Esther Perel - rethinking infidelity.

[fellini]

If you would listen carefully you would hear that she makes the claim that the large majority of marriages that experience infidelity attempt reconciliation. So her comments on marriage post dday reflect that reality, kthey are not her "take" on the question of R.

 

Her point is to address this large group of people who want to survive, not those who believe infidelity is a deal breaker.

[autumnnight]

I agree with the divorce part but finding a way to embrace the marriage is a little bit of "get over it already". The marriage is dead so start a new relationship with this cheater who betrayed you once already? And knowing they are more likely to cheat again because they've proven this is an open option for them? Insane to take that path so you loop back to divorce as the best solution. Other than magic.

 

I'm stuck in an impossible situation and cannot divorce which is why I'll keep looking for magic. Its my only hope.

 

I do not think embracing the marriage is at all possible unless the WS had first embraced THEIR RESPONSIBILITY for cheating and worked darn hard to show true remorse, answer questions fully, be transparent, and restore trust as much as they can control. Without these long term and radical changes, there is no new marriage to embrace.

 

And it doesn't happen over night, I wouldn't think.

 

I di think at some point, if the above point has happened, if the changes have lasted for years, and the marriage is in misery, then both spouses may need to examine themselves and the situation.

 

And no, divorce is not always (or ever) easy. Especially when there are extenuating circumstances.

[Mycatsnuggles]

The talk is 20 minutes a ver short time span to fill with this amount of information. My hope in the future several segment broken down and yes maybe a book. Sorry William for posting the link won't in the future.

 

My understanding is she councils couples experiencing infidelity and these are some of her observations I felt applied to me,

 

A significant loss, parent, job, home, friend leads a person to evaluate their life. Said life is not all that bad but I have missed many experiences. The beginning of looking for the "void". SHOULD GO TO SPOUSE BUT ALREADY FEEL DISCONNECTED. ILL wait.

 

So many ask how. That's how it began with me. Married 25 + years never cheated never thought about it. But losing a parent followed by a good friend began the thinking is this all there is. This isn't bad but is there more.

 

How do you as a bs feel hearing that statement. Because of those who felt they were blindsided you were happy. For myself I was happy when the ideal first spawned.

[fellini]

As tends to happen in LS, much rewording or interpretation of her work tends to try to confuse the author and the idea as one of the same. Perel said X happens, so she is condoning affairs.

 

Some of her more pragmatic statements which clearly domonstrate that she does not believe that "affairs happen" "WS's get some strange" so "get over it".

 

There is not only not evidence that she says this, but she actually deals with that accusation in her talk.

 

Some obvious sound bites:

And never has infidelity exacted such a psychological toll. Ironically, we used to turn to adultery -- that was the space where we sought pure love. But now that

we seek love in marriage, adultery destroys it.

Infidelity DESTROYS marriages. Doesn't sound like she sides with the WS on that one.

 

I am it: I'

m

chosen, I'

m

unique, I'

m

indispensable, I'

m

irreplaceable, I'

m

the one. And infidelity tells me I'

m

not.

It is the ultimate betrayal. Infidelity shatters the grand ambition of love.

But if throughout history, infidelity has always been painful, today it is often traumatic, because it threatens our sense of self.

The vivid details of Nick's two-year affair unfold in front of her in real time, And it made me think:

Affairs in the digital age are death by a thousand cuts.

 

You cannot get much more clear and vivid about the effects of infidelity on the betrayed spouse than that. She is saying, just in case you don't get it: Infidelity KILLS the BS, and it kills the marriage. No interpretation required.

 

But then we have another paradox that we're dealing with these days. Because of this romantic ideal, we are relying on our partner's fidelity with a unique fervor. But we also have never been more inclined to stray, and not because we have new desires today, but because we live in an era where we feel that we are entitled to pursue our desires, because this is the culture where I deserve to be happy.

 

Now onto what is going on in the head of the WS. Entitlement. The mantra in LS, so I cannot imagine anyone disagrees with this point. But to say that because she sees entitlement culture as one of the dominant sources of infidelity is not to say she thinks we should all go out and cheat in order to satisfy our needs. That's not what she says. Perel needs to understand the BS and equally the WS if she is going to be able to treat them both in MC. What LS has taught me is to understand the BS, and to understand the way a BS sees a WS. Wanting to understand what is/was going on in the head of a WS is not saying you believe cheating is OK.

 

The vast majority of people that I actually work with are not at all chronic philanderers. They are often people who are deeply monogamous in their beliefs, and at least for their partner.

But they find themselves in a conflict between their values and their behavior.

They often are people who have actually been faithful for decades, but one day they cross a line that they never thought they would cross, and at the risk of losing everything. But for a glimmer of what? Affairs are an act of betrayal, and they are also an expression of longing and loss.

 

Act of betrayal and an expression. This is not a good thing. This is the reality. Obviously there wouldnt be infidelity if it didnt have something to offer the wayward. Perel needs to understand what it is that waywards get from betrayal so that she can treat people in a way to encourage them to see if those expressions cannot be met in the marriage, rather than through an affair. Pragmatic. She does not, obviously say, people should cheat to meet these needs. In fact she says it so clearly it's incredible that anyone could miss her point:

 

Now, I would no more recommend you have an affair than I would recommend you have cancer, and yet we know that people who have been ill often talk about how their illness has yielded them a new perspective.

