SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Context: moving over a discussion with HikingOut to here so not to thread jack.

This is a very narrow and inaccurate depiction, and is at the heart as to why several people have said to you that you believe people who r are softer, and the way you describe it does lend itself to believe you do have a stance in what is strong and what is weak.

Well, I clearly disagree with this assessment and believe I could write extensively to explain why.

Firstly, it seems evident that individuals who are more forgiving and empathetic are generally more inclined to engage in reconciliation. While this might seem self-evident, consider this circumstantial evidence:

Empathy is generally observed to be higher in females than males. Interestingly, data on infidelity and divorce suggests that although men are statistically more likely to engage in infidelity, they are also more likely to divorce because of it. It seems unlikely that this is a mere coincidence; women's generally higher empathy levels might indeed correlate with a greater capacity for forgiveness or a stronger motivation to work through marital transgressions. Do you not consider this a relevant factor?

Similarly, reconciliation appears to be significantly more prevalent among religious individuals. Given that many religions emphasize forgiveness as a core virtue, it seems plausible that this religious inclination influences the outcome of infidelity.

I could elaborate on this point at length, but to me, it seems intuitive that there's a connection between an individual's empathetic nature, the value they place on forgiveness, and their openness to reconciliation. To suggest otherwise feels akin to denying a correlation between someone's proneness to anger and their potential for violence. While not every short-tempered person is violent, a clear correlation exists.

Now before anyone goes here, I'm aware correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation however circumstantially we have buckets of evidence in this case that it does.

Secondly, I agree that both sets of characteristics can be defined as strengths. I'm unsure why you believe I'm asserting one is preferable to the other. Perhaps there's a general unconscious bias surrounding the terms used, where "logical" and "principled" are often perceived as strong, while "empathetic" and "forgiving" are seen as soft. However, this is a general societal interpretation, and I concur that it takes considerable strength to be both forgiving and empathetic. Often strength I personally lack.

Truthfully, I think many people who R are independent thinkers

What leads you to this conclusion? I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I don't immediately see the logical connection.

Highly Codependent people have a hard time reconciling a lot of times because in order to do it the codependency has to shift more towards independence.

Or perhaps nothing shifts at all, which I suspect might be the more common scenario.

What you've described is required for successful, by the book R perhaps. We can't know answer to this but what does your gut tell you the percentage of victims of infidelity that truly R and do the work required Vs those who simply stay together? I suspect far more stay together. I'm not wedded to that just seems to be the case from accounts I've followed.

I would agree highly codependent people may be more likely to rug sweep and stay married, but likely remain somewhat unhealed and unhappy.

Agreed. I'm falling into the whole staying together Vs reconciliation trap again aren't I?

My husband is not at all the codependent type. He is also not particularly empathetic or forgiving. He is very matter of fact and subscribes greatly to stoicism. I just think he has ultimately different values than you do. I would classify him as highly logical and principled. Despite his ws status- because he demonstrates that in so many ways in his life.

While I can't comment on your husband specifically, your assessment likely holds true. It's entirely possible for him to choose reconciliation even if it seems at odds with his core characteristics and principles. My point is that, on average, someone with his described traits is likely to find the process of reconciliation more challenging and therefore might be less inclined to pursue it / successful with should they do so.

All the bs on this site that did reconcile that I can recollect, took charge, required a lot more, and was willing to lose the marriage if those requirements were not met.

"All" of them? That's a very broad statement. Without naming specific individuals, it's quite clear to me that many members here have reconciled without necessarily adhering to all of those conditions. While I can't provide exact percentages, my observation suggests a roughly 50/50 split in terms of betrayed spouses firmly setting demands versus those who adopt a more accepting approach.

And as for divorce, I think many of the bs who did that are more the forgiving, empathetic type, but left due to their ws’s overall issues before or after the infidelity.

I completely agree with this point, and I don't believe it contradicts my earlier statements. The nature and behavior of the wayward spouse will significantly influence the outcome, regardless of the betrayed spouse's personality. My focus was on the betrayed spouse's inherent inclination or desire to pursue reconciliation in general. Sometimes, even if they wish to reconcile, the actions or character of their partner might make it impossible.

And a heck of a lot of bs’s here would have a mixture of these two personalities you just wrote about.

Agreed. Of course, these six traits I've mentioned are merely illustrative examples. Human personality is an intricate blend of countless characteristics, resulting in a vast spectrum of individual responses when faced with infidelity. These specific traits simply serve to highlight some clear distinctions in potential outcomes.

Ultimately, my core point is that it would be surprising if a detailed character analysis of individuals who have experienced infidelity didn't reveal a strong correlation between their inherent personality traits and their chosen path forward. While the characteristics of the wayward partner undoubtedly play a significant role, for someone who strongly embodies either the "empathetic/forgiving" or the "logical/principled" set of traits, their inherent disposition will likely heavily influence whether reconciliation or divorce becomes their eventual outcome, almost irrespective of the specific circumstances of the betrayal or the qualities of the betrayer

I do enjoy engaging with people of different mindsets, but I do see what Sissoon is saying because largely you do believe most people who reconcile are just afraid. (Weak?) That’s not true, reconciling is scary, raw, and incredibly difficult.

I do think that many (though not most) people reconcile from fear, do you not think this? I imagine you would concede that not all people who seek reconciliation do so from a position of strength. If so, then we broadly agree that a percentage of individuals reconcile due to fear. We can certainly debate the precise proportion of reconciliations born from fear versus strength, but this discussion would likely depend on the anecdotal examples we've each encountered, as I don't believe definitive data on this specific breakdown exists. Hypothetically, if I were to suggest that 60 percent of people reconcile due to fear, would you consider that an unreasonable estimate?

At this point I could revisit the familiar debate about whether reconciliation or divorce generally requires more strength, but I feel I've covered that ground quite a bit previously.

