SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Where's the data supporting your argument? Or, since you admittedly don't understand R, are you saying people who R so so out of weakness?

As you might be aware, it would be nearly impossible to collate data on such subconscious motivations since these underlying reasons are often justified through less tangible rationalizations, such as love. However, if you need evidence regarding the prevalence of low self-esteem or fear of change and loneliness throughout humanity, there is a wealth of research available. I'm happy to share supporting articles if you find them helpful. Though with SI's link rules, I'll simply draw extracted quotes.

The sunk cost fallacy is widely noted psychological phenomena, whilst gathering specific statics of how impactful this point would be in relation to reconciliation would be difficult, it's fair to generalize that humans are highly susceptible to this, so why would it not come in to play in this discussion.

This brings me to a question: Are you arguing that these overarching primal human fears have no bearing on reconciliation? If so, I would like to understand your reasoning. Given the prevalence of these fears in our society, it seems irrational to assume they wouldn't influence considerations of reconciliation, especially given their relevance to the topic.

To make a ham handed analogy - to me this is like stating the prevalence of the fear of dogs within society has no relevance of dog ownership statistics.

I want to clarify that I am not making a value judgment. You referred to these rationalizations as weaknesses, which I can understand, but that was never my argument. These rationalizations are entirely valid, even if they may not be logically sound, and they shouldn't guide decision-making when possible.

Are you saying you'd stay for the children and show them 2 'married' adults who go out on dates, perhaps staying away for more than a day, with people to whom they are not married? Are you saying you'd bring infidelity out into the open?

What I'm advocating for could be described as a "sham marriage," where you shield your children from your romantic life, presenting a unified front to them and the wider community while potentially fulfilling your romantic needs elsewhere. Entirely manageable through trips or staying with friends. This is somewhat similar to an open marriage, but without romantic entanglement with your spouse. This has all the benefits of staying for the kids without the downside of having to continue a sexual relationship with someone who's been so cruel to you. This is of course only beneficial to those who link self respect with offering continued sexual gratification to an abuser.

I read once that a victim of infidelity who was desperate to reconcile describe having sex with their partner as licking the boot heel of a bully. Apologies, I can't site sources on this but I think we can agree it's well documented how many partners find the idea of sexual contact with their unfaithful spouse to be revolting, though I imagine this fades in some case with time. I'm not convinced in all cases, all the time though.

Now that I’ve clarified my point, could you explain your concerns regarding this approach? I'm interested in understanding why you believe it would be suboptimal.

To support my argument, here are a couple of statistics worth considering:

Fear of Being Alone: "One in three adults say they fear being alone. The fear of being alone may push us to prioritize relationship status over relationship quality, leading to unhealthy partnerships."

Low Self-Esteem: "85% of people worldwide struggle with low self-esteem, affecting the way they feel about themselves, their values, and their abilities. It can have a significant impact on our mental health, leading to feelings of unworthiness, self-doubt, and issues with body image."

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 11:59 AM, Monday, March 31st]

DrSoolers, do I understand correctly that you don’t believe there is such a thing as a healthy, happy reconciliation after infidelity?

DrSoolers, do I understand correctly that you don’t believe there is such a thing as a healthy, happy reconciliation after infidelity?

I want to clarify that I'm not saying this at all. After reviewing what I've written, I see nothing that compares to that argument.

To summarize, I've outlined what I believe are the truly valid reasons to reconcile. The reason I brought this up is that the original post claimed staying together for the children was not a valid reason for reconciliation. I find it unfathomable to dismiss one of the deep and legitimate reasons for reconciliation in that way.

That said, I'm not suggesting that you can't choose another reason or even an invalid reason for reconciliation and still make it work. Theoretically, you could choose a completely unfounded reason—like "I like the way they dress"—and, if you put in the necessary effort, you might still achieve a healthy and happy reconciliation, regardless of the initial motivation.

