SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Setting aside the edge cases where you are literally in a relationship with a sociopath that wants to cause you pain, I think abuse is in the eye of the beholder. Literally.

If you see yourself in your eyes as being abused, I.E., you see yourself as being a victim, and take on that victim mentality, then you’re a victim. That’s your story.

I never saw myself as a victim, I didn’t see my wife as abusing me. I just saw her as a cheat who lacked character, and I didn’t want to be married to that person anymore. I gave her a chance to change, and she did. I had empathy, and I offered her grace, but I also had hard limits. It took a while to develop them, because there was no Internet back in that day, but it absolutely included NC.

Setting aside the edge cases where you are literally in a relationship with a sociopath that wants to cause you pain, I think abuse is in the eye of the beholder. Literally.

Did my previous points require a "sociopath"? You don't need to be a sociopath to strip someone of their informed consent, expose them to life-altering STIs, or secretly misappropriate joint financial assets. Those aren't "edge cases" requiring cartoonish malice; they are the direct, foreseeable consequences of reckless betrayal.

If you see yourself in your eyes as being abused, I.E., you see yourself as being a victim, and take on that victim mentality, then you’re a victim. That’s your story.

By this logic, objective reality doesn't exist—only narrative. If a patient is diagnosed with clinical depression, are they only depressed because they decided to adopt a "depressed story"? If someone is stolen from, is financial theft merely in the "eye of the beholder"? Conflating the objective reality of experiencing a harm with adopting a passive "victim mentality" is a false equivalence. Recognizing that an action was abusive is an assessment of the perpetrator's behavior, not an embrace of helplessness.

I never saw myself as a victim, I didn’t see my wife as abusing me. I just saw her as a cheat who lacked character, and I didn’t want to be married to that person anymore. I gave her a chance to change, and she did. I had empathy, and I offered her grace, but I also had hard limits. It took a while to develop them, because there was no Internet back in that day, but it absolutely included NC.

This sounds less like a reasoned argument that infidelity isn't inherently abusive, and more like a personal defense mechanism. You rejected the label because, to you, acknowledging that you were subjected to abuse feels like taking on a weak "victim story."

That is your personal choice, and you are entirely free to frame your own history however best serves your healing. But your personal reframing doesn't change the objective nature of the act. Rejecting a label to protect your own self-image doesn't mean the underlying behavior wasn't abusive to others.

The victim mindset puts all of your attention on the things that you don’t control, things that are "happened" to you. Your spouse, cheats, you get cancer, some jerk cut you off in traffic.

The survivor mindset puts all of your attention on the things you do control, the decisions you can make, the choices that are offered to you.

You are right, I do consciouslychoose a survivor mindset.

Been reading this thread with interest. Before addressing the initial question from the OP that started this dicussion, I want to comment on another contributor's, DRSOOLERS post (something I rarely do):

The underlying principle does not change when supporting a betrayed spouse. In the wake of acute trauma, panic, fear, or codependency, what someone desperately wants in the short term can directly undermine their long-term safety and wellbeing. A betrayed partner might want to rug-sweep, accept ongoing disrespect, or surrender essential boundaries out of sheer terror of losing the relationship. Treating a person's immediate desire as sacrosanct under the guise of "meeting them where they are" risks validating decisions driven by trauma rather than clarity.

There is a vital distinction between stripping someone of their agency and offering a crucial reality check.

I challenge those initial impulses because we see the alternative play out on this forum every all the time: individuals returning four, five, or ten years down the line, filled with profound regret and wishing deeply that they had taken a different path. They spend precious, irreplaceable years exhausting themselves to rebuild something that was never actually viable, only to end up having to start completely over a decade later.

And

Many betrayed partners desperately want reconciliation without auditing whether their own self-worth, principles, and emotional thresholds can actually withstand it. WWTL’s account highlights the tragic cost of forcing a reconciliation process you aren't built to survive: spending years trying to endure the unendurable, only to realize the resentment has irreversibly corroded you anyway. That potential outcome needs to be part of the conversation upfront. You could argue I spend too much time on this but I feel it important to.

