SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I don't know what to call this, but it STBXWS likes it. He will use a veiled threat, then say, "I never said that!"

Like this:

Him: It's been so long since we fooled around, you couldn't blame a guy for getting some strange.

Me: Are you saying you are open to having sex with someone else?

Him: I never said that!

Another variation of this is the extremely narrow definition tactic, As in, I did every inappropriate thing I could think of, short of actually having sex with a woman, but since I didn't actually fuck somebody, I have remained faithful.

Moving the goalposts: Wayward spouse fails a polygraph and then blames it on her anxiety (I may be wrong on the application here, but it seems to fit).

Another example: WS to BS "I know you will hurt for a long time and I'll do everything to ease your pain for as long as necessary". Three months later: --> appeal to closure.

Another variation of this is the extremely narrow definition tactic, As in, I did every inappropriate thing I could think of, short of actually having sex with a woman, but since I didn't actually fuck somebody, I have remained faithful.

Yep, this is the fallacy of equivocation and definitely one we should add to the list. Waywards seem to do it almost instinctively.

The classic example here is: "I did not have sex with that woman." (Bill Clinton, and I do not use that example for political purposes) He was defining sex as penetrative, rather than oral. We then learned he even had the propensity to argue about the meaning of the word "is." Master equivocator.

[This message edited by Thumos at 9:44 AM, April 23rd (Friday)]

My WW kind of does the "Argumentum ad baculum" in that she typically doesn't say much. She's very short on empathy.

Gives you that space alien stare, the confused look, or the (affected) compassionate head tilt? Or all three?

Yep, been there.

Thanks chevy. I will try to do that.

I have a lot to learn.

This stuff is gold.

I just became my own attorney by virtue of my husband and his attorney burning through thousands of dollars in retainers and retainer replenishments while simultaneously agreeing to nothing. Not one single solitary thing. I got tired of watching his threat to waste money in the legal system play out in flaming dumpster fire colors.

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc - This is a causation fallacy. Essentially, that because one thing happened after another (post hoc) it is because of (ergo)

Oh you mean the people who told me that my failure to meet his sexual needs adequately caused him to violate our one woman one man marital vows? That kinda thing. Drivel.

I would accept that if he wanted to have unprotected sex with someone else other than me and then lie about it to me that he could terminate our marital contract prior. But that would be too much like consent and too much like truth (and solid logic).

Also, there's the "slippery slope" fallacy, to which I had the pleasure of being subjected.

XH: "If I stop being friends with her just because you don't like it, eventually you won't let me talk to anyone at all!"

And, of course, the all-or-nothing fallacy.

XH: "You don't want me working with the AP anymore?! Fine, I guess that means I have to be an unemployed bum at home."

You guys, this is great. Keep 'em coming.

I actually think this will help a lot of people R or D, because it cuts through the fog.

Only when you've burned away the fog can you have meaningful conversations about staying married or calling the patient.

We then learned he even had the propensity to argue about the meaning of the word "is." Master equivocator.

He's an attorney and a politician - what did you expect?

XH: "You don't want me working with the AP anymore?! Fine, I guess that means I have to be an unemployed bum at home.

Nailed it. False dichotomy all the way.

XH: "You don't want me working with the AP anymore?! Fine, I guess that means I have to be an unemployed bum at home."

XH: "If I stop being friends with her just because you don't like it, eventually you won't let me talk to anyone at all!"

What an exquisite example of the straw man fallacy

Update: Both qualify as straw man fallacies.

[This message edited by Sceadugenga at 7:26 PM, Friday, April 23rd]

You guys, this is great. Keep 'em coming.

I'm not so sure. We'll have you edit our ramblings, publish them and then demand royalties.

This is the best thread that doesn't specifically deal with a adultery and a BS that I can remember. Pure gold here.

I would say it's controversial to say that polyamory is unhealthy or abnormal, and would ask you to actually provide appropriate sources for that statement. Using it as your motte/bailey example rather collapses that one in on itself, in my opinion.

I love the dismantling of logical fallacies, but I don't love using it as a platform to invalidate positions you don't agree with.