I do think some people are wholly incapable of reconciliation though, I can't pin down what makes a person like this though. The general theme anecdotally would be highly principled or sometimes even stubborn people. Those who say cheating is a deal breaker and when it happens they live up to that maxim. No one in 'R' can say cheating is a deal breaker for them... well, because... quod erat demonstrandum. They may say, the next time will ne a deal breaker or deflect it by saying life is more complicated then living by what you've said.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 1:21 PM, Monday, March 31st]

To summarize, I've outlined what I believe are the truly valid reasons to reconcile

And yet, since you haven’t reconciled or seem to understand additional reasons to reconcile (other than your limited perception) — you seem willing to project your own inexperience on others.

If you’re happy with your path, that’s the important part.

Again, I don’t understand why you think you know all about the path you didn’t take.

Do people reconcile or attempt to do so for some of only "truly valid" reasons you have listed?

I imagine they might.

Are there happy, healthy people who choose to forgive?

Yes, there are.

Again, I don’t understand why you think you know all about the path you didn’t take.

I don't claim to know everything about reconciliation because that would be impossible. However it is a topic that I've thought on deeply. Something I've read on extensively. We must note here the difference between knowledge and experience.

One can be knowledgeable on a topic without the first hand experience of living it. A doctor doesn't need to have had cancer to treat cancer.

Broadly I was using the term valid reasons synonymously with logical reasons. Or reasons that make logical sense dependant on the individual.

Sisoon themselves has described this as a flaw in my writings as humans simply aren't logical all the time.This clearly ranges sharply individual to individual.

One can be knowledgeable on a topic without the first hand experience of living it. A doctor doesn't need to have had cancer to treat cancer.

What knowledge? You have read about other people’s experiences through the very limited lens of your perspective.

I know friends who read all about infidelity, but until they experience it, they have no clue about my pain.

And a doctor who hasn’t had cancer can try and treat it, but until they have experienced cancer, their ability to relate to someone going through cancer is limited.

All the logic in the world can’t expand the limits of perception.

You are making assumptions about other people’s experiences and their lives, which is fine, we all do it.

In the same way I can’t know how happy you are without living your life, or how sad, or whether or not you have a healthy esteem.

I am a living refutation of your understanding of what you think reconciliation is.

I think a major misunderstanding is thinking that staying together equates to reconciling.

I think a major misunderstanding is thinking that staying together equates to reconciling.

I agree — but I have also found, the concept itself means many different things to different people.

Before experiencing infidelity, I didn’t even know staying after infidelity was a thing.

I also had never considered reconciliation was a possible outcome.

Then, I found this place.

Now I understand it can happen and that there is whole lot more to it than I anticipated.

I am a living refutation of your understanding of what you think reconciliation is.

What do you think my understanding of reconciliation is?

I want to clarify that I have made no value judgment about whether someone should reconcile, nor have I proposed what constitutes healthy reconciliation.

I'm not sure if this is a form of projection, but I haven't made any definitive claims about what reconciliation is. Instead, I've discussed the reasons why people choose to reconcile. I noted that some reasons may be rational or previously defined as valid, while others may not be.

Ultimately, the goal in life is to be happy. For some individuals, this happiness is derived from prioritizing moral standing, principles, and beliefs above personal happiness. I don’t believe they are correct for doing so, nor do I think they are wrong. One could argue that it might be irrational, but that is a personal perspective.

The world contains a diverse array of individuals, and some find happiness being caged, whipped and demeaned. My inability to understand this does not make it wrong. While I may never grasp why some choose to reconcile for seemingly irrational reasons, I sincerely hope they find the happiness they seek.

I was a wayward girlfriend to several young men, including my now husband. I monkey branched from one to the other, with the typical wayward rationale.
In hindsight, I was present for the BS devastation I brought to these men, but my focus was just on me, so on I went.

Twenty years into our M, with the youngest of our 4 children being 12 at the time, my husband had his very emotional, very physical affair. It absolutely exploded my world.

