Wobbly, I can see no comments in relation to goadiness directed at you. In fact, I'd like to thank you for starting such an interesting thread that will hopefully help our understanding of such an emotive issue.
The interesting aspect to this is how tenacious the myth is in the first place and how it somehow manages to obliterate logic and understanding, even when it's deconstructed. It's a good example of how an emotive subject can do that even to people who have no difficulty grasping logic or complex arguments about other topics.
For example, anyone who is familiar with the Ladder of Inference in relation to fair, objective decision-making as a manager or team leader might recognise this problem and see its resonance to the debate.
Which is why it's essential to look at the belief or discourse that's on the lowest rung of the ladder.
I think the confusion starts with the initial 'presumed fact' that all or most infidelity arises in relationships where the infidelitous person is unhappy and dissatisfied with his/her partner and their relationship together.
From that flawed premise, various other erroneous beliefs and conclusions follow.
Because that 'presumed fact' is wrong.
There is a significant proportion of affairs where the infidelitous partner reports no dissatisfactions in their primary relationship - or at least dissatisfactions that are capable of remedy by an existing partner. In many of those affairs typically the lure of the affair partner is that s/he is new/different and the lure of the affair itself is that it provides a person with a new relationship where the feelings are intense and highly-charged at the beginning. An existing partner cannot ever be 'new' again and it is virtually impossible to recreate the intensity of a new relationship in an established partnership.
People are often drawn to affairs of that kind when they are experiencing dissatisfactions or unhappiness in other areas of life that have previously defined them to a disproportionate extent. A career failure/stagnation, the acknowledgement that looks are fading, not being 'needed' as much by dependents, money worries, the loss of other important relationships often through bereavement. Another common flashpoint is if an area of life is stressful e.g a return to work, or a new job. An affair provides a quick fix' ego boost and an artificial high and is used as a prop coping mechanism.
The push factor however does not reside in dissatisfactions with an existing relationship or partner.
So having established that infidelity in those instances is not caused by problems in the marriage the 'presumed fact' instantly becomes a belief at most and a belief that is easily challenged.
Next then, it's necessary to examine those who are unhappy in their relationships and believe that this was the push factor in their decision to be unfaithful. As we will have often seen on threads here, one of the angles posters are keen to determine is whether the unhappiness was created by the affair itself and not the other way around. If it's insisted and accepted that it was pre-existing, all we can prove in a logical sense is this:
A person was unhappy in his/her relationship and decided to have an affair
That's all.
We can agree that it's possible or even probable that the unhappiness was a causal factor in that person's decision to have an affair rather than choose other remedies to address unhappiness.
What we can't say is that there is a direct causal link, because to do so would be to miss out the vital middle phase of decision-making where other options existed and were eschewed in favour of having an affair.
LazyJaney asserted that I had 'shifted my position' when I stated that I wasn't suggesting that affairs never happen when there is marital discord.
This wasn't a 'shift' at all.
There is no disonnance between stating that infidelity is never caused by problems in a marriage because it is caused by an individual's choice of it over other options - and saying that some affairs happen after there has been relationship discord. The two are entirely different statements that do not contradict eachother.
Perhaps it's also necessary to point out the obvious. A marriage itself cannot choose the infidelity that afflicts it and neither can an individual control the behaviour of another.
So when we discuss causal links in relation to other situations, we accept that there are situations in which the people most affected by the incidence of something had no control over events. This is important psychologically because it removes blame and responsibility where it isn't deserved and is recognised as an essential step in helping individuals recover from trauma.
That's why it's vital to challenge, deconstruct and debunk the myth in this thread and it's as important psychologically for the person having the affair to understand it as it is for the faithful partner coping with the trauma of infidelity. It's also helpful to the third party in the triangle if their own collusion has been secured based on a belief that the affair occurred because of a new partner's relationship dissatisfactions.