Split Self Affair

[Anna-Belle]

What is it about then? A cheater must compartmentalize. He/she must act one way with his/her spouse and another way with his/her lover. If that isn't living life like you are two different people, I don't know what is.

 

The problem has been there long before the EMR. The EMR is merely a symptom. The WS-to-be has a set of personality traits he shows to the outer world ("the good guy") while he keeps his emotional self hidden deep within himself. The OW manages to tap into this emotional self and now the WS is dependent on her to be in touch with his emotions. His true challenge is to learn to do this without having to go through the OW.

[Anna-Belle]

Really? She recommends keeping the A from the BW? Why is there then an entire chapter on "Disclosing the Affair"?

 

"The first element in rebuilding is telling the betrayed spouse the truth. A well-planned disclosure opens the door to a process of growing and resolution. Our work as therapists is to help the straying partner disclose the secret in the best possible way. The process of disclosure encompasses preparation, disclosure, the betrayed spouse's response, and development of a plan for getting through the next few days."

 

The above excerpt is from the book Patterns of Infidelity and Their Treatment by Emily Brown.

[findingnemo]

First of all, I don't necessarily disagree with the characteristics of a "split-self" MM (and they are generally men, apparently) having an affair.

 

What I don't like however, is that Emily Brown was able to ascribe all sorts of negative characteristics to the BWs of such men and all sorts of positive characteristics to the OWs of such men. She further generalised that all/most such "split-self" MM had these types of BWs and OWs. To me this discredits her whole "theory" (if that's what it is) of split-self affairs.

 

I find it highly unlikely that all split-self men have BWs and OWs who are as she describes and what's more I doubt that Emily Brown could have actually met with and diagnosed both the OWs and BWs of even a fraction of the split-self men she claims to has counseled/diagnosed.

 

To answer your specific question Moper, the "real problem" with split-self MM is the ongoing deceit and dishonesty of the MM himself. This manifests as basically tricking/manipulating his BW into continuing with him, sometimes for many years. I speak as a BW of a man who had many of the characteristics of a split-self MM as described by Emily Brown. However I can categorically say that the BW (me) and the OW were nothing like her cookie-cutter descriptions.

 

I am all for you and any MM who may be "split-self" working himself out. But I think it is dangerous to think that her impressions of BWs and OWs apply in your situation. You risk demonising your wife, idolising your OW and altogether overlooking your own dishonest behaviour, which presumably will go unresolved and may manifest itself again when faced with problems in your future relationships.

 

Emily Brown does ascribe things to the BW and OW that she can't possibly know for sure. I think she is speculating and saying that a Split Self MM usually marries the person he thinks is the "right" person rather than the person he loves. He then meets someone with whom he is more compatible. Obviously the OWs have flaws but Emily Brown is saying the MM loves her regardless.

 

I agree with her description of the MM's reasons for staying M. I don't know why she would assume the BW has a Split Self as well. Anybody, man or woman, who is M with kids is going to pretend to the outside world that all is well. I don't know anybody who is ready to advertise their marital problems. If the BW "covers" for her H, how does this make her a bonafide Split Self? Just because she is acting happy and yet inside is unhappy doesn't make her a Split Self, IMO. If the BW wants to work on the M, how does that make her a Split Self?

 

It could be argued that it is the OW who is a Split Self. From day one of the A, most OWs have to deal with the fact that the man they love is with someone else day and night. The rational self clearly tells them it is bad for them but they ignore it. Instead they are on the other extreme and rely more on the emotional self which wants to be with MM. Also according to Ms. Brown, the OW is in trouble as she will probably never have the Split Self MM to herself.

 

I agree with your point that a MM shouldn't read this and think that their BW is the problem and the OW the solution. The main problem is their indecision and need to have the best of all worlds. They (MMs) need to work on themselves and make better choices in the future. I don't know whether to think Emily Brown is helping MMs by being understanding and walking them through their issues. Or that she is coddling them and in a way encouraging them to continue being selfish but be honest about it. I have a feeling that the D rate amongst her clients is quite high. Is that really what a Split Self wants or needs?

