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.

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