I've been trying to process the idea of the unmet needs fallacy, in relationship to my situation. I usually journal things like this out, but this time I thought I would make a more generic story and see what you all thought of it. I took ideas from various places, including SI, and mashed them all together.
Thought this would help others process this idea. (Also feedback is appreciated 
)
Affairs and Unmet Needs
Often when an affair is revealed, the betrayed partner, dumbfounded, in shock, asks their beloved why they were betrayed. They ask what happened to cause this to occur, and if they are interested in reconciliation they ask what they can do to fix things now. They ask how they can prevent the straying spouse from leaving to make a life with their affair partner.
In most cases the straying partner is eventually able to come up with a list of things they expected from the relationship and were not getting. Needs they had that were going unmet. These unmet needs are often listed as the primary reason they looked elsewhere to fill the needs they were missing. These needs could be anything from behaviors they expected from the betrayed partner, feelings they weren't feeling, or things the betrayed partner did that angered them or pushed them away.
No matter what the needs were, the logic goes like this:
My needs were unmet -> this caused me to be unhappy in the relationship -> this unhappiness left me seeking those needs elsewhere -> those needs were filled by my affair partner.
Lets illustrate this in a story:
Imagine there are two people in a kitchen, the straying partner, and the betrayed partner. We will call them Bob, and Susan.
Bob is sitting at the table with an empty glass in his hand, and Susan is standing by the fridge. Bob asks Susan to get him something to drink. Susan opens the fridge, pulls out some milk, and fills Bobs glass up. Bob looks at the glass, apparently not satisfied, and all of the sudden the glass slips from his hand. It falls to the ground and shatters. Milk and glass flying everywhere. Confused, Susan asks why he dropped the glass. He responds with "you put the wrong thing in my glass. I wanted orange juice not milk. I was so disturbed by what you did that I accidentally lost my grasp on the glass and it slipped from my hand".
In this admittedly implausible story, the glass represents the unmet needs of the straying spouse. The milk represents the [unsuccessful] attempt of the betrayed spouse to fill those unmet needs. The mess on the floor represents the damage done to their relationship by an affair. The floor is slick, and littered with glass. Each step must be taken carefully while either leaving the room or staying to clean the mess up. This represents the danger that results from an affair no matter if reconciliation happens or not.
Bob is using his unmet need as the reason he was shocked into dropping the glass. For Bob, Susan caused him to break the glass. Even if it’s not 100% blame from Bob, Susan is still partially to blame.
Nearly all straying spouses arrive at this line of thinking one way or another after their affair is revealed. It's extremely common. This theme is also prevalent in nearly all of the affair recovery materials out there. People everywhere seem to believe it. All the way from famous authors down to couples therapists, family, friends, and nearly everyone in-between.
This idea is known as the unmet needs fallacy, and has serious problems. Its use is not only harmful to the betrayed partners who are subjected to it, but it's also counterproductive to healing for both partners.
In the story above there are several problems.
The first is that Bob never communicated his needs properly. Instead of clearly asking for a glass of orange juice, he asked for a drink and assumed Susan would know what he wanted to drink. Probably thinking something like: "It's obvious." Or "She should have known what I wanted, it's common knowledge!" Or "If she loved me she would have remembered I preferred orange juice and not milk and given that to me instead!", or "how many times do I need to tell her what I like to drink?". This poor communication is also extremely common in straying spouses. Often the betrayed partners only hear of these "unmet needs" after the affair is revealed.
The second problem is that the Bob didn't "accidentally" let the glass slip from his hand. Affairs at not accidents. Usually there is a fair amount of thought that goes into having one before hand. Bob dropped, and broke the glass on purpose.
The third problem is that Bob didn't communicate the seriousness of his needs. Susan is probably standing there thinking "oh it's just another normal day, and my love is asking for something. I'll give it to him and we can continue on with our day" completely unaware that Bob intends to break the glass on the floor (a metaphor for having an affair), and blame it on Susan. There is no way Susan could have known the seriousness of the situation because Bob concealed that from her. This level of deceit is also very common in straying partners.
Let's update the story:
Again Bob is sitting at the table with a glass in his hand, and Susan is standing by the fridge. Bob shakes the glass at Susan indicating he wants something. Susan, confused, assumes that he wants something to drink. So she goes over to the fridge, pulls out some milk, and fills his glass up. Bob looks at the glass, angry that Susan didn't understand what he wanted, and chooses to throw the glass on the floor. Milk and glass fly everywhere. Confused, and a little scared, Susan asks Bob why he threw the glass on the floor. Bob responds with "I wanted orange juice not milk. I was so hurt and angry that you put the wrong thing in my glass, that I chose to break the glass on the floor".
In this story the mess on the floor was deliberately caused by the Bob because Susan didn't meet his needs. Again Bob is blaming Susan for his actions. This is also a very common reaction of straying spouses after their affair is revealed. They say things like "if you hadn't X, Y, or Z, I wouldn’t have had the affair", or "if you had done X, Y, or Z, I wouldn’t have had the affair"
This story still has a few issues though. There's still the issue of poor communication. Not asking for what he wanted, and not communicating the seriousness of his internal feelings to Susan.
Also, it's not justifiable, or rational, for Bob to throw the glass on the floor when he doesn’t get what he wants. Especially when he doesn’t communicate what he wants clearly. Susan is in a loose loose scenario. Dammed if she doesn’t try to meet his needs, and dammed if she tries and interprets his needs wrong.
