truncated Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 So if the BS asks, and the FWS blames the BS, how do you jump to the conclusion in your previous post that the author is putting all the blame o the BS? And come on, she is trying to use examples of the ways that 1st type couples typically relate with each other to show what she means by remaining trapped in the infidelity even addicted to it. It's her way of giving us an idea of what it looks like on one level, it is hardly the definition of these types of couples. She is simply offering up some details for you to sort of go, okay, I get what you mean by couples who are stuck. As readers we are not supposed to pick the crap out of the de tails of that couple. do you honestly believe that if you see some small fault in a word or two in her example that this is sufficient to write off the entire point of the article? There is more than just a grammatical error or poor word choice in her writings, and to me, that is a serious red flag. she is not merely a layperson giving her opinion on a topic based on her own personal experience and nothing more. She is presenting herself as somewhat of an expert in the arena of infidelity and helping couples through the aftermath. I suspect she is also using it to cast a net to entice people to purchase books she's written or hire her for therapy, speaking engagements, etc. If she messes up these fundamentals, how can I trust the rest of her opinion ( which by the way, is just that, an opinion). Of course, she could have hired a ghost writer for the piece... 1
truncated Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 I beg to differ. I think if you read the first part of the article again. You will see that the author puts her emphasis entirely on the words, "couple", "marriage", "matrimony". She shows how each of them digs their heals into their own perspective and she uses the language that the couple uses, not her own interpretation of them. The whole point Esther is trying to make is if a couple is stuck at stage one, continuously holding ground in terms of victim - bad guy, trauma-free ticket, trust-no forgiveness, then the marriage is doomed. And surely she is correct in asking why they bother to try reconciliation if neither is going to give up ground. This assessment is, I repeat LONG after they have stopped therapy. What Perel is saying is the couples who display this type have fallen back into old models of addressing issues and have not shown they can go the distance without the watchful constant eyes of the therapist. I really fail to see why you criticise the author for this important insight. Funny, when I say it, I don't know anything, when she goes round and round in circles, with an unhealthy smattering of blame for the bs, it's an important insight. I made the point that for some, the marriage is not really a healthy place to be, and they should let go, being as kind to each other as they can in the process. As autmnnight put it, there is no shame in walking away, but the author sneaks in blame to the bs should the marriage fail...it's THEIR fault that they couldn't forgive, let it go, trust, and somehow be trauma free in that particular relationship.
truncated Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 This. There is no shame in saying "I just cannot be with this person in a REAL relationship of any trust after the way they horribly betrayed me." In that case, the respectable thing for both parties to do is part ways. There is nothing really honorable or good for anyone - including kids - about staying in 1, and probably not much good about staying in the lower half of 2. If you can't be a solid 2 or 3, then don't be ashamed of it. Move on and give yourself a chance at some kind of peace and happiness. This is a very important point. If the marriage fails, that is not the fault of the people in it, but rather, the situation. For some marriages, the ws doesn't change behavior patterns, and the bs is expected to somehow revert back to the state of blind trust they had before the affair. How can they do that? For example, say a ws used "I'm working late" as a cover for the times they were meeting with the person they were cheating with. During that time, they also seemed distracted etc. Under similar conditions, it's asking a huge amount of a bs to ignore all their built in warning sensors that the ws could be cheating again, especially if they ignored them last time and the ws turned out to be having an affair. Maybe this time the behavior is innocent, but how can the bs ever be sure? Last time they trusted blindly, look what happened. 1
fellini Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 There is more than just a grammatical error or poor word choice in her writings, and to me, that is a serious red flag. she is not merely a layperson giving her opinion on a topic based on her own personal experience and nothing more. She is presenting herself as somewhat of an expert in the arena of infidelity and helping couples through the aftermath. I suspect she is also using it to cast a net to entice people to purchase books she's written or hire her for therapy, speaking engagements, etc. If she messes up these fundamentals, how can I trust the rest of her opinion ( which by the way, is just that, an opinion). Of course, she could have hired a ghost writer for the piece... I have no idea what you are talking about. Esther Perel does not "present herself" as somewhat of an expert. She is already internationally renowned, highly acclaimed, ell respected in her field. You make a lot of assumptions about her based on your reading of one article. You havent said what fundamentals she has messed up, that you presumably know better?
