No. I don’t think I am at all. I read what you write and it falls flat.
Except you explicitly said "you got me" — as if you think my perspective on a discussion of philosophical differences were a game to be won or lost. That is quite frankly hilarious to anyone who knows anything about me or my academic background.
I'm not so sure about this. You’re likely to have more in common with Morbs.
Another glowing example of your open mind at play.
Let me get this right:
* Desirable: Wanting someone to be open-minded enough to keep dating a person who reveals early on that they have a history of betrayal, opening themselves up to potential harm.
* Undesirable: Being open to the fact that you might share common ground with someone with whom you have a philosophical disagreement on a specific forum topic.
. A film critic doesn’t need to make a movie to understand cinematography. An astrophysicist doesn’t need to go to space to understand physics. But betrayal trauma isn’t an academic field or a technical discipline
Ah yes, which is presumably why it is a prerequisite for all psychologists, therapists, and psychiatrists to personally experience every form of trauma before their professional work can carry any value.
You didn’t say that, though. You’ve got to be joking. You describe reconciliation as something "nobody with a shred of emotional maturity" would choose.
I didn't say that at all. I stated that the pool of people willing to start a new relationship with a known cheater, after the collapse of a marriage that cheater destroyed, is a pool that contains people lacking emotional maturity, healthy self-respect, or a functioning radar. The post in question was not discussing whether reconciliation itself is a preferable path; it was discussing what the mindset of a newly betrayed spouse should be.
That is laughable. It’s the foundation of almost everything you’ve written here. It rings hollow because it’s the very thing you rely on to make your arguments
Using psychoanalytic concepts is inherently necessary when making broader structural arguments about human behaviour; it is a requirement for any meaningful dialogue on the topic. When I voiced issues with armchair psychoanalysis, I was referring to users psychoanalysing a specific poster's individual motivations. That is a lazy tactic used to bypass the argument itself by speculating on why someone made it — often projecting unasked-for motives onto them. I thought that distinction was clear.
You weren’t a betrayed spouse. You didn’t experience betrayal trauma. You weren’t in the acute phase you’re trying to speak for. Writing what would have helped you in a situation you never lived doesn’t make your perspective representative.
I don't understand this stance at all and this is also directed at Pippins comments.
Firstly, were you a betrayed spouse? Did you experience betrayal trauma directly? Apologies if I misremember your history, but my understanding was that you were the wayward partner, not the betrayed partner. If so, doesn't that logic completely invalidate your entire stance?
Secondly, what do you mean by claiming I wasn't a betrayed partner simply because of the word "spouse"? I was not legally married in my situation, but I was betrayed in a long-term relationship that lasted as long as many marriages. Marriage was off the table purely due to a mix of philosophical and practical reasons at the time (a view I have since re-evaluated). Do you genuinely believe that lacking a marriage certificate means someone cannot experience betrayal trauma? We co-owned property, shared finances, had an intertwined history, and shared close social circles. My partner of nearly seven years was sleeping with — and ultimately ran off with — one of my best friends. Do you seriously claim that didn't cause trauma?
How can you possibly tell me I didn't experience betrayal trauma? I was rocked to my core. It took an immense amount of work to pull myself out of it. I fought through suicidal ideation. I endured an unhealthy reliance on meaningless hookups before building a strong, grounded life completely independently. I recovered and moved forward. I am happier now than I have ever been: in the healthiest relationship I've ever had, professionally successful, and with a great social life. At the point of betrayal, those felt like unattainable goals. I achieved them while holding onto my principles and morality.
That statement is utterly absurd. If you were not the betrayed partner and your perspective is second-hand, derived from the trauma you caused, how dare you say that to me? That is like a bully telling a victim of bullying that they know more about what it feels like to be victimised.
Even if you are relying on second-hand exposure to betrayal trauma through your own actions., what about mine? I watched my father tear our family apart with repeated cheating and years of fake reconciliation during my formative years, seeing the exact trauma it inflicted on my mother. Do you think that gave me no insight?
Do you think I never felt the desperate urge to fix things? When I found initial traces of the affair and felt the pulling away, I made bids to maintain our connection. But when I wasn't given the truth, I chose a different path. When definitive evidence emerged, the disgust I felt was far stronger than any urge to latch onto the relationship.
...experience isn’t a template for BS, and treating it as one is exactly why your posts don’t land.
My experience and reaction serve as a template for people who go through betrayal and share a similar mindset — and those people absolutely exist. I speak confidently on this because hearing this perspective is precisely what would have helped me when I was navigating acute betrayal trauma.
Soolers (apt name btw, seeing as it’s slang for discord…)
I have no idea what this reference is supposed to mean, and searching for it clarifies nothing. I can assure you my handle has nothing to do with Discord; it is simply a composite of nicknames from my real life.
@hikiingout
You have previously noted that SI is inherently affected by survivorship bias — unless you have since changed your stance on that. If necessary, I can pull up specific quotes where you have stated this previously. As such, it is fair to observe that this platform retains a disproportionate number of voices from users who are currently in reconciliation, or who claim to have successfully reconciled. My point regarding Reddit was simply that, if you are looking at both successful and unsuccessful reconciliation cases, it serves as a useful counterweight to this platform. That does not mean it is superior, nor that one should be used to the exclusion of the other.
Ultimately, Reddit is one of the largest platforms on the internet, hosting discussions across countless topics. A betrayed spouse who has no desire to remain in infidelity-focused forums full-time might be using the site for music, art, or film, encounter a relevant thread, and occasionally drop in to comment on their lived experience.
I have my own reservations about Reddit — it can certainly be less thoughtful for that very reason — but completely dismissing it as a data point is flawed if the argument relies on only hearing about reconciliation from people who chose to reconcile. It is wrong to dismiss that broader perspective entirely.
I apologise for my use of the phrase "pinky promise". It was flippant, and I genuinely did not mean to cause offence or upset anyone with it.
then you see it as we want an echo chamber
Some people do indeed want an echo chamber. If you are not one of them, then do not attempt to banish perspectives that differ from your own.
@Sisoon
I do not understand how you have missed that no one on SI recommends doing the pick me dance, no one on SI recommends begging the WS for another chance, no one on SI recommends staying in a relationship that doesn't work, etc.
I haven't missed that at all. Find one comment or post where I have said anyone on so recommends pick me dance or begging?
In the introduction to this post I noted I habe made so many variations of anti-pick me dance style posts historically I wanted one place to go back to to find a unified response. If you think my draft is bad, I'm literally open to notes. Others have left such notes and I intend to take them onboard.
This isn't about reconciliation at all. It's about empowering a BS. They are free to engage with reconciliation but it's my perspective if they are to, it should be from a position of strength and empowerment.
Thank you to all other users who actually engaged with the concept of the post and left valuable notes of the useful section and those who noted the elements which weren't useful including the tone of the piece.
[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 4:30 PM, Saturday, September 5th]