[This message edited by PSTI at 7:32 PM, April 23rd (Friday)]

Using it as your motte/bailey example rather collapses that one in on itself, in my opinion.

I love the dismantling of logical fallacies, but I don't love using it as a platform to invalidate positions you don't agree with.

I believe Thumos meant cases where the issue of polyamory arises as an ex post facto, i.e. after PA has happened or there's an EA going on.

just that monogamy is a social construct.

Didn't read all the replies so don't know if this has already been addressed. But can we just add here that urinating and defecating in a toilet as opposed to wherever the fuck we feel like is also a social (and hygienic) construct.

If you don't want to be monogamous, hey that's fine. Just don't sign up for a monogamous relationship.

We perform 'unnatural' behaviors ALL. THE. TIME. Listening to our boss instead of punching them in the face. Crapping in a toilet instead of in our pants. Putting on 'work clothes' instead of sweats when going to work (this past year not included!!! ). You can BE monogamous even if you think it is 'unnatural'. And again - as I said above - if you DON'T WANT to be monogamous, then don't participate in a relationship where the parties have agreed to it. And if you change your mind, show some CHARACTER and end the relationship.

It's really not that hard!!

I believe Thumos meant cases where the issue of polyamory arises as an ex post facto, i.e. after PA has happened or there's an EA going on.

Exactly. It's a motte and bailey fallacy when used by a WS to justify their shitty choices. We hear about WS using the concept of polyamory all the time to retroactively put a patina over their choice to commit adultery. It's a sick gambit and way to try to bully a BS into accepting bad behavior. I know that people decide upfront and honestly to engage in polyamory. That's different.

[This message edited by Thumos at 12:03 PM, April 24th (Saturday)]

Using a logical fallacy invalidates a statement immediately

That's not actually true. A logical fallacy may invalidate an argument but it doesn't bear to the truthfulness or falsity of a statement. Take, for example, the previously mentioned 'post hoc' fallacy with the following statement: I had a cup of coffee and now I'm not tired; the coffee woke me up. It fits the post hoc, ergo propter hoc construct (and it is a fallacy to use it as an argument) but the statement is still true.

My advice, take it or leave it for what's it worth - and it's offered for free. Don't rely too heavily on heuristics when it comes to important, complex and individual situations. Might not work as expected. *shrug*

And, of course, the all-or-nothing fallacy.
XH: "You don't want me working with the AP anymore?! Fine, I guess that means I have to be an unemployed bum at home."

Bluerthanblue, great example. As Thumos said, a false dichotomy as a statement, but a poster elsewhere also characterized it as a manipulation tactic called "malicious over-compliance." Not an easy term to find on Google, but I thought it apropos to characterize this as a threat as well as a justification.
Thanks for all of this, Thumos. Printable or no, I'll transpose this bit of genius letter by letter if necessary. My therapist said I intellectualize everything. Yes ma'am, that's why I'm not afraid to go to court 😁

[This message edited by CallingSpades at 10:28 PM, Saturday, April 24th]

A logical fallacy may invalidate an argument but it doesn't bear to the truthfulness or falsity of a statement.

In addition, a conclusion may be valid, even if the reasoning on which the conclusion is based is invalid.

More important, logic - thinking - does not provide much solace when one has been betrayed. It's best always to think straight and talk straight, but one has to act on the basis of thought and emotion - and whene they conflict, emotion almost always rules - eventually, if not immediately.

More important, logic - thinking - does not provide much solace when one has been betrayed.

The point was to provide tools for BS’s to cut through the horseshit, fabulism and gaslighting they are so often subjected to. On that score these tools work. And I think they provide a level of hope and comfort (obviously from the abundance of comments) to people who are faced with bad faith actors trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

Yes, sometimes statements are valid if they are logically fallacious. However, this means that, more often than not in my own personal experience, the person making the statement has reached an accidentally true conclusion by muddling through with bad thinking.

Typically waywards aren’t trying to do that. They are trying to obscure, obfuscate, dissemble and offer Janus-faced stories to their betrayed partners.

[This message edited by Thumos at 10:57 AM, April 25th (Sunday)]