autumnnight Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 This is a very important point. If the marriage fails, that is not the fault of the people in it, but rather, the situation. For some marriages, the ws doesn't change behavior patterns, and the bs is expected to somehow revert back to the state of blind trust they had before the affair. How can they do that? For example, say a ws used "I'm working late" as a cover for the times they were meeting with the person they were cheating with. During that time, they also seemed distracted etc. Under similar conditions, it's asking a huge amount of a bs to ignore all their built in warning sensors that the ws could be cheating again, especially if they ignored them last time and the ws turned out to be having an affair. Maybe this time the behavior is innocent, but how can the bs ever be sure? Last time they trusted blindly, look what happened. Actually, IMO, if reconciliation fails, it IS the fault of humans. It might be the fault of the WS who will not be remorseful, transparent, willing to work hard. And yes, despite outcires to the contrary, it can be due to the BS not wanting to forgive, not wanting to have a good marriage because then the WS "gets off scot free" (What does that even mean anyway - scot free). Sometimes neither of them can move forward. However, if a marriage fails, it most certainly IS due to at least one, bot probably to varying degrees both, of the people in it.
AlwaysGrowing Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 So if the BS asks, and the FWS blames the BS, how do you jump to the conclusion in your previous post that the author is putting all the blame o the BS? And come on, she is trying to use examples of the ways that 1st type couples typically relate with each other to show what she means by remaining trapped in the infidelity even addicted to it. It's her way of giving us an idea of what it looks like on one level, it is hardly the definition of these types of couples. She is simply offering up some details for you to sort of go, okay, I get what you mean by couples who are stuck. As readers we are not supposed to pick the crap out of the de tails of that couple. do you honestly believe that if you see some small fault in a word or two in her example that this is sufficient to write off the entire point of the article? I did not find fault with a word or two...it was how vastly different the approach was. An approach (for the third couple), that she does not often advocate....talking freely about the affair. When, she herself used words like bitter, towards the first BS, who would ask her FWS about the affair, and was often told it was her fault for being x,y,z..that the affair happened...by the way....from a serial cheater. So, if the approach was that vastly different, and the fact the first couple had a serial FWS ...it most likely is comparing apples and oranges. Listen...I truly do not think R is for everyone..I really don't. I also do not have to label a person bitter who chooses not to R...for the simple fact of the cheating on its own. They are allowed to decide that for themselves. It does not have to have any negative connotation to it...neither does R. Personally, I think there are stages that couples can go through...and anyone, for any reason, by either party can get stuck at any stage.
fellini Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 Funny, when I say it, I don't know anything, when she goes round and round in circles, with an unhealthy smattering of blame for the bs, it's an important insight. I made the point that for some, the marriage is not really a healthy place to be, and they should let go, being as kind to each other as they can in the process. As autmnnight put it, there is no shame in walking away, but the author sneaks in blame to the bs should the marriage fail...it's THEIR fault that they couldn't forgive, let it go, trust, and somehow be trauma free in that particular relationship. Saying that Perel blames the BS for failure doesn't make it so. Okay, you don't want to tell us where in her article she does that. and just so we u der stand each other, in her article she states that these couples remained together, they are not failed marriages. They are not happy marriages, but they are still together. It is Perel that asks why these people bother to stay together IN HER ARTICLE, so I really don't see why you have the reading you have. 1
