SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I see it as an improvement any time I disassociate with morally repugnant people.

That's not much of an answer. It belies your resentment. That! I understand. Been there and done that with my own father.

You have an opportunity that I no longer have. I want one more conversation.

Your father is well aware of your resentment for failing to live up to your expectations. I'd imagine (because I don't know him) that it's been on his mind for years.

He hasn't given up.

It took courage to reach out to you the way he did. (I'd also imagine that your mother was involved with the ambush). I'd also imagine that the money is simply there to... break the ice, to give you a little cause to consider it.

And you have considered it. And you're also, I suspect, considering him, too.

My ex often told me she didn't understand how I could cut people out of my life as easily as i could. I always believed in protecting myself. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that until you take it too far. There's a fine line between self-preservation and self-sacrifice. Because when we cut people out of our lives we cut a little life out of ourselves.

It costs us, too.

For you, it's about the ethics of accepting his overture. For him, it's about you.

If you accept this overture with the condition that you give him the opportunity to say he wants, and you later decide you'd rather keep your distance, then so be it - you've lost nothing but a bit of your time. On the other hand...

What else can I say?

This is an opportunity to heal a little. Hopefully. It's a chance to take "the road less traveled by" sort of thing.

Step outside of your comfort zone and you might be surprised by people, life, and yourself.

I want to be incredibly clear: I have no will or desire to reconcile, make up with him, or have him in my life again. That was never up for debate. My mind is made up, and I can assure you I have no doubts, worries, or concerns about that decision.

I am genuinely happy not to have him in my life. To be blunt, I don’t think he is a good person. Even in a casual "friend" sense, we have nothing in common; he’s a bore. He once mentioned wanting to work into his 70s—not because he needs the money, but because he has no hobbies, friends or interests. He offers me nothing of value. I like that his pitiful life is the consequences of his own actions. As someone who wishes karma existed, this is as close to it as it gets.

The question for me isn't about "healing" or "roads less travelled"—it’s about the ethics of the transaction. One day he will die, and I certainly won’t be turning down whatever inheritance comes my way. On a purely functional level, what difference does it make if I take the money now? My partner gets a slightly more lavish day, and I perhaps I won't feel I've compromised my boundaries.

You mentioned "cutting life out of yourself," but in this case, removing him was an act of clearing out clutter. There is no "ice to break" because I’m not interested in what’s under the ice. This isn't about self-sacrifice or a lack of courage; it’s a calculated decision based on who he is and what he doesn't bring to the table. I haven’t decided if I’ll take the money yet, but if I do, it will be an internal moral decision, not a relational one. I’m not stepping out of a comfort zone—I’m simply deciding whether to accept a payment.

Part of me feels like I should take the money because he is my father and I am due some form of reparations for his past behavior. The other part of me feels like I should refuse it on principle because he shouldn't be allowed to buy his way into being any part of my life or my wedding.

Boy does this post resonate for me!

My male parental unit cheated on my mother (I really have a hard time calling him my father, sometimes I call him my sire). One of my earliest memories is sitting/waiting in a car in a parking lot at an apartment building while he "visited" one of his girlfriends. Don't tell your mom. Ick.

My parents divorced when I was 7 or so. I literally knew no one else that had divorced parents for quite a few years. He couldn't be bothered to pay alimony or child support or hold down a job or keep a place to live or show up for his visitation. He made a lot of promises he never kept. My mom finally stopped getting my brother and I dressed and ready to go somewhere he promised to take us because she was so sick of seeing us hurt and disappointed.

He would periodically pop back into our lives, and try to play the role of our father. I was skeptical, and I hated to see my brother hurt every time he popped back out of our lives. One time he took my brother with him to another province to visit his family, got drunk, wrecked his vehicle and didn't bring my brother back. We had to scrape up the funds to fly my little brother home - he was about 12 at the time. He popped back into our lives and our home when I was about 16 or so. My mother, ever the optimist, let him move in. Suddenly I had this stranger trying to tell me when to be home from a date, etc. Didn't go well, and I pretty much made up my mind to cut contact at that time. Just iced him out. I didn't need that kind of toxicity in my life, who does? As things go, he popped back out again fairly quickly as he always did. When I was getting married, my mom was going to cash out an insurance policy to help pay for my wedding and it turned out that he had stolen it at some point! I'm not ashamed to say that I rifled through my mother's stuff to find contact info for him, and gladly made a call to the police.