[findingnemo]

The problem has been there long before the EMR. The EMR is merely a symptom. The WS-to-be has a set of personality traits he shows to the outer world ("the good guy") while he keeps his emotional self hidden deep within himself. The OW manages to tap into this emotional self and now the WS is dependent on her to be in touch with his emotions. His true challenge is to learn to do this without having to go through the OW.

 

I agree. Another way of saying this is that the WS before the EMR was living a life he/she thought they should live and when he/she met the other person started living the life they wanted even if it was for short periods of time. Either way, the WS during the A is living like two different aspects of the same person ie. Split. Two lives, two personalities. The difference is the same.

[Anna-Belle]

I agree with her description of the MM's reasons for staying M. I don't know why she would assume the BW has a Split Self as well. Anybody, man or woman, who is M with kids is going to pretend to the outside world that all is well. I don't know anybody who is ready to advertise their marital problems. If the BW "covers" for her H, how does this make her a bonafide Split Self? Just because she is acting happy and yet inside is unhappy doesn't make her a Split Self, IMO. If the BW wants to work on the M, how does that make her a Split Self?

 

The problem does not lie with the WS showing the outside world in general "the good guy" facade which as you point out we all pretty much do. It is that the two spouses do this within the marriage itself to each other and also that they have more or less themselves lost contact with their own emotional side.

 

As I understand it the WS and the BS in their (likely dysfunctional) families of origin chose this survival technique: being the good child and pushing their own emotions aside for the benefit of others. Then this becomes the way they meet the world. Finally in their middle-age the consequences of living this way catches up with them and it shows up in the guise of an EMR.

 

The EMR thus presents a unique opportunity to deal with deep-rooted dysfunctional patterns, for both the WS and the BS (once she learns of the EMR). This is true for the OW as well, whom by having to share the man she loves is confronted with issues of her own.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Anna-Belle

[findingnemo]

This can happen in some couples. Maybe Emily Brown has found herself counseling only Split Self men who have Split Self Ws. How she could ascertain that, I don't know. It seems to be speculation on her part. The idea that Split Self men subconsciously pick Split Self Ws doesn't jive for me. It's a generalization based on wishful thinking.

 

I do see what she is saying on her website but I feel like she bases her theory on too many generalizations. There's one about BWs, another about OWs, another about the outcome of the M without therapy and the last one is the outcome of the M with therapy. If you take away those things what are you left with? A MM who doesn't know how to choose what's best for him and wants to have it all. Just another random cake eater whose main problem is indecisiveness.

[Anna-Belle]

This can happen in some couples. Maybe Emily Brown has found herself counseling only Split Self men who have Split Self Ws. How she could ascertain that, I don't know. It seems to be speculation on her part. The idea that Split Self men subconsciously pick Split Self Ws doesn't jive for me. It's a generalization based on wishful thinking.

 

I do see what she is saying on her website but I feel like she bases her theory on too many generalizations. There's one about BWs, another about OWs, another about the outcome of the M without therapy and the last one is the outcome of the M with therapy. If you take away those things what are you left with? A MM who doesn't know how to choose what's best for him and wants to have it all. Just another random cake eater whose main problem is indecisiveness.

 

Being just a layman myself all I can say is that her theories helped me immensely in staying with my MM and being happy while he did the work he needed to do to get to where he is today, in counseling and separated from his wife. It gave us an understanding of what was going on which seems to fit overwhelmingly well in our case. It actually fits well with the BS' in our case conclusion as well:

 

"You're a good man and a good father but a lousy husband."

Edited August 12, 2013 by Anna-Belle

[SidLyon]

Really? She recommends keeping the A from the BW? Why is there then an entire chapter on "Disclosing the Affair"?

 

"The first element in rebuilding is telling the betrayed spouse the truth. A well-planned disclosure opens the door to a process of growing and resolution. Our work as therapists is to help the straying partner disclose the secret in the best possible way. The process of disclosure encompasses preparation, disclosure, the betrayed spouse's response, and development of a plan for getting through the next few days."

