Clinical Treatment Directions for Infidelity

A Phenomenological Framework for Understanding

Nicolle Zapien

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9780415790499
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351817615
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Clinical Treatment Directions for Infidelity considers the psychotherapeutic treatment of infidelity from a fresh perspective. Psychotherapy (both couples and individual) for infidelity is notoriously challenging, and clinicians tend to disagree on case conceptualizations and treatment objectives. This book approaches infidelity from a client-centered, phenomenological perspective, informed by qualitative research and social context. Essential for clinicians who work with cases of infidelity, it provides a framework and set of tools with which to approach these cases from a non-judgmental stance that helps clients glean meaning from these experiences and make conscious personal choices about how to move forward.

Part I

Chapter 1

What Is Infidelity?

I asked him what monogamy really means in practice in our marriage. He found the question confusing at first, and stated simply, that he knows and I know and that it’s difficult to be concrete, but what constitutes a breach should be clear to both of us by now. He seemed annoyed by the discussion. When pushed further, he noted that everyone thinks about other people in a sexual way but if those thoughts are more detailed and go on for more than 5 minutes or so, then this is what begins an affair or at the very least is the beginning of a significant problem. For him the mastery of his mind is what makes monogamy possible. I have a very creative mind that wanders in a great number of directions everyday, including fantasies and fears about all aspects of life some of which last more than 5 minutes. For me fidelity includes not acting on these ideas, or at least not more than what I call “harmless flirting.” Apparently, we do not agree on what monogamy or infidelity is in practice.

—Anonymous

Infidelity is difficult to define concretely in that its meaning is not univocal or intersubjectively agreed upon (Cossman, 2006). Historically, infidelity was a term used to describe someone who is unfaithful, doubtful, or a non-believer in a religious sense. In this century in the US the term has been most frequently used to describe a breach in monogamous sexual behavior for couples, particularly married couples. There are many other terms that are related to infidelity that have also been used in this century, but they have largely fallen out of fashion due to their lack of applicability to various types of relationships that are gaining more acceptance, or because they are overly specific in terms of the ways in which such betrayals might occur. Some examples include: Extra-marital sex; extra-marital affairs; extra-dyadic sex; two-timing; adultery; having a fling or an affair; cuckoldry; and cheating, to name a few.

For most of this book, I will use the term infidelity, defined as an act or acts of betrayal of a sexual and/or emotionally intimate nature as perceived by one or both parties of a couple (Glass, 2003). This definition of infidelity places perceptions at its center and these perceptions can be said to be a product of both individual factors and contextual factors that are filtered through culturally and historically situated meanings. At particular times, however, I may also use the term affair to describe particular acts or instances of infidelity. This is also consistent with the most-used terms in my recent clinical cases and among research participants in the studies conducted that inform this book.

I am choosing the term infidelity and this particular definition from among others, because it allows for inclusion of many types of betrayals. For example, infidelity includes betrayals within various relationship structures such as marriages, domestic partnerships, other types of pairings, poly structures, and open relationships as long as a betrayal is perceived by at least one person involved.¹ Infidelity with this definition also does not require a perceived betrayal through embodied or physical contact, and may include a betrayal that occurs through technology-mediated contact, for example. This is a relatively new phenomenon in an historical sense, but one that is nevertheless occurring more and more frequently (Young, 2008).² The term infidelity, which may be the most fitting for contemporary experiences and is most inclusive from among the other options, is therefore referring to a wider range of different acts and experiences than ever before.

Before we delve into the research on infidelity in the next chapters, it is important to mention some historical roots of infidelity and how these may influence our perceptions or views. Infidelity, referred to historically as adultery, has its roots in many of the major religious texts.³ I will not diverge to explore these texts here, nor will I discuss how adultery is treated in each text except to say that the arguments against adultery in these texts are moral ones. As a whole, these arguments tend to caution believers not to be tempted by selfish desires—in particular desires and impulses originating in the body—in order to remain faithful to a higher religious or spiritual purpose. Within these moral arguments against desire, there is often a discussion of the problematic nature of immoral adulterous thoughts as well as immoral adulterous acts. The general idea is that immoral thoughts lead us through temptation to immoral acts—the urges that reside in the body are not to be trusted when thoughts are impure.