velvette Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Not sure we have read the same article. First of all, it's a blog entry and Im not sure it makes sense to criticize something for what it doesn't do, rather than for what it does. None of your comments about its deficiencies are what the article was about. The article is NOT an assessment of the efficacy of MCS ability to convince a BS to let go. Why you claim she is "quite clearly describing couples who are stuck" is beyond me, the article is about the three patterns of couples after therapy. She says there are three, she names each one, she offers up some case examples of each. Are you so sure it is she that doesn't understand what she is saying and not you? Isn't that she has come across couples who are in number 3 evidence to the contrary of what you claim? Perel has written elsewhere about the efficacy of MC, and especially, the models of treatments, in particular those she feels are better suited to produce the 3rd result in reconciliation, and those that are not (victim based, and trauma based therapies - much like LS is, to be honest), which she argues are more likely to reinforce the negativity of infidelity and risk the BS remains (or settles into) in trauma mode because the power relations shift to the BS and there is a tendency to hang onto that. All of these arguments, including her views of the cultural differences in infidelity in North America and other cultures are in her publications. To focus on what is not said in one article of hundreds she has published is hardly fair. But then again you have already comitted to the idea that MC is a waste of time, so perhaps the real issue is your reluctance to be open to someone whose opinions you don't respect. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink is equally true of WS decisions to enter or not into an affair, as it is to use MC to suggest how to reconcile and move beyond the affair. If the BS, after years of IC and MC simply refuses to undertake to forgive, and move on, years later, maybe his/her heart is not in it, or s/he does not have the resources to do so. Regardless, to blame the MC for how adults decide to explore their reconciliation and how they monitor their progress, after therapy, seems a bit like blameshifting. In the end the couple has to take responsibility for continuing or not, a specific strategy for reconciliation. If it isn't working, and they don't address that why blame the MC? When I attended a session to discuss my WWS infidelity, jointly with her IC, I said to him, I didn't understand, she paid him money to get his advice on what to do about her EA, before it went PA. His recommended strategy was to stop talking to the AP and start talking to her H. Of course she didn't take his advice. But is that his fault? I reread the article. In the first section she does say she wants to see if therapy was effective. Then she proceeds to blame the failures of Groups 1 and 2 on the couple themselves while she takes credit for Group 3 claiming therapy "mined the resources they brought to the table." Really? Based on what? When I said she didn't recognize resentment I was referring to Group 2 examples. Actually, she did recognize what was going on as resentment, but she didn't seem to recognize the significance or she didn't say she did. Resentment is a huge if not the biggest failure point for marriage whether or not there is infidelity. I didn't say marriage counseling was a waste of time. You can learn a lot, but if all you learn is how to communicate effectively or fight fairly, then you will likely be a good communicator who fights fairly with a failed marriage. The betrayal is a huge trauma for most people and it must be dealt with before anything else for the simple practical matter that most BS cant deal with any other issue until it is dealt with. Its like having clinical depression and a therapist wants you to talk about how you feel and your issues while you are contemplating slitting your wrists. Doesn't work....the mood must be stabilized first. A good therapist may be able to do both simultaneously, but that's rare imo. I haven't had time to read her views on trauma, but from her website I saw she bases it on her husbands work with Holocaust victims. Not sure I see the correlation and a bit of a reach imo. In any case, you cant just move on from a trauma imo and personal experience, you must process it and sometimes you must process it more than once. I agree you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink. On the other hand, if the water is polluted maybe he's smart not to drink.
velvette Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Fellini, I guess where I agree to disagree with you is simply due to the fact...in each of the three models she has experienced...the lack of getting to true R rested on the BS alone. Surely, there was ONE couple...where what the FWS was still failing to give to the relationship was at the root of why a BS still was deep in the trauma of the affair. Also, I believe the OP did in fact ask us for our opinion on the blog/article....so I have....and am criticizing what it is doing. I actually think that was probably true of the example she gave where the BS was sniping at the WS all the time and his response was "I'm here, ready to rebuild" That's a pretty passive aggressive statement imo. Yet she doesn't seem to regard it as such. Really? Youre here? That's it? lol. BTW I heard that a lot from my own WS before he was ready to actually do the work to rebuild.
