Reading Time: mins
Infidelity is one of the few experiences in a relationship that can reorganize a person’s understanding of the past in a matter of minutes. A partner discovers a text message, an unfamiliar hotel receipt, a second phone, a photograph, or a confession, and suddenly events that once appeared ordinary begin to look different. A late night at work becomes questionable. A business trip is reconsidered. A period of emotional distance acquires another explanation. Even memories that once felt secure may become contaminated by doubt.
For the betrayed partner, the injury is therefore rarely confined to the sexual or romantic act itself. Betrayal can disrupt confidence in one’s own perception of reality. The person may wonder whether the relationship they believed they were living was ever quite the relationship that existed. They may question what else they misunderstood, whether earlier reassurances were genuine, and whether their partner is actually the person they thought they knew. This helps explain why discovery can create such profound psychological destabilization.
In The State of Affairs: Rethinking Infidelity, psychotherapist Esther Perel (2017) asks us to examine infidelity without reducing it either to moral condemnation or to simplistic explanations about unhappy marriages. Her position is deliberately uncomfortable. She does not minimize betrayal, but she also argues that understanding why affairs happen requires something more psychologically useful than dividing couples into an innocent victim and a defective perpetrator.
This is an important distinction in psychotherapy. Understanding an act is not the same as excusing it. In fact, meaningful accountability usually requires deeper understanding. If a person cannot recognize the emotional, relational, developmental, and situational forces that contributed to their behavior, promises that it will never happen again may not mean very much. Moral judgment can identify that a boundary was violated. It cannot, by itself, explain why the violation occurred or what must change to prevent its repetition.
Perel approaches infidelity as an entry point into much larger questions about romantic relationships: desire, autonomy, attachment, secrecy, aging, identity, resentment, loneliness, mortality, and our increasingly expansive expectations of intimate partnership. She asks us to become curious about the meaning of an affair without allowing curiosity to erase responsibility.
From the perspective of a couples therapist, this is where the work becomes psychologically interesting. Couples often arrive in therapy asking, “Why did this happen?” Yet beneath that question are much more painful concerns. Was I not enough? Did you ever really love me? Was our relationship a lie? If you were unhappy, why did you not tell me? Most painfully, the betrayed partner may be asking, “Who are you, if you were capable of doing something I believed you would never do?”
Modern couples often expect more from romantic partnership than previous generations did. We want companionship, emotional intimacy, sexual exclusivity, friendship, financial partnership, intellectual stimulation, family stability, personal growth, adventure, affirmation, and erotic vitality. We frequently expect one person to provide many of the functions that historically were distributed among extended family, community, religious institutions, and broader social networks.
That creates a difficult paradox. We want our partner to be our safest person while still remaining interesting and erotically alive. We want predictability but also surprise, permanence without feeling trapped, and deep familiarity without losing mystery.
Perel has explored this contradiction throughout her work. Security depends largely upon familiarity, reliability, and continuity. Erotic desire often benefits from a degree of separateness, imagination, novelty, uncertainty, and the capacity to see one’s partner as another person rather than as an extension of oneself. Infidelity enters directly into this tension because an affair may create secrecy, anticipation, fantasy, risk, and novelty while simultaneously destroying the security upon which the primary relationship has depended.
Emotionally focused couple therapy, developed principally through the work of Sue Johnson and colleagues, offers another useful way of understanding why discovery can become so destabilizing. EFT conceptualizes romantic relationships as attachment bonds. Ideally, an intimate partner becomes someone we can turn toward when we are frightened, vulnerable, ashamed, ill, uncertain, or overwhelmed. We depend upon the expectation that this person will be emotionally accessible and responsive when it matters.
Johnson, Makinen, and Millikin (2001) described an attachment injury as a relational event in which one partner experiences the other as unavailable, abandoning, or betraying at a critical moment. The injury can become a reference point against which the dependability of the entire relationship is judged. The betrayed partner does not simply remember what happened. The event may become evidence that vulnerability itself is unsafe.
Infidelity can function precisely this way. The discovery says, in effect, “The person I turned toward as my safe place was simultaneously maintaining a reality from which I was excluded.” This is one reason an affair can feel far more threatening than the sexual act alone. It challenges the reliability of the bond.