Adultery, as it has been defined in the legal lexicon, has historically also been punishable by law (Cossman, 2006). In legal cases in recent history in the US, adultery was defined as extra-marital penetrative penis-vagina intercourse, which was illegal for both men and women to engage in outside of their marriages, although the law was not applied equally to men in such cases. The reasoning for this discrepancy related to a lack of availability of reliable birth control until 1972, the lack of access to safe abortions before 1973⁴ in the US, and the concern that women who strayed would conceive children who were not from the betrayed husband’s seed and that he would be nevertheless obligated to care for.⁵ From the perspective of the law, marriage is both a financial and a legal contract. In cases of adultery, bastard children, to use another historical term, represented a breach of this contract and an unfair financial burden to the betrayed husband. Over time, advances in birth control, changes in child custody and divorce laws, and women’s rights, as well as some very evocative legal trials of adultery cases, have caused the courts to question the need for legal involvement in cases of adultery altogether. The pivotal case to highlight this shift occurred in 1987, when a woman was charged with adultery after her husband found her having masturbated another man (Cossman, 2006).⁶ This was among the first of many cases that shifted the focus away from intercourse and the possibility of pregnancy and instead moved toward defining adultery by the subjective feelings of betrayal on the part of the betrayed spouse. This led to the idea that any type of betrayal of trust of the spouse with anyone else, regardless of gender, or even without physical contact, could be considered adulterous if it were perceived as a betrayal. This, coupled with the addition of no-fault divorce laws in some states and the pervasiveness of infidelity, has largely catapulted these types of cases out of courtrooms and relegated them to personal relational disputes to be addressed in private or through couples counseling. The only exception is divorce and child custody decisions in states that do not have no-fault divorce laws. In these states, perceived adultery can be used as evidence in expediting divorce decisions and in influencing child custody decisions to the detriment of whomever is perceived to have committed adultery.

What remains central to the definition of infidelity today is perception. This is interesting because perceptions vary between people, can be said to depend on a great number of variables, and can change over time. For example, to consider what constitutes a perceived infidelity to any particular individual at any particular point in time refers back to the original promise and understanding of fidelity in the past, which is also a perceptual (and a memory and a socio-linguistic) exercise. While we may agree that there was a promise of fidelity at a particular point in time, what each of the participants understood concretely at that time is a perception that may not be shared or may not hold the exact same meaning to each in an ongoing manner.

While it may be clear to most, for example, that ongoing intercourse with another person outside of a couple constitutes a betrayal in sexually monogamous relationships, the limits of the types of interactions that one can have with others outside of a monogamous relationship that are less clear are often not discussed in detail as one makes the original promise of fidelity. It is within these interactions that the seeds of infidelities often begin. Couples who subscribe to the same moral or religious ideas often have a clearer idea of what constitutes fidelity, sometimes guided by religious practices and doctrines, and often are more granular about prohibited types of interactions. Even so there are many possible interactions that can remain potentially unclear. Further, even if they are articulated in detail, we have all had disagreements with someone that involve different perceptions of the same situation. This will be explored in more detail in chapter 5 through research participant narratives, but at this juncture I offer one such example from a study of a participant describing how his perception and his wife’s perceptions of what constitutes a betrayal differed and also how they changed over time:

This lady walked in … and this was in the late spring or early summer and she walked in lightly dressed and barefoot because she had been gardening and she lived around the corner and so I was pretty struck with her immediately, so that’s how we actually met and then … (sigh) … there were various kinds of socializing things and I found myself very attracted to her quickly and I proceeded to be friendly with her. So we established a sort of relationship although it was not physical, in fact it wasn’t physical or sexual until much later, in fact after, um, my wife at the time and I had split up. I don’t think I considered it an affair and I know she didn’t at the time. My wife knew it was an affair. It was certainly a mess.

In this case, he describes feelings of attraction and socializing with another woman and the establishment of a “sort of relationship.” His wife perceived this as an affair at the time even though he did not. He later comes to have a sexual and intimate relationship with this woman after he breaks up with his wife. We can easily understand the wife in her perceptions, particularly given that we know that he eventually did have a sexual relationship with the other woman after the break-up and that she intuited this all along. We can assume that the wife perceived something that he did not wish to acknowledge but was nevertheless somehow present to her before they divorced. It is also possible, however, that his perception is more fitting or is potentially equally valid. He was attracted to the other woman but did not engage physically or sexually with her while committed to his wife; thus he upheld his commitment to her, technically. Regardless of how each of us might judge the characters in this story, many of us find ourselves attracted to any number of people we might meet without intending to become attracted to them at the outset. And in these cases, how we navigate the feelings of attraction is what differentiates instances of infidelity from fleeting attractions. In the description, however, the man and his wife have different perceptions of the moment that the line is crossed and the affair has come to be. Regardless of which views an outsider takes, of whether or not this was a betrayal and whatever the line might be over which he may have crossed, it is not something they agreed upon at the same moment in time.

Another issue related to perception is defining what constitutes a sexual, erotic, or intimate moment. While each of us can perceive and name an interaction to be flirtatious, erotic, or intimate, it is also possible that the person we engage with or some outside viewer may have different perceptions of the meaning of the event. Merleau-Ponty (2012), a phenomenologist who wrote extensively on perception and sexuality, defines all sexuality as the body-subject’s concrete, spatial, and pre-reflective intentionality or directedness toward the lived world. What is most interesting for the current discussion is the pre-reflective and embodied quality of sexual intentionality that he describes. He states, “Insofar as I have hands, feet, a body, I sustain around me intentions which are not dependent on my decisions and which affect my surroundings in a way that I do not choose. This isn’t accomplished through will or intellectualization but through conversations or gesture” (Merleau-Ponty, 2012, p. 440). Merleau-Ponty essentially suggests that what is sexual may not be available to us in a conscious and reflective manner in the form of a decision or a cognitive process but is present instead in our embodied manner. This becomes sometimes available later to consciousness to be named erotic, sexual, or intimate and reflected upon, but other times remains unavailable to consciousness and therefore not reflected upon or named as such. Most clinicians would agree that we each have varying degrees of conscious awareness of our feelings, sensations, and desires at any given point in time and further that sometimes even when aware we may be reluctant to acknowledge them. In addition, clinicians also would likely agree that we differ in our ability to read somatic cues and gestures of others and to discern intended (or subconscious) meaning of embodied acts in real time. These two ideas are prevalent in many psychological theories and should come as no surprise asserted here, and yet when applied to the issue of infidelity, unconscious or pre-conscious embodied processes will become important in our understanding and treatment directions in some novel ways.

