As such, I believe it is essential our clients are consciously aware of those insecurities and the behaviour they drive.  Failure to get clients to make that connection leaves them looking in the wrong places for solutions – either blaming their partner or collapsing into shame and self-blame – neither of which will solve their relationship issues.

Since writing that blog, I have had many conversations with colleagues discussing how hard it is to accurately identify core insecurities, especially when clients are reluctant to accept the impact of their upbringing on their present-day behaviour.  Where their answers to my final four questions in the previous blog are superficial or dismissive. Many clients seem offended or contemptuous if you suggest they are still being affected by less-than-ideal circumstances in their childhood (probably as sign they feel ashamed or exposed by your suggestion). 

Their tone and manner suggests they regard still being under the influence of childhood events as a moral failing rather than an inevitable truth of the human condition.  Ironically, this is often a reflection of, or result of, the kinds of core insecurities their upbringing created. The strong emotional reaction they are having is probably rooted in exactly the shame that you are trying to get them to track (and that is causing difficulty in their relationships). There is often also a sense that being open to the idea that their childhood was anything less than “fine”, “normal” or “good” is being unappreciative and disloyal to their parents or family.

Reflecting on those conversations, I realised I have a four-pronged approach to clients like this

• Psychoeducation about the neuroscience of the developing brain (esp pre-adolescence), emphasising how self-centred kid’s minds are because of their cognitive limitations
• Exploration of their childhood with me highlighting how seemingly unimportant or “normal” events might have had more impact than they realise.  Showing them how the theoretical concepts I have discussed in #1 might have played out in practice in their life.  Sometimes this is done in the face of great scepticism from clients (often hiding their fear of exposure).  But I am setting the scene for…
• Stressing the reflexive ways they are protecting themselves in the present (ineffective self-protective behaviour) and demonstrating how those behaviours were adaptive in the context of their upbringing but are damaging to their current relationship(s).
• Accompanying this all the way through is an emphasis on self-compassion.  Clients need to understand that, while they are responsible for their behaviour as adults, they were NOT responsible for the events that shaped them in childhood.  That when we recognise that we are reflexively doing unhelpful things, the useful response is to be kind to ourselves and try and attend with love to the parts of ourselves that are still hurting because of what we came to fear all those decades ago.

I think the key is persisting in showing them how this way of understanding themselves opens up new possibilities for changing things.  How being vulnerable instead of shut down draws their partner closer.  How being assertive instead of appeasing allows their partner to become more attuned to them.

Many people will not easily follow your lead – you will have to be tenacious and back your knowledge and experience.  A lot of clients equate self-compassion with self-indulgence and vulnerability with weakness.  Others have been trained to blame themselves and take responsibility for things that are not their fault.  Those clients need help in understanding where they learned such unkind and self-destructive beliefs.  It’s vital that we don’t let those beliefs stand unchallenged in our therapy. 

It is a situation where we need to lead, not follow, our clients.  To have the confidence that, in this respect, we therapists see more broadly and deeply than they do, because their core insecurities blind them to seeing their true worth. Hence, our perspective is much more likely to give them hope and a path towards achieving the intimate relationship they crave.

At the heart of most relationship difficulties are self-protective strategies that were learned in their formative years.  The client who hears criticism where it’s not intended or over-reacts to a small complaint.  The client who behaves like a small mistake by their partner is a big rejection or evidence that “I don’t matter to you”.  The client who shuts down and withdraws because they were misunderstood.

These sorts of strategies arise because of the way the child or adolescent has processed the experiences of their upbringing (remember it’s not just their “family of origin” who shape them – peers and other adults like teachers, coaches, pastors etc can sometimes be influential).  Kids’ brains are limited and self-centred – they don’t finish growing their frontal lobes until they are in their mid-twenties.  So the younger they are, the more likely they are to take (inappropriate) responsibility for events that are actually under the control of the adults in their lives.

So when you take a history, especially when you enquire into someone’s childhood experiences, it’s important not to get too caught up in the events.  As therapists, we are not so much interested in what happened but in what meaning the person, the child, made of the events.

