SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I'm well under way with Reconciliation. After some rough false starts, we are over one year from the last DD and any real contact by fWS with AP. I truly get why it happened and she no longer blames me, nor do I blame myself. I no longer feel the need to shame her or get angry, because I get that the affair was about her and finding a part of herself she wanted to awaken and she falsely believed it was outside of her and that the AP held the key.

A lot of this echoes themes in Perel's TED talks and books.

Anyone else have a different opinion? Anyone else love, hate, or have a nuanced difference of opinion when it somes to recovering from an affair. Welcome to opinions from both waywards and betrayeds.

Thanks in advance.

[This message edited by Aumanny99 at 3:15 PM, September 18th (Monday)]

I really like her. She has a positive view on the complexities of human nature, the allure of affairs and the possibility of reconciling with understanding - as you appear to have achieved.

BH here. Perel is a fucking idiot IMO. She plays both sides of the equation. Affairs are acts of "exuberant defiance" or some grand quest to discover one's true self, but don't have an affair because they fuck your marriage up. WTF?

Perel makes cheating sound like some sort of self improvement program. She also makes cheating out to be a victimless offense and that's utter bullshit too.

I think anything you feel remorse and regret about when it's over probably isn't a good thing. Are you glad your wife cheated? Is your marriage new and improved? Did fucking another man make your wife a better person?

I think Esther Perel can come across as a WS apologist and seems to put more "rules" on the BS than the WS. She uses kid gloves with the WS, but expects the BS to carry more of the burden. It just added to the unfairness I know I felt after Dday. Too much poor, poor WS. Too much of what she talks about is a road map for a WS to justifying the affair.

She recommends that the BS not ask too many questions about details. Her recommendation about what did the AP make you "feel," seems to be harder on the BS than the WS. I remember thinking how the hell does that help ? Now I have mind movies plus I have to worry about my W loving another man ? Great add more to the pile.

I guess if I had to describe it she seems to have a lot of sympathy for the WS while putting responsibility for the A on the BS. Like most BS are in a position to do so after being destroyed after DDay.

It just never sat right with me. I stopped reading/watching most of her stuff after that.

I watched some videos later when I was in better place and saw some value, but still believe she focuses on the WS a lot more.

She evens admits that R requires the BS to fight just to get back to normal while the WS gets to grow. Yay, more unfairness. Thanks for reminding me without giving me any way to feel better about it. Not my cup of tea.

Some people (mostly WS) seem to get something out of her books. I wouldn't recommend her stuff to a new BS.

She makes me want to throw things.

I also found Perel's view to be oversimplistic and too much along the lines of "affairs help the cheater become something they needed, didn't have another way to become", etc. I "get" that affairs can "feel awesome" and all that shit. But she doesn't delve into the devastation on the BS. The fact that cheating is actually pretty fucking selfish and ugly and awful and harmful. But I do understand some of what she says. But usually when I hear her I find myself wanting to jump in with "but wait!. . . "

ETA: Yes, and wanting to throw things

[This message edited by psychmom at 2:02 PM, September 18th (Monday)]

I also want to call out Mrs. Perel on something. She describes lying to your spouse and breaking your vows and destroying your spouse's life as "finding a part of yourself that you want to awaken."

The best analogy I have seen to this is this (credit for writing this goes to disqus user Feesimple, taken from the comments on Mrs. Perel's article on the Atlantic website)-

Having one's car stolen is painful. The sense of personal violation combined with the inability to go anywhere until one has a new car can be intense. It shatters one's illusions that "hey, that's my car!" However, that's only one side of the story. If we want to shed light on car stealing, we need to look at it from all sides. We need to understand the rush and the thrill and also the financial reward the car thief gets from the practice - including the financial benefits of getting their new car shopped. It can feel very liberating and empowering to know you got away with someone else's minivan.

The victim might also benefit from understanding that it's not personal. What if the car stealing had nothing to do with them at all? What if the car thief really just wanted to steal a car and their car just happened to be there?

I know I'm taking the risk of being labeled "pro-car-stealing" here. But the intricacies of wanting a car without having to pay for it are too complex to be forced into simple categories of "good" and "bad".

deleted . . . apparently I need to take a look at the Atlantic article to understand this analogy from a new light

[This message edited by psychmom at 2:26 PM, September 18th (Monday)]

Perfect, IMS. That sums up what I was thinking about her. Yes, the A was not about me. But because I was half of a couple who were to be exclusive (and I WAS), it involves me in every way. Any emotional, financial, medical, family, and work resulting from the A is mine to share, though I had no part in it. Screw her.

The best analogy I have seen to this is this (credit for writing this goes to disqus user Feesimple, taken from the comments on Mrs. Perel's article on the Atlantic website)-

I read that comment thread by Feesimple on the Atlantic the other day. It was brilliant. The replies were hilarious as well. Highly recommended.

The best analogy I have seen to this is this (credit for writing this goes to disqus user Feesimple, taken from the comments on Mrs. Perel's article on the Atlantic website)-

I read that comment thread by Feesimple on the Atlantic the other day. It was brilliant. The replies were hilarious as well. Highly recommended.

