Note: You can change font size, font face, and turn on dark mode by clicking the "A" icon tab in the Story Info Box.
You can temporarily switch back to a Classic Literotica® experience during our ongoing public Beta testing. Please consider leaving feedback on issues you experience or suggest improvements.
Click hereThe opposite of the reconciliation wife-to-separation story is the MSR-to-reconciliation story--one of the most unsatisfying combinations to be found on Loving Wives. An egregious example of this--"February Sucks"--is, ironically, one of the most read stories on the site. I'm not going to warn about spoilers on this because if you haven't read it by now, you probably aren't going to.
February Sucks begins with a VERY loving family that is drawn even closer by a particularly cruel winter. By highlighting Jim and Linda's devotion to each other and to their family in a very stressful situation, GeorgeAnderson brilliantly sets up the depth of the betrayal that follows.
When the betrayal occurs, it comes completely out of nowhere, and leaves Jim incredibly exposed. Humiliated in a public place, betrayed by his friends, distanced from his family, he is completely alone and completely blindsided. As the story goes on, the onslaught continues, with Linda refusing to acknowledge the depth of her betrayal, repeatedly exposing Jim to the dress she wore the night in question, and writing a very explicit letter that makes it clear that he will spend the rest of their married life living in the shadow of her once-in-a-lifetime fuck. If this wasn't enough, LW (a family friend and lawyer) sets up a humiliating turnabout: Jim gets a bit of ego back when he is picked up by a beautiful woman, only to have it stripped away when LW tells him and Linda that the woman was an escort.
(As I was writing this, I read "February Sucks" again. Jim's martyrdom is just as brutal as I remembered. You just want to tell the poor bastard to run away and join the French Foreign Legion--sure, the sex life won't be as good, but chances are that the local camel the unit uses for "recreation" won't ditch you for Mark fucking LaValliere.)
(Another side note: My story, "February Sucks and Jim Is Going to End Up Fucking a Camel," is in production. Please don't steal the idea.)
"February Sucks" opens like a classic MSR/BTB story in which the main character is confronted with the vulnerability of the life he's constructed. He takes mortal hits to his sense of self, his sense of his marriage, and his hopes for the future. In a standard MSR/BTB story, he would then go on a short alcoholic bender, after which he would develop a plan to recover from this problem. He would get into shape, divorce his wife, avenge himself upon the cheating couple, and find a better spouse. Along the way, he'd (hopefully) also build a stronger relationship with his kids.
In Jim's case, the path to self-development is hindered by his repeated apologies and--as NoTalentHack's take on the story highlights--constant gaslighting from everyone in his circle. It effectively ends when he decides to reconcile with Linda, even though the story makes it clear that her infidelity has all but broken him.
Needless to say, readers were outraged, scoring the story with a 3.96 and pelting it with brutal comments. It's not hard to see why they felt betrayed: The MSR setup for Linda's infidelity, coupled with what felt like an insufficient punishment and an insufficient ego-rebuilding on Jim's part, made the story incredibly imbalanced. Jim never really recovers from Linda's infidelity, and his decision to reconcile feels an awful lot like the result of martyrdom, coupled with low self-esteem.
Finding a Balance
I would argue that, as readers, we crave balance. We want a punishment that is commensurate with the crime. That can take a lot of forms, although it usually centers around the main character getting extramarital sex to balance his wife's, revenge on the boyfriend to balance the pain he caused, punishment/contrition for the wife to balance her crime, or some combination of the above. Regardless, that balance must be returned, or the ending will feel unresolved.
(By the way, this isn't to say that all imbalanced stories are bad. Some of the best stories on the site don't have a satisfying resolution. You can usually tell which ones they are, as they tend to have lots of comments that say things like "Finish the damn story!")
This, I'd argue, is why so many writers have written alternate versions of "February Sucks." Put simply, they're looking to find a way to balance the equation. Either Linda needs to suffer more in the aftermath of her cheating (which would turn the story into a familiar MSR/BTB setup), or she needs more justification for her affair (which would set the story up for a satisfying reconciliation). The vast majority of rewrites have followed one of these two paths.
The most common approach is to make Linda suffer. Literally dozens of writers have created some version of a BTB, in which Linda and Jim divorce, Mark LaValliere gets killed or maimed, Linda ends up in a mental institution, Jim ends up with Ellen, LaValliere ends up in prison, etc. Put simply, there's a litany of tortures out there. The common thread that, in all of these stories, Jim gets his pound of flesh to balance out the cruelty of Linda's adultery.
