SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Irrespective of what led to the principles creation, it's a principle none the less. One that I'd find extraordinarily hard to break.

It is hard to defy social constructions, cultural programming of any kind. The soldier who reported his unit for atrocities at Abu Ghraib, for example, is still ostracized by his community. A cop who reports a fellow cop for breaking the rules. Peer pressure is huge. Go along to get along is always the easier way. Getting others to go along too (subtle manipulation/judgement by telling others forgiving would violate my core principles) strengthens the norm.

There are societies you could have been raised in, where your "core principle" would be to throw acid in your wife’s face if caught cheating. Not forgiving wouldn’t be enough.

I agree with hikingout, it takes real independence to truly R. Not just stay married…to R.

...the rules on posting outside links makes this task more challenging but I'm very pro citing sources generally.

I am authorized to approve links. I can even approve my own links. Most of the time, it's easier just to provide search terms (article title, journal title and issue, page number, etc.) than to go through the process of getting approval.

But if necessary, just open a 'mod, please' thread, and request approval for a link.

*****

My W & I were both born during WW II. We came to adulthood in the turmoil of civil rights struggles, the Viet Nam war, and the hippie, feminist, and sexual revolutions. As academics, we lived through the campus turmoil of 1968-70. Both of us hold advanced degrees. Both of us knew that infidelity was possible.

We both have always used logic to examine why we think what we think we know. We both use logic to question our conclusions, and we use logic to answer those questions.

We agreed early in our M that infidelity would not be in itself a cause for D.

Logic led to that conclusion - but note that we drew our conclusion only for ourselves. You say your logic tells you that you'd have to split if a partner betrayed you, and your posts say you think that applies to all or most people. At least that's how I read your posts.

So ... apparently the same problem. Apparently the same tools used to solve the problem. Opposite conclusions.

There are several potential logical explanations for that apparent paradox.

One explanation, the one I think is most likely to be true, is:

1) Several factors play parts in the stay/go decision.

2) When multiple factors are involved, the factors must be prioritized/weighted.

3) Each specific factor may be more important to some people than to others.

4) When different potential weighting schemes exist, one scheme will lead to one choice, while a different scheme leads to another.

If that's true, there's no universal logical path to a conclusion that D is the best option.

Rather, the clear logical path is that each individual has to blaze a path for themself.

*****

I understand you think you know what you would do. I'd just caution you that you have no way of knowing what constraints will bind you if you are betrayed, and therefore you cannot effectively predict what you'll do.

For example, I'm told my W did not commit adultery in some jurisdictions, and she did in others.

I also would point out that you say you couldn't R because of your temperament. Not understanding that has led you to conclusions that could use some modification.

I raise these points in part to give you other ways of interpreting what you've experienced and in part to give readers other ways of interpreting your posts.

IMO, obviously I see multiple ways of processing and interpreting life. I think the disparate voices on SI offer readers insight into some of those ways for each reader to evaluate for themselves.

*****

Yikes! It's been a while since I've mentioned:

I have my own ideas and reactions. I like to think I have good reasons for them, and I don't present an idea if I doubt that I'm onto something.

But I can almost always be wrong, especially when we use a medium that allows so much opaqueness. We do not see each other or hear each other's tone of voice.

I think it makes sense to consider any confrontation, but one normally knows themself better than their correspondents do.

One's self is a lot more than one's words. If I've misread you, DRS, I apologize.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 4:11 AM, Monday, June 2nd]

I am going to throw out something here towards your personal situation, and I have some feeling this will be rejected immediately. But know I am doing this because I want you to think about t this, hold the question.

I did not really know the details about the infidelity you experienced, and hearing the opportunity to R wasn’t in the table, I wonder if your way of patching that wound has been to be very stern about your principles surrounding infidelity. Like felling you had been married to and hurt by a bad person makes you sort of long to have been given the opportunity to have been the one to kick her to the curb.

And in that you would like to see that done by others because you relate it unconsciously to that feeling of being abandoned, yet not being able to be the one to denounce them first. To see them want another chance and feeling in a stronger position than which you were left?

There is nothing wrong with that. I think one of the barriers I have noted of men who have been betrayed is processing sadness is often blocked by keeping themselves in anger. I am certain that this many years from being betrayed a lot of that emotional stuff has dissipated, but there are still those embers underneath from holding the fire of anger for so very long.

I think the only thing that you and I tend to debate about is what R is and what it looks like. And honestly I think that is okay, there are merits of debating things and really testing out your feelings on a topic. However, I read some of the things you say very much like sisoon does. And I think sometimes Sissoon can be hard to interpret because of the nuanced way he can make a very impactful statement. You can’t read all his words at face value, you have to stop and feel them. Try them on. When he said on the last thread there are all sorts of things you can’t imagine within your philosophy, I think this is truly what it comes down to.

Because I think to open your mind about some of this R stuff, you would have to want to do something about those embers. And now that I can see that is some of it I think I do you an injustice to try and get you to see what R really is. It’s not tools that you will likely need in your life, and at this point in your journey, it may serve you better to keep your finger in the dyke with that small mass of anger towards your ex, and continue to be baffled at how people can take back a cheater and later fill fulfilled in that decision.

And that’s okay, that’s not really what we are heard on a mission to do - to change the mind of someone with lived through experiences on what someone else’s different lives experiences are.

[This message edited by hikingout at 8:41 PM, Sunday, June 1st]

DRS, I think you often present interesting points but are seeking argument in a way that suggests you are building a case where confirmation bias is valued over absorption of real conflicting information.

I think I've presented my counter argument to your core argument enough times. We might even simply agree in principle but not semantically.

An idea you hold onto beyond reason and self interest may be a principle and it may be stubbornness, but it's hard to tell the difference.

@HOP

I agree with hikingout, it takes real independence to truly R. Not just stay married…to R.

You've convinced me; I can get on board with that argument, with the caveat that it requires independent thought. I see this as distinct from being inherently independent. For example, the will and desire to pursue this independent thought (which you defined as defying social constructions and cultural programming) could legitimately be influenced by complete dependence on their wayward partner. That is to say, the propensity to break societal constructions using the tool of independent thought could be an easier alternative to developing true independence from one's partner.

@Sisoon

Firstly, no need to apologize. Sometimes two people have issues understanding one another. I don't see it as anyone being at fault - rather a clash of writing styles/ Thought processes? Either way, I have no personal issues with you or your opinions (though sometimes, I evidently disagree)

We agreed early in our M that infidelity would not be in itself a cause for D.

Then you weren't acting at odds with your principles when you decided to follow the path of reconciliation. Therefore, it's entirely possible for you to be highly principled, yet your principles were simply oriented in a different direction. I do, however, think the majority of people feel that infidelity should be a deal-breaker, though perhaps I'm wrong on this. If that's the case, then when faced with infidelity, they might have to betray this very principle. Such individuals, in that specific context, couldn't rightfully be defined as "highly principled" in the sense of upholding that particular value consistently.

This isn't a criticism, merely an observation about a character trait they clearly don't prioritize highly in that situation. It doesn't, in any way, make them bad people or definitively define their entire character.

You say your logic tells you that you'd have to split if a partner betrayed you, and your posts say you think that applies to all or most people. At least that's how I read your posts.

To clarify, I am definitively not saying that all or most people should separate from a partner who has cheated. What I am asserting is that if your core principles dictate that one should leave a cheater, and your personal characteristics align with those previously outlined (e.g., high self-belief, unmovable principles, highly logical nature), then reconciliation would be A) something you'd be less willing to attempt, and B) less likely to be successful in, even if you chose to pursue it.

