Content uploaded by Jennifer P Schneider
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer P Schneider on Dec 02, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 19:123–139, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1072-0162 print / 1532-5318 online
DOI: 10.1080/10720162.2012.658344
Is It Really Cheating? Understanding
the Emotional Reactions and Clinical
Treatment of Spouses and Partners Affected
by Cybersex Infidelity
JENNIFER P. SCHNEIDER
Arizona Community Physicians, Tucson, Arizona
ROBERT WEISS
The Sexual Recovery Institute, Los Angeles, California
CHARLES SAMENOW
George Washington University, Washington, DC
The recent explosion in new portable electronic communication
devices has generated the need for evolving clinical thinking about
the meaning of spousal infidelity in the age of these new media. To
further the understanding of the emotional reactions of those af-
fected by Internet, Smartphone and social media-related infidelity,
an online survey of spouses or committed partners of cybersex users
was created and 35 responses analyzed. The results show that even
when sexual behaviors are limited to online, partners can lose trust
in their loved ones, feel the need to seek assistance, and identify
themselves as victims of trauma. Further, the results show signif-
icant reports of negative consequences on the partners’ relation-
ships. Qualitative data offer support for the concept that partners’
feelings and actions that were formerly considered indicative of
codependency can be normative behaviors of trauma victims seek-
ing to regain control of their lives. Recommendations for clinicians
working with partners are presented.
Prior to the 1990s, a period that brought about a sea change of interpersonal
communication driven by the arrival of the Internet, someone wishing to
have a sexual experience whether in or outside of a committed relationship
Address correspondence to Jennifer P. Schneider, M.D., 3052 N Palomino Park Loop,
Tucson, AZ 85712. E-mail: jennifer@jenniferschneider.com
123
124 J. P. Schneider et al.
had to negotiate and meet a potential affair-partner before starting that re-
lationship. The late 20th century introduction of online life brought with it
both unlimited computer-based admission to filmed and live sexual acts and
unrestricted access to flirtation and sexualized interaction, without the need
for close proximity to another person. This was accomplished via webcam
and video streaming, computer-based interactive sex, adult infidelity chat
rooms, online hook-up sites such as Craiglist, porn and online prostitution
websites, online bulletin board systems (BBS), and porn file transfer sites.
(Carnes, 2001; Cooper, Delmonico & Burg, 2000; Cooper, Griffin-Shelley,
Delmonico, & Mathy, 2001; Cooper, Putnam, D.E., Planchon, L., & Boies,
S.C, 1999; Cooper, Delmonico, Griffin-Shelley, & Mathy, 2004; Daneback,
Ross & Mansson, 2006; Delmonico & Carnes, 1999; Dew, 2006; Ferree, 2003;
Schneider, 2000a).
Beginning in the mid-1990s a person caught spending more time and
energy communing with strangers at the other end of a webcam than attend-
ing to loved ones or family, could accurately say to a hurt and angry mate,
“How can you call it cheating when I’ve never met her (or him)? They’re
thousands of miles away, it’s not real, so stop calling it cheating and giving
me a hard time!” The anxiety of someone who has just discovered in a com-
puter browser that her partner has been spending 2–3 hours daily looking
at porn and prostitute websites could be pushed aside with comments like,
“Well it’s just a guy thing” or “My dad looked at magazines and I look online,
what’s the difference? That’s just what guys do.”
Today we are again faced with rapidly evolving and profound techno-
logically driven changes in social connection and human intimate and sexual
interaction. This new media revolution is being driven by the evolution of
social networks (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace), increasingly interactive web-
sites, virtual world sex (Second-Life, MMORPG, Virtual games, etc.), smart
phone sexting and live video streaming, 3-D filmed porn imagery and teledil-
donics, and smart phone “apps” that can geo-locate an available partner as
readily as a local Italian restaurant. Defining what it means to cheat has
become increasingly harder. An additional challenge of these newer tech-
nologies is that acts of infidelity are easier to hide and deny—for example,
smart phone applications can be deleted leaving no visible trace of their
existence and don’t offer a user activity history, unlike a computer browser.
With the increasing propinquity of electronic intimacy and even virtual
sex (although this is still in an early stage), what exactly does it now mean
to be unfaithful to one’s spouse?Is the effect of electronic infidelity on a
spouse, partner, and/or relationship the same as the typical “affair” of the
past? Is physical contact required in order to define having an affair?Do
multiple hours of viewing online porn have the same effect on intimate
relationships as time spent with the magazines and videos of the recent
past? Or are fearful partners simply personalizing and overreacting to what
many consider to be normative sexual behaviors? Spouses and partners who
Emotional Reactions and Clinical Treatment of Partners Affected by Cybersex 125
feel anger, and fear, along with a sense that online affairs are as painful
to them as “real life” affairs may themselves wonder whether their feelings
are normal and expected responses or signs of some pathology. In the past,
studies have attempted to answer these questions (Manning, 2006; Schneider,
2000b; Weiss & Schneider, 2006; Zitzman & Butler, 2009).