Research on attachment injuries within EFT has found that resolving these injuries involves more than apologizing or deciding to move forward. The injured partner must eventually be able to communicate the vulnerability and fear beneath anger or protest, while the offending partner must become emotionally available enough to hear and respond to that pain without retreating into defensiveness, justification, or shame. In a study of couples receiving emotionally focused therapy for attachment injuries, Makinen and Johnson (2006) found that couples who successfully resolved the injury demonstrated deeper emotional engagement, greater forgiveness, and improved relationship satisfaction.
This model helps us understand why some couples remain trapped after an affair even when the affair itself ended months or years earlier. The unresolved injury continues to organize the relationship.
Perel argues that affairs cannot always be understood primarily as sexual events, and research supports that broader view. Selterman, Garcia, and Tsapelas (2019) identified multiple motivations for infidelity, including anger, neglect, lack of love, low commitment, self esteem concerns, sexual variety, and situational factors. Their findings challenge explanations that assume there is one universal cause.
In clinical practice, the diversity is obvious. Some affairs are primarily sexual. Some emerge in chronically lonely relationships. Others are associated with resentment, entitlement, a need for validation, an identity crisis, or a confrontation with aging and mortality. Some occur in marriages that have been emotionally barren for many years. Others occur in marriages that both partners describe as loving.
That last possibility is often especially difficult to accept. If the marriage was terrible, the affair can at least be fitted into a comprehensible narrative: we had not been close for years, we had stopped having sex, or we were constantly fighting. But when someone says, “I loved my spouse. I did not want to leave. We had a good life, and I still had an affair,” the usual explanation becomes inadequate.
Research also suggests that individual attachment patterns may contribute to vulnerability. Attachment anxiety and avoidance have both been associated with infidelity risk, although these associations are not deterministic and should never be used as excuses. Attachment theory can help explain vulnerability; it does not eliminate choice.
Perel introduces another possibility that is psychologically more subtle. Sometimes an affair is not only a search for another person. It may also become a search for another version of oneself.
Consider a man in his late forties whose life has gradually become organized around responsibility. He is a father, husband, employee, mortgage payer, caregiver to aging parents, and the person everyone calls when something breaks. None of these roles is false. Yet over time they may become so dominant that other parts of him disappear from view.
Or consider a woman who has spent fifteen years organizing her life around work, children, household management, and the emotional needs of everyone around her. She may love her family deeply and yet have lost contact with the part of herself that once felt spontaneous, sexual, adventurous, or unpredictable.
Then another person arrives who does not know them primarily through duty.
With this person, they feel playful. Desired. Interesting. Irresponsible. Young. Free.
This does not make betrayal acceptable, but it may help explain its emotional magnetism. The attraction may involve the affair partner, but it may also involve the experience of who the unfaithful person becomes in the affair.
Perel repeatedly returns to this idea. Instead of asking only, “What did you see in that person?” therapy may eventually need to ask, “Who were you able to become when you were with that person?”
The answer may be sexual, but it may also involve freedom, confidence, curiosity, rebellion, tenderness, power, adventure, or the experience of being seen without the weight of accumulated history.
This is clinically important because simply ending the affair does not necessarily resolve the psychological problem that helped sustain it. If someone used an affair to access a disowned or neglected part of themselves, that part must eventually be addressed in a more conscious and responsible way. Otherwise, the couple may restore external order without understanding what happened internally.
The therapeutic goal is not to import the secrecy or excitement of the affair into the marriage. It is to identify what psychological need or abandoned aspect of identity was being expressed through the affair and determine whether that part of the self can be lived more honestly.
One of Perel’s more provocative observations is that people do not only cheat because they are unhappy with their partners.
This idea is difficult because it threatens a reassuring explanation. If affairs happen only in bad marriages, we can imagine that sufficiently good relationships are protected from them. Unfortunately, human behavior is more complicated.
A person may love a spouse and still struggle with insecurity, aging, grief, entitlement, novelty seeking, resentment, sexual curiosity, poor boundaries, conflict avoidance, or an unexamined need to be admired. Opportunity also matters. So do cultural attitudes toward sex and commitment, personal history, attachment style, life transitions, and the person’s willingness or unwillingness to tolerate difficult emotions.
An affair can therefore arise from the psychology of one partner, the dynamics between both partners, the circumstances surrounding opportunity, or some combination of these factors.
