SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

5Decades - my heart breaks for you.

DRS, You've claimed you have no doubt that you'd cut off a betraying partner. My memory of your story is that your GF left (even though you were the one who brought up splitting); she did not give you an opportunity to R.

Given the large number of BSes who have posted here that they never thought they'd consider R if they were betrayed, I just don't understand your certainty.

** Doctor to Member ** (this is just an attempt at humor, in fact splattering of attempts are made throughout - trying to keep it light - goes without saying no offense is meant to anyone personally in this response, especially not you)

Yes, this has been a concept you've struggled to grasp for as long as we've crossed paths on this forum. That's fine; I, too, struggle to understand many concepts that inform how others choose to conduct their lives. In fact, merely one post before this, I outlined my struggles to comprehend the virtue of forgiveness. The fact that I struggle to see the virtue in forgiveness often means I fail to follow the logic in people's choices.

What I find interesting about this argument is that a similar idea was being debated on the wayward forum. It was essentially a wayward suggesting no one can say with certainty that they wouldn't cheat. It's precisely the same argument, just the other side of the coin: 'You can't know what you'd do if you were in my shoes, etc., etc., etc.' Very much a bargain-basement philosophical justification for making poor choices, I feel, but I will address this at the end.

To answer you more directly: how can I know what I'd do? Not to get all Jordan Peterson on you, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "know." If you were to employ David Hume's views on induction, nothing is inherently knowable. He argued that there is no rational justification for inferring that the future will resemble the past based on past experiences. That is to say, we cannot assume the sun will rise today simply because it did yesterday. In that sense, I know nothing.

If you mean it in the more common parlance—the sense where you may say: "I know I would never have sexual intercourse with a duck"—then yes, I do feel I have certainty on my claim. Believe it or not, the one subject I don't think it's arrogant to claim definitively I know more about than you, is myself. I understand myself better than you do. I understand the disgust I felt upon discovery; I understood that whatever love existed evaporated. I understand that even if I were to feel conflicted, my stubborn alignment to principles (likely born of seeing what my cheater father did to my mother, whose attempts at R left her a shell) would not have allowed me to relent. I understand that justice is far more important to me than an easy life. In fact, it's more crucial than that: I couldn't have an easy life knowing that no justice was dealt. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror.

This is why I believe self-worth is so crucial to the infidelity question. Someone with high self-worth recognizes that their partner getting dumped and you leaving their lives as a partner is justice. Them losing access to your time is justice. I worry many don't have this self-perception and are merely happy to cling to the heels of an abuser and take whatever they get. Fear and low self-worth. Fear is understandable. Fear of change is often cited as the single biggest fear amongst humans. Change is scary. I mean, we've already learned our betrayer's extended family's names and their best friends' birthdays, so we cling to our betrayers. We can't do better, and to try is scary. I'm not saying everyone looks at the world that way (in fact I've posted in depth about the many counter principles and reasons it can be noble to reconcile) but it's heartbreaking to me that there are any.

However, I don't expect this personal account will do much to change your mind. To flip the question on you: Do you believe you can say anything about yourself with certainty? Is everything a: 'well, you don't know till you live it' kind of thing? If so, what makes you so certain you wouldn't have sexual intercourse with a duck? Or do you have to walk a mile in a duck-botherer's shoes before you can say? You haven't lived the life of Jeffrey Dahmer, so how can you say that in his shoes, you wouldn't have a nibble?

The more serious side of that question is: you say, 'Given the large number of BSes who have posted here that they never thought they'd consider R.' What about the large number of waywards who say they never thought they'd cheat? This is the cross roads in the discussion, someone who holds inflexible morals with someone who can bend them in the pursuit of joy or comfort. This is why we have the disconnect and why you can't understand my certainty. But, for my money, If you live your life with that mentality (that anyone can betray their principles under the right circumstances), we are all cheaters. We are all abusers. We all reconcile. We are just a bad circumstance away, and principles, morality, and discussions are all just meaningless. We will all betray are long held principles in the face of a trauma. It just has to be the very specific form of trauma that the person in question has been through. Beat by beat or it doesn't count... well I'm sorry, I do not subscribe this world view. Furthermore, I think its merely a deeply nihilistic justification.

You have an interest in history? Well, given that, I feel the weight of history outlines the inaccuracy of this mentality. You undoubtedly will be able to give countless examples of figures throughout history who were willing to have their skin peeled off, be hanged, drawn and quartered, or sawn in half rather than contradict their principles. As such, I think managing the dissolution of a household is fairly light work, relatively speaking.