 

Why does she say this? Because "affairs are here to stay, they will not go away."

 

So

how do we heal from an affair? Desire runs deep. Betrayal runs deep. But it can be healed. And

some affairs

are death knells for relationships that were already dying on the vine

. But others will jolt us into

new possibilities

. The fact is, the majority of couples who have experienced affairs stay together. But

some of them will merely survive,

and others will actually be able to turn a crisis into an opportunity.

 

They'll be able to turn this

into a generative experience.

This is not what others have made this to be. Fact: BETRAYAL KILLS a MARRIAGE. That marriage is over. But for some reason - love in most cases - couples wish to reconcile post affair. To call that moment when a couple in absolute pain come to a MC for help in staying together is "equal to saying that affairs are good" is preposterous. Perel is no stranger to trauma. But when a couple wants help, they want help. She feels that there are three options. End the marriage ("death knells"), some will "merely survive" and others will regenerate. It is one thing to say "affairs are good FOR the marriage (which she does not say) and "some good can come out of the discovery of an affair (for example, a new marriage, regeneration, "turn a crisis into an opportunity")

 

So

when an affair is exposed, what are some of the specific things that couples can do? We

know from trauma

that healing begins when the

perpetrator acknowledges their wrongdoing

.

So

for the partner who had the affair, for Nick,

one thing is to end the affai

r

, but the other is

the essential, important act of expressing guilt and remorse for hurting his wife.

But the truth is that I have noticed that quite a lot of people who have affairs may feel terribly guilty for hurting their partner, but they don't feel guilty for the experience of the affair itself. And that distinction is important. And Nick, he

needs to hold vigil for the relationship

. He

needs to become, for a while, the protector of the boundaries

. It's his responsibility to bring it up, because if he thinks about it,

he can relieve Heather from the obsession, and from having to make sure that the affair isn't forgotten, and that in itself begins to restore trust

.

 

the WS needs to do the heavy lifting. Reconciliation cannot occur if the WS does not express and show guilty and remorse. You can overlook her strategies if you want, to come to the conclusion she wishes to blame the BS for the affair, but the fact is, she is pretty clear about who has to do what before reconcilation can occur. And her view is that of about 100% of the BS's in LS, at least in terms of these two issues: accept responsiblility and demonstrate remorse. She called it ESSENTIAL. There is nothing grey about that assertion.

 

Every affair will redefine a relationship, and every couple will determine what the legacy of the affair will be. But affairs are here to stay, and they're not going away.

And the dilemmas of love and desire, they don't yield just simple answers of black and white and good and bad, and victim and perpetrator.

 

There is no question that for some in LS it is black and white. there are only victims and perpetrators. But for Perel and others, there has to be more, or we would be left with merely one solution - the "deal breaker" solution. You cheat on me, you are out the door. This is one very valid black and white solution to infidelity. But, as she argues, the majority of her clients are first time adulterers, after decades of marriage, and they come into her offices looking to STAY TOGETHER. One the one hand she understands, intimately, the TRAUMA that comes with betrayal. But elsewhere she has also talked about the work of Michele Shenkman and others who argue that post DDAY therapy should not focus entirely on methods based in trauma therapy.

 

To say this is not to dismiss the BS, but to include the need to save the marriage for both the BS and the WS, which is, essentially, why they come to MC in the first place.

[truncated]

As tends to happen in LS, much rewording or interpretation of her work tends to try to confuse the author and the idea as one of the same. Perel said X happens, so she is condoning affairs.

 

Some of her more pragmatic statements which clearly domonstrate that she does not believe that "affairs happen" "WS's get some strange" so "get over it".

 

There is not only not evidence that she says this, but she actually deals with that accusation in her talk.

 

Some obvious sound bites:

And never has infidelity exacted such a psychological toll. Ironically, we used to turn to adultery -- that was the space where we sought pure love. But now that

we seek love in marriage, adultery destroys it.

Infidelity DESTROYS marriages. Doesn't sound like she sides with the WS on that one.

I am it: I'

m

chosen, I'

m

unique, I'

m

indispensable, I'

m

irreplaceable, I'

m

the one. And infidelity tells me I'

m

not.

It is the ultimate betrayal. Infidelity shatters the grand ambition of love.

But if throughout history, infidelity has always been painful, today it is often traumatic, because it threatens our sense of self.

The vivid details of Nick's two-year affair unfold in front of her in real time, And it made me think:

Affairs in the digital age are death by a thousand cuts.

You cannot get much more clear and vivid about the effects of infidelity on the betrayed spouse than that. She is saying, just in case you don't get it: Infidelity KILLS the BS, and it kills the marriage.

 

 

No interpretation required.

But then we have another paradox that we're dealing with these days. Because of this romantic ideal, we are relying on our partner's fidelity with a unique fervor. But we also have never been more inclined to stray, and not because we have new desires today, but because we live in an era where we feel that we are entitled to pursue our desires, because this is the culture where I deserve to be happy.