On the flip side, a lot of writers have tried to balance the story in the opposite direction by retconning a justification or precedent for Linda's actions. These have included a conspiracy on the part of all the wives, an underlying dissatisfaction with her marriage, a kidnapping plot, etc. In other words, they've tried to reconcile a MSR story by demolishing the Martian Slut Ray. While generally not as popular as the BTB revisions, these also leave the reader with a satisfying conclusion.
SPOILER WARNING: There are spoilers in the two paragraphs below. To avoid them, skip ahead to the "Conclusion" heading below
(Another side note: An interesting rewrite is the collaboration between KitDeLuca164 and AimsAtSkies. In her version, DeLuca tacks hard into the unforgiveable humiliation factor, then tries to go with a reconciliation ending. Needless to say, readers rebelled...rather intensely. AimsAtSkies set himself the daunting task of pulling a satisfying reconciliation out of KDL's humiliation-plus ending. In two stories, totaling over 34,000 words [by comparison, the original "February Sucks" was around 28,200 words], he loads on a ton of soul-searching for Linda, sex for Jim, and misery for Marc to balance the scale.)
One last point: It's possible to pull a VERY satisfying reconciliation out of a story that begins with a BTB opener. If you haven't read NoTalentHack's At the End of the Tour and Funeral Dirge for a Fairytale, I strongly suggest that you give them a peek. With thoughtful character construction, the slow revelation of key details, and a very nice use of unreliable narrators, he builds a pair of stories that are successful and satisfying from both sides of the BTB/reconciliation divide.
Conclusion (Or Epilogue, if you prefer)
I've been accused in the past of dismissing BTB stories (and, by extension, Martian Slut Rays) in favor of those that feature personal-growth and redemption. To be honest, there is some truth to that accusation--I think that the latter are harder to write, demand more effort and skill on the part of the writer, and tend to be better stories overall. That said, I also read a lot of BTB stories, and I often score them highly. The point, I think, is to recognize what a story is supposed to do, and judge it on those merits.
BTB stories are about healing, catharsis, and balance. In the real world, most crimes go unpunished, most injustices are ignored, and imbalances are rarely fixed. Put simply, our world just isn't fair. BTB stories fix that: With simple plots and exciting devices, they give the reader what life doesn't--a world where things work out, where justice is served, and where scales are balanced. Is it simple? Yes. Is it satisfying? HELL YES!
The point isn't saying that this story is better or that story is worse. The point is figuring out the stories we want to tell, giving ourselves the tools to tell them, and recognizing what our stories have to do if we want them to feel satisfying.
And, of course, deciding if we REALLY want to satisfy the reader...
- COMMENTS
Struckwrongabout 1 month agoThe trouble with them all is that men with options don't share.
Sure the ones there to White Knight once the Chads and Tyrones are through sure thing. They are there for that.
Top notch spouse material knows it and knows that their imperfections do not =their partners joining genitalias covertly in trying times while they remain the ignorant fools.
In short for those who have options there is no getting back together or redemption that achieves that much.
They are able to upgrade and do.
Anonymous6 months ago> Because she was hit by the ray, she can't satisfactorily explain the reason for her crime, making it impossible for her to atone for it, much less promise that it won't happen again.
In the real world, I think most cheaters (men and women) are narcissistic turds and there is no reasoning with them. They did it because they wanted to, and that is all. Their rationalizations are usually paper thin and don’t really matter. So that part is realistic to a great degree, even if it doesn’t make for a compelling literary character.
Any ‘actual reasons’ here could be handled with a marriage counselor and/or divorce lawyer without any Loving Wives material. Sure, people “cheat to leave” and have exit affairs, but that’s not the MSR.
Anonymous8 months agoTherapists have all sorts of complex, and flowery reasons why people cheat. All designed to deflect blame from the cheater and of course make more money for themselves as they help the damaged relationship navigate through this tragedy. The truth of the matter is most men and women cheat because the opportunity presented itself. Just look at the facts about which professions have the most cheaters! It’s the ones that provide the best opportunities whether because of schedules or travel. Both men and women get struck all the time by the MSR! It isn’t that complicated
Anonymous8 months agoA rather lengthy treatise on the MSR. Well thought out too, but it lacks something. An element of proof that it doesn’t exist in the real world!
