SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I don't often post on this side of the forum because I’ve never reconciled with an ex and generally don't advocate for it. However, this topic grabbed my attention because it highlights a major reason why I wouldn't choose to reconcile: the injustice would eat me alive.

The scales can never truly be rebalanced. But putting my objective hat on—supposing I did decide to reconcile, or had to for practical reasons—the closest I could get to evening things out would be a hall pass, or a series of them.

I would find this far closer to rebalancing the scales than any financial division. Obviously, a partner might hate the idea, but I can see the appeal. I distinctly remember the emasculation of finding out I was cheated on; exploring other women was the single biggest shot in the arm for my self-esteem. I had some really fun and eye opening experiences in the period just following discovery.

I imagine a hall pass could help a lot of people, provided it’s discussed properly and ground rules are put in place. It shouldn't be done out of anger or revenge, but rather as a genuine chance for the betrayed partner to explore and rebuild their self-esteem, ego, and masculinity.

I doubt this is true for everyone, but it might be something worth exploring to see if it helps you.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 4:56 PM, Tuesday, July 14th]

But putting my objective hat on—supposing I did decide to reconcile, or had to for practical reasons—the closest I could get to evening things out would be a hall pass, or a series of them.

Why would anyone lower or ignore their own standards to balance an injustice?

Two wrongs don’t make anything right or better or is good for anyone.

I’ll never understand why me using another human would make me feel BETTER about myself.

Advocating for others to cheat isn’t in my DNA.

It wasn’t before my wife’s A, and certainly not after.

The books don’t get balanced — that’s just life. I find existence inherently unfair.

My happiness is based on how I overcome adversity, not creating more of it for others.

@Oldwounds

How is a hall pass a breach of standards, or even cheating? I'm no fan of ethical non-monogamy myself, but by definition, consensual agreements aren't cheating. No one is advocating for that.

Unless you believe that sex outside of marriage is inherently wrong under any circumstance, getting explicit permission for outside experiences—agreed upon ethically for your own healing—doesn't lower or breach your moral standards.

If you do believe any sex outside of marriage is fundamentally wrong, fair enough. But by that metric, I guess I'd be irredeemable at this point anyway—along with the majority of Western society.

Yeah, I agree with Oldwounds. I don't get that take at all DRSOOLERS. I'm a 61 yr old attractive woman. I think I could make up a stupid excuse and go out and pick up an attractive man to have sex almost any night. That's always been there to my knowledge. Maybe I'm wrong. I assume the same thing for my husband who's a few years younger. The cute girls in yoga were talking about him last time he went with me. What does that get me?

@KitchenDepth5551

Well, I don’t know enough about you or your marriage to answer what it would get you personally, but theoretically, it can do a lot. I can, however, share what post-infidelity sex did for me, which might help explain the perspective.

There is a massive difference between knowing you could get someone, and actually going out and doing it after your worth has been shattered by a cheating partner.

When I was betrayed, my self-esteem and masculinity were completely bottomed out. Going out and actually having those physical experiences with other women was the single most powerful tool in rebuilding my ego. To be as tasteful as possible: nothing quite reaffirmed my masculinity like the physical affirmation, desire, and enthusiasm of new partners. It wasn't about "using" people; it was about remembering that I was wanted, attractive, and sexually viable after being rejected by the person who was supposed to love me.

Couple this with the fact that I had been with the same partner for a long time, and didn't have a very extensive sexual history before that, and the new experiences were eye-opening. It completely shifted my perspective, though I suppose I got lucky with the quality of partners I managed to attract.
For you, knowing you and your husband still "have it" might be enough. But for many who have been deeply emasculated or broken by infidelity, theory isn't enough—they need the tangible, real-world proof to heal that specific wound.

It's fine, no one has to agree with this. I'm just trying to answer what would help balance the scales if I were in her BS shoes. Perhaps her partner is nothing like me and would rather more equity in the house.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 5:18 PM, Tuesday, July 14th]

DRSOOLERS,

That's ok. I'm trying to understand your point of view. To me, it seems more like the point of view my husband had during his affair than any point of view I have ever held.