Now onto what is going on in the head of the WS. Entitlement. The mantra in LS, so I cannot imagine anyone disagrees with this point. But to say that because she sees entitlement culture as one of the dominant sources of infidelity is not to say she thinks we should all go out and cheat in order to satisfy our needs. That's not what she says. Perel needs to understand the BS and equally the WS if she is going to be able to treat them both in MC. What LS has taught me is to understand the BS, and to understand the way a BS sees a WS. Wanting to understand what is/was going on in the head of a WS is not saying you believe cheating is OK.

The vast majority of people that I actually work with are not at all chronic philanderers. They are often people who are deeply monogamous in their beliefs, and at least for their partner.

But they find themselves in a conflict between their values and their behavior.

They often are people who have actually been faithful for decades, but one day they cross a line that they never thought they would cross, and at the risk of losing everything. But for a glimmer of what? Affairs are an act of betrayal, and they are also an expression of longing and loss.

Act of betrayal and an expression. This is not a good thing. This is the reality. Obviously there wouldnt be infidelity if it didnt have something to offer the wayward. Perel needs to understand what it is that waywards get from betrayal so that she can treat people in a way to encourage them to see if those expressions cannot be met in the marriage, rather than through an affair. Pragmatic. She does not, obviously say, people should cheat to meet these needs. In fact she says it so clearly it's incredible that anyone could miss her point:

Now, I would no more recommend you have an affair than I would recommend you have cancer, and yet we know that people who have been ill often talk about how their illness has yielded them a new perspective.

Why does she say this? Because "affairs are here to stay, they will not go away."

So

how do we heal from an affair? Desire runs deep. Betrayal runs deep. But it can be healed. And

some affairs

are death knells for relationships that were already dying on the vine

. But others will jolt us into

new possibilities

. The fact is, the majority of couples who have experienced affairs stay together. But

some of them will merely survive,

and others will actually be able to turn a crisis into an opportunity.

 

They'll be able to turn this

into a generative experience.

This is not what others have made this to be. Fact: BETRAYAL KILLS a MARRIAGE. That marriage is over. But for some reason - love in most cases - couples wish to reconcile post affair. To call that moment when a couple in absolute pain come to a MC for help in staying together is "equal to saying that affairs are good" is preposterous. Perel is no stranger to trauma. But when a couple wants help, they want help. She feels that there are three options. End the marriage ("death knells"), some will "merely survive" and others will regenerate. It is one thing to say "affairs are good FOR the marriage (which she does not say) and "some good can come out of the discovery of an affair (for example, a new marriage, regeneration, "turn a crisis into an opportunity")

So

when an affair is exposed, what are some of the specific things that couples can do? We

know from trauma

that healing begins when the

perpetrator acknowledges their wrongdoing

.

So

for the partner who had the affair, for Nick,

one thing is to end the affai

r

, but the other is

the essential, important act of expressing guilt and remorse for hurting his wife.

But the truth is that I have noticed that quite a lot of people who have affairs may feel terribly guilty for hurting their partner, but they don't feel guilty for the experience of the affair itself. And that distinction is important. And Nick, he

needs to hold vigil for the relationship

. He

needs to become, for a while, the protector of the boundaries

. It's his responsibility to bring it up, because if he thinks about it,

he can relieve Heather from the obsession, and from having to make sure that the affair isn't forgotten, and that in itself begins to restore trust

.

the WS needs to do the heavy lifting. Reconciliation cannot occur if the WS does not express and show guilty and remorse. You can overlook her strategies if you want, to come to the conclusion she wishes to blame the BS for the affair, but the fact is, she is pretty clear about who has to do what before reconcilation can occur. And her view is that of about 100% of the BS's in LS, at least in terms of these two issues: accept responsiblility and demonstrate remorse. She called it ESSENTIAL. There is nothing grey about that assertion.

Every affair will redefine a relationship, and every couple will determine what the legacy of the affair will be. But affairs are here to stay, and they're not going away.

And the dilemmas of love and desire, they don't yield just simple answers of black and white and good and bad, and victim and perpetrator.

There is no question that for some in LS it is black and white. there are only victims and perpetrators. But for Perel and others, there has to be more, or we would be left with merely one solution - the "deal breaker" solution. You cheat on me, you are out the door. This is one very valid black and white solution to infidelity. But, as she argues, the majority of her clients are first time adulterers, after decades of marriage, and they come into her offices looking to STAY TOGETHER. One the one hand she understands, intimately, the TRAUMA that comes with betrayal. But elsewhere she has also talked about the work of Michele Shenkman and others who argue that post DDAY therapy should not focus entirely on methods based in trauma therapy.

 

To say this is not to dismiss the BS, but to include the need to save the marriage for both the BS and the WS, which is, essentially, why they come to MC in the first place.

 

A few points after reading your post ( and I thank you for this discussion. it's very interesting)

 

Her idea that the majority of people she sees have been monogamous in their marriages for decades seems like fluff. Many marriages today don't make it past the ten year mark, and experience cheating long before that.

 

If someone wants to be monogamous, they are monogamous. Anything else is simply lip service or her clients telling her what they think she wants to hear, or what they want to believe of themselves.

