My husband's sex addiction has drained me and ruined our marriage… can he ever get better?
From escorts to workplace affairs, he can't resist other women.
I'm 42 and he's 45. We've been together for over a decade and have two young children.
Things began to unravel a few years ago when he started disappearing for hours, coming home late with vague excuses.
His phone became off-limits and he became irritable and defensive whenever I asked where he'd been or who he was speaking to.
At first, I thought the late nights and secretive behaviour were stress from work. But over time, it became undeniable something was amiss.
After months of gaslighting, I snapped and went snooping. I was heartbroken when I found secret apps and deleted messages.
Eventually, I learnt he'd been visiting escorts repeatedly, but when I confronted him, he denied everything, twisting the truth and blaming me for being paranoid.
I forced him to go to therapy, but he never fully committed and nothing really changed.
Recently, I caught him messaging and sexting a female colleague. The betrayal cut deeper than ever. I feel like I'm living with a stranger who hides a whole other life from me.
The lies and sneaking around have left me drained and anxious. I worry how it will affect our kids and question if I can keep going like this.
Part of me still wants to believe he can get better and that we can rebuild what's been broken.
Dear Deidre: Cheating and can you get over it
But I don't know how to protect myself emotionally when every step forward comes with two back.
DEIDRE SAYS: Living with a partner struggling with sex addiction is painful and confusing, especially when denial and secrecy are involved.
Addiction is a complex issue that often requires professional help, but change can only happen if your husband truly commits to recovery.
Therapy is a positive step, but as it hasn't worked so far, consider exploring specialist addiction counselling.
Read my support packs, Addicted To Sex and Can't Be Faithful, which offer practical advice and resources.
If your husband won't commit to positive change, then you do need to look to your own future – for the wellbeing of you and your children.
Please consider counselling for yourself to help you take that next step. See tavistockrelationships.org.
I ONLY SEEM TO ATTRACT HURTFUL PEOPLE
DEAR DEIDRE: EVERY time I trust someone, they end up hurting me – and I'm starting to think it's my fault.
I'm a 39-year-old woman and finally got out of a controlling, abusive marriage last year. It took everything I had to leave.
I hoped things would get better, but the patterns keep repeating. One of my oldest friends was constantly putting me down – mocking me, belittling me, even shouting at me when I didn't agree with her.
After years of trying to keep the peace, I finally cut ties.
Then just weeks ago, a man I'd started to trust turned on me – physically and emotionally. I feel sick and ashamed.
I've worked so hard to heal, but it's like I keep getting dragged back to the same dark place. Why do I keep attracting people who hurt me? And why do I always feel like I'm the one to blame?
DEIDRE SAYS: None of this is your fault. People who've experienced abuse often develop deep empathy and a desire to keep the peace – qualities that can attract those who take advantage.
It's a strength that you've walked away from toxic relationships. That shows growth, not failure.
But healing takes time, and you'll need space to process what's happened and understand the patterns.
DEAR DEIDRE: AFTER more than a decade together, I thought I knew my wife inside out, but then I saw a side that stunned me.
I'm 46, she's 43, and we've been married for 12 years.
Things have always been good between us. We laugh a lot, have a decent sex life and she's never given me a reason to doubt her.
But last weekend, I had to pop back home unexpectedly and drove through town, where I spotted someone who looked just like her.
She was dressed as a man – short wig, men's clothes, and shoes – and chatting to people outside a bar. I pulled over and could see it was definitely her.
When I asked her about it later, she denied it. Then she broke down and said it's something she's been doing secretly for years.
I don't know how to feel. Has our marriage been a lie?
DEIDRE SAYS: Finding out your partner has a hidden side can be deeply unsettling. It's natural to feel confused, hurt or even betrayed as you try to process it.
But remember, your wife's cross-dressing doesn't erase the life you've built together or the love you've shared.
Honest communication is essential to understand her feelings and what this means for your marriage.
My pack, Cross-Dressing Support, offers further guidance. Joint counselling might also help you rebuild trust and find a way forward.
FAMILY IGNORE ME SINCE MOVE
DEAR DEIDRE: MY family has completely mugged me off – like I only matter when they want something from me.
I'm a 36-year-old man and moved to Canada two years ago for work. I knew the distance and time difference might make it harder to keep in touch, but I didn't expect radio silence.
I sent messages, updates and birthday wishes – all mostly ignored. I told myself they were busy, that life just got in the way.