This distinction also protects against a serious therapeutic mistake. When couples immediately turn toward examining what was missing in the marriage, the betrayed partner can hear an implicit accusation: “If you had been warmer, more sexual, more available, less critical, or less busy, I would not have cheated.”
That is not the same as understanding the relational context.
Both people may have contributed to longstanding problems within the marriage. Both people did not necessarily contribute to the deception.
There are many responses to marital loneliness that do not involve maintaining a secret relationship. A partner can speak more honestly, request therapy, establish boundaries, insist that something must change, separate, or end the relationship. Relational dissatisfaction can help explain vulnerability to an affair, but it cannot transfer responsibility for the choices involved.
One of Perel’s publicly discussed cases involves a couple she calls Saskia and Amin. They had been married for eleven years and had three children when Saskia discovered Amin’s year long affair with a coworker.
On the surface, the crisis was obvious: her husband had been unfaithful. But the therapeutic meaning of the betrayal was connected to much older emotional territory.
Saskia had earlier experiences involving violence and the degradation of women. Her marriage to Amin represented something psychologically important: the possibility that a close relationship with a man could be safe and fundamentally different from the male relationships she had previously learned to fear.
When Amin betrayed her, therefore, the injury extended beyond sexual exclusivity. Something within her understanding of safety collapsed. The man who had functioned as evidence that intimacy could be trusted became the person who destabilized that trust.
Through an EFT lens, this is recognizable as an attachment injury. The emotional force of the affair is partly determined by the meaning assigned to the partner within the attachment system. If Amin had become a symbol of safety, his deception did not merely hurt Saskia. It contradicted one of the psychological assumptions upon which her adult relationship had been built.
Amin’s story also contained complexity. Perel describes patterns of secrecy and compartmentalization in his history, along with experiences of relational loneliness before the affair. Those factors do not absolve him. They give therapy something to work with beyond promises and remorse.
The case illustrates an important clinical principle: every betrayal has a particular emotional location. For one person, the central injury may involve sexual comparison. For another it is lying. For another, public humiliation or the discovery that friends knew. A person who learns that an affair occurred during pregnancy, illness, bereavement, infertility treatment, or another moment of vulnerability may experience the betrayal as a particularly profound abandonment.
The clinically useful question is not simply how serious the affair was by some external measure. We need to understand what this particular betrayal came to mean for this particular person.
Couples therapy following an affair often becomes stalled when explanation begins too early.
The involved partner may say that the marriage had been lonely, that sex had disappeared, or that they felt ignored and criticized for years. Some of these statements may be accurate and may eventually deserve serious attention. Yet when introduced before the injury has been acknowledged, they frequently sound like an argument for why the affair should be understood as the other partner’s fault.
Emotionally focused couple therapy is especially useful here because it pays close attention to the emotional sequence unfolding between partners. The betrayed partner may protest through anger, interrogation, contempt, or repeated demands for reassurance. The involved partner, flooded with shame or fear that nothing they say will ever be enough, may withdraw, become defensive, or attempt to shut down the discussion. That withdrawal confirms the betrayed partner’s fear that the other person is still emotionally unavailable, which increases protest. The couple becomes caught in a self reinforcing cycle.
EFT does not view the cycle as evidence that one partner is simply “too angry” and the other “too avoidant.” It asks what attachment fears are driving both positions.
Beneath the betrayed partner’s anger may be: “You were supposed to be the person I could trust. I do not know whether I am safe with you anymore.”
Beneath the involved partner’s defensiveness may be: “I am terrified that I have destroyed everything, that I am permanently defined by the worst thing I did, and that no response I offer will ever matter.”
Therapy helps these deeper experiences become speakable. But accountability cannot disappear in the process. The person who maintained the deception must be able to acknowledge the injury without immediately balancing it against a list of marital complaints.
Only after emotional safety begins to return is the couple usually able to examine the relationship that existed before the affair with greater fairness.
After discovery, many couples enter an exhausting cycle of questioning. The betrayed partner wants timelines, names, locations, explanations, and reassurance. The involved partner answers, only to hear the same or a similar question days later. Eventually they may say, “I already told you that. How many times are we going to do this?”
From an attachment perspective, the repetition is understandable. The injured partner is not necessarily gathering information in the ordinary sense. Their attachment system has been activated by threat, and they are trying to establish whether the relationship has once again become predictable enough to trust.
