@Morbs
Whilst I understand this perspective, sometimes what someone wants isn't in their best interests. Sometimes what someone wants isn't good for anyone.
Consider how this framework applies in other contexts of abuse, remembering that infidelity is, after all, a form of severe emotional and psychological abuse. Suppose a victim of domestic abuse posted in a support forum stating that, despite ongoing toxicity, they simply wanted to stay and find a way to tolerate the situation. They have explicitly stated what they want. Should a supportive community simply accept that mandate and ask, "How can we help you stay and accommodate this?" Of course not. Members would challenge the trauma bond, point out the severe danger to their wellbeing, and highlight that what they want in that moment of trauma is actively harmful to them.
The underlying principle does not change when supporting a betrayed spouse. In the wake of acute trauma, panic, fear, or codependency, what someone desperately wants in the short term can directly undermine their long-term safety and wellbeing. A betrayed partner might want to rug-sweep, accept ongoing disrespect, or surrender essential boundaries out of sheer terror of losing the relationship. Treating a person's immediate desire as sacrosanct under the guise of "meeting them where they are" risks validating decisions driven by trauma rather than clarity.
There is a vital distinction between stripping someone of their agency and offering a crucial reality check.
I challenge those initial impulses because we see the alternative play out on this forum every all the time: individuals returning four, five, or ten years down the line, filled with profound regret and wishing deeply that they had taken a different path. They spend precious, irreplaceable years exhausting themselves to rebuild something that was never actually viable, only to end up having to start completely over a decade later.
Will my approach always be accurate? Impossible. Would some people much rather a softer tone and an arm around the shoulder? For sure. But we already have plenty of that.
Side note: I deeply respect WWTL and find his account devastating, largely because it reflects an alternative reality I easily could have inhabited. Reconciliation requires a specific internal tolerance for betrayal that many people—myself included—simply do not possess. Suppressing that incompatibility doesn't heal it; it usually resurfaces years later as bitterness or cruelty.
Many betrayed partners desperately want reconciliation without auditing whether their own self-worth, principles, and emotional thresholds can actually withstand it. WWTL’s account highlights the tragic cost of forcing a reconciliation process you aren't built to survive: spending years trying to endure the unendurable, only to realize the resentment has irreversibly corroded you anyway. That potential outcome needs to be part of the conversation upfront. You could argue I spend too much time on this but I feel it important to.
Furthermore, many betrayed partners look back years down the line at how they desperately clung to the relationship with feelings of intense shame and disgust. Retrospectively, they acknowledge that their behaviour during that panic-driven phase was entirely out of alignment with their usual self-respect and dignity. Whilst I would always advise anyone in that position to offer themselves grace considering the severe trauma they were undergoing, that does not change the reality. If a voice had actively challenged their betrayal fog early on, it might have saved them years of regret and self-flagellation. Pushing back on trauma-driven wants isn't about arrogance or cruelty; it is about trying to protect someone from losing years of their life to a slow-motion disaster.
Sometimes, it appears to me, some members of this community doesn't view infidelity as the abuse that it is. Perhaps I'm too strong of a counter-point to that position but I think it's good to have all voices.
@Pogre
This connects directly to the interaction you brought up on your JFO thread. I appreciate you sharing how that reply landed, and I genuinely hear that it felt demoralising at a time when you were already dealing with acute trauma.
When I shared the observation that individuals who refuse to contemplate life apart from their partner often face the hardest outcomes, it was not an assumption about your worth, nor was it a decree that you must divorce. It was a stark warning about a well-documented, high-risk pattern. In the raw aftermath of betrayal, panic frequently drives people to seek reconciliation at any cost, often at the direct expense of their safety, sanity, and boundaries.
All I was attempting to do was to highlight those risks, the intent is not to label someone or project a personal agenda onto them. It is to hold up a mirror to a dangerous failure mode so the poster can audit their own situation and ask: Am I protecting myself, or am I acting out of sheer terror of being alone!
I am genuinely glad to hear that you had already taken proactive, protective steps, such as setting up legal consultations, and that 16 months later, you and your wife are making real progress. But your experience actually proves the core principle: taking firm, protective measures and maintaining the willingness to walk away is precisely what prevents the worst outcomes. Pointing out the danger of unconditional surrender isn't about imposing personal ego or dictating someone's choices; it's about ensuring someone in crisis sees the potential traps ahead before they walk blindly into them.
It's often said of SI, referring to the advice given, take what's useful to you and leave the rest. I agree with this. But I'm happy to offer advice knowing it will only resonate with some.
Anyways, hopefully that's the last time I will need to defend the motivation behind my posts. Feel like I've had to do it way too much of late. It just drags us off track whenever discussing interesting topics. That's somewhat on me but I just find it difficult to ignore and not engage with people claiming I've got ulterior motives. Guess it comes with the territory when offering alternative perspectives. I can see why people with my perspective aren't well represented in this community, I'd presume they got either wore down or run off in the long term. I will persist however whilst keeping in mind the voices I would have appreciated when going through this.
[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 11:04 AM, Monday, August 17th]