I don't have a huge problem with Esther Perel because her area of study is much more interested in the psychology of the WS than of the BS or the marriage. If you're listening to her academically within the focus of her research, she's got some interesting insights...but I wouldn't hire her as my MC.

That said, anyone who jumps on her bandwagon to explain the value of their own affair to their BS is, in my opinion, priming the pump for their own future misery. Because when you let yourself off the hook with all of these flowery concepts of the new-agey good it did for you in your life journey of self-discovery and wound healing, you'd better bet you're signing up for a good dose of "suck it up, buttercup" when what goes around comes around.

I mean, for fuck's sake, if it's so healthy and liberating and good for your wholeness, then it should be a positive thing when your spouse goes on their own journey of discovery.

(We all know how that actually plays out, of course.)

So, really, I don't have a problem with her or her research, but like most psychology mainstreamed into pop-psychology out there, it's going to end up being really dangerous for numbskulls who decide to apply it outside of merely deriving clinical understanding. (It'll also hurt a ton of BS's in the short term, as some have posted here already...but I also tend to think that the sooner you come to grips with how much of a dithering, self-justifying dumbass your WS has the potential to be, the more proactive you can be about deciding whether or not they're a good candidate for R.)

Loving these replies. My instinct has been to reject anytging that helps rationalize or justify the affair. The idea that you can only discover a certain part of you that needs to awaken with an AP is repugnant. What part? The thrill of lying, having sex behind your spouse's back and learning the thrill of getting away with it?!!? WTF?!

First, I took notes. Then, I got angry. I pretty much feel rage toward her. I also was sent one of her videos by a "friend " who had cheated with a married man. She told me how great she was. She told me if she was my WH, she didn't think she could R with my boundaries. So yes, Ms. Perel is a no go for me.

Deal me in a someone who also doesn't buy into this woman who basically condones terrible behavior in the name of growth.

You want growth? Take up a new hobby, read books, volunteer to serve those who are in need

Fu*cking someone in the marital bed, does nothing but destroy. I felt those videos were justification and explanations of indecent behavior

I can see from a WS perspective that they are a parachute in a plane going down and why they have such appeal

well and there's this:

"the sooner you come to grips with how much of a dithering, self-justifying dumbass your WS has the potential to be, the more proactive you can be about deciding whether or not they're a good candidate for R."

There is a place for rage and that can lead to better boundaries and accountability. It can also lead to divorce. I think that has to on the table post infidelity or our credibility as BS is on the line. Cheating must be a deal breaker and the only way back is full remorse (no ifs ands or buts) and building back up trust from scratch, not to mention deep therapy to fix what was broken and kept the wayward from being a safe partner.

But Esther Perel's role is key in only one respect for me. It helps me arrive at empathy. I don't subscribe to the binary that is often espoused here on SI that there are cheaters (evil) and the cheated upon (angel victims). That is too facile for me and was leading to an impasse. My WS affair took place in the context of a marriage that was not truly working for either of us. We were both at our wits end. We would try things and fail. I was tempted to cheat myself. There were ways I was not showing up in my marriage. There were unhealed parts of me that I desperately need therapy for.

They key is not link those things causally. Our marital issues and my personal issues did not CAUSE the affair. The affair happened because of my WS entitlement, FOO messages, lack of trust in me or anyone, and a society that encourages affairs. She was rationalizing it the whole time. She fell prey to a narcissist because she has poor boundaries, deep insecurity and wanted to be worshipped and adored beyond what should ever be expected of a husband. She OWNS those issues.

But to reconcile, I must judge and reject those parts of her that did cause the affair, her choices, but not reject the person I fell in love with and am still in love with. I can understand some, if not most, waywards are beyond redemption and feel free to kick them to the curb. Many are not. Mine seems to fit into the redeemable category. Perel helps me to peer into her darkness and see why she did what she did. It's ugly, but ignoring it, or demonizing it is not the right path for me.

Esther Perel's writing leads me to think that she is or was a spouse who choose to commit Adultery and wants to make it seem less abusive and broken then those actions really are. She doesn't want to own the damage that is done to the betrayed and others by the choice to commit Adultery. She wants to sugar coat it and make it sound like a time of great growth and discovery for the Adulterous person. I call Bull Shit, it is a time of great selfishness and entitlement that is damaging to all, but especially the Betrayed.

the people we fall in love with are the sum of all their choices, and that usually encompasses their FOO issues, society, whatever. Separating those choices from them removes their very personality.

Point being, we all have crap. Some act it out, some do not. but we sure as hell have a choice in what we choose to do. It's not like we walk around without forethought and are programmed because of past experiences.

Just FYI. Esther is never clear about what graduate training she received or where in any of her bios. In fact, when the New York Times wrote a long article on her in 2014, she appears to have initially misled them! They had to publish a disclaimer correcting the article after it was published saying:

"Correction: January 25, 2014 An earlier version of this article misidentified the type of master’s degree held by Esther Perel. It is in expressive art therapy, not psychology."

Still can't find out from the web where she received it, though I saw someone describe it as a "third rate teachers college."