No one has offered one iota of evidence that the MSR isn’t a very real phenomena.
My theory is that is because it would paint women in an unfavorable light. They would then be perpetrators instead of victims. Because then they would be just like men. The truth is men cheat for the dumbest spontaneous reasons without a moment’s thought to the ramifications of their actions. Women couldn’t be as stupid as men, right?
gatorhermit9 months agoOn the one hand, Bruce’s essay is logical and makes sense. However, I think with at least some of the stories there is a high correlation with real life events. IRL it is difficult to know how to respond to a cheating spouse of either sex, especially if there are kids involved.
I think one thing Bruce missed in his essay was the myth of the penitent cheater who will do anything to get the spouse back. Real people don’t act that way, especially women. Papa Toad and JPB write the best “I am never wrong” unrepentant spouse characters.
All that said, this is an excellent, thought-provoking essay.
bobareeno12 months agoI really enjoyed Bruce 1971’s analysis.
One aspect of the MSR that I tried to pick apart is the Magic Cock story in Loving Wives, and "February Sucks" is one that uses this storyline. I wrote the following comment in response to Tnicoll’s “Conversations,” which was a great story that plumbed the depths of the Magic Cock storylines in an interesting way. I tried to illuminate some of the issues, and I think the analysis, while not as well reasoned as Bruce1971’s here, has sufficient bearing on the MSR idea that it is worth repeating. So, here it is:
The premise of this tale is interesting, compelling, and oft repeated. It deserves a closer look. A perfect long term marriage once again sacrificed for a one-off perfect fuck session with a stranger. This one was handled well, but it leaves the mythos surrounded by the same cloud of magic as the rest of them, though it confronts it more directly.
In the world of this type of storyline the villain is a too handsome super rich dude, or at least, a stunningly handsome and glib pussy hound. The wife's short interaction with the magic villain melts the wife's thought processes and resistance, and the villain, sadly for her husband, actually proves himself to be the owner of the magic cock, or the holder of magic skills.
Here the author lets the reader guess which factor or factors brought about the wife's best sex ever. But the how of it is superfluous to the trope. The compelling part is that no marriage is safe from this sex god, and once experienced, his presence will overshadow every further sexual encounter of those he mounts. That means, of course, that not only has the wife experienced the best sex ever, but her husband's humiliation is permanent, he can never be his wife's sexual hero.
The husband, sexually, is a lesser man. He is an average Joe. He is you and me. We may think we've had our moments of incredible sex with our wives, but those memories are dashed upon the treacherous rocks of the betrayal of the wife on the sex god villain's prowess. She, in honesty, must admit that she is hopeless against her desire to repeat the magical sex she has had, and though the villain is no longer in the picture, he is always present.
In this tale she is shown in her before and after state, in the guise of the wife and doctor. I found this aspect of the story a particularly excellent device. The power of the villain sex god, who fails to even remember the after character, is shown to be a life destroyer, but still so powerful that the victim begs for another magical experience. The after character, the doctor’s, selfless and selfish request to repeat her tryst with the Magic Cock was doomed, since it was also intended to save the before woman from becoming the after woman. That is, the doctor sought to keep the before wife a normal wife, instead of becoming a wife who experienced the pinnacle of all sexuality, a wife whose husband would always know, if she was honest about her experience with the sex god, that he, the husband, was the lesser man.
The sex god's motivation in these tales is not to bestow a superlative experience on his conquests, even though that is what his sexuality does. His sexual ability is the tool that enables him to destroy loving relationships. His desire is really focused upon the humiliation of the husbands of his victims. The lesson is that his heartlessness and sexual ability trumps all loving devotion and sexual loving in a marriage.
Imagine the story without the husband. She is single, and she has the ultimate sexual weekend experience with the Magic Cock. Interesting contrast, isn't it? Kind of a big "so what?" So thereafter she meets other men who are less amazing in the sack. She marries one. Along comes that Magic Cock from her past. Now, in the context of the marriage, the Magic Cock regains its emotionally cathartic power. Ultimately, the sex god is the winner, love, devotion, their history together, all be damned, she is off to re-experience the perfect fuck.
At the heart of these tropes is the fear of loss of love to a base overwhelming sexual desire. The woman in the stories may separate the two, wanting the sexual experience, but willing to return to settle for love, believing the love can remain after the sexual super bang. The men in these stories often refuse the return to what they have learned is their hum drum love, knowing that for her the sexual peak was the real prize, and they are only second best.