Imagine your client says, “Mum was very strict, always telling us off, and Dad was never home (and when he was, he was doing chores or working on his car)”.   This is probably significant information, but its significance comes from what the child made these facts mean about themselves.

Let’s imagine four different people who reported a family situation like this.  For person A, the frequent scoldings from mum and the inability to earn praise or attention from either parent were interpreted as “It’s my fault Mum’s always angry and Dad doesn’t want to be around me”, leading to lifelong core insecurities (a.k.a.
“shame”, “negative stories” or “drivers”) like “I’m bad, I’m a problem”. 

For person B, their parents’ behaviour was interpreted as “I’m in the way of the important things my parents need to do”, leading to insecurities like “I’m not important, I don’t matter”.

Person C’s child brain understood Mum’s criticism as “You never do anything right” and Dad’s absence as “You’re not worth bothering with”, – Leading to insecurities like, “I’m not good enough, I’m unworthy.”

Person D’s young brain might have gone, “Mum’s so unfair, and Dad’s useless”, and left home with a belief, “I’m on my own; no one is there for me.”

Note that these four people could be siblings, growing up in the same situation but making quite different meanings of it. 

Our job in enquiring into someone’s past is to help them make sense of their behaviour in the present.  Often, this involves drawing to their attention experiences that remain unresolved, that need healing. Their experience is always subjective –often, when people look back on childhood events, they see them with adult eyes.

We need to help them connect with the child’s subjective experience.  A world where the adults are all-important and all-powerful while the child struggles to understand and is essentially powerless.  A world where they have no capacity (cognitively) to see it from anyone else’s point of view, and that means they are the cause of all that happens.  Where if mum is sad, dad is angry, or teacher/coach/pastor is disapproving, it’s my fault. 

So next time you ask about what happened in someone’s past, make sure you ask follow-up questions like:

What was that like for you?

How did you feel about that happening?

What did that make you think or feel about yourself?

What did that mean to you, back then?

That’s where the crucial information for your therapy will come from.

As relationship therapists, we strive to be even-handed and explore each partner’s contribution to the dynamics and difficulties that affect their relationship. However, when it comes to dealing with infidelity, I would argue that those rules don’t work very well. At least initially, it’s essential that the therapy is more focused on one person than the other. (For the sake of argument I’ll talk as if there are only two people in the relationship, but the same issues can apply in polyamorous relationships).

In an earlier blog, I suggested that infidelity was about someone knowingly breaking the relationship contract and then concealing that fact from their partner. By this definition, one of the key features of infidelity is that it is action taken unilaterally. One person is solely responsible for breaking the rules, doing it in a way that their partner had no chance to influence their choice.

One consequence of this unilateral action is that, when it is discovered, it creates a disproportionate level of vulnerability for the person whose trust has been betrayed (remember the definition of vulnerable is “more likely to be hurt”). If they wish the relationship to continue, they are forced to extend trust to someone who has been proven to be untrustworthy. It’s not surprising that people in this situation are frequently agitated, with disturbed sleep and erratic behaviour. They typically desperately and repetitively ask questions, seeking reassurance that their partner is unable to give, no matter how honestly they try and answer the questions.

In my experience, what is most likely to help someone in this situation settle down their mind and physiology is for the person who broke trust to make themselves vulnerable. Specifically by providing deep, psychologically coherent explanations for their choice to lie, cheat and deceive, coupled with a credible plan for dealing with the issues they uncover. To achieve this outcome, the initial phase of couple therapy following a major betrayal of trust can be seen as individual therapy with the contract breaker in the presence of the partner.

It’s not easy to get people who are full of guilt and shame to go deep and uncover their real motivations. They often want to “move on” to avoid engaging with painful insecurities and self-deception. Typically, they want the reassurance of immediate forgiveness the moment they apologise, rather than facing the inevitable long-term consequences of their behaviour. Sometimes they want to justify the infidelity by blaming their partner. It’s in situations like this that our ability to empathise with the underlying emotional pain and engage at that deeper level is essential to helping people restore trust. It’s the sort of work that typically is associated with individual therapy but can be powerfully healing in a relationship therapy context, post-infidelity.

