Husband signed up to dating website

[ShockedBeyondBelief]

I've name changed as I post a bit in other topics and don't really want mumsnetters or people in RL to know about this.

I found out at the weekend that my husband has joined an online dating website, specifically looking for sex. He says it was a stupid mistake, that he hadn't contacted anyone and he wasn't planning to.

But obviously even if that's true, I'm still pretty gutted, although am feeling a bit detached and unemotional right now.

I have held my hands up and said I'm partly responsible for this, as our relationship has been very up and down and sex life pretty sporadic since we had our 20-month-old ds.

What do I do now? I have no idea how to move on from this. I don't feel I can tell RL friends as I don't want them to hate my husband. Has anyone been in a similar situation?

WWIFN, none of us can tell what he would have done because we're not psychic. It's quite a big step from just being on the website to actually meeting and having sex with someone.

I agree.

WWIFN- your DH obviously had an emotional connection with this woman. It wasn't just sex.

Yes, affairs often have a build up period and a time when the partner emotionally detaches themselves from their other half- or the detachment has been there for a while anyway.

You continue to post at length about your DH's affair; some of this is very helpful, but it might be just cathartic for you; I also think it is at the other end of the "affair spectrum" and not directly relevant to the OP.

The bit that is relevant is that they need to talk and dsicover why other forbidden fruit was attractive.

SGB - just as I cannot say that the OP's H would have gone ahead, neither can you say that "it isn't true". We simply don't know - and crucially, neither does he. What I am trying to get the OP and her H to consider (and I accept it would be painful) is that, having gone to the trouble of signing up to a website and committing funds - any funds - there is some intent there to begin with.

What he cannot know is how it would have made him feel having lots of approaches. I'd imagine that it would have been a hell of a boost and pretty addictive. None of us knows (unless we have been addicted to the same thing in the past) how we might react to an intoxicating substance. We might in fact fear that we would get addicted - and so we don't put our toe in the water.

This man did put his toe in the water in a situation with an unmistakeable agenda - it occurs to me that he cannot delude himself he didn't know what he was getting into, but he might be deluding himself that he wouldn't have followed through. All I am saying is, challenge that statement - often it really isn't true and it's not that the OP's H would be necessarily lying to his wife - but he might be lying to himself.

I'd also take no comfort from the fact that this was a "sex-only" agenda. Like others have said, I too wouldn't have been comfortable with my H risking so much for something that was meaningless. I also happen to think that lots of people (more men than women, in fact) delude themselves that "it was just sex" when the more uncomfortable truth is that there were other needs in play.

Of course people aren't "wind-up toys" who all react in the same way - how condescending! It very much depends on their personalities and their mental state at a given moment.

PP, no - my story is pretty well-documented on here, but I discovered H's affair, ironically at the point that the infatuation had well and truly burnt out (for my H) and he was trying to end it, without a hell of a backlash. On discovery, he ended it immediately and it was no sacrifice. Ignorance would not have been bliss at all though - I never think it is. We would never have learnt how to have a really fulfilling marriage if I hadn't found out - and both of us are eternally grateful that it all came out into the open. The reason for the affair would never have been addressed and my H would have continued with the mistaken belief that this had meant nothing at all.

Well at risk of stero-typing men, I'd say they look outside their marriages for these things:

sex
love
affection
adoration
ego boost
boredom
intellectual stimulus

not in that order, or exclusively. What drives then there is a lack of all or some in their marriages.

I don't think that humans are mongamous by nature. There are certainly plenty of cultures and countries ( eg France) where having a mistress/lover is quite acceptable and encouraged!

What stops us jumping into bed is usually the notion that we will be found out and our partner , or the lover, hurt.

Sometimes though the needs outweigh these fears which are displaced.

OP you need to find out why he was looking and what you can both do to stop it happening again.

There are some men who can't keep their trousers on yet they love their wives absolutely. There are some wives who are happy to turn a blind eye to indiscretions. Not saying iwould or could, but just trying to give a broader perspective so that you don't think what has happened is the end of the world.