It’s the same with affairs. Unmet needs don’t justify destroying the relationship by having an affair. Even if they did, betrayed partners are in a loose loose situation. Poor communication and deception from the straying partner, means they have no good way to meet those needs, even if that were a valid reason to have an affair.
Another issue with the above story is that the betrayed partner can’t control the actions of the straying partner, and visa versa. If the betrayed partner could control the actions of the straying partner then why did the straying partner stray at all? I’m sure the betrayed partner didn’t approve. If people could control the actions of others, then why wasn’t the straying partner able to influence the betrayed partner to meet their needs properly?
No. Everyone has free will and the betraying partner made a very unfortunate choice, but it was still a choice.
Every time Bob, and Susan discuss the mess on the floor, Bob angrily blames Susan for causing it. This is often reflected in real life as well. The betrayed partner, already in extreme pain from the betrayal, is confused, and further traumatized, by accusations of wrong doing, and indirect blame the affair.
Most straying partners (and marriage counselors) don't make the obvious mistake of blaming the affair on the betrayed partner directly. They understand that there is no rational way they could defend that position since the betrayed partner literally was not present. Rather, they adopt the above logic to infer blame instead. They say things like "affairs don’t come from nowhere", and "there was a rift in our marriage that you are partially to blame for", and "happy marriages take two people, you didn’t do your part", etc.
These are all attempts to spread the blame onto the betrayed spouse. If this were not the case, then why is this always brought up in the presence of the betrayed spouse?
Lets revisit the story again:
Bob is again sitting at the table, glass in his hand, and Susan is standing by the fridge. Bob shakes his glass at Susan indicating he wants something. Susan, confused, assumes that he wants something to drink. So she goes over to the fridge, pulls out some milk, and fills his glass up. Bob looks at the glass, angry that Susan didn't understand what he wanted, and then chooses to throw the glass at Susan. The glass shatters against her body, knocking her to the floor, milk and glass flying everywhere. Terrified, injured, and in pain, Susan asks why Bob threw the glass at her. Bob, yelling, says "I wanted orange juice not milk. I was so hurt and angry that you put the wrong thing in my glass, that I chose to throw the glass at you! You deserved it!".
The story has taken a turn for the worse. In this most recent form of the story, it’s clear that Bob is acting extremely irrationally, and is abusing Susan.
Unfortunately this is far closer to the reality of what happens in an affair than the first story. The betrayed partner IS in extreme pain. Their life IS thrown upside down, and shattered. They ARE confused, and shocked, unsure of what to do. The person they trusted most has betrayed and lied to them.
Furthermore, this pain that the betrayed partner is feeling, was caused by the deliberate, and intentional actions of the straying partner. Just like throwing the glass, it was no accident. The straying partner could say that they didn’t intend to hurt the betrayed partner, but they know that their actions are likely to cause significant pain and damage to the relationship. Just like Bob knew that throwing the glass, even if it missed Susan completely, would still create a huge, dangerous, mess.
When couples seek help, sometimes in the form of self help books or websites, sometimes in the form of couples counseling, or friends and family; the betrayed spouse is usually urged to look into themselves and identify the ways they weren’t meeting the needs of their straying spouse. They are encouraged to look at how they could have been better, and encouraged to forgive the straying spouse.
During reconciliation, the betrayed spouse is usually encouraged to change themselves in order to create the conditions necessary for their straying spouse to not stray again. They seek to cause the straying spouse to remain faithful, by getting the betrayed spouse to change. Implying again that the betrayed spouse is part of the reason the straying spouse strayed. If only the betrayed spouse had anticipated and addressed all the concerns of the straying spouse before the affair, the straying spouse wouldn’t have chosen to cheat.
In other words they are encouraged to discover how they partially brought this betrayal and abuse on themselves. This is very wrong. The straying spouse knowingly chose to take these actions when they had many other options available to them.
No one would try and excuse a wife beater's reasons for beating his wife by saying "he did it because she wasn't meeting his needs". We wouldn't go to the abused woman and ask her to reflect on the ways she could have been better in the marriage, or what she could have done differently to make her abusive spouse happy. And we wouldn’t ask her to forgive him until he made significant changes in himself to become someone she is safe to be around again. Somehow that logic is reserved for intimate betrayal only.
But suppose that Susan had been giving Bob the wrong beverage for years, with Bob continuously telling her what he wanted, and Susan, for whatever reason, continued doing the wrong thing or nothing at all? Does that justify Bobs abusive behavior?
What if Bob was able to keep his glass breaking secret? Maybe he broke glass after glass in another room so Susan wouldn’t see it? Would her not finding out make it any less of a betrayal? Is it only abusive when she finds out about it?
Susans failure to meet Bobs clearly communicated needs should be addressed, but it doesn’t justify Bobs abusive behavior. It’s on Bob to address that missing need in a mature, non abusive way with Susan. If they can’t resolve the issue, whatever it’s core cause, and that need is a deal breaker for Bob, then peacefully dissolving their relationship is the better option.
No relationship can meet all the needs of both partners. Does that mean that every marriage is in one stage of pre-cheating or another? Each partner always on edge, hoping they are able to identify and address enough needs of the other partner to prevent them from choosing to cheat? No this is not the case. There are marriages that have significant difficulties, but neither partner cheats, and there are marriages that have very few issues, where one or both partners cheat.
It’s not about the marriage. It’s about the character of the people in the marriage. If someones character allows cheating to be an option, then it's possible regardless of the conditions of the marriage. If their character doesn't allow cheating to be an option, then it's not possible no matter how bad the marriage gets. Conditions in the marriage, including unmet needs, do not cause cheating.