Before the disclosure, the betrayed partner believed they understood their relational reality. After disclosure, they discover that a significant part of that reality existed outside their awareness. The mind therefore begins to reconstruct the past. It searches for discrepancies, missed signs, changes in behavior, and occasions when the partner’s words were inconsistent with what was actually happening.
This process can resemble hypervigilance because, psychologically, that is often exactly what it is. The person is attempting to prevent being blindsided again.
The EFT concept of attachment injury is particularly helpful here. Johnson and colleagues noted that after a major betrayal, the injured partner can repeatedly use the event as a test of whether the other person is dependable. The past is continually brought into the present because the attachment system has not yet received a convincing corrective experience.
Simply telling a betrayed partner to stop asking questions therefore tends not to resolve the underlying problem. The deeper task is to help the couple restore enough emotional accessibility and consistency that the questions are no longer carrying the full burden of creating safety.
At the same time, not every detail is useful. There is a difference between information that restores coherent reality and information that produces graphic imagery the betrayed partner may later struggle to forget. Good therapy helps couples establish boundaries around disclosure so that honesty does not become another source of unnecessary trauma.
Immediately after discovery, couples often want to know whether their relationship can be saved. That is understandable, but it may be too early to answer.
The first task is usually stabilization.
Is the affair actually over? Is the outside relationship still active? Are there continuing lies or hidden channels of communication? Were there sexual health risks? Were joint finances used? Are there additional disclosures likely to appear later?
These are not secondary details. Emotional safety cannot be reconstructed while significant deception continues.
The involved partner may wish to move rapidly toward forgiveness because living with the other’s anger and pain is deeply uncomfortable. The betrayed partner often needs something quite different: enough consistency to believe that reality has stopped changing.
Trust is not restored because someone repeatedly says, “You can trust me now.” It returns through accumulated experiences of honesty, consistency, responsiveness, and the willingness to remain present when the injured partner becomes frightened.
EFT gives particular importance to accessibility and responsiveness in intimate bonds. The repair process is therefore not only cognitive. A partner may intellectually understand that the affair is over while still feeling unable to depend emotionally on the person who betrayed them. Repair requires new relational experiences in which the formerly unavailable partner becomes capable of staying emotionally present.
Research on attachment injury resolution supports this. In the Makinen and Johnson (2006) study, couples whose attachment injuries became resolved showed greater affiliative engagement and deeper emotional experiencing than couples whose injuries remained unresolved.
In another publicly released therapy session, Perel works with a couple married for approximately forty years after the wife discovered that her husband had maintained an affair with her cousin for twenty five years.
Here the psychological injury reaches far beyond sexual infidelity.
Duration changes the meaning of betrayal. A short affair may shatter trust in the present. A secret maintained across decades can force the injured partner to reevaluate entire chapters of life.
Family events occurred while the secret existed. Children grew up while the secret existed. Anniversaries were celebrated, photographs were taken, illnesses occurred, holidays passed, and ordinary conversations unfolded within a relationship containing a hidden parallel reality.
The betrayed person may therefore struggle not only with trust in the future but with ownership of the past. Memories themselves can become uncertain. Moments that once seemed straightforward now invite reinterpretation.
This is why telling someone after a long term betrayal that they must eventually “stop living in the past” can be remarkably insensitive. The person’s understanding of the past has just been altered. Some reconstruction is unavoidable.
From an attachment perspective, a prolonged affair can also create an enormous obstacle to vulnerability. If the relationship is to continue, the betrayed partner is being asked to become emotionally dependent again on the same person whose behavior demonstrated how successfully they could conceal important parts of reality.
That cannot be repaired through argument.
The offending partner has to become available to the pain they helped create. Johnson’s attachment injury model places considerable emphasis on this moment. Repair begins when the offending partner is able to respond empathically to the injured person’s fear and vulnerability rather than minimizing, explaining, or retreating. The injured partner then has the possibility of experiencing the other person differently in the very territory where the relationship previously failed.
This does not guarantee reconciliation. Some injuries prove incompatible with continued partnership. EFT is not a philosophy that every marriage must be preserved. Its central concern is whether the attachment bond can become emotionally safe and responsive again.
One of the less discussed problems in affair recovery is the role of shame.
The involved partner may initially appear defensive, irritable, self absorbed, or eager to stop discussing the affair. This sometimes reflects lack of remorse, but not always. In some people, shame becomes so intense that they cannot remain emotionally present to the partner they injured.