One of his throwaway lines was that my behavior 20 years earlier had pained him all those years, intimating perhaps payback. I don't really know what the truth is in that statement.
What I do know is that he did what he did after having experienced first hand the trauma I caused him, fully knowing the odds of causing the same for me.

What I took away from my actions, which perhaps is no more grounded in reality, is the idea that marriage was the bright white line in relationships. But once I took those vows, I have been faithful to him for 40 years. We are still together, our children are grown with kids of their own, but it is not the same relationship. I highly doubt he had only one affair, definitely emotional ones along the way, and the trust is shot. I relive the turning points in our history often, wondering what today would be like if I had refused to accept his behavior back then.

All of this is my disjointed way of saying past behavior is not always precedent, but have your eyes wide open to the worst case results.

"the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

Sadly, that's true in my case. In the very early days of my relationship with my WW, before we were married, she told me how she'd had an affair with her boss whilst in her previous relationship, and how easy she'd found it to conduct the affair without being found out. It didn't occur to me then that she would betray me in our marriage, but she did.

(P.S. for anyone who's read my story, I'm about to start IC. The purpose will be to help me decide my next step. I'm not feeling strong at the moment, to be honest, but perhaps counselling/therapy will help me muster the strength to take whatever the next step needs to be. Wish me luck. If you're religious (I'm not) I don't mind you praying for me.)

** Member to Member **

As you might be aware, it would be nearly impossible to....

Then don't make the assertion quantitatively. Make your argument some other way.

Your language is so abstract that you can deny making value judgments ... while making value judgments.

You say something. Someone responds based on their understanding of what you wrote. You say, in essence, 'I didn't write that.'

I have great difficulty discerning what you mean. My reco and request is that you write more directly and less abstractly, and write about yourself.

Are you arguing that these overarching primal human fears have no bearing on reconciliation?

If that's directed at me, I don't understand where the question comes from.

I do think that human behavior comes from many disparate motivations. Sometimes I have given in to fear, but life is a lot more satisfying, happy, fun, educational, etc., etc., etc. when I didn't. I certainly had fears about life as a whole after I found out I had been betrayed. But people can do difficult things even while being afraid.

Besides, no path out of infidelity is certain to lead to a good - or bad - life. I found that choosing R did alleviate some fears - and aggravated others. I fully expect that choosing D would have alleviated different fears ... and aggravated others. Almost anybody can find something to fear in almost any situation.

I chose R not out of fear but out of hope and evidence in front of me. My goal was not to avoid something I feared but to maximize joy.

DRSOOLERS, To heal, one needs to look beyond fear.

*****

I have a hard time understanding how people do not grow up with low self-esteem. No matter how much a parent supports a kid, the parent still needs to say 'No' a lot. Kids test boundaries in the process of building their own, and bumping up against boundaries feels lousy. That, IMO, leads to self-doubt, and self-doubt leads to low self-esteem.

Low self-esteem is probably a constant. Low SE in itself probably isn't a differentiator. Sure, I believe low SE was part of what led my W to cheat, but my SE was very low for most of my life, and I didn't cheat. Sure, I was afraid my W or I might fail to do the necessary work, but ... IDK ... R seemed like a good bet for us at that particular moment.

On SI, I think I read high self-esteem from both D'ed and R'ed folks from the first time I browsed this site. That gave me such great hope - to know that I could heal either way!

That is, SI taught me I could heal, as long as I put aside my low SE and fear. IMO, everyone who puts aside their low SE and fears can heal.

I won’t respond to everyone individually as there is a lot going on here, but I’m wanting to acknowledge your responses and that I appreciate your input. As usual, it’s given me lots to consider.

I’ve never really given much *in depth* thought to what my values are in my marriage, let alone ranking the importance of these values. I consider *sexual* fidelity to be extremely, extremely important in an M - it’s a special bond between H and W to honour a lifetime commitment to one another. It’s hard to get past this bond being broken (for nothing other than selfishness and brokenness).