But then I had a bad fall last year that left me bedbound for months. I was in pain, struggling to manage day to day, and sinking financially.
I reached out and asked if one of them could come over, even just for a week, or help me cover basic costs. Nothing. Not even a proper phone call.
Now I'm back on my feet, and I've just found out they all went on a big family holiday without me. No invite, no mention.
To top it off, my brother has messaged me asking me to put £300 towards a surprise anniversary gift for our parents from 'all of us'. I feel angry, hurt and used. Why should I be generous when they weren't there when I needed them most?
DEIDRE SAYS: It's no wonder you feel taken for granted. When you were at your most vulnerable, your family left you to struggle alone, and now they act like nothing happened.
It's natural to want closeness and support, especially from those we love, but sometimes we have to set firm boundaries to protect ourselves emotionally. Saying no doesn't make you selfish; it makes you self-respecting.
Try to express how their absence made you feel and that things can't go back to normal without honest conversation.
Look at my support pack, Standing Up For Yourself, and talk to Family Action (family-action.org.uk) for emotional support.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
a minute ago
- The Guardian
Hanging up the car keys for good: the decision to stop driving is complicated, but are age-based restrictions the answer?
Hiding car keys and deflating the car's tyres were some of the steps Melbourne woman Beth Nielsen took to prevent her grandfather from getting behind the wheel in the final years of his life. Nielsen's grandfather had been diagnosed with vascular dementia in 2016 but remained determined to drive. Some nights he would sleep with his car keys under his pillow. 'It was his obsession,' Nielsen says. 'It became a massive ordeal in the family to try to manage.' Despite having his licence revoked in 2018 after a family member reported him to authorities, Nielsen says her grandfather, aged in his late 80s, continued trying to drive and was 'obsessed with getting his licence back'. 'It turned into this sort of twisted tale, because it was clear by that stage he actually didn't have the capacity to realise that he wasn't safe to drive,' she says. Nielsen's grandfather died in 2019. In the final months of his life, he struggled with the loss of independence and may have felt like his family were 'out to get him', Nielsen says. 'When it's the last years of your loved one's life, you don't want to be having these arguments with them,' she says. 'We felt like the bad guys.' Decisions about when an older person should stop driving can be difficult for both the driver and their loved ones. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads After decades behind the wheel, Ray, also from Melbourne, decided to hang up his car keys in his late 80s. The 91-year-old had been diagnosed with Ménière's disease in his 20s and suffered bouts of balance issues throughout his life. As he approached his 90th birthday and his health deteriorated, Ray, who requested his surname not be used, and his wife agreed she would be the couple's primary driver. 'I've done a lot of kilometres but I didn't want to be a burden to other people,' he says. 'I just felt it wasn't fair [to keep driving].' A fatal crash near a playground in Wantirna South in Melbourne's east on 10 July involving a 91-year-old female driver has placed rules for elderly drivers across Australia under scrutiny. The crash resulted in the deaths of two pedestrians – a 59-year-old woman and 60-year-old man. A two-year-old boy suffered non-life-threatening injuries. Speaking afterwards, Supt Justin Goldsmith said the car lost control near an intersection and mounted the footpath. On Friday, the woman was interviewed by police and released pending further inquiries. Unlike other Australian jurisdictions, Victoria has no mandatory age-based restrictions or required testing for elderly drivers. But drivers are still required by law to inform the roads authority, VicRoads, of any long-term medical conditions or injuries that may affect their ability to drive safely. Members of the public can also make referrals to VicRoads if they have concerns about someone's ability to drive safely. After the Wantirna South crash, the Victorian government flagged it would consider changing testing rules for older drivers. Asked if elderly Victorians should have to prove their fitness to drive, the state's deputy premier, Ben Carroll, said it was a 'valid' question. Carroll said he would work with the state's road safety minister, Melissa Horne, on this matter but did not outline potential reform the state would consider. A Victorian Department of Transport and Planning spokesperson last week said the state would review the 'current approach to licensing fitness to drive'. Guardian Australia understands the DTP is partnering with Monash University to review the effectiveness of mandatory reporting and assessment. Road safety experts say while research is limited, it does not show that jurisdictions with mandatory age-based testing regimes have lower crash rates than Victoria. New South Wales is the only state that mandates a practical driving assessment for older drivers (from 85) every two years. In Queensland, drivers over 75 are required to have a doctor assess them and, when on the road, carry a current medical certificate showing they are fit to drive. The Australian Capital Territory has a similar model, requiring drivers over 76 to undergo yearly medical assessments. In Western Australia, annual medical assessments are mandatory for drivers from 80. Victorian woman Sophie, 46, was involved in an accident earlier this month with a 102-year-old driver who reversed into her vehicle. 