Maybe part of this is how I was raised. I'm not sure. My mother always thought I was too pretty and would rely on my looks to my eventual detriment. One of her favorite sayings was, "Beauty is only skin deep." She always discouraged or disallowed activities that had anything to do with looks. My self-esteem and sense of femininity is nearly opposed to the idea of being attractive to the opposite sex.

As an example, my parents said they would pay for my college education at any college/university as long as I majored (BS not BA) in a physical science, math, or engineering. They both went to top tier small, private colleges in physical science and engineering. I look back now and think about that. I have a brother who has degrees in history and city management. I have another who went to school for accounting/marketing and hospitality management. I can't remember their exact degrees. My male siblings didn't have my requirements.

[This message edited by KitchenDepth5551 at 5:51 PM, Tuesday, July 14th]

If you do believe any sex outside of marriage is fundamentally wrong, fair enough.

Isn't this why this forum exists?

So, your ethics are as flexible as you need them to be?

Got it.

If you do believe any sex outside of marriage is fundamentally wrong, fair enough. But by that metric, I guess I'd be irredeemable at this point anyway—along with the majority of Western society.

Argumentum ad populum -- Doc your fallacies are showing!

It’s interesting how analogies will lock you into a particular way of thinking.

Here, we are talking about balancing the scales, which implicitly means there’s a single hinge like a on a teeter totter or on one of those scales with two pans on it like lady justice holds up.

What if the analogy was that there was a flat plate sitting on a pivot point, and it’s out of balance when someone puts a weight on one point on the plate. It wouldn’t go back into a balance until you put another ball on the exact opposite side of the first ball. Otherwise, it just leans in some other weird direction, and you keep putting balls on there in various spots and you never get it to balance, it just leans one way or another.

I think that is probably a better analogy to the real life situation than just having your standard set of scales.

@oldwounds

Isn't this why this forum exists

?

Funny that, I thought this forum was for assisting people navigating or trying to surpass cheating.

If I had been aware it was a puritan's guide to living, I would have given it a pass.

So, your ethics are as flexible as you need them to be?

Please demonstrate where I showed this so-called flexibility?

I have no qualms with people engaging in sex in any way they see fit, as long as it is ethical—whether inside or outside of marriage. As previously stated, ethical non-monogamy is not my bag, but I would never dream of casting a moral judgement on it because I don't believe we have any logical grounds to claim it's wrong. Since you seem to be quite the astute debater, perhaps you could open a thread outlining what is wrong with people having consensual, ethical sex, and we can discuss it further.

Argumentum ad populum

Ouch, another swing and a miss.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy where someone argues the truth of a claim based on mass consensus. That doesn't fit here, though, does it? I made no claim that the validity of consensual, ethical sex is a moral certainty just because many people in the West believe it—only that you are free to denounce us all.

I would love to discuss this further, should you wish to open a thread that isn't flagrantly thread-jacking this person's request for advice

I don't agree with advising BS to seek a hall pass as a means of seeking justice (though I do think there is value in understanding exactly what the BS is going through for those WS who have never experienced it first hand.) Where this breaks down is not necessarily about monogamy or cheating; it's whether or not a BS is willing to inflict the same amount of trauma/pain/damage to the one they love, the way the WS did.

In other words, part of why cheating is wrong is because of the harm it does. It's not only about making and maintaining a promise/commitment to exclusivity with a partner. Therefore, if one believes cheating is wrong because of the harm, doing the same harm would be a violation of one's principles, and "sinking to the WS's level" in terms of morality and self-betrayal.

