SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

OptionedOut, you should have bought a dog instead.

Thumps, I agree with the euphemisms. That's why I use cheater, CP, liar. I only use A for brevity because I sometimes ge tired of typing out, "his cheating."

I think of someone who just wandered off the path when I hear or read wayward. Affair conjures up visions of an afternoon tea or a party. My fch did not have an affair. He lied. He deceived . He cheated. He put me and my children in danger. There is nothing pleasant about that.

This is a great start and exactly what I’m talking about. We should try to consciously shift the language in online forums like SI and elsewhere. Give no quarter. I think “cheater” and “cheating” is also too soft.

An example of the new, stronger and more direct language. Let me write it as if I were asking Perel for advice: “Dear Ms. Perel, my Vow Breaker Wife and her Abuse Collaborator violated the sanctity of the marital covenant with their toxic adultery scheme. I am struggling with this deliberate, cruel, sociopathic violation. Do you have any advice for me? ”

See how much more difficult that makes it for the Esther Perel’s of the world to cover up the sin with soft language?

The way we talk affects our thinking and feeling. IMO, using condemning words makes it easier to slip into Drama Triangles, either as Victim or Persecutor. Condemning language makes it easier to turn others into non-human beings, and that is terribly unhealthy for both the initiators and receivers of the communication. After all, WSes are most definitely human beings.

WRT infidelity, I think non-condemning language fosters healing, and healing is the best way out of infidelity.

Besides, 'wayward' is condemning enough for me.

Call it what you will - I believe using euphemistic language obscures truth. When truth is obscured, thought becomes obscured and life becomes obscured. Orwell put it this way: “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

I also believe a tendency to fall back on euphemistic language reveals a temptation towards moral relativism. I do not believe in moral relativism, primarily because I think it is logically incoherent. For example the statements “everything is relative” or “your truth is not my truth” are self-contradictory statements. They undermine themselves, because they are actually absolute statements asserting an absolute truth, whilst simultaneously trying to claim the opposite of an absolute.

I believe using phrases like “wayward” “affair” “cheater” etc are simply another version of this. They are tempting precisely because they are softer and less condemnatory- “ooh saying adulterer is just a bit too harsh, let’s say cheater instead.” Indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me if these terms originated among adulterers themselves. These terms “keep the peace” at the risk of one’s integrity and sanity. No thanks.

Then let me attempt to make my point in stronger terms:

It's one thing to condemn behavior. It's quite another to condemn another person's personality or character. For example, search on 'Gottman four horsemen apocalypse' - no quotes - and read what your search engine offers.

In using condemnatory language, you are probably tying yourself up in the Victim role in a giant, doomed-to-failure, Drama Triangle. That will not help a BS or WS heal; getting into DTs keeps everyone in the DT in pain.

That's JMO, but ... IDK ... I've been around....

[This message edited by sisoon at 10:55 AM, August 22nd (Thursday)]

This thread started as a critique of Esther Perel’s euphemistic language, which clearly has corrupted the thought of many, including adulterers themselves.

As the thread progressed, some began defending the very kind of euphemistic language that we all agree has been so problematic from the likes of Perel.

Very interesting.

I believe there’s a reason for this: there’s a tendency to “turn away” from the ugliness of adultery (after all, it was forbidden in the Ten Commandments for very good reasons - it is a moral transgression that is placed alongside murder, idolatry, blasphemy, theft, coveting). I think this “turning away” is because the painful reality of adultery is that a person who was supposed to be trustworthy above all others, a “two become one in the flesh” spiritual sanctified partner, has now become a violator and a danger to everything that human civilization has attempted to build upon since at least the dawn of the Neolithic era and the agricultural revolution.

Humans evidently made the decision around 10,000 years ago to begin gathering into more organized societies revolving around agricultural cycles. The pressures of drought, wild land predators and more likely were among the causes. A small and desperate band of humans began shaping a certain type of society as a bulwark against chaos and as an insurance policy for the species.

When someone commits adultery, those who are aware of it are instantly also conscious of this ancestral memory and they sense intuitively the grave weight of what has happened. So they turn away from this horror.

Now, you don’t have to believe in the divine origins of the Ten Commandments to see that is a part of the fabric of what C.S. Lewis called “the Tao” — moral wisdom and moral knowing that is inherent in humans (the moral law “written on their hearts”) and is a common thread across human cultures for millennia. You don’t even have to believe in God or a higher power to think that there is an objective moral order that is violated at your own risk (in fact, a number of atheist philosophers have defended and posited an objective moral order) and at very high peril to the moral order of a society.