If you love someone absolutely and your relationship is happy and fulfilling - you don't cheat on them.
People only cheat when there is something lacking with their parner.

The men who profess to adore their wives whilst putting it about, are selfish egotists who think their "needs" are more important. It might seem like love in their tiny minds, but people who love absolutely, don't cheat.

I also meant to say that a partner looking for just sex with another person is far worse in my eyes than someone who forms an emotional connection.

If someone would risk their whole family for a meaningless shag, they don't deserve forgiveness.

I'd add respect to that list PP, but I don't think they're looking for boredom - I knew what you meant though!

I agree, everyone in this situation needs to find out what their particular spouse's needs were - and don't make assumptions that all men and all spouses have the same needs as eachother.

Be prepared also for the spouse themselves to convince themselves that it was one need, when in fact it was another. People delude themselves (and in turn their spouses) all the time about this issue. The truth is often more uncomfortable, but very necessary to move on. With us, for example, we are under absolutely no illusions now that my H did have an emotional connection to someone he had believed he was only seeing for (poor) sex. Fortunately, that connection had a very short shelf life once he got to know her as a person.

i agree with you whenwillifeelnormal.

There seems to be something of a contradiction in that Mal- if it is meaningless then why would it break up a family? And if you are attaching so much importance to sex,maybe you have put it on a pedestal?

Mal- I also think that where these kind of debates come unstuck is that each of us has our own interpretation of absolutely.
what absolutely means to you can be very different for someone else. For some men- and this is not necessarily my view- they canlove but sexual fidelity is not part of that- and some wives are happy to live like that. (Remember Alan and Jane Clark?)

I know that you see these issues as very black and white. From what you have posted about yourself, I'd say you are very lucky to have found complete happiness with your (only) boyfriend from your teens.

You are in some ways in a very enviable position BUT it does also mean that you have never, as far as I can tell, been exposed to the ambiguities of relationships or experienced certain feelings within human relationships. Thats not to say what you believe is right or wrong,but there is no substitute for having experienced a wioder range of relationships. It does give you a different perspective.

I think that it's a mistake to make this a gender issue - women are no more naturally monogamous than men. Again, a lot of the problems in this area come from the myth that monogamy is the Only Way - many people would be a lot happier negotiating a style of relationships that suits their circumstances (ie some people with low or non-existent libidos would rather a partner sought sex - but not an 'emotional connection' elsewhere, some people prefer agreed open relationships.) It's the people who are not particularly monogamous but who have fallen for the myth of monogamy's superiority that make themselves and their partners the most miserable.

SGB

I agree that this should be gender free.

I think it's one thing to say that monogamy doesn't suit everyone-you for example- but when people marry the vows say that they will forsake all others- so it's a bit late then to consider another option.

I also think it would help your cause if you didn't use such emotional language- such as fallen for and myth and superiority.

These are very inflammatory terms- which you seem to use to provoke a reaction, rather than simply saying it's what works for you.

Also, I don't think it is ever as easy as saying some people prefer sex with no emotional connection. I wonder how many of those people are settling for supposedly emotion-free sex ecasue they can't find anyone who they want to have a connection with- or who wants a connection with them?

Shocked, I'm afraid your thread was so long I just read the last pages, to see where you were at. Some good stuff in there, though, I see I'll have to put off even more housework to read it thoroughly

I'm VASTLY relieved that you & DH have opened new discussions and have even booked some counselling! Signing up to a sex website isn't exactly the most loving thing you can do ... But neither is it the same as having an affair or a sex addiction. The whole tone of your first post made me think it was a "cry for help" and it's looking that way now.

Isn't it weird how we can skirt around the important issues - even when we have a good, communicative relationship - letting the unsaid things grow larger and larger? In rehab, as I'm sure you know, they call this "the elephant in the room": Everyone can see it, nobody mentions it, and it grows so large that the people can't see round it to talk to each other!