As an aside... There can be fidelity and infidelity outside of monogamy. Every couple must agree what they're okay with and not okay with, and if one partner violates those boundaries, then it's infidelity. For example, my H is okay with me having sexual contact with others, provided it is something we are doing together. Therefore doing it alone is infidelity. I am okay with my H sleeping with others, as long as I am made aware of it, and the person is not an ex. Therefore if he was conducting extramarital sexual activity in secret, that would be infidelity.

Hey Doc —

Funny that, I thought this forum was for assisting people navigating or trying to surpass cheating.

And yet, your balance the scales response is to add MORE cheating to the relationship.

If I had been aware it was a puritan's guide to living, I would have given it a pass.

Well, not purely puritan here, but I couldn’t let you corner the market on self-righteous posts.

Please demonstrate where I showed this so-called flexibility?

Suggesting more infidelity, even if it is presumably rubber stamped, appears as flexibility to me.

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy where someone argues the truth of a claim based on mass consensus. That doesn't fit here, though, does it? I made no claim that the validity of consensual, ethical sex is a moral certainty just because many people in the West believe it—only that you are free to denounce us all.

Appealing to the popular choice of the masses — like leaning on Western Civilization — is the logical fallacy.

If your point was strong enough to stand on its own, you don’t bring in masses to back it up.

That aside, I’ll not ignore the focus of your intended argument — that if two people agree to add someone to a marriage, and the person being added to the marriage is also okay with it, then that scenerio can be acceptable — then I concede that point. I don’t think a Hall Pass is an easy answer and more than likely adds more emotional baggage to someone considering keeping the M together.

I would love to discuss this further, should you wish to open a thread that isn't flagrantly thread-jacking this person's request for advice

I would if I thought you wouldn’t dodge key points.

As in, why would one lower their own standards or use another human to feel better about themselves?

If you or anyone NEEDS a Hall Pass, isn’t that offering the same WS path to unhealthy validation (unhealthy intimacy for that matter) to feel better?

I don’t need to use another person for sex to feel better.

That’s not a puritan value, I just LIKE me enough to not need it.

I don’t know that offering an open M is a great idea (to me) — but it has been offered as a solution more than once over the years here in the forum, I’m merely suggesting it may not be as easy as it sounds.

[This message edited by Oldwounds at 7:51 PM, Tuesday, July 14th]

it's whether or not a BS is willing to inflict the same amount of trauma/pain/damage to the one they love, the way the WS did.

GotTheMorbs,
I've never understood this view. It seems to me like it would be impossible for me to inflict the same amount of pain/trauma to my WS by cheating on them. If my WS had viewed our marriage as fully safe and inviolate and sacred (like I did), then they never could have cheated. You yourself have said you wouldn't have a problem with your husband having a relationship outside of your marriage as long as you are fulfilled.

I will say that WS here say that they are very hurt if their BS does or has cheated. I just don't understand how it could possibly be the same.

Kitchendepth,

I think all I can say in response to that is that, for me, I didn't understand the extent of the damage I was doing to my H when I was making the decisions to cheat and continue cheating. I knew it would "hurt" him. But I couldn't begin to imagine the emotional devastation, the destabilization of his reality, the demolition of trust, the impact to his self esteem... And I think part of that was because a) I've never experienced that side of infidelity myself, and b) I don't have the same exact boundaries that he does, so crossing the ones of his that I didn't hold didn't register to me as egregious at the time as it actually was. I didn't have a frame of reference for emotional empathy, even if I knew it was morally wrong.

Um, I'm a little bit embarrassed to recount this, but yesterday I took a look through my H's devices and saw some deleted texts with an old fling of his, and my mind went completely off the deep end with making up stories about it. I spent most of the day panicking, feeling nauseous and on the verge of tears, trying to figure out whether this was a side relationship (how could he message her that if they didn't have an ongoing relationship? How could she not act immediately offended if that wasn't the case?), whether it was going on during the moments I felt furthest away from my husband or when I was pregnant and we weren't having as much sex then, trying to construct a timeline by parsing out words, theorizing about why he wouldn't tell me about this when I told him I didn't care if he got with other women, stalking her LinkedIn and Facebook accounts, wondering if I should show up at her public work meeting the next day to talk with her... All before cross-referencing the dates on our own text messages and realizing he had mentioned reaching out to this woman while I was away on the hiking trip with our daughter. And we talked it through so I felt okay afterwards. Again, totally embarrassing.