The recent explosion in new portable electronic communication devices
has generated additional questions about partners of cybersex users. The
goal of this article is to present the results of research about the effects of
the new technology on partners of cybersex users and offer a framework for
understanding partners’ responses to perceived relationship trauma
METHODS
To obtain input from affected partners, a brief survey was created on the
effect of Internet-based sex on partners of cybersex users. The survey was
collected using the SurveyMonkey website. Various websites as well as Twit-
ter and listserv inquiries were utilized to solicit survey participation via a link
to the survey. The actual survey consisted of 28 questions including de-
mographic, multiple choice, and open-ended questions. In this article the
cybersex and smartphone consumer will be referred to as the “user,” the
significant other as the “partner.” The study received IRB exemption from
the George Washington University institutional review board since it con-
sisted of anonymously gathered data with no link to personal identifiable
information.
RESULTS
The online survey was completed by 34 respondents, 29 female (85.3%) and
5 male (14.7%). Mean age was 44.3, with a range of 21–71. Sexual orientation
was reported by 28 respondents as heterosexual (82.4%), 2 bisexual (5.9%)
and 4 homosexual (11.8%). Collectively this was a highly educated group
with 47.1% reporting a post-graduate degree and 35.3% identifying as college
graduates. Regarding marital status, 16 responded currently married (48.5%),
8 were in a committed relationship (24.2%), 4 had separated (12.1%), 4
divorced (12.1%),and 1 was in a casual relationship. Demographic data are
summarized in Table 1.
The observed cybersex behaviors or activities as reported by the partners
were: viewing pornography alone (with or without masturbation) 17(51.5%);
sexual chatting and viewing porn 9 (27.2%); and chatting and then later
meeting up with that person 6 (18.1%). When asked specifically whether the
user’s Internet activities extended to offline (real life) sexual activities, 11
126 J. P. Schneider et al.
TABLE 1 Partners’ Demographic Information (n =34)
Gender
Female 85.3% (29)
Male 14.7% (5)
Age 44.3 (21–71)
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual 28 (82.4%)
Bisexual 2 (5.9%)
Homosexual 4 (11.8%)
Relationship Status
Married 16 (48.5%)
Committed Relationship 8 (24.2%)
Separated 4 (12.1%)
Divorced 4 (12/1%)
In a Casual Relationship 1 (0.3%)
partners said yes (32.4%) and another 10 were unsure (29.4%). Thus, only
13 (38.2%) were confident that the user’s cybersex activities were limited to
online activity and had not escalated to physical contact.
When asked how they learned of the user’s online sexual activities,
the majority of partners (21 or 62.5%) stated having found evidence on
the user’s computer, smart phone, or other device. In 7 cases (21.9%), the
partner learned of the behavior through the user’s actual disclosure of this
information to him or her. Four partners (12.5%) walked in on the user during
the course of his or her cybersexual behaviors. One partner only learned of
the user’s online sexual activities when he was arrested for voyeurism and
subsequently admitted his Internet use.
With the increasing universal use of portable Internet-based devices
(phones, pads, etc.), partners appear to be having more difficultly ascertain-
ing whether or not they have been told the whole truth about the user’s
online sexual and romantic activity. When asked specifically about this, over
half the respondents (18 or 52.9%) did not believe they had received a full
disclosure and another 6 were unsure (17.6%). Thus, fewer than a third of
partners (29.4%) expressed confidence that they knew the truth about their
spouse’s online sexual behaviors. Unsurprisingly, two-thirds of the partners
(23 or 67.6%) attempted on their own to find out more information by going
through the user’s computer, smartphone, wallet, credit card statement, etc.
An overwhelming majority of the 34 respondents (30, or 87.5%) re-
ported that the user’s cybersex activities had created negative consequences
for their relationship: Four (11.8%) said they have had some negative ef-
fects, 14 (41.2% said the cybersex activities have significantly worsened their
relationship, and 12 (35.3% said that this was a primary contributor to the
demise of their relationship. One person wrote that the user’s cybersex use
didn’t change the relationship, while 3 (8.8%) said their relationship actually
improved.
Emotional Reactions and Clinical Treatment of Partners Affected by Cybersex 127
Overall, 24 partners (71.0%) reported having lost trust in their mate.