Before employing this tool, you may need to reflect on whether it’s okay for you to make your clients uncomfortable.   Some clients find an exercise like this very exposing.  It gives you invaluable information about the way they operate in a very short space of time, so it’s in your client’s interest – it will save them time and money.  However, the therapist has to have a level of Differentiation to tolerate their discomfort with being asked to expose themselves in this way.  Make sure you get their consent to experiment with something different.

It’s a good idea when you do this exercise to warn people that you are going to be giving them some specific instructions and then you’re NOT going to explain any more, so they need to listen carefully.  In the beginning, to help you analyse the exercise, you might want to record the conversation (with your client’s permission).  Makes for great reflection in supervision!

The format

Taking a blank piece of A4 paper you turn to one person, hold up the piece of paper, look them in the eyes and say “This piece of paper represents something important to you. I’d like you to take a minute and think about what this piece of paper represents to you. You can pick anything that’s important to you except for your kids and your relationship.”  That is, you are asking them to imagine that the piece of paper IS the important issue.

Then pause and keep looking at them to give them a moment to process and take in your request.  You can ask “Have you got something?” or “Can you think of something like that?”.  When they have thought of something then you turn to their partner and repeat the exact same process with the exact same words.

Once they both have thought of something that the paper can represent that is important to them, then you ask each of them to hold onto one end of the piece of paper and say  “I’d like you to hold this paper between you and I’m going to give you up to five minutes to decide who gets this paper without ripping or tearing it. You can do it verbally or non-verbally. You can do it any way you like, but at the end of the five minutes, I’d like you to decide who gets the paper without ripping or tearing it.” It’s important to note there is nothing in these instructions preventing people from saying what they want and why.

I will usually also add that I’m going to give them a one minute warning before the five minutes is up and repeat that I’m not going to give them any further instructions or answer questions, that I want to see how they deal with the situation I have set up for them without me interfering further. 

Some people will really try and engage you with questions because you’ve created a projective type of situation that’s unsettling for them and they’re going to want you to structure it for them.  It will undermine the value of the exercise if you give in to the pressure of their anxiety. I keep saying back to them, “You can do it any way you choose and you have up to five minutes to decide who gets the paper without ripping or tearing it.”

Then you sit back and watch what they do.  You can literally move your chair back to indicate they are on their own with this.

After the 5 minutes is up make sure you thank them and give them positive feedback about doing the exercise. Ask them how they are feeling having done it.   It’s always good to ask them if what happened is typical of how they deal with conflict at home.  If it’s not typical, then explore why they behaved differently in this session than they usually do.

The asessment

You will get very different behaviour depending on the developmental level of the couple.  With some very symbiotic people, this is a very quick exercise because they are so panicked at the thought of a conflict one of them immediately gives the other the paper, without any discussion. 

Below are 6 questions you can ask yourself about what your clients did.  Each question points to a different aspect of the developmental stages.

1. Do the partners self-define?

The first thing is are they able to say what they want?   Very Symbiotic people won’t say or be really vague about what the paper represents to them.  Expect Symbiotic clients to blame you when you point out they didn’t say what they wanted – they will say you implied they shouldn’t say what they wanted (this is part of why sticking to the carefully ambiguous script when introducing the exercise is so important). Others will be very defensive or apologetic about saying what the paper represents.

• How do they manage boundaries? Are their boundaries rigid or overly permeable?

Once someone defines themselves by saying what they want, what happens?  Do they rigidly defend or collapse & give up easily??  Do they merge (I change what I want to join with what my partner selected)?  Do they look angry or upset that their partner wants something different from them?  It tells us about the level of Differentiation and also will be congruent with the Attachment Style.

• Do they show awareness that their partner is separate and different from them?

