Re: False Reconciliation without all the Facts
To me, the ultimate goal of disclosure is to allow the betrayed spouse to live in the truth of their life. It is respectful. The ultimate goal is NOT reconciliation. Sure, a cheating spouse can want reconciliation. the betrayed spouse can want that too.
But without the truth? True reconciliation, a partnership of equals is impossible.
I know this from hard personal experience. My ex-wife dodged the truth, misleading me, refusing to name the jerk she cheated with, insisting it was a one-time thing. Minimizing all the time, even as she kind of apologized.
in reality? it took me 8 more years to finally stop the charade by lying to hre, bluffing that i knew who it was and how long it was happening, but i wanted it out of her own mouth or we divorce.
She bought the bluff and named him and admitted to many years of cheating. I was floored, i was sure it was a matter of weeks or a month or two tops. It took me several more years to divorce her (unemployment and son's health and flat out shock on my part slowed me down a lot).
Could we have reconciled with the truth at an earlier time? Possibly, but she was trying to convince me it was long over when she was still cheating.
She was using me economically and for reputation. Since our divorce I have remarried and have a wonderful wife now. The ex is still living down the loss of her reputation as a "good" woman. She isn't one, but wants to be seen as one. so she has run away to an area where she can be a "crystal healer" and nobody knows her true life story.
She doesn't need alimony but the courts gave it to her anyway so she spends it on trips to Brazil or whatnot attending new age crap.
I grumble about the economic unfairness of the support for an evil person. But I have not had to run away to hide from the truth. I live it every day. And that started with knowing the name of the guy and the severity of the offence.