Of 27 partners who responded to the question, “If trust has diminished, do
you believe it can be fully restored?” 13 (48.1%) responded no, and another
6 (22.2%) were uncertain. Only 4 partners believed that trust could be fully
restored (14.8%), while an equal number felt it could be partially restored.
Of clinical significance was a reported loss of partner trust in relationships
where the cybersex user lied about or underreported the degree of his or
her Internet-related sexual activity. Two-thirds (64.5%) of respondents agreed
with the statement, “My trust in him/her has really been broken,” and another
two wrote that “I trust him/her less than before.” Table 2 summarizes the
types of behaviors that the partners observed and their perceptions of the
impact that the discovery of those behaviors had on the relationship.
The partners had multiple types of interventions. All but 1 partner re-
ported having discussed their feelings about the cybersex activities with the
user. Whereas 2 partners (6.1%) had only a brief discussion and 4 (12.1%) a
TABLE 2 Partners’ Reports of Observed Behaviors and Perceived Effects on
Relationship (n =34)
Online Behaviors Observed
Viewing pornography alone 17 (51.5%)
Sexual chat w/ pornography viewing 9 (27.2%)
Chatting w/ subsequent offline meeting 6 (18.1%)
Did Online Behavior Extend Offline?
Yes 11 (32.4%)
No 13 (38.2%)
Unsure 10 (29.4%)
Discovery of Online Behaviors
Found Evidence 21 (62.5%)
Disclosure 7 (21.9%)
Inadvertent Observation 4 (12.1%)
Arrest 1 (2.9%)
Belief that User Had Disclosed Full Extent of Behavior
Yes 10 (29.4%)
No 18 (52.9%)
Uncertain 6 (17.6%)
Attempted Investigation by Partner into Extent of Behavior
Yes 23 (67.6%)
No 11 (32.4%)
Report of Impact on Relationship
Had an Overall Negative Effect 30 (87.5%)
Some Negative Consequences 4 (11.8%)
Significantly Worsened the Relationship 14 (41.2%)
Lead to the Demise of the Relationship 12 (35.3%)
No Change to Relationship 1 (2.9%)
Improvement in Relationship 3 (8.8%)
Can Trust Be Restored (n =27)
Yes 4 (14.8%)
No 13 (48.1%)
Uncertain 6 (22.2%)
128 J. P. Schneider et al.
general discussion, 26 partners (78.8%) reported discussing this repeatedly
and in detail. Some users expressed remorse, promised to get help, and did.
Several partners reported that the user gave assurances and promises
regarding behavior change, but didn’t keep his word or did so only until
the immediate crisis had passed. As a result of these discussions, 75% of the
partners (24) reported that they, individually or as a couple, had put into
place some changes, plans, or agreements designed to make them feel more
comfortable. One partner’s strategy was to end the relationship. Another
moved out.
Several partners were comforted by the user’s promises to stop and/or
get help. Others reported having attended counseling, alone or with the
user. Some put in place agreements regarding use of the computer. Exam-
ples include: the user would not access porn when the children are at home,
the user no longer goes online without the partner present, the user has
given the passwords to the laptop to the partner, the user installed Covenant
Eyes or similar “porn blocking” software on computers, or blocked the In-
ternet browser on the user’s iPhone. Others wrote about focusing on 12-step
recovery and therapy.
The survey asked partners the following question: “Given the increased
ease of hiding one’s cybersex activities due to the new portable devices,
what strategies or agreements, if any, do you have in place for finding
out if your mate continues or resumes engaging in these activities?” Of 28
usable responses 6 (21%) reported having come up with technology-related
strategies. Seven other respondents (25%) reported trusting their own and/or
the user’s healing process. Twelve partners (42.8%) reported having no such
strategies or agreements in place and two others reported having left the
relationship.
In terms of seeking professional help, nearly two-thirds of the partners
reported having sought counseling or help for themselves related to the
user’s cybersex activities. Of 23 who responded to this question almost all
(91.3%) were seeing a counselor alone, half (56.5%) were seeing a counselor
together with their mate, two thirds (65.2%) were attending 12-step meetings,
and 21.7% were attending group therapy. In terms of self-help strategies,
two-thirds (62%) reported they were reading helpful, related literature, half
(56.5%) reported going online to research the issue and an equal number
were talking it over with friend., and at least 6 reported talking over the issue
with family. Table 3 summarizes how the partners handled the cybersex
behavior.