It's clear that compelling arguments can be made for either side, and I don't believe there's a definitive answer that applies universally.

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.

However, speaking more broadly, two of the most common human fears are the fear of being alone and the fear of change. Divorce inherently forces an individual to confront these fears, while reconciliation does not. Therefore, although the answer varies depending on individual circumstances, I think a general tendency can be observed here.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:36 AM, Friday, May 30th]

Thanks for creating this thread.

I want to respond more fully but don’t have the time right now but I will address your first point because it’s probably it’s own post.

Men are more likely to divorce over infidelity. You are absolutely right. I learned that shortly after dday, and then read anything I could get my hands on about those stats.

However, there are many reasons why that is true.

-women are more likely to have exit affairs, and it’s harder to reconcile with someone who has an exit affair. A lot of times women develop feelings and don’t give up their AP.

-more men are still the providers. Many women still could not live on their own much less support children.

-Women being in the workforce more than ever lends to more opportunities to cheat —-the workplace is the number one place people find an ap. One would say yeah but that’s been 50 years- but not much has caught up- we have not evolved to keep up with the issues surrounding that women cheat more than men these days. This not only is resulting in more divorces, but it would be fascinating to see a study in why women their early 40’s are leading this pack.

-But the fact men have been the longer cheaters there are a lot of things passed down to us to minimize what that meant- boys wil be boys sort of bullshit. It’s simply more socially palatable to many when a man cheats than a woman. There are names for women who cheat-slut, whore, homewrecker, etc. I don’t know if any of these names for men.

-programming. Men are taught things that get their head and work against them for R. There are names for men whose women cheat- cuck being the top one. There are no such names for a woman. Therefore they are more likely to feel emasculation.

-sex means something different to men than women. I do not mean women do not enjoy sex, value sex, find it bonding. But there are all the evolutionary things mixed in- paternity being a big one, scarcity versus abundance, etc.

-lastly, emotional intelligence exists both in men a and women. To say they are not as empathetic, forgiving, short changes men. I believe it’s actually likely more generational. Each generation that passes the more we are teaching children of both sexes how to be emotionally intelligent. I think men from older generations are more likely to stuff their feelings rather than discuss them, not be as adept at processing them. Whereas women tend to grow up learning to talk about those things.

More later!

[This message edited by hikingout at 12:22 AM, Friday, May 30th]

I didn’t divorce and I am admittedly one of the least forgiving, grudge holding, no empathy having person many have ever met, I am not proud of this but it’s true. I am not sure I have forgiven my husband to this day, while I have created a life I enjoy with him. I stayed for selfish reasons. I knew/know what I wanted in life and that remaining married was the surest way to create it. I did not stay out of love or mercy for him although I do have love for him. I stayed because my marriage continued to give me what I valued most in life. Those reasons are personal and unique to me and my situation, but make no mistake, empathy was not part of the equation. The only reason I never sought revenge against her or him was it would have ultimately hurt me as much as either of them. I was smart enough to not shoot myself in the foot, but boy did I fantasize about it. Anyways, just wanted to point out that not all reconcilers are extra empathetic and/or forgiving. This one is selfish, but happy. 🤪

I stayed because my marriage continued to give me what I valued most in life.

This perspective makes perfect sense. If your highest values supersede your propensity to hold grudges, and if reconciliation allows you to uphold those values, then choosing to stay becomes a logical and expected outcome.

However, I acknowledge that the decision-making process is far more intricate than the simplified examples I've presented. Countless other personality traits, values, and principles contribute to this profound choice, far too many for a comprehensive exploration here.

For instance, consider someone who is both highly principled and deeply religious. In such a case, it's highly probable that their religious principles would guide them towards reconciliation rather than divorce. (I'm not suggesting this is the case in your specific scenario, merely illustrating a general point.)

Conversely, if an individual is highly principled, and one of their established, long-held principles dictates that infidelity is an absolute deal-breaker – especially when combined with their other inherent traits – then divorce would likely be their chosen path.

To me, this is purely logical: your inherent character traits fundamentally shape every reaction you will have to any given circumstance throughout your life. I am simply attempting to draw the clearest possible connections between specific traits and the outcomes of reconciliation versus divorce.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:45 AM, Friday, May 30th]

I'm unsure of the best way to proceed with this discussion; perhaps you could indicate whether you'd prefer to address all my points in a single response or take them one at a time.

However, there are many reasons why that is true.

I agree with all the reasons you've outlined; the situation is clearly multi-factored. I'm not arguing otherwise. However, are you suggesting that while all the factors you've presented are valid, the specific factor I've highlighted has absolutely no impact whatsoever? If so, could you explain why?

For context, and feel free to do your own readings on this, It seems studies irrefutably show a link between estrogen levels and empathy, (in a similar vein to how testosterone is linked with aggression) and it's evidently clear that empathy is crucial for reconciliation (if you don't think this, please expand) – yet you believe this factor doesn't come into play at all?

I just don't see the logic of refuting this.

For further context, and perhaps somewhat controversially to certain sectors of society, my mother works in transgender services within the NHS. As a nurse practitioner, she assists individuals undergoing gender transition. She would be among the first to highlight the profound character changes reported by people receiving hormonal treatment. For instance, those transitioning to female hormones often report becoming significantly more empathetic, emotional, and understanding. Conversely, individuals transitioning to male hormones frequently report feeling much more aggressive, assertive, and competitive. This clearly illustrates how incredibly influential hormones are on our character.

Though I do feel we are drifting of topic.

lastly, emotional intelligence exists both in men a and women. To say they are not as empathetic, forgiving, short changes men. I believe it’s actually likely more generational. Each generation that passes the more we are teaching children of both sexes how to be emotionally intelligent. I think men from older generations are more likely to stuff their feelings rather than discuss them, not be as adept at processing them. Whereas women tend to grow up learning to talk about those things."

