Reply to When did you get over your spouse's affair? Or did you?

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "When did you get over your spouse's affair? Or did you?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]PP, while I respect the experience you have, [b]you could learn a thing or two about respecting the many people Perel’s work has helped[/b].

[b]She released a book on Tuesday[/b], and I’m almost finished with it. She writes extensively in it about how toxic deception is, and about respecting the experience of the victim spouse. [b]I doubt you’re as familiar with her work as you claim to be[/b].

Perel’s work is [b]for couples that actually have something worth saving[/b]. She is not necessarily particularly helpful to women who were cheated on[b] by a “narcissistic pr!ck”, as she calls some cheating men[/b]. Perhaps you were married to one of these men. In that case, I can understand why you can’t possibly identify with couples who are better situated to work through a crisis than you were.

Perel’s work is [b]helpful to cheated-on spouses who are capable of self-examination[/b]. OP indicated that the marriage was troubled, overall, before the affair. [b]Yes, I’m sure it was easy and felt good for you to run to friends and therapists who will sanctify you and demonize your spouse.[/b][/quote]

To respond to your comments:

"[b]you could learn a thing or two about respecting the many people Perel’s work has helped[/b]" -- I actually don't have any data on how many people Perel's work has helped.  Has she done any studies or independent follow up on her clients?  Yes, I know she is a "star" but to me that doesn't necessarily equate to good data about her approach, merely that she is presenting a different view and one that offers hope (perhaps hope in vain) to many.

"[b]She released a book on Tuesday[/b] .... [b]I doubt you’re as familiar with her work as you claim to be[/b]."  -- Well certainly, if she has a new book out just last week, I haven't yet read it.  If it is as you describe, I'll be interested to read it.  I have listened to her Ted talk, and to her presenting her views on her own podcasts of couples therapy as well as other's podcasts about her and with her, like on Dear Sugar.  If her new book is as you describe, it sounds like Perel is taking seriously and responding to some of the major criticism of her work.

And yet, I wonder in her new book if she describes how one can identify the perpetrator spouse who is, "[b]capable of self-examination[/b]"?  Are we just supposed to continue to "work through a crisis" assuming that the spouse is "capable of self-examination" until we find out otherwise, until the spouse perpetrates again? What is the definition of "[b]a “narcissistic pr!ck”, as she calls some cheating men[/b]?"  I would have thought that the act of infidelity, the extreme deception, betrayal and elevation of one's own immediate needs above those of any other, would have been the very definition of "narcissistic pr!ck"?   What more is required to fall into this category?    Isn't it an affair a good indication that someone isn't "capable of self-examination" to begin with, otherwise they would have found one of the many ways of resolving conflict explicitly, directly and transparently with a spouse?

And, finally, I am offended by your personal slam at me - [b]Yes, I’m sure it was easy and felt good for you to run to friends and therapists who will sanctify you and demonize your spouse.[/b].  This is exactly the kind of abusive approach that the perpetrator spouse and many psychologists still heap upon the victim.  Or, as many in the profession refer to this classic abuse tactic -- DARVO:  Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.  The cheating spouse argues that he is not the perpetrator but the victim -- the cheated upon spouse had some flaw, therefore the cheater was justified in cheating.  In my view, this is NEVER acceptable.  I am human; therefore, I am flawed, but that doesn't mean that abuse against me is justified.  I am flawed, but I still have the right to expect you to come to me and say, "I am unable to be monogamous with you any more; either we divorce or we discuss terms for a non-monogamous marriage."

For me, this kind of thinking -- you are flawed, therefore I am justified in abusing you -- is too reminiscent of the old-fashioned views we used to hold on other forms of abuse.  Before physical domestic abuse was criminalized (and even, for a long time, afterwards), society looked to the woman as the cause of the man's abuse.  If only the wife were be nicer, kept a better house, was more compliant sexually, did not make too many demands, etc., well, then their husbands wouldn't have had to hit them.

I think we have progressed enough that women can, should and do exert their rights not to be abused -- not to be hit, not to be emotionally or verbally abused and not to be sexually coerced.  The fact that I demand this doesn't make me "sanctimonious".

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics