SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

This is a continuation of the conversation that was begun on page 2 of Hopeless42's post in Wayward side, to avoid thread jacking.

DRSOOLERS,

​​

I could spend all day disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, but not to thread-jack, it is fair to say that the argument that love can be separated into a "noun" and a "verb" may be a convenient philosophical exercise, but it collapses under the weight of real-world impact

On the contrary. The separation into the two parts (technically three) I described is based on my real-world experiences and observations.

​

To suggest that one can "love someone to death" while systematically betraying them is to strip the word love of its most essential component: integrity.

Betrayal is a complicated thing, especially when you know it is wrong and undeserved, and one is also betraying themselves in addition to their loved ones. If one holds integrity as a value, infidelity is a betrayal of that value, and a betrayal of the version of the self one holds in high esteem and wishes to actually embody. As I described in my previous post, humans often behave in ways that are unexpected and self-destructive. You would not expect people to betray their loved ones and themselves because of the horrible consequences and pain it causes... And yet they do.

Love is not merely a warm internal sentiment or a passive feeling of attachment; it is a sacred duty of protection

.

We agree on this matter. This is why I described love as having two (technically three) parts: the feeling [noun] and actions [verb]. When you feel love for someone, you value them for their inherent traits, you love being in their presence and spending time with them, you appreciate what they do for you and the ways they express their love to you, their thoughts, feelings, goals, dreams, happiness and well-being are of utmost importance to you... When you love[verb] someone, you praise them, tell them how you feel about them, you spend quality time with them, you express gratitude for what they do for you and do things in return for them, you actively listen to them... and yes, it's your "sacred duty" to protect their happiness and well-being.

These lists are obviously not complete, but they are several examples of how many people experience love[noun] and behave when they love[verb] someone. Infidelity runs contrary to loving behavior, but it does not inherently mean an unfaithful person does not feel love[noun] for their partners in similar ways to what I have listed. Again, infidelity is not only a betrayal of a loved one, but it is a betrayal of oneself, and it is both destructive to that loved one and self-destructive. Why do waywards harm their loved ones and destroy their own relationships, families, lives...? There are many reasons, and the journey to recovery and becoming a whole and morally-behaving person after infidelity begins with discovering those reasons. Then we work on correcting them, so that we can love[verb] properly.

If you claim to value someone while actively making choices that you know will shatter their psychological safety and reality, you are not experiencing love.

That is the exact myth that I described in my previous post.

​

Two of my closest friends are social workers, and I often think of the countless times they’ve worked with abused women trying to help them separate from a partner. These women often feel their partner loves them, to which the common response is: they don't love you if they beat you, isolate you, pour boiling water over you, or degrade you.

Herein lies the third part: how we want to be loved, and what kind of love[verb] we expect-- and accept-- from a partner. We should set our standards high for such a thing. Certainly abuse should not fit into those standards, and thus should not be tolerated. Whether the abusive partner feels love[noun] for the abused partner is irrelevant in such situations. The fact of the matter is that the abused partner is not safe, and therefore should end or even escape the relationship, not accept the behaviors of the abuser... I also wrote about this in my last post.

Tangentially related: people define infidelity as abuse, with which I do not disagree. However, ending a relationship with someone you love[noun and verb] and may or may not have invested in and built your life with, is generally very painful. Since there is chance for reform for a truly remorseful WS, many BS choose to remain in the relationship with their WS, on the condition that the abuse/infidelity does not continue. In instances of successful recoveries and reconciliations, it is generally because a WS feels love[noun] for their BS that they are willing to face up to the horrible things they did and put in the work to become better, both as a person and as a partner. They become better at loving[verb] their BS.

If we were to talk to these abusers, they could use all the same arguments you made—that the "noun" was there even if the "verb" failed. Maybe you are right and it’s wrong for social workers to assume the feelings of these abusers, but I’d wager not. I believe there is a point where the behavior is so incongruent with the sentiment that the sentiment itself is invalidated.