Personally, I don't see this as a particularly outrageous claim. While HikingOut and I have been debating what these specific characteristics are and how they impact the will, desire, and success rate of reconciliation, I believe it's irrefutable to suggest that your core character isn't the biggest determining factor in why you do anything, not simply just how you'd react in the face of infidelity.

One interesting point I observed in a thread on this very topic was that people often said, "I always thought I'd leave a cheater until it happened, but..." Yet, some of these same users, in a philosophical debate on revenge cheating, would assert, "I'd never do this as it would be at odds with my own core principles." Do you see the logical inconsistency here? This isn't rational. They may feel they are being logical, but deeper, subconscious reasons are likely driving their decisions. However Just because some individuals perceive themselves as logically minded, even when their actions contradict this, doesn't negate the existence of truly logically minded people.

I think you write beautifully for those of your temperament—however you'd personally define that—but this can sometimes read as dismissive to those with mine. For example, it seems clear you don't believe anyone makes decisions rationally; that all decisions are emotionally driven and are only retrospectively rationalized. I fundamentally disagree with this, and I'm sure many other users would feel likewise. While it's your view, I think it does a disservice to more logically minded members of S.I. Similarly, I suppose how I write, for those with my temperament, clearly leaves some people with the perspective that I am in some way dismissive towards forgiving, emotionally intelligent people. The whole point of this post, ironically, was to disabuse that very notion.

If that's true, there's no universal logical path to a conclusion that D is the best option.

I agree. Too many factors play into this to suggest a universal path exists. Previously, I approached this topic more philosophically, often including disclaimers like "this is not prescriptive advice." I did this for two reasons. In the realm of philosophy you can argue for more absolute stances by following logical reasoning. But also because I'm aware that philosophical reasoning alone isn't enough to drive an action plan for most people. However, all I've really been suggesting here is that if someone examines their own self and beliefs, they will gain insight into whether they are likely to be successful with reconciliation, or even if they would want it at all.

Some people have partners who cheat and do all the right things, yet they are entirely uninterested in reconciliation. Others have terrible partners with no remorse and clear signs of being abusive, yet they desire reconciliation deeply. I'm attempting to answer why this happens – what's different in the make-up of these two individuals to drive those decisions.

Seriously, purely as a thought experiment, try to write a list of character traits that you believe would drive someone to:

A) Be likely to want reconciliation

B) Be successful in reconciliation, should they wish to pursue it

Then, conversely, a list of traits that would lead an individual in the opposite direction (towards separation/divorce).

I believe the characteristics I've proposed clearly influence a betrayed spouse's mindset, but I'm aware they represent a small number of factors within a much deeper, incomparably vast web of characteristics, experiences, and external influences.

Frankly, when I initially proposed those six traits, I intentionally chose the most broad and evident ones illustratively. This is precisely why I find the debate with HikingOut so fascinating; I personally struggle to understand how she doesn't perceive a link between the traits I've selected and their effects on reconciliation or divorce. Now, to counterpoint myself, in line with your initial point, I suppose "highly principled" could rightly sit in either list – the principle itself would need to be outlined.

For example:

Characteristics for Reconciliation-minded people

Highly principled (belief that one should attempt to maintain a marriage at all possible costs)

Characteristics for Divorce-minded people

Highly principled (belief that cheating is a deal-breaker)

So, I suppose I need to caveat that into my initial assertions.

@hikingout

You've presented a reasonable and coherent theory, and I agree that self-analysis is inherently challenging and often susceptible to bias. It's entirely possible that your assessment is correct. That being said, as I've previously stated, I believe my response and subsequent actions are entirely in line with my core principles. My fundamental principle dictates that no one should remain with a betrayer. As suggested, I feel I have sufficient evidence from my own life to confidently assert that I would not betray this principle, and that my stance is not merely a coping mechanism.

My commitment to principles has manifested in various circumstances, even to my own detriment, beyond the realm of relationships. Forgetting the example already provided concerning my father (which, I believe, your theory doesn't fully explain either), I once left a job, despite being in a wobbly financial position, due to a principled decision. There have been many more smaller, less dramatic, but equally detrimental choices I've made throughout my life guided by these principles.

It's clear that we can all construct compelling arguments using psychological factors to explain why someone makes a particular decision. For instance, I could suggest that you only reconciled with your partner after his infidelity because, subconsciously, you felt you deserved it after what you did. That as a cheater you got what you deserved. A taste of your own medicine. Alternatively, I could argue that 'sisoon' stayed with his partner due to low self-esteem, given that one of the cited reasons he provided for staying was the ability to continue having sex through the recovery process – thus implicitly suggesting he harbored doubts about his ability to secure a sexual partner outside of his wife.

Firstly, I'm not saying I believe these points - these are mere examples of how such thinking could be applied. Secondly I could certainly flesh out these arguments to make them appear quite compelling. However, I wouldn't do this. I personally don't believe it's right to engage in that kind of speculative psychological analysis of others' specific cases (unless asked) and thus prefer to discuss things more broadly. (Outside of those two examples I've just used and then immediately disavowed illustratively)

I will return to our initial debate. Perhaps, in the meantime, it would be beneficial for you to consider a list of character traits and how you feel they would apply to either reconciliation or divorce. That is, of course, unless you are asserting that one's character and their choices are entirely unlinked. In which case, I think our understanding of humanity and how people work may be so misaligned that further discussion would be unproductive.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 9:04 AM, Monday, June 2nd]

reconciliation relies primarily on 1) the bs wishes to stay married 2) the ws finds the contributing factors that culminated in an affair and works to change them. And then as a result, has been able to rebuild trust and good standing in the marriage. It doesn’t rely on the bs having any empathy or forgiveness.

Successful reconciliation is primarily having enough reasons that it benefits the bs and feeling the ws is a safe enough bet to move forward with.

While I agree that the BS desire to stay married and the WS efforts are foundational, I don’t understand your assertion that empathy and forgiveness are not key.

Many bs here would say they are happily reconciled and do not forgive the affair.

This implies to me a detachment from the core emotional repair of the relationship, which, while possible for some, may not represent what I've read to be true reconciliation. Wouldn't this route just be staying together? (as opposed to reconciling)

Irrespective the ability to objectively assess whether a WS is a "safe enough bet" and whether reconciliation "benefits the BS" often requires a level of emotional processing that touches on understanding, if not explicit empathy or forgiveness, for the WS's journey. How exactly can you assert your WS is a safe partner without knowing what led to the infidelity and therefore feel confident they won't reoffend? I'm not sure many people would accept 'it happened at random for no reason but I promise it wouldn't happen again'. To completely divorce the BS's internal emotional state from the success of rebuilding trust feels incomplete.

You also seem to disagree with my point that "if you simply thought cheating is never acceptable, you would never accept it... you couldn't enter reconciliation with this mindset, or you wouldn't get far in the process."

You argue that BS's

simply recognize most humans are both light and dark. They may believe in redemption to a certain extent- meaning no more chances.

While recognizing human imperfection and believing in redemption is valid, it still necessitates a degree of understanding (a facet of empathy) for why the WS fell into infidelity, even if it's never condoned. How can one be redeemed without an understanding of why they failed? Without this understanding, the WS remains merely a "bad person" who "made a bad decision," which creates an emotional wall. To truly rebuild trust, the BS often needs to understand the root of the breakdown, not just the act itself, to ensure it won't recur. Your example of trusting someone who committed murder, yet reformed, supports the idea that the BS must believe in the WS's capacity for fundamental change – a belief often fueled by a form of compassion or understanding, if not outright empathy for their past actions.

Regarding your dismissal of my gender-based empathy correlation as "horse phooey" and "gender bias": You state,

I do not think men are largely devoid of empathy. I think a lot of men may feel more comfortable with logic, but they have the ability to identify with others emotions.