So the Ten Commandments and other documents like it could be thought as a kind of Rosetta Stone for the DNA of a successful society adopted through experimentation and failure over many thousands of years.

I believe in giving our ancestors a vote and a voice. I think adultery was considered one of the “top 10” transgressions going back 5,000 years (and very likely 100,000 years or more) because it violated and endangered society and the integrity and fabric of strong social order on an atomic and individual level (atomic meaning individual; nuclear meaning family). It was viewed, rightly, as a transgression that is like a virus that can cause the societal body to collapse and die if it is tolerated or smoothed over too easily.

Adopting language that “turns away” from this reality does no favors to a healthy society, to the individuals who committed the transgression, or to the individuals who were targeted with the ramifying effects of the transgression (the spousal partner and children in the family).

[This message edited by Thumos at 11:13 AM, August 22nd (Thursday)]

This thread started as a critique of Esther Perel’s euphemistic language, which clearly has corrupted the thought of many, including adulterers themselves.

As the thread progressed, some began defending the very kind of euphemistic language that we all agree has been so problematic from the likes of Perel.

I disagree.

Perel’s euphemistic language takes an active role in explaining away aberrant behavior or making it acceptable.

I don't believe that AP, WS, etc. do that anymore than POSOM.

Is the Drama Triangle theory falsifiable a la Karl Popper?

Does it have empirical proof to back up its theoretical claims?

Does it have roots in Freudian-based thought, which has now been almost wholly rejected and repudiated by the scientific community?

Buttforthegrace...

I dont know what you are disagreeing with? I was pointing out that Esther's statements seem to be more of a rhetorical look at societal shifts, not opinions...not much to form an opinion on and definately not something I consider getting bent out of shape over. I am not sure what part of "indifference" was misunderstood.

I live in that marriage... The madonna-whore complex is a real thing. Freud explains it in detail. I appreciate the professional wisdom on the subject. There are a lot of women living in sexless marriages and not by consequence of their own doing. I am very pleased that you form opinions of the collective, on the sheer basis that you have lots of sex....I really don't know how to reply to this.

My statement, was also rhetorical (from a societal stand-point) and thank you for pointing out that I spell phonetically...Occassionally I even get the "Yours" wrong. That doesnt mean, that I dont possess the capability to know the difference. It means I get in a hurry. Infact, I can help you find other errors, if you would like me to point them out for you. I am not above my short-comings. I edit my replies about 50 times, due to technical errors.

"Esther takes the position that these promises are unrealistic and that there are so many temptations for a spouse that breaking these promises is expected and normal, and therefore acceptible"

I find it ironic that when people point out spelling errors (grammatically based, in this case), have issues with spelling and grammar, themselves. The over-use of "and" makes this a run-on sentence, as does the lack of punctuation. It's also "acceptable", not "accpetible". I guess this just points out that neither one of us are English instructors or secretaries. The only difference being, is that I never applied for the position.

I am sorry, if what I said offended you. You obviously took my "opinion" (which wasn't meant to read like one) personally...not sure why that is. I wasn't addressing anyone, and had no one in mind, when pushing reply.

To be honest, I didn't read much of what you said. Pettiness tends to put one off and I am old enough to know not to engage further. I will also state the fact that my "opinions" aren't up for debate. They are merely fleeting statements and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[This message edited by DashboardMadonna at 1:44 PM, August 22nd (Thursday)]

"I made it clear to my wife that as soon as the doctor-imposed no sex following birth period ended, we were going to he having sex. I think there are a lot of husbands like me."

I.....WHAT?!?!

Agree with Thumos.

We dated for 5-almost 6 years before getting married. I expected the same guy I was dating. I expected a companion, confident, lover who respected me and held me to the same standards as I held him. I expected faithfulness, communication and openness. I expected truthfulness. I expected a blended life and family.

Esther Perel is a good talker but full of shit and definitely someone wayward like because she gives them all kinds of excuses for their immature and selfish behavior.

"I made it clear to my wife that as soon as the doctor-imposed no sex following birth period ended, we were going to he having sex. I think there are a lot of husbands like me."

I.....WHAT?!?!

I have to agree with TKOGA.

WHAT?!?!?

I hope that was a joke. Either way it's in bad taste.

"I made it clear to my wife that as soon as the doctor-imposed no sex following birth period ended, we were going to he having sex. I think there are a lot of husbands like me."