 

 

 

This concept sounds really weird to me:

 

"And Nick, he needs to hold vigil for the relationship. He needs to become, for a while, the protector of the boundaries. It's his responsibility to bring it up, because if he thinks about it, he can relieve Heather from the obsession, and from having to make sure that the affair isn't forgotten, and that in itself begins to restore trust."

 

If you were a bs,would you want your ws to be bringing up the affair on such a frequent basis, or would that eventually start to be really hurtful and begin to gnaw away at you? HSouldn;t the bs be in the driver's seat about what they want to know, and when?

 

That type of thing can also entrench the affair as the underlying theme of the marriage. How long does this go on for? Until the bs feels safe again? Until the ws feels relieved of their guilt? How can a couple begin to move forward if the ws brings up the affair so much? A couple needs rebuild trust for its own sake, not just to heal from an affair.

 

As for this:

" And the dilemmas of love and desire, they don't yield just simple answers of black and white and good and bad, and victim and perpetrator."

 

Personally, some things in life are black and white. Some are just plain bad.

 

.She's basing her opinions on what worked for her clients. That is fine, if you are of the same mind set as her clients who favored her approach. Therefore, it could be that her approach appeals to, and works, for, that set of people. Others may see her for help post affair and find her approach useless, so they move on to someone who they feel meshes better with them, and who may have a very different view of post affair therapy. If that therapist were to give a TED talk, it may be very different, yet quite valid.

 

You may feel what she says is really profound and really speaks to you, likely because it meshes with your world view, and that's fine. For others, it doesn't mesh with their world view, but that does not make their opinion of her words any less valid.

 

I would suggest you read the following link to see where she may have gotten some of her ideas from. They are not new, and have been around for a very long time, as per this example:

 

Washingtonpost.com: Health

[fellini]

A few points after reading your post ( and I thank you for this discussion. it's very interesting)

 

Her idea that the majority of people she sees have been monogamous in their marriages for decades seems like fluff. Many marriages today don't make it past the ten year mark, and experience cheating long before that.

 

If someone wants to be monogamous, they are monogamous. Anything else is simply lip service or her clients telling her what they think she wants to hear, or what they want to believe of themselves.

 

 

 

This concept sounds really weird to me:

 

"And Nick, he needs to hold vigil for the relationship. He needs to become, for a while, the protector of the boundaries. It's his responsibility to bring it up, because if he thinks about it, he can relieve Heather from the obsession, and from having to make sure that the affair isn't forgotten, and that in itself begins to restore trust."

 

If you were a bs,would you want your ws to be bringing up the affair on such a frequent basis, or would that eventually start to be really hurtful and begin to gnaw away at you? HSouldn;t the bs be in the driver's seat about what they want to know, and when?

 

That type of thing can also entrench the affair as the underlying theme of the marriage. How long does this go on for? Until the bs feels safe again? Until the ws feels relieved of their guilt? How can a couple begin to move forward if the ws brings up the affair so much? A couple needs rebuild trust for its own sake, not just to heal from an affair.

 

As for this:

" And the dilemmas of love and desire, they don't yield just simple answers of black and white and good and bad, and victim and perpetrator."

 

Personally, some things in life are black and white. Some are just plain bad.

 

.She's basing her opinions on what worked for her clients. That is fine, if you are of the same mind set as her clients who favored her approach. Therefore, it could be that her approach appeals to, and works, for, that set of people. Others may see her for help post affair and find her approach useless, so they move on to someone who they feel meshes better with them, and who may have a very different view of post affair therapy. If that therapist were to give a TED talk, it may be very different, yet quite valid.

 

You may feel what she says is really profound and really speaks to you, likely because it meshes with your world view, and that's fine. For others, it doesn't mesh with their world view, but that does not make their opinion of her words any less valid.

 

I would suggest you read the following link to see where she may have gotten some of her ideas from. They are not new, and have been around for a very long time, as per this example:

 

Washingtonpost.com: Health

 

I'm sorry truncated, but it seems you don't understand the first thing about being a bs working through reconciliation. I dont know your personal story but your comments about discussing the infidelity are completely off base. of course the WS should hold vigil. The thing is you exaggerate what that means and you fail to grasp the timeline in reconciliation.

 

Your reply is riddled with "it seems", "implies", "basing her opinions on"... "others may,..", "seems like fluff".

 

the point of my post, if you wouldn't mind reading more carefully, is not to argue why I like Perel. I saw very clearly that people read into her words things she does not say.

I gave a dozen quotes from the transcripts and I argue that they refute, AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, without the slightest interpretation that she in fact does not say the things that she is being accused of saying, in fact she says exactly what almost every BS in LS says.

 

You don't need to slide into second guessing this talk, just hear the words she offers. even you started to accuse her of not telling the truth about the couples she claims she has worked with with absolutely no proof. You think this is a fair way to evaluate a speaker? I don't.

 

Are you seriously entertaining the idea she "gets her ideas" from a soft composite Washington post article? Do not believe she is what her resume and experience claim her to be?

Edited May 25, 2015 by fellini

[autumnnight]

That type of thing can also entrench the affair as the underlying theme of the marriage. How long does this go on for? Until the bs feels safe again? Until the ws feels relieved of their guilt? How can a couple begin to move forward if the ws brings up the affair so much? A couple needs rebuild trust for its own sake, not just to heal from an affair.