 

 

 

And you know what research she has done? You have somewhere seen it stated that it is only through studying the WHs she councils?

 

I should have said that she recommends deferring the disclosure until the WH has his ducks in order. She doesn't use these exact words, but that's what it amounts to. I see this as the therapist condoning the continuation of the abuse, dishonesty and manipulation already heaped on an unsuspecting BW. You may choose to view it differently.

 

She also makes it clear that she recommends separate IC by separate counselors for the WH/MM and the BW. As her focus is clearly the split self MM, it's hard to see how she can have possibly made a valid diagnosis of either the BW or the OW, except based on the information provided by the MM/WH, which is likely skewed to reflect his own world view and still wanting to be the good guy. I see this as speculative on her part, at best.

 

So while I can recognise the split-self MM she deals with, I don't accept her descriptions of either the BW, the marriage or the OW. In fact she comes across as so biased, as to be downright fraudulent.

[Anna-Belle]

She also makes it clear that she recommends separate IC by separate counselors for the WH/MM and the BW. As her focus is clearly the split self MM, it's hard to see how she can have possibly made a valid diagnosis of either the BW or the OW, except based on the information provided by the MM/WH, which is likely skewed to reflect his own world view and still wanting to be the good guy. I see this as speculative on her part, at best.

 

While I agree with you that E Brown's focus is definitely not the OW, her focus is equally on the WS and the BS as far as I can see. The WS is the symptom bearer of the dysfunctional marriage which may be why it looks to you as he gets more attention and focus.

 

I understand it to be merely your own conclusions that she has done no further research than to counsel WHs. I would be very surprised if this was true.

[Anna-Belle]

I should have said that she recommends deferring the disclosure until the WH has his ducks in order. She doesn't use these exact words, but that's what it amounts to. I see this as the therapist condoning the continuation of the abuse, dishonesty and manipulation already heaped on an unsuspecting BW. You may choose to view it differently.

 

There's a big difference to me in getting your ducks in order by stashing away money etc and making sure you are mentally and emotionally prepared to deal with a Dday. I would think a BS benefits from the more stable WS too. Yo-yoing between the BS and the OW which is one example of what can be the result of premature disclosure is difficult to deal with for all parties.

 

As an example my MM started counseling mid-January and revealed the EMR mid-March. 2 months of counseling before revealing the EMR isn't that much of a delay IMO compared to the benefits of guidance from the counselor.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Anna-Belle

[SidLyon]

While I agree with you that E Brown's focus is definitely not the OW, her focus is equally on the WS and the BS as far as I can see. The WS is the symptom bearer of the dysfunctional marriage which may be why it looks to you as he gets more attention and focus.

 

I understand it to be merely your own conclusions that she has done no further research than to counsel WHs. I would be very surprised if this was true.

 

There's a big difference to me in getting your ducks in order by stashing away money etc and making sure you are mentally and emotionally prepared to deal with a Dday. I would think a BS benefits from the more stable WS too. Yo-yoing between the BS and the OW which is one example of what can be the result of premature disclosure is difficult to deal with for all parties.

 

As an example my MM started counseling mid-January and revealed the EMR mid-March. 2 months of counseling before revealing the EMR isn't that much of a delay IMO to get the WS stabilized.

 

We'll have to disagree then. I still think she is biased against BWs and reconciling marriages as her default position is that the marriage is somehow "wrong" for the WH and the EMR "right".

 

In fact the stabilising of the MM in this situation was him preparing to reveal his EMR once he was sure about his decision to leave. If this was in any way based on Emily Brown then it's no wonder the survival rate for such marriages (ie the ones she counsels in) is so low.

[Anna-Belle]

We'll have to disagree then. I still think she is biased against BWs and reconciling marriages as her default position is that the marriage is somehow "wrong" for the WH and the EMR "right".

 

In fact the stabilising of the MM in this situation was him preparing to reveal his EMR once he was sure about his decision to leave. If this was in any way based on Emily Brown then it's no wonder the survival rate for such marriages (ie the ones she counsels in) is so low.