Shown in asking a lot of questions about what the other person picked – why is that important to you? Why does that matter to you?  If you took it could I ever share it back? Those who don’t engage at all tend not to have much awareness that the partner is separate and different from them

• How do they manage conflict? Is it avoided, escalated or acknowledged and handled?

If one collapses and the other accepts this then they’re both avoiding the conflict.  If they do have the conflict,  how  do they have it.  What is the emotional tone of the conversation – can they stay open, friendly and collaborative or does the presence of conflict make one or both of them closed, hostile, anxious etc?  Are they willing to hang in there even though the time is nearly up or do they foreclose on the conflict. A lot of people who are quite solid in their development won’t be able to resolve the conflict in 5 minutes and this is an indication that they are able to tolerate conflict productively and manage their anxieties.

• Do they have the capacity to move the conflict forward?

If they avoid it you won’t see this but if they are at the rapprochement stage you would expect them to be exploring options to see if there is a way they can resolve this without either of them giving up what they want.  As a rule of thumb, the more developed, the more creative and collaborative they’ll be in their exporation of potential solutions.

• Is each partner able to give and/or receive?

Interestingly people who are in the Rapprochement or Synergy stages are likely to end up doing something that Symbiotic people do, with one of them giving up the paper for the other.  However the pacing, tone and meaning of this is VERY different. It’s not done quickly to avoid anxiety, but after lengthy discussion where one of them decides “Hearing what it means to you I’m happy for you to have it”.

It’s a matter of clinical judgement how much of what you observe you feed back to your clients and when.  This exercise can be a good opportunity to explain the notion of Developmental Stages and indicate to each of them where you think they are at and what the developmental tasks are they have in front of them.

Clients will choose to make themselves vulnerable if they believe that the rewards are worth it. Emotional vulnerability is an essential part of intimacy and feeling truly loved. Everyone has ways to reflexively protect themselves from emotional hurt. For example, your client might be smiley and pleasing (so they don’t offer any threat), or they might be stony-faced and grumpy (so they look tough and dangerous). They are hiding their deeper thoughts, feelings and desires from view so that people can’t use those thoughts, feelings or desires to manipulate or hurt them. They feel vulnerable, so they act defensively.

Remember, the more important someone is to you, the easier it is for you to feel hurt by them. When a stranger ignores, rejects or attacks you, that’s bad enough; but when an Attachment figure does, the pain is so much worse. That pain causes your amygdala to see your loved one as a threat. In a committed relationship, you organise your life around an Attachment figure. A rupture in that relationship threatens not just your feelings but also your living arrangements, your financial security, and your connection with your children (if you have them).

So, when their partner is upset, insincere, grumpy or withdrawn, your client may feel very vulnerable to hurt. Their instinctive response is to protect themselves. But when your client puts up their walls and acts defensively in turn, this is an ineffective way to try to care for themselves. It destabilises the Attachment relationship, making them more open to significant hurt in the long run.

To maintain their connection, they must accept their vulnerability to their significant other rather than fight it. Being vulnerable is part of acting with integrity. Consciously sharing what’s happening inside you does give their partner information they could use to hurt them. It’s a risk. But they are far better to take that risk and find out whether their partner can meet them, as well as whether they can look after themselves when their partner is unavailable.

Being vulnerable requires being Differentiated — knowing and showing how it is for you at the same time as being accepting of and interested in how it is for your partner. Being vulnerable also requires effective management of your neurobiology, i.e. good self-regulation. Your client’s impulse to protect themselves will arise and require managing. Remember, tolerating vulnerability is a hallmark of those who are Securely Attached. If they’re just ‘acting Secure’, then learning how to be vulnerable, rather than focusing on the anxiety of how vulnerable they feel, is a crucial component. The script below offers your clients a structured pathway to being vulnerable with their partner. Feel free to use it in your practice.

Here is a step-by-step guide for how to respond when you feel vulnerable or hurt.

I feel VULNERABLE
(maybe because I have been hurt)

↓

Triggers reflexive impulse to self-protect or act out, distract, feel numb, etc.