I agree with this point as well. While I believe societal changes can generally shift the needle towards men exhibiting higher levels of emotional intelligence, this won't alter the overall trend of women generally being more empathetic than men. When I make this assertion, I'm not suggesting that you'll never find individual cases where men are more empathetic than women. It simply means that, when speaking broadly, the trend leans in that direction, making such a generalization more often correct than incorrect. This will therefore be reflected in the data. It's similar to physical strength: while many individual women are stronger than many individual men, it's still generally accurate to state that men are physically stronger than women.

I use this example as it's probably the most evidently true hormonal disparity.

In summary, all of this to say, I broadly agree with your response - I don't feel it in any way refutes my initial response.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:44 AM, Friday, May 30th]

Similarly, reconciliation appears to be significantly more prevalent among religious individuals. Given that many religions emphasize forgiveness as a core virtue, it seems plausible that this religious inclination influences the outcome of infidelity.

Oooof. Do you not think that religion's attitude to sex, marriage and divorce ("... let no man put asunder ...") has something to do with this? I think there's a pretty fair case for saying that religion is the number one tool of the patriarchy.

There are so many components in a marriage. Were both parties excited about the future? I know several ws who married that have told me they felt obligated. They had been together a long time, or they felt some obligation to their parents or the bs. To every one of them marrying was not a joyful occasion. Every one of them cheated their way out of marriage. Most of them were women but I know a man who did the same thing. It is hard to say no to a person who loves you when everyone thinks the marriage is a given. Friends, family have invested in the relationship. How do you look a caring person in the face and say, "I don’t want to get married."

The second thing is underlying contempt from either spouse. It can be subtle but it wears down the self esteem of the victim. If the ws cheated to feel better but is willing to R for the sake of children, or financial reasons, or religion or…. If the bs is the victim they may feel so helpless that starting all over again is terrifying. I think a power struggle in the marriage where one spouse always feels the loser sets up a place where cheating is seen as a way out of pain. Sometimes it was simply too much pleasure to so they did. There are thousands of excuses for cheating. The truth is they wanted to so they did. You are not just dealing with R between two people but reconciling internally to be able to live with it. I follow several bloggers and every single one of is still writing about their ws. They are R but it is easy to see how close to the surface the bs’s pain is.

To me, the ws would have to be empathetic enough to "get" how they wounded the bs. If they can’t they might agree to R but at what cost to the bs.

I don’t know anyone who has R. My husband cheated while traveling. We moved, he stopped traveling and years later I confronted him. He admitted but we had been ok for years. Going over it would have been useless. It embarrassed him that I knew. There was no need to discuss it. Both of us had grown up by then. So there was no confrontation at the time.

I think you can read a thousand books, go to MC, IC, but the bottom line is R will be two people dedicated to binding up the wounds and letting go. Being realistic that the ws is an imperfect person and coming to terms with the fact that someone relegated you to second, third or no place while cheating. Reality is very painful because it has to be dealt with and accepted.

@Cooley2here: good post.

I think a power struggle in the marriage where one spouse always feels the loser sets up a place where cheating is seen as a way out of pain.

In our 20+ year marriage, I was often the "loser" because my WW set little value on our sex life, which ate me up. Yet it was she who cheated.

Most people who read that respond that I need to leave the marriage - and maybe I do - but what I think it illustrates is that, when it comes to sex and love, people (e.g. my wife) can act in very strange and apparently irrational ways.

I do still plan to respond to the original post in its entirety, but I would like to stay focused here for another beat.

I was baffled by your response. I m going to connect the dots as nearly as I can because I have no idea how what I wrote doesn’t seem logical.

You wrote a biased straw man argument towards people who reconcile are likely more empathetic than logical citing some of the proof of that is that men will divorce more often over infidelity.

I wrote that I don’t think empathy is needed by the bs to reconcile. And rebutted why men divorce more often when it comes to infidelity, and it has nothing to do with women being more empathetic.

I think this was a sound and logical argument considering my information was based on a lot of research that I did, and yours seems to be based on a conscious or unconscious bias.

It isn’t that I don’t think personality or principles can play a role in whether someone chooses to reconcile. I do think that is an aspect. But I am more of the opinion that at the end of the day reconciliation can only happen between two people who genuinely want to do so. Not because the bs has no choice or because they are more empathetic.

The bs who really do it are independent thinkers because despite all the societal norms, programming, and the grueling emotional battle they must go through, they have in the end decided the marriage meets their needs better than divorce.

And as far as religion goes, adultery is part of the Ten Commandments and many Christians believe is the one reason divorce is okay in the eyes of God. I have seen many people make that argument since I have been here. I can’t cite it or say what sectors or where it is written. However, I know it’s common enough that it has been brought up numerous times over the years.

[This message edited by hikingout at 2:44 PM, Friday, May 30th]

You wrote a biased straw man argument towards people who reconcile are likely more empathetic than logical citing some of the proof of that is that men will divorce more often over infidelity.

Following clear logical path of thought is not what I would call a bias. It stands to reason that more empathetic people would be more inclined to reconcile, and I genuinely can't see the counter-point. Reconciliation undeniably requires great amounts of empathy. Therefore, generally speaking, more empathetic people are inclined to try reconciliation and are certainly more likely to be successful with it.

I simply can't understand what anyone would find controversial about this statement. I go back to my previous comment: 'To suggest otherwise feels akin to denying a correlation between someone's proneness to anger and their potential for violence. While not every short-tempered person is violent, a clear correlation exists.'

I wrote that I don’t think empathy is needed by the bs to reconcile. And rebutted why men divorce more often when it comes to infidelity, and it has nothing to do with women being more empathetic.

