When I read MN threads, I often picture the people or families involved and think about how everyone might be feeling. Really difficult in this case with the betrayer vs the betrayed malarkey making it difficult to follow what’s happened. It is a bit easier now. Many people assuming this op is male but I’m taking them at face value.
Originally I thought it was the DH who had the emotional affair. But this is what I’m now imagining: that the op is a woman who was ignored by their DH, who would sit silently during meals or car rides, maybe being emotionally unavailable, not so empathetic and did not particularly make any effort with sex or communication etc in the marriage (possibly autistic) and as a result the op as wife felt unloved or less loved. She tried suggesting counselling, but the DH said no. Then the op met someone else, found them attractive, started an emotional affair and wanted a full on affair but also to stay in the marriage.
All of that is believable. Men do that, why not women? Men say they love their wives as well as their mistresses, so why not women?
What lost me was the stuff about the flow chart, tattoos and war references as, like others, I could not follow that logic. It did seem that she was trying to justify why she thought her DH wouldn’t be that upset for her to have an affair. All of that seems quite a convoluted way of saying that the op is also not very empathetic (and also possibly autistic - who does a flowchart about needs not being met fgs) because apart from open marriages, a spouse is going to feel upset, hurt, angry and betrayed if their partner says they want to go get sex with someone else. Because it’s never just sex.
But also tells me not to be sexist because I would’ve assumed that only a man would make such an argument (I thought you wouldn’t mind), but why not a woman too?