waterwoman Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 "The betrayal is a huge trauma for most people and it must be dealt with before anything else for the simple practical matter that most BS cant deal with any other issue until it is dealt with." Yes. And the WS does not get to dictate how long that takes. The willingness to accept this is the only meaningful sign of remorse IMO. It pays dividends in the end. 2
fellini Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 For him, it’s the inconsolable grief that keeps him feeling unsafe and in a permanent state of unhappiness. For her, a tortured sense of guilt and failure is unending. Witnessing his unbearable pain reinforces the magnitude of her shame and guilt. In the meantime, life with children and work goes on, but the emotional abscess doesn’t drain. For these couples, it’s hard to look back because they never went forward. The affair has become the narrative of their union. The marriage may technically survive, but their couplehood is dying on the vine. When infidelity becomes the hallmark of a couple’s life, something has been broken that can’t be made whole again. The relationship is permanently crippled. I really don't see how in reading those short phrases one can come to the conclusion that Perel has no insight to offer into reconciliation. 1
velvette Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 For him, it’s the inconsolable grief that keeps him feeling unsafe and in a permanent state of unhappiness. For her, a tortured sense of guilt and failure is unending. Witnessing his unbearable pain reinforces the magnitude of her shame and guilt. In the meantime, life with children and work goes on, but the emotional abscess doesn’t drain. For these couples, it’s hard to look back because they never went forward. The affair has become the narrative of their union. The marriage may technically survive, but their couplehood is dying on the vine. When infidelity becomes the hallmark of a couple’s life, something has been broken that can’t be made whole again. The relationship is permanently crippled. I really don't see how in reading those short phrases one can come to the conclusion that Perel has no insight to offer into reconciliation. I didn't see anyone say she had NO insight. She would have to have some if she has counseled people for years. However, I don't agree that "inconsolable grief" is what makes someone feel unsafe. Not even sure I believe there is such a thing as a permanent state. IMO what makes people feel unsafe is either.....their spouse is either doing things that make them feel unsafe/not doing what they need to feel safe or they do not feel secure enough within themselves that they can keep themselves safe(survive) if they take a risk and infidelity happens again. This is a pretty basic step that has to be covered for reconciliation to succeed. How a couple gets out of therapy especially with a world renowned therapist and no one understands this doesn't make sense to me.
fellini Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 I found this talk to be quite well done, particularly in the space of time given the speaker. Personally, after listening to it, I'm still at a loss as to why some people say "Perel doesn't know what she is talking about"... maybe that is just a euphemism for "I don't agree with her" or "I don't like to hear her say those things". However, that she has some ideas (not the monopoly on infidelity) seems unquestionable. Here is the link to her latest TED Talk: Esther Perel: Rethinking infidelity ... a talk for anyone who has ever loved | Talk Video | TED.com 1
cocorico Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) I found this talk to be quite well done, particularly in the space of time given the speaker. Personally, after listening to it, I'm still at a loss as to why some people say "Perel doesn't know what she is talking about"... maybe that is just a euphemism for "I don't agree with her" or "I don't like to hear her say those things". However, that she has some ideas (not the monopoly on infidelity) seems unquestionable. Here is the link to her latest TED Talk: Esther Perel: Rethinking infidelity ... a talk for anyone who has ever loved | Talk Video | TED.com So if we can divorce, why do we still have affairs? Now, the typical assumption is that if someone cheats, either there's something wrong in your relationship or wrong with you. But millions of people can't all be pathological. ------------------- Edited May 22, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator 2
autumnnight Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 Here's the acceptable bottom line. No one who cheats has a bad marriage The WS is responsible for all of their actions The BS is responsible for NONE of their reactions Redemption does not exist Any questions? 1
truncated Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 Here's the acceptable bottom line. No one who cheats has a bad marriage The WS is responsible for all of their actions The BS is responsible for NONE of their reactions Redemption does not exist Any questions? No, here is the accepted bottom line... The ws is responsible for all of their actions So long as they blame the bs for their decisions, they will still be at risk for making that choice again, as they abdicate control of their actions to another person. The two people involved in the marriage and trying to decide whether or not to reconcile, that is the crux of the issue. The ws needs to decide if they are willing to face what the fact that they made that choice, and decide if they are willing to do what it takes to not make it again. That can mean different things for different people, and it's unique, based upon their situation. They need to weigh things like: - can I give my bs what they need to feel secure again? - what are the real reasons why I cheated? -am I willing to do the work required to repair things? -am I willing to cut off all contact with my ow/om and not blame my bs for having to do so? The bs needs to determine if they are willing to open themselves to the risk of potentially being hurt again. They need to weight things like: -why is my ws saying they cheated? do I feel that's valid? - are they willing to meet my need to feel secure again in the relationship? - do i think they will cheat again? most importantly... - do I think I can ever feel secure again with a person who made the decision to have an affair? No one can answer that for them. They have to do that themselves.