Can I say with certainty, like those great people throughout history, that I would consume the poison rather than retract my criticisms of the gods? No, I don't have certainty in that. I don't know if I have that sort of strength or fortitude. However, I can say with certainty that I would dump a cheater, even if they were pleading for a second chance (which no, they weren't in my personal scenario though I did initiate break up talks)

I could also dedicate another paragraph or two to my doubts regarding how deeply those BSes who say they thought they'd never consider R if they were betrayed truly considered the matter. I suspect these were fleeting thoughts rather than deep introspection, running through hypotheticals, or true meditation on the matter. I think that's an important distinction, especially as I had done these things due to seeing what infidelity and R did to my mother... alas, I've written so much that I'm sure no one cares now.

Sorry, that went on a bit. In the great words of Radiohead: "For a minute there, I lost myself." (Damn I so wish I got tickets, tried for all the dates across Europe) I hope that is a comprehensive answer to this question. People like to throw the 'how would you know' around, so I thought I'd use this opportunity to put it to bed, with a nice glass of warm milk, read it a bedtime story, and never have to revisit it again.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 3:30 PM, Friday, November 21st]

This is why I believe self-worth is so crucial to the infidelity question. Someone with high self-worth recognizes that their partner getting dumped and you leaving their lives as a partner is justice.

I’ll give an alternative point of view. Someone with a tentative sense of self-worth will always take actions to buttress it. Look at me, I just shot myself in the foot based on adhering to an ironclad principle. I am principled and I am strong, and I also have a hole in my foot.

I’m not saying, don’t divorce, I think divorce is probably the highest probability of success action in most cases, but I am very wary of the "I have high self-worth and that leads to me being principled" argument.

If anything, I think forgiveness (true forgiveness, not just words) is an indicator of high self-worth. With a basis of high self-worth, you’re able to separate their act from what it says about you, and that enables you to look at their act with a clear lens and make that forgiveness choice. Or not.

[This message edited by HouseOfPlane at 12:58 PM, Friday, November 21st]

but I am very wary of the "I have high self-worth and that leads to me being principled" argument.

I'm not asserting a link between high self-worth and principles; I don't believe they are inherently connected. Rather, my point is that when an individual possesses both high self-worth and principles centered on the need for justice, they will inevitably conclude that leaving the betrayer is the necessary act of justice. This is because you view yourself as good partner and the betrayer has demonstrated they are not worthy of you.

If anything, I think forgiveness (true forgiveness, not just words) is an indicator of high self-worth. With a basis of high self-worth, you’re able to separate their act from what it says about you, and that enables you to look at their act with a clear lens and make that forgiveness choice. Or not.

I personally don't see that link but it's a valid opinion. I personally feel like I can separate their act from what it says about me, yet it does nothing in edging me towards forgiving them.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 1:47 PM, Friday, November 21st]

By the way, thanks for the post on this topic. Very thought-provoking and it’s really led to some deep noodling.

Back to the original topic, I don’t think what matters is the different infidelity acts so much as the different ways the acts are received by different people.

OK ... I think I can accept that you (and I) would not ordinarily choose to have sex with a duck ... but what if the circumstances were extraordinary? What about with a gun to one's head? Of course sex with a gun to one's head seems pretty difficult....

Perhaps the crux of our difference really lies in the justice vs mercy debates. Some of us default to mercy; others default to justice. I expect that both approaches succeed in some sitches and fail in others.

*****

I strongly doubt that self-esteem is the differentiator. Low self-esteem can easily lead to splitting as well as to staying. High SE can easily lead to staying as well as splitting.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 7:26 PM, Friday, November 21st]

OK ... I think I can accept that you (and I) would not ordinarily choose to have sex with a duck ... but what if the circumstances were extraordinary? What about with a gun to one's head? Of course sex with a gun to one's head seems pretty difficult....

See this is a nicer way to interact. That got a genuine laugh out of me.

I guess I will happily concede I may well have reconciled if someone were perpetually following me around with a gun to my head... But consider the practicalities. it would have made showering really awkward. I think I'd have rather the duck on the whole.

Side note: Maybe my comments would be better received if I injected more humour, that being said I once tried a 'lube up or leave' joke that went down like a Stuka over starlingrade. So work in progress

Sooler-

Perhaps my skepticism stems from a secular worldview, but I find the concept of 'turning the other cheek' ethically unsound. It removes the deterrent for bad behavior.

This is not meant to debate what you believe here, but I think myself and many people believe in the concept we reap what we sow.