So, it's a coincidence then? I'm asserting that empathy is a trait that would lead to higher levels of reconciliation, then went on to show that women generally have higher levels of empathy and are more likely to reconcile. I accepted that other factors were also at play, as you outlined. Yet, for some reason, we are to dismiss this as a relevant factor while accepting all other factors? Why is this one factor not relevant, outside of it simply not aligning with a particular narrative?

Also, please note, I'm not suggesting your narrative is inherently biased in favor of reconciliation or divorce; I genuinely don't believe you hold a preference in either direction. Rather, I think your perspective is shaped by beliefs you're reluctant to re-evaluate, which makes it more difficult for you to accept what appears evident.

I think this was a sound and logical argument considering my information was based on a lot of research that I did, and yours seems to be based on a conscious or unconscious bias.

If you feel I'm uneducated on the matter, we'll have to agree to disagree. I have read extensively on the topic.

But I am more of the opinion that at the end of the day reconciliation can only happen between two people who genuinely want to do so.

Okay, this is the crux of our misunderstanding here. Let me try to emphasize this, because I see this section as the most important. What, then, are the reasons that a betrayed spouse would genuinely want to reconcile? What informs these reasons? The answer here is obviously multi-varied... but I'm arguing that their core characteristics (or "temperament," if you prefer) are the single biggest determining factor as to whether they would want to reconcile or not. (Though, as I previously outlined, circumstances always play a role; characteristics are not the sole reason.)

If they are a highly empathetic person, this trait will inherently inform their will and their wants. If you are not empathetic, you'd be less likely to genuinely want to reconcile. Even if you chose to reconcile for practical reasons but weren't particularly forgiving and empathetic, it would likely be a far more difficult journey for you and more prone to failure.

Let's consider a more clear-cut example to illustrate this point. If an argument escalates to one person physically assaulting another, while that remains a conscious decision, the desire to enact physical aggression is undeniably informed by their anger. One doesn't generally punch someone in the face without their choice being influenced by their temperament.

This isn't about denying choice. To use a personalized analogy: I wish I was the type of person who was, for example, highly competitive. I used to box, and I felt that my lack of competitive drive held me back in the sport. You can work on it, you can really try to force it, and you can certainly improve. However, ultimately, my temperament was never going to allow me to reach an elite level. I simply didn't have a crucial inherent trait within me to allow for this.

and as far as religion goes, adultery is part of the Ten Commandments and many Christians believe is the one reason divorce is okay in the eyes of God. I have seen many people make that argument since I have been here. I can’t cite it or say what sectors or where it is written. However, I know it’s common enough that it has been brought up numerous times over the years.

Firstly, I wanted to point out that Christianity isn't the only religion, and secondly even within Christianity, many sects don't accept divorce at all, irrespective of these scenarios, this brings me back to my point. I presume the consistent preaching of forgiveness in religious circles and the observed higher levels of reconciliation in these communities are yet another coincidence, then?

Why is it starting to feel like all of the reasoning I've used is always just based on coincidence?

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 4:00 PM, Friday, May 30th]

I personally feel that one does not have to empathize with their ws to reconcile. I think the ws has to learn empathy. I am not trying to make it controversial, I am simple engaging in the debate that you have set up.

Ask anyone here who reconciled, and I bet that they would tell you that the reconciled despite not being understanding about the actual infidelity. They would tell you they do not deem any reason for infidelity to be a good reason.

Now, once reconciliation begins, they may feel their ws is being empathetic with them and may be empathetic about some of their ws struggles. And I do think it takes understanding what went into the affair so they know what needs to change and see that happen.

And ones further out may say they accept that the circumstances were real.

Some reconciled bs will tell you they do not actually forgive the affair. They may accept it happened, but they don’t forgive it. I do t think I am forgiven for mine.

What I think happens in a good reconciliation, and people can absolutely correct me if I am wrong - is that they love their ws despite it. They accept it happened, they see good changes in their ws, and therefore they are willing to move forward with an improved ws that has demonstrated remorse and willingness to make changes to become a safer partner.

I am more inclined to say that the majority of people that I see here who didn’t reconcile, it was because of some combo of seeing their ws for who they are, that they aren’t going to change, and/or had never been a good spouse to begin with. I think MOST BS have the inclination to R in the beginning, and some find they can’t move past it but most divorce because their ws is not a good rebuilder. This is antedoctal.

Also I am not saying you are uneducated. I am saying that you have a bias to believe that bs who reconcile are more empathetic, and you used the fact men divorce more often because they tend to be less empathetic. I think that is horse phooey. I know many men who are emotionally intelligent and empathetic. We have many males here that post very poignant descriptions of their emotions and how they balance them. I do not dispute that women and men are biologically different and that there are gender norms, but men do not divorce more because women are more empathetic. In fact, that largely ignores that women initiate over 70 percent of the divorces in general now a days.

So it’s not that I don’t think you are educated in the topic of affairs, I mean you seem to have an interest in them so I am sure. But I think your claims that men are less empathetic and file more as a result is an uneducated position when there are much larger things at play that create that stat.

I also do not think it’s wrong that maybe emotionally intelligent people may have an advantage in R, but R is not contingent on the bs having empathy over the ws’s circumstances.

[This message edited by hikingout at 4:21 PM, Friday, May 30th]

Ask anyone here who reconciled, and I bet that they would tell you that the reconciled despite not being understanding about the actual infidelity. They would tell you they do not deem any reason for infidelity to be a good reason.

This isn't the same as them not having empathy, though. They have to be in some way sympathetic to their spouse. While not understanding the actual infidelity, they would have to accept that their partner messed up, lost themselves, or were in some way understanding of how such circumstances can arise without condoning them. This is all empathy.

If you simply thought cheating is never acceptable, you would never accept it. If it was never understandable, you would likely think they were just a bad person. You couldn't enter reconciliation with this mindset, or you wouldn't get far in the process. In fact, if you thought that way of your partner, you'd sharply fall out of love. I've noted this dozens of times: people saying their spouse wasn't themselves when the cheating occurred, that the marriage was in a bad place, that they weren't the perfect partner, or that they had a lot of stress or extenuating circumstances that led to the affair. Noting all of this is inherently empathy.