 

This statement struck me because honestly, I see it more a case of replacing all those uses of ws with bs.

 

If a WS if not remorseful and willing to work hard, then I think divorce is called for. If the WS DOES work hard and have real remorse, and years later the affair is still "the underlying theme of the marriage," then I don;t think that has much of anything to do with the WS.

 

And this statement: How can a couple begin to move forward when the WS brings up the affair so much? Once the WS has owned their crap and answered all questions....then it is not usually the WS "bringing up the affair so much" years and years later.

 

I am not sure I agree with all Perel said. But some of her points seem salient for the long haul even if they aren't perfectly applicable for the immediate aftermath.

[AlwaysGrowing]

I did find the Ted Talk Perel more rounded out than the article that was posted.

 

I believe, if more WS took up the responsibility of engaging the BS on conversations over the affair...more BS would feel relieved of the bearer of that torch. It could mean something as simple as..."you know...you can ask me anything..about anything..any time..I am here..with you".

 

I can also get behind the idea of..."oh, I am happy....but...maybe I can be even happier". That for many WS, they too often feel blindsided...heck...I will say it..EVEN BETRAYED by their choice to cheat. That there are many WS who are in good marriages and looked for their partner to fill every moment with the ultimate in happiness. (Yes, some marriages should have ended in divorce prior to the cheating...and No...I do not subscribe to the other all-in idea that EVERY marriage that has infidelity has a BS that wasn't there for the WS).

 

That for every WS that weighed out what the affair would cost them, there are just as many...if not more..that didn't. For those...that extra bit of happiness cost them ALL of the other happiness that they had. And yes, that other happiness does include who their BS is to them and what the BS adds to their life. Those are the ones that blindside/betrayed themselves.

 

I have had the pleasure to meet some pretty awesome FWS. There was a transformation in them...a renewed sense of life...of priorities...of understanding...of lightness. Of a deeper enjoyment of life...that was not based on someone else's idea of what true happiness meant..rather of...sitting outside, enjoying a cup of coffee/wine/beer in the backyard...watching the sun rise/set, the birds chirp, their kids laugh. They lived in the moment...and savoured it. They no longer rushed life. The goal was now. They were empowered.

 

Of course, for every FWS that renewed their life...there are others that limped through the after-affair work...and ended up..less than they were before. No solid footing under them, no foundation inside of them, still looking for external validation.

 

Wouldn't it be wonderful..if there was an easy, one step, cure all? Hmmm...maybe it is meant to be something that one has to work for, to challenge themselves, so that they are strong enough in the future...to steer their own ship safely away from the hazards.

[fellini]

And this statement: How can a couple begin to move forward when the WS brings up the affair so much? Once the WS has owned their crap and answered all questions....then it is not usually the WS "bringing up the affair so much" years and years later.

 

I get your point, if we respond to Truncated, but this is what Perel actually said:

 

So when an affair is exposed, what are some of the specific things that couples can do? We know from trauma that healing begins when the perpetrator acknowledges their wrongdoing. So for the partner who had the affair, for Nick, one thing is to end the affair, but the other is the essential, important act of expressing guilt and remorse for hurting his wife.

 

And Nick, he needs to hold vigil for the relationship. He needs to become, for a while, the protector of the boundaries. It's his responsibility to bring it up, because if he thinks about it, he can relieve Heather from the obsession, and from having to make sure that the affair isn't forgotten, and that in itself begins to restore trust.

 

So the things people tend to overlook are:

• the aftermath of discovery, not the entire marriage thereafter
  
• hold vigil is NOT spend the rest of the marriage bringing up infidelity.
  
• for a while means, well, for a while. i.e. at the beginning, as a start, NOT until death do us part
  
• protector of the boundaries! Of course! He needs to prove he is protecting the boundaries he failed to protect during the A
  
• relieve Heather from the obsession... Perel is the first therapist I have seen to reall grasp this point. Obssession is a given, the WS can take some of that off the BS. Great idea
  
• his responsibility to bring it up... is just a clarification, Nick should instigate the conversations about boundary protection, not the BS. If he does, that in itself begins to restore trust. (She didnt say guarantees trust has been restored)
  
• begins to restore trust. BEGINS, in other words, all of this must go on "in the aftermath"
  

 

I remember in the "aftermath" of the affair (my WW continued to work in the same building as her AP, although NC was in place) making this point to her: please do not make me ask you how your day went. We decided on a code word for her AP "trouble" (after the Taylor Swift song). So, it was her responsibility to show me how SHE was protecting the boundaries and reporting to me "No trouble today". Keeping me informed about HER movements, her decisions, her routines, skyping me, calling me - every time she was going to leave her space she would send me a message, and another saying, Im back in my office, no trouble... took a huge load my mind. To see her taking full responsibility during those early weeks was in fact the most useful in showing me where trust was going to come from, from her, from her recognising that I needed to feel safe, alone without access to her, safe from my own horrendous thoughts imagining things that were not happening.

