Do they have a handbook or something....

err, yes

Do they have a handbook or something....

Yeah, if the shoe fits, then he can take it and shove it up his ....Oh sorry was thinkin about my WH for a sec, got a little carried away.

When the 'dumb answers' thread was started, I had trouble restricting myself to two posts. There were about 137 dumb answers I could have dropped in right away. I notice the thread is still growing healthily, so clearly 'fog' is a universal mirth-maker.

I was also struck by Kat's thread on how tough it must be to be the deliverer of the dumb answer, the one deep in fog.

So yesterday, during an interminable technical seminar and a long motorway journey, I found myslef wondering just how WS's get into that situation. My own H has described his own situation to me very clearly, and I've generated my own homespun psychology to explain it. I suppose I'm still at the stage where I'm trying to make sense of everything.

So the following is a personal slant on what I think goes on in the mind of affair partners, and how I think the fog works. It's talking about the 'soulmate' kind of affair - I think fling-type affairs follow different paths. I'd find it useful to know if it matches with others' experiences.

And it's LONG.

To begin with, I believe that 'fog' is a distorted reality.

�Reality� for each of us, consists principally of two things � our �life model�, and our value system.

The �life model� is the picture we have in our head of how the world works, how people interact with each other. As with an engineering model, we feed possibilities into it and come up with predictions. The accuracy of the model is dependent on many things � how good a starter pack our parents gave us, how detailed we�ve made the model, how much we�ve tested it by running sample data through. Some people have highly accurate models and are considered �shrewd�, and some have poor predictive powers and are thought naive. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

Our values system is what we use to guide us through life. It�s the set of rules and restrictions and codes that we innately believe will give us the best chance in life. It can be a narrow set � �what�s best for ME�, can revolve around the family, or can be very broad � �what�s in the best interests of the community (town, nation, world)?�

Some of our values are personal � we�ve learned hard lessons from our own experience. � �Don�t steal, or you�ll get a record.� Some we�ve unconsciously absorbed from our parents � �It�s wrong to steal�. Some we adopt to fit in with peer group ideals � �Her son was done for burglary, isn�t it awful?�.

When we engage with a life-partner, we usually pick someone with a similar values system to our own, and we work hard to bring those systems together. This is not lovey-dovey stuff - it�s innately practical. If we are both bound by the same restrictions and drivers, we are likely to support and reinforce each other. We will be able to �trust� � to confidently predict the other�s actions and opinions � and will therefore have a solid platform on which to base our life.

Our values system is based implicitly on our life model, and it works by reward and punishment. If we conform to our values, we build self-esteem and feel good about ourselves. If we violate our values, we feel discomfort. We attempt to get away from the discomfort by a) confessing and apologising, ie reconforming to values, or b) stuffing the discomfort down, or c) altering the values system so that we don�t appear to have breached it.

When an affair begins, there is usually huge temptation involved � for whatever reason. The temptation overwhelms the values system � when the WS says �I didn�t think�� , that�s exactly right. The normal mental mechanisms were not in play, largely because the life model was not sophisticated or accurate enough to detect what was happening nor predict the likely consequences, or because an intensity of resentment or anger caused normal mechanisms to be deliberately ignored. There is a �fantasy leap�, almost like a leap of religious faith. This leap says � I want some fun / excitement / attention. I deserve that. I believe that this will make me feel better, and I believe I can control it, and get what I want out of it.�

The �denial� mechanism can�t operate for long � the values system is too powerful for that. But by the time the underlying values system kicks in, the two affair partners have usually got themselves in sufficiently deep for there to be painful drawbacks in pulling out, and significant benefits in staying in. Excitement and pleasure oppose pain and discomfort.

For most people, an affair is a serious violation of their values system, so that sooner or later, the intense discomfort of values-betrayal is felt. This is heavy-duty pain, the kind that the WS is keen to escape from, like appendicitis. So how do they escape that pain? See above. They could a) confess � but of course it�s not something trivial they�d be confessing, so forget that, b) stuff the discomfort down, or c) alter the values system.

I suspect that most WS�s begin by trying to stuff the pain. But it�s too big � like getting an elephant into a suitcase. So there is really only one way to go. The values system has to change. It seems likely that the WS moves rapidly away from such intense pain � perhaps so quickly that its presence is not even noticed.

So the WS�s position metamorphoses:

1) It�s wrong to have an affair.
2) Friendship is not an affair.
3) Affairs are only wrong if they threaten the marriage. This is a friendship-with-sex and does not threaten the marriage.
4) The outside relationship �brightens� me, and is therefore good for the marriage.
5) Other people are inexperienced. They don�t understand the power of a passionate friendship, and how enriching it is.
6) This affair is not wrong. In fact, I could not live without it.

The process is driven, I suspect, by a factor which none of the literature seems to comment on much � the fact that TWO people are involved.

Both affair partners are having to alter their values systems to accommodate what they�re doing. This feels uncomfortable, so they look to each other for confirmation that they�re justified in acting as they are. Neither wants to believe that they�re involved with someone whose values system is easily changed � that would be weak - so they must each work hard to convince each other that they are good, that their values are altering only because they are �growing�, becoming too complex and sophisticated / visceral / emotionally liberated for the old realities as personified by their spouses. They therefore reinforce each other, generating a self-perpetuating cycle that builds like a fire in heavy winds.

In addition, the same values-converging process that happened with the marital partners operates on the affair partners. Ironically, there is a strong need for security, perhaps to replace the dwindling security that the marriage is likely to provide (if the affair is exposed). The affair partners therefore work to keep each other �in� the relationship by escalating involvement and increasing the other�s personal investment.

