I forgot to say:
It's really important for BSes - WSes, too, I guess - to forgive themselves for any 'mistake' they make after d-day.
We aren't trained to deal with betrayal. If anything, we're trained to rug-sweep. We have to blaze our own trail. Wrong turns are almost inevitable. They are not the product of weakness or other failing. Being betrayed is so tremendously disorienting.
If you're BS looking back, wishing you had done something different, so be it. Just forgive yourself while you're at it.
*****
Sunk cost and noble codependence:
I think 'noble co-d' may be the 'interdependence' that is sometimes used as a contrast with co-d.
Yes, sunk costs is a fallacy when financial investments are concerned. It's an analogy WRT relationships, though, and the comparison is less than perfect. One person's sunk cost can be another person's healthy bond/ interdependence, at least in part because motivations are usually mixed.
An example: my W supported me emotionally and financially long ago while I went through a very difficult period. She's co-d, so part of her support came from fear and ulterior motives. That's her problem; I owe her less than nothing for support that came from fear or co-d.
But lots of that support came from love. It was a gift. She gave with no expectation of a return. Since it was a gift, I don't owe her anything, but gifts build bonds. We gave each other a lot during our 44-45 years. We built lots of healthy bonds.
I guess the sunk cost fallacy applies to the extent that one expects a return on investment, I'm pretty sure I believe it doesn't apply to the extent that one gives with no expectation of ROI.
Our sitch was far from universal - my W did the right things from the start - no blameshifting, minimizing, or TT ever. No lies after d-moment. She came clean on d-day; weeks of interrogation filled in details, but revealed nothing that seemed new to me. Nor did she use the bonds to manipulate me into R. We both asked for what we wanted, and we made conscious choices to comply with or reject requests. We never tried to manipulate each other into R - or if one of us did, I didn't notice.
In my mind, we married for better or worse. That implied we'd go through rough times. I don't know what I would have done if W hadn't done the right things on and after d-day. I believe that any sustained blameshifting, minimizing, TT, or lying would have made post-d-day into a much more transactional period.
If my W hadn't done the right things, I suspect the sunk cost fallacy would have become a much bigger consideration for me. Staying with an unremorseful beyond some point would have been a giant red flag WRT my emotional health.
So here's a hypothesis:
If the WS is apparently remorseful - R, even if it fails, is an expression of healthy bonds and, perhaps, 'noble co-d'/ interdependence.
It the WS is unremorseful - R is an expression of sunk cost fallacy or co-d or something else (fear, uncertainty about what one wants, conflict between what one thinks they want and their gut, etc.).
I suspect that the interdependent response to a remorseful WS vs the transactional response to an unremorseful one is related to mixed motivations - on one hand a giver may want to give with no strings attached; onthe other, there are always strings attached.
*****
I totally agree with the proposition that R should not be offered unless and until the WS demonstrates remorse. If one wants R, I think it's healthy to acknowledge that - but knowing one wants R is very different from offering R. R is simply not a gift to give to an unremorseful WS.
Where I differ from some is that I think a decision to D needs a lot of thought, too. IMO, one needs to check themself out very carefully before choosing D.
D-day is not a time for knee-jerk reactions....
[This message edited by SI Staff at 5:24 PM, Sunday, July 21st]