Is a cheater always a cheater?

Originally posted in the Santa Monica Daily Press under Life Matters on May 30, 2013
www.smdp.com

Dear New Shrink,
My husband cheated on me when I was pregnant with our child. I did not and still do not understand why he did this. We separated but continue co-parenting and the love clearly seems to still be there. But how can I ever know that I can trust him again? He hurt me to the core. It was a knife to my heart and I still experience some of those feelings.
Can he ever truly change? Many of my friends say no and not to trust him.
Signed,
Lost in love

Dear Lost,
I am sorry that you were so hurt. No one should have to go through that pain. While still in love, you are struggling with trust, which is quite understandable. I think it is a somewhat prevailing view that once a cheater always a cheater. But I must say that it really depends on the person and the situation. Like anything, not everyone is the same no matter what has happened.
Some cheaters are perpetual cheaters; they are pathological liars who do not believe that the rules apply to them. Often they are unable to empathize with the pain that they cause others and therefore might be said to have narcissistic or sociopathic tendencies.
Sometimes cheating is truly situational and not at all perpetual. These people feel bad about what they have done even if they haven’t been caught and they are determined because of their own morals never to do it again.
Then there are those who think what you don’t know won’t hurt you. But that usually never works. Somehow, someway, we tend to know even when we don’t know what we know. This is called intuition or that sixth sense.
Some cheaters are truly alarmed by the pain they have caused and their empathy leads them to change.
The motives of a cheater are quite diverse and vast. Sometimes it is simply that they cannot keep their pants zipped or buttoned. These folks just might have a sexual addiction and need some help.
Then there is the “first child syndrome” where you go from being a romantic dyad to being a triad and in this triangle the baby cannot be negotiated. Very often new fathers feel left out and they are really hurt. They often start to resent their partner, but they usually find it difficult to admit to that because they don’t want to be that guy who is jealous of his child or does not want his child to have a good mother.
If the couple has not learned of this possibility before it happens and is not able to speak about it when it does, then more than likely you will have some acting out. This is not always in the form of cheating, but when you are really in need of some attention, this may be the way that you get it.
On a similar note, women married to very successful men who travel a lot or simply work long hours may find themselves in a similar situation. They resent the long hours, but do not want to complain because of the income. However, it is not unusual for them to become involved with their yoga instructor or trainer or anyone that they spend a lot of time with.
Another possibility is that if someone has experienced a great deal of painful loss they can be somewhat emotionally detached and feel extremely uncomfortable putting all their eggs in one basket. If they keep other relations going at the same time, they feel less vulnerable. This is called a “defensive structure” and to break it down and help someone reorganize their psychology, psychotherapy is needed — actually it is required. This is not a change that occurs naturally. It takes serious psychological work.
So, I would say try to evaluate which of these scenarios is the most applicable to your relationship and then decide if it would be prudent on your part to stay or go.
Also, I have a feeling that you might benefit from some counseling to help you work out some of your negative feelings. It really is not good for you to hang on to old injuries and you won’t be clear until you do let go.
Lastly, it is important to remember that relationships require work. We cannot assume that our partner will know what we are feeling or that it will work out if it’s meant to be. This kind of thinking is incorrect.
We are all human. It does not matter if you are a man or woman, anyone can cheat if his or her needs exceed or are not recognized in the relationship.

When is crazy really crazy?

Originally posted in the Santa Monica Daily Press on May 9, 2013
www.smdp.com

Dear New Shrink,
After all the news regarding the Boston Marathon bombing, I find myself wondering, when is crazy really crazy and when is it not? Are these brothers crazy? Are they sick or are they evil? What makes for these differences?
Thank you for anything you might add.

Signed,
Confused, Crazy or Evil?

Dear Confused,
An excellent question, truly a smart one and I say that because most people just have an opinion, emotionally based, never giving it any further thought.
The word “crazy” is used very loosely in our society and generally comes out of making a joke or having a fairly strong opinion about something that differs from your own.
In clinical or scientific forms, mental illness is a quantifiable concept based on the Bell Curve. If one falls underneath the bell of this curve, which accounts for a little more than two-thirds of us, then one is considered normal. If you are at either end, outside of the curve, or if you are an outlier, then you can be considered abnormal. Outliers are people falling way outside of the curve and in science there are usually only a few and they are eliminated from results in order to maintain the curve.
So what you have is a concept where anyone that is not of the norm might be called crazy.
A famous psychiatrist named Thomas Szasz originally challenged this concept. He felt strongly that people differ greatly based on their cultures, languages and therefore social norms vary a great deal and that it is wrong to judge somewhat as being crazy or ill because they are different from us. He criticized his own profession for labeling someone as having a mental disorder because they did not conform to the social norms of our society. He further argued that psychiatry has used it as a means of social control.
If you saw the movie “Shutter Island,” then you might understand Dr. Szasz’ argument. Fortunately we have come a long way since then; just 30 years ago people who did not like the behavior of an unruly teen or difficult relative could get them locked up in a hospital and medicated if they demonstrated odd behaviors and/or if the person had the money to influence a psychiatrist. This is now outlawed. As research evidence of genetic contributions to mental illnesses grows, and medicines truly help those people who suffer, the categorization becomes more justifiable and somewhat easier to make a distinction.
However, sometimes (what we call) mentally ill people are not suffering and they do not think anything is wrong with them.
So can definition simply be on the basis of someone else being different in his or her social norms or philosophical thinking? As we grow more diversified, both here at home and globally, there are clearly differences in standards, beliefs and behaviors and it might just be best for us to try to understand them versus judging them, even if we don’t agree or something seems odd to us.
Not only would this foster tolerance and integration instead of segregation and hatred, but also it might help us to get into the mindsets of others and stop some of the violent behavior like we just witnessed with the Boston bombings.
Many people are calling the Boston bombers “sick,” probably because what happened makes us feel sick. But so far there is no real evidence that they were mentally ill. They believe what they believe. Even with our definition of mental disorders, they would only qualify if we compare them to our thinking; they are not different from the thinking of the group to which they belong.
It is a personal opinion that any thinking that includes the harming or killing of others is wrong and most of us would agree. But is it mental illness or evil?
I would say that the Sandy Hook killing of young children or the Colorado shooting in the movie theater were a function of mental illness.
The Boston marathon bombing seems more like evil, yet you have some suggesting sociopathy, which seems to fit, but then the discussion turns to the brain differences on scans between sociopaths and normal and you start moving back toward the illness concept. I would venture to say that anyone that is so filled with hatred that they cannot empathize with a different perspective and that they believe they have a right to murder because of their view is in someway sick. But again, is it crazy sick or sick evil? An excellent question and I am obviously answering a question with a question but trying to understand this and understand each other might just help us all out.