SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

it does seem that the two sides are actually two different places in the healing process more than anything else.

I think we are all standing in somewhat different places looking at infidelity. That means we all have different perspectives, and different aspects of infidelity are more or less prominent from some viewpoints than from others.

Add to that the fact that we aren't writing books here. An Internet forum isn't a place to cover anything exhaustively.

For example, in writing about letting pain go, it could look as if I think that's easy. I don't and it's not. Pain can't be released without processing, and the processing is hard work. Thanks for bringing that up, gmc.

Thanks for your post, LLXC.

Yet most theologians see them as an expression of objective morality, rather than statutory code.

I don't think theologians have a place in SI discussions. Theology by its nature comes way too close for me to violating SI's very welcome prohibition on arguing about religion.

[This message edited by sisoon at 12:32 PM, October 12th (Monday)]

don't think theologians have a place in SI discussions. Theology by its nature comes way to close for me to violating SI's very welcome prohibition on arguing about religion.

Oh come on, I could have easily said philosophers.

Discussions about objective morality are an area wholly within secular philosophy (and psychology too - which has roots in philosophy) and that includes human wisdom traditions such as the Ten Commandments.

Nothing violating the guidelines — unless someone is looking for that and wants to “write me up” for something I didn’t even do.

[This message edited by Thumos at 5:44 PM, October 12th (Monday)]

To me, it has always been evident that cheating is a abusive. And, I have no problem saying I was a victim of abuse. It has not hindered me in moving on and having a good life.

Nor is it important to me whether one calls it cheating, infidelity, adultery or whatever. Nor do I believe for one minute the abuse was not intended. Any half way intelligent cheater knows it will traumatize the family.

For me healing was not contingent on what I called the cheater, the intention, or my knowledge that I had been victimized.

What helped was divorcing, having little contact, and leading a good, moral life. No more walking on eggshells.

I learned to recognize the disordered types and avoid them.

Seriously sisoon?

You're the one that brought the religious connotation to it.

I don't think theologians have a place in SI discussions. Theology by its nature comes way too close for me to violating SI's very welcome prohibition on arguing about religion.

If, as a guide, you wanna make that comment, I think you should start with yourself.

[This message edited by jaynelovesvera at 3:35 PM, October 12th (Monday)]

Thumos,

Just want to chime in with how much I have enjoyed this thread. It has been validating to know that others feel similarly. I just finished the book Cheating in a Nutshell and also found it validating. As much as I wanted to R and wanted to have that "stronger marriage" I had heard about, I know that for me, this was always a deal-breaker. It has not been easy, but I am so much further along than I would have been if I stayed with a man I could no longer trust. I guess he made it easy for me to leave because he kept lying. Had he done all the "right" things, who knows where I would be today. I'd still have that big house and that great retirement plan ... looking over my shoulder, waiting for the other shoe to drop for the rest of my life.

Is adultery abuse? Hell yes. IMO, intentional because he knew it was wrong and did it anyway. His needs were far more important than my pain.

Lettingo, thanks so much. I was hopeful it would be helpful and I continue to hear from folks saying it has been.

I think we’ve only scratched the surface on this topic so I intend to continue to discuss it!

It would be interesting to ask some of the WS whether they feel they were or still are abusers, in particular some of those who claimed their cheating was a response to an abusive or controlling spouse.

Few seem to have the insight that it was most likely them, the cheaters, who actually caused most pre-affair problems, including being negligent and abusive.

I am curious: is everyone calling it abuse D? And is anyone who objects to the term abuse D? Just wondering if that's the divide.

People who are D seem to have no issue saying, "Oh, it was abuse." How about people who are R?

I am curious: is everyone calling it abuse D? And is anyone who objects to the term abuse D? Just wondering if that's the divide.

People who are D seem to have no issue saying, "Oh, it was abuse." How about people who are R?

That’s an interesting question. I don’t know and I hadn’t added it up.

I can only speak for myself:

I gave R a real effort for four years.

I can say my WW did many things but there were many things she didn’t do or things she did that hurt our R process.

I’m not divorced yet but I have informed her I want a divorce and we are working on our house and debt. It’s not going as fast as I would like but there’s a lot to do and I would like for it to be amicable.

As for my own position, I do really hope for R for many people. Who wouldn’t root for intact families and restored relationships?