I agree with those of you who have mentioned that there are several values in an M and that any of these values (children, family, love, etc) are worth fighting for if both are willing to fight. I’m trying to *see* the importance of all of these other values and that they shouldn’t be discarded.

I’ve mentioned over and over that I’m having a hard time battling the beast inside me … you know, the one where cheating is a dealbreaker. I hate not following through with what was a "no brainer" consequence for crossing a very clear cut boundary.

HBW23-

I’ve mentioned over and over that I’m having a hard time battling the beast inside me … you know, the one where cheating is a dealbreaker.

My baseline, for a long time, was operating from the idea that the deal is indeed broken. That was the starting point, dealbreaker, and I didn’t instantly walk away like I was sure I would do — now what?

This is the space to do what it appears you’re doing.

I looked at what I wanted, not just from any relationship, but from life. Broken deal became a reset on almost every aspect of my existence. Suddenly, not only did I have boundaries with my FWS, I placed boundaries on everyone, ditched a number of unpleasant relationships and cleaned house.

I focused a lot on my sons. Even though they were grown, time spent with them is always good.

Wherever the battle takes you, you’re finding a way forward, which I hope feels like progress.

What do you think my understanding of reconciliation is?

I think you think reconciliation is not something you would consider, which seems to be your only real point — and I am good with that. Many of my friends concur with you. I want anyone who has dealt with infidelity to find a way to be as happy as is possible.

I was merely pointing out that a number of your observations are limited by your lack of experience with the concept.

Or maybe the long story short, your limited perceptions have little to do with my reality.

I’ve mentioned over and over that I’m having a hard time battling the beast inside me....

Does 'beast' mean 'monster' or 'something to be fought against'? Why not reframe the term?

Perhaps it will help to think of 'the beast' as your strong, healthy desire to live your values.

IMO, the R/D decision is about the future. The anger, grief, fear, shame, etc. from being betrayed is about the past, even though the feelings need to be resolved somehow, and that's work that can be done only in the present and future. That led me to think the goal of the D/R decision was to maximize joy in the future, all things considered.

I believe that some people immediately D after infidelity because of fear. That is, I think some people D as a reflex because - this is one possible reason - they feel as if the WS has found someone better, and they fear the competition. (That applies to some people who jump to D, IMO, not to all.)

But you've opened yourself to multiple outcomes. No matter what, BSes need to weigh many factors and come up with a single sum - D or R or wait for more info/insight/luck/etc. You are weighing a lot of factors. There's no way to get around the fact that some factors will almost always point to R, and some will almost always point to D. If sexual fidelity leads you to want D after considering other factors, so be it.

IMO, if you tame the beast (i.e. reframe it in your mind) and give yourself permission to end your M, you may allow yourself to choose D/R and be satisfied with your choice.

Then don't make the assertion quantitatively. Make your argument some other way.

I’d be happy to clarify that this opinion is based on the various factors I referenced in my previous post. If low self-esteem and the fear of being alone are prevalent issues among individuals, it’s reasonable to assume—though admittedly an assumption—that these factors come into play when considering reconciliation after infidelity. This perspective isn’t just a random critique of those who choose to reconcile; rather, it is informed by widely reported data surrounding the topic.

If we were to create a table outlining the various fears that can drive someone to either reconcile or choose divorce, we'd likely find different factors on each side. For instance, one side might include fears such as being alone or losing a sense of stability. Conversely, the other side could include concerns about a partner repeating their infidelity or the anxiety surrounding competition.

However, it’s essential to recognize that we cannot assume all fears have the same level of impact on each individual. Each person experiences these fears differently based on their unique history, personality, and circumstances. Some may find the fear of being alone to be a dominant factor, while others might prioritize the fear of a repeat occurrence further down the line.

