SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

House of Plane,

It took me a second or two to read through that opening twice and get it, but now I do. And thank you. And yes, that is definitely part of what's driving me. Good to know I'm on the right track and perhaps it will take some of the sting out of the divorce process.

Adultery excludes EA's and over use of porn and online sexual banter that's not actually physical sexual contact so in that regard....cheating is a better definition.

I do believe the "church" still feels that marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman so a woman having sexual relations with another woman wouldn't be cause for a D within the eyes of the church....or so I believe the case to be. I could be wrong. Been a long time since I went to church.

Also this:

I'm speaking of understanding that infidelity is abuse, and that accepting and recovering a relationship with a person that has abused you means living with abuse.

Living with the memory of the abuse. Living with having to accept it was abusive. Sure ok. But not continuing to live WITH abuse. If a wayward becomes a former wayward than you are minimizing all of the work and self reflection they have done to become a better and safer partner.

Anyone read " People of the Lie", by M Scott Peck ( ironically, a serial cheater)?

When I read of WS pain, I always think " yeah, but it is offset by all the fun excitement and pleasure they derived from cheating." And, when feeling down, they can always harken back to those wonderful times they had. IOW, I do not have much sympathy.

If what you got from my post was I was looking for sympathy then either you missed my point or I made it poorly. I disagree with fond memories but dont really feel the need to defend myself here. People will always believe what they want on that topic. My point was for each ws we help there is a bs we are helping in some way. And that we do have real

Consequences even if they are delayed.

Thumos- I think you are either feeling defensive or committed to misunderstanding me. I am not taking about some generic whatever you said. I am speaking of human nature. We all write from our experience because our life fully encompasses us. I used to write very leniently in favor of the ws not understanding that my many here had situations that I could not even fathom the evilness of, regardless of my cheating status.

I feel like in the ws forum we really work to fix the language of new ws, because we know how important it is to change their viewpoint and how they speak to bs. We do it all the time. I tend to still believe that the bs in this site who show me and others compassion, take the time to help us, and will swing a two by four when it’s specifically needed are well in their way in their journey of their own healing. And that doesn’t mean R or D or any of those things. It’s simply where it is. To me it’s hard not to see the request for harder language not with a punishing spirit. My comments towards you were simply with understanding that as we discussed before it’s dangerous for you to touch that compassion piece right now. You have to protect yourself understandably. And it’s fine you can’t take in what I am saying but I felt I needed to further explain myself because I do feel misunderstood. I have to believe some of that is I poorly may have made my point.

Our existence her has always created tension. The language conversation has been had dozens of times since I have been here and at the end of the day no change is really ever made so I didn’t really feel you were t”trying to make the site a certain way”. All I did was in consideration of your proposal of harsher language try to impress that many bs want their ws on this site. That’s all.

For what it’s worth I see the exchange about he psychiatrist actually to show a huge lack of strategy and more disorganized in the moment reactions. Still that demonstrates no strategy towards making progress in the situation either. Just my two cents.

That makes more sense HikingOut, thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response.

Adultery excludes EA's and over use of porn and online sexual banter that's not actually physical sexual contact so in that regard....

Wrong, unless you think that EA's, etc. are not unfaithful acts.

The first definition of adultery is 1) The voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with someone not the spouse; unfaithfulness.

Adultery includes sexual intercourse or acts and other aspects of unfaithfulness like EA's.

Terms like unfaithful aren't limited to marital vows. You can cheat on your taxes or playing games. You can have a "fling".

If there is a problem with this definition of adultery is that it doesn't include the non married person in the adulterous act as being an adulterer. There is no distinction, though, of the required sex of either party.

ETA: To me the word adultery most accurately describes the activity.

[This message edited by steadychevy at 3:05 PM, October 8th (Thursday)]

When I read of WS pain, I always think " yeah, but it is offset by all the fun excitement and pleasure they derived from cheating." And, when feeling down, they can always harken back to those wonderful times they had. IOW, I do not have much sympathy.

"empathy". Your statement shows a lack of empathy. Not surprising after suffering emotional trauma.

Here, let me give you an example:

"When I think of my wife's pain, I always think, yeah - I've been the sole provider for the family and she hasn't worked in 12 years so... she can always offset her pain by remembering the fun and excitment she had on my money".

