** Member to Member **
Just a word of caution here. When the WS proudly announces that they are going no contact, don鈥檛 be fooled into thinking that the BS thinks they now have nothing to worry about.
Yes. Rebuilding a marriage takes a lot more than NC, even when NC is truly established.
NC is not recovery from infidelity. It is only a prerequisite - and there are exceptions. Some WSes have recovered while maintaining a professional relationship with their aps - rare, but possible for some WSes.
The idea that a betrayed partner has to plead with their partner for them to do the bare minimum is what I'm trying to push back on.
Where does that come from? That's pushing back on a straw man.
If the BS has to plead, it's not R. I have some vague memories of BSes who reported pleading with their WSes for R, but don't remember any BS being told that pleading is a good way to effect R. In general, the advice from SIers is to walk away if the WS is not remorseful or not meeting R requirements or not a person with whom one wants to spend the rest of one's life, etc., etc., etc.
*****
Look at what the betrayed spouse is expected to swallow while waiting for this evolution. They are supposed to sit there, completely traumatised, taking deep breaths while their partner slowly detoxes off the affair and decides whether stabbing the person they vowed to love in the back is worth the cheap thrill the affair gives them.
Another gross misunderstanding of R.
BSes are simply not advised to be passive. A BS who tells us they're waiting and watching gets a lot of push back. BSes are usually advised to take control of themselves, set and maintain boundaries, and not let their own recovery depend on what the WS does.
*****
...the absolute absurdity that it needs to be explained to a grown adult in the first place.
The need for explanation isn't always absurd. For example, the poster wrote that they didn't understand difficulty with NC until they thought about it.
In how many cases does a couple break up with a stated intention of remaining friends? If married friends become aps, what's logically wrong with the idea that they can get back into the friend zone? What's wrong with the idea that co-workers can return to a professional relationship?
We know from experience that continued contact too often leads to a continued or restarted A. That's empirical evidence, not logic, and new BSes need to be told about that experience.
NC is not always a no-brainer. That's why it has to be stated explicitly.
*****
The unfaithful spouse is free to choose continued contact with the AP.
The betrayed spouse is equally free to say, "Then I am not going to attempt reconciliation with you."
That's it in a nutshell.
Just as M is a contract, R is a contract. I recommend as strongly as possible that the R contract be explicit, but an implicit R contract clearly can work well. I imagine in most cases, the R contract takes form organically over time, as the partners realize they want some change to be effected. Our contract was in writing (bullet points on a spreadsheet) for a couple of years, and eventually we started changing the contract informally as our desires and needs changed over time.
IMO, R won't work - or maybe it's not R - if it's based on the belief that the BS controls the WS. Both partners are relatively free to act in the relationship. Either partner can end R at any time, with or without notice.
R is much more a matter of the BS monitoring themself than monitoring the WS. The BS needs to stay on top of thoughts, the feelings underlying the thoughts, what the BS likes and doesn't like about what's happening in R, The BS needs to take action to resolve the issues that arise from day to day. So does the WS.
Monitoring how well the contract is satisfied guides further actions. R going poorly? Figure out what needs to change, and act accordingly - change by making R good or change by ending R.
Note, however, that the R contract needs observable performance indicators. For example, 'WS keeps BS informed of location, activities, and companions at all times' is observable - the WS either does it or doesn't.
*****
IOW, R, M, and life require action. It seems, however, that much of the criticism of R is based on the misconception that BSes in R are passive. They're not - a passive BS is very unlikely to succeed in R, unless they become an effective advocate for themself
I get the idea that many of the criticisms of R come from the critics' nightmarish fantasies about what R is. After all, many of the critics never experienced R, and I suspect one has to have tried R to have any 1st hand knowledge of it.
