Affairs are complex. When infidelity is discovered, it creates both a relational breach and a deeply traumatic experience inside the couple. Unsurprisingly, many couples enter therapy at this point. The challenge for clinicians is to ensure the work remains relational rather than collapsing into a simple perpetrator–victim narrative. That binary may feel intuitive, but it is not a relational frame and it does not sustain therapeutic change.

For me, the approach lies in holding two separate but parallel frames. The first is straightforward: the affair must be acknowledged. There must be transparency, ownership, and repair. The partner who stepped out is accountable for their actions, and the initial work necessarily centres on answering questions and addressing the injury. This frame safeguards legitimacy, safety, and the integrity of the therapeutic work.

But there is a second frame that sits alongside it, and this is often uncomfortable. It asks a different question: what has been occurring inside this relationship that led to the point where an affair became possible? This is not about justification or shifting responsibility for the breach. Rather, it recognises that relationships drift, erode, avoid, and fracture over time, and that both partners contribute to the relational climate in which the breach occurred. Repair therefore requires both people to reflect on their part in the relationship, not in the affair itself.

This dual framing means the early stages of therapy often centre on the affair, but not indefinitely. The acknowledgement and repair phase is necessary, but insufficient. For recovery to occur, the relational system itself must evolve. Without that second frame, couples remain stuck in injury without movement. With it, therapy becomes about both accountability and reconstruction, rather than punishment and endurance.