We don't see many posts saying, "My partner is a vile cheating idiot who had no good reason for what he did, how do I reconcile." If we did, it would likely be for circumstantial reasons. Not love.

Maybe this is coming down to how we each define empathy?

Also I am not saying you are uneducated. I am saying that you have a bias to believe that bs who reconcile are more empathetic, and you used the fact men divorce more often because they tend to be less empathetic. I think that is horse phooey.

I still don't see your reasoning as to why you dismiss this horse phooey.

I know many men who are emotionally intelligent and empathetic. We have many males here that post very poignant descriptions of their emotions and how they balance them.

We have many women who are physically stronger than many men individually. Does that mean women on the whole are physically stronger than men? When talking stats, you inherently generalize. Every rule has an expectation. I'm talking broadly.

that largely ignores that women initiate over 70 percent of the divorces in general now a days.

Being more prone to empathy doesn't mean you can't get bored, want change, grow resentful, or have any of the many other millions of reasons why people would divorce.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 4:46 PM, Friday, May 30th]

This isn't the same as them not having empathy, though. They have to be in some way sympathetic to their spouse. While not understanding the actual infidelity, they would have to accept that their partner messed up, lost themselves, or were in some way understanding of how such circumstances can arise without condoning them. This is all empathy.

I don’t think all ws have lost themselves or have issues that can be identified with. What I am trying to get across is this- 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.

If the bs has empathy, great. I don’t expect it as the ws, nor do I feel I have been given it. Our reconciliation started for one reason- the thing you accurately cite- my husband did not want to make the changes. He didn’t want to give up the other things I offer him in our life. His love didn’t die the day I told him. So he required that if I were to stay to prove reliability where I had failed. Period. And in return he was willing to work on becoming vulnerable towards me again.

It’s not a continuation of marriage. It’s an entire process that requires a fair amount of detachment. My husband is good at detachment, and I think that was far more fundamental towards our success. He was willing to lose the marriage. He was willing to stand up for what he wanted and accept nothing less. Those re more typical traits I think that make reconciliation work. A bs needs to drive a hard line.

Mind you I am not saying empathy isn’t anywhere to be found, I am just saying I don’t think it’s key. Many bs here would say they are happily reconciled and do not forgive the affair. They were willing to do a reset, based on seeing and getting the things they needed.

If you simply thought cheating is never acceptable, you would never accept it. If it was never understandable, you would likely think they were just a bad person. You couldn't enter reconciliation with this mindset, or you wouldn't get far in the process. In fact, if you thought that way of your partner, you'd sharply fall out of love. I've noted this dozens of times: people saying their spouse wasn't themselves when the cheating occurred, that the marriage was in a bad place, that they weren't the perfect partner, or that they had a lot of stress or extenuating circumstances that led to the affair. Noting all of this is inherently empathy.

I disagree. I think bs’s who reconcile do think cheating is unacceptable. I think they simply recognize most humans are both light and dark. They may believe in redemption to a certain extent- meaning no more chances. We hired a person who worked for us for years- he had been to prison for murder. Who, by the way, his wife is who my husband had an affair with- wtf? Anyway, he is a good man. He made a bad decision, he paid his price, and he did, I fully believe wrestled his anger in prison until he finally found peace and let it go. I trusted him Implicitly, he had access codes to our home because sometimes he needed to get in to get things from our garage to do his job.

So what I am saying is no, you don’t have to do any of that, you only have to believe there is enough redeemable that you are willing to move past it.

Also I am not saying you are uneducated. I am saying that you have a bias to believe that bs who reconcile are more empathetic, and you used the fact men divorce more often because they tend to be less empathetic. I think that is horse phooey.

I still don't see your reasoning as to why you dismiss this horse phooey

Because 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. I also know plenty of women devoid of empathy. All of us are capable of recognizing ourselves in others.

Herein lies the rub- I think empathy is most impactful when we ourselves have experienced the same feelings. And that’s in essence why I think many bs could not have a well of empathy for cheating because they have not done it. People arrive every day trying to reconcile and make sense of their ws’s behaviors. Yet, I have seen both women and men accurately describe their ws’s state of mind.

Sympathy is absolutely possible, but it’s not the same as empathy. Sympathy is more like "I am sorry you feel that way" or "I am sorry to see you go through this". Empathy means you can feel what they feel as much as another human can. And I think it’s not the bs’s job to give either of these things.

I know many men who are emotionally intelligent and empathetic. We have many males here that post very poignant descriptions of their emotions and how they balance them.

We have many women who are physically stronger than many men individually. Does that mean women on the whole are physically stronger than men? When talking stats, you inherently generalize. Every rule has an expectation. I'm talking broadly.

And broadly, I think men are as capable of all aspects of emotional intelligence that women are. They just use it differently. I do believe men and women are inherent different beings. I just think men are capable of feeling what another person goes through.I don’t think that is controversial or requires stats.

that largely ignores that women initiate over 70 percent of the divorces in general now a days.

Being more prone to empathy doesn't mean you can't get bored, want change, grow resentful, or have any of the many other millions of reasons why people would divorce.

I agree- but where is the empathy for her husbands shortcomings? That’s what I was getting at.

It boils down to reconciliation isn’t just about the softer parts. In fact, the softer parts often come towards the later stages.

[This message edited by hikingout at 10:42 PM, Friday, May 30th]

The bs who really do it are independent thinkers

Definitely the best way to R is to first stand on your own two feet, to know who you are (and aren’t), and to not see a WS as a mirror reflecting your image back, even when they try to be one.

This is hard to do. Really hard. It goes against so much culture that we are immersed in, so much outside influence. So much judgement. Not just from the outside either, you will fight an internal battle against all of the programming.

