I have tried constantly to do what I have believed was the right and proper thing. My wife has granted me permission for this final contact. (I won’t lie there; I’d write that only if it’s true.) I know it won’t be just like it was for us, but please consider whether we could try talking again about lighter stuff? If you refuse this offer, I will accept your decision. I will not harass you. You won’t ever hear from me again. I will return to my wife and have only her in my life—but I’d deeply appreciate a chance to count you again as a friend.

I own overwhelming culpability--just not 100% of the blame.

You need to own ALL of it. You're a grown ass adult. Your choices were, and remain, your own. Nobody made you catch feelings for someone who wasn't your wife and then continue the relationship behind her back. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to do that. I don't care how bad your marriage was; you had other choices, and you didn't take them. It's nobody else's fault but your own, as hard as that is to accept. …You COULD HAVE just ENDED YOUR MARRIAGE. I[t] wouldn't have been easy or comfortable or, I'm sure, looked upon favorably by your religious community, but that would have been the honorable thing to do if you couldn't tolerate the conditions and restrictions of your monogamous marital arrangement.

Your suggestion reflects a misunderstanding—of Catholicism, not per se of me. Divorce isn’t shameful for Catholics. Divorce is meaningless for Catholics. I mean: sure, there are legal ramifications for Catholics who divorce—the same as for anyone else who divorces—but there are no religious ramifications. It’s not stigmatizing for a Catholic to divorce, but a divorced Catholic cannot have romance/sex with or religiously marry anyone but the Catholic’s divorced spouse. Religiously, we believe that divorce does nothing. Sign all the legal paperwork you want. Stand before judges or arbitrators all you like. Live where you want. But you are still married to whomsoever you once married. So… a divorce doesn’t uncouple a couple. A divorce wouldn’t have been "honorable" because it would’ve accomplished literally absolutely nothing! We might as have well folded paper airplanes! My wife would tell you the same thing. There is no offense against a marriage or a person and no ceremonial means that can end a marriage, once it’s sealed by an eligible engaged couple.

Annulments don’t technically end a marriage either. Technically, they record official Church recognition that a marriage never sacramentally occurred in the first place. So…. for instance… If a "husband" has sex with a stranger on the honeymoon, the "wife" can petition for an annulment on the grounds that the "husband" never really meant his promise of sexual fidelity to his "wife." If an annulment is awarded, the once-couple is recognized by the Church as never actually having sacramentally been married. That’s why both of the once-"married" spouses are allowed to find other partners and marry them. Say all you want about how evil I am today, but I meant what I said way-back-when when I married my wife. As such, even if I really did have a full affair…. even if I was… I dunno… let’s just say: physically to abuse my wife (although something that evil isn’t in me)… there cannot be an annulment of my marriage on the basis of my subsequent actions. That’s how Catholics understand marriages to be permanent.

[This message edited by Unconventional at 10:37 PM, Wednesday, September 30th]