 

Of course, as Perel says: "for a while". it has to end. But there is great satisfaction in knowing that the BS is not having to be in detective mode 24/7, and that in fact the WS was willing and able to help in that job for the BS. Of course this is not EVERYTHING (Perel says "some" of the "things" a couple "can" do.) that needs to happen. But faced with being apart from a WS 8 hours a day without communication - waiting til she gets home from work in order to "ask" about every detail of the day vs getting constant feedback along the day to help ease the enormous stress in the aftermath makes sense. BS's often talk about how the WS needs to be an "open book". Surely opening the book for the BS to read is a gesture that the WS can use to give more weight to their need to prove they are on the same page as the BS. It speaks volumes, not pages.

Edited May 26, 2015 by fellini

[waterwoman]

IME 'holding vigil' is being aware when something might trigger the BS and being understanding and protective towards them. It means not being defensive when pain raises it's head again and again. It means changing the behaviour that enabled the affair to happen. It means saying and doing things that will reassure before the need arises. It means not demanding a premature end to the need for all this. It means not demanding anything in return. Because the reward for this is that BS will start offering more and showing appreciation without the need to be asked.

 

Successful reconciliation is time limited naturally. But for that period of time the WS has got to be humble and remorseful. If they can't do it or are too angry and defensive to accept this, just don't bother TBH.

 

Regarding this "That type of thing can also entrench the affair as the underlying theme of the marriage", it will be one of the underlying themes of the marriage, just as any traumatic or significant event will. My FILs death just before the birth of our first baby has been an underlying theme in our marriage, my depression, my youngest sons autism, my H's unstable career and financial situation.... you can't airbrush these elements out of our history just like you can't airbrush my laughter lines away or replace H's lost hair. Nor would we want to. They contribute to what we are now.

[autumnnight]

Honestly, I think that the main reason the article andPerel has been so twisted and vilified is because of the constant need to filter everything either through our own experienes or through other, more stringent gurus we have allegiance to.

[truncated]

I'm sorry truncated, but it seems you don't understand the first thing about being a bs working through reconciliation. I dont know your personal story but your comments about discussing the infidelity are completely off base. of course the WS should hold vigil. The thing is you exaggerate what that means and you fail to grasp the timeline in reconciliation.

 

Your reply is riddled with "it seems", "implies", "basing her opinions on"... "others may,..", "seems like fluff".

 

the point of my post, if you wouldn't mind reading more carefully, is not to argue why I like Perel. I saw very clearly that people read into her words things she does not say.

I gave a dozen quotes from the transcripts and I argue that they refute, AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, without the slightest interpretation that she in fact does not say the things that she is being accused of saying, in fact she says exactly what almost every BS in LS says.

 

You don't need to slide into second guessing this talk, just hear the words she offers. even you started to accuse her of not telling the truth about the couples she claims she has worked with with absolutely no proof. You think this is a fair way to evaluate a speaker? I don't.

 

Are you seriously entertaining the idea she "gets her ideas" from a soft composite Washington post article? Do not believe she is what her resume and experience claim her to be?

 

What I am saying is that her ideas ARE NOT NEW. The article from the Washington post was written back in 1999, as has, as it's sources, many experts in the field of infidelity ( Glass, Spring,statistician and researcher Layton-Tholl, etc.) . It is reflective of works dating back decades, all fo them along the same line.

 

And while I have not been cheated on in a marriage, I have been cheated on in a long term, live in relationship that had been going on for three years, and we tried to reconcile after he cheated. Counseling didn't help, and it was better that we went out separate ways.

 

Look, get it. What she says speaks to you. Great. It doesn't speak to me, and it doesn't speak to everyone. If it helps a couple through infidelity, good, if not, then they need to find what works for them, and there are other approaches that are very different than hers that can be just as successful.

Edited May 26, 2015 by truncated

[fellini]

Probably the most important thing to remember about Perel is she is an expert in infidelity in Long term Marriages. What she says has little or no use for young lovers, or perhaps newly weds. For you, she says nothing new (which I disagree with, but that's fine). I get that, but what I don't get is why you have decided to defend the people who have been deliberately misreading her. I really don't know why you have taken it upon yourself to do this. The people who came in here earlier said this:

 

Esther Perel has a polyanna attitude about infidelity

Esther Perel doesn't know what she is talking about

Esther Perel blames BS's for infidelity

Esther Perel thinks the WS's needs justify infidelity

 

So, given you were not the author of those comments... I cannot for the life of me understand why you are defending people whom you supposedly haven't even agreed with.

 

 

 

 

What I am saying is that her ideas ARE NOT NEW. The article from the Washington post was written back in 1999, as has, as it's sources, many experts in the field of infidelity ( Glass, Spring,statistician and researcher Layton-Tholl, etc.) . It is reflective of works dating back decades, all fo them along the same line.

 

And while I have not been cheated on in a marriage, I have been cheated on in a long term, live in relationship that had been going on for three years, and we tried to reconcile after he cheated. Counseling didn't help, and it was better that we went out separate ways.

 

Look, get it. What she says speaks to you. Great. It doesn't speak to me, and it doesn't speak to everyone. If it helps a couple through infidelity, good, if not, then they need to find what works for them, and there are other approaches that are very different than hers that can be just as successful.

