** Member to Member **
Reading this thread today has taught me why the frequency of betrayal isn't a big factor in the D/T decision for me. That is, looking for a life in which a WS simply doesn't cheat again seems to me to be a losing strategy.
*****
I thought I was getting a life of engagement with my partner when we married; if I hadn't thought that, I wouldn't have gone through with M. After being betrayed, I had a much stronger desire for high engagement with my WS. If I hadn't seen that in my future, I was gone.
I knew my W was damaged. I did not expect a smooth road to R, though I wanted one and though the child in my head certainly expected a smooth R. I knew there would be small betrayals, and I knew there might be a big one. Another A was, I thought, a deal killer, but we'll never know what i would have done, because I never had to deal with another A. We do know, however, that the smaller betrayals that come along with life were not deal killers. IOW, I appear to have boundaries ... but where those boundaries are may not be well-defined....
I also knew that the odds of a false R were unknown, unknowable. and irrelevant, since statistics do not apply to specific cases. I believe that's a principle that is taught when learning statistics and probability - if it isn't, it should be.
For example, actuarial tables tell us how many people of a certain group will die in the next 12 months - but the tables do not show who will die. We all know of survivors who live much longer than they are told they'll live (after, say, a cancer diagnosis), and we all know of people who die shortly after a complete physical exam that shows no problems.
IOW, past behavior may be the best predictor of future behavior, but it's not always a good predictor - and we have no idea who will continue to follow their old patterns and who won't.
IMO, cbs and cooley raise really good points. They focus on observable behaviors. Since the behaviors can be observed, changes can be observed. Focusing on behavior - actions - allow a BS to gather evidence as to whether a specific WS is or is not a good candidate for R.
And you can and must define for yourself what you want in your M. That will allow you to perceive how good a candidate your WS is.
*****
I don't think a person who avoids conflict can be a good candidate for R unless that person learns to embrace conflict.
I see conflict every day, although W & I, as retirees, spend more time together than most people do, so we may have to deal with more conflict than most people do.
In general, every choice means resolving a conflict between one option or another. Most of the time, the conflicts are easy to resolve. But if one person wants hot dogs for dinner. and the other wants ants-climbing-trees, there's a conflict that needs resolution.
Passivity may work pre-d-day. After d-day, though, IMO R is more likely to work of the day-to-day conflicts are recognized and resolutions are conscious and mindful. Each partner needs to know they chose the solution willingly. If they don't accept the solution, it's too likely they'll build resentment, and that is very detrimental to R.
*****
...whether or not your husband is capable of change is a separate issue from whether or not you will be able to successfully reconcile.
Excellent point.
The wisest thing said to me in the aftermath of d-day was, 'R requires 3 healings. You heal you. (W's name) heals herself. Together you heal the M.'
IOW, both BS and WS has to take responsibility for themself, and healing is separate from the D/R decision.
The BS has to process the anger, grief, fear, shame, whatever on their own. The WS can provide support, but the BS is the only person who can heal the BS.
The trouble is that it is never as easy as simply processing the pain of being betrayed out of one's body. The BS almost always has to figure out how to get through resistance to let the pain go. The 'resistance' refers to the dysfunctional defense mechanisms people pick up from the FOO, school, media, friends, etc., etc., etc.
The BS needs to figure out if the A(s) are/were deal killers and act accordingly.