Finally, the survey attempted to understand how partners categorized
the cybersex user’s behavior and their own responses, as well as how they
believe the user categorized his/her own activities: 47.1% (16) or nearly
half of the users reportedly self-identified as sex addicts; 38.2% (13) report-
edly did not, and in 5 cases (14.7%) the partner didn’t know. Two-thirds
Emotional Reactions and Clinical Treatment of Partners Affected by Cybersex 129
TABLE 3 Partners’ Solutions to Cybersex Behavior and Views of the
Cybersex User
Discussion (N =33)
Brief 2 (6.1%)
General 4 (12.1%)
Detailed 26 (78.8%)
None 1 (3.0%)
Strategies (n =28)
Technology related 6 (21%)
Healing Process 7 (25%)
Move Out 1 (3.5%)
End Relationship 1 (3.5%)
None 12 (42.8%)
Professional Help (n =23)
Individual Counseling 21 (91.3%)
Couples Counseling 13 (56.5%)
12-step Meetings 15 (65.2%)
Group Therapy 5 (21.7%)
Self Help (n =23)
Self-help Literature 14 (62%)
Online Research 13 (56.5%)
Discussed with Friends 13 (56.5%)
Discussed with Family 6 (26%)
of the partners (23, or 67.6%) stated that they regard the user as a sex ad-
dict; 20.6% (7) did not, and 4 (11.8%) were not sure. Slightly over half (19,
or 55.9%) of the partners self-identified as “codependent” or “coaddicted.”
Seventeen partners (51.5%) self-identified as feeling like a trauma victim or
a trauma survivor as a direct result of the user’s online sexual activities.
Table 4 demonstrates how the partners labeled themselves and their
partners.
To bring these data to life, we have included some partners’ own words
illustrating the above results:
Discovery:
•“I saw he was using my computer for porn in the browser history. When
he got a smartphone he would lock his phone and would turn in the
opposite direction so I couldn’t see his activity.”
•“I saw it in his email when I was using his iPod.”
TABLE 4 Partners’ Categorization of the Online Behavior and Their Own Role
Labeled the User a Sex Addict vs. User
Self Identifies as a Sex Addict
Yes 23 (67.6%) vs. 16 (47.1%)
No 7 (21.9%) vs. 13 (38.2%)
Uncertain 4 (12.1%) vs. 5 (14.7%)
Partner Labeled Self as a Co-Addict 19 (55.9%)
Partner Labeled Self as a Victim 17 (51.5%)
130 J. P. Schneider et al.
•“Initially he shared his porn and website interest. When we began to argue
about it I began to check his online history and ultimately started to utilize
spyware.”
•“Early on I walked in on him and saw porn on the computer in our office.
He wasn’t able to click off it quickly enough and I saw it.”
Effect on the relationship:
•“We rarely spend any time together. His free time is spent on the computer
half the night when he should be sleeping.”
•“Smartphones dramatically worsened his addiction by having this material
available 24/7, while at the same time making it harder to locate and track
his activities.”
•“It obliterated the trust in our relationship. I no longer believe a single
thing he says.”
•“He became more and more withdrawn from the family as his addiction
increased. I felt like I had all he responsibility for the family while he was
‘playing’ on the computer.”
•“We don’t have sex often and it irritates me that he puts more time into
the porn than trying to be intimate with me.”
•“It has improved our relationship somewhat, since talking openly about
porn led to better communication about sex. This has really helped our
sex life and strengthened our relationship.”
•“I am glad he found an acceptable alternative outlet.”
•“I cannot trust him at all.”
•“Trust has been SHATTERED beyond belief.”
What it would take to restore trust:
•“A lot of time for me to see that my trust is well-founded. I don’t think my
spouse realizes how much damage has been caused and what it will take
to mend it.”
•“The two of us are receiving professional guidance through disclosure. To
restore trust means having my husband be forthright and offer a thorough
disclosure so that I do not fall prey to some new discovery.”
•“TIME +TRUST =EARNED TRUST”
•“I think it is a fantasy to expect fully restored trust. For me, as time goes
by and his behavior continues to match his words, I trust him more. Now
my motto is ‘Trust, but verify.”
Emotional effects on the partner:
•“I have been traumatized by the repeated discovery of his deception and
betrayal of me with these activities.”
Emotional Reactions and Clinical Treatment of Partners Affected by Cybersex 131
•“The denial of my reality resulted in my believing I was crazy. I became
over the top with snooping, spying, trying to control the addiction, and
thinking if I just did, then I could stop it. It caused complete erosion of my
self-esteem, boundaries, and sense of self.”
•“Now I feel unattractive, ugly, wondering what’s wrong with me. I can’t
sleep or concentrate. I’m missing out on life’s happiness, worried, scared
all the time.”
•“I can’t trust him and struggle to trust others in my life. I want to be angry
yet find myself hurt. I am heartbroken, depressed at times, frustrated, and
confused to sum it up.”
•“I feel lonely and jealous of the computer. I have thoughts of getting my
needs met elsewhere.”