'The driver couldn't hear my horn and I wasn't able to get out of the way as there was another car behind me,' she says. 'I leapt out of my car and knocked on his window and he didn't register [that] I was there. When I opened his door he looked surprised.' Sophie, who requested her last name not be used, says the driver was struggling to hear her when they exchanged licence details. 'I was just concerned that he's driving around with no ability to hear other people and clearly not looking,' she says. Victorian motorists aged over 65 were responsible for at least 145 road deaths and more than 7,000 injuries in the five years to June 2023, police data shows. But Dr Sjaan Koppel, an associate professor at the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), says there is no direct correlation between age and fitness to drive. 'A driver of any age can have medical conditions. They can have functional impairments associated with those medical conditions and even the ageing process starts from the age of 40 in terms of a reduction in vision,' she says. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion 'We can see young, novice drivers who might also have medical conditions that make them unfit to drive, and the same with older people.' A 2011 study led by Koppel found that older drivers were involved in few crashes in terms of absolute numbers, but noted they represented one of the highest risk categories for crashes involving serious injury and death per number of drivers, and per distance travelled. Koppel says one of the reasons older people are overrepresented in crash and serious injury statistics is due to frailty bias. 'As we age … we have changes in our neuromuscular strength,' she says. 'If we are involved in a crash, regardless of whether it's our fault or not, we do have a propensity to be more injured in that crash.' Koppel says there is limited research that has examined whether certain licensing requirements reduce crash rates. A 2004 study by MUARC concluded that jurisdictions with age-based mandatory assessment programs did not have lower crash rates than Victoria. Another study concluded that mandatory assessment programs had no 'demonstrable safety benefits' for older driver fatalities or other road user fatalities. Swinburne University's Dr Amie Hayley, who has a research interest in impaired driving, pointed to a 2023 study which found after mandatory cognitive screening for Japanese drivers over 75 was introduced in 2017, there was a decrease in vehicle collisions but an increase in road injuries among older people as pedestrians and cyclists. Hayley says Japan's screening tool is intended to capture the most severe forms of decline, including dementia. She says the results suggest that a simple cognitive screen can be useful to identify groups potentially most at risk. In Victoria, there is no mandate for GPs to inform VicRoads if they have concerns about a person's fitness to drive. South Australia and the Northern Territory are the only Australian jurisdictions that legally require certain health professionals, including GPs, to report a patient's medical condition to the licensing authority if they believe it makes them unfit to drive safely. Dr Kate Gregorevic, a Melbourne-based geriatrician, says the gold standard is an on-the-road driving assessment with an occupational therapist. She says a lack of mandated age-based assessments in Victorian means conversations about driving in older age are not normalised. 'The reality is, as people get older, they're more likely to have conditions that impact driving, things like cardiovascular conditions, things like diabetes, but particularly dementia,' she says. 'Some people will decide they're not going to drive at night any more. Some people will decide that they're only going to drive in their local area. But unfortunately, particularly people living with dementia don't have the insight to make these kinds of decisions for themselves.' Gregorevic, who works predominately in hospitals, says telling people they are unfit to drive is challenging. 'I never enjoy telling someone that they're not able to drive,' she says. Dr Anita Muñoz, the Victorian chair of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP), says mandatory testing could mean a driver outsources the responsibility for making a decision to drive to a third party. 'It can give people a false sense of confidence that nothing will happen if they get behind the wheel,' she says. Muñoz says older Australians and people with chronic illnesses should see their GP regularly to discuss their fitness to drive. Council on the Ageing Victoria opposes mandatory driving tests for older motorists, saying they constituted an 'ageist' and 'arbitrary' approach that failed to reflect the variation in experiences of ageing. The chief executive of the council, Ben Rogers, says it continues to support Victoria's approach, which 'emphasise[s] your behaviour and medical fitness to drive'. 'Ageing is undoubtedly connected to changes that may impact the ability of older people to drive – such as vision loss, hearing loss and slower movement and response times – but these can impact Victorian drivers of any age,' he said in a statement.