Furthermore, many betrayed partners look back years down the line at how they desperately clung to the relationship with feelings of intense shame and disgust. Retrospectively, they acknowledge that their behaviour during that panic-driven phase was entirely out of alignment with their usual self-respect and dignity. Whilst I would always advise anyone in that position to offer themselves grace considering the severe trauma they were undergoing, that does not change the reality. If a voice had actively challenged their betrayal fog early on, it might have saved them years of regret and self-flagellation. Pushing back on trauma-driven wants isn't about arrogance or cruelty; it is about trying to protect someone from losing years of their life to a slow-motion disaster.

Sometimes, it appears to me, some members of this community doesn't view infidelity as the abuse that it is. Perhaps I'm too strong of a counter-point to that position but I think it's good to have all voices.

All of this resonates strongly with me. Decades ago, as a young, faithful Husband and Father, woefully unprepared for the fall out of marital treason, I lived much of tbe above for the better part of a decade. I honestly dont know what was worse, the treason or the self defeating way I dealt with it.

That said, I wish someone had said similar words to me in the midst of the mental-emotional maelstrom. Would I have listened? Honestly, maybe not, but I would have had the chance to.

DRSOOLERS represents a long line of stronger, more strident voices on this site and, imo, are much needed and act as a bookend to those less so and of a different bent.

Now, to the initial question:

In other words, does the initially imposed NC require *continual* policing by the BS, or does it *eventually* become naturally, effortlessly, voluntarily, self-imposed by the WS? If the former is true, reconciliation probably has a low chance of success. But if the latter is true, I'd imagine the chance of reconciliation is higher.

Of course, requiring no contact is a logical initial response/requirement of the Faithful Spouse for the Traitor, however, that action item does not and cannot plumb the depths of what the FS really needs to know, and that is capacity. Does the TS even have the capacity to do so? Peel that back and then you have the question of accountability. Do they have the capacity to be voluntarily accountable and not just "white knuckling" it? My TW could not. She resented accountability and if there were ever a sign that I should have exited stage left, it was this. I learned the hard way that not only would she not, she couldnt. She did not have the capacity. She was stuck and could not move forward into the maturity and integrity needed to be a safe partner for anyone.

So how is the Faithful Spouse to know? The TS can, of course, fake it for a while. They can continue to try and deceive (many are good at that). Still, there is a tell, and that is attitude. Attitude tends to slip out regardless of tbe facade. Frustration. Disgust. Anger. All tells that they are not "all in" and the FS is misplacing what little trust they have left.

There have been examples on this site of TS's keeping no contact, but their hearts were clearly not in it and showed little empathy for the FS, This is exemplified by the sad non confession of "Im just sorry I hurt you". Yeh, thats another strong tell imo that more misery awaits (ask me how I know).

[This message edited by DobleTraicion at 5:05 PM, Tuesday, August 18th]

** Memeber to Member **

I never saw myself as a victim, I didn’t see my wife as abusing me. I just saw her as a cheat.

Likewise. I still think my W betrayed herself before she betrayed me; if she hadn't done the first, she wouldn't have done the second.

I also think she hurt herself more than she hurt me. That's what I concluded from my observations. My perceptions after d-day were highly colored for sure, but that's all I had; however, my perceptions did clear up over time, and my conclusions have held up until now.

My W has been going through extreme anxiety for some time. She acts, in most ways, as she did during her A; the major difference is that workday absences are things of the past. Is that abuse? She's dealing with demons. I'm not part of the equation. I don't think her current behavior is abusing me. She was dealing with her demons during the A. I was not part of the equation. I didn't think her A was abuse, except perhaps of herself.

For me infidelity and abuse are associated with each other, but separate.

Like HoP, I think staying out of the Victim position (a very powerful position) in Drama Triangles is a good idea. Staying out of Drama Triangles is a practice that is crucial to good mental health, IMO.

Maybe that's a defense mechanism. Maybe it's an accurate view of the world.

So here's a 2nd voice saying the idea that infidelity as abuse is not universal. And yet, that concept seems to have helped others heal.

Maybe infidelity is abuse. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's abuse of some people and not abuse of others.

*****

Intent of a poster on SI is an issue for the poster. If feedback indicates the intent is misunderstood, the poster probably should change how they post, because they're not communicating what they think they do.