•“I am devastated. I was blind to her faults due to love. I thought cybersex
might spice up our marriage but it didn’t.”
•“I was too ashamed, hurt, and angry to let anybody else know. I was
isolated.”
•“It created for me low self-esteem, doubted self-worth, blamed myself, am
lost and confused, unable to complete or start tasks, little or no sex drive.”
Outcome of discussions with user about partner’s feelings:
•“He sought therapy.”
•“We continue to work the process of rebuilding our relationship. We have
gone to marriage therapy, 12-step groups for couples, and individual 12-
step and counseling.”
•“He keeps assuring me it won’t happen again. This is the 4th time I have
confronted him.”
•“He promised to stop, to save our relationship, he offered to get help, but
he has yet to do so.”
•“He denied it, stated that it was normal for men to do this, or tried to turn it
around on me like I was the crazy one for not wanting porn in the house.”
•“He resents me completely and doesn’t want anything that might be close
to accountability.”
•“He denies any cybersex activities and found a way to blame spam for its
presence on the computer’s history.”
Plans or agreements for changes:
•“He no longer uses a smartphone and has a filter on his computer to which
I do NOT have the password to since it makes me crazy. We have separate
computers and phones so I don’t ‘spy’ on him, and he works out his side
of the street with a sponsor and therapist and by taking medication.”
•“We continually work toward transparency. My husband has made avail-
able any property or activities that I feel the need to check. By virtue of his
132 J. P. Schneider et al.
openness, it has helped build trust. He activates supports when he goes
out of town: calling sponsor, keeping me updated as to his activities or
whereabouts (although I am not insecure the way I was during the first
year after discovery).”
Technology-related strategies to confirm user’s behavior:
•“Messages he sends from his phone or computer come to my phone as
well.”
•“He purposely doesn’t have a phone that can access the Internet.”
•“I’m using spyware on all devices; I will not be telling him about it.”
•“We removed the smart out of the smartphone, blocked the Internet
browser on the phone, and are thinking about switching to a basic phone
and blocking the Internet on it.”
•“I randomly ask to check his browsing history and emails.”
•“He doesn’t have a smartphone or Internet-capable phone and he shows
me the phone history when asked.”
Trusting their own or the user’s healing process
•“My spouse has agreed to admit to any slips. I am pretty sure that now all
have been revealed.”
•“I don’t monitor it. I ask if I have a suspicion. Hopefully, he is well enough
in his recovery to tell me the truth.”
•“We talk about it.”
•“I have told him that his sobriety is up to him. My 12-step program has
taught me that I can’t control it so let it go. I have accepted that ‘snooping’
and lie detector tests are horrible for my own recovery so I refuse to do
them. If I am working my own program and am healthy, I trust my higher
power to reveal to me what I need to know. If a sex addict is acting out,
there are usually signs.”
•“As long as he is an active 12-stepper with a sponsor and a CSAT (Certified
Sex Addiction Therapist) and he’s doing 12-step work.”
DISCUSSION
Lessons from the Survey
The findings of this survey confirmed that a cybersex user’s sexual activities
cause a great deal of emotional distress to his or her partner, regardless
of whether or not the user perceives the behavior as problematic. Partners
stressed their traumatizing experience regardless of where or how the in-
discretion occurred. About half (55.9%) believed they had been traumatized
by the user’s online sexual activities. About half (51.5%) self-identified as
Emotional Reactions and Clinical Treatment of Partners Affected by Cybersex 133
codependent or co-addicted. These categories sometimes overlapped. Much
of the distress experienced by partners related to the uncertainty about the
user’s sexual activities, often related to the user’s reliance on portable de-
vices. Although initially only 18.1% of partners stated that the user’s activities
included connecting in person with a sex partner met online, in a later ques-
tion one-third (32.4%) believed that physical contact had occurred, another
third were unsure, and only 38.2% believed that only online sexual activities
were involved. Only 22% of the cybersex addicts had voluntarily disclosed
their activities before the partner discovered them. While some discovered
the activities accidentally, many reported having checked the user’s com-
puter, iPhone, etc. because of their suspicions. As one partner wrote, “If
you suspect something, try to find out because not knowing is more hurtful
and worrisome than anything; use spyware or any other method to learn
the truth.” These types of snooping behaviors appear quite normative when
there is a repeated discrepancy between the partner’s suspicions and what
the user tells them.
It is not surprising that after experiencing the pain of uncertainty, of
betrayal, and of being lied to, partners are slow to trust and fearful of recom-
mitting. Therapists treating this population need first to validate all of the
partner’s feelings and help them work through the initial stages of shock
and grief. Only then can those who wish to continue in therapy be en-
couraged to do their own work. As one partner wrote, when asked what
would be helpful to other partners, “You’ve got to take care of yourself,
handle your own dependency issues first before entering or re-entering a
relationship with an addict in recovery.”