 

I don't know where you are getting your information from since it seems to differ from what I have read.

 

IMO her default position (if any) seems to be reconciling the marriage through IC for both the WS and the BS. She goes into detail about IC for both spouses but barely mentions the OW other than to speak of her plausible FOO issues. She concludes that the probability of divorce is "above average" unlike for the exit affair where it is stated as being "extremely high". She concludes best outcome for the Split Self affair is "revived marriage or divorce" whereas worst outcome is "empty shell marriage or divorce".

[rumbleseat]

You can label the affair in any way you wish. It does nothing to change the end result.

 

Unless labeling a particular hurtful behavior does something to change it, what is the point?

[Realist3]

You can label the affair in any way you wish. It does nothing to change the end result.

 

Unless labeling a particular hurtful behavior does something to change it, what is the point?

 

I understand what you are saying, but what I think you may be missing is that the label does nothing to change the end result, and no one is suggesting that it does. It is simply a dissection of the causes of the behavior or decision to cheat.

[Anna-Belle]

You can label the affair in any way you wish. It does nothing to change the end result.

 

Unless labeling a particular hurtful behavior does something to change it, what is the point?

 

Knowing what you're dealing with does actually change the end result. Or at least gives you the means to change it.

[So happy together]

Let's just go to the title/main topic and see if we agree on that.

 

"When good people have affairs." Already wrong

 

People are neither good nor bad.

 

"When People have affairs." Not very catchy. But accurate

 

If you believe "good" people exist, define a "good" person that will be true for everyone: not possible. We can try, but we will be here stuck on this one point forever.

 

Trying to imply that "good" people exist, forces the reader to (subconsciously) define what a "good" person is. So what is a good person? Ok I'll bite.

 

I think a good person is one who loves their family, is a good citizen, pays their bills, loves animals, and is honest. Or something like that. It could mean whatever I want it to in the context I'm using it in.

Hmmmmm... That's convenient.

 

Before we even open the book, we can start lying to ourselves in dangerous ways. Lies mixed with truth are confusing and hard to pick apart and really tempting and we are all vulnerable. All of us. We all want denial. We all want lies in this clusterf*ck. Lies are easier. I could see this book at Barnes and Noble with my Starbucks coffee and say-

 

Good people have affairs?

I wonder what that book is about. I don't have affairs. I think I'm a good person. I thought xbf was a pretty crappy person for what he did... Let me sit down for a minute. Oh hahaha this lady is funny.. She says in the intro that "cheaters" are sociopaths with swirly mustaches, and that good people can find themselves in over their heads, and the BS is not blameless. Well, that's true. I'm not perfect. And he really is trying. She says good people lie awake at night feeling guilty and agonizing. I know he does that. I know he is trying really really hard. He says if I give it one more shot, he will never cheat on me again and we can get married. I can pick out whatever ring I want.

 

He is going to therapy, he says he is sorry, maybe I should stop being such a cheating nazi, seriously, who the frick am I? And I know he is a good person, because he is really smart, he is a very talented musician, he works really hard, and is very caring towards me except he made some mistakes last year. Here she says people who accidentally find themselves in affairs "passionately want to do what's best for everyone". he probably did want whatsbestfor me all along. It's in the past now anyway, and it's been enough time that I can forgive him and move on.

Here she says he shouldnt have told me, ever. It's a bad idea to tell the spouse. Well I guess that makes sense...Oh- I should just go home and apologize. I miss being with him. I've been so hard on him for lying to me for the last 3 years. Maybe we should have a baby.

 

 

Good people sometimes do bad and silly things. Bad people sometimes do good things.

 

People have affairs for different reasons..but generally (I know it isn't universal)..men do because they can and it's available. women because they're bored, need love and attention or they're just no longer in love with their reg partner

 

Does it make either a 'bad' person? Affairs are the symptom, not the reason.

 

Some of the most horrible people that ever lived never cheated . Hitler didn't cheat on Eva Braun.