autumnnight Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 No, here is the accepted bottom line... The ws is responsible for all of their actions So long as they blame the bs for their decisions, they will still be at risk for making that choice again, as they abdicate control of their actions to another person. The two people involved in the marriage and trying to decide whether or not to reconcile, that is the crux of the issue. The ws needs to decide if they are willing to face what the fact that they made that choice, and decide if they are willing to do what it takes to not make it again. That can mean different things for different people, and it's unique, based upon their situation. They need to weigh things like: - can I give my bs what they need to feel secure again? - what are the real reasons why I cheated? -am I willing to do the work required to repair things? -am I willing to cut off all contact with my ow/om and not blame my bs for having to do so? The bs needs to determine if they are willing to open themselves to the risk of potentially being hurt again. They need to weight things like: -why is my ws saying they cheated? do I feel that's valid? - are they willing to meet my need to feel secure again in the relationship? - do i think they will cheat again? most importantly... - do I think I can ever feel secure again with a person who made the decision to have an affair? No one can answer that for them. They have to do that themselves. The fact that you only chose to comment on that one item proves my point. 1
truncated Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 The fact that you only chose to comment on that one item proves my point. To an awful lot of people in that situation, that is the only point, because that is what it all comes down to. I know that blaming the bs for the ws choices makes them more palatable for some, but that doesn't change anything. saying a person is ultimately responsible for their own choices is the key to many good things, especially redemption and growth. So long as their choice is someone else's fault, they stagnate. what will they do the next time things get tough in their marriage or next relation ship? will they deice to cheat again? will they also blame that on their bs?
cocorico Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 Here's the acceptable bottom line. No one who cheats has a bad marriage The WS is responsible for all of their actions The BS is responsible for NONE of their reactions Redemption does not exist Any questions? Pretty accurate. 1
Furious Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 especially those who stayed married after the A. An Affair to Remember: What Happens in Couples After Someone Cheats? - Esther Perel Do you find that you currently fall into one of the 3 patterns she described here? What are you thoughts about this? Esther Perel in my opinion has a Pollyanna view on infidelity. Her background is "Art Therapy" and there has been question to her academic qualification, she has no substantive case studies to back up her assertions. If anything she proves her "expertise" has not been effective with a substantial percentage of her own clients when she followed up with them. Not that it was a scientific follow up but something of her own assessment and a list of three feeble boxes she came up with. Shirley Glass in contrast conducted case studies and her work is backed up by it. Shirley Glass's qualifications and her life long work is far more substantive in comparison to Esther Perel. 1
fellini Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) Esther Perel in my opinion has a Pollyanna view on infidelity. Her background is "Art Therapy" and there has been question to her academic qualification, she has no substantive case studies to back up her assertions. If anything she proves her "expertise" has not been effective with a substantial percentage of her own clients when she followed up with them. Not that it was a scientific follow up but something of her own assessment and a list of three feeble boxes she came up with. Shirley Glass in contrast conducted case studies and her work is backed up by it. Shirley Glass's qualifications and her life long work is far more substantive in comparison to Esther Perel. Why would you compare two people who write from very different perspectives. Compare Glass to harvey or Kirschenbaum or Brown if you like, but Perel is not writing or speaking about anything close to what Glass was doing. . We get you dislike Perel. Edited May 22, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator 3
Furious Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) Why would you compare two people who write from very different perspectives. Compare Glass to harvey or Kirschenbaum or Brown if you like, but Perel is not writing or speaking about anything close to what Glass was doing. . We get you dislike Perel. I have no personal dislike of Esther Perel We can agree to disagree. Edited May 22, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator Response to edited post redacted.
William Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 As a reminder, opinions on the article under discussion are welcomed, as is respectful debate. Personalized comments are not welcomed. Thanks in advance for your cooperation with our guidelines of interaction and this moderation directive.
autumnnight Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 I know that blaming the bs for the ws choices makes them more palatable for some, but that doesn't change anything. In this article, I think the places where this was hinted at were totally wrong. It is never the BS's fault someone heats. It's a good thing I have never said otherwise. I would hope no one reading this article would think it is the BS fault.
Recommended Posts