Intent of the WS can be an important factor in the BS's response to the WS.

I was very concerned at first about my W's intent; she said resentment was a small element among the A enablers in her head. As MC progressed, however, it was clear that she was very much out of touch with what I thought and wanted. Even if she had cheated primarily because of her resentments, she resented her false image of me in her head. She didn't cheat because she was angry at the real me. She abandoned me, but she didn't reject me.

Each of us has to evaluate our own BS's intentions and use our evaluation in our decision-making

*****

This sounds less like a reasoned argument that infidelity isn't inherently abusive, and more like a personal defense mechanism.

This looks more like HoP sharing his experience, which lets people know that there are multiple ways to experience being betrayed.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 5:15 PM, Tuesday, August 18th]

This looks more like HoP sharing his experience, which lets people know that there are multiple ways to experience being betrayed.

So you are talking purely about subjective personal experience? It seems we have been talking at cross-purposes this entire time. My focus was on whether infidelity could be objectively defined as abuse on a structural level—specifically through the systematic removal of informed bodily consent, exposure to health risks without knowledge, and the psychological impact of covert deception. I outlined what I consider to be a strong, logical case for that position, and to be frank, the core mechanics of those points have yet to be refuted here. So perhaps we actually do all tacitly agree that infidelity fits the definition of abuse on paper, even if some individuals choose not to label or frame their own experience that way.

To illustrate the disconnect: think of it like a reckless driver plowing through a red light and t-boning another vehicle.

Objectively: The act is hit-and-run vehicular assault. It violates established laws, breaches duty of care, and causes structural damage.

Subjectively: The person hit might walk away saying, "I don't view myself as a victim of a crash; it was just an unfortunate accident, I'm fine, and my car can be repaired."

Their personal choice to downplay the trauma or reject the "victim" label doesn't magically rewrite the traffic code or change the objective nature of the collision.

If your point is simply that individual lived experiences and emotional processing vary wildly from person to person, then fair enough. But that is an inherently subjective realm—so deeply personal to each individual that it doesn't really warrant further debate

I will chime in and say I am mixed on the abuse thing.

I abused my husbands trust.

I created unnecessary pain in him when my job as a partner is to support him, help him to have a good life the way he helps me.

I traumatized him.

So I don’t bristle if someone wants to label it as abuse.

I do not feel there has been a pattern of abuse over the tenure of our almost 3 decade relationship from either of us. I do not consider myself abusive in nature but I do know I committed crimes in our marriage that are inexcusable.

I also know that some people who commit crimes face the consequences of their actions and never reoffend. Others just continue committing crimes and there is abusive patterns throughout their marriage- financial, emotional, verbal and sometimes even physical.

I agree it depends on the situation a lot of times to how it becomes framed. I do t think in our situation it required a label like that, but I have no problem if he or anyone else wants to label it that way. It boils down to I created trauma through willful actions on my part even if I justified it as he would never find out, he doesn’t really love me anyway, and all the resentment I was holding on the amount of emotional and physical labor I thought the marriage required.

I also think like sissoon I betrayed myself just as much in the situation, turning a perfectly workable marriage into an albatross of years of both of us wandering lost in a deep emotional forest.

And today, I think the person who once betrayed herself was able to put together puzzle pieces that not only makes me a better wife and partner, but has freed me from the torture I imposed on myself for the 41 years up to the affair. And while I would never recommend the method for finding a more sane, more skilled, more knowledgeable person somewhere in the rubble of my false narratives, perceptions and pain —-I am grateful that I am much healthier and was able to rebuild a marriage with not only a great person—-but MY person. My gift from God who knew exactly the puzzle piece I needed for a great life. I know without a shadow of a doubt he is the best thing that ever happened to me.

Why say all the last part? I also think while divorce is a natural and valid option, and I understand when Scooler says some people make the decision to stay married out of fear or lack of self worth. However, I think what it takes to reconcile is a bs who decides what it is they want, and they go for it—-not because they are a sorry sap who have no choices. And I think that is the distinction that scooler can’t seem to fully believe in. Which hasn’t been his experience and we are saying we are talking out of experiences.

In the end the marital outcome is not as important as the two people involved coming to a place of health and making the best decisions for them. Working on healing will always bring the best outcome and the choice about the marriage will follow suit.

[This message edited by hikingout at 6:06 PM, Tuesday, August 18th]

objectively defined as abuse on a structural level

No, abuse is ultimately meant to be intentional. The fact that most for most affairs, great effort is made to keep them secret and to keep the two lives separate refutes your argument.

I don’t know why you are so locked in to the definition of an affair as abuse. You argue like we were talking about physics here, with clearly measurable effects, but the fact is whether or not it is abuse is in the eye of the beholder.

I guess every time someone cuts me off in traffic they’re abusing me too. They took away my right to choose. They forced me to slam on the brakes. I am a victim. The world owes me.

I just don’t see it that way.

You and I are actually not that far apart on how to respond to an affair. I am definitely biased to action. I tend to think that the best chance for reconciliation comes out of immediate clear, hard boundaries and hard shifts for the BS. Setting standards. A hard break with the past, which is everything before D-Day.

There is zero need to call it abuse, and therefore define myself as a victim of abuse, in order to do all of the above. I don’t see a benefit in telling the abuse story.

There is a pretty interesting article that just came out in the September issue of scientific American, released today. Great timing. Titled Why your brain turns life into stories. Couple of snips from it or other linked stories…

…The human brain seems hardwired to make sense of the world through stories….These life tales stitch together different events into an overarching narrative with the storyteller as the protagonist. They help people define themselves and make existence more coherent.

Framing your life as a story of redemption may have other benefits, according to an intensive analysis of 157 case studies by McAdams and his Northwestern colleague Jen Guo. McAdams defines a redemptive life story as one with a narrator who is special or lucky in some way; who describes the world as dangerous; who has strong moral principles; who suffers but whose suffering leads to a positive outcome; and who envisions personal growth and making a difference in the future.

… We then wondered whether making one's story more "heroic" would increase feelings of meaningfulness. We developed a "restorying" intervention in which we prompted people to retell their story as a hero's journey. Participants identified each of the seven elements in their life, and then we encouraged them to weave these pieces together into a coherent narrative.

In six studies with more than 1,700 participants, we confirmed that this restorying intervention worked: it helped people see their life as a hero's journey, which in turn made that life feel more meaningful. Intervention recipients also reported greater well-being and became more resilient in the face of personal challenges; these participants saw obstacles more positively and dealt with them more creatively.

"In the end the marital outcome is not as important as the two people involved coming to a place of health and making the best decisions for them. Working on healing will always bring the best outcome and the choice about the marriage will follow suit."

This as stated by hikingout is exactly my belief as well. I also agree with house of plane that by dictionary definition, abuse requires intent. The WS meant to cause pain to the BS. It is absolutely true in some cases and not in others. But I can see why many choose to label infidelity as abusive to highlight the real and brutal pain we the BS feel. But in order to reach our healthy place as quoted above I could not remain in a place defining myself as victim. HofP is correct for me. Others mileage may vary.

OP I believe setting a boundary of NC is a fundamental as a BS. It should go without saying, but setting it out establishes a basic requirement for moving forward.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 7:50 PM, Tuesday, August 18th]

I remember prior to DDay thinking that it would "hurt" my husband IF he found out what I was doing.

What a lot of unfaithful don't realize is that it hurts their spouse from the very first moment, not only "if" they find out. The secret is corrosive, the loss of agency is a violation, and the cognitive distortions are felt in the way the faithful spouse is treated, even when they have no idea why.

An affair requires a second reality to be created and maintained. Things are withheld. Behavior changes. Emotional energy is redirected. The spouse and the marriage are often rewritten in the unfaithful person's mind to make what they are doing easier to justify. That rewriting inevitably affects how they see and treat the person at home.

Meanwhile, the faithful spouse is making decisions about their marriage, their future, their emotional and sexual intimacy, and sometimes their health, without information they would need to make those decisions freely.

They may not know they are being betrayed, but they are already living inside the consequences of the betrayal.

DDay doesn't create the injury. It reveals the injury.