It's a fun little slippery slope with lots of nice excuses - and believe me, I know all about those kind of excuses - understandable given the circumstances but usually unhelpful.

****

In terms of language, I think "cheating" is the larger container for the abusive behaviour. That is, adultery is an element of cheating. And yes, cheating is abusive. Lying, manipulation, betrayal of trust, sexual promiscuity and much more. All of those are abusive. But they are abusive in two directions; not one. And I would argue that [mostly] they are first self-abuse.

But they are abusive in two directions; not one. And I would argue that [mostly] they are first self-abuse.

Hell no.

I am triggering like crazy right now. I'm going to post from my own experience.

I'm divorced. My ex left me for another man. She knew him before we ever met. Basically, he was a commitmentphobe, no marriage, no kids. I gave her both of those. But as soon as he was ready to be a stepdad, I was out on my ear.

I have no answer for that. I'm not going to be evil. I can't do that shit to another human being. My ex had no problem. And she enjoyed it, enjoyed cheating. Felt guilty at the same time.

That is a thing where I understand the emotions and thoughts behind it, can walk through it. I just find the WS mindset so repulsive that I have no empathy.

BS are my priority, far over WS. WS should go and sin no more. We all should, I do not mean to trivialize that. But I don't care about their pain. They had agency, their BS don't.

Remember this old "greatest hit" from SI:

BS heals the BS,

WS heals the WS,

together they heal the marriage

Haven't heard that one in a while. Probably throw my computer through the window if someone went there today. That was absolutely toxic, and shows a complete lack of empathy towards what the BS goes through in comparison to the WS.

Here is my immediacy. Seen several threads about people in second marriages/LTRs where they have been cheated on by multiple partners. And they don't want to leave, because IMO being cheated on by multiple people is that much more humiliating than a single bad partner.

Plus they are worn down by dealing with the fallout of the first marriage. I know some of my relationship skills have taken a hit. Not as strong as I used to be. Because in the past, I had some overarching belief that both partners would be trying equally, that the world was fair. No longer believe that. So someone doesn't hold their end up, I don't have the ability to call them on it, because they can just walk away at any time anyway. And I can't because I have to play by my own internalized rules, and they can cheat like hell if they feel like it.

The dynamic where someone who's been abused before is weakened by the prior abuse and has less ability to handle it on their own. Because we, as a society, aren't giving them enough help. We help them with other forms of abuse, not this one. For this it's "BS heals the BS." It's not enough.

The WS has their own journey, but it has nothing to do with healing from abuse. Unless they got cheated on by someone prior, which isn't all that unusual either.

True, I do not empathize with someone who abuses other. Otherwise, I have empathy.

"To see what's in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle." ~George Orwell

I think empathy is one thing, but defining empathy so broadly that you wind up encouraging the well-known and pretty well-researched "doormat effect" is another.

They've found that overly forgiving spouses (and yes, there is such a thing) are more likely to experience continued negative behavior and both physical and psychological aggression from the offending spouse. (Like I don't know, as a random example, a wayward wife deciding to hit her faithful husband over the head hard with an object because he said something she didn't like).

I think it's actually called doormat syndrome. Sounds like a lot like the unremorseful wayward spouses who continue to treat their faithful spouses poorly. Imagine that.

Like the old saying "you teach people how to treat you."

Excessive empathy can keep you from seeing what's in front of your face, the person who cheated on you, and who THEY REALLY ARE.

Like the old SI saw, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

Saying "that's in the past" for this type of behavior also seems like cold comfort given that, as was observed earlier in this thread, the past was one second ago and almost any atrocious unethical behavior can be excused away with this nostrum.

To me it's also somewhat akin to the old saying "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." In other words, the Constitution does not require such baroque adherence it ends destroying the very thing it was designed to protect.

It's like that with empathy. Empathy is not a suicide pact. It doesn't require you losing your soul and inner integrity sacrificed on the altar of it.

So while it's a virtue to have empathy for other human beings (and other creatures on the planet) empathy does not mean you have to or should identify with the feelings of a murderer or a thief, for example.

Or, let's say, an abuser doing abusive things to you.

Too much empathy will wind up having you tolerate things you shouldn't tolerate.

Too much empathy is actually a disorder.

There's also such a thing as empathy fatigue for those who have used up too much of this reservoir.