Recognizing the negative impact cybersex has on partners and relation-
ships, it is important for partners to clarify and set out their own boundaries
and what the consequences will be if these boundaries are breached. Some
partners may simply ask the user to disclose any slips or relapses, but others
want objective confirmation. One partner advised, “Encourage agreement for
verification of computer logs, credit card summaries, and all phone records.”
Transparency on the part of the cybersex user can facilitate the restoration
of trust.
This study reinforces the need to view cybersex behavior as a possible
symptom of sex addiction. While not all users self-identified as sex addicts
nor did all partners label the user as a sex addict, a significant number were
labeled as sexually addicted. Furthermore, the qualitative data made several
references to the addictive nature of the cybersex user’s behavior. Hence,
individuals who are brought to clinical attention for cybersex use should be
screened for sexual addiction problems.
Finally, the survey also supported the idea that partners dealing with
a cybersex user’s behavior feel very isolated and that resources aimed at
helping partners of sex addicts may also be helpful in this scenario. Several
partners urged getting support from others: “I felt incredibly isolated before
134 J. P. Schneider et al.
I met other COSAs. [Codependents of Sex Addicts]. Sex addiction is not an
easy thing to talk about with most people in my life. I was afraid (and
probably still am) of being judged and having my husband judged.” Another
advised, “Get help. Don’t try to do this alone. Don’t take on their shame.
Get to a COSA meeting. Do the 12 steps. Focus on your issues and your
recovery. Work on self-care.”
Relationship Betrayal as Emotional Trauma
What becomes clear through examining the experience of those partners
who responded to this survey is their near universal state of profound dis-
tress and a corresponding attempt to get effective help for themselves. These
findings support the recent reframing of the diagnosis and treatment view
of betrayed partners by clinicians specializing in the treatment of spouses or
partners of sexual addicts (Steffens & Means, 2009; Steffens & Rennie, 2006;
Tripodi, 2006). The most promising new clinical work in this arena stems
from the idea that either sudden or protracted discoveries of sexual and/or
romantic betrayal by a long-term partner represents a profound and recurring
psychological trauma for those who endure it, similar to suddenly losing a
job, child or home, and that the subsequent behaviors of those experiencing
or learning of this relational betrayal (whether online or in vivo) are consis-
tent with a trauma response. For these partners, repeated dishonesty on the
part of their user/sex addict mate, who often denies the spouse’s questions,
gut reactions, and instincts, is indeed traumatizing and traumatic. Most peo-
ple in dependent, intimate relationships want to believe what their mate tells
them, often ignoring their instincts that tell them something is wrong, often
replicating the same inconsistency between head and heart as experienced in
their childhood and family of origin system. Repeatedly faced with discrep-
ancies between their internal emotional experience and the minimization
or outright lies told them by their user/partner, spouses report themselves
often feeling “crazy,” finding it difficult to trust their own judgment and con-
clusions. Moreover, partners in these gas-lighting circumstances (facing a
continual denial of their truth) are equally denied the clarity needed to make
healthy informed decisions about their own lives and futures—as they are
not in possession of all the facts. By the time the truth is out, these partners
often express feeling victimized not only by the user’s sexual behavior, but
also of emotional abuse in the form of deception and denial.
Anger, fear, self-doubt, pain over the loss of past perceptions of the
relationship, distrust, and shame, self-blame, and depression can be emo-
tionally overwhelming to partners and spouses, causing symptoms such as
intrusive thoughts, depression, and preoccupation. Betrayed spouses often
express the need to know more and more detailed information in order to
understand the past and avoid future pain, i.e., to have control over an out-
of-control situation. To this end he or she may repeatedly search through
Emotional Reactions and Clinical Treatment of Partners Affected by Cybersex 135
his computer files, portable devices, and belongings, attempt to keep careful
track of the user’s whereabouts, and engage in other “detective” type activ-
ities. Sadly, these behaviors and the related emotional responses (below),
when viewed in the light of betrayal trauma can be considered normative.
These include:
•Feeling you are not a worthwhile or lovable person
•Doubting your own sexual attractiveness
•Neglecting your own needs and desires while focusing on others’
•Denying the seriousness of problems in your life
•Feeling responsible for someone else’s behavior
•Setting boundaries or agreements but not following through with conse-
quences
•Accepting sexual attention as a substitute for relational intimacy
•Substituting intensity in the relationship for intimacy
•Making excuses for the user’s behavior and covering up for him or her
•Avoiding confronting these behaviors fearing abandonment
•Remaining in harmful situations too long
It is these very symptoms that have previously defined such terms as sexual
co-dependent and enabler.