While this is grist for the mill in tales of this type, in real life it seems apparent that it is men who are more often overcome by a woman's good looks and want to follow their cocks into that tasty pussy. Perhaps tales of this type are so cathartic because male readers see in these stories a reflection of their own propensities; the desire for the ultimate woman and ultimate sexual experience seems to be built into men, and so the obverse, the woman seeking the ultimate male, really resonates in the male psyche as a possible killer of their own relationships.
Switch it around in your head. The husband meets the ultimate fem fatale, he tells the wife he is off for a weekend of sex with a female sex god. He returns after his best sex ever. His sex life with is wife is mundane now. Somehow, the switch renders this scenario fairly lifeless, it is not compelling.
I think, buried beneath the clear emotional responses these Magic Cock stories evoke, there is a kernel of truth about men's perceptions of sexuality and women. Perhaps by substituting sexes and running them through the same tale, the changes to the reader's emotional responses caused by the substitutions might reveal some of the deeper psychological, moral, and even sexual political issues in play.
Anonymous12 months agoOK. I think I speak for many readers here when i say "STOP LOOKING INTO MY SOUL!"
Seriously, this is insightful. It's in line with my own thoughts but goes past what I'd considered.
If I were to call out a gap in your analysis (in an attempt to get you to do an analysis and provide supporting links), I'd highlight the space for stories where the husband waffles around and then reconciliation (or BTB) occurs. Waffling around is common in cuckold stories, as is acceptance. But transforming an initial ambivalence or inaction (a la Feburary Sucks) into eventual action is often discarded in favour of a protaganist made of solid steel who discards his wife immediately instead of going through a hysterical bonding process.
I'd love to get your thoughts on that...
Grendelpuppy12 months agoExcellent analysis. Five stars.
BTW, Why is everyone referring to the Martian Slut Ray? Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. Mars is the god of war while Venus is the goddess of love. These women are getting hit with the Venusian Slut Ray, not the Martian Death Ray.
Anonymousabout 1 year agoI enjoyed the thoughtful analysis here and I shall read it again.
A total side issue for me on the comment about the French Foreign Legion unit using the camel is that isn't the way the joke goes. This is the version I know:
"A Captain in the foreign legion was transferred to a desert outpost. On his orientation tour he noticed a very old, seedy looking camel tied out back of the enlisted men's barracks.
He asked the Sergeant leading the tour, “What’s the camel for?” The Sergeant replied “Well sir it’s a long way from anywhere, and the men have natural sexual urges, so when they do, uh, we have the camel.”
The captain said “Well if it’s good for morale, then I guess it’s all right with me.”
After he had been at the fort for about 6 months the captain could not stand it any more so he told his Sergeant, “BRING IN THE CAMEL!!!” The Sergeant shrugged his shoulders and led the camel into the captains quarters. The captain got a foot stool and proceeded to have vigorous sex with the camel. As he stepped, satisfied, down from the stool, and was buttoning his pants he asked the Sergeant, “Is that how the enlisted men do it?”
The Sergeant replied, “Well sir, they usually just use it to ride into town.”
Blastusabout 1 year agoI sho'nuff enjoyed this essay, notwithstanding less than subtle put downs of the readers and authors.
I found The Bridge by Richard Gerald to be more nuanced than February Sucks and would like to know this author's opinion.
Anonymousabout 1 year agoNot sure about your definition of the MSR. My understanding after many years here is that it is akin to what we see in the story "Thunderbolt" (I think that's the title). The wife meets a player at a friend's party and goes off to fuck him all night. She even tells hubby on her return that she can't explain the instant, overpowering attraction.
I don't think that February Sucks is an example of MSR. George Anderson doesn't seem to. He very clearly lays out the predicate at the beginning of his story for why a woman would go off to fuck a hot celebrity. It is a reasoned decision. One that a lot of women have acknowledged that they would make as well, if they had the opportunity.
MSR doesn't apply any time a woman has an affair that takes the husband by surprise because he thinks they have a great marriage. Affairs happen all the time in decent quality relationships. Cake eaters eat cake. They think they won't get caught and they love the excitement of a little on the side. It's explicable. The MSR is, I would argue by definition, inexplicable.
Screwing a celebrity stud is easy to explain. Typical affairs are easy to explain. The slut ray, on the other hand, is used as the answer when she trashes her marriage for some sleazeball in a way that seems like she has been hypnotized or drugged. That she has somehow lost agency or control.