[This message edited by Thumos at 4:37 PM, October 8th (Thursday)]

It's like that with empathy. Empathy is not a suicide pact. It doesn't require you losing your soul and inner integrity sacrificed on the altar of it.

I could not agree more. My XWH is in many ways a tragic person. He has gone through a lot of undeserved pain in his life. You could weep for the child he once was. One could feel very badly for him and want very much to help him overcome his problems. This is a trap. That is the most dangerous thing I could ever have done. I had to shut off empathy for him in order to have a life of sanity and peace. Empathy given to him turns into being used and played for a fool. The child who deserved that empathy is no more. The very fucked up adult who hurts others is what remains.

And this:

There's also such a thing as empathy fatigue for those who have used up too much of this reservoir

One of the most upsetting things about leaving him was my own eventual reaction to his suicide threats. I reached a point where I was unable to care whether or not he killed himself. At a certain point, I remember telling him "hey, it's your life and your choice what to do with it" and I hung up the phone and blocked him and figured I'd hear about it eventually if he was successful. To go from loving him so much that it could bring tears to my eyes to not caring whether he lived or died was traumatic all by itself. To be driven to that point is horrific.

Too much empathy will wind up having you tolerate things you shouldn't tolerate.

Too much empathy is actually a disorder.

Are you sure you are not confusing empathy with sympathy?

I fully understand not having sympathy for someone who did what a WS did. They reap what they sow.

I also know that if you ever want to understand the "why" in any way, shape, or form, you have to be able to experience empathy.

You can have empathy without sympathy (but probably not the other way around).

No I think we know the difference 😂

Here let me give you an example: I read a lot. Recent research indicates that when reading a well written novel, your motor neurons engage and your brain actually experiences the protagonist’s “life.” If you’ve read a novel like “The Good Earth” then you’ve probably experienced this phenomenon.

It’s like a dress rehearsal for reality. As far as your brain is concerned, it is able to play “let’s pretend” you ARE the protagonist but in a very real “virtual reality” way.

Every good novelist comes to the keyboard with a world view. This world view may be incorrect and tarnished by neuroses and false narratives and bad mental models (like a wayward spouse). Yet if you are immersed in the novel you are experiencing and identifying with the world view of the writer.

Several years before my WW’s affair I began reading a popular series of well written novels. By the third book I noticed the story was beginning to impact how I viewed the world. I realized it was because the writer essentially has a cynical and nihilistic worldview — and this is how the writer presents reality in the series.

Though I enjoyed the prose and found the novels to be gripping page turners with well drawn characters, I stopped reading halfway thru the third novel, because I realized I didn’t need to spend my time immersed in identifying with and vicariously experiencing this worldview.

It wasn’t going to add value to my life. I didn’t need to “challenge” myself by poisoning my mind. That would be like suggesting one should ingest rotten food as a way of expanding one’s tastes and palate.

Instead I went back to reading stories with a worldview that would add more value to my life.

[This message edited by Thumos at 9:06 AM, October 9th (Friday)]

I can understand how someone who feels a hole in their self, who desperately wants ego kibbles to make it through the day, would walk the path they do, and I can do this without losing my soul or inner integrity. All without approving of it, and while making the hard decision to divorce.

A lack of empathy is the starting point for an awful lot of the world's problems. I don't want to experience that.

I don’t believe anyone here suggested you should have no empathy, only that — as research suggests — you can have too much and you can also exhaust this capacity if not used wisely.

As the authors of “Cheating in A Nutshell” observe: “Trying to play Mother Teresa or Gandhi with a cheater will drive you nuts.”

[This message edited by Thumos at 10:49 AM, October 9th (Friday)]

I think there's a missing component in the understanding of empathy vs sympathy. Compassion.

Empathy: I acknowledge your feelings. I have the ability to clearly see you are in pain, or "I feel your pain."

Sympathy: I acknowledge AND understand your feelings. I clearly see you are in pain AND understand it. "I feel your pain, AND I totally get it."

Compassion: Either empathy or sympathy, but with the desire to alleviate those feelings, or help with that pain.

You can have empathy without sympathy, but you can't have sympathy without the ability to empathize. You can't have compassion without either empathy, or sympathy.

The WS who has done no work probably lacks all 3. They will most likely find empathy if they work to fix their shit, but in most situations (unless they have also been a bs) will never be able to truly sympathize. They can however, reach the point of compassion through growth and empathy.