.

They could say that, and very often they do. Many abusers love[noun] their partners, and will experience immense shame for their actions and/or crushing grief if the relationship ends. But they did, in fact, fail to love[verb] their partners, failed to protect them and uphold their happiness and well-being, and therefore they are still not safe partners regardless of what they feel. Their internal feelings are still their internal feelings... Again we do not have to accept behavior that does not meet our standards for how we want to be loved. A social worker could more accurately say that the abuse is not loving behavior, and that their victims deserve better treatment.

I would like to pause here to remind you the circumstances under which I brought up this two (technically three) part distinction. I would assume Hopeless42 isn't abusing her BS in the ways you have mentioned, except for her prior unfaithful behavior. If we are here to try to support her while she works through her feelings, assuming or telling her what those feelings are-- that she supposedly doesn't love[noun] her BS if her behavior has not been loving[verb]-- is not helpful. Especially when she has had such an explosive reaction to potentially losing her husband, and may be navigating a great deal of shame and grief. Why would you grieve the loss of them if you didn't love[noun] your spouse? As I wrote in the other post, I recall believing that my marriage was fundamentally un-fixable and that my husband didn't actually love[noun] me anymore, and I grieved that so heavily that I contemplated suicide, even as I carried out my affair with someone else. That's the pain of loving someone when you've lost them, whether you actually have or not. This is why I say "You don't love your partner if you cheat on them" is a myth.

​All of this is to say, while I accept your viewpoint, it is entirely valid for someone to feel it’s impossible to love someone and betray them at the same time. We will never have a universally accepted definition of love, and getting into arguments about definitions can be futile—but for many of us, love without the "verb" isn't love at all

This falls under the third part: how you define your standards of behavior for being loved[passive verb.] This is a separate thing from how other people feel internally about you or their partners, just as much as it is separate from another's behavior towards you or their partners... When you squash the three parts together, I think it forms a picture of a general "love" as a whole-- like the romance we see in movies, or what we mean when we say things like "Ah, young love..." or "Love is in the air!" So I think if you say, "Love[general] is not one person cheating on the other," that makes sense. Maybe that's closer to what you actually mean? Rather than literally, "you cannot feel love[noun] for a person if you are unfaithful to them."

[This message edited by GotTheMorbs at 11:17 PM, Monday, May 11th]

WontBeFooledAgai,

Yeahno, I am sorry but this is simply wrong. Love is not just a *feeling* but a COMMITMENT to your partner. By DECIDING to cheat you put your own wants ahead of your partner's needs.

This is exactly my point-- Love has two parts (technically three), the feeling and the behaviors. Behaviors that are harmful to your partner, like infidelity are not loving behaviors, and they contrast with any internal feeling of love[noun]. They are a betrayal of your partner as well as a betrayal to yourself, as they are self-destructive as well as destructive to others. It's like enjoying the hike out of a lovely bike ride, and then taking a stick and lodging in your bike such that you break it and go tumbling ass over teakettle over the handlebars. Humans often behave in ways that are unexpected, selfish, and/or foolish that conflict with their own feelings and morals.

No I don't agree. Love is a COMMITMENT to your partner, even when you are not *feeling* loving.

When you make choices that destroy your partner, you do NOT love them. Full Stop.

Many abusers love[noun] their partners, and will experience immense shame for their actions and/or crushing grief if the relationship ends. But they did, in fact, fail to love[verb] their partners, failed to protect them and uphold their happiness and well-being, and therefore they are still not safe partners regardless of what they feel. Their internal feelings are still their internal feelings... Again we do not have to accept behavior that does not meet our standards for how we want to be loved.

I would like to pause here to remind you the circumstances under which I brought up this two (technically three) part distinction. I would assume Hopeless42 isn't abusing her BS in the ways you have mentioned, except for her prior unfaithful behavior.

GotTheMorbs,

This is an interesting take on the subject, but it seems designed to argue your point rather than be an effective model for viewing love.