And broadly, I think men are as capable of all aspects of emotional intelligence that women are.

I concur that men are not "devoid of empathy" and are fully capable of emotional intelligence. My point, however, is about general trends and inherent predispositions, not individual capacity or deficiency. Just as women, broadly, are not physically stronger than men, despite many individual exceptions, it remains a statistical trend. If women generally possess higher empathy, and if empathy is beneficial for reconciliation (as I argue), then it is not "gender bias" to consider this a relevant factor in why divorce rates differ. Dismissing a potential correlation out of hand, especially when it aligns with observable differences in general emotional processing (men often "stuffing feelings," women "talking about them," as you previously noted), seems to overlook a plausible contributing element.

You are trying to paint a picture in which women are more likely to reconcile because they are more empathetic. There is no evidence to support that, it’s simply gender bias. And it’s an over simplification of a years long process that requires so many different things.

Again, the argument is about a correlation between a prevalent trait (empathy) and a complex outcome (reconciliation), not a simplistic monocausal explanation. You provide detailed stages of reconciliation, which I appreciate. But even within those stages, where does the motivation to stay through years of "messy" processing, "denial," "bargaining," and "anger" come from? if not from a deep, underlying capacity for understanding, perseverance, and ultimately, a form of forgiveness or acceptance that aligns with empathy?

While you state "love didn’t die the day I told him" for your husband, is that not, itself, an empathetic response to your continued presence and your willingness to work?

I think different stages of reconciling required different skills and attitudes. And over all regardless of gender, I am convinced the bs’s who actually have a successful reconciliation learned to detach from an outcome, got clear on what they wanted and were objective they were not going to settle for less.

This "detachment," "clarity," and "objectivity" sounds like a strength, which you credit to your husband. But is the ability to remain engaged in a difficult, multi-year process, to work through resentment, and to eventually rebuild love and trust, not also an incredible act of empathy for the WS's journey and a willingness to offer forgiveness for past actions? To reduce it solely to a transactional "seeing and getting the things they needed" feels the real disservice here, particularly when many BS report renewed love and vulnerability as outcomes. Your phrase, "The actual reconciliation becomes a process of both people understanding each other," perfectly encapsulates the role of empathy in bridging that gap.

You contend that my core point about personality traits determining the path is "off base" and that "it’s more about stages of grief" and "common responses we all share in betrayal."

While the stages of grief are universal to processing trauma, they describe what happens, not necessarily why some navigate them towards reconciliation and others towards divorce. Personality traits dictate how an individual navigates those stages and what their ultimate conviction will be. An individual with high self-belief and unmovable principles might move through those grief stages and ultimately decide, logically, that reconciliation compromises their core identity. Conversely, someone with high empathy and a strong value for forgiveness might move through the same stages and find within themselves the capacity to heal and rebuild. The stages describe the emotional arc; personality traits describe the compass that guides the ultimate destination.

Your observation that "staying at first just seems to be the default rather than a personality type" is interesting, but even the motivation for that initial default (e.g., fear, hope, love, practicalities) is rooted in individual disposition. While early stages may be driven by shock, the sustained effort required for years of R, to bridge the divide between BS and WS, fundamentally relies on traits that go beyond initial processing.

So to go back to my previous post

...it would be beneficial for you to consider a list of character traits and how you feel they would apply to either reconciliation or divorce. That is, of course, unless you are asserting that one's character and their choices are entirely unlinked. In which case, I think our understanding of humanity and how people work may be so misaligned that further discussion would be unproductive.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 1:30 PM, Monday, June 2nd]

I apologize if I crossed a line but I think our principles sometimes, probably more often formed from our experiences rather than being born with them.

For this:

. Forgetting the example already provided concerning my father (which, I believe, your theory doesn't fully explain either), I once left a job, despite being in a wobbly financial position, due to a principled decision. There have been many more smaller, less dramatic, but equally detrimental choices I've made throughout my life guided by these principles.

If your denouncement of your father was after your experience with infidelity, it’s still plausible. Because someone brought you pain in this way, and you found it morally reprehensible- then you applied that to your father. I don’t think that is mysterious. Unless you say the principle was always there as deeply as it was after the experience. I think that would be possible but rare.

I see bs’s unfriend, cut off relatives and all sorts of things when they find out the person is a cheater, whereas their reaction before may not have been as extreme. I certainly have different reactions now than I did back before I truly understood the experience of infidelity.

Anyway, that wasn’t meant to be an indictment of your principles, I have no issues with your principles. I only bristle if I find the way you say things to the effect of bs’s who reconcile are not principled. You have not said that in a while and my hope is because you realize that isn’t true. But it’s not my job to convince you either way.

I bet most bs will tell you their feelings about infidelity changes greatly through their experiences. I do not even think what I am presenting is deeply psychological- it’s human nature.

Many things we may not take a deep stance on until we experience them. And the whole reason I brought it up is because if there are additional opportunities to heal sometimes we are the last to see them.

It's clear that we can all construct compelling arguments using psychological factors to explain why someone makes a particular decision. For instance, I could suggest that you only reconciled with your partner after his infidelity because, subconsciously, you felt you deserved it after what you did. That as a cheater you got what you deserved. A taste of your own medicine.

I do not deny I felt that way and had to wrestle with those feelings. I said those things here, many times. And I believe I have said that to you during our last being discussion.

I think the way you talk about it the reasons remain permanent. Reconciling to me is the process of resolving those issues. It’s not that I do not carry forward responsibility on damaging him, causing him immense and deep pain. That part will always be true. I just do no longer think I deserved it any more than did.

Also, it overlooks I strongly favored divorce for the first 18 months or so. Not so much because I could dish it out but not take it, more it felt like our marriage had become so overwhelmingly messy that I had deep uncertainty that we could overcome the dumpster fire it had become. I took responsibility for starting it, but the future felt bleak and he had still destroyed my trust in him which we at least had going for us before. So it was less that I felt obligated to stay, but definitely there was self blame that was complicated and sent me down a whole other set of shame spiraling.

The climb as immense but I can tell you I no where near feel I settled or that I am obligated to serve my time out in a marriage I am not happy in. I have an exit lane just as my husband does, with no plans of using it unless my had would be forced. And while I would carry out a divorce, I would do it with new feelings of devastation, it’s just I also know that I am capable of standing in my own two feet and also of finding love again if that’s what I decide I would want. I am of the believe there are lots of people out there that I could be happily compatible with.

Alternatively, I could argue that 'sisoon' stayed with his partner due to low self-esteem, given that one of the cited reasons he provided for staying was the ability to continue having sex through the recovery process – thus implicitly suggesting he harbored doubts about his ability to secure a sexual partner outside of his wife.

I think you are very offbase here, but I am not going to speak for Sissoon. I will only say that if low self esteem was a factor in the beginning I can strongly assert that was overcome and ultimately had no bearing over the ultimate outcome. I think it’s common that a bs will have a major hit to their self esteem, it’s just many can rebound and see their spouses cheating is no statement of their own worth.

That’s the part that I think you have a hard time imagining- we are talking about years of evolution that goes into reconciling. The decision to not press go on a divorce right away is almost universal to a bs. I am not saying no one ever pulls the plug immediately, I do know that happens, but it is far rarer of a scenario. So the first year newbies? To me their personality likely doesn’t come into play. I see it as the most common response there is.

I will return to our initial debate. Perhaps, in the meantime, it would be beneficial for you to consider a list of character traits and how you feel they would apply to either reconciliation or divorce. That is, of course, unless you are asserting that one's character and their choices are entirely unlinked. In which case, I think our understanding of humanity and how people work may be so misaligned that further discussion would be unproductive.