So, while definitely not exactly or entirely the same as what a BS goes through... I got a tiny taste of it for one day. I think it's still a possibility he could hurt me the same way I hurt him, if he was inclined to do that sort of thing.

I still view my marriage as sacred, and I viewed it as such pre-A too. I was just so messed up and convinced that he didn't love me anymore that I violated that sacredness.

[This message edited by GotTheMorbs at 8:17 PM, Tuesday, July 14th]

@oldwounds

And yet, your balance the scales response is to add MORE cheating to the relationship...Suggesting more infidelity, even if it is presumably rubber stamped, appears as flexibility to me.

"Rubber-stamped infidelity" is a flat-out contradiction in terms. Infidelity, by definition, is a breach of trust and a unilateral violation of a relationship's agreed-upon boundaries. If an action is explicitly discussed, negotiated, and mutually agreed upon by both partners, it is, by definition, not infidelity.

Equating consensual agreements with cheating is a fundamental category error. You cannot "cheat" when you are playing by a mutually rewritten rulebook.

Appealing to the popular choice of the masses — like leaning on Western Civilization — is the logical fallacy. If your point was strong enough to stand on its own, you don’t bring in masses to back it up.

You are still misunderstanding the fallacy you yourself mentioned. I wouldn't recommend using ten-dollar phrases if you only have an eight-dollar account. If I had argued, "Ethical non-monogamy is morally correct BECAUSE Western societies allow it," that would indeed be argumentum ad populum.

But I didn't. I made a descriptive statement about societal freedom, not a prescriptive argument about moral truth. Pointing out that we live in a society that legally and socially permits adults to make their own relationship rules is simply stating a geographical and legal fact, not using the masses to prove a moral claim.

As in, why would one lower their own standards or use another human to feel better about themselves? If you or anyone NEEDS a Hall Pass, isn’t that offering the same WS path to unhealthy validation...

To equate consensual adult sex with "using another human" is a remarkably puritanical take for someone claiming not to be one. By this logic, any sexual encounter that isn't geared toward lifelong romance is merely "using" someone. In reality, two consenting adults can share physical intimacy for mutual pleasure without "using" each other or seeking "unhealthy validation."

Irrespective of that, even if I were to grant you that sex can sometimes be about seeking validation, this is not immoral in and of itself; it only becomes so when it is done to the detriment of your partner.

If the original poster claimed they would love to grant this hall pass because it would relieve their guilt and make them feel like they are proactively helping their betrayed spouse heal, where is the harm in this? I'm not saying the betrayed partner should accept this if they cannot live with it, obviously. Personally, I would find a refusal to grant it in that context somewhat hypocritical, but nevertheless, the choice belongs to them.

Most importantly: the trauma inflicted by a Wayward Spouse does not stem from the physical act of sex. It stems from the lies, the gaslighting, the broken vows, and the systematic theft of their partner's agency. To compare a mutually agreed-upon "hall pass" to the devastating psychological abuse of betrayal is intellectually dishonest, and quite frankly, offensive to those who have actually survived the latter.

I don’t need to use another person for sex to feel better. That’s not a puritan value, I just LIKE me enough to not need it.

Good for you. Truly. But projecting your personal boundaries as a universal metric for psychological health and moral superiority is the very definition of self-righteousness. This wasn't the case for me, what should my punishment be? Stoning perhaps. Cast the first stone.

There is no "dodge" here. I am entirely happy to discuss the actual complexities, emotional risks, and practical hurdles of open relationships—which are indeed immense, and rarely work as a "fix" for a marriage broken by betrayal. But we cannot have an honest, nuanced discussion about those risks if you continue to conflate mutual consent with betrayal, and your personal preferences with universal moral laws.