Cutting edge treatment today encourages treating clinicians to initially
focus on helping spouses work through the grief, shock, and trauma of their
betrayal experience, while placing much less initial focus on the details of
their past or even the history of the current relationship. Subsequent therapy,
if needed once the crisis period has passed, may then appropriately turn to
examining the spouse’s own life history, patterns of relationship behavior,
and potential preexisting problematic patterns of intimate attachment.
The spouse who is cheated upon, if only through the user engaging in
cybersex and virtual connection, may also be the partner who has had his
or her reality previously denied by being consistently lied to and by hav-
ing accurate feelings and questions invalidated. The partner who accurately
senses and repeatedly asks the user about their emotional unavailability and
sexual distance, only to be told that the partner is “making things up, too
jealous or just plain crazy” is going to feel crazy after a while. When the
truth of the user’s behavior finally becomes known and the partner’s worst
fears are suddenly realized, partners can become emotionally and sometimes
physically violent, while these or others may express intermittent bouts of
depressive episodes.
Abandonment, denial of reality, and hurt can lead a spouse or partner
to appear upon assessment as labile or even emotionally unstable. Sincere
attempts to diagnose and treat the partner will fail in light of insensitivity by
a clinician who dismisses the pain and reactivity as little more than an over-
reaction by the spouse. The therapist who does not understand and support
136 J. P. Schneider et al.
the spouse’s traumatic experience only serves to elevate the partner’s trau-
matic arousal. Much as the Follie-a-Deux diagnosis implies that by intimately
living with a psychotic individual long enough a non-psychotic spouse will
also become emotionally disturbed, it seems likely that similar damage can
be done to the emotional self-stability of a long-term partner whose accu-
rate perceptions and feelings are consistently and often vigorously denied,
thereby encouraging the symptoms of “codependency” described above.
A good framework for counselors working with partners of sex ad-
dicts in general and of cybersex addicts in particular includes the following
elements:
•Holding and Validation of her reality and her feelings
•Concrete Direction regarding self-care, health issues, talking to family
etc.
•Education about addiction, disclosure, family dynamics, support.
•Disclosure and clarity regarding their unknown history
•Social support in support groups, 12-step programs, therapy and helpful
friends/family.
•Structure toward moving forward
•Hope
So What is Cheating Anyway?
As previously stated, infidelity can be defined simply as the breaking of
trust and the keeping of secrets in an intimate partnership. This definition is
clear to any spouse or committed partner who feels cheated upon. Betrayed
partners of cybersex abusers and sex addicts consistently report that it’s not
the cheating itself or any specific sexual act that causes them the deepest
pain, it’s the lying, denial of their own reality, and inability to maintain
relationship trust. The most agonizing part for those who are being cheated
upon is the betrayal of their trust in their mate. While some couples may
choose to negotiate an open relationship or integrate Internet porn into their
lives, it is the man or woman living a hidden sexual life who will cause
the most harm to their loved ones. Not only does “the keeping of secrets
in an intimate relationship” best define infidelity in terms of the pain of the
spouse, but this definition allows for the accommodations and negotiations
around sexual behavior that all couples have to go through.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. The most important limitation is
that this sample represents a convenience sample of individuals recruited
anonymously on the Internet. There may be a bias since most of the
Emotional Reactions and Clinical Treatment of Partners Affected by Cybersex 137
invitations to participate were obtained through listserv and treatment center
websites that focus on sexual addiction. This may explain the high number
of self-labeled and partner-identified sex addicts in the study. Hence, the
results from this study cannot be generalized. For example, research has
demonstrated that most individuals who engage in cybersex behavior report
few, if any, problems (Cooper, Delmonico, & Burg, 2000.). It would be im-
portant to understand how discovery of cybersex behavior in a relationship
with no prior history of sexual indiscretion might be viewed by the partner.
Furthermore, given the low response rate to this survey, more sophisti-
cated analysis could not be conducted. It would be interesting to see how
sexual orientation, gender, and other variables impact how a partner re-
sponds to discovering cybersex use. Given that the survey was completely
anonymous, we have little information on the health of each couples’ rela-
tionship prior to the discovery of cybersex
Finally, since no screening tools or measures were used in this study, it
is impossible to make conclusions on whether the partner meets the criteria
for posttraumatic stress disorder or any other clinical disorder. Further it is
impossible to determine whether the user meets the criteria for sex addiction
or hypersexual disorder. Future studies should aim at determining the impact
of cybersex use using standardized rating scales to determine both pre and
post health of each individual and the relationship.