[truncated]

Probably the most important thing to remember about Perel is she is an expert in infidelity in Long term Marriages. What she says has little or no use for young lovers, or perhaps newly weds. For you, she says nothing new (which I disagree with, but that's fine). I get that, but what I don't get is why you have decided to defend the people who have been deliberately misreading her. I really don't know why you have taken it upon yourself to do this. The people who came in here earlier said this:

 

Esther Perel has a polyanna attitude about infidelity

Esther Perel doesn't know what she is talking about

Esther Perel blames BS's for infidelity

Esther Perel thinks the WS's needs justify infidelity

 

So, given you were not the author of those comments... I cannot for the life of me understand why you are defending people whom you supposedly haven't even agreed with.

 

I defend them because I don't agree with a lot of what she says, and I do see how the people who makes those statements arrived at their conclusions.

 

She is presenting opinions, not facts, and like any other opinions, there will be those who do not agree with them.

 

I simply feel that she presents a certain set of circumstances and mindsets that would appeal to those who share those mindsets. I don't, so I don't feel that what she is saying is as awe inspiring and amazing as you. I feel she took some off the shelf, cookie cutter advice and repackaged it slightly. I could get just as much from watching Dr. Phil.

 

 

You don't agree with me, and that's fine. Really, you are being just as obstinate as I am ...which is not a bad thing

[velvette]

Honestly, I think that the main reason the article andPerel has been so twisted and vilified is because of the constant need to filter everything either through our own experienes or through other, more stringent gurus we have allegiance to.

 

Well of course all people filter everything through their own lens. I suppose some people to pay stringent allegiance to gurus of their choice.

 

 

For myself, when I hear someone who is espousing standard views most infidelity experts agree on but adding her own "provocative" (in her words) views, I look further. Especially when said person trips my bull crap meter. Which BTW self-labeling of provactive makes that automatic lol.

 

 

Anywho, in easily googled interviews this is what Esther Perel believes.

 

 

Affairs are a feminist statement. Huh? Not any feminists I know. She never says a statement of what. But imo it makes her hopelessly outdated unless you're a French woman where the vote was not obtained until the late 1940's if I recall. For American women, the last time that could have applied imo was the 1960's/70's.

 

 

Telling your spouse the truth of an affair is not necessary for reconciliation. Further, some lies are "protective".

 

 

Transparency is a bad thing as it is suffocating and destroys the mystery which creates desire. She seems to have no understanding that the thing most humans crave in intimate relationships is to be seen, understood and accepted for who they are. Something which is impossible without emotional transparency. Also, she equates marital transparency with reality tv shows where people spill their guts to everyone.

 

 

Love matches are some new fangled modern idea. Huh? Maybe in Europe. I have records, love letters, diaries, court transcripts attesting to love matches within my family back to the 1700's.

 

 

Americans are provincial and sexually repressed. She seems to think all Americans are descended from the small minority of Puritan settlers in this country and that unless you are broadcasting it to the world you cant be having great sex.

 

 

She believes the new frontier of marriage is negotiated non-monogamy. Again huh? Hasn't she heard the polyamorists have already covered that?

Not an arrangement that most humans are suited for.

 

 

The one thing I think she excels at is understanding that Americans for some reason I don't fathom love their snakeoil salesmen. So, Im sure she's raking in the cash.

 

 

More power to her. That's the American way; but, I wouldn't let her within 10 feet of my marriage. And, I would be willing to bet my annual income that she herself is a former and perhaps future negotiated wandering spouse. That's the only way her material makes sense.

[velvette]

Probably the most important thing to remember about Perel is she is an expert in infidelity in Long term Marriages. What she says has little or no use for young lovers, or perhaps newly weds. For you, she says nothing new (which I disagree with, but that's fine). I get that, but what I don't get is why you have decided to defend the people who have been deliberately misreading her. I really don't know why you have taken it upon yourself to do this. The people who came in here earlier said this:

 

Esther Perel has a polyanna attitude about infidelity

Esther Perel doesn't know what she is talking about

Esther Perel blames BS's for infidelity

Esther Perel thinks the WS's needs justify infidelity

 

So, given you were not the author of those comments... I cannot for the life of me understand why you are defending people whom you supposedly haven't even agreed with.

 

Actually, if you google her interviews, she claims to be an expert and work extensively with millenials. So which is it. Hard to imagine she has time to be an expert on both.

 

 

In reality, she herself claims 10 years working on issues of inifidelity. Hmm.. get back to to me Ester when you have 20-30 years experience.

 

 

I learned a long time ago that experience is almost everything no matter what the subject/no matter what your brain power.

 

 

Until she has more than 10 years experience, I am more experienced than she is on infidelity and probably you and many on this forum are more experienced.

[fellini]

One could hope that maybe by page 5 in this thread, those opposed to the ideas in the article and video for which this thread has been created will actually say something actually concrete and not mere opinion and conjecture.

 

Yes I know the phrase "google is your friend", but when I google "the earth is actually flat" and I get 73.900.000 results, I'm less impressed than if you would actually just SAY, in your OWN WORDS and not those of people like the ChumpLady.com what exactly Perel says that you disagree with.