My position on R as it relates to the abuse of adultery is that it’s much like other forms of abuse: the transgressor must move mountains amd demonstrate true authentic wholesale metanoia.

Failing that, I think getting the traumatized victim to safety away from the abuser should be a top priority.

I confess I don’t see a lot of cases in JFO where I think that R is warranted, and the circumstances are often so horrific I think an obligatory separation period would help most BS’s heal.

I wish I’d had such a period myself in the early days after DDAY, but I didn’t — and I’m now enforcing it in other ways by carving out short vacations for myself by myself.

I also see way too many cases of people showing up here years later, in real pain, asking why they wasted years in R.

EDIT TO ADD: there’s a brand new one in the R forum this very evening with such a well-written post it will make you ache for him. It’s awful.

It is frightening and sobering to see this, and it certainly gives one pause.

I don’t have a problem seeing adultery as abuse and I think it’s a helpful way to frame a gravely serious transgression that is wrecking our society. I think the more forward we are about that, the more clearly we can probably talk about D vs R and all that these decisions entail.

[This message edited by Thumos at 7:30 PM, October 12th (Monday)]

Something occurred to me this morning related to this ongoing discussion on adultery as abuse, the intentionality of adulterous acts and the moral intuition of a betrayed spouse related to these things.

This was prompted by several things: a betrayed spouse who was struggling to communicate to their WS the precise experience a BS goes through. And another betrayed spouse who feels a sense of revulsion when his STBXWW basically demands a hug from him. I too have had an experience I've described as an almost phantom "neuralgia" type sensation. Uncomfortable. And many betrayed spouses have described that moment when they found out and wanted to or either did vomit.

So here's the brief recall I had: Jonathan Haidt has released groundbreaking research in recent years that has garnered widespread media coverage. The research focuses on "moral emotions" such as disgust. The theory is called "Moral Foundations Theory."

Disgust as it turns out is both an important survival mechanism (not just disgust with something like a snake, but disgust or revulsion against social situations and the like that could be harmful) that can drive everything from politics to your purchasing decisions. It may have started as a revulsion against disease or toxin transmission, but it is now a powerful marker against other dangers.

Haidt and his fellow researchers observe that some people just may have a higher inborn capacity for the moral emotion of disgust/revulsion.

Disgust drives what Haidt refers to as the sanctity/degradation continuum as one of the key foundations of objective morality. This continuum drives consistent human impulses observed across the planet for a noble life, for treating the body as a temple and so on.

Very interesting if you think about those of us who view marriage as a sanctified covenant -- and that adultery has "torn asunder" the vows and the covenant.

Without even knowing about this research, I myself have used the term "degraded" in my own journaling to describe my WW's intentional, planned decision to bring her AP into our home for the explicit purpose of unprotected sex.

I wonder if this research might help explain some of the difference of opinion here -- along with a different capacity for what I'll call "Aristotelian anger" (anger in the virtuous sense as earlier discussed in this thread).

Perhaps some people simply have a higher genetic capacity for these moral emotions. Haidt seems to think so and has mentioned this as a strong possibility in interviews. Or at the very least, perhaps some of us feel these moral emotions so keenly and consistently that they are very difficult, if not impossible, for us to put aside.

These instinctive gut feelings drive our first moral intuitions, which we then process through logical reasoning. They probably led early man to develop the consistent moral codes we see in human history across the planet in nearly every culture, past and present (called "The Tao" by C.S. Lewis).

But the gut instinct starts first. And it's certainly the case that over and over here on SI we see that the gut instinct is the typically the first thing alerts most BS's that something is amiss with their WS -- so this makes a lot of sense. How many of us can say the same? Probably most of us.

What's the saying? "Always listen to your gut"

It certainly may be the case that moral/intuitive emotions such as disgust or virtuous anger must be "put aside" at least temporarily.

An example would be how young parents must overcome their disgust to change an infant's diapers. But young parents don't disregard the intuitive feeling of disgust about changing diapers, they just work to do what is necessary and practical in the moment. After all, how many times have you heard a young parent say "I'm so sick of changing diapers!" (the use of the word "sick" is an obvious tell).

And perhaps most importantly, young parents know this isn't a permanent state of affairs -- and they won't be expected to "eat the shit sandwich" for the rest of their lives.

I believe these emotions are telling us something profound and we should pay them heed.