I am not a traditionally religious person in the way that I go to church and interpret biblical teachings the same way that would be taught. I believe that much of the Ten Commandments are protective of someone who might do these things as they are of the people they do it to.

We are given one sacred life and if you waste it by doing things that truly hurt others, for most of us (the non pathological every day sort of person) these things will bring their own natural punishment. For most of these normal, non-pathological people, either it will be a deterrent because they have a strong sense of right or wrong or because they have seen how deeply breaking these things have impacted the course of their life.

And those who do not have the capacity for empathy will not have the capacity for guilt. You will never be able to punish them because they will make themselves the victim in the situation.

I just do not believe you can always effectively punish a person who is not remorseful.

That doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t cut people out of your life, that is a highly personal choice every human has the right to make.

So when it comes to forgiveness, I do not believe it’s a gift you give the person who hurt you. It’s a gift you give yourself. It can be a personal release of the emotions that you hold towards them because it requires energy. There is an emotional labor involved to keep hating someone for example. It’s not always hate, or even anger but it’s charged for sure especially when it comes to infidelity.

Everyone interprets forgiveness differently. For me it doesn’t mean that you stay in my life. I have forgiven people I no longer speak with. It’s more the idea that their actions towards you had to do with you. The outcome would have likely been the same no matter who it was in your role. When you can release the personalization of it, the injustice of it, that doesn’t eliminate them from experiencing consequences, it keeps you from carrying them as well.

I know many couples affected by infidelity who have forgiven but are still divorced. And I know many people in various stages of reconciliation who have not yet forgiven.

I also think when we punish someone it doesn’t feel good to us to do that. Many bs express deep shame at some of their initial reactions when they were geared towards punishment. Punishing is not equivalent to ending the relationship, but the way. Ending a relationship is simply a boundary enforcement. "I will not tolerate this in my life"

Will they feel that as consequences? Probably, but will those consequences change anything about them? Only sometimes and probably more often no.

Most things people do are about themselves, if we think we can effect that, we are wrong. We can be the most loving and magical romantic partner and it doesn’t keep them from cheating. We can rain hell down on them and they can just blame you.

[This message edited by hikingout at 8:39 PM, Friday, November 21st]

DRSOOLERS, if you stuck to your principle of seeing Radiohead you would have acquired tickets, one way or the other. Perhaps you have a conflicting principle or other real world limitations that prevented your success?

Trdd - Sadly I have no principles relating to art rock. That's just a want. Well, a bit more than a want, a deep desire.

It would be a hard ask to build principles around events that are out of your hands, otherwise my next principle would be to win the lottery. Or maybe more relevantly, I would have a principle of never being betrayed to begin with.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:29 PM, Friday, November 21st]

DrS, I've spent a lifetime studying philosophy and history. I'm not an expert and don't have a PhD. It's just an unending curiosity.

Principles are as varied as the individuals and the cultures who profess them. Often enough, their principles are Machiavellian, serving their own selfish ends and desires. They can be used to justify everything from truly heroic acts of benevolence, love and kindness, to unspeakable acts of violence and horror.

Forgiveness is not a weakness; it is a strength.

Rather, my point is that when an individual possesses both high self-worth and principles centered on the need for justice, they will inevitably conclude that leaving the betrayer is the necessary act of justice.

I think that justice is an illusion where infidelity is concerned, no matter what punishment is inflicted. The WS ends up without the marriage they believed they'd always have, but the BS also ends up without the marriage they believed they'd always have. That's true whether the outcome is R, D, or some limbo in between.

If D is chosen, and there are children involved, then both the BS and WS will be deprived of the cohesive family unit they created together. They each are likely to lose half their time with their kids. Unless there was a pre-nup in place, they'll each lose some of their money (and there are some galling circumstances where the WS ends up with the bigger share). Both the BS and the WS are free to pursue new relationships. One of them may be more successful at attracting new partners, but it's by no means certain that it's the BS who will have the advantage over the WS in this scenario.

None of this is intended as an argument that reconciliation is a superior option to divorce. Indeed, D is the only option that offers the benefit of not having to live with the person who cold-heartedly betrayed you. It's valid to say that this benefit trumps all others. The calculation of D vs R is an assessment of what is most likely to enable your own future happiness. If your personal preference is to cut off anyone who crosses you, then that's the only way you can move on. Fair enough. The level of remorse in your WS is irrelevant in this scenario.

But that's not the same as achieving justice. Those scales can never be balanced, which is why some BS choose to try to forgive. Writing off the debt enables them to evaluate the other merits of D or R. Those might be financial, or parental, or based in qualities of (or history with) the WS that make R a more attractive option. It doesn't indicate a lack of self-respect, or a contempt for justice; it's just a determination of priorities. And to tie back into the original post topic, not everyone has the same deal breakers when assessing that potential.

