It's the same topic that was continuously discussed back and forth throughout my situation. Was it an affair or not. Vets like 25MLC and Cat didn't really see it as an A, whereas vets like you and Starsky did. What I ultimately decided for me is that it was somewhere in between. I don't expect you to agree with that, but that is where I am with it. And frankly, at this point, it really doesn't matter. I'm really in the "I'd rather be happy than right" mode on the whole subject.
With all of that said, I am still vigilant because I do realize that I have been burned before.
Here's my two cents on the whole "contrition and remorse" thing. Most infidelity authors -- and most people you encounter on these forums -- will tell you that you're NOT always going to get it. That it's ideal if you do, but many times you're simply not. Within that, I would add two key distinctions however:
1. Whether or not the formerly wayward spouse communicates remorse to their betrayed spouse for what they did, I think it's imperative that they at least know themselves that what they did was wrong, it was adultery, and the whole "but I had already emotionally checked out" thing is a bunch of b.s. that I'm going to have to come to grips with, over time. They may be a stubborn SOB (like my own wife) who's not going to give you the satisfaction of many (any?) WORDS to that effect, but they -- hopefully with the help of a good IC trained to deal with infidelity -- at least have to have their own SELF-awareness about it.
2. I do also believe that some betrayed spouses, by their own emotional makeup (perhaps combined with some specific marital history) simply NEED such a statement of remorse, in order to go forward. If that's who you truly are at your core, then you should insist on it knowing you're never going to heal without it; if you're OK without it, then don't push for it (while still looking to see that the formerly wayward spouse at least "gets it" themself -- point #1.)
So there's that.
As to this:
Quote:
I feel kind of like a tweener here so to speak. I don't feel as betrayed as I would have had my M not been dead for so long prior to her leaving, but I do feel somewhat betrayed in the fact that we were still technically married.
It's the same topic that was continuously discussed back and forth throughout my situation. Was it an affair or not. Vets like 25MLC and Cat didn't really see it as an A, whereas vets like you and Starsky did. What I ultimately decided for me is that it was somewhere in between. I don't expect you to agree with that, but that is where I am with it. And frankly, at this point, it really doesn't matter. I'm really in the "I'd rather be happy than right" mode on the whole subject.
That of course is your right to feel that way, and to even make your decisions based on it -- it's your sitch, and you have to live with it and do what you feel is best. But here's the danger in such a position, and I think this is what Bond is trying to get at:
Think about it. What your wife is basically saying is, if at some future point in the marriage she -- for whatever reason she feels is justified -- "emotionally checks out," then it's okay to have an intimate relationship with another man and it's not an "affair" to her moral code.
This part doesn't get talked about much, and I think it's where good MC/FTs and ICs come into play, because they need to try to help the formerly wayward spouse see that this thinking is flawed, it's destructive to the marriage and to the family when they act on it, and unless the formerly wayward spouse comes to grips with it and the couple also put some concrete boundaries in place, they're going to find themselves at OM#2 unless the betrayed spouse is a saint going forward.