Anyway, since we've already spent a great deal of time on the subject of virtuous anger as a primary and right moral emotion in the face of adultery, I hope it's a helpful to also know about Haidt's research and the other moral emotions BS's experience.

[This message edited by Thumos at 10:30 AM, October 13th (Tuesday)]

I am curious: is everyone calling it abuse D? And is anyone who objects to the term abuse D? Just wondering if that's the divide.

People who are D seem to have no issue saying, "Oh, it was abuse." How about people who are R?

I just wanted to add something here ... I don't think that people who have R'd with their FWS are living in abuse or are delusional. That being said, I have only seen a few FWS here who really seem to get it, and put in the hard work of R for themselves and their BS. From my own personal experience, my XWH could not (did not) pull himself out of his abusive behavior (continued to lie, didn't want to talk about my pain) so we D'd.

I love it when people can figure this out and move beyond it (R). Unfortunately, I also think it is rare because most people I have seen that are able to compartmentalize to such a degree where they don't see that their behavior is abusing another, don't seem to have the capacity to see what they are doing as abuse and/or change for the better.

I did have empathy for my XH. Empathy is what kept me trying even when I had nothing to work with. At first, I empathized with his FOO issues. Then I empathized with his non-confrontational issues. Next, I really tried to understand his problems with truth-telling. I now know exactly why he did what he did. Because he felt like it. Because at the time, it felt right to him. He enjoyed the extra attention. He told me he never felt better about himself than while he was in the middle of his A. He told me once that although he regrets having had the A, he doesn't regret his relationship with her, because it was so special and he loved the way it made him feel about himself. Did he have empathy for me when he said these words to me? Did he care or see how this would make me feel?

He sees what he did as 100% about him. He feels he let himself down MORE than he let me or our children down. He can't seem to get beyond his own perspective to see the collateral damage. He keeps apologizing to me for his "mistake". When I ask him why he's sorry, he says because he had an affair. He doesn't tell me he is sorry because of the damage this did to my self-worth. He doesn't tell me he's sorry that I have a hard time trusting ANYONE anymore. He doesn't care that I have ongoing triggers and nightmares because of his "mistake". He doesn't see that calling it a mistake is minimalizing my pain. He doesn't see that he has hurt our children. He thinks they will be just fine, after all, he came from a D family and he turned out just great! And oh, his mom cheated on his dad but that has nothing to do with this ...

Do I feel abused? 1000% yes. This is evident because of the long-term (life long) effect on my mind, body, and soul. Do I think abusers can change? 1000% yes. But only if they recognize that what they are (were) doing is in fact abuse.

[This message edited by lettingo at 11:28 AM, October 13th (Tuesday)]

He keeps apologizing to me for his "mistake". When I ask him why he's sorry, he says because he had an affair. He doesn't tell me he is sorry because of the damage this did to my self-worth. He doesn't tell me he's sorry that I have a hard time trusting ANYONE anymore. He doesn't care that I have ongoing triggers and nightmares because of his "mistake". He doesn't see that calling it a mistake is minimalizing my pain. He doesn't see that he has hurt our children.

Pretty amazing he's still calling it a mistake after four years. My WW did try to call her affair a "mistake" in the first two years, and I think even in the third year (can't be sure, but memory seems to indicate she tried this at least once). After explaining the difference between a "mistake" and an intentional act to her several times, she kinda stopped this gambit. But I could tell it never really got through to her. Just got that blank stare, deer in the headlights look.

Perhaps some people simply have a higher genetic capacity for these moral emotions. Haidt seems to think so and has mentioned this as a strong possibility in interviews. Or at the very least, perhaps some of us feel these moral emotions so keenly and consistently that they are very difficult, if not impossible, for us to put aside.

These instinctive gut feelings drive our first moral intuitions, which we then process through logical reasoning. They probably led early man to develop the consistent moral codes we see in human history across the planet in nearly every culture, past and present (called "The Tao" by C.S. Lewis).

This is very interesting. I think that my faith is what kept me in my marriage initially but it was also what helped me leave. I had this "religious" voice in my head telling me that "God hates Divorce", thinking that this was the ultimate sin of all sins. But then I had the quiet still voice telling me that I was a child of God. Loved, excepted, chosen, set free and not condemned. Also not responsible for my XH choices. When I realized that I could ultimately forgive my XH without having to stay in harm's way, I was truly set free.

But I could tell it never really got through to her. Just got that blank stare, deer in the headlights look.