Guilt and shame are psychologically different experiences. Guilt tends to organize around behavior: “I did something harmful.” Shame tends to organize around identity: “I am fundamentally bad.”
That distinction matters. A partner who can experience guilt may be able to remain engaged with the consequences of what they did. A person overwhelmed by shame may shift attention toward their own unbearable sense of defectiveness. They withdraw, collapse, become angry, demand forgiveness, or insist that the betrayed partner stop bringing up the affair.
Paradoxically, extreme shame can therefore make genuine accountability more difficult.
Couples therapy must help the involved partner tolerate responsibility without disappearing into self condemnation. The purpose is not to protect them from appropriate remorse. It is to make them emotionally strong enough to remain present to the injured partner.
EFT is particularly useful here because it helps therapists work underneath defensive reactions. Instead of treating withdrawal simply as indifference, therapy investigates the emotional experience organizing it. When shame can be named and tolerated, the partner may become more available to hear the injury rather than fleeing from it.
There is a painful idea that can eventually become useful after infidelity: the relationship as it previously existed may be finished.
This does not mean the couple must separate. It means they cannot simply return to the relationship that existed before discovery.
Couples often enter therapy asking how they can “get back to normal.” But normal may have included chronic avoidance, unspoken resentment, emotional distance, sexual silence, overfunctioning, or the gradual replacement of intimacy with household administration.
The affair did not necessarily cause these conditions, and these conditions do not excuse the affair. Yet once the relationship has ruptured, both people have an opportunity to examine what they had previously considered normal.
Sometimes couples discover that they were functioning well as parents and logistical partners while slowly disappearing from one another as lovers. Sometimes one partner had become increasingly demanding while the other responded by withdrawing. In EFT language, they became trapped in a negative interaction cycle in which each person’s attempt to protect themselves intensified the insecurity of the other.
The pursuer protests because disconnection feels threatening. The withdrawing partner retreats because criticism or emotional intensity feels overwhelming. The more one pursues, the more the other withdraws; the more one withdraws, the more desperately the other protests. Over years, each person may begin to experience the other as the source of the problem without recognizing the reciprocal pattern holding them both.
An affair can enter this cycle in multiple ways. It can become an escape from it, an intensification of it, or a devastating confirmation of the injured partner’s worst fear.
EFT attempts to help couples recognize that cycle, access the vulnerable emotions beneath it, and create new patterns of emotional engagement. Research on emotionally focused couple therapy has generally found meaningful improvements in relationship satisfaction, with evidence that gains can persist following treatment.
The goal, however, is not simply restoring the old marriage.
It is creating a relationship in which both people are more emotionally visible.
One of the most valuable connections between The State of Affairs and Perel’s earlier work is her understanding of erotic desire.
We frequently assume that greater intimacy should automatically produce greater desire. Sometimes it does, but eroticism also requires separateness. Desire depends partly upon the capacity to experience the other person as someone we do not completely possess.
Long term partners can become so familiar that curiosity disappears. They know each other’s schedules, habits, complaints, sleep patterns, parenting styles, and methods of loading the dishwasher. But familiarity with someone’s routine is not the same as continued curiosity about their inner life.
Affairs often recreate curiosity in an intensified form. Will the person call? What do they think of me? What will happen next? Do they desire me? The uncertainty produces psychological charge.
The tragedy is that long term partners sometimes reserve this curiosity for strangers while assuming they already know everything worth knowing about the person beside them.
Erotic repair therefore involves more than increasing sexual frequency. It may require recovering psychological separateness. Can I still see my partner as a distinct person with fantasies, contradictions, fears, ambitions, and private experiences that I do not completely own? Can we remain attached without becoming psychologically fused?
This is one place where Perel and EFT offer complementary perspectives. Perel emphasizes the need for autonomy, mystery, and separateness in sustaining desire. EFT emphasizes secure attachment, emotional responsiveness, and the freedom that comes from knowing a partner is available when needed. These approaches are not necessarily opposites. Secure attachment does not require fusion. In fact, the experience of having a dependable emotional base can make exploration and individuality safer.
Healthy intimacy involves both connection and differentiation.
After betrayal, some couples attempt to create certainty through surveillance. Passwords are shared, locations monitored, contacts restricted, and every unexplained period of time becomes subject to investigation.