[This message edited by BraveSirRobin at 5:28 PM, Sunday, November 23rd]

I'm not asserting a link between high self-worth and principles; I don't believe they are inherently connected. Rather, my point is that when an individual possesses both high self-worth and principles centered on the need for justice, they will inevitably conclude that leaving the betrayer is the necessary act of justice. This is because you view yourself as good partner and the betrayer has demonstrated they are not worthy of you.

That was pretty much me. At first my need for justice was in making her life miserable by comments and making her feel as small as possible. This however really wasn’t who I was. I can be a hard ass but I’m not by nature a cruel person. However I was then and it totally screwed me up. The dissonance of my actions and who I thought I was, was destroying me. That’s when I realized that the best way for both of us to be able to move forward was to divorce.

I kind of agree with the worthiness aspect, but refined a little. When we divorced I told her that she deserved happiness, which I believe as she is fundamentally a good person. She just didn’t deserve happiness with me. But she does deserve to be happy.

Forgiveness is not a weakness; it is a strength.

I'm happy you have this worldview and hope it works for you. I wouldn't even attempt to change your view on this; I simply don't see it. Forgiveness is a social utility.

To understand my position, it's important to note that I distinguish letting go of resentment from forgiveness.

Letting go of resentment is, without a doubt, an important psychological goal. We have a massive amount of evidence that shows that holding onto resentment is detrimental to your health. However, saying you forgive someone—giving them that—that's different. This is something I've posted about before with hikingout, which is why I didn't readdress it here. I see letting go of resentment as a gift to yourself, but forgiveness, in my view, is only for the perpetrator and perhaps for wider society (family, friendship groups etc.)

So yes, work with a therapist and let go of held resentment. Reaching out to forgive someone on the other hand...

I think that justice is an illusion where infidelity is concerned, no matter what punishment is inflicted. The WS ends up without the marriage they believed they'd always have, but the BS also ends up without the marriage they believed they'd always have. That's true whether the outcome is R, D, or some limbo in between.

I understand your perspective and agree to an extent, but this is the element I'm suggesting is linked to high self-esteem. Do you believe you are a good person? Do you believe you are a good partner? If so, why is this betrayer worthy of your time? Your partnership is a prize. Yes, they may go out and find another partner; good luck to them. But they don't get your time. I view this as justice. Irrespective of whether they partner up with a series of other people, have at it. They are free to build a life as good as they possibly can, just not with you. I genuinely feel like many people don't view the world that way. They think they are lucky to have a partner at all. They believe their betrayer could be just as happy with anyone else, so leaving them doesn't accomplish anything. We, after all, have our own flaws. I'm not saying this view is wrong; in fact, objectively it could be correct. However, if you view yourself in high regard, irrespective of the truth of that position, you would see an absence of you as justice.

The calculation of D vs R is an assessment of what is most likely to enable your own future happiness. If your personal preference is to cut off anyone who crosses you, then that's the only way you can move on. Fair enough. The level of remorse in your WS is irrelevant in this scenario.

But that's not the same as achieving justice. Those scales can never be balanced, which is why some BS choose to try to forgive.

I don't see the leap here. I agree with the first paragraph, but then you assert this is not justice, and I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. Basically, the first part is an agreement that for certain people, cutting someone off is the best way to move on—I agree. Why, if the person views the world like me, can you assert that is not justice?

To use an analogy, imagine your home—a place you deeply love and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. You think it's magnificent. Then, your partner trashes it. They break all the quaint fittings, the old rustic fireplace, and the Victorian porcelain bath.

You are left with two primary options:

1. Justice (Eviction)

You can kick them out so they never get access to your house again. Sure, they may find a different house—perhaps even a bigger one with more bedrooms, or a cosier wooden shack. But it won't be that home—the unique one with the flaws you loved and appreciated. In this view, withholding access to your prize possession (the home/partnership) is the appropriate consequence for their destructive action. In time you may feel comfortable to allow another a partner to live in this house with you, one that has demonstrated they won't trash it.

2. Acceptance (Rebuilding)

You can let them stay. They must try to help rebuild it, but all the literature you read suggests it will never be the same. You are essentially choosing to take a risk: fingers crossed you'll end up just as happy with what you rebuild, or even happier, but it will never be your original home again. This is an act of acceptance and effort toward a new future, distinct from seeking justice for the initial damage.