I know this look all too well. I call it the black hole look ...

Edited to add: And ... he just called it a mistake last week when we had to evacuate the nor-cal fires. I was without my children going crazy. When I called him to ask if I could have the kids with me during this scary time, he said "of course" and he "understands" and "sorry again for my mistake".

At least he is always very accommodating to me ... thankful for that.

[This message edited by lettingo at 11:04 AM, October 13th (Tuesday)]

Lest I be accused of bringing religion into the topic here, I'm only responding to something lettingo pointed out she struggled with.

"God hates Divorce" is a horrible example of prooftexting in the wider church. It is always taken out of context. I put this right up there with guilting betrayed husbands using the Book of Hosea. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'm sorry you had that burden and glad you overcame it.

John Calvin wrote that God “did not lay down a law about divorces, so as to give them the seal of his approbation, but as the wickedness of men could not be restrained in any other way, he applied what was the most admissible remedy.”

In other words, in the clear case of adultery, divorce is a grace offered to betrayed spouses so they can heal in a broken world.

I did have empathy for my XH. Empathy is what kept me trying even when I had nothing to work with. At first, I empathized with his FOO issues. Then I empathized with his non-confrontational issues. Next, I really tried to understand his problems with truth-telling. I now know exactly why he did what he did. Because he felt like it.

Same in fact it was my empathy for him that kept me stuck for so long. He did not have empathy for me though. He claims he does but his reactions to my pain tell a different story. He is still blaming me for giving up and I see it more as saving myself.

Why so many WS's use the term 'mistake' is just beyond my comprehension. My STBX also uses that term even after multiple A's & 2 LTAs. His 'mistakes' also gave me two STDs. Another term he likes to use to let himself off the hook is that he is 'human.' I guess being 'human' is abusing another and lying about it then not feeling bad for any of it. It must of been his 'human' condition that pushed him to get angry at me when I was in deep pain from discovering I was in False R. It was his 'human' condition to keep lying to me and not do ANY of the things that I said would make me feel better.

Another term he likes to use to let himself off the hook is that he is 'human.'

Oh wow. Holy crap. Thank you for this. I needed to see this today! My WW is still saying this shit, too!

I hadn't even thought about this one, and this one has always passed me by without me remarking on it. It has actually made go "well yeah, good point."

Thank you for pointing this out. It reveals an unrepentant mind at work.

crazyblindsided - yep yep yep. I can relate to just about every word you wrote. You and I are on the road to recovery now.

Thumos - sorry if bringing up God got you in trouble, but I thank you for your words :)

On the topic of healthy anger since it has come up several times on this thread, I remembered a really profound observation from Julia Cameron, author of "The Artist's Way" (her observations on "crazymakers" is also in the book, by the way). Here's the extended quote:

"Anger is fuel. We feel it and we want to do something. Hit someone, break something, throw a fit, smash a fist into the wall, tell those bastards. But we are nice people, and what we do with our anger is stuff it, deny it, bury it, block it, hide it, lie about it, medicate it muffle it, ignore it. We do everything but listen to it.

"Anger is meant to be acted upon. It is not meant to be acted out. Anger points the direction. We are meant to use anger as fuel to take the actions we need to move where our anger points us. With a little thought, we can usually translate the message that our anger is sending us."

Here's Julia Cameron's list of qualities on crazymakers. I find it incredibly helpful and enlightening:

-Crazymakers spend your time and money

-Crazymakers break deals and destroy schedules

-Crazymakers expect special treatment

-Crazymakers discount your reality

-Crazymakers triangulate those they deal with (So, your crazymaker might say “Everyone really hates you at the office” so that you’re thinking “Who hates me at the office?” instead of “Who is this horrible person saying this to me?”)

-Crazymakers are expert blamers

-Crazymakers create drama, but seldom where it belongs

-Crazymakers hate schedules-- except their own. (Your deadline becomes an excuse for them to ask you for something time consuming.)

-Crazymakers hate order (You clear a place in the house so you can work, and your crazymaker comes along and messes it up before you can begin.)

-Crazymakers deny that they are Crazymakers.

-------------

What's so striking about this is that EVERY SINGLE item on it applies to adulterers. Really amazing work by Cameron here.

Cameron's book is highly recommended for anyone, and I believe it can be a good tool in the healing process for betrayed spouses.