What we can do, though, is examine how prevalent these fears are as reported in society. By analyzing data and testimonials, we can gain insights into which fears are most commonly associated with the decision to reconcile after infidelity. This broader discussion can help illuminate patterns and trends that might inform individual decisions, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the factors at play when someone grapples with the choice between reconciliation and divorce. Understanding these societal trends can also give us a nuanced perspective on the emotional landscape surrounding such significant decisions.

While we could choose to overlook these overarching fears to avoid offending anyone for whom they may not apply, I believe it’s more beneficial to acknowledge them. By doing so, we can help ensure that people make informed decisions rather than acting from a detrimental place.

I chose R not out of fear but out of hope and evidence in front of me. My goal was not to avoid something I feared but to maximize joy.

I truly hope this is the case. I trust you know yourself deeply enough to be certain that your choices weren't driven by fear but I feel openly highlighting these is important for others who may not be so self assured.

Your language is so abstract that you can deny making value judgments ... while making value judgments.

What I’ve expressed is that I do not understand or personally support reconciliation that occurs without reference to the factors outlined in my original list. For that reason, I cannot advocate for it. However, I have also consistently emphasized that the ultimate goal is happiness, and what brings happiness to different people can vary widely. My understanding of this does not impact the end goal itself.

I want to reiterate that it is genuinely not my intention to dismiss or undermine anyone's choices. This may simply be a quirk of my writing style, which we all have. For example, you mentioned:

I believe that some people immediately D after infidelity because of fear. That is, I think some people D as a reflex because - this is one possible reason - they feel as if the WS has found someone better, and they fear the competition. (That applies to some people who jump to D, IMO, not to all.)

I find this opinion quite intriguing, though the way it's presented makes it difficult to dispute. The term "some people" is so vague that it could apply to almost any situation. For example, it would be equally valid to suggest that some individuals post discovery of infidelity might find it’s a significant turn-on and explore cuckolding fetishes.

The phrase "some people" might refer to edge cases, which can often be true only in extraordinarily rare situations. This raises the question: why reference it at all? For instance, if we had a post asking why people choose to reconcile, and someone commented that "some people reconcile because they are cuckolds," while technically true, this point's rarity suggests it may not add significant value to the discussion. With this in mind, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this and how widespread you believe this phenomenon to be.

From what I've read, however, the opposite seems to be true in most cases. The phenomenon you’re describing regarding competition often leads uninformed victims of infidelity into what’s commonly referred to as the "pick me dance." This topic has been widely discussed and documented, and I assume you’re aware of that.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:15 AM, Wednesday, April 2nd]

Broadly I was using the term valid reasons synonymously with logical reasons. Or reasons that make logical sense dependant on the individual.

So, I would say that you are agreeing that a logical reason can vary among individual betrayed spouses. What is logical for one person is illogical for another, no? It seems like others here are saying they reconcile based on their own reasons which they find valid. I don't think that necessarily violates logic.

To me, it's logical if you have been bitten by a dog as a child to never own a dog, especially to not have a dog in your home with your child. Yes, it's fear based, but why put yourself in a constant stress situation. That's not logical to me. Maybe it's illogical if you look at statistics of dog bites, and therefore not a valid reason not to own a dog who might otherwise give you happiness? I guess that's an ok point, but I don't live that way or even want to live that way. I think I'd still be unhappy and uncomfortable with the dog.

Likewise, it's ok to have your own reasoning for reconciling or not based on your past and your personality. That goes as far as liking the way your spouse dresses if that's important to you. I'm on my second day in the same yoga pants and shirt. Someone else might consider that disrespectful or unattractive and not want to be married to someone who does that. Who am I to argue how they want to live? Your stated goal is to live a happy life. Maybe that makes a person happy.

Maybe this is a threadjack, but

If low self-esteem and the fear of being alone are prevalent issues among individuals, it’s reasonable to assume—though admittedly an assumption—that these factors come into play when considering reconciliation after infidelity.