Temporary transparency may be necessary after a serious deception. The involved partner usually cannot demand immediate privacy while simultaneously asking the injured partner to trust that nothing further is being hidden.
But surveillance cannot become the permanent foundation of intimacy.
No relationship can be made completely affair proof through control. Partners remain separate people with thoughts, attractions, frustrations, fantasies, opportunities, and choices.
A healthier long term goal is a relationship in which difficult realities can be spoken before they need to become secret. Couples need to be capable of discussing loneliness, sexual frustration, attraction to other people, resentment, boredom, boundaries, and changing needs without treating every difficult disclosure as a threat to the relationship’s existence.
This does not eliminate the possibility of betrayal. Nothing does.
It creates a relationship with greater tolerance for truth.
From an EFT perspective, these conversations become easier when partners trust that difficult disclosures will not automatically result in abandonment or emotional annihilation. From Perel’s perspective, they become easier when the relationship allows enough psychological freedom for partners to remain complex human beings rather than idealized roles.
Both approaches ultimately ask whether a couple can create intimacy robust enough to include uncomfortable reality.
Some couples survive infidelity. Some do not. Some remain together for practical reasons and continue emotionally separated. Others create a relationship that becomes more honest and secure than the one that existed before the affair.
Research involving couples who remained together following infidelity identifies recurring themes in recovery, including frequent and meaningful communication, the rebuilding of safety and trust, commitment to the relationship, and processes of forgiveness. Importantly, injured and involved partners may experience the recovery differently, particularly in relation to sexual intimacy, reminders of the affair, and the need for comfort.
Forgiveness, however, should never be treated as a deadline.
Premature forgiveness can become another form of avoidance. It can silence legitimate anger before the injury has been understood. It can allow the offending partner to seek relief from shame without developing the capacity to become more trustworthy.
Forgiveness is also not synonymous with reconciliation. A person may forgive and still decide that the relationship cannot continue. Another may remain committed while needing significant time before forgiveness feels genuine.
EFT’s attachment injury work is helpful precisely because it does not treat forgiveness as an intellectual decision. The injured partner must experience the offending partner differently in the relationship. The partner who was unavailable or deceptive must become emotionally accessible in the area where the bond was damaged.
When that occurs, forgiveness becomes less about declaring the past irrelevant and more about no longer organizing the entire relationship around the expectation that the injury will happen again.
One of the most practical lessons to emerge from Perel’s work is that couples should not wait for betrayal before discussing subjects that threaten comfort.
Long term relationships benefit from conversations about desire, loneliness, independence, sexual expectations, boundaries, resentment, and the changing experience of self within partnership. These conversations are often avoided because couples assume that raising the subject will create instability.
The opposite is frequently true.
A couple might periodically discuss whether each person still feels visible as something more than a parent, provider, caregiver, or problem solver. They can talk about moments when they feel particularly close, periods when they have felt alone, whether their definitions of fidelity are actually the same, what kinds of outside relationships feel threatening, and what has become difficult to say to one another.
They can also ask whether each partner still has enough room to develop as an individual.
These conversations should not become interrogations. Their purpose is curiosity.
Long term intimacy becomes brittle when partners believe they already know one another completely. Healthy relationships require repeated updating because people change.
One of the greatest mistakes in discussing affairs is the search for a universal explanation.
People cheat because they are narcissists. People cheat because they are sexually dissatisfied. People cheat because their partners neglect them. Men cheat for sex and women for emotional connection. Happy people do not cheat.
Each of these statements may describe some people, but none adequately explains infidelity as a whole.
Clinical work requires greater precision.
An affair can involve entitlement, loneliness, avoidance, anger, opportunity, insecurity, sensation seeking, poor boundaries, sexual frustration, identity concerns, developmental trauma, grief, or a desire to escape an intolerable version of oneself. Several motives can exist simultaneously.
The same is true of the relationship that follows discovery. One couple may need to confront years of emotional neglect. Another may discover that the marriage was relatively healthy but one partner had longstanding difficulty tolerating validation needs and boundaries. Another may realize that the affair exposed a relationship neither person truly wanted to continue.
Patterns are useful. They are not substitutes for listening.
