Among the questions that people ask me about affair situations, one that I find fascinating is the implied affair. Many counselors have addressed situations where an affair occurred, but few have addressed when an affair has not occurred. In the ‘implied affair’ situation, one party asserts or implies that an affair exists. Even though an affair never occurred, the implication that one happened is often enough to do damage and start the ‘high drama’ associated with affairs.
In the situations where I have faced these situations, the key to understanding and sorting through it is the old Latin question, “Qui Bono?” The term ‘qui bono?’ is often translated as ‘who benefits?’. When the suggestion of an affair is posed, when the possiblity of it occurring does not make sense, it is usually helpful to pose the qui bono question. In some cases the person implying the affair does so directly. Rumors are initiated either for character assassination or paybacks. In such cases, the attacker often resorts to such tactics either due to limited social skills or the target has such a sterling reputation, that that is the only way they can make something to stick. There have also been cases where a spouse will imply an affair so that there will be an easy way to obtain a divorce. One historic example of this is Henry VIII’s atacks on Anne Boleyn which included accusations of both adultery and incest, with no convincing evidence that any occurred.
I have also seen situations where the accusation of an affair was implied by suggestion. In such cases, the attacker essentially suggests the question of an affair. Since they did not directly claim that one occured, they maintain some deniability of their actions. In such cases, they attempt having the target person ‘connect the dots’ and come to their own conclusion, what is often not stated is that they only tell them about pre-selected dots to connect.
However the implied affair is suggested or stated, the damage is real. Reputations are damaged as if an affair had occurred. In a manner similar to a lawyer attacking the credibilitly of a witness in a courtroom, the repuation of the target is tarnished. The only difference is that the attacks are not limited to the courtroom, and do not stop when the trial is over. The damage inflicted is long term and painful. Henry VIII is a harsh reminder that such charges are not limited to adultery, but may include false accusations of sexual abuse as well. When an attacker begins lying, they often see little difference between big and little lies.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey D. Murrah
One Response