Low Self-Esteem: "85% of people worldwide struggle with low self-esteem, affecting the way they feel about themselves, their values, and their abilities.

I also googled and found sources that state that greater than 10% of people have some type of grandiose disorder with overly elevated self-esteem. How fascinating is that. If less than 5% of people have "healthy" or "normal" levels of self-esteem, the entire label or concept seems less than useful.

In any case, Heartbrokenwife23, many here have struggled with the same issue. Personally, I had difficulty after the infidelity with the fact that my values in marriage didn't align with my WH's values. It was my understanding before marriage that we had the same vision. It became clear later that we did not. Now that we are building a new marriage, I'm trusting it's more aligned. I still doubt at times, but I go on what I see in his actions.

I do think some people are wholly incapable of reconciliation though, I can't pin down what makes a person like this though. The general theme anecdotally would be highly principled or sometimes even stubborn people. Those who say cheating is a deal breaker and when it happens they live up to that maxim. No one in 'R' can say cheating is a deal breaker for them... well, because... quod erat demonstrandum. They may say, the next time will ne a deal breaker or deflect it by saying life is more complicated then living by what you've said.

I totally agree with the first part of this paragraph. There are people that cannot reconcile because they have a rigid moral framework. We can call them highly principled, stubborn, etc. rather than rigid if you prefer. There are people for which "I wouldn't have a romantic relationship with someone that has cheated on me." Is the dealbreaker. They will not allow for a second relationship. I think I'd like to clarify the second part.

We often talk about "the old marriage being dead". That adultery is a dealbreaker, full stop.

The question in R is not whether or not the deal is broken. It's about whether or not you will accept a new deal in the wake of the broken previous deal. So the thinking is "I'm willing to have a romantic relationship with someone that has cheated on me, but there need to be additional guardrails in place that I wouldn't have in a relationship where we have both been loyal." This is why it's often called marriage 2.0, or another romantic relationship, but with the same person.

The question in R is not whether or not the deal is broken. It's about whether or not you will accept a new deal in the wake of the broken previous deal. So the thinking is "I'm willing to have a romantic relationship with someone that has cheated on me, but there need to be additional guardrails in place that I wouldn't have in a relationship where we have both been loyal." This is why it's often called marriage 2.0, or another romantic relationship, but with the same person.

That perspective... I've have read about it, but it's always struck me as illogical. It seems like mental gymnastics, trying to keep both the relationship and the principles intact. Though, that's just my opinion.

It leads to these absurd theoreticals. Picture this: a betrayed spouse at an icebreaker, asked how many relationships they've had. 'Eight,' they say, 'all with the same person. Every time they cheat, we reconcile, and it's a "new" relationship. I could never maintain a relationship with a cheater, so naturally forge a new one.'

It's just... maybe I'm not seeing the bigger picture. Obviously that was an example brought to absurdity but the principles the same. Maybe It works if it's a one off occasion and as soon as they've comes clean or been caught It ends (wider discussion here probably needed discussing the odds/stats of infidelity being a one and done case). Though I still think it's a rationalisation. However It gets more and more hard to swallow with more D-days. Now 8 is probably pretty rare, even the most foriving person has their limits... but you regularly read of couples up to 3/4. Sometimes years apart. Are these all new relationships? Or is the case 'new' relationship is what they tell themselves to feel more comfortable with the cheating not truly being a deal breaker for them?

Ultimately, it doesn't have to be. It's external pressures pushing people to leave cheaters. I think this view point came as a counterpoint to quell those pressures. Again, just my opinion whilst trying to follow logic.

A side point but I think the most interesting aspects of infidelity is the societal push for a betrayed partner to leave their spouse. I would love to know why this is such a prevalent view. Is it wisdom or crowds? Is it because that's generally the best choice so people generalise the stance to be applicable to all? I would pay a lot of money to have the answer to that question.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:54 AM, Thursday, April 3rd]