If you are interested in learning about other's opinions and how they approach the world, here's an analogy. Imagine the worse thing you've done to your child or partner other than infidelity. Maybe it was yelling at them when you were upset or calling them names. Now multiply that by 10 or 100. Imagine you sucker punch them in the face or run them over with your car.

For many people, it's impossible to believe that you were holding love [noun] or loving feelings while committing this action of the opposite of love [verb]. You seem to want to excuse the original poster because her only unloving behavior was being unfaithful. Just understand that for many BS's infidelity feels like a sucker punch or worse and THAT abusive.

Their internal feelings are still their internal feelings... Again we do not have to accept behavior that does not meet our standards for how we want to be loved.

I think many people don't find that important. They don't understand the personal logical distinctions or care that they exist if someone is trying to run them over. They just want to get away and don't want anything to do with that type of love.

[This message edited by KitchenDepth5551 at 1:36 PM, Tuesday, May 12th]

I’m going to side with WBFA. I think this argument about love as a verb, noun or being loved idea is kind of hogwash. IMO the WP usually believes they love their partner but they can’t value their partner.
People act irrationally and against their best interests but that boils down to values. A person might want to be with their partner but not value their partner enough to be faithful. I can enjoy my car and be happy that I have my car. I also can value my car that I’m not going to recklessly do something to make me wreck it and lose it.
The argument of someone sticking a stick into their own bicycle wheels make no sense to me. It would take someone psychotic to do that to themselves and in that scenario the only person hurt is the person themselves.
Infidelity hurts more than the wayward that makes the decision to betray. The betrayed partner bears the lion share of the injury. The betrayed has to now learn that the person who "loves" them is also capable of "loving" them and still being betrayed by them. How can your BP ever trust that you could ever stay faithful?
I divorced my wife for her affair because of the lies. She was remorseful and we are still cordial. She never blamed me or told me that she felt I didn’t love her in a way she wanted to receive love. She just wanted her ex boyfriend to want her after he dumped her and I was collateral damage to her ego. She would admit that she didn’t know what love truly was and how to value herself and me to be faithful.
I think your words are more make yourself feel better and if I was your BP I would angry to think you could betray me and claim you loved me while doing it.
The picture in my head is you stabbing your partner in the back while telling them that you love them and even though the stabbing hurts and that you are stabbing them, that through this whole stabbing ordeal that you haven’t stopped loving them you just aren’t showing them active love by not stabbing them.

I have to say, I really find my blood-pressure rising with this thread.

This probably won't be a "nice" philosophical question-discussion, and there sure won't be much patience to debate with you on my end, due to context and circumstances. Your type of thinking about love, broke someone's heart to pieces,..., just as our hearts were broken by someone who thought about love as you did. What makes you think you get to debate with us on equal footing then, on what love is? I think you should instead demonstrate a lot more humility and self-awareness than you are doing here, GotTheMorbs.

[This message edited by WontBeFooledAgai at 2:00 PM, Tuesday, May 12th]

While I previously mentioned that debating definitions can feel futile, I want to clarify that I don’t believe there is a universal "right" or "wrong" answer here. Word meanings are often subjective, tied to our individual capacities for emotion and experience. You may simply experience or define love differently than I do, and that is your prerogative. However, from my perspective, separating love into a "noun" and a "verb" creates a convenient philosophical shield that ultimately renders the word meaningless. If I can say I love my dog but whip it cruelly every night, then what meaning does the word love have? If "love the noun" can exist independently of "love the verb", we validate a version of love that is entirely internal and unfalsifiable. In this framework, an individual can claim to love someone while systematically destroying their psychological safety and health. If love does not require the protection of the person being loved, it ceases to be a bond between two people and becomes a private, narcissistic emotion experienced in a vacuum. You are free to choose to define love that way, but it is about as far away from my definition as philosophically possible.

