SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

What I am getting from both of you is that I am not apparently worthy of the same space to share my own impressions of what you write that you are. That I am so misguided not to read your minds to divine your meaning rather than your words to understand what you write. That this was an exclusive conversation between two people who are not open to any independent perspectives, and if I say something you disagree with ergo I wouldn't understand.

HO, obviously I was never contending that you are consciously trying to be the board monarch. It was an expression of an impression that sometimes arises from asking myself why you debate the way you do sometimes. And just because you say you aren't arguing doesn't mean it can't feel that way when you write to me in the manner you do. I was hoping to get a little more warmed up here on SI to feel like I can share myself more and get some help, but I'm glad I poked more into the kind of rhetoric some members think is helpful.

What I am getting from both of you is that I am not apparently worthy of the same space to share my own impressions of what you write that you are. That I am so misguided not to read your minds to divine your meaning rather than your words to understand what you write. That this was an exclusive conversation between two people who are not open to any independent perspectives, and if I say something you disagree with ergo I wouldn't understand.

Not at all. I welcome and thank you for your input. Apologies if this is coming across as dismissive. A lot of people say that about me. I think it's my writing style. If you have a point to say, say it. That does not mean I have to agree with it.

It's not personal, I just didn't detect right-fighting or an attempt to be a taste-maker from either of us. That's just my honest opinion.

That being said if you have an opinions on the discussion, I'm willing to discuss them further with you. Sometimes we will agree and sometimes we will disagree. That's honest discussion.

Also thank you for noting this mischaracterization, it's just having had a ton of dialogue with hikingOut,I don't think she would have intended it in the way you interrupted it.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 7:59 PM, Tuesday, June 3rd]

Welcome to SI, torso. I wish you well and hope you do decide to post and get assistance. I am sorry if I have come across a certain way to you. I will just reiterate that I agree this was not my best posting.

I utterly fail to see where anyone is "fighting" here. Perhaps some have been so influenced by social media as to hyper-sensitize any kind of passionate discussion as "right fighting". Vigorous, passionate debates have been around since before the Greek empire. Not as another means to "fight", but as a means of determining the best shot at the truth. It’s a loss for all that it’s becoming taboo.

I find this discussion worth having as it made me wonder if evidence could be found certain character traits can be more frequently found in certain outcomes (yes this is unlikely), then perhaps it’d be possible to help the newly betrayed even more. Have them take a self-assessment test, and share the reasonably-proven data, all to help them make a more informed decision, when they are ready of course. So much room is given to "the waywards", where the betrayed are told "there, there, your spouse in THE FOG so you have to give them time & patience", how about we start recognizing how much a "fog" the newly-betrayed is in? We all know the normally-first stage of grief is shock, and I posit the level of shock when one of someone’s foundational truths of life is suddenly & mercilessly proven to be *untrue* is truly next-level. Now those are the people I have empathy for, and anything that helps them is a gift.

I agree, there’s almost certainly no "there, there", yet it’s something I think worth pondering on the remote chance another level of help could be made available to newly-betrayed.

DrS,

Apologies if this has been covered.

You said:

" Personally, for me, reconciliation would demand more strength because it would require a compromise of my core principles, which would be deeply unsettling. It's simply something I wouldn't be able to do."

I wonder, what core principles would be compromised by accepting, understanding, forgiving (whatever that means) that another person is flawed?

I don’t think my core principles were compromised by my WW’s infidelity; hers were.

What took a beating was my ego, my self esteem, my security, etc.

But none of my core principles demanded revenge, or getting even, or hurting her, or being "strong."

The only core principle that I felt was implicated was "honor." I want to be a man of my word.

I promised to take care of her. And that’s what I’m doing, best as I’m able.

She hasn’t made it easy. But so far, I’ve passed the test.

If she sickens before I do, I’ll be tested again.

I hope I’ve got it in me to pass, again.

[This message edited by Formerpeopleperson at 10:02 PM, Wednesday, June 4th]

@Formerpeopleperson

That's a fair question, this was discussed earlier in a conversation with Sisoon but to clarify.

My core principle, in this context, can be simply put as: "cheating is a deal-breaker for me." While I understand people are flawed, accepting my partner is flawed in a way I find so deeply morally abhorrent is not a drive of mine. I would not accept a partner who has actively cheated on me; they would no longer be my partner.

To expand on this, cheating isn't the only 'line' that would necessitate a break-up for me. Theft, abandonment, and other profound betrayals would similarly cross my line. Though, as I see cheating as a form of abuse, special consideration is to be taken when reviewing it.

Forgiveness is a concept I've long contemplated. I personally can't see a logical benefit to forgiveness. Now, it gets confusing here. I do see the benefit of letting go of resentment, and some people define this as forgiveness. But for my money, a clear distinction can be made between internally letting go of resentment (working through this in therapy, for instance) and actively forgiving someone who has wronged you. That is to say, if you needed to actively forgive someone, should they die, would you be stuck with this resentment forever? I don't believe so. Probably at this point, it's worth noting, I'm also not religious. While I respect some aspects of how religion has helped form sociality and general moral standards, I don't subscribe to any of the supernatural elements.

I know "cheating is a deal-breaker for me" isn't a universal principle. Though many do claim to live by it. Some people haven't really thought about how they'd react to infidelity, while others believe it's something that can be worked through without divorce or separation.

Interestingly, some who thought they held this principle found themselves more flexible when actually faced with the situation. There was a lengthy discussion about this recently, with many people sharing sentiments like, "I always said infidelity would be a deal-breaker until I was in that position."

My point here is simply this: if you're someone I'd describe as "highly principled" (or perhaps "someone with strictly rigid principles"), being in the situation itself wouldn't change your stance. You'd stick to your initial principles. I'm not saying this is the "right" approach, just defining that perspective.

In other words, if you never held the principle that you'd leave someone for cheating, or that it was a deal-breaker, then I agree: you haven't acted inconsistently with your principles. Due to my life experience, I have long held this belief, well before it happened to me. Therefore, reconciliation was never a consideration for me due to my character. It stands to reason that I cannot be the sole person who feels this way.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:03 AM, Thursday, June 5th]