I know there are some bs no matter how they twist themselves are not able to reconcile. I think often there is some circumstances that make that more probable. For example, waited too long, who has given us implicit permission to discuss his case- he has said he could have gotten over a one time thing or other scenarios. I believe him, sometimes the details are just too much for one person to resolve.

I think that others like yourself who may not be able to due to past experiences and the beliefs they carry as a result of their experience. Certainly there are folks who can’t recover their self esteem while they continue to be in relationship with someone who cheated. There is a natural shame many bs feel in taking a cheater back and I think that happens to differing degrees.

I feel the rest who don’t reconcile have a lot to do with other factors such as being able to see their ws objectively - that they maybe have never been a good partner, or they are unlikely to be a good partner in the future. This is probably the number one scenario we see here where it’s culminates in a divorce.

I have stated the initial decision to stay and process it is probably the default of the majority. That is not a decision to reconcile by the way. It’s most often a decision not to make a decision under duress. It’s often a wait and see sort of thing.it has more to do with where they are in the grieving process than any other factor. I see year one as recovery, year two becomes more the "now what" year.

I think that most who decide to stay after some of the the initial stages of grief have processed it becomes about practical matters- kids, finances, shared history, etc. I think there often is also the matter of they find they still love their ws.

And as we go into reconciliation later into year two or sometimes it starts in year three, the desire for that normalcy and goodwill towards their spouse to return someone with a propensity towards keeping going has more to do with a willingness to grow and heal.

Reconciliation is a metamorphosis of sorts, and therefore it can’t rely on things staying static, it relies on the ability for the bs to feel they are making the best decision for them. And as such you fill find most report that they learned to be more selfish, more self loving, less compromising than who they were in their former marriage. Those people learn to command more respect from the themselves and therefore you see that happen externally in their marriage and other relationships..

I don’t think it can rely on personality alone because the experience will transform you no matter what direction you go towards. Because it’s trauma, and to overcome trauma means you have no choice but to acknowledge and accept your emotions, practice self care, find support, develop new coping mechanisms, limit or avoid avoidance, etc.

I do think there are personality traits that can help you reconcile but many can also help you divorce: Independent, self-validating, strong sense of self, not willing to settle, dedicated, the ability to detach, flexibility, dedicated to healing and growth, etc.

[This message edited by hikingout at 5:32 PM, Monday, June 2nd]

While I agree that the BS desire to stay married and the WS efforts are foundational, I don’t understand your assertion that empathy and forgiveness are not key.

I know many people here, including myself that the affair itself was not forgiven. I do not forgive my husbands affair. My theory in that is complicated, but it stems I believe from not forgiving myself for my affair either. I feel he has worked on himself, does everything he can to be a good husband, and I still love him despite the affair. I do feel empathy towards the pain he was in when it started- but this went on under my nose in my house for over a year. I do not feel it helped him at all with his pain and I find it every bit as senseless and degrading as my affair was. I do believe however he is highly unlikely to reoffend. That is a big factor in reconciling and probably bigger than empathy.

I have seen this attitude from many other bs. In fact, I think they helped me understand how it was possible.

Some call it forgiving the sinner and not the sin, I don’t think about it quite like that, but I can tell you I don’t know if forgiveness will be something I seek or place a lot of emphasis on. That’s between him and God, I am not his redeemer. I do believe he is redeemable and our marriage was worth saving to me. We are many years out now, and I do not find that hinders me from fully loving him at all. I am more in love with him now than ever.

I will reiterate, I believe all good relationships require empathy. I do not feel empathy is more needed in R than in a regular marital relationship. I think where it maybe confusing is I think the bs wants to know why it happened, how it happened, but generally I see that used more as a way of guaging change and progress which is more of an intellectual endeavor.

Some have ws who can’t articulate, and so they do sometimes find it soothing to play detective, but that period is just a stage, just like the discovery stage eventually ends.

You also seem to disagree with my point that "if you simply thought cheating is never acceptable, you would never accept it... you couldn't enter reconciliation with this mindset, or you wouldn't get far in the process."

Because you do not need to accept infidelity in the way it’s okay with you. Part of the non acceptance of it is what you see the bs contending with- it’s why most who truly reconcile require their ws do therapy, to be able to articulate all the things in their character that led them to this point, to demonstrate change and to rebuild trust. It’s allowing the ws to accept all the natural consequences and providing time for the ws to work on themselves. None of these activities are saying "I accept infidelity".

You will notice that the divorce rate for infidelity is not high in year one, but it climbs over time. Years 3,4,5, and beyond is where you will find the divorce rate actually climb. Some say 53 percent of marriages end by year 5. This alone support the idea that most will give it some period of time, and when they find the ws not to have done the work needed, and they have gotten emotionally stabilized, they will start leaving.

Your assertion is that people who find it unacceptable will divorce immediately. Okay, but I don’t see that happening in mass. Those people seem to be more in the outliers than not.

And as far as your principle- that you will not accept it. Well, that’s because you have been through it. I can tell you that if there was even a whiff of it in our marriage, even a loose boundary, that’s it. This isn’t an exercise either of us will take years to do again. I think you will find a lot of people who experienced it already aren’t up for round two. Some people will accept it over and over from the same spouse but that’s not reconciliation.

How can one be redeemed without an understanding of why they failed? Without this understanding, the WS remains merely a "bad person" who "made a bad decision," which creates an emotional wall. To truly rebuild trust, the BS often needs to understand the root of the breakdown, not just the act itself, to ensure it won't recur.

They can not.but empathy to me is that they can feel and relate to the feeling. I do not think this is always the case.

I will use myself a an example. After a lot of work I realized the following synopsis happened:

I was an avoidant people pleaser who eventually lost connection on who I was and what I wanted. This is because I learned to always be indispensable to my husband and to make sure I was always earning his love. The more I did what I assumed he wanted the less effective over time it was in my true goal- to feel my love being returned to me. To earn to a place where I could feel cherished, seen, and emotionally connected. Kind of dumb, yes but many things we do unconsciously doesn’t equate to logic. When what I expected to happen never did, I kept hustling harder until I was exhausted.

The true problem is I thought my husband was better than me and that I didn’t deserve his love. I didn’t know that was even a thing but once I saw it I couldn’t I see it. I had filled in every blank over 20 years as if I was wholely unlovable. This was created by shame I carried since childhood. Guilt is I did something bad, shame is I am bad. If you believe you are bad, how can someone love you? Eventually my starvation of love (because I couldn’t see it) led me to seek it elsewhere. My avoidance took me to blow up my marriage rather than ask for divorce. I was going to monkey branch into a relationship where I could feel cherished. None of this was truly decided, but it was my guidance system under the hood. Unconscious thoughts still have traction.

So, it was important for me to see so many of my traits led me to be unhappy instead of blaming it on my husband and marriage. It was important that I learned who I was and what I wanted and what my relationship to my values really were.

And there is a lot more but that’s enough to use for my point.

My husband didn’t have to empathize with me on that. He could acknowledge the fact I grew up in a very fucked up environment. He could see that I was a perfectionist and a people pleaser. He observed me awkwardly practice doing things differently. But a lot of it was more about so I know how I got here and how are we not going to go there again. I think in many ways this was logic, and observing. If you want to call it empathy, well okay. But I don’t think he can have empathy for something so entirely illogical.

But I don’t think he even pretended to place himself in my shoes, which to me is what empathy is. I think he observed me from his shoes and what he wanted was action and solid change. I think to know if that happens it requires objectivity more than anything. It requires detaching from an outcome and being prepared to divorce if that was still how he felt. If the bs is just playing pick me all the way through, a reconciliation will not occur. It’s not possible.