A nuisance that his trip has come up at such a sensitive time. Hope you enjoy your nightly skype chats! Good luck to both of you

Purplepeony: but it is a myth that monogamy is inherently superior to other ways of arranging one's relationships, and a damaging one. Because it's very obvious that monogamy is not actually the 'natural' way for human beings to behave, and as compulsory monogamy clearly doesn't work, it would be better for people to think things through and consider other options, rather than trying to enforce monogamy on others.

A myth according to whom?

Shocked, I know you say you want to work at your marriage and make it work, but it takes two to want that, and you can't make a marriage silk purse out of wannabecheater pig's ear.

You should let him know that you're seriously in two minds about whether he can be the kind of husband worth sticking with, or whether you should bail.

I certainly would not be having sex right now just to please him... shudder. that would make me feel really used. just like a passing vagina. in fact. a passing one would have been better.

I recently read an article about Alan and Jane Clark, and it was very very weird. I alwyas used to think he was just a bit of a lad (love the diaries), but actually I think he was a bit creepy. He met her when she was 13 (and he was 26 or something) and got obsessed with her straight away and married her when she was 16 and he was 30. He was totally unfaithful right from the off, and tbh I think he just brainwashed her into thinking the way he did things was acceptable.

yes... he imprisoned her in an unequal marriage before she had a chance to gain any confidence from living independently as an adult. for her to break away would have been like divorcing a father figure.

Alan Clark is totally weird, creepy - and a self-centred old goat in the bargain It's an entertaining read, though, eh?

Is Swannmum Jane Clark?

Getting into the well-worn debate about whether monogamy works is a bit of a red-herring here, I feel. It's what Shocked and her H expected of eachother and there has been no re-negotiation of that agreement. When one partner decides not to be monogamous and doesn't tell the other, there is deceit involved and a removal of choices from one of the parties.

SGB, I also think the words "fallen for" imply that those who choose monogamy and feel happiest with that lifestyle, are deluding themselves and are somewhat stupid.

I also think (and this is not just directed at you SGB) that the anti-monogamists on Mumsnet would have a far more compelling argument for their lifestyle if they ever actually sounded happy. Instead, they increasingly sound vitriolic, argumentative and aggressive.

I agree with you whenwill. I agree with SGB 90% of the time, but you can't say that monogamy doesn't work for two reasons, 1) it does work for a lot of people and 2) there isn't a better system.

WWIFN- I agree as unless it has been agreed in advance, then it's not a fair option. it is also a red herring here, as presumably the OP does not want a non-monogamous relationship.

Also, I don't think it is fair to use language which implies that one form of lifestyle is superior- or inferior- to another, and that by choosing whichever, one has been duped, or brain washed- which is what the words "fallen for" imply- as if it's a trick of some kind.
It is about choice.

No one comes on here slagging off no-monogamous relationships, so it's not really necesary to keep banging away about the downside of monogamy.

It certainly won't help the OP.

Alan Clark total creepy weirdo. I read that he was a Nazi sympathiser, and also that when he met his future wife Jane, he wrote in his diary 'she will make a great victim'.

He also forced a young girl that he had knocked up to have an abortion, despite speaking passionately against abortion in parliament.

I simply don't accept Alan and Jane Clark as an example of adults choosing not to be monogamous. To me it just looks like an abusive, philandering relationship.

Sorry OP, have only read some of this. Good luck with the counselling.

Jane Clark has also since admitted that she 'hadn't known the half of it' but still won't criticise him publically.

Purple Peony, please correct me if I've got this wrong, but from your posts you seem to me to have very old-fashioned views about sex.

You seem to feel that men can't help themselves, and need sex in a way that women do not. That 'some men can't keep their trousers on', bless them, and that it's somehow a womans duty to understand this and not complain too much.

Women enjoy sex as much as men you know, and men are perfectly capable of controlling themselves. They have free will and can make choices, just as we can, no?