↓

Recognise the impulse for what it is, allow self to feel the VULNERABILITY and don’t let yourself act impulsively

↓

Go slow and self-soothe — attend to VULNERABLE or hurt feelings (including reaching out to friends and other supports)

↓

Organise your thinking — maybe write some notes, or practise talking out loud to yourself or a friend, so that you have clear, non-judgemental language to describe what’s going on for you

↓

Be VULNERABLE
Open up to partner about the original VULNERABLE or hurt feelings (use non-blaming descriptions)

↓

Compassionately explore and discuss the VULNERABILITY, focusing on meanings you make, your interpretations and insecurities (not the same as justifying self-protective behaviour)

↓

Be sure to talk about how much VULNERABILITY and hurt is from your upbringing rather than focusing on what your partner did

»»»

When I have made a mistake, got something wrong, or behaved in ways that are hurtful to my partner, my self-protective impulses often prompt me to talk about why I behaved that way. Usually, this involves an attempt to minimise my responsibility. The most common way to do this is to try and excuse and justify my behaviour.  For example, “I only shouted at you because you were being so rude”. 

That focus on what my partner did to “cause” my behaviour usually comes because I struggle to feel OK about myself, so recognising and accepting that I have got it wrong can feel devastating; like I am confirming what a bad person I am.  For example, I unconsciously fear that when I am aggressive I am like my domineering father.

In those moments when I am making excuses for myself, I am more in relationship with my insecurities than I am with my partner. My distress at the triggering of my fears about myself makes it hard for me to recognise, let alone accept and respond to the impact of my behaviour on them.  My partner is likely to feel twice wounded if I come across as justifying the behaviour that hurt them

If being a good partner is my top priority, then I need to aim to repair the “rupture” to the relationship caused by my ineffective self-protective behaviours asap.   Remember that John Gottman’s research showed us it’s the speed and effectiveness of relationship repair that separates the happy from the unhappy couples.  Explanation is often part of repair, but the timing of it matters. This is what our clients so often get wrong!

When I accept that I have done something unhelpful or hurtful then I will first acknowledge that without justification.  I will take responsibilty for my behaviour and focus first on repairing my connection with you; things like apologising and doing what I can to make things right.  “Sorry, I came on way too strong there.  I didn’t need to shout like that.  That must have been scary for you”.

Somewhere in that process it is likely to be useful for me to be able to understand why I acted in ways that were contrary to my values and against my intentions to be loving, kind, supportive etc to my partner.  My focus will be on myself, my insecurities, my upbringing and training around intimacy, and my present circumstances.

Working out what was going on inside me, why I interpreted my partner’s behaviour the way I did, is important for me to make effective plans for acting differently next time something like this happens.  “What I think happened for me was…”          

When clients offer this kind of in-depth, self-exploratory explanation of why they did something unhelpful it is going to make any assurances they offer about not doing it again much more believable for their partner.  It also is an example of the sort of intimate, vulnerable communication that builds trust and respect. 

So next time you are trying to help a couple resolve a conflict where one person was trying to explain why they behaved the way they did, make sure they focus on taking responsibility and repairing the relationship before they worry about “why”?  Make sure they are not looking for shame-driven excuses but, instead, are able to find a deep and self-aware explanation that will help them change their behaviour and build their partner’s trust and respect.

Once they can do that, talking about the reasons behind their behaviour becomes an explanation, not a justification.   It becomes an opportunity for intimate reflection and connection that helps both of them understand what makes one person “tick”.  It’s also a chance for both of them to show some compassion for what drives that person to be self-protective.  Processing ruptures this way is a vital plank in building a relationship that both people will want to be in.

»»»

In childhood, many boys will have the experience that if they show emotions they are punished (in the Classical Conditioning sense). Sometimes the punishment is violent and brutal.  As a client of mine recently said “I grew up as a boy in NZ and if you showed emotion you got beaten up”.  Note this is a boy from a middle class family who went to a few different schools. Sometimes the punishment is as subtle as the frown on a parent’s face or a “you’ll be alright” which is meant to encourage but actually invalidates.   Especially when, as happened to a different client, the kid actually needs eight stiches.