I think many of the bs’s here who divorced could still tell you the narrative of their ws’s journey. And some of them felt their ws had too far to go with very little motivation to get there.

As for the divorce rate being higher for men - I still contend it’s primarily women experience financial dependence still at a greater rate and the fact more women do not give up the ap. Also I believe women are outpacing men on cheating to some degree, so that would lead to more divorces. Women are initiating more divorces than ever and I think the cheating goes hand and hand in that. I also think we only know by lawyers or therapists and many never see either one so there is no real way to know that men are truly initiating more. It feels to me my list probably accounts for far more divorces than the man being unable to utilize empathy. I doubt you find many people who are empathetic about cheating.

I think it’s probably more a matter if the reasons the ws finds ring true rather than feeling like they can put themselves in their ws’s shoes. Sympathy may be some factor but I don’t see people saying they reconciled because they felt badly their ws had a bad childhood or because they felt they understood how the ws felt before, during, or after the affair. It denies the complexity of growth and healing, and the fact most people are still capable of feeling love for their ws despite the cheating. For the beginning it’s usually highly emotional based, but by the end there is a reconciliation of feelings and logic.

I think being able to logically understand it is a requirement of reconciliation because I do agree that a bs needs to know how and why it happened.

[This message edited by hikingout at 5:52 PM, Monday, June 2nd]

You've convinced me; I can get on board with that argument, with the caveat that it requires independent thought. I see this as distinct from being inherently independent. For example, the will and desire to pursue this independent thought (which you defined as defying social constructions and cultural programming) could legitimately be influenced by complete dependence on their wayward partner. That is to say, the propensity to break societal constructions using the tool of independent thought could be an easier alternative to developing true independence from one's partner.

Okay- sorry to add to an already big wall of test but this seems to be sort of the crux of the whole of our differences I feel.

You see it as identifying and empathizing is the path. I could see how that image has formed for you. That’s what bs struggle with the most, in hundreds of ways in the midst of trying to reconcile their emotional and logical sides. And so that’s what the bulk of posts around here pertain to.

The truth is the people you see that reconcile completely aren’t left with feeling like they settled because they took charge of their own process.

R requires detachment and independence because when we say you have to be willing to lose the marriage to save it, we really mean it.

Why? Because if you don’t do that you can’t be objective about your ws. If you can’t be objective, you will not ever reconcile the logical mind with the body of emotions involved.

A bs will feel safer when what they are feeling from their ws in terms of change matches up with what they logically believe the changes should be.

The most successful reconciliations require long bouts of detachment. They aren’t sitting there waiting and watching everything all the time anymore as they might have in the beginning. Why? Because change is too slow for that.

It’s not just independent thinking, there is a separateness that happens? Why? Because the ws and bs should ideally both be focusing on themselves for some period of time. The realization hits that this isn’t going away anytime soon, and the marriage is not the most immediate problem to solve.

[This message edited by hikingout at 9:10 PM, Monday, June 2nd]

Oof! Although it’s difficult for me to articulate any philosophical thoughts in English about the subject matter, I ll offer myself as part of a general statistic and I will say this… I too drs consider myself a highly principled person. My parents divorced because of my father’s cheating and that’s been tough on the family unit. I had other relationships before meeting my husband and I didn’t tolerate cheating. I never had a problem staying alone after ending a relationship. I was mostly happy and relieved, and I needed and cherished time for my self. Slowly at around the age of 25 I realised that I had to avoid any man that had any resemblance to my father. I love my father but I can’t tolerate his traits. I later met my husband who was always caring and empathetic. He was everything I wanted in a man and I guess he felt the same way about me. 16 years later He cheated and I stayed. At first, my "decision " was based on my absolute shock!!! And I can tell you my decision was wrong. What made r possible eventually though was when I stopped being empathetic. I mean I sometimes think that my empathy drove him straight to the affair…. When I turned my back at him and looked myself in the mirror with care and compassion that’s when r started happening.
I too have made many highly principled decisions. Other people could call me a fool but I couldn’t and wouldn’t decide differently. For example. My boss hit on me when I was 26 years old. He proposed a work related trip for… me and him. I said no. He called me in his office to discuss it and I bravely said what I had to say (all the while thinking that my next job won’t be as good as the one I had). But I wasn’t afraid. And I was proud. And I stayed for another 3years and to this day we are still ok with the man. I mean my principles have served me well. My wh knows that.
I wasn’t afraid in general. I ve seen a lot and done a lot.
At first during r I definitely wasn’t proud of myself. I mean, the man cheated and I stayed. I had never done that, and I find cheating awful to this day. I mean….Who does that???! But I stayed. I was in shock. I was thinking about the kids and well everything….
But what made r possible wasn’t my decision to stay. It was rather the fact that my empathy had to completely disappear in order for his to come to surface again. There was no place for my empathy at some point. None. R was made possible because of my decision to just contemplate the idea of staying AND his empathy that made it’s way back into his head (and deepens as time goes by).
Oh and no matter what, I will be ok. But, for the time being I want to be with my man that I admittedly had lost somewhere along the way…
I hope I wasn’t completely off base here.

HO:

I think you are very offbase here, but I am not going to speak for Sissoon. I will only say that if low self esteem was a factor in the beginning I can strongly assert that was overcome and ultimately had no bearing over the ultimate outcome.

It seems your full attention was not given to DrS’s post. Perhaps you’re at work? He clearly was providing an example, explicitly said so, said he doesn’t even believe this illustration. I’m assuming you missed this paragraph of the same post:

Firstly, I'm not saying I believe these points - these are mere examples of how such thinking could be applied.

and

those two examples I've just used and then immediately disavowed illustratively

[This message edited by gr8ful at 10:50 PM, Monday, June 2nd]

I apologize if I crossed a line but I think our principles sometimes, probably more often formed from our experiences rather than being born with them.

That’s completely fine. As noted, I think it’s a logical theory. It’s not that I think you’ve crossed a line, I simply think speculative psychological analysis based on limited information is fruitless when reviewing specific cases. I think this sort of thinking can be incredibly useful when talking broadly however.

If your denouncement of your father was after your experience with infidelity, it’s still plausible. Because someone brought you pain in this way, and you found it morally reprehensible- then you applied that to your father. I don’t think that is mysterious. Unless you say the principle was always there as deeply as it was after the experience. I think that would be possible but rare.

Again, I think the situation is profoundly multifaceted, shaped by a complex interplay of lived experience and, crucially, my inherent character traits. My principles regarding infidelity likely formed in the opposite order of what you've suppose. I witnessed firsthand the profound pain my mother endured, pain she desperately attempted to shield us from as children, as she tried to reconcile with my serial-cheating father. Despite his infidelity, she maintained he was, by all other accounts, a 'great partner' – an assertion I still find laughable. This formative experience, observing the direct consequences of reconciliation with a repeated betrayer, deeply ingrained in me an internal principle never to stay with a cheater, a stance later reinforced and strengthened by my own subsequent experiences and life observations.

The application of this principle in my life is equally multifaceted, rooted in a character that, once a principle is thoroughly interrogated and stands up to scrutiny, treats it as absolute. I live by it; I die by it. While some might view such steadfastness as mere inflexibility, I see it as integrity – a conviction that complex human relationships, while demanding adaptability, should not necessitate the compromise of fundamental values. My commitment to this principle, even if it might be perceived as a lack of flexibility, is a core aspect of who I am.

