Dear Some: All that needs to happen for your plan to work is that the entire female population consistently resist the urge to play in someone else's yard. Your utopian guidelines, alas, have no connection to reality. If the girlfriend of every married man who claimed to be separated actually went to the courthouse to check the documents, there would be no room for the judges, bailiffs, litigants, clerks or lawyers. —Prudie, practically

Hi Somebody: Your question is rhetorical. You ask but don't expect or want a useful answer; in fact you already have your answer, therefore, you might not immediately value this reply.

Your letter reveals that you are still upset about a specific incident for which you have yet to tell the truth as to your cause in the matter, and, that you (at the time of writing) were not ready to address your addiction to blaming. Notice that your letter did not serve as a completion for you; that is to say, after writing it you were still stuck blaming other women. It triggered uncomplimentary thoughts by readers about you.

You assign blame for cheating on the "other" woman.  Taking sides doesn't work, it reveals a misunderstanding about the word responsibility, and, that you have an incomplete relationship from the past. I have never come across a woman, who, after the anger subsided, could not, or would not, with a bit of coaching, acknowledge her cause of the cheating, how she caused (unconsciously intended) her husband to cheat on her. She is able to see that however unconscious she may have been at the start she did in fact mastermind the whole drama, partly to discover what's so about responsibility. Cause is most always hidden from someone addicted to blame, to making others wrong, like an unacknowledged alcoholic, they simply have no choice.

Now re-read the above paragraph and replace the word man for woman. "I have never come across a man . . ." What's also true is that in situations in which either partner is stuck playing victim (complaining about their partner cheating on them), again, with coaching, each is able to acknowledge that they drove their partner into another's arms beginning on, or even before, the very first date when they withheld a significant (possible deal-breaking) thought. "Victims" are usually unaware of starting the deceit until afterwards. Once a former "victim" accepts responsibility for having caused an outcome they transform themselves from victim to cause, to being whole and complete. Thereafter, for life, they have no need for another cheating incident.

Your letter reveals that you are ripe for someone, perhaps your husband, to cheat or deceive you so as to have the realization that it was your leadership-communication skills that drove him into the arms of another. How you communicate determines whether or not others are open and honest with you. If he knows from previous conversations that you got angry when he mentioned how attractive another woman was, then you have trained him to not share such thoughts. Thoughts withheld/suppressed sometimes grow—they sometimes become masturbation fantasies. Depending upon your intention, sometimes thoughts withheld are manifested in reality. It's always your script. The way to discover what your intentions are/have been, is to look at the results you've been producing using your present leadership communication-skills. Just because you are unaware of your intentions, or lie about them, doesn't make the results any-the-less yours.

A person, consciously or unconsciously, sets it up to be approached (seduced). Conversely, a person on-purpose with life and his/her primary relationship, non-verbally communicates just that. It's simply unthinkable to approach a person of integrity, one who is in a committed relationship, such is the palpable sanctity, the purposefulness of their commitment.

A woman whose integrity (karma) is such that she has no need for deceptions, or lies, or withholds, doesn't attract partners with such addictions. Typically, cons who are unaware of their cons attract cons. Cons are only unethical if both are denying that they are conning each other. We cannot not con (convince/control) others; the trick is to con in such a way that all concerned feel good upon completion. I.e. I'll con you into eating healthfully and you'll con me into maintaining the car.

In our support groups we have an agreement, to ask, up front, "Is there anyone who would be upset if they knew you were thinking of dating me?" The question, asked by someone whose integrity is in, one who keeps agreements and tells the truth, can experience a lie (in gambling jargon it's called a "tell").  Someone addicted to lying cannot always tell when another is lying. They simply don't want to hear it.  Put another way, in a relationship in which there is open, honest, and spontaneous communication, zero significant withholds, any withhold becomes so obvious that it's as a ". . . mote in thine eye." It begs sharing, else, communications breakdown, and the withhold manifests itself as an argument with inappropriate abusive anger that is not acknowledged, not cleaned up before bedtime.

BTW #1: Millions and millions of newlyweds, during their romance phase, make an agreement with each other to never go to sleep upset, or with a withhold or an unacknowledged perpetration, in the space. Yet all, yes all, divorced individuals broke that agreement, after which the relationship never fully recovered. The mind wants to go unconscious (to sleep) rather than acknowledge its cause for the friction.

BTW #2: All divorced couples withheld a deal-breaking thought from each other on their first date. I.e. Hiding the fact that someone would be upset if they knew you were dating others, or hiding that you have herpes, a family DNA health consideration, an addiction, or a prior abusive relationship, or the biggie, a dysfunctional family.

You write, "If he's married, he's not available." This is true but only in some situations. It's not true for a couple in which there already has been extramarital sex, in which case both partners behaved consistent with the implied agreements of their marriage vow (read Creating a Marriage Vow that Precludes Cheating).

In other words, if cheating has taken place there was an implied agreement that cheating would be tolerated. We know this by the results, by the way they have communicated with each other. By omission (in their vows) they consciously/unconsciously allowed for the possibility. It could be said that cheating is a consequence of their sneakiness and of their arrogance. To think that your spouse won't be tempted, that you won't eventually drive your spouse away, is arrogant. To think that you have the wisdom to choose an honest agreement-keeping spouse is arrogant. To think that your "love" is purer, more real, that you're smarter, more capable, committed or skilled, than the millions and millions of others who have divorced is arrogant. To think that your relationship is somehow more unique and better-than all those who have divorced, is arrogant. To think that a prenuptial agreement won't serve you both is arrogant. Arrogance begs to be humbled.