If you can get to this point, it doesn’t mean R. When you can drop the "I can’t believe they do this" and see them as they are, you may decide "nope". It will be based on truth.

You will likely have empathy. A fellow member of the crooked timber of humanity blundering through the shitshow of life, a brief 80 or so year flash in the 14,000,000,000 year (so far) life of the universe. Thats equivalent to one second in a century. Bleep…gone.

If you can get to this point, you’ll be better in all aspects of life. If you get to this point because of the A, then as Mary Oliver said…

"Someone I loved once gave me a box full of darkness. It took me years to understand that this too, was a gift."

I reread this thread and I want to clarify.

I am not saying a bs doesn’t have empathy. I have seen many bs’s here who have it in spades.

My real issue with your argument is this:

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.

I think that is a limiting belief that male bs do not need more of. When in fact studies show they are less likely to reconcile due to the things I already cited. I also find it insulting to men to claim they are not as capable of elements of emotional intelligence as women.

Do you not find yourself capable of empathy?I think all good relationships require the ability to have empathy.

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.

To me the difference between a good reconciliation and staying married is the feeling you didn’t settle. Acceptance of the past is different than resigning yourself to eat the shit sandwich alone so you have a roof over your head and you can be with your kids full time. There is nothing wrong with those endeavors, it’s life reality that often can’t be avoided for some people.

When reconciling really starts is after a good bit of healing has been done by both individuals. For the bs, this stage requires the recognition that nothing about them caused the affair- it didn’t happen because you weren’t good looking enough, big enough, rich enough. The problem is faulty wiring in the ws.

And the ability for the two people to stay married during that healing phase is the second stage of a successful indicator

The actual reconciliation becomes a process of both people understanding each other. Meaning the ws understands the damage, and acts accordingly. The bs recognizes the ws has found clarity and is able to observe indicators they can begin to trust again. This dance can go on for a few years. The ws does the heavy lifting during this time and shares the changes in values, attitudes, behaviors, loyalty, better boundaries, and more. I don’t know that’s empathy on the bs, I think it’s better described as being able to be objective about their ws and trust themselves.

And slowly, a new relationship is built. If you had a good marriage before (I feel we did) it may not look dramatically different, it’s in the nuances you can see the changes. (I don’t avoid conflict, I don’t do things to earn love, I am authentic in my responses and actions, and I am tons more self aware) I believe my husband has changed a good deal but honestly had less further to go. He didn’t have childhood trauma to sort though, he didn’t have an addiction to his ap, etc.

And in some of the final stages the bs accepts the affair happened but recognize they truly want to stay because the process has created a situation they like being in. It’s less about being empathetic and more the acknowledgment that the ws has done something terrible in the past, seems unlikely to do it agin, has an exit plan if they do, and enjoys their relationship and has recovered the feelings of love and being comfortably vulnerable with their ws again. I think both sexes are capable of that.

So I guess after having to explore it, maybe I feel like your view of what happens is so simplified, combined with the gender bias of why more men divorce, I feel like you are just very off base. Combined with the fact I reconciled with a man and the idea that petrified me early on and that I spent a long time unraveling and debunking- maybe got a little triggering.

So I did not mean to make my argument about empathy. Because I do think people need to have empathy in all their relationships. But the oversimplification of it.

I tend to think what I see more is people who had a good relationship before and have hope they can achieve that again with the person they already love, have families with, have a history with.

You claim to be well educated on why men divorce more yet the only thing you have offered is women are better at empathy.

I personally find that if you didn’t know the gender of the people posting here that often you wouldn’t know if they were male or female by what they wrote. Sometimes it’s not in their profile and people will get their gender wrong in the response. It’s happened several times lately that I can think of.

[This message edited by hikingout at 3:49 PM, Saturday, May 31st]

Okay now that I have exhausted my need to argue about empathy.., here is my response to your OP:

Context: moving over a discussion with HikingOut to here so not to thread jack.

This is a very narrow and inaccurate depiction, and is at the heart as to why several people have said to you that you believe people who r are softer, and the way you describe it does lend itself to believe you do have a stance in what is strong and what is weak.

Well, I clearly disagree with this assessment and believe I could write extensively to explain why.

Firstly, it seems evident that individuals who are more forgiving and empathetic are generally more inclined to engage in reconciliation. While this might seem self-evident, consider this circumstantial evidence:

I disagree- it’s too messy in the beginning for this to be the case. My inclination is to believe that that majority of bs’s stay in the early stages because they need to process it. They were on one trajectory and a bomb went off in their marriage. They are in the denial and bargaining phase of grief. Most use the first year for processing. And their decision to keep going will either be about kids, finances, or other practical matters. Many bs also report despite the myriad of feelings they still love their ws.

People who don’t continue after this stage are usually married to a ws who has continued to destroy their love and trust.

Empathy is generally observed to be higher in females than males. Interestingly, data on infidelity and divorce suggests that although men are statistically more likely to engage in infidelity, they are also more likely to divorce because of it. It seems unlikely that this is a mere coincidence; women's generally higher empathy levels might indeed correlate with a greater capacity for forgiveness or a stronger motivation to work through marital transgressions. Do you not consider this a relevant factor?

Not really. I mean does it ever come down to lack of empathy? Sure there are all kinds of reasons it doesn’t work out. But I think it’s more a collective of reasons I have already stated and beat to death. I also think forgiveness and acceptance are things people do years and years out. It’s rare it happens in the first two years, and for most of us it’s 5 years plus.

Similarly, reconciliation appears to be significantly more prevalent among religious individuals. Given that many religions emphasize forgiveness as a core virtue, it seems plausible that this religious inclination influences the outcome of infidelity.

I do not claim to know. But possibly?