CONCLUSIONS
This survey confirms that many partners of cybersex users report feeling
traumatized by the user’s online infidelity, irrespective of the delivery method
for infidelity. They report feeling cheated on, betrayed, and traumatized
even when the user claimed to not have had physical contact with a sexual
partner. The cybersex user’s repeated deception and dismissal of the partner’s
concerns appear in and of themselves to be a significant contributor to the
spouse’s trauma reactivity. Another salient finding contributing to partners’
distress was the large percent of partners who reported uncertainty regarding
the extent of the user’s sexual activities. This uncertainty has become more
common in the era of mobile devices which maintain fewer records of the
activities.
Some partners report engaging in behaviors, which historically were
labeled borderline, co-addictive, or codependent, but in reality are resonant
of a traumatic stress response by a person trying to obtain the information
needed to make informed decisions and defend against further pain. These
partners need validation of their experience of betrayal and deception both
from the therapist and from others in a 12-step or other support group.
Nonetheless, it is well established that partners of sex addicts often
grew up in dysfunctional families similar to those of sex addicts and often
138 J. P. Schneider et al.
experienced their own childhood wounds, in response to which they de-
veloped beliefs and actions that may have served them well at that time
but that in later years have interfered with their emotional health. Given the
close relationship to sex addiction found in this study, although we agree
with the need to initiate treatment of partners using the trauma model, we
believe that subsequently many partners can and will benefit from therapy
that addresses their own relationship history, prior trauma and the existing
dysfunctional core beliefs. We believe that it is a serious disservice to ap-
proach the treatment of partners from an either/or perspective, dismissing
the traditional approach that focuses on helping the partner reclaim him-
self/herself, learn how to set boundaries, become more empowered, etc.
as just another “blame the victim” or gender discrimination stance. Instead,
what we are learning is that both approaches are important and are useful
in treating partners of sex addicts and need to be incorporated to achieve
the most effective recovery plan for partners.
REFERENCES
Carnes, P. J. (2001). Cybersex, courtship, and escalating arousal: Factors in addictive
sexual desire. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,8, 45–78.
Cooper, A., Delmonico, D., & Burg, R. (2000). Cybersex users, abusers, and com-
pulsives: New findings and implications. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,7,
5–30.
Cooper, A., Delmonico, D. L, Griffin-Shelley, E., & Mathy, R. M. (2004). Online sexual
activity: An examination of potentially problematic behaviors. Sexual Addiction
& Compulsivity,11, 129–145.
Cooper, A., Griffin-Shelley, E., Delmonico, D. L, & Mathy, R. M. (2001). Online sexual
problems: Assessment and predictive variables. Sexual Addiction & Compulsiv-
ity,8, 267–286.
Cooper, A, Putnam, D.E., Planchon, L., & Boies, S.C. (1999). Online sexual compul-
sivity: Getting tangled in the net. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,6, 79–104.
Daneback, K., Ross, M.W., & Mansson, S.-A. (2006). Characteristics and behaviors of
sexual compulsives who use the Internet for sexual purposes. Sexual Addiction
& Compulsivity,13, 53–68.
Delmonico, D. & Carnes, P. (1999). Virtual sex addiction: When cybersex becomes
the drug of choice. CyberPsychology & Behavior,2, 457–463.
Dew, B.,(2006). From the altar to the Internet: Married men and their online sexual
behavior. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,13, 195–208.
Ferree, M. (2003). Women and the web: cybersex activity and implications. Sexual
& Relationship Therapy,18, 385–393.
Manning, J. C. (2006). The impact of Internet pornography on marriage and the
family; A review of the research. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,13, 131–167.
Schneider, J.P. (2000a). A qualitative study of cybersex participants: Gender dif-
ferences, recovery issues, and implications for therapists. Sexual Addiction &
Compulsivity,7, 249–278.
Emotional Reactions and Clinical Treatment of Partners Affected by Cybersex 139
Schneider, J.P. (2000b). Effects of cybersex addiction on the family: Results of a
survey. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,7, 31–58.
Steffens, B. & Means, M. (2009). Your sexually addicted spouse: How partners can
cope and heal. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizons Press.
Steffens, B. & Rennie, R. (2006). The traumatic nature of disclosure for wives of
sexual addicts. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,13, 247–268.
Tripodi, C. (2006). Long term treatment of partners of sex addicts: A multi-phase
approach. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,13, 269–288.
Weiss, R. & Schneider, J. P. (2006). Untangling the Web: Breaking free from sex, porn
and fantasy addiction in the Internet age. New York, Alyson Press.
Zitzman, S. T. & Butler, M. H. (2009). Wives’ experience of husbands’ pornography
use and concomitant deception as an attachment threat in the adult pair-bond
relationship. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,16, 210–240.