It may be helpful to provide an illustration here about how eroticism and sexuality can be experienced in a pre-conscious embodied manner. In my clinical work as a psychotherapist and sex therapist, I find that many sexually monogamous married couples opt for the “usual” arrangement, which does not include sexual intercourse with another outside of the relationship. This is supported by the cultural hegemony. This arrangement goes largely unquestioned and largely unarticulated because it is seen as synonymous with the institution of marriage, even if the couple is not religious. In addition, for most couples there is some degree of clarity (although not always) and agreement, either verbally or otherwise understood, about other boundaries such as permissible types of touch with others, for example. Often the line is drawn at hugging and kissing in a socially acceptable manner (e.g. on the cheek among close friends) but not “making out” or passionate tongue kissing. There is some variance on the particulars of this line based on differences in cultural norms and personalities and beliefs about the role of kissing, hugging, and touching in social situations and couples relationships, but the line is generally somewhat clear to couples and defines the distinction between social touch and sexual touch, even if it has not been discussed. This line is learned and communicated socially through gesture and embodied interactions or conversations that occur over time. Some rare few discuss in greater detail their views and ideas about monogamy and sexuality and make agreements to open their marriages in particular ways through swinging, cuddle parties, cuckoldry, or allowing making out or other specific activities that are generally more sexual, sensual, or erotic than what can be described as socially acceptable touch in a broad non-sexual manner.

There is still a gray area, however. Some touches or gestures that are understood as more broadly socially acceptable can be imbued with a sexual atmosphere or intimate sensibility. Take such circumstances like a pat on the back, an embrace through partner dance, or a handshake—all of which might be socially sanctioned and somewhat innocuous to an outside observer. Such touches can also be very intimate, erotic, or sexual as experienced by those who are involved in them and sometimes in an unanticipated manner. In addition, a wide array of social possibilities that one might encounter that do not include touching but nevertheless can be said to be sexual or intimate exist, such as flirting, making or receiving sexually suggestive comments, divulging or receiving intimate thoughts and secrets from another, or fantasizing about another during sex with the primary partner. These experiences of eroticism and intimacy (or if unwanted, harassment) can be pre-meditated insofar as one can call up a fantasy at will or consciously try to flirt. But these examples can, as Merleau-Ponty suggests, also occur in ways that are not always consciously available to us until after they are already occurring and are named or labeled erotic or intimate. Similarly, situations such as having dinner with an attractive colleague while on a business trip or wearing a sexy outfit to a public event may all be socially sanctioned or defensible within the structure of monogamous relationships, particularly if we intend to remain neutral or boundaried in sexual acts with others. Each of these situations as well as a great number of others are contexts where eroticism may become present in an embodied pre-reflective manner within these acts and then represent areas of gray.

We all have opinions and judgments about each of the scenarios discussed earlier, ranging from nonchalance to clear discomfort. Depending on a wide range of contextual details and meanings for all involved (e.g. who the other is, how we judge their character, how connected we feel to our spouse, how insecure we feel, our attachment style), any of these or all of these situations could be perceived as a betrayal or not. Often these distinctions are not made upfront but instead only get discussed once one of these scenarios has occurred and a threat is perceived or if the experience develops into something more than anticipated for the person experiencing it. What is interesting about these distinctions is that while we may be able to sort out where to draw the line on one of these issues or all of them that we may brainstorm in advance, we are usually unable to fully anticipate all future possible scenarios, contexts, feelings, and experiences that may occur, in advance, and until death or the primary relationship ends. There is an ongoing stream of new experiences and contexts that may also be in a gray area or may give rise to a new set of feelings, desires, or subjective understandings of the boundaries between fidelity and infidelity.

Take a moment to consider what for you personally would constitute infidelity so that you can become more aware of your beliefs and values. If you are a clinician, this is an important activity so that you might become more aware and flexible with your consciousness as you approach clinical work in service of your clients. Consider what for you would seem fitting as the definition of infidelity? Where for you are the lines? Are there gray areas? What are the agreements you have within your relationship(s) (if you are currently in any) about fidelity? Are you clear and in agreement with your partner(s)? Have you discussed this? What would it be like to discuss this? What are the risks and benefits of doing so?

The Difficulties With Defining Infidelity and Studying Infidelity

It is not only the perceptions and judgment of the persons engaging in the potential infidelity that are relevant. Perceived social judgment is also relevant. For example, in research on infidelity, non-response bias and social desirability biases are prevalent an...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Part I
• Part II
• Bibliography
• Index