Of course. You think all honesty doesn't hurt like hell and make someone reconsider the relationship even unjustly?
Hurtful facts may be revealed through honesty, but i
t is not the honesty, but the facts, that are responsible for the pain. If the receiver of said facts decides to reconsider the relationship, it may seem "unjust" to the presenter of the facts, but that is not something he gets to decide. The receiver is entitled to their own criteria by which to judge the situation.
the power shifts to the PA having to basically serve the SO and live without personal space and privacy just for the sake of rebuilding trust.
If an SO demands accountability post-disclosure in order to help with his or her recovery or sometimes at the PAs request, this does not amount to the PA being required to "basically serve" the SO. I imagine it might be quite uncomfortable and inconvenient to have to adjust to living with accountability if one is accustomed to having none, but this also happens to be a skill that will be required in one's future life as a recovering/recovered addict. In fact, I'd say it's a good skill for everyone and I'm basing this on the many times
I've had to do it my life. It never felt comfortable, but it was worth it in the end.
just for the sake of rebuilding trust.
I find the "just" in that sentence very problematic. Trust is critical to a relationship. I think we often bestow a certain amount of "unearned" trust on our loved ones especially at the beginning of a relationship, then that trust either grows or is eroded over time. But trust that has grown over time, then is suddenly violated by a major betrayal, or has been violated repeatedly, can require intense and persistent effort to rebuild. It is up to the individual being asked to put forth that effort to decide if the price of the trust-building is too high. If sacrificing some personal space and privacy is too high a price, so be it. Move on. Find someone for whom trust in a relationship is not as important.
Personal space and privacy in a relationship is healthy.
I agree with you, as long as we are talking about a normal, healthy relationship. In a relationship where addiction (particularly sex and porn addiction) is present, privacy and personal space are the very things that have acted historically as cover for the development, flourishing, and hiding of the addictive behaviors from the SO and others.
It's also allows the SO to unjustly use the addict card to redirect responsibility and to shift blame for things that aren't due to the addiction. It's essentially a get-out-of-jail free card
This might happen and I can think of two possible reasons for it. 1)If this happens, it is a marker of other problems with the relationship and would likely happen in other contexts, even without the "addict card". 2)Those "things" might in fact, be related to the addiction but the addict can't yet see it, as in the case of denial. I have seen this in action with my own husband, who would often swear something had nothing to do with the addiction, only to come back 2 months later and admit that it had been completely driven by the addiction but he just couldn't see it at the time.
It's also allows the SO to unjustly use the addict card to redirect responsibility and to shift blame for things that aren't due to the addiction. It's essentially a get-out-of-jail free card and it's also a terrible horrifying secret that we don't want anyone else to know and now the SO knows it and there is no guarantee of them protecting that secret.
Why would you even want to be with an SO who would do those things? That sounds like either an extremely adversarial relationship or an extremely paranoid PA.
Of course there is a partnership even with this secret, that's a bit grandstanding.
I stand by my original statement here. If one partner is being deliberately deprived of relevant information (relevance
not to be decided by the depriver,) by the other, especially so that the depriver can retain an advantage, that is
not a partnership, in my opinion.
If the PA's behaviour is hurtful to an extreme where the relationship cannot exist, and is being actively sabotaged, that's all the information that's required. They don't need a whole psychological evaluation to make a decision here.
That is not at all clear to me. It might be very important to the decision-making process to know why the hurtful behavior is occurring. For example, someone may be behaving badly because they are a sociopath. OR they may be behaving badly because they have clinical depression or a hormonal imbalance. But the effects of both might
feel the same to the one on the receiving end. What is missing is the information about why. When deciding whether to leave the relationship, I might make a very different decision based on the latter vs the former. In fact, many SOs, once informed about the true reasons for the PAs behavior, DO make the decision to stay and support the PA while they heal. We'll never know how many who were kept in the dark and finally threw up their hands and left would have joined that camp had they known the truth.
Another reason for needing the "whole psychological evaluation" is to help SOs who have been laboring under the mistaken impression that
they, themselves or some deficit in them was the cause of their PAs behavior. An SO who internalizes this, never finds out the truth, and leaves the relationship, might always believe she was at fault.
This forum is filled with SOs talking about it and how they can never trust their PA again and they feel like killing themselves and how could they go on and stuff like that.
Yes. All that is true. I've experienced living in ignorance of the truth about my husband's addiction and I've experienced all those things you cite. I'll take the latter, please. And I'm glad
he wasn't the one who got to decide for me.
mate, i disclosed to my SO. there was no dday or anything I chose of my own free will to disclose. There was no ominous foreshadowing of doom yet to come if I didn't. I chose to.
I'm happy to stand corrected here. I was sloppy in not indicating that the last bit of my response was directed at others, not at you. Please accept my apology.
Not disclosing is not being dishonest, it's just being secretive
We have to agree to disagree here. In my view, not disclosing is clearly a lie of omission.
no-one here is qualified to advise on the matter and they should seek qualified help before making a decision.
I'm all for seeking qualified help but I continue to see it as my right to be given information that has the potential to impact my life AND to decide if it is for my own good.
Maybe before marriage or just before having kids then it might be considered an informed decision to stay. Otherwise it's not an informed decision to stay it's a feeling of duty and obligation; of being trapped by external elements.
I'm not really clear about what you are saying here, but I'll proceed based on what I think you are saying. Yes. After disclosure, one might decide to stay out of a sense of duty and obligation and one might even feel trapped. And yes, from experience, I know that sucks. I don't, however, accept an "ignorance is bliss" argument as a way to avoid that situation. I'm not a four year old that needs to be told her dead dog has gone to live with a nice family in the country. I'd prefer to be respected enough to be given a chance to work with my partner to improve the situation and to glean whatever personal growth I can from it.