Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now cheating is "rape" of the cheated-upon? I hope you're joking because that is really crazy.

Nope, not joking. The definition of rape is sex without informed consent. Usually a married couple is consenting to sex on the basis of monogamy, when one person manipulates the other into sex on the basis of a false premise, that is non-consensual sex and a form of rape. There are cases in the law where a person has consented to sex on the basis of a false premise, but later the premise is found to be false and the sex has been ruled a form of sexual assault. I view infidelity no differently. It is a serious form of sexual abuse.

Anonymous wrote:
And no, my logic isn't that cheating is a lesser transgression than abuse. Abuse is a systematic attempt to control, often through violence or fear. It's an interesting question whether the cover up after the fact can be considered abusive, but the mere transgression of cheating (whether physical or emotional) cannot be that.

I agree that abuse is a systematic attempt to control. That is what infidelity is and that is why infidelity is a form of abuse. Infidelity is a systematic attempt by the perpetrator to control how the victim spouse will respond to behavior the perpetrator is engaging in.

This control is often, but not always and not exclusively, accomplished by violence or fear. In the case of infidelity, this control is accomplished by keeping secrets and lying to spouse about behavior. Lies can be lies of commission or lies of omission. In the OP's case, he kept his behavior secret because he knew his spouse wouldn't like it. This was a deliberate manipulation to control his wife's behavior because he knew she would be upset. Now, she does know and she wants a divorce. OP is still trying to control this behavior, this time more explicitly and openly at least. He is focusing on forcing her to tell him the magic thing he has to do to get her to do what he wants -- get over it and agree to stay together.

In other cases of infidelity (not necessarily OP's) violence and fear can also be tools of manipulation for control of the relationship. Victim spouses often ask questions of the cheating spouse that are aggressively put down by telling the victim that he/she is crazy, to controlling, doesn't have a right to invade perpetrator's privacy, isn't meeting perpetrator's needs so perpetrator can do whatever, etc. Victim spouses often are fearful of disrupting the lives of children, and suffering financial and custodial repercussions for exerting their right to have an equal say in choices about sex (monogamous v. non-monogamous).

The infidelity itself is abuse as well as any coverup after the fact.

Anonymous wrote:
It sounds like OP hid, got busted, and then came clean. His wife is upset, but let's not award her the oppression prize by labeling it abuse and rape.

It's weird that you think acknowledging oppression gives some sort of "prize" to the victim. I can assure you that, sadly, most victims who name their abuse suffer additional public shaming from family, friends and the community. See the other thread about whether an admitted cheater should also come clean to his family of origin. Many posts their advice against this, telling the victim spouse that it will only result in HER (the vicim) being stigmatized.

Anonymous wrote:
This is more than just semantic. By labeling it abuse, you eliminate any ability to suggest that perhaps the marriage could be improved upon or strengthened by the cheated upon. No one would ever suggest that an abused person should have done something differently so as not to be abused. But I do think that there are things that can be done to strengthen a marriage to make it less likely that someone will seek intimacy or fulfillment elsewhere. And certainly, after the deed is done, I don't think it's crazy to assume that a marriage can't be made stronger by figuring out why the cheating happened.

This paragraph shows that your paradigm is clearly that the victim spouse is doing something that makes the marriage less strong and thus is contributing to the cheating. I disagree with that. In a marriage, the victim spouse may well be doing things that are not helpful to the marriage, but that in no way justifies cheating. The perpetrator spouse has the obligation to clearly express what needs are not being met or ask for divorce or open marriage. You want the victim spouse to do something to "strengthen a marriage to make it less likely that someone will seek intimacy or fulfillment elsewhere." This is blaming the victim spouse. It is not the victim spouse's job, nor is it within their power to do anything to control the perpetrator spouse's behavior. That is the core of an abusive relationship -- when the perpetrator says to the victim, you must do this or I will be justified in abusing you (whether the abuse is emotional, physical or sexual).

Marriage can always be improved by either party. The possibility I eliminate by labeling cheating as abuse is not that the marriage can be improved upon, but rather I eliminate the possibility that there is anything the victim spouse can do to cause the cheater to cheat or not cheat.

A marriage can be made stronger by figuring out why the cheating happened, but only the cheater can figure that out. And the reason for cheating is never "victim spouse didn't give me what I wanted". The reason is "I didn't get what I wanted and I chose to get what I wanted in secret, another way, by manipulation." That is something that only the perpetrator spouse can fix. Participation of the victim spouse is inappropriate in fixing this problem. It is a problem solely within the perpetrator.

Anonymous wrote:

Now cheating is "rape" of the cheated-upon? I hope you're joking because that is really crazy.

Anonymous wrote:
And no, my logic isn't that cheating is a lesser transgression than abuse. Abuse is a systematic attempt to control, often through violence or fear. It's an interesting question whether the cover up after the fact can be considered abusive, but the mere transgression of cheating (whether physical or emotional) cannot be that.

Anonymous wrote:
It sounds like OP hid, got busted, and then came clean. His wife is upset, but let's not award her the oppression prize by labeling it abuse and rape.

Anonymous wrote:
This is more than just semantic. By labeling it abuse, you eliminate any ability to suggest that perhaps the marriage could be improved upon or strengthened by the cheated upon. No one would ever suggest that an abused person should have done something differently so as not to be abused. But I do think that there are things that can be done to strengthen a marriage to make it less likely that someone will seek intimacy or fulfillment elsewhere. And certainly, after the deed is done, I don't think it's crazy to assume that a marriage can't be made stronger by figuring out why the cheating happened.