[Anna-Belle]

But a label generated by a pop psychologist who wants to sell books by playing to her audience does not identify "what you're dealing with." It just helps people rationalize. And supports them in carrying on. With the EXACT same situation that existed before somebody cooked up a term that makes this scenario a little easier to deal with.

 

While that may be the case with Mira Kirshenbaum, I doubt that's the case with Emily Brown. Her books are mostly written for others working in the field of counseling.

[rumbleseat]

[quote=

Some of the most horrible people that ever lived never cheated . Hitler didn't cheat on Eva Braun.

 

it's usually a good idea to know a bit more about something before one uses it as an example

 

since he married her the day they both committed suicide, I'd be very surprised if there was any tine for infidelity

 

BTW...his relationship with Braun wasn't really a romantic one, and he was also suspected of killing another woman he'd had a romantic interest in ( his niece)

 

he was no "split self"...he was evil in every area of his life

 

i

[Mr. Lucky]

I judge people (I try not to judge, but to be honest, I have to say that I can't avoid it) by their actions. This applies to my assessment of myself, as well.

 

If someone's behavior is hurtful, dishonest, self serving, cruel, whatever, I won't look at them and think "what a good person, acting badly." I will just think, "I want no part of that." Or, "other people need protection from that." If the behavior changes, I am also capable of looking at the person differently...

 

...So I am completely nonplussed by statements (which I consider ridiculous) like "when good people have affairs." If they're so "good," let's see them act "good."

 

 

 

That's all.

Very well put and one of the reasons that "love" is really a verb and not a noun. My perception of how I'm treated by my spouse is based on actions, not feelings. So OP, I wouldn't care why you did it, I'd just care that it happened. Save the justifications for your AP...

 

Mr. Lucky

[rumbleseat]

Very well put and one of the reasons that "love" is really a verb and not a noun. My perception of how I'm treated by my spouse is based on actions, not feelings. So OP, I wouldn't care why you did it, I'd just care that it happened. Save the justifications for your AP...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

For her sake, I hope the AP has better sense than to accept it as an excuse.

Hopefully, she'll tell him to get into therapy and once he's "whole", then come find her.

[Mr. Lucky]

As an example my MM started counseling mid-January and revealed the EMR mid-March. 2 months of counseling before revealing the EMR isn't that much of a delay IMO compared to the benefits of guidance from the counselor.

Assuming you're including everyone involved, what are the benefits to the BS from the WS's counseling and 2 month delay ???

 

Mr. Lucky

[Anna-Belle]

Assuming you're including everyone involved, what are the benefits to the BS from the WS's counseling and 2 month delay ???

 

Mr. Lucky

 

It's been a very straight forward path since Dday. No throwing the OW under the bus, no hysterical bonding, no wavering, no yo-yoing, just the MM standing his ground. The BS has thus benefited from understanding the situation and thereby being able to make her own decisions. She too has been very decisive and so far the two of them seem to be as "happily" separated as you could expect. They are cooperating well as parents and have started to split their assets.

 

The counselor also supported the WS in disclosing the entire truth. Given the two months of counseling prior to Dday they had already formed a counselor-client relationship and she was thus helpful throughout the process.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Anna-Belle

[Mr. Lucky]

It's been a very straight forward path since Dday. No throwing the OW under the bus, no hysterical bonding, no wavering, no yo-yoing, just the MM standing his ground. The BS has thus benefited from understanding the situation and thereby being able to make her own decisions. She too has been very decisive and so far the two of them seem to be as "happily" separated as you could expect. They are cooperating well as parents and have started to split their assets.

 

In other words, first you kept the BS in the dark. Then you took all her options away, including those that a fair-minded person would think would require her consent. Congrats, sounds like the perfect crime...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Anna-Belle]

In other words, first you kept the BS in the dark. Then you took all her options away, including those that a fair-minded person would think would require her consent. Congrats, sounds like the perfect crime...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

Huh?

 

What options were taken away from her? To have a husband who was not in love with another woman? Yes, she was not presented with that option. And thus from there she made decisions about her own life.

[2sure]

It does sound like everything is working out Perfectly .