 

I mean, I guess I'm saying, let's have a proper discussion of what's on the table. If you can't do that, just say so.

[velvette]

One could hope that maybe by page 5 in this thread, those opposed to the ideas in the article and video for which this thread has been created will actually say something actually concrete and not mere opinion and conjecture.

 

Yes I know the phrase "google is your friend", but when I google "the earth is actually flat" and I get 73.900.000 results, I'm less impressed than if you would actually just SAY, in your OWN WORDS and not those of people like the ChumpLady.com what exactly Perel says that you disagree with.

 

I mean, I guess I'm saying, let's have a proper discussion of what's on the table. If you can't do that, just say so.

 

I gave you a whole list of her philosophies that come not from any other source than her own words in interviews.

 

 

So if you want to have an honest discussion start with her belief that honesty is optional during reconciliation and that some lies are "protective". Would that viewpoint be acceptable to you in a therapist you were using to reconcile with a WS? Its not for me.

[autumnnight]

I have not searched around for any of her words other than what was in the OP. And no, I do not agree with everything she says.

 

However, I CERTAINLY don't agree with the stalk and burn 'em all, post their AP's on cheaters.com, indefinite slave/master relationship approach either.

[fellini]

I gave you a whole list of her philosophies that come not from any other source than her own words in interviews.

 

 

So if you want to have an honest discussion start with her belief that honesty is optional during reconciliation and that some lies are "protective". Would that viewpoint be acceptable to you in a therapist you were using to reconcile with a WS? Its not for me.

 

 

So your answer is no, "I don't wish to follow this thread or deal with the actual content in it...."

[velvette]

I have not searched around for any of her words other than what was in the OP. And no, I do not agree with everything she says.

 

However, I CERTAINLY don't agree with the stalk and burn 'em all, post their AP's on cheaters.com, indefinite slave/master relationship approach either.

 

Her interviews, which contain her philosophies in her own words, are all contained on her own website under the About/Press tab.

[autumnnight]

Her interviews, which contain her philosophies in her own words, are all contained on her own website under the About/Press tab.

 

I'll have to watch/read. It may alter my view. However, I'll probably still not agree with the ridiculous extreme in the other direction I described above.

[cocorico]

I read "Mating in Captivity" and I must confess, I do agree with a lot of it. I think that watching your spouse defacate isn't conducive to passion, even if it does indicate a high degree of intimacy. Likewise, your secret fantasising about Samantha Cameron in order to get all hot and sweaty during sex with your wife may be standing in the way of total transparency and intimacy. Sometimes there are trade-offs between passion and intimacy - and I don't think that's particularly controversial. Most of us know that intuitively - and so we don't blurt out things that might improve transparency and intimacy but would be sure-fire passion killers, or fire up our passion with deep, dark, murky secrets that would make our partners uncomfortable.

 

Some people get the balance right, others veer too much one way or another. Her analysis is useful in understanding the dynamic, and working out how to address an imbalance if you have one.

 

Likewise, I think her TED talk on infidelity is useful in understanding the dynamic, and sign pointing ways to address it if you have such a problem. If you don't, no issue either way. If you do, getting defensive might be preventing you from learning, and actually fixing things. But life is full of choices, and some people prefer to curse the dark while others prefer to light candles.

[truncated]

So your answer is no, "I don't wish to follow this thread or deal with the actual content in it...."

 

 

No, she's read the information provided, Analyzed it, and looked for some more information presented by the author. She didn't like the other things she had to say, and has brought them forth.

 

She doesn't agree with Ms. Perell, and she doesn't have to. Just because she doesn't agree, isn't saying things you want to hear, and has found some things that discredit some of what is said in the op, that does not make her wrong.

[truncated]

I read "Mating in Captivity" and I must confess, I do agree with a lot of it. I think that watching your spouse defacate isn't conducive to passion, even if it does indicate a high degree of intimacy. Likewise, your secret fantasising about Samantha Cameron in order to get all hot and sweaty during sex with your wife may be standing in the way of total transparency and intimacy. Sometimes there are trade-offs between passion and intimacy - and I don't think that's particularly controversial. Most of us know that intuitively - and so we don't blurt out things that might improve transparency and intimacy but would be sure-fire passion killers, or fire up our passion with deep, dark, murky secrets that would make our partners uncomfortable.

 

Some people get the balance right, others veer too much one way or another. Her analysis is useful in understanding the dynamic, and working out how to address an imbalance if you have one.

 

Likewise, I think her TED talk on infidelity is useful in understanding the dynamic, and sign pointing ways to address it if you have such a problem. If you don't, no issue either way. If you do, getting defensive might be preventing you from learning, and actually fixing things. But life is full of choices, and some people prefer to curse the dark while others prefer to light candles.

 

 

Or some can waste their time trying to light a candle with no wick, while others will choose a different source of light.

 

Why is it that someone ha to agree with something, and if they don't, they are "defensive" and not willing to learn?

 

I will say it again. For some, the op speaks to them and says what they want to hear and it fits into their mindset. That's fine and great for them. For others, it does not apply and does not address their issues, and would make things worse, so for them, it is not as helpful and they do not agree.