In respect of the original poster, I won't fall bait to your further responses. If you want to discuss this further start a threat or private message me.

I'm sorry for what you went through GotTheMorbs. That does sound awful. I hope you were able to approach him to talk about it and start to work through that.

I still can't help but think it's not the same. It's a mental block for me, I guess.

I have an old player piano. My mother told me I first heard/saw a piano performance when I was around 4 or 5 yrs old. I begged them to buy me a piano so I could learn to play. I have no memory of this. My mother finally decided it wasn't a phase and bought me one. I took lessons from the time I was 6 through the end of high school. I could have gotten a music scholarship to college. I love playing pian and my piano.

Anyway, this thing is massive and heavy, even when you remove the player mechanism. My husband hates moving it. We have movers do it, but he still hates dealing with it. If my piano burnt up, he might be sad for me. But really, come on, it's going to hurt me way more because I value it more.

I look at what I've lost through betrayal in my marriage the same way. I valued it much, much more. It hurts me much, much more than it could possibly ever hurt him. He's different now though. So maybe I should consider that and reevaluate.

There is no justification for infidelity. That includes a "hall pass."

I believe that infidelity is self-destructive. In order to balance the scales, one could engage in equally self-destructive behavior. To me, that's simple foolishness and I declined my ex-wife's offer.

LonelyGuilty, I applaud your efforts here. I think it takes a tremendous amount of courage and compassion to even admit to yourself how unbalanced your marriage has become and toearnestly seek a way to redress that imbalance.

Doing your best to become the best possible version of yourself is the only way to balance the books. And I also agree with Bigger that your husband seeking to do the same will balance the books. Both spouses doing their best to create the best possible version of the marriage can balance the books.

Of course, that's extremely difficult for either spouse to see while the storm is still raging. It's difficult to see, I think, in the everyday interactions between spouses.

Ironically, for me at least, it became rather obvious a couple of years after my ex and I divorced.

Yeah... figures, doesn't it?

Thanks for the sympathy, KD. We're all good; I was just spiraling for no reason.

I think I understand your piano simile. I suppose if you've got a marriage where one spouse requires sexual monogamy from the other, but the other doesn't necessarily need or value it in the same way, then a betrayal involving sex with someone else won't be exactly the same for both people.

[This message edited by GotTheMorbs at 9:00 PM, Tuesday, July 14th]

In respect of the original poster, I won't fall bait to your further responses. If you want to discuss this further start a threat or private message me.

I'm going with "threat" as a typo here.

No threat or new thread from me either.

I don't think adding to the 2,000+ threads on RA (or whatever goes for a Hall Pass these days) will help the forum much either.

Maybe my logic professor was full of beans -- after all, he did give me a really good grade for the class.

I still have a couple dollars in change, maybe good for a Parking Pass somewhere.

Last thought on self-righteous (and I am, but am able to admit that I am) - does this mean you're good with R now?

Thank you to everyone for taking time to reply to this post (BftS, Unhinged, KitchenD, HouseOfPlane, and all the others) - and sorry for not being particularly engaging but I had some tough days.

I appreciate everyone’s insight and different perspective.

AnnieO - thank your for sharing your experience and your wishes

Still-Living - I am really grateful for your reply. I read it in a moment when I really needed hope - regardless of what the future holds for me.

Thanks to those who suggested to go underneath the analogy used by my BS.

DRSOOLERS: thanks for the different angle. Truth to be told if an "hall pass" guaranteed us that after that we would wake up even and healed, I would agree in a heartbeat. I wouldn’t be "happy", but I would agree if it helped restoring a sense of justice for my BS.
I don’t think he is interested for reasons similar to those outlined by some BSs in this thread.

Further, in our specific case it’s me who needs to restore this feeling. Offering a hall pass would be like saying "go sort yourself out" - I know this is not what you meant.