Here we are 46 years later, my sire died a couple of years ago. It's really a wonder we even know about it. I really don't regret my actions. His obituary didn't even include his children (there was another after my brother and I with his AP who he did marry and divorce.)

Anyway, I always felt that he owed us monetarily since he never paid support. If it had suddenly been bestowed upon us somehow, I would be in the same dilemma as you. I would want it because it's owed and not want it because really, what good is it now? I don't need it, and I sense that you don't either. You and your gf will still have the nicest day you can have, regardless. I've always said that getting married is about the marriage, not the wedding.

I had another situation in my life that reminds me of this dilemma a bit. I walked in on a home robbery many years ago. Long story short, it was a couple in my house. The male was out on parole and got sent back to prison, his girlfriend/accomplice was sentenced, in part, to make restitution to us for the window they broke to get in. I received $200 from her. And I HATED it! I felt like accepting it, even though it was to replace a window, was like taking blood money and accepting it was like telling her she was forgiven and everything was ok. Everything was not ok. It was a very traumatizing time in my life, it took me quite a while to get past it. And I took that $200 and donated it to charity. When I had it in my hands, I didn't want anything to do with it. She may never know I never took it, and I don't care. I only care about how it made me feel. And it made me feel good to refuse it.

I fundamentally do not believe good people cheat.

I’m going to point out that there are many people who make some poor choices in life and go on to turn things around and become "model citizens".

Honestly if my H was a lying cheating jerk who had no redeeming qualities, then I would have D him. He has since recognized his bad behavior and why he did it. He is thankful we are still together and shows me that gratitude every day.

And he made some changes that show me he puts family and values first.

One of my favorite movies is It’s A Wonderful Life. When George Bailey loses the $ and realizes he’s facing jail time, his frustration and anger at living in a small town and barely making ends meet cause him to become nasty. He takes it out in his family.

He then turns it around and looks at things very differently. He’s grateful for 4 kids and a wife that loves him etc.

Good people make bad choices all the time. It is hard to forgive people who hurt us. But sometimes forgiveness is done only for the betrayed — not the cheater.

People can redeem themselves.

[This message edited by The1stWife at 4:26 AM, Wednesday, April 15th]

While I am sincerely glad you’ve found peace and happiness, your argument feels like a necessary rationalisation to allow you to reconcile with your husband. I can concede that people are capable of change, but we must be honest: at the moment of betrayal, your husband was not a "good person" making a mistake; he was a bad person making a choice.

While a person can work on themselves and evolve, their personal growth has no retroactive effect on the destruction they caused. You suggest that people can redeem themselves, but personal growth does not restore what was lost. My father may have theoretically improved his character, but that does not return my lost memories, repair my mother’s pain, or reunite our extended family. His improvement does nothing for me because the damage is already done. There is a reason why Dante, in The Divine Comedy, reserved the very centre of Hell for those who betray; it is a morally heinous act that shatters the foundational trust of a human bond.

You suggested that forgiveness is often for the betrayed, not the cheater. However, you also use his "gratitude" and "recognition of behaviour" as justification for staying, which suggests your forgiveness is actually contingent on his reform. To test the logic of your position, we must look at the act itself rather than the "model citizen" who followed. If your husband’s betrayal had involved something more universally reviled—such as the serial molestation of children—he could still, in theory, "recognise his behaviour" and "show gratitude every day".

The question then becomes: is there a line where an act is so heinous that "becoming a good person" later is simply irrelevant? I do not care if Jeffrey Dahmer finds religion and repents; I am still not inviting him to dinner. For me, betrayal is that line. Admittedly, there is a gulf between murder, molestation, and cheating, but that is my line nonetheless. Your own line may simply be drawn at a different point of gravity, but that is a personal preference rather than a logical or moral distinction. Ultimately, a person’s later improvement does nothing for the people they broke; the debt of the past is not paid by the virtues of the present.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 3:27 PM, Wednesday, April 15th]

If you feel it’s OK to make some moral compromise because you will inevitably eventually inherit his assets… keep in mind that a) he can remove you from his will and b) if you want to stand your moral grounds you can always refuse to accept your involvement in his estate.