Times
31 minutes ago
- Times
Financial Ombudsman Service boss paid £230,000 after ousting
The ousted head of the Financial Ombudsman Service received a pay-off of almost £230,000, it has been disclosed in the annual report. Abby Thomas, who left abruptly on 6 February, was paid £229,869 in severance payments on top of her normal salary. The payoff included £100,000 for loss of office, £107,692 in lieu of notice and £22,177 for a period of gardening leave that began on the day she left, the FOS said. MPs on the Treasury select committee have hit out at the manner of her departure and criticised the FOS chairwoman Baroness Manzoor for refusing to answer questions on why Thomas left and whether she was forced out. The FOS, which rules on complaints by consumers about financial services firms and can set compensation orders, is under pressure to reform. Rachel Reeves has pledged to curb its powers so it no longer acts like a regulator after complaints from the industry that it has increased the cost of 'mass redress events'. It has been dealing with a significant rise in claims, mainly related to car finance loans, but also because of concerns about other consumer loans and more people complaining about banks' handling of frauds. Dame Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Treasury committee, said this month: 'The handling of this situation by the senior leadership has been deeply disappointing.' Thomas, a former Virgin Media executive, served for less than three years. She has been replaced by James Dipple-Johnstone as chief ombudsman and Jenny Simmonds as interim chief executive. Manzoor is due to retire on August 1. The FOS received 450,000 new inquiries in the year to March, up from 330,000. The motor finance industry is braced for a judgment from the Supreme Court this Friday that could determine the scale of compensation payments for failing to disclose commissions paid to dealers.
Times
44 minutes ago
- Times
NatWest faces questions over links to collapsed 79th Group
NatWest is facing scrutiny over its relationship with a collapsed £200 million investment group which insolvency practitioners suspect was a Ponzi scheme. 79th Group attracted thousands of investors from the UK and overseas, before collapsing into administration in April, two months after the City of London police announced an investigation into a 'suspected widespread fraud'. The company has denied wrongdoing. Insolvency practitioners estimate 79th Group owes more than £200 million to about 3,700 people. Some investors have life savings at risk. The matter was raised in parliament this month. The 'main account' of the group was held at NatWest, according to administrators from Kroll and Quantuma. It is understood that the relationship originated at the bank's Southport branch, which is near 79th Group's Merseyside head office. The bank also holds an outstanding charge over a 79th Group entity which was first registered 20 years ago. That company went into insolvency in May. Investors' funds were paid into a 'treasury account [and then] transferred out to other entities', administrators said in a recent report to creditors. They are investigating the 'flow of funds'. Investors' money does not appear to have been 'ring-fenced' and was instead 'pooled' in group accounts. No formal loan accounts appear to have been recorded or board minutes yet identified relating to the management of investors' money, insolvency practitioners have claimed. The bank declined to answer a series of questions over its banking relationship with 79th Group, including how much money was received and processed by the bank; whether it had continued to receive investor funds after the arrests; whether it had failed to detect serious irregularities; and whether NatWest was investigating. A NatWest spokeswoman said: 'Combating fraud is a top priority and we are committed to preventing criminal activity. We will not make any further comment on this case.' Contractual agreements between the group and investors stated that funds would be used for specific projects, including a £250 million holiday park in north Wales and a mining venture. City of London police said in February that four people had been arrested and that 'a large amount of cash, luxury watches and jewellery were found during searches of properties, all of which were seized'. All people arrested have been released on bail and inquiries continue. There have been no charges. The Times reported this month that 79th Group's board included a former senior HM Revenue & Customs official who was in charge of combating fraud for the tax office. Andy Cole, former director of specialist investigations at HMRC, was a non-executive adviser. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Cole or that he is being investigated. He has not been arrested. Administrators from Grant Thornton have told 79th Group investors that 'we believe this is a Ponzi', the term for a fraudulent investment scheme in which early investors are paid with money from later investors rather than legitimate business activities. Banks have a regulatory duty to counter the risk that they might be used to further financial crime. Lenders face strict 'know your customer' and anti-money laundering rules; adherence requires due diligence, transaction monitoring and reporting of suspicious activity. Three sets of insolvency firms are engaged on the case. Administrators are liaising with NatWest over the outstanding charge owed to the bank, which has said it is not in a position to release it, according to its report. In 2021, NatWest was fined £264.8 million for anti-money laundering failures related to the gold trading business Fowler Oldfield. This month Barclays was fined £39.3 million for failing to tackle financial crime risks in its dealings with Stunt & Co, which received £46.8 million from Fowler Oldfield.