Suggesting that a person is "betraying themselves" through infidelity is a pivot that centres the wayward partner's internal struggle over the victim’s external trauma. This framing allows an abuser or wayward partner to maintain the identity of a "lover" while acting as a "destroyer", effectively using the word love as a tool to manipulate the betrayed partner into believing a bond still exists. This logic collapses when we realise that the "grief" or "explosive reactions" often cited as proof of love are frequently not expressions of love at all, but rather manifestations of shame or the fear of losing utility. A person may grieve the loss of a spouse the same way they would grieve the loss of a comfortable home or a steady paycheque—not because they value the person’s inherent worth (or because they love their home or salary), but because they value what that person provides for them. By defining love as a mere feeling that can coexist with betrayal, we strip it of its essential component: integrity. When behaviour is so wildly incongruent with the sentiment, the sentiment itself is invalidated. Otherwise, we are forced to accept a reality where "I love you" can be whispered while inflicting life-altering harm, which is a perversion of human connection.

To illustrate how dangerous this specific definition can be, imagine a man who claims to deeply 'care' for rare, ancient books. He speaks constantly of his reverence for their history and the "feeling" of awe he has for their fragile pages. Yet, he leaves these books out in the rain or uses their pages to light his fireplace when he is cold. When confronted, he argues that his "internal care" remains intact and that his destructive behaviour is simply a "failure of the verb", not an absence of the "noun". He might even cry over the charred remains, claiming his grief proves his love. To any rational observer, his definition of "caring" has been tailored specifically to allow him to destroy the books whenever it suits his immediate needs. By defining "care" in a way that excludes the duty to protect, he has created a version of care indistinguishable from contempt. Similarly, defining love as something that can coexist with betrayal isn't a nuanced take on human complexity; it is a linguistic loophole that allows a person to feel like a "good person" while they burn their partner's world down. Again, this is merely my perspective—not a claim to universal truth, but a refusal to personally accept a definition of love that includes its own opposite.

So I hope my response outlines my thoughts here but to be clear:

So I think if you say, "Love[general] is not one person cheating on the other," that makes sense. Maybe that's closer to what you actually mean? Rather than literally, "you cannot feel love[noun] for a person if you are unfaithful to them."

What I'm saying is the feeling of love[noun], when parsed from the verb is meaningless. I hope my book analogy outlines that. Love in that form becomes merely a narcissistic emotion. Which to me, is not any form of definition of love.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 9:29 AM, Tuesday, May 12th]

  Moving to General

I’ve been thinking a lot about the recent discussion separating love into "noun" and "verb," where the feeling of love can supposedly exist independently from loving behavior.

I understand the point intellectually. Human beings are contradictory. People can feel attachment, dependence, longing, desire, grief, fear of loss, even deep affection, while simultaneously behaving in destructive and selfish ways.

But I think calling all of that "love" creates a definition so broad that it becomes functionally meaningless to the person receiving the harm.

If someone knowingly deceives, gaslights, betrays, risks your mental health, risks your physical health, rewrites your reality, and destroys your sense of safety while claiming they "still loved you the whole time," what exactly is that statement supposed to mean to the betrayed person?

Because from the receiving end, I am Hopeless42 husband and have not read the original post so correct me if I am missing any pertinent information, the experience of "being loved" looked indistinguishable from abuse.

That’s the part I struggle with.

I don’t dispute that a wayward spouse may feel intense emotional attachment to their partner during an affair. I don’t dispute that they may panic at the thought of losing them afterward. I don’t dispute that they may cry, grieve, spiral, or genuinely not want the marriage to end.

But I question whether those feelings alone deserve the same word we use for a healthy, protective, faithful, integrity-based bond.

To me, love that does not meaningfully restrain betrayal is not love in any useful relational sense. It becomes a private internal feeling completely disconnected from responsibility toward the other person.

And once love is disconnected from responsibility, protection, honesty, and sacrifice, it starts becoming indistinguishable from possession, dependency, validation-seeking, or fear of abandonment.

I think that distinction matters.