Ultimately, a person’s later improvement does nothing for the people they broke; the debt of the past is not paid by the virtues of the present.

A person's later improvements, in essence, have nothing to do with the "people they broke" and everything to do with what's broken within. Change begins with wanting to be a better version of ourselves, to learn and grow.

We are all responsible for our own happiness and well-being. Healing from trauma is our responsibility. Your father could - at least in theory - help you to heal, but it's just help. He cannot heal the wounds he inflicted. That's all on you. It's not fair and it's unjustifiable and it sucks.

I completely agree with you that infidelity is a deal-breaker. The first thought that went through my mind while reading the text messages between my exww and the OM was that my marriage was over. End of story.

I will not be married to a cheater. It's an easy principle, simple, direct and without judgement. Of course, life is complicated and not so easily reduced to simple principles.

The debt that is owed cannot be repaid. There's nothing your father could do, just as there was nothing my exww could do, to "make up for it." Accepting that as true was what led me to understand the value of forgiveness. After all, expecting reparations from someone who cannot make them is a bit silly and... self-defeating.

I think you are stealing a base here rhetorically here, Dr Soolers.

You suggest that people can redeem themselves, but personal growth does not restore what was lost

Redemption and restoration are not equivalent. Redemption does not necessarily require restoration. It has no fixed, objective requirements. It is a subjective evaluation. Like all evaluations, it requires an evaluator. In the case of infidelity, the relevant evaluator is the betrayed(s). If the betrayer is redeemed in the eyes of the betrayed, I don’t see how that can be gainsaid.

** Member to Member **

*** 2 X 4 Warning ***

A 2 X 4 is an old type of SI post that expresses very serious concern (and often, disapproval) about posts someone has published.. It's rare nowadays, but I'm an old timer. I haven't used a 2 X 4 in years, but I'm pretty upset with DRS's posts.

If you think I'm misusing my position, use the approved method for complaining about a mod's action - open a 'mod, please' thread or send a PM to a staff member or to 'SI Staff' or email admin@surivinginfidelty.com.

OTOH, if you think the ideas I've published are wrong, go after the ideas in this thread. Minimize the ad hominenms, but ideas are always fair game.

*****

While I am sincerely glad you’ve found peace and happiness, your argument feels like a necessary rationalisation to allow you to reconcile with your husband. I can concede that people are capable of change, but we must be honest: at the moment of betrayal, your husband was not a "good person" making a mistake; he was a bad person making a choice.

It is not a fact that a 'cheater is a bad person'; it's not even a fact that 'a cheater is a bad person while cheating.'

If you do think only a 'bad person' cheats, I urge you to note your internal process. I think you'll become aware that the 'bad person' proposition is an opinion. It's very bad practice to treat an opinion as a fact, IMO.

Besides, in a world built on syllogistic logic, one would reap what one sows. That is, a victim of a bad person would probably also be a bad person. I offer that logic as a possibility, though I would not adopt it myself.

A competent therapist would ask, 'What purpose does it serve you to see yourself as a Victim of a 'bad person'? What if your WS were a good person?' In fact, what is a 'bad person'? a 'good person'?' I urge you, DRSOOLERS, to pay close attention to those questions and note that the context is not limited to infidelity.

Also, I'll cop to not believing that cheaters are bad people. But being 'good' is different from being 'not bad,' so don't go around thinking I believe cheaters are 'good people.'

*****

Your own line may simply be drawn at a different point of gravity, but that is a personal preference rather than a logical or moral distinction.

IOW, you're telling other people not to turn their opinions into facts. I agree.

IMO, however, you treat your own opinions as facts, and I wish you'd stop.

Ultimately, a person’s later improvement does nothing for the people they broke; the debt of the past is not paid by the virtues of the present.

I agree. I think that's irrefutable. I think accepting that is an important step in healing.

I take from that truth that it is up to the person who was hurt to respond to the hurt and to own their response. For example, in this case you can heal yourself, or you can keep feeling bad, waiting for your father, your mother, and/or XGF to make you feel good. You can see your father's offering as a moral choice between righteousness and condoning earth-shattering evil, or you can see it as a choice that will have little if any impact on how many people will live their lives. This is not a situation in which taking the money is good or evil. If you prioritize the parameters one way, taking the money is the better course of action; if you prioritize in another, equally valid way, not taking the money is better.

*****

your argument feels like a necessary rationalisation to allow you to reconcile with your husband.

The1stWife doesn't help defending herself. She doesn't need to defend herself at all.

But a rationalization is a lie, whether it's spelled with a 'z' or an 's', so you're saying that people in R are lying.

You can't possibly know what is in another poster's mind. You can, however, draw conclusions from a body or work. So tell us what T1stW or hikingout or BSR or Tanner or I or anyone else who says they're in R have written that indicates any of us have lied. All of us have written enough to demonstrate lying if we have, in fact, lied - and we haven't.

I get that you're hurting, DRSOOLERS. But you reduce your pain only by addressing your pain directly. What happens when you call someone a liar just increases pain all around. It does nothing to reduce your own.

*****

If you respond, DRS, remember that your response will be stronger if you don't open yourself to the charge of protesting to much.

*****

I'm sorry it's come to 2 X 4s. I think you can get a lot from SI, DRS, and I think you can contribute a lot if you change your approach.

Firstly, I do not believe I have ever used an ad hominem attack whilst on this forum, and certainly not within this thread. Furthermore, I have no desire to lodge a formal complaint regarding your response; I would much rather directly discuss the misunderstanding or the dispute of ideas that has led to this point.

I am genuinely confused as to why this specific post triggered a "2 X 4" response. I did not engage in name-calling or vitriol; I engaged in a philosophical debate regarding the nature of betrayal and the limits of reform, which I believe is entirely relevant to the discussion.

Regarding the assertion that I am presenting my opinions as facts, I am not even sure "facts" exist when discussing morality in the way they do in the physical sciences. We are discussing values, and I am speaking on behalf of the values I have and the opinions I hold. Is that not how everyone speaks? I would be interested to see direct quotes where I am stating my thoughts as objective facts; the only time I would do so is when quoting studies directly, which I do on occasion, but did not do here.

When I use the word "bad" to describe a person at the moment of betrayal, I am using it to define someone who is knowingly committing immoral, deceptive, and pain-inducing acts. If we can observe someone causing profound, life-altering trauma through a series of intentional choices and not use the word "bad," then I no longer understand what the word is meant to signify. I would appreciate it if you could expand on that. Does this assertion extend to other heinous acts, or merely cheating? Can a predator not be defined as "bad" whilst abusing their victim? If not, what does it mean to be "bad" to you? I believe that if we cannot accept that someone is bad whilst committing a bad action, the word loses all utility. If a person's character is not defined by their most consequential actions toward those they claim to love, then the definition of character becomes entirely abstract. I find it logically inconsistent to strip the label from the person while the act itself is being carried out. While anyone can assign any meaning to a word, doing so in a way that ignores the reality of the action renders the language fruitless.

Sam Harris explores this perspective in his book The Moral Landscape, where he argues that "bad" can be defined by the objective misery and suffering a person causes to conscious creatures. This outlines my position far more eloquently than I can here: to me, a "bad person" is, at least in that moment, a causal engine of misery. When I state these beliefs, please note they are not merely embittered ramblings, but rather established philosophical positions held by thinkers far more distinguished than myself. This is not an argument from authority, but rather a clarification that my view is a considered moral framework, not a personal attack.

I also believe there is a vital distinction between a lie and a rationalisation that has been overlooked. You equated my use of the word "rationalisation" with calling someone a "liar," but they are not the same thing. A lie is a conscious attempt to deceive others, whereas a rationalisation is a psychological defence mechanism where one constructs a logical justification for an action to avoid a more painful reality. Often subconsciously. Everyone rationalises—you, me, the postman, and the neighbour. It is a human universal, especially when dealing with the cognitive dissonance of trauma. Suggesting a poster is rationalising is not an attack on their integrity; it is an observation that their argument appears designed to make an intolerable reality feel more acceptable. I see no ill will in suggesting that.