Examining other self-driven factors behind this principle reveals what some might term an "irrationally high level of self-esteem." I simply feel I can do better than a cheater. Logically, I understand I'm not the best-looking, smartest, funniest, or most successful person in the world. However, my lived evidence is that I've consistently had fulfilling relationships with different people from different backgrounds. Therefore, logically, why would I settle for a cheater? Cheating, at a minimum, inflicts incredible pain. As Christopher Hitchens famously said, "Up with it, I will not put." Some might argue that a perceived "better" partner is theoretical, and new relationships carry their own risks. Yet, for me, I believe loyal people exist. I'm willing to find them, irrespective of the amount of tries it takes. Beyond practical reasons or the fear that a next partner would do likewise – fears that my core traits naturally minimize – what benefit is there in staying with someone of such low moral worth? The hope that they might someday achieve the baseline moral standard worthy of a relationship? This isn't about ignoring the emotional cost of dismantling a shared life; it's about prioritizing the emotional cost of remaining in a fundamentally compromised one.

My stance is further reinforced by a pragmatic view of romance: I don't believe in "the one" and place little emphasis on long-held, shared experiences as inherently binding. I genuinely believe I could be very happy and in love with thousands of potential partners, so why remain burdened by a painful memory when fulfilling connections can be found elsewhere? While this isn't a traditionally romantic view (move aside Shakespeare), it serves my personal well-being. This perspective allows me to acknowledge that for others, the irreplaceable value of shared history or unique intimacy might outweigh the pain, and that is a valid, equally strong set of values for them.

Finally, I possess a high degree of the trait of disgust – perhaps an "objectively negative" character trait. I found my ex-partner revolting post-cheating; "hysterical bonding" is an alien concept to me. Some might argue that overcoming initial disgust is a sign of immense strength and a pathway to reconciliation. While I concede many possess this resilience, I am not in that camp. My alignment with those who, like 'waitedtoolong,' never fully surpass this disgust is not a sign of weakness, but a fundamental aspect of my being. Why would I endure months of repulsion, waiting for someone to achieve a baseline moral standard, when I can pursue fulfilling sexual relationships unburdened by this digust?

These posed questions are, of course, rhetorical. My reactions are part of a complex brew, enforced by both lived experience and, crucially, my inherent character traits. These traits inherently steer me away from reconciliation, just as different traits would steer others. My view is a summary of how I believe humans generally operate: our fundamental character dictates our reactions to all circumstances, from infidelity to assault. I am not, nor have I ever argued that my view or my actions represent the objectively correct stance; it is simply how I am.

—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

As Gr8ful stated, I don't actually subscribe to the examples of psychological analysis I went on to provide; as such, I won't speak further on how accurate or inaccurate they were. They were simply illustrative points to show how easy it is to engage in such analysis and how flawed it can sometimes be.

—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

I feel the rest who don’t reconcile have a lot to do with other factors such as being able to see their ws objectively - that they maybe have never been a good partner, or they are unlikely to be a good partner in the future. This is probably the number one scenario we see here where it’s culminates in a divorce.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the majority of divorces stemming from infidelity default to being about the suitability of the wayward spouse or the general strength of the relationship.

I can't tell you the amount of posts we see that say: "she/he's doing everything right but..." While we can't know the exact proportions, I would suggest it stands to reason that the character of the betrayed spouse is just as relevant as the character of the wayward spouse when looking at the likelihood of reconciliation.

I do think there are personality traits that can help you reconcile but many can also help you divorce: Independent, self-validating, strong sense of self, not willing to settle, dedicated, the ability to detach, flexibility, dedicated to healing and growth, etc.

Okay, so I suppose, to expand on this, which traits specifically can help you in one direction and are less likely to help you in another?

For example, just to hammer down the point, let's consider a ridiculously black and white scenario as a thought experiment. I don't think it's ludicrous to presume that someone who was: highly vengeful, had no empathy, no willingness or desire to understand another's perspective, and would not only never forgive someone who wronged them but would actively despise them — would have a troubling time reconciling. It's fair to say they would likely not want to reconcile at all. If you agree this is the case, we can then review each individual trait and see whether it's more likely to make someone want to reconcile or less likely to reconcile. While I agree other factors come into play and some traits are applicable to both solutions, there will be inherent traits that will aid in one direction.

I do feel empathy towards the pain he was in when it started- but this went on under my nose in my house for over a year. I do not feel it helped him at all with his pain and I find it every bit as senseless and degrading as my affair was. I do believe however he is highly unlikely to reoffend. That is a big factor in reconciling and probably bigger than empathy.

Nonetheless, empathy was a factor, and I think it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest it therefore didn't play a role in your decisions, wills, and wants.

Some call it forgiving the sinner and not the sin

Okay, so a form of forgiveness is still required, then. Perhaps not directed at the affair itself, but at least the ability to forgive the person who committed the wrong. If your traits made any form of forgiveness unlikely or particularly hard, do you not think this would play a big factor?

I will reiterate, I believe all good relationships require empathy. I do not feel empathy is more needed in R than in a regular marital relationship. I think where it maybe confusing is I think the bs wants to know why it happened, how it happened, but generally I see that used more as a way of guaging change and progress which is more of an intellectual endeavor.

I’m stating that a belief from a BS that a WS's has a capacity for fundamental change is an act often fueled by a form of compassion or understanding, if not outright empathy.

You will notice that the divorce rate for infidelity is not high in year one, but it climbs over time. Years 3,4,5, and beyond is where you will find the divorce rate actually climb. Some say 53 percent of marriages end by year 5. This alone support the idea that most will give it some period of time, and when they find the ws not to have done the work needed, and they have gotten emotionally stabilized, they will start leaving.

Your assertion is that people who find it unacceptable will divorce immediately. Okay, but I don’t see that happening in mass. Those people seem to be more in the outliers than not.

This fundamentally misrepresents my position. Firstly, I have never asserted that people en masse will divorce immediately. This is a crucial point of clarification. Though of course, this does happen occasionally. In fact likely the most famous JFO in the history (won't quote the user name but you may have a sense of who I mean) of this site was on this basis but that's by the by.

Secondly, I agree that the reasons for the delay in divorce rates align with what you've outlined: the stages of grief. I fully concur that the stages of grief are universal to those processing trauma. However, my argument is that once that grief is processed, individuals will ultimately default to their inherent characteristics. As victims of infidelity break past this trauma and find themselves again, they will then genuinely know if they are fit for reconciliation or if they even want it at all. This perfectly explains the delays in the divorce rates you cite. The initial period is about trauma processing and survival, not necessarily about core desires or long-term suitability for reconciliation. Once the fog of acute trauma begins to lift, underlying personality traits become the dominant factor in guiding the ultimate decision to reconcile or divorce.

Thirdly, implicitly you suggesting that I am asserting "that more people have the traits that will lead them to divorce than towards reconciliation." I am not making that assertion. It is entirely possible that we have more people who are high in empathetic and forgiveness-oriented traits than those who share my traits. I simply don't know the proportions, and I agree that relevant statistics on the distribution of these specific personality traits in the context of infidelity outcomes are likely unavailable. My argument is not about the prevalence of certain traits, but about the link between those traits and the eventual decision, which becomes clearer once the immediate trauma response subsides.

As for the divorce rate being higher for men - I still contend it’s primarily women experience financial dependence still at a greater rate and the fact more women do not give up the ap. Also I believe women are outpacing men on cheating to some degree, so that would lead to more divorces. Women are initiating more divorces than ever and I think the cheating goes hand and hand in that. I also think we only know by lawyers or therapists and many never see either one so there is no real way to know that men are truly initiating more. It feels to me my list probably accounts for far more divorces than the man being unable to utilize empathy

I actually agree, I was just arguing that empathy is a factor. Not that it was the primary or only factor.