An example of an implied agreement between married couples is the agreement to return home each time you leave the house. It's seldom, if ever, stated verbally, it's simply understood. Don't show up until the next morning and you've got some serious explaining to do.

Another example of an implied (non-verbal) agreement is that it's OK for you to cheat. Spouse to partner—non-verbally: "I'll be upset but most likely I will forgive you and you'll be able to remain married to me. It will prove to you that I love you." We know most married couples have this agreement based upon the results. A partner who won't tolerate deceptions/cheating communicates so clearly up front.

A test of a well-crafted (responsibly communicated) agreement, in this case a marriage vow (not what most couples agree to), is the results.  If "cheating" is taking place both are revealing the omission of a "Fidelity" Agreement" in their vows.  In most such cases the omission is an unconscious "forgetting" so as to allow the possibility, so as to have the option to cheat. Here in America wedding vows have not implied fidelity for decades. The subject is assumed, omitted/forgotten using the concepts of "trust" and "forgiveness" as the reason. Note: In the enlightenment game one discovers that it is unethical to trust another; to do so is a setup so as to make another wrong. What's so is people can be trusted to keep agreements as long as it works for them to do so.

Many clergy members do an injustice when counseling engaged couples.

Here's an example of responsible counseling:

Clergy member: " . . . and I know that there is trust in your relationship and that you both sincerely believe you will not cheat on each other, however, I've seen far too many marriages dissolve due to cheating; all divorced couples sat before me with the same beliefs you have now. I recommend that you include a Fidelity Agreement in your vows. The agreement is a, "no cheating and it's consequences" clause; in this way you are acknowledging the possibility of ignorance and self-righteousness. You will in fact be allowing millions who have divorced to make a contribution to your marriage, most of whom "knew/believed" cheating would not be a problem. The clause goes something like this; "I agree to be faithful, with the following consequences: This marriage will be automatically annulled and I will relinquish all claims to possessions, alimony, and to custody of the children." Such a clause can preclude cheating as one of your problems. It could save you both considerable legal fees. The annulment would not be a divorce because you've clearly defined that your definition of marriage includes fidelity. I also recommend a prenuptial agreement. I don't want to hear about you two battling in courts over possessions. I'll only mediate a married couple's dispute if the couple have signed a prenuptial agreement, or, both partners agree to split everything equally to mutual satisfaction.

Conversely, proof of a poorly crafted wedding vow is a marriage wrought with unwanted problems, to include cheating, arguing, money and in-law problems. Most unwanted problems are consequences of earlier (mostly childhood) unacknowledged perpetrations (lies/deceits).  Couples who vow ". . . till death do us part . . ." and later divorce, reap the consequence of that unconscious lie each and every day of their marriage. A lie believed to be the truth does not make it the truth. A truthful vow would be, "I'll stay married as long as it's working for me."

For example: A parent who tells their child I'll pick you up at 3:00 pm and fails to do so, lied. The lie needs to be acknowledge, to oneself, and the child. I.e. "I get that I lied."

Unbeknownst to a cheater or a "victim" both are living consistent with the relationship's agreements (both expressed and implied). In other words, without a fidelity phrase in the marriage vow, the implied agreement is that it's OK to cheat, and if you do there is a possibility that you will be "forgiven" and allowed to stay married to me.

All couples know about the phenomenon of cheating yet few insist upon a fidelity phrase. All unconsciously allow for (the correct word is intend), create space for, the possibility; this statement is based upon the eventual results. Take for example the agreement to not kill others. The consequences are clear. If you kill someone while married to me, I will still love you but you must go to jail, which gives me the option of divorcing you.  In other words, killing is a game neither of us will tolerate. Cheating on the other hand is a game with which most simply aren't willing to define the specific consequences because we unconsciously want the option to cheat and we're willing to take the risks.* Often "forgiveness" is thought to be proof of love. We marry with an unconscious belief that we can cheat and then con our partner into forgiving us with no serious consequence. We also envision (albeit again unconsciously) the awesome lifetime power of magnanimously forgiving our partner for cheating; extracting and accepting forgiveness hides the fact that we set them up to cheat.

* You can get some sense of the irrevocable significance of a Fidelity Agreement if you replace the above recommended consequences with, "No cheating or both the cheater and the "victim" will have their dominant hands surgically removed." Holy cow! Now I get it. You mean absolutely no cheating, ever?  Or, parents to engaged child, "If you cheat on your spouse we will estrange ourselves from you until you've completed (25) 50-minute sessions with a therapist.

So . . . my answer is: If your partner has been seeing another or others you did not make it clear, up front, that you would not tolerate cheating; you did not have them agree to the consequences. Consequently, your partner is living consistent with your non-verbal communication—that though you won't like that he/she cheated there is a very real possibility that you will magnanimously forgive them.  In truth, you were afraid to lay down the law up front, for fear of upsetting/losing them. This fear generated disrespect.  It could be said that as the "victim" you are reaping the consequences of your own sneakiness. Creating space for such a perpetration (it's called setting it up for them to cheat) so that you can hold it over them (being better than, more trustworthy than, more loving than) for life, is unethical.

One would think twice about cheating if they knew that it would instantly automatically (incontestably) annul the marriage and that they'd forfeit all claims to possessions, to include finding another place to stay that night. Cheating would be a communication, "I no longer intend to be married to you. I know that cheating is abusive. Do not give me a second chance—no matter what I say or promise."

Note: A couple may agree to remarry but they must first completely divorce, complete 25-hours (individually and then as a couple 25-hours of therapy/counseling), and then create new clear agreements.

Great letter. It will of value to many. Thank you, —Gabby

Use this Comment form for comments/feedback.

Comments

Add Image

 

Not using Html Comment Box  yet?