Understanding complexity does not weaken accountability. It deepens it. Responsibility becomes more meaningful when a person can move beyond saying, “I am sorry I hurt you,” toward understanding the psychological patterns that allowed them to compartmentalize, deceive, rationalize, or ignore the consequences of their choices.
After infidelity, people understandably want certainty. They want to know whether they should stay, whether trust can return, whether someone who cheated once will inevitably cheat again, and whether the affair means the relationship was never genuine.
Psychotherapy cannot honestly provide universal answers to those questions.
What it can provide is a process through which both partners begin relating to reality more directly.
The betrayed partner needs room to grieve the relationship they believed they had and to understand what the betrayal means specifically to them. The involved partner must learn to remain present to the consequences of their behavior without collapsing into defensiveness or shame. Together, the couple eventually needs to understand the relationship that existed before the affair without confusing relational context with responsibility for deception.
If they remain together, trust must become behavioral rather than rhetorical. Sexuality may need to be renegotiated. Privacy and secrecy need to be distinguished. Boundaries need to become explicit. The interactional cycles that made emotional honesty difficult must become visible.
Emotionally focused couple therapy adds an essential dimension to this work because it recognizes that recovery is ultimately about more than understanding an event. The attachment bond itself has to change. A betrayed partner may know intellectually that an affair is over and still feel unsafe every time the other person becomes distant. The involved partner may have ended all outside contact and still respond to the betrayed partner’s pain with defensiveness because shame overwhelms their capacity to stay emotionally engaged.
Repair occurs as the couple develops a different experience of one another. The injured partner is gradually able to risk expressing fear, grief, and vulnerability beneath protest. The offending partner becomes capable of responding with empathy and emotional presence rather than withdrawing or arguing. Through repeated experiences of this kind, the relationship may once again become a place where vulnerability is possible.
An affair can destroy a marriage. It can also expose realities within a marriage that had long remained unspoken. Those are not the same thing, and recognizing the distinction does not romanticize betrayal.
Perel’s contribution is her refusal to treat infidelity as psychologically simple. EFT adds an attachment based understanding of why betrayal can become so destabilizing and why explanation alone does not repair it. Together, these perspectives remind us that an affair raises questions not only about sex and fidelity but about identity, safety, longing, dependence, autonomy, grief, and the difficult work of allowing oneself to be known.
In therapy, the most productive question is therefore rarely only, “Who is guilty?” Responsibility matters enormously, but guilt alone cannot tell us how betrayal developed, what it damaged, or whether the relationship can become emotionally safe again.
The deeper work asks what happened between these two people, what the affair meant to the person who entered it, what the betrayal destroyed in the person who discovered it, what remained unspoken before the crisis, and what each person must now confront in themselves.
Whether the couple eventually remains together or separates, healing requires more than returning to the life that existed before the affair. It requires a more truthful relationship with oneself, with one’s partner, and with the choices that brought both people to this point.
The clinical scenarios discussed in this article are not presented as clients from the author’s private psychotherapy practice. They are based on Esther Perel’s publicly released clinical and educational materials. Perel presents participants anonymously or under changed names to protect their identities. The cases have been discussed here only in that publicly available and anonymized form.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(5), 508–522. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.5.508
Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A., & Millikin, J. W. (2001). Attachment injuries in couple relationships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb01152.x
Lonergan, M., Brunet, A., Rivest-Beauregard, M., & Groleau, D. (2021). Is romantic partner betrayal a form of traumatic experience? A qualitative study. Stress and Health, 37(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2968
Makinen, J. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2006). Resolving attachment injuries in couples using emotionally focused therapy: Steps toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1055–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1055
Mitchell, E. A., Wittenborn, A. K., Timm, T. M., & Blow, A. J. (2022). Affair recovery: Exploring similarities and differences of injured and involved partners. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 48(2), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12538
Perel, E. (2017). The state of affairs: Rethinking infidelity. HarperCollins.
Russell, V. M., Baker, L. R., & McNulty, J. K. (2013). Attachment insecurity and infidelity in marriage: Do studies of dating relationships really inform us about marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 27(2), 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032118
Selterman, D., Garcia, J. R., & Tsapelas, I. (2019). Motivations for extradyadic infidelity revisited. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(3), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1393494
Spengler, E. S., Lee, N. A., Wiebe, S. A., & Wittenborn, A. K. (2019). A comprehensive meta-analysis on the efficacy of emotionally focused couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.