The trouble with this approach to parenting boys is that kids are bad at NOT showing what they feel.  So when boys are punished for showing feelings, they have to learn not to have them or, more accurately, not allow themselves to notice they are having them.

In Pavlov’s experiment, the dogs ended up salivating at the sound of the bell.  Repetitve punishment means many men feel fear or anxiety the moment they experience an emotion.  Having a feeling is an aversive experience for them.  So when their partner’s criticise and, often, shame them for being unresponsive or emotionless, they are inadvertently adding to the aversive conditioning.

To make matters worse, fear and anxiety are, of course, feelings.  So what what can the men do about their fear, then?  If they can’t avoid, suppress or deny it, they project it outwards as anger and blame.

Recent research out of the University of Auckland’s “REACH” relationships lab ,stresses that men who are behaving aggressively usually feel disempowered.  

As therapists, it is easy to become frustrated with shut down, walled off, unempathic male clients.  And to be appalled at the toll of emotional and physical harm they leave in their wake.  Yet, if we can’t find a compassionate understanding of how they got that way, we are unlikely to help them to change and that does nothing to help the people who love them who are being hurt by them.

I recently worked with a hetero couple like this.  What made their conflict more potent was they have three teenage children, so this was a disagreement that had implications not just for their personal safety, but for that of their family.

This situation was challenging for me as a therapist in two ways.  First, I had to really watch my bias.  Personally, I strongly agreed with the woman about the value and importance of vaccinations, not just for personal safety but for the good of the wider community.    It as a challenge to my Differentiation as a therapist to listen to the man and treat his concerns with equal validity.

Secondly, the level of frustration in each of them meant that they both resisted my attempts to focus on their process.  They both wanted to keep re-stating their arguments for their position.  Inevitably, this only served to dig them deeper into their entrenched positions,  making the atmosphere in the relationship more difficult. This presented a real challenge to my leadership of the therapy.

However, I did keep re-focusing on how they were talking to and treating each other.  In keeping with the Developmental Model’s emphasis on giving people a different perspective, my first action was to direct their attention to where they did agree.  In particular, I highlighted how they both were placing the value of their family’s health at the forefront of their efforts.  They have “done the maths” differently and ended up with different suggestions about what is the best course of action, but both are operating from the same motivations.

Once they could each acknowledge the good intentions of the other, I could then get them to look at the process.  I suggested that this sort of agreement is a perfect example of the value of being able to show care and support for your partner, even if  you disagree strongly. 

I modelled for them how talking to each other from a place of care and empathy might look.  “I am sorry that my decision on this issue is adding to your stress about this whole COVID situation.  I can see how it does that, and I wish it didn’t” 

It was really only once I modelled this way of talking to each other that the light bulb went on for them that they could be handling this whole situation differently.  Sometimes you have to show people, they can’t work it out for themselves.  At that point the whole tone of the session changed and they realised that they had lost sight of the “Big Picture” of their relationship in clinging on to such polarised positions. 

I don’t imagine they were immediately able to go away and do that for themselves, but by giving them a different experience in the session, they now know that another way of engaging around differences, even extreme differences is possible and desirable.

The secong of these stages is “Differentiating” and this is the place that so many of our clients are stuck at.  They cling on, unconsciously but desperately, to the fantasy of fusion, of “the two becoming one”, and don’t develop the skills necessary to deal with differences and the conflict that differences inevitably implies.

Differentiating means being aware of, and able to express, my inner thoughts and feelings in a way that it is considerate of who my partner is and where they are at in this moment.  Being able to be true to myself AND, at the same time, showing interest in and care for who and how my partner is.

This is care for the other is what makes Differentiating quite a different process from the more familiar individual developmental issue of Individuation.  Learning who you are and how to express it and assert it is only HALF the picture when it comes to relationships.