I remain confused as to what specifically triggered such a serious response. If I had called other users liars, I would understand the reaction, but I maintained a clear distinction between a person’s character and the psychological framework they use to cope. I agree entirely with your point that the debt of the past is not paid by the virtues of the present, and that the betrayed person must own their response. My post was an expression of that ownership: the conclusion that, for me, betrayal is a line that renders subsequent "goodness" irrelevant to the restoration of the bond. I do not see how expressing that a "bad person makes a choice" is a violation of standards any more than the counter-argument that "good people make mistakes." Both are moral interpretations of the same objective event. I value this community and the ability to have these deep discussions. You need to be able to debate ideas to have meaningful conversation. I hope we can continue to debate these ideas without the assumption of malice.

P.S rationalization vs rationalization is a UK vs US thing. admittedly I'm prone to using US English on occasion as my word processor defaults to it but I tend to prefer to use my native English when I've fully switched on in a response.

(adding this here as to not create a further comment on this, on The1stWife request)

I'm deeply sorry The1stWife felt attacked for my response. Perhaps a blind spot on my end... but I simply don't see the attack. I have reread this several times. Perhaps for everyone's growth this could be more clearly outlined? Is it not at all possible it's merely a misinterpretation? We are all aware that you can read something and take away pretty much anything you want from it. I'm not sure why we have an assumption of an attack.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 10:07 AM, Thursday, April 16th]

@Unhinged:

I appreciate your perspective on personal responsibility, and I agree with you that the work a person does on themselves is primarily to fix what is broken within. However, I think there is a subtle but important distinction to be made. While I am responsible for my own healing, the fact that I am the only one who can carry out that work does not absolve the person who inflicted the injury of their status as the "breaker".

You mention that expecting reparations from someone who cannot make them is "self-defeating", and you link this to the value of forgiveness. I see it differently. I don't see it as "expecting" reparations; I see it as a acknowledgment that a debt exists which can never be paid. For me, that isn't a call to forgive so much as it is a reason to remain distant. If I buy a vase that is shattered, the fact that it can never be made whole again isn't a reason to keep the shards on my mantelpiece. I can accept that the vase is gone and heal from the loss without ever needing to "forgive" the situation.

@Letmebefrank:

You make a fair and valid point that redemption and restoration are not equivalent, but I would argue that for redemption to be "logical" rather than purely "emotional", there must be some form of balance. This is how I view it anyways. If a person burns down a house, they can spend the rest of their life being an exemplary firefighter, but they haven't "redeemed" the act of arson; they have simply done something different later. How much value would I put on the loss of my extended family and tumultuous childhood? Tough question. I think if he offered me a million I'd consider that fair reparations.

I agree that the betrayed is the "relevant evaluator", but my point is that many evaluations are based on the "necessary rationalisations" I mentioned earlier. If someone chooses to view their partner as redeemed, that is their subjective right, but it doesn't change the objective reality that the damage remains. I am simply arguing that "redemption" is often used as a linguistic cloak to cover the fact that we have simply decided to stop holding someone accountable for a debt they can’t pay.

In any case, I am the evaluator with my father, no redemption has been gained.

(all of the above are my own person beliefs, not me claiming to be stating facts - may need to start adding this for clarity.)

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 9:12 AM, Thursday, April 16th]

DrSoolers

I’m not going to engage in this thread after this post.

You are entitled to your opinion. I respect that.

I don’t agree with your "analysis" of my feelings regarding forgiveness, reconciliation or your viewpoint of me or my marriage. Enough said.

You seem to want to debate on every major or minor point on many of these threads here at SI. Please remember this site is to help support betrayed (and cheaters) as they navigate life after an affair.

There is no reason to personally attack people here. I share my experience here because I was facing a D I did not want AND I also did not want to R. I am one of the lucky ones who have happily reconciled.

I learned a few things along the way. My personal growth and strength has changed me for the better. I wish the affair never happened. I wish I didn’t suffer for years after it. I wish I didn’t have some PTSD from it.

But what I hope for is that others here at SI can benefit from my experience and see that whether you D. S or R or something in between, there is always a chance of happiness and peace and calm.

Your viewpoints on my marriage / forgiveness etc. did come across as an attack. Others here at SI saw it. As I said you are entitled to your thoughts and opinions and I’m not going to engage at that level. Respectfully I am requesting this thread be closed and the focus returned to the original topic of your situation with your father.

[This message edited by The1stWife at 9:23 AM, Thursday, April 16th]