The BS is under zero obligation to do any of those three, but some choose to do so because of their strong moral character which they already possess. Just from observations, it seems those who choose at least empathy, show signs of healing themselves more thoroughly from the wounds the WS have inflicted on them. Regardless of whether they ever choose to attempt sympathy or compassion.

I think most WS who have done the work here would like to see all of the BS's here heal. The WS who has done work empathizes and is compassionate with the pain of all the BS's because they have learned to empathize and be compassionate with their own BS, and their empathy and compassion for all others in the situation is naturally heightened. However, a WS who has done the work has ZERO expectations of empathy, sympathy, or compassion from ANY BS.

Recognizing the pain, knowing you have been the source of that type of pain, and truly wishing not a single person on earth would ever have to go through it...can be a huge motivator. We see that same motivation on the BS to BS side, but from a completely different perspective.

The BS to BS interactions some members often see as harsh really is COMPASSION from a BS compelled to help the other BS away from the pain they so heightendly sympathize with. The BS is often already well versed in their own capacity for empathy, sympathy, and compassion. Sometimes the way it is presented just comes through the filter of the immense pain they are in themselves.

I remember in the first several months after DDAY, my wife would occasionally interject suddenly into conversations "Can't we just be kind to one another?" Usually followed by bouts of weeping.

I was always nonplussed by this, because I WAS being kind, exceedingly so. Probably too kind in retrospect. I was asking questions and asking for truth in the gentlest, most diplomatic language and treating her with respect (something she certainly had not afforded to me).

It always led me to stop whatever I was asking and comfort her.

Eventually I came to see this as a tactic to forestall difficult conversations and disclosures. What she was really saying was "Why can't we just move on and not talk about this? Rugsweep with me by being 'kind'"

Because I was objectively being kind, and any outside observer would have also not understood her interjection and would have seen it as puzzling and likely manipulative before I myself did.

Eventually, after I started examining it in the cold light of day, I didn't feel the need at that point to try to empathize with her position on this particular point. I could empathize with her plight and also at the same time see right through the gamesmanship. Because, frankly, it was a bullshitter's position.

LostGirl

You can have empathy without sympathy, but you can't have sympathy without the ability to empathize.

Truth

A current running theme I've seen over 6 years of watching threads here is...

1. I can't understand why or how they would do this

2. In order to understand their whys, you must be able to empathize their situation

3. I won't/can't empathize with them because that would somehow validate their actions, and I will not allow that to happen.

Item 3 contains the logical fallacy, which I find gets in the way of understanding and healing, R or D.

There are endless threads on here on understanding the "why". There can be no understanding without empathy. But empathy and agreeing are two completely different things.

Eventually, after I started examining it in the cold light of day, I didn't feel the need at that point to try to empathize with her position on this particular point. I could empathize with her plight and also at the same time see right through the gamesmanship. Because, frankly, it was a bullshitter's position.

Yes, exactly. Your early reactions to your wife's manipulation tactics were those of both empathy and compassion. She used up your compassion towards her by weaponizing her tears. Essentially, she used your compassion as a tool for herself to try to manipulate the outcome.

It says something huge for your true moral character that you are still able to empathize with her plight. It means she was never able to fully break you. You are a strong and honest man.

You show your compassion now to the new BS's on this site by trying to help them understand the danger of being compassionate with their own WS. You feel compelled to help them not only through their pain, but to avoid further potential pain to come.

You now do not have compassion with your own WW, and rightfully so. IMO, you showed her compassion for far too long. My only fear for you Thumos, FWIW is that you still sleep with her. (Though I did see you were trying to curb that). I fear it could lead you to question your moral convictions (because they really are that strong), and leave you open to further manipulation. I think you know your WW believes you won't actually leave if you're getting regularly satisfied in the bedroom. She may deny it, but she's a proven liar and you've gotten pretty damn good at seeing through her lies to her true intentions. When you finally walk away, if you're still sleeping with her, she will weaponize that against your moral compass. She will do her best to make you feel as though you are on the moral low ground, a user, and since you already know deep down she has that hope...I think it really will eat away at your conscience in the end. You have come SO FAR in seeing through her abusive actions, that I would hate to see you ever question yourself.

HOP, you understand why your wife chose to have an A? Her choices and actions make sense to you?