I could elaborate on this point at length, but to me, it seems intuitive that there's a connection between an individual's empathetic nature, the value they place on forgiveness, and their openness to reconciliation. To suggest otherwise feels akin to denying a correlation between someone's proneness to anger and their potential for violence. While not every short-tempered person is violent, a clear correlation exists.

Again, forgiveness, acceptance, etc these maybe goals for the bs to bridge where they are emotionally and where they hope to go, but these are not things that happen for years and years. How do. You explain the in between?

My assessment is they keep trying because they ideally would simply like to stay married. And the spectrum of why can be anything from codependency to they still see good in their partner. Many have written they still trustee their ws on many issues.

Now before anyone goes here, I'm aware correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation however circumstantially we have buckets of evidence in this case that it does.

buckets? Where? I believe I am the only one of the two of us who listed buckets of evidence. My first post explained in detail why men have a harder time reconciling. And you are just like nope- it’s because they aren’t as empathetic and forgiving. Um, what? You agreed with almost all my points as to why it may have elements towards why they are likelier to divorce. There is like a 14 percent bigger chance for men this isn’t earth shattering.

Secondly, I agree that both sets of characteristics can be defined as strengths. I'm unsure why you believe I'm asserting one is preferable to the other. Perhaps there's a general unconscious bias surrounding the terms used, where "logical" and "principled" are often perceived as strong, while "empathetic" and "forgiving" are seen as soft. However, this is a general societal interpretation, and I concur that it takes considerable strength to be both forgiving and empathetic. Often strength I personally lack.

I believe it’s more in the nuances of what you say that betray you in this. You have been called out by several people about this is how you make things sound so I do not feel I am imagining things. I think it may be mixed in with you came here rather boastful of your principles and were somewhat condescending in saying that bs’s just don’t have that as a principle or they will divorce. You have toned this down considerably since it’s pointed out so either you have accepted that there are principled reasons people do choose R or you have learned to be more palatable here. I think it’s the first one, and that’s why I said I think you have grown some in your views, even if you yourself still would never entertain it. We are all good with you feeling you personally would not reconcile - that’s is up to every individual.

Truthfully, I think many people who R are independent thinkers

What leads you to this conclusion? I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I don't immediately see the logical connection.

Because they go against societal norms. Most people who have not experienced infidelity would say never stay. They decide they don’t care about statistics or what others think they should do. They decide what it is they want and do it. I do not think bs reconcile for their ws, they do it for themselves.

Highly Codependent people have a hard time reconciling a lot of times because in order to do it the codependency has to shift more towards independence.

Or perhaps nothing shifts at all, which I suspect might be the more common scenario.

What you've described is required for successful, by the book R perhaps. We can't know answer to this but what does your gut tell you the percentage of victims of infidelity that truly R and do the work required Vs those who simply stay together? I suspect far more stay together. I'm not wedded to that just seems to be the case from accounts I've followed.

Codependent people have to learn boundaries, to advocate for "I" instead of "us". R is too hard to do without the personal conviction of why you want to do it in your own heart and soul.

All the bs on this site that did reconcile that I can recollect, took charge, required a lot more, and was willing to lose the marriage if those requirements were not met.

"

All" of them? That's a very broad statement. Without naming specific individuals, it's quite clear to me that many members here have reconciled without necessarily adhering to all of those conditions. While I can't provide exact percentages, my observation suggests a roughly 50/50 split in terms of betrayed spouses firmly setting demands versus those who adopt a more accepting approach.

All of them. But not about demands in the ws but being clear on what they would and would not accept.You were not here for their process, o watched most of them. There are some who have been here longer than me but I came through this with many of them and so feel qualified to comment.

You are seeing people in early stages, bargaining, denial are common ones where they are still in the phase of trying to understand and identify with their ws. what then happens is they will be so exhausted by this they will. Be forced to start focusing on themselves. That’s when you see some will split off and divorce while others will detach from an outcome and begin living their life more separately. And the ones who stayed and detached will start getting more objective about their ws, and the branching will continue- some will continue to stay and be brought closer to their ws, some the divide will become too entrenched.

I am only addressing R and D, not staying married. That is another branch and many do that until a different goal is reached- they start a new career, get the kids out of the house, etc. or the ones who just stay for god knows why because they just can’t seem to ever focus on what’s best for them. Those people leave here and I know little about what happens there.

My focus was on the betrayed spouse's inherent inclination or desire to pursue reconciliation in general. Sometimes, even if they wish to reconcile, the actions or character of their partner might make it impossible.

I have seen so few people divorce immediately out of the gate that I couldn’t even give an opinion on that. To me, staying at first just seems to be the default rather than a personality type. Even some of the biggest cheerleaders for bs to leave early in didn’t do that themelves. And I can only guess they are hoping to save the bs more pain. It’s well intentioned but I feel guiding a new bs towards an outcome is basically fruitless. I find they do better if you give them compassion, and direction on how to begin healing. Obviously, I have sometimes told people get out, because there is just no other answer, but I know they aren’t going to do that yet.

Ultimately, my core point is that it would be surprising if a detailed character analysis of individuals who have experienced infidelity didn't reveal a strong correlation between their inherent personality traits and their chosen path forward. While the characteristics of the wayward partner undoubtedly play a significant role, for someone who strongly embodies either the "empathetic/forgiving" or the "logical/principled" set of traits, their inherent disposition will likely heavily influence whether reconciliation or divorce becomes their eventual outcome, almost irrespective of the specific circumstances of the betrayal or the qualities of the betrayer

Disagree. Again, it’s more about stages of grief.

One thing to note, there is enough research on ws that there are common and almost universal psychological responses in an affair. I believe the same is true for bs. They all hit many of the same points in fairly similiar timelines. I would tell you it’s far less about personality and more about common responses we all share in betrayal. We are far more alike in that way and that is not specific to gender. Now I do think there are responses men have that women don’t and that women have that men don’t. But the overall arching experience is nearly universal, with just different circumstantial details.

do enjoy engaging with people of different mindsets, but I do see what Sissoon is saying because largely you do believe most people who reconcile are just afraid. (Weak?) That’s not true, reconciling is scary, raw, and incredibly difficult.