I personally see one of these actions as seeking justice (eviction) and the other as pursuing acceptance (rebuilding). Either can be correct depending on the person in question, my only assertion here was that if you are a person with high self esteem and a propension for justice, you will select a option 1. These character traits will supersede 'the assessment of what is most likely to enable your own future happiness'.

waitedwaytoolong - I appreciate your view on this, and I'm glad to see we share this sentiment. Based on reading your posts, I've always felt we were philosophically aligned

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 8:56 AM, Monday, November 24th]

So basically, people who reconcile can’t be highly principled and have high self esteem, or they would just leave. Do I understand that right?

So basically, people who reconcile can’t be highly principled and have high self esteem, or they would just leave. Do I understand that right?

Nope, you don't.

Rather, my point is that when an individual possesses both high self-worth and principles centered on the need for justice, they will inevitably conclude that leaving the betrayer is the necessary act of justice.

That is to say, one could possess high self-esteem and still be highly principled, yet those principles might align more closely with Christian teachings of forgiveness and redemption. In this scenario, your strong self-regard and principles would lead you to reconcile.

Depends on the person in questions principles.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 3:14 PM, Monday, November 24th]

Thanks for clarifying. I thought that couldn’t be right.

You are essentially choosing to take a risk: fingers crossed you'll end up just as happy with what you rebuild, or even happier, but it will never be your original home again.

I'm arguing that either way, it will never be the original home again. Whether you evict the WS or let them stay, the damage they inflicted can't be magically made whole. You can repair the house. You can sell the house and buy something new. You can burn the house to the ground and spit on the ashes, but whatever you do, the original house is lost to both the BS and WS.

Maybe it would help me understand if you define what you mean by justice. Do you see it as synonymous with punishment rather than restoration?

[This message edited by BraveSirRobin at 4:02 PM, Monday, November 24th]

Let's stick with the damaged house analogy, as it is key. The point of the analogy is not about the possibility of fixing the house; it is exclusively about the irreversible consequence of the damage they caused.

You are absolutely right: the original home is gone forever. Irrespective of what happens next, that unique, undamaged partnership is a permanent, shared loss for both the Betrayed Spouse and the Wayward Spouse. This is precisely why we cannot define justice as restoration or balancing the scales—those scales can never be balanced, because the damage is permanent.

To answer your question directly, I define justice in this scenario as enacting consequences proportional to the violation.

What are the means to exact justice? If you value your self highly, the highest price you can exact is removing their access to your time and partnership (i.e., divorce). Perhaps monetary compensation is also relevant, but that too typically requires divorce.

Consider the alternative. Suppose the BS accepts the infidelity, stays, improves the marriage, and they live happily ever after. That's a beautiful, personal choice. If they can genuinely live with that outcome, I would be truly happy for them. However, from the perspective of justice, the WS got to have an affair (including all the excitement and endorphins that went along with it, irrespective of retrospective regret) and they got to keep and improve their marriage. I cannot possibly define that outcome—where the violation essentially yields a net gain—as justice.

It’s pretty simple for me: Bad choices deserve bad outcomes.

For those who prioritize this ultimate consequence, there is a necessary element of the idiom, "cutting off your nose to spite your face." The 'face' is your marital comfort and future security; the 'spite' is the unwavering demand for justice. I simply could not live with that arrogant nose—the one the WS took for a joyride—chucking away happily on my face. So, yes, it is painful to cut it off; it represents a painful, self-inflicted wound to secure a morally sound outcome. But it needs to be done for me to sleep at night. That pain, that self-imposed sacrifice, is the true cost of prioritizing justice over comfort.

You've already stated that the house cannot be restored. Since the damage cannot be undone, true restoration is impossible. If the BS chooses to stay and rebuild, that choice is an act of acceptance and creation. It is accepting the permanent loss of the original partnership and betting on constructing something entirely new from the ruins. That is a great path for them, but it is a path of reconciliation and acceptance, not justice, at least not in my view.

That is a great path for them, but it is a path of reconciliation and acceptance, not justice, at least not in my view.

So, here is where I think I differ:

Seeing that your ws has turned themselves inside out to figure out thier issues and seeing big changes in that person, them revealing all they learned about how they have conducted themselves over the years and how those ways were wrong. Getting deep apologies for all of it along the way- not just the affair but for all the things they couldn’t see. And then truly trying to make amends for it, not just today but for the rest of their life-

That sounds a lot like justice to me.

Leaving or staying could both be justice in its own way for a whole lot of people. I respect your individual choice of what’s right for you. But I don’t think that you can speak for whether my husband feels justice in it. It’s all very individual.