The desperate need to believe in the security of the relationship, in its ability to support and nurture, in its essential goodness, leads to what looks from the outside to be reckless behaviour. There is a mutual denial of the dangers of STDs or pregnancy.

By this time, the WS�s values systems are a LONG way from where they began.

Think back to what a values system is. It�s a set of beliefs based on a life model � the most realistic picture an individual can generate of how the world works. To support the altered values system, there has to be an altered life model (the one that says, eg, affairs won�t hurt my family).

The problem with the altered life model is that it�s not realistic. It starts from a premise that�s innately flawed � that it is OK for this individual to have this affair. The flaw distorts all logic.

Imagine that you postulated a theory that air would support your weight if there was enough of it under you, ie if you got high enough above the ground. Obviously, water supports large ships under a similar theory, so it�s a reasonable conjecture. The theory would look OK as long as you didn�t have to personally prove it. We can see that skydivers don�t appear to conform to the principle, but perhaps that�s just because they don�t get high enough?

Once you�re working to this theory, it becomes obvious that planes are a rather na�ve concept. All that going-fast when all they have to do is climb up to the level where they�re supported by air molecules! The notion that satellites have to orbit at high speed is also clearly daft � at that height the trouble would be getting them down!

The affair partners are now operating far above safe oxygen levels. But to them, everything makes perfect sense.

This is �fog�.

The flawed model is a poor predictor. It fails as soon as it�s put to a real-world test. In fact, it fails all the time. In truth, it fails so frequently that the affairees must exert colossal energy just to keep themselves in the suspension of disbelief. And the self-delusion may eventually be exposed by real-world reactions that cannot easily be denied or ignored � the anguish of children, the disappointment on a mother�s face, the lash of a lawyer�s letter.

So what�s happening to the marriage, while all of this is going on?

To begin with, the WS moves between the two realities with a sense of excitement. It�s an escape. But, as the two realities diverge, there is increasing discomfort at the difficulty of bridging the two, of making the transition between them. To counter this, and because the affair is where the excitement is, a sense of anger, indignation and self-righteousness develops that the WS is �having� to lie and deceive. If only the BS�s could be sophisticated enough to understand the benefits of the arrangement! If the BS�s were not so selfish, they would be glad that the WS�s are happy! It is infuriating that the stupid, inflexible BS�s would inevitably whinge and complain and wreck the perfect love of two people who were destined for each other�

There is no counter-balancing argument from the BS, because the BS does not know what is going on. But the likelihood is that the spouse has an instinctive awareness that something is wrong, and is becoming defensive and confrontational. The marriage is becoming an uncomfortable environment.

So the WS has now manoeuvred themselves into a position where the only source of acceptance and pleasure is with the OP. The WS inevitably moves further away from the marriage.

The affair usually loses its flavour, as the affairees begin to know each other and recognise that the affair partner is far from an improvement on the marital partner, and that the effort involved is no longer justified by the benefits. But as the emotional bond weakens, the two affairees may perversely cling to each other even more tightly, though not always at the same time. There is probably a bond of friendship, hopelessly complicated by the sexual connection and conspiracy to bteray.

By now they are in a position where exposure of the affair seems likely to end the two marriages anyway. The marriages are now so tarnished � the WS�s have moved so far away from the original values systems still supported by their spouses � that the affair, for all its misery, is now a more likely candidate for the future than the marriage. Both WS�s are locked in a death-spiral � each is terrified that the affair partner will leave the affair to recover the marriage, leaving one WS abandoned and hopeless. And at least one WS may be trapped by the terror of having to establish permanence with the affair partner, or be alone.

So what about the �fog�? The WS is moving between two realities; he or she is effectively two people. There is a �flickering� effect, like moving between perceptions in a magic-eye picture. Sometimes WS#2 flickers into life in Reality #1. If the bad reception makes it difficult for the BS to �see� the wayward spouse, the discontinuity makes it impossible for the WS to �see� the old reality clearly too. WS convinces themselves that all is unchanged and well in the old life. They may even become angry if the BS is liberal with the old value system. It is necessary for the BS to be predictable via a well-understood parcel of values, in order for the WS�s deceit to work. There may also be a need, unacknowledged, for the BS to act as keeper-of-the-flame, to vicariously hold to what the WS has lost, to be a solid platform to return to.

And then comes dday, and the clash of matter and anti-matter, as the two realities meet. For the first time, the WS is presented with penetrating questions about the logic of the affair�s life-model. For the first time, the illogicality of the affair�s premise is exposed. The WS must defend the affair, or appear hilariously stupid. Defending the affair with dodgy logic has been the option for the life of the affair; the dodgy logic has been vigorously supported by the OP, so that the WS has had no practice in providing a reasonable defence. Small wonder that the WS feels threatened and humiliated and hits back. Small wonder that the arguments are so feeble � the same feeble arguments have been applauded as sage wisdom for so long, the WS is profoundly indignant at being challenged in any way. At this point, the WS provides us with all of those witty sayings that we howl at on the �dumb answer�threads.

At this point, the WS can head off in one of several directions. They might retreat permanently. They might reluctantly acknowledge that some of the logic was flawed, and move slowly back into the old values system. They might recognise immediately the mistake they have made, and set about with energy and determination to fix the mess they have created. Or they might settle for a fortress mentality and stubbornly defend what they�ve done, in unconscious fear that being wrong means being annihilated.