Because betrayed spouses are often told:
"They loved you, they just acted against their values."
"They loved you, but were broken."
"They loved you, but compartmentalized."
"They loved you, but weren’t loving you properly."

At some point, many of us hear that and think:
If this counts as love, then the word has stopped meaning anything protective at all.

For me personally, love is not proven by how devastated someone is after consequences arrive. Love is revealed by what boundaries a person refuses to cross before consequences ever exist.

A person can absolutely feel attachment while betraying you.
A person can absolutely desire you while betraying you.
A person can absolutely fear losing you while betraying you.

But I am no longer convinced those things automatically deserve to be called love.

Not because humans are simple.
But because words matter, and actions matter.

And if "I loved you" can coexist with months or years of calculated deception and profound trauma inflicted on another human being, then the betrayed partner is left trying to heal using a definition of love that no longer offers safety, integrity, or protection at all.

@Gemmy

Genuinely an outstanding post! I wish you well in your healing and trust you will find your path.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 2:12 PM, Tuesday, May 12th]

I'm not saying anything for certain because I certainly can't demonstrate anything, but Morbs sure does remind me of someone else who had multiple accounts with similar arguments and insights just a little while back...

if "I loved you" can coexist with months or years of calculated deception and profound trauma inflicted on another human being, then the betrayed partner is left trying to heal using a definition of love that no longer offers safety, integrity, or protection at all.

Damn Gemmy. This deserves to be preserved somewhere. I so completely agree with you.

One of the most difficult truths to accept about infidelity is that it has nothing at all to do with a betrayed spouse or partner.

Do I think it's possible to love someone and engage in infidelity at the same time? Yes, I do. Absolutely.

Does that have any relevance to a betrayed spouse? Generally speaking, not at all.

My exww was rather insistent that she never stopped loving me and I believed her. It didn't matter. Those professions of love were completely and totally irrelevant to me.

So, while I understand your point, GotTheMorbs, I'd imagine that it's equally irrelevant to your BH. And I would highly recommend that you stop trying to convince him that you never stopped loving him during your affair.

@Gemmy

As always, you're amazingly articulate.

You also hit the nail on the head on one of the things that bother me as I read these posts. We need to define love. In fact, the act of defining something can probably resolve most conflict, not just love and betrayal. Two sides disagreeing over a topic without first identifying whether they're using the same definition could be chaotic.

First, I don't believe that Waywards typically define love the way non-Waywards do. I do believe they feel love, it's just love of themselves. It's kind of like the difference between regret and remorse. Regret is how you feel about something that impacts you...and remorse is how you feel about something that impacts the person wronged.

When WSs say, with absolute sincerity, they never stopped loving their BSs they probably mean it...as they define love. The issue may be that the thing they love is a reflection of themselves. They love how their BS makes them feel, of what the BS does for them. The BS is a means to an end. The BS is not real [perhaps a bit harsh, but I don't think completely wrong]. They are a source of safety, security, nostalgia, support, etc. Which is not loving a person, but a construct of what they need.

Love often involves some kind of sacrifice. And a Wayward by definition foregoes sacrifice in the pursuit of, I don't know, whatever they need that they believe an A would give them.

Your word "possess" I think hits closer to the mark than "love," at least in the way that I think I understand love now.

I've been on both sides of this. I was betrayed and they I was the betrayer. What I needed was justice for having been betrayed. I believed that I loved my WF so much that I had to show her what she did to me so that we could start over with the scales balanced. I now know did not really love her, rather I loved myself too much to endure the betrayal. Stupid.

[This message edited by 1994 at 4:48 PM, Tuesday, May 12th]

I am Hopeless42 husband and have not read the original post so correct me if I am missing any pertinent information,

Gemmy, I'm skating on dangerous ground here. SI guidelines strictly prohibit discussions from threads in separate forums, as you already know. However, I think it's safe to say that this discussion, in this thread, was not initiated by your Ww.

I only mentioned that because the original poster stated it was a continuation of that post. I appologize if I was out of place.