My husband didn’t have to empathize with me on that. He could acknowledge the fact I grew up in a very fucked up environment. He could see that I was a perfectionist and a people pleaser. He observed me awkwardly practice doing things differently. But a lot of it was more about so I know how I got here and how are we not going to go there again. I think in many ways this was logic, and observing. If you want to call it empathy, well okay. But I don’t think he can have empathy for something so entirely illogical.

But I don’t think he even pretended to place himself in my shoes, which to me is what empathy is. I think he observed me from his shoes and what he wanted was action and solid change. I think to know if that happens it requires objectivity more than anything. It requires detaching from an outcome and being prepared to divorce if that was still how he felt. If the bs is just playing pick me all the way through, a reconciliation will not occur. It’s not possible.

I thought this may end up as how we each individually defined empathy, let me expand:

Firstly, when you state your husband "could acknowledge the fact I grew up in a very fucked up environment," or that "He could see that I was a perfectionist and a people pleaser," or that "He observed me awkwardly practice doing things differently," this is not merely cold, detached observation. This is acknowledging and validating your internal reality and experiences. A purely detached, logical individual seeking only "action and solid change" would focus solely on the behavior (the affair). The act of acknowledging your "fucked up environment," your "perfectionism," or your "people-pleasing" is an act of seeing you beyond the infidelity – seeing the complex person who made a choice, even if an "illogical" one. This level of acknowledgment and willingness to engage with the context of your being, rather than just the surface-level behavior, is precisely a manifestation of empathy. It's not necessarily "feeling what they feel" in the sense of condoning the affair, but it is an empathetic capacity to understand the human behind the act.

Secondly, your definition of empathy as only "place himself in my shoes" or "feel what they feel as much as another human can" is, I believe, too narrow for the context of reconciliation. Empathy, in a relational sense, often encompasses:

-Cognitive Empathy: Understanding another person's thoughts, feelings, and perspectives, even if you don't share them emotionally. Your husband "could acknowledge" and "could see" your background and traits – that is cognitive empathy in action.

-Affective Empathy: Sharing the feelings of another. While perhaps not directly feeling your shame or starvation of love, acknowledging those as genuine drivers for you is a move beyond pure logic.

-Empathic Concern/Compassion: Feeling concern for another's well-being and having a desire to help. Your husband choosing to remain engaged and work on becoming vulnerable again, despite your betrayal, speaks to a concern for the relationship and your shared future that transcends mere transactional benefit.

R requires detachment and independence because when we say you have to be willing to lose the marriage to save it, we really mean it.

Why? Because if you don’t do that you can’t be objective about your ws. If you can’t be objective, you will not ever reconcile the logical mind with the body of emotions involved.

Well, all I can say to this, given your definition, is that many users who claim to have reconciled have, in fact, not at all. Many users state they never gave any outcome other than reconciliation any consideration. Again, as you are aware, we can't quote users specifically, but I have noted this several times.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 12:39 PM, Tuesday, June 3rd]

I actually agree, I was just arguing that empathy is a factor. Not that it was the primary or only factor.

I think I have said repeatedly that empathy is a factor, I just do not think it’s the main factor. So we are saying the same thing.Empathy is required in all relationships, and it’s a big factor in communication. My main point is it’s far more complicated than for it to boil down to just personality types, gender, etc.

However, we do define empathy differently. As the ws I needed to have empathy enough to anticipate triggers, to see the damage I caused. I do not think it requires a deep intimate empathy to recognize someone’s child hood was very dysfunctional. I can get that recognition from someone who knows me on a surface level

I would say intellectual understanding is different than empathy. Empathy is defined as The ability to understand and feel the feelings of another. And i think in R if I had to place emphasis on empathy that role would go more firmly in the ws’s area to improve. It’s imperative that we get as deeply into that scenario as we can in order to have insights towards repair.

And I am taking about true reconciliation- to me the best indicator of success os in the ability to detach from it being about "we" or "us" to being about self and what is needed for your own journey. The thing you said about what you are seeing on the board- this board is primarily composed of people posting who are not to the end of the process of reconciliation. They are in the midst of the personal metamorphosis that will eventually lead to an outcome of the marriage, and that outcome does rely on factors I mentioned about the over all performance of the ws as a spouse before, during and after the affair.in addition to the hundreds of others. Someone is more likely to reconcile if they know they have found happiness with this person in the past. It adds to the faith and hope of the situation. If I had been more of a liability out marriage instead of an asset the divorce would have been swift. However he was more uncertain what to do now that I had become a liability overnight.

You see these are all strings that act in concert with each other because there are hundreds of factors that impact the ability to reconcile. I just do not see empathy is the main one or even a wildly important one (except from the side of the ws- if it’s not there no R will happen).

And the forgive the sinner thing- I personally characterize that philosophy differently. I cited it as some people use it here, but it is not my personal belief. Moreso a shorthand to explain that we love our spouse DESPITE ____. In Christianity, we believe God forgives us to the degree it never happened. It’s to be forgotten and out in the past. I do not think that’s what usually happens for the bs. Moreso they are willing to let go of the person they saw on dday and replace that with the person who has emerged in the process of the work they did on themselves. They are willing to believe their ws does love them as it has been proven in the fight.

I do not believe the pre-a marriage is entirely gone as some people think, but that the good of the marriage has been built higher because they are dealing with a more formed spouse. And because they are changed in the process too, they are more willing to be selfish and see it can be healthy.

However, I have come towards the end of trying to expand your thought process on it for now. I think we are getting so much in the weeds that I can’t figure out how to bring you to the bigger picture. It’s my fault, I chose to chisel away at your idea that more empathetic people are better or more inclined for reconciling. I do not think it’s the holy grail as to why people do it. Nothing you have said changes my mind, and so we come to an impasse.

I will leave it with this: think people do things because ultimately it’s what they want to do. People have affairs because they want to. They have to decide why they wanted to so that can be changed. People try to reconcile because they want to. They have to decide why they want to, and that question really oscillates for years. Good reconciliation happens for a bs because they ultimately stayed true to what they wanted to see happen. Divorce happens more often because what they wanted to see happen in R did not occur. I would say that happens far more than divorcing based on the infidelity alone. Most divorces I have seen happen here was after a long concerted effort that did not produce what the bs wanted or needed to see. And I honestly have never seen a reconciliation where the bs wasn’t willing at some point in the R to lose the marriage.

I know there are codependent unions that remain codependent after the affair but I see that as staying married. Until you fully feel you can be on your own, then that will remain a fear that you will compromise over. To me the hood R is about getting everything you want and feeling the decision you made has been justified in getting it. There is no settling in R as there is in marriage. For example, the men who come here and their ws still does not seem interested sexually in them. That will never be an R, that’s staying married. That will eat at the bs and eat. In R nothing is still eating you. Yet, the affair is never erased, or forgotten

And Gr8ful- I did not miss that dr. S. Said he didn’t believe these theories. My point for really considering them in my post was because I felt like if I was sharing my partial view on dr. S and wanting him to consider it, I should at least do the same in return. After all, I didn’t find what he wrote to not be true at some point in time during the reconciliation process. Sisson has mentioned that he needed to find his self esteem again after finding out about his wife’s affair. And I think it’s reasonable for anyone to think I may have stayed partially because I saw natural consequences in my husbands affair.

All I wanted him to acknowledge really is that his experiences likely shaped his principles. Whether that experience came from observing his father, or because of the infidelity he experienced, somewhere that principle was born and it wasn’t at his birth.

I sincerely understand what he is saying when it comes to I can do better than a cheater. I believe both my husband and I hold that belief. We are just willing to believe that we are no longer with one. But should there come another D day I feel either one of us would take the stance that dr. Does. And if something happened to my husband and I met someone else and they cheated I often say I do not believe I would choose the R path again. We are all shaped by our experiences and I was just trying to open his mind to the idea that some of the people here are in the experience that will shape them too. New principles will emerge, but R is about setting a higher bar, not lowering it.

