Its fine to work on marital issues and cheating if both partners want to but I do feel at some point when only one partner is willing, affair or not, its not going to work.
This is quite true, but up until the point when the marriage ends, there is no reason to stop fighting for it. This is similar to the case of a loved one dying - the cause may appear hopeless, but acting on the assumption that 'it may not work out' or 'it doesn't feel like it's working' is not an excuse to give up. Help can come at the 11th hour.
We encourage the Loyal spouse to fight for the marriage as long as they can - and if it is at all possible, to let the END of the marriage be the sole responsibility of the Disloyal Spouse.
No one is omniscient. We cannot know
with certainty that at the last possible moment, some refulgent eureka moment might not happen and things be saved. There is no reason to give up just because things seem or feel hopeless.
There is no reason to 'individualize' an affair situation, unless you are also willing to allow to individual definitions of terms - in which case, there is no point to even having a forum, since every person who read it has their own meaning for everything, argument ad absurdium.
Unless marriage means something, unless fidelity means something, they mean nothing. And its a waste of time to talk about nothing.
So too, is it pointless to 'individualize' the steps a person should take to try
to save their marriage. To do so would simply mean that no one could do anything - every word, every action would be different for every person. We (affaircare.com) use methods that we've worked on for a long time, and we've seen them work. Not with 100% perfection (nothing is perfect) - but we have seen enough result to know we are on the right track. If we instead decided that every case was somehow unique, we would be simply spinning our wheels....grasping about for random magic solutions to problems that every person individually perceives.
I am a philosophically an egoist, and an individualist. I believe that EACH person is a separate and unique individual. At the same time, I believe in the unity of logic. All humans breath air, all humans do not have wings and flit about ponds in the evening.
The error in claiming that each case must be dealt with 'individually' is not that this is not true. It is that it is an equivocation on the word 'individual.' It assumes a separation of individuals, rather than a distinction. It assumes that our attempts to help individuals are the FUSION of ideas, rather than a UNION of them. If we fused all our ideas into a magic mixture, we would fail most of the time. Instead, we consider the ideas we present a union of truth and practice. Separate the truth (an affair = 'x', a marriage = 'y') from the practice, and we'd be randomly helping no one.
Soap box left, (and sorry about using philosophical language rather than common tongue - in this instance, I felt that the issue runs to a deeper level...)