Doc_Sportelloover 1 year agoThe flaw that makes BTB yarns unsatisfying dramatically speaking, is that the wife's actions are presented as shallow, selfish, stupid. The wife, in other words, is a 'bitch'.
.
Which leaves the reader with the question: why did the MC choose her in the 1st place, and why has he not realized her true character after decades of marriage?
Anonymousover 1 year agoWow! One crow short of a murder, eh? I must admit that I’ve never seen such a distortion of Christian values, so kudos to you Tw0Cr0ws! Quite an accomplishment! I presume that you’ve never read the Sermon on the Mount, so you might want to give it a quick skim.
The notion of balance in justice is ancient (see retributive justice, lex talionis, etc.) and encapsulated in “an eye for an eye.” But that means that the punishment must not exceed the crime. So, at the extreme, only a person who has killed should receive the death penalty. One is not allowed to kill someone else unless that person has killed. Period. Not a bad system, but that predates Christianity.
So, what did Jesus say? I don’t speak Aramaic or whatever the language might have been, so I’ll go with an English “translation.”
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.”
So, Jesus is saying that retributive justice is passé…instead he proposes the notion of “turn the other cheek,” rather than “get even.” Does that ring a bell?
Tw0Cr0ws espouses, “Go back to the source material for Judaism and Christianity, if the husband divorces an adulterous wife and then marries another while his first wife is still alive he is committing adultery.” Huh? Really? So, then, to avoid adultery, one should commit murder? You not only have to divorce your wife, but kill her in order to avoid adultery if you should remarry? Gimme a break! You’ll have to provide some very explicit sources to support such nonsense.
But back to that famous sermon:
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Please note: “except on the ground of sexual immorality”
But Jesus sure does seem to have a lot of good advice for manly men, doesn’t he?
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”
“Judge not, that you be not judged.” You might remember elsewhere in the Bible, when the crowd is about to stone a woman, Jesus suggests that the one without sin cast the first stone. The crowd just disperses.
Even people who aren’t Christian, but believe in retributive justice, should understand that the penalty for adultery (which as far as I know isn’t a crime) cannot be death or even bodily harm. But people who purport to be Christian take on an even higher standard. They have to turn the other cheek, for the Lord says “vengeance is Mine” and “God will repay, so leave room for His wrath. You don't need to take it into your hands when you know it is in His.” To choose not to seek vengeance or retribution is very difficult and requires a real man.
Anonymousover 1 year agoNRN
Well, I would argue that true balance may be tricky, but it can’t be totally subjective. Otherwise, we wouldn’t “all have a feeling when a crime and punishment are balanced.” (I would argue that “all” is too strong, but maybe “most.”) I would prefer that there were no death penalty, but I think that virtually everyone would agree that it should be reserved for the most heinous crimes. How, then, do so many commenters push for death or serious physical damage as punishment for cheating? That’s the lack of balance that I see all too often in comments.
I think I agree with your point about comments. That is, the commenter takes the author to task because he or she didn’t mete out sufficient punishment…and hence the perceived imbalance. “If it were me, I’d take my Glock and shoot both of them!” And I think they’re serious. That scares me.
I don’t agree with ratings as a metric for balance. Some readers (me included) rate a story for the quality of the writing, the cohesiveness of the plot, the development of the characters, etc. I don’t really consider whether any punishment in the story balances the “crime.” I’m just looking for an engaging yarn. But I’m offended by readers who ignore the quality of the story and proudly give a rating of 1* to a talented writer (e.g., NoTalentHack) because a cheater isn’t “properly” punished. So ratings are an amalgam of at least two groups of readers: people who simply judge the quality of the writing and the BTB crowd who consider the balance between the crime and punishment, albeit in a distorted fashion. I’m betting that there are even more distinct and identifiable groups.
Thanks, again, for your thoughtful essay…and for sharing your talents in the fiction you write.
Tw0Cr0wsover 1 year agoWhat about the other device, the Venusian RAAC Ray?
What other explanation could there be for reconciliation for a non-wimp husband when the only concession the cheating wife seems to make is she is not (currently) cheating on him?
As to why death for cheating?
Go back to the source material for Judaism and Christianity, if the husband divorces an adulterous wife and then marries another while his first wife is still alive he is committing adultery. This was reinforced as still valid by the fellow who gave the Sermon on the Mount.