[This message edited by hikingout at 1:21 PM, Tuesday, June 3rd]

Agreed, good point to leave it.

Enjoyable debate as always! Maybe someone will see some insight in all of this that will be helpful.

If I'm honest I see little more than right-fighting here. People come here for support and opinions from laypeople so obviously there will be a variety of perspectives and personal background brought to the table. Seems better to accept this fact and focus on helping the individuals, rather than hold lofty debates over the overarching reasons for human behavior. TBH as a newer member this primarily comes across as a struggle over a frequent poster's desire to be the tastemaker or the "voice" of SI.

I certainly did not intend to get into right fighting but I do believe that is what transpired. That is why I said I am finished. My goal was to open dr’s mind a little bit about making a bs who reconciled be equivalent with someone more emotionally intelligent. However, I do think that emotional intelligence is gained in the midst struggle so this thread to me was an overarching fail.

I endeavored to help Dr. S. see some nuances about R because he is frequently stubbing his toe in interactions with bs here. He has freely admitted he hasn’t done it and doesn’t understand it. As a result, sometimes his posts can come across that bs who reconcile are weak and bs who divorce are strong. So when he posted men reconcile less because they are less empathetic, I was trying to say a lot goes into whether one will be successful in R.

He believes if you are logical and principled you can not reconcile, and I think that shortchanges the bs who are out there doing it. While he has backed off that a lot since his arrival, it still comes across this way as recently as yesterday.

I actually think in other discussions he and I have held, it has been productive for both of us and even for others. This one, not such a good example of productive, and I already stated we are not here for this. So I already agree with you.

However, if you see my goal here as being the tastemaker of SI, you are very offbase. I post often but if you watch it’s on a few specific people that I follow here. I do that because I can relate to them and think I can provide some insight from my own experience.and in reality- I did not create this post, if I wanted to be the tastemaker I would be creating posts time I don’t agree with something.

[This message edited by hikingout at 4:33 PM, Tuesday, June 3rd]

Seriously, purely as a thought experiment, try to write a list of character traits that you believe would drive someone to:

A) Be likely to want reconciliation

B) Be successful in reconciliation, should they wish to pursue it

Then, conversely, a list of traits that would lead an individual in the opposite direction (towards separation/divorce).

Sure. My problem with this thought experiment is that any characteristic can come from healthy and/or unhealthy sources.

'Highly principled', as you acknowledge, makes a person more prone to decide on one solution depending on the principles one chooses.

Highly principled could also be 'rigid' or 'unable/unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances', neither of which is helpful when one's circumstances change, as they do big time on a d-day.

Commitment to principles? I never lose sight of life's basic principle - preserve thy life. That leads to bad choices again and again, no matter what other principles a person thinks they have adopted.

I've left jobs over principles, too. I've refused to do what my bosses clearly wanted me to do, thereby risking my job. But I don't know what I'd have done if they had ordered me to do what they wanted. That happened under very different circumstances than when I quit over principles.

I've espoused unpopular opinions very publicly, but in the US where speech is free. I don't know what I'd have done in an authoritarian state. One can never know how they'll respond to coercion until coercion is used to force compliance. The desire to survive is generally very strong.

Logic depends on the parameters and goals that are fed into the brain. My goals were to maximize my ...um... contentment/pleasure quotient and not let betrayal by the one woman I loved ruin my life. We had had a very good M for 42+ years, so logic dictated that R had to be considered. If the M hadn't been good, logic would probably have made D look like the better option.

High self worth? That's a term I don't know. Do you mean high self-esteem or self-love?

One way to view self-esteem/self-love is developing and maintaining firm boundaries. My boundaries are pretty good. I've certainly had thoughts I don't want my W to know about, but for close to 60 years, I haven't said anything to or done anything with a woman other than my W that I wouldn't want plastered all over creation. I've always been aware I could cheat, and I've always been successful defending against cheating, despite my years as a road warrior with a hefty expense account (which included being able to cover bills at strip joints, if necessary).

High self-esteem and strong boundaries don't seem to drive the stay/go choice - some of us D, some R.

And so on, for most characteristics I can think of. Of course, I'll accept that a person who keeps themself aware of God's Grace may be more willing than to give grace to a WS, but consider this: I'm aware of grace. I'm aware of being lucky in life in things like food, health care, education, etc., etc., etc. I was ready to give grace to my W. I very much wanted to R.

Even with all the above pushing me toward R, I very seriously considered D. Wanting R was one thing. I wasn't going to choose R unless I thought my W would do what she needed to do. If I had thought for a few moments that she was trying to fool me, I expect we'd be D'ed, even though I can't be sure I'd have had what it took to pull the plug. There can be big differences between what one wants and what the best course of action is.

Anyway, that's how I do the thought experiment you suggest.

*****

I think a person's life experience is a better indicator of what they will do, especially their experience dealing with disappointment and conflict. But I'm not going to go there at this moment.

HO, maybe it's partially because forums are shrinking in membership and activity, but you're present enough that you DO have an influence on forum culture when you debate so generally on the subject. And while I don't broadly disagree with your points here and your stated intentions to help DRS, it reads here like your desire to win a debate interferes with your stated intention.

Even arguing with me, you (in my eyes) misrepresent what DRS is arguing to you by saying that logical and principled people, unqualified, cannot R. It is quite plain to me that DRS refers to specific principles held lead through logic to R being less likely or impossible. Yes he adds additional gendered arguments and such that are worthy of challenge.

You're going to be more successful in the endeavor of opening a mind or even changing a mind if you resist the urge to so thoroughly defend your position and meet the thinker at least where their perspective sits. It also feels like while you claim to be benevolently activist, you're simultaneously trying to claim you just share your own perspective when you see a similar situation. All I'm saying is maybe own the right fighting (your passive voice in addressing it above is noted) a little bit and be aware that general debates will give the impression of generalized motivations.

@torso1500

For context, this thread originated from a natural conversation on another user's post where they were seeking advice. To avoid cluttering that thread, I moved our discussion here.

I never intended for this to be a "right-fighting" debate. In my opinion, upon reviewing it, it simply felt like two members genuinely exploring their ideas, each believing in what they were saying. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I personally don't think either myself or HikingOut are looking to be taste-makers or the sole voice of the community. To be honest, and I'll only speak for myself here, I believe my views are far from the consensus. I expect only a certain portion of users will relate to my thoughts and feelings, and that's perfectly fine. This content should still be available for them, and I hope it proves helpful.

Even though we didn't reach a consensus, I actually believe some users will find significant value in this discussion. I certainly did.

I apologize if this content isn't helpful to you. I hope you'll find many other threads here that do offer what you're looking for. As a user around here often says, "take what you need and leave the rest."

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 6:56 PM, Tuesday, June 3rd]

Torso- I am not fighting with you. I explained what I was trying to accomplish in this thread.
And I addressed it because you sort of lobbed an in accurate accusation publicly about what I am trying to accomplish on this site. If you think my expressing this was some sort of red herring to my plot for total SI world domination or something, stick around. Maybe you will change your mind.

Truthfully I think dr. And I just happen to be two people interested in the philosophical discussions that are had here periodically in SI. I think probably the reasons this was unsuccessful was more because I focused on the empathy piece until it came across that I was dismissing it entirely. I was just trying to contend it is not more important than other things that can affect R. However because he and I have interacted pretty prolifically at this there was likely some shorthand at play that might have come across to you as dismissive or combative but I am pretty sure dr. and I were feeling like that toward each other. I have mostly enjoyed our conversations even if we don’t agree on everything.