The successful Rs it was the WW who took the lead in taking accountability.
I think that's a misunderstanding. R requires BOTH partners to take full responsibility for themselves. It takes both partners to do the work of R. Both partners need to drive R. Both partners take the lead at different times.
After deciding to R, ALL WSes fuck up. ALL BSes fuck up. Even Rs that go as smoothly as R can go don't go smoothly.
A WS can't R with a BS who won't take responsibility for themself, no matter how much the WS takes responsibility for themself. A WS committed to honesty can't R with a BS who won't be honest with both themself and others.
Sure, a BS can agree, explicitly or implicitly, to work on the M initially as if they're a committed partner, but that just means giving and getting as if the M is solid.
During that period the BS has to evaluate their own feelings with total honestly. Are they willing to give what an H or W should give (and I mean 'give' - with no expectation of receiving something in return)? Are they getting what they want (with no sense that they need to give back)? Do they want to commit to their partner for the rest of their lives? Are they ready to (re)create a good M?
If the answers are 'yes', then R begins - with an assumption that all issues will be resolved.
The main difference between 'working on the M' and R is this: In WotM, the 1st question for any dissatisfaction is, 'Is this the deal breaker? Do I D over this?' After committing to R, the 1st question is something like, 'How do I raise this issue?' The unsatisfied partner simply assumes the issue will be resolved, while knowing that D is always available if the issue turns out to be unsolvable.
But make no mistake: R takes the full commitment of all partners. A BS who is passive in R can't R.
2. In fact, didn't your WW very recently bring up FOO issues for her affair? Uh oh....
My point - and I think emergent8 agrees - is that FOO issues become motivators for, in essence, all of our behavior, because early influences have the longest time to gain power, and our earliest influences come from FOO.
There's no question in my mind that my FOO issues played a big part in my choosing to be faithful, even though I really like women and sex, and sex is a really good way to show liking for another person, at least IMO.
Mentioning FOO issues may be an excuse. OTOH, it may be a step on the way to insight and change.
I don't know what the stats are for the percentage of BHs and WWs who R with each other vs D. But I imagine the odds for R are slim. Even the marriages that don't end, how happy are most of the BHs who stayed. From most of the "drive-by"s on here it appears to be quite slim.
A lot of writing on this is available on the 'net, of which a lot crap - some of the 'statistics' are essentially made up to sell BS to BSes. Some is based on misreading a study - it's amazing how much traction adheres to a 2014 study of several hundred couples of whom 19 - nineteen! - were impacted by infidelity. Nineteen simply is not a big enough population to support generalizations on infidelity.
It's pretty clear, however, that most couples stay together after infidelity, especially if a large number of As are never revealed - some studies show a majority of WSes never confess and are never found out. Also, there's no real data on 'no D' vs 'R'. I think we'd all agree that staying together is probably like rugsweeping, whereas R addresses dysfunctions in the partners.
'No real data' means it's a logical error to think one has any statistical knowledge about the phenomenon. OTOH, since it appears that a majority of unfaithful Ms stay together, the probability of R may very well be a good deal better than 'slim'.
'No real data' on staying vs R means I haven't found anything reliable.
I don't cite studies that show most couples don't D because I do not have the time or energy to sift through all the crap. If someone comes up with refuting evidence, please lay it out in a way that a reader can find it. It's probably linked to the 2014 study with a relevant population of 19.
[This message edited by SI Staff at 9:38 PM, Saturday, September 16th]