I.....WHAT?!?!

The last thing I wanted after having no sleep and recovering from a C-Section was sex. My WS felt the same as you and it pushed us in the opposite direction.

[This message edited by crazyblindsided at 11:57 AM, August 22nd (Thursday)]

Esther Perel is a good talker but full of shit...

This eternally baffles me on SI.

Most of what she talks about actually aligns with conventional SI-thought. From unicorn skittles to self-indulgence to maybe cheating doesn’t get you want you actually want.

I’m guessing that it is the attention on the WS and the confusing of understanding a WS with agreeing that would they did is OK. Understanding and agreeing are two completely different things.

But how many threads here ask about the “why”? She gives a valid answer for many cheaters. But “why” does not mean “ok”

Sending strength!

OptionedOut, you should have bought a dog instead.

Yep. And he's lying next to me right now. Dogs are the best.

This eternally baffles me on SI.

I find Perel, along with a number of other relationship/behavior researchers often discover a lot of fascinating answers, but don't always hit on the right conclusions.

I think where some folks get stuck with her ideas, are when she tries to normalize wayward urges as a part of the marriage deal.

If we're to be concerned with society and our constructs, we do have to be careful with how far we take "we feel what we feel" and then be okay with following those feelings wherever they take us.

Since I'm a part of the collateral damage caused by my wife following her selfish urges, I'm good with trying to understand unrealistic relationship expectations. I'm just not ready to say infidelity is a part of the deal, because is doesn't have to be.

Perel rarely if ever talks about other choices that are available when people build resentment toward a spouse or about holding to the original obligations set by both partners in any exclusive relationship.

Thumos, I think cheater is worse than adulterer. Can't tell you why. Adulterer sounds more tame to me.

FWIW, I don't call my fch a cheater. I call what he did cheating. I do call people actively cheating cheaters. CP in my mind stands for cheating partner, not cheater partner.

I have only read excerpts by Esther Perel on this site, so I can't comment on her thinking. I do agree that there is a difference between understanding and even accepting and condoning. I also agree that we can't always control our feelings or urges. We can control our actions.

My fch cheated because he had unrealistic expectations of marriage and didn't know how to handle that. He built up resentments and didn't have the personal resources to deal with them in a healthy way. That inability goes back to his FOO issues. Maybe if he understood that marriage isn't always happily-ever-after, I wouldn't be here.

ETA: Forgot to ask. What is this drama triangle I keep reading about?

[This message edited by cocoplus5nuts at 2:14 PM, August 22nd (Thursday)]

I think Perel needs to understand the basics of contract/covenant law (whether in writing or assumed).

If I accept a job at a financial institute my employer would expect several things from me.

If one day I decide that it is unreasonable for my employer to do more than show up and do my work every single day. He can't also expect me to exercise fidelity can he?

Maybe in today's world financial fidelity is no longer to be expected. Maybe it is outmoded and should be considered obsolete.

Therefore, I should be able to share my services and that of my employer with other employers. Therefore I should be able to lie to my employer, cheat my employer, steal from my employers customers...

If I made that argument to an employer after violating his expectation of my fidelity he would laugh his ass off and then have me arrested.

Marriage is a contract/covenant that two parties enter into. There are vows made that usually include faithfulness.

For Perel to suggest that fidelity is unorthodox seems to me to be the epitome of foolishness.

If you want to enter an alternative type of agreement outside the normal wedding covenant fine. As long as your in agreement with your future spouse, then live your marriage in that matter.

But I don't think the vast majority of BS on SI are here for any reason less than the fact that they were betrayed. Their spouse did not live up to the expectation of marital fidelity,

I believe using phrases like “wayward” “affair” “cheater” etc are simply another version of this. They are tempting precisely because they are softer and less condemnatory- “ooh saying adulterer is just a bit too harsh, let’s say cheater instead.” Indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me if these terms originated among adulterers themselves. These terms “keep the peace” at the risk of one’s integrity and sanity. No thanks.

So, instead of betrayed husband, we'll just refer to you as a cuckold...CK

Sound good?

When I see Esther Perel's name associated with anything I discount it entirely. She may make some good points but I have no desire to search through the bullshit to find them.

So, instead of betrayed husband, we'll just refer to you as a cuckold...CK

Cuckold (noun): “the husband of an adulteress”

Sounds about right.

Here’s another word I like, just randomly popped into my head...

Jackass (noun): “a stupid person likened to a male donkey”