The ability to manage the anxiety that is inevitably raised by conflict, by being aware of our differences, is crucial.  Helping our clients understand that, regardless of how upset they feel, they are still responsible for their own behaviour is a key part of helping them learn to differentiate.

We don’t learn how to do this all at once.  There is a typical path that we tend to follow as we develop our ability to differentiate.  This can be broken into 5 phases:

1. Developing the ability to self-reflect; to notice and accept our own thoughts, feelings, wants and desires.
2. Developing the ability to express those thoughts, feelings, wants and desires.  This requires tolerating the risk involved in exposing “who I (really) am”.
3. Developing awareness of my partner as separate and different.  Often initially I may respond to this as a threat.  For example, I see your different opinion as a criticism of me, or you wanting something different meaning I will miss out etc.
4. Developing an increasing ability to listen, hear & respond to differences.  Exploring the differences with curiosity and openness and clear boundaries – caring about you AND myself.
5. Developing the ability to create an environment in the relationship that supports desired changes.  Negotiating in good faith, being able to compromise on an issue without compromising my selfhood, knowing when I can afford to be generous and when I can’t, being creative in finding solutions rather than sticking to first positions etc. etc.

Recognising where each of your clients at in their ability to perform these key developmental tasks is a great way to make our work more incisive and efficient

In the book, Perel offers “a new definition” of infidelity saying:

“…infidelity includes one or more of these three constitutive elements: secrecy, sexual alchemy, and emotional involvement…. These are not three rigid criteria; rather a three-sided prisim through which to view your experience and assumptions” (p24)

As someone who normally is pushing for more nuanced responses to complex relationship issues, I find myself in the very unusual position of arguing for a LESS nuanced position than Perel offers when it comes to defining infidelity.

First let me stress I whole-heartedly endorse the exploration of all the nuances that Perel elucidates as something for therapists to ponder and be aware of as they enter into the highly–charged arena of dealing with the fall-out from infidelity. However, I think it can be helpful to make it more simple when it comes to defining infidelity, by focusing on the secrecy piece.

Ask yourself these two questions:

Did they hide what they were doing from their partner?

Was this motivated by knowing (consciously OR unconsciously) that their partner would view it as a breach of their relationship agreement (even if this agreement was implicit or unspoken)?

I would suggest that if the answer to both those questions is “Yes” then you are dealing with an infidelity.

The beauty of this approach is it sidesteps the arguments about whether a relationship was or wasn’t “an affair”. The woman who was meeting with a co-worker for coffee and lunch and talking about personal things may honestly believe it wasn’t “an affair”. As a therapist you can cut through the denial and minimisation and point out that the fact that she never told her partner about it (because she knew the partner wouldn’t be OK with it) means she knew she was breaking their contract. And that’s an infidelity – not keeping to the agreed contract. The meetings may NOT have had what Perel calls “sexual alchemy” and maybe her partner is unreasonably jealous (what Bader & Pearson call a “lie invitee”), but going behind her partner’s back instead of having the partner on about their jealousy means she was unfaithful to the arrangements they have in place.

The same criteria can easily be applied to online interactions or casual relationships or commercial sex etc.

Focusing on “fidelity to the contract” also usefully expands the definition beyond sexual infidelity. In my decades of practice some of the most devastating betrayals I can recall working with have had nothing to do with sex and intimacy: The man who gambled away his wife’s inheritance; the woman who was secretly smacking their children when the husband was vehemently opposed to corporal punishment. None of these could be described as “an affair”, but they were devastating betrayals of trust in areas of great importance that rocked those relationships to their core in much the same way an affair does.

Perel provides a very useful division of post-affair recovery into three phases (which totally match my own clinical experience): Crisis, meaning-making and visioning.   By helping couples cut through pointless arguments over whether the secrecy and contract-breaking was “an affair” or not and focusing on the the lack of fidelity I believe we can help couples get through the messy crisis stage more quickly and with a modicum less pain.

Nic Beets