I

do think that many (though not most) people reconcile from fear, do you not think this? I imagine you would concede that not all people who seek reconciliation do so from a position of strength. If so, then we broadly agree that a percentage of individuals reconcile due to fear. We can certainly debate the precise proportion of reconciliations born from fear versus strength, but this discussion would likely depend on the anecdotal examples we've each encountered, as I don't believe definitive data on this specific breakdown exists. Hypothetically, if I were to suggest that 60 percent of people reconcile due to fear, would you consider that an unreasonable estimate?

No I think it’s more in line with stages of grief. Shock, denial, bargaining, anger,depression, acceptance. And healing is not linear. A bs will oscillate through these stages, and then it will move from being more emotional response to logical more objective. It’s at that point you start to see the divorces. This is supported by the way because the stats for divorce rise as one moves closer to year five. (Btw year give us when waited too long left- I don’t think that’s coincidental)

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.

Maybe not but I do know many bs who thought that and then it happens two, three decades in and they find themselves surprised they don’t leave. However, I don’t think I would change your mind about that nor do I feel any desire I hope it never happens to you.

However, speaking more broadly, two of the most common human fears are the fear of being alone and the fear of change. Divorce inherently forces an individual to confront these fears, while reconciliation does not. Therefore, although the answer varies depending on individual circumstances, I think a general tendency can be observed here.

I do think there is a lot of fear to confront after betrayal. It just takes sifting through those fears and coming up with a solution. Some admittedly do not. And when I see those folks lingering in this unhappiness ten, fifteen, even more years out I often guess that may have happened to them. But I also know I can’t imagine what it’s like to even know how they got here or why. Fear may have started it, but there is more to it than that that keeps it sustained. I do not know the answer it’s not been my experience or one I have researchers or observed much of. The people like that who come here largely haven’t seemed to stay or at least do not post much.

[This message edited by hikingout at 6:50 PM, Saturday, May 31st]

** Member to Member **

Obviously, DRS triggers me, so I'll back out now, except -

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.

Numerous SIers came here saying that they always thought they'd dump a cheater, but now that they face the need to choose, they're not so certain. We also have members who applied their 'no cheating' principle in one or more relationships (so we and they know they can apply the principle) but hesitate in the relationship that brings them to SI.

DRS says, in his profile, that his XSO took R off the table. He's never been offered the option. He can't know how he'd deal with his principle unless he's been betrayed and R is a possibility.

*****

** From sisoon the mod **

One of our guidleines is to avoid generalizing. There's a lot of generalizing in this thread. For example, DRS makes statistical arguments without citing his sources. The whole thread is a generalization about people who R and people who D.

I am not pushing to shut this thread down because the discussion seems likely to help readers.

The less posters generalize, the more help they'll provide.

The guidlelines can be found here: https://survivinginfidelity.com/forums/guidelines/. Please read and adher to them.

I apologize, I do try and say most. A lot or largely. I do not think what I say applies to all, it’s merely my way of expressing different types of people rather than trying to lump any singular group. It’s merely to make points rather than dehumanizing. I will try to avoid that, it’s more difficult in philosophical discussions than in case specific. But I fully acknowledge we are all just parts of a giant spectrum.

DRS

Personally, for me, reconciliation would demand more strength because it would require a compromise of my core principles, which would be deeply unsettling.

If you replace "core principles" with "cultural programming" how does that sentence read?

HikingOut

healing

Growth?

I will come back to discussion with HikingOut when I have them mental bandwidth to do so, likely next week.

That being said, I do grow weary that ultimately we are a fundamental cross roads of understanding.

I will address this further in my response next week though.

Obviously, DRS triggers me, so I'll back out now

I think this is wise. From my side of things it's nothing personal but I don't believe we can effectively communicate. It seems no matter how I attempt to explain my perspective, use of analogy, metaphor, personalised examples, hypotheticals etc it's not quite going in. Often the exact opposite intended meaning is being interrupted from what I'm meaning to portray. I'm sure you feel likewise. Therefore further interaction seems fruitless.

DRS says, in his profile, that his XSO took R off the table. He's never been offered the option. He can't know how he'd deal with his principle unless he's been betrayed and R is a possibility.

You are correct, how can i prove I would stay true to my principles without being in the circumstance? You have no reason to believe me.

I may claim to have unwavering principles but crumble if the circumstances should occur. After all few Germans elected to hide the Jews during WW2 yet when surveyed in modern day, most people feel they would have.

All I can say to refute this is I've lived by my principles (often at my own detriment) for all of my life. I cut off my father for cheating on my mother and have been no contact with him for many years. This has directly hurt me in many practical and emotional ways. Yet I stayed true to my principles. I will not be attending his funeral when that day comes and don't expect anything in the will.

Choose to believe me or not. All I can say is I feel I wouldn't relent to emotional want in the face of betraying my principles as evidenced by my life to this point. However perhaps one day I will wake up and betray myself. Who knows.

Some people are hypocrites and others aren't. Presumably we all strive to not be but many fail.

DRS makes statistical arguments without citing his sources.

An understandable objection, the rules on posting outside links makes this task more challenging but I'm very pro citing sources generally. Should anyone require any specific sources for any of the arguments I've made, feel free to ask and I will provide the source and search term to find the study and (or) data.

HOP

If you replace "core principles" with "cultural programming" how does that sentence read?

Sentence reads fine by my book. You can make an argument that all principles up to including Tho shalt not commit adultery are simply cultural programming. It's a complex argument that I don't buy into fully. We also have biological programming too. Often a mix of both. Sometimes only social construction.

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