After the Storm - "reconciled" couples after the affair

[cocorico]

From After The Storm, an article published in The Psychotherapy Networker, by Esther Perel:

 

I believe that genuine trust rests on our ability to tolerate what we don't know about the other, and as long as we're driven to uncover every detail, we can't trust. In these couples, past experiences of abandonment and rejection loom large and keep trust from being reestablished. Reclaiming a sense of reality after the revelation of the affair is essential for the betrayed spouse, but some remain tethered to their investigative quest—rifling through credit card statements and cell phone bills, repeatedly pressing the browser's "back" button, listening in on phone calls.

 

In an effort to allay their anxieties, these spouses establish a regime of control in which intimacy is confused with surveillance. Their myriad questions are less about honoring closeness than about intrusiveness. The interrogations, the injunctions, and even the forensic evidence fail to assuage their fundamental fears. I help them move their stance from detective to researcher or explorer. Rather than scavenge for the sordid details, it would be more enlightening to ask questions that probe the meaning of the affair, like: How did your lover illuminate other parts of you? Did you think of me when this was going on? Were you afraid to lose me, our family, the kids? At what point did you realize you wanted to stay? If an affair is a solo enterprise, making meaning of it becomes a joint venture.

 

I think there is a great deal of truth in her observations. IMO, anyone engaging in a R with a fWS - whether as a BS in a RM, a fAP in a post-A R, or a new partner, the process of "making meaning" of the A is what allows the couple to establish a mutual understanding of the dynamics of their own R - beyond just the "inability to cope" scenario of the WS.

 

Couples such as those described in the excerpt cited above get trapped by the legacy of the A - and there are many such examples on these boards - because the "meaning making" happens in isolation. The WS is painted as either a flawed human being or as having "poor coping skills", and set on a path to improve, while the BS licks their wounds in another corner. The context of the A is dismissed or reduced to the psychology of the WS. "Meaning" becomes atomised - for the WS, it becomes an accusation to address: "why did I betray my BS?" while for the BS it becomes "how can I learn to trust / love my inherently flawed / poorly lifeskilled WS?"

 

In one way, for post-A AR couples, it is easier to embark on mutual "meaning making", since both were participants in the A, albeit from very different positionalities, although the "meaning" will be very differently imbued because of those different positionalities. Which is where the challenge lies for those couples: for the fWS to share fully any guilt / remorse / regret at the A - usually centred around hurting the fBS, or "breaking up" the family, or betraying their own ideal of themself as "someone who doesn't do that kind of thing", which may be difficult for the fAP to hear or fully appreciate; and for the fAP to share honestly their own value conflicts which may expose differences of valorising with their fWS. It is so much easier t file that under "past" and look to the future!

 

A different problem presents for new couples which form after an A. The WS will by then likely have completed their own "meaning making" in isolation, and the new partner will be faced with asking for access to a fait accompli, or will be compelled to embark on their own process of "meaning making" in isolation on learning of the A - at whichever point of the new R this occurs. Each scenario presents it's own challenges.

 

Having never been a BS or WS trying to reconcile post-A, I can only speak from observation on that permutation; but as a fAP now M to a fWS, I find the opening sentence of the cited passage spot-on - "genuine trust rests on our ability to tolerate what we don't know about the other". If the tolerance threshold is higher, trust is easier. It may seem to some that the way to address a low threshold is simply to reduce the quantity of "what we don't know about the other" - hence all the surveillance, monitoring, demands for "transparency" etc - but that never resolves the issue of the lowness of the threshold, it simply seeks to reduce the frequency of it being called into play. Mutual "meaning making", IME, helps to establish shared views, values, perspectives from which life can be regarded, reducing the threat of nuance and the fear in ambiguity, and increasing tolerance levels. Certainly that has been consistent with my own lived experience, and my observations of others (here and elsewhere). I'd be interested in hearing if this resonates with others who have undergone similar experiences.

[WrinkledForehead]

I'm glad I sought this out. Your words resonate with me. I don't think we ever made meaning together. We talked about it, but mostly while we were still in the affair. The trust issues are enormous and so damaging. Our R was so beautiful and the love so genuine but we damaged it and each other.

[Got it]

 

A different problem presents for new couples which form after an A. The WS will by then likely have completed their own "meaning making" in isolation, and the new partner will be faced with asking for access to a fait accompli, or will be compelled to embark on their own process of "meaning making" in isolation on learning of the A - at whichever point of the new R this occurs. Each scenario presents it's own challenges.

 

Having never been a BS or WS trying to reconcile post-A, I can only speak from observation on that permutation; but as a fAP now M to a fWS, I find the opening sentence of the cited passage spot-on - "genuine trust rests on our ability to tolerate what we don't know about the other". If the tolerance threshold is higher, trust is easier. It may seem to some that the way to address a low threshold is simply to reduce the quantity of "what we don't know about the other" - hence all the surveillance, monitoring, demands for "transparency" etc - but that never resolves the issue of the lowness of the threshold, it simply seeks to reduce the frequency of it being called into play. Mutual "meaning making", IME, helps to establish shared views, values, perspectives from which life can be regarded, reducing the threat of nuance and the fear in ambiguity, and increasing tolerance levels. Certainly that has been consistent with my own lived experience, and my observations of others (here and elsewhere). I'd be interested in hearing if this resonates with others who have undergone similar experiences.

 

I agree, we have shared a lot on our lines of thinking, figuring out the whys, and utilized professional help in this assistance. I do think that there is a bit of needing to take a leap of faith and being okay with it. I see it is following the following equestrian phrase, " throw your heart over the jump and the horse will follow". I fully recognize in this relationship that either one of us could cheat, as well in any other relationship. You do the best you can setting things up for success but humble to know that anything is possible. But like any life events, I have faith in myself, my ability to take care of myself, and no matter what I will be okay.

 

We have agreed willingly to be transparent with each other, not as a check and balance, but as a way to be fully present and open to each other. We are two people who have lived solo lives so fully incorporating ourselves has been a new and exciting experience. It is coming back to the table, every day, true, open, honest, and vulnerable, and not having one foot out the door.

[Sub]

I would say my experience was somewhat in keeping with what the article suggests. Although, I admittedly wanted to know the "sordid" details in the early stages of our R. I felt I had to know the "what" so I could then address the "why". But it definitely revolved around what the issues with us (my WW and I) were. I didn't, however, want to delve into what how the OM "illuminated" parts of my W. It came from knowing her so well, I guess. If I dwelled on the specific things he did with/for/to her, any action I took going forward that resembled his would be questioned. It wouldn't be seen as coming from a